Tabloids: Gossip, Innuendo, and Déclassé

[Atlanta]

My hunch is that they waited to show Archie or disclose who the god parents are is that Meghan wanted to make money off the photographs. It's a very Hollywood thing. Sell wedding photos, sell photos of your children. etc. They couldn't do it with wedding photos. I wonder if she ever planned on staying in Great Britain and this became her next big break. The taxpayer and royal family spent mega bank on that wedding and then H and M throw their thumbs at the Brits. As far as her not having a support system, other than Doria, who does she have in the US? 

Edited November 20, 2020 by Atlanta

[Brn2bwild]

20 minutes ago, Atlanta said:

My hunch is that they waited to show Archie or disclose who the god parents are is that Meghan wanted to make money off the photographs. It's a very Hollywood thing. Sell wedding photos, sell photos of your children. etc. They couldn't do it with wedding photos. I wonder if she ever planned on staying in Great Britain and this became her next big break. The taxpayer and royal family spent mega bank on that wedding and then H and M throw their thumbs at the Brits. As far as her not having a support system, other than Doria, who does she have in the US? 

She's good friends with Serena Williams.

I'm not sure how her dad being unstable (and it seemed like he had issues even before the blow-up over the photos of him getting ready for the wedding) and her older half-sister being cuckoo is Meghan's fault.

[swanpride]

Quote

Besides that Harry and his son are in line to the throne, at the time Harry and Meghan were senior working royals and they lived on the tax-payers money. It's not too much to give the people a couple pictures. They made a gross mistake. 

That they are so called "working royals" means that they have turn up at their charities or whatever. It doesn't give the public the right of pictures shortly after birth. And isn't it a good thing that the Christening was a small affair? No reason to spend a lot of money again.

 

 

 

[meatball77]

12 hours ago, Trillian said:

I don’t disagree, but this is not a normal family dynamic. The Sovereign apparently has legal custody over his/her children and grandchildren.  Archie is a free agent for now, so to speak, because he’s a great grandchild.  According to British law, though, unless he’s knocked down the line of succession by more kids or (eventually) grandchildren of William’s, he needs the Sovereign’s permission to marry. 
 

 

Harry was knocked far enough down the line of succession by Louis' birth that he doesn't need the Sovereign's permission to marry anymore.  Archie is in the place of Beatrice and Euginie except he's a boy so he won't get to wear fun hats.

[Trillian]

3 hours ago, meatball77 said:

Harry was knocked far enough down the line of succession by Louis' birth that he doesn't need the Sovereign's permission to marry anymore.  Archie is in the place of Beatrice and Euginie except he's a boy so he won't get to wear fun hats.

True, but I was assuming that, by the time he is of marriageable age, he’d be in the sixth, or possibly even fifth, slot. 

And he should be able to wear whatever fun hat he wants.

[Growsonwalls]

Technically yes the Queen has "legal custody" of Archie but as has been pointed out numerous times there's been several divorces/moves in the Queen's family and she's always kept children with their parents. She's not going to snatch Archie away from Meghan and Harry in LA. That's not going to happen and the tabloid gossipmongers who fantasize about this are just selling clickbait.

ETA: it's also weird how much the British tabs want this to happen. So you want a 94 year old woman being the mom of an infant? Okay.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Growsonwalls

[swanpride]

The notion of snatching the child away at all is disgusting. There is no sign that they are bad parents (quite the opposite if they put their son over the stupid press demands), so why should you rejoice over the notion that someone might take the child away? I mean...really?????

 

The taps are also very dishonest with their "clickbait". In the one I have to pick up for my mother weekly was a "Violence in the horror house" regarding Meghan and Harry (who are really in it pretty much every week). I was curious what they were referring to, so I skimmed the article...the "news" was that they were living in a house were at one point someone got killed or something like this. But the title was worded in a way that you would think that they are abusive towards each other.

[merylinkid]

1 hour ago, Trillian said:

True, but I was assuming that, by the time he is of marriageable age, he’d be in the sixth, or possibly even fifth, slot. 

And he should be able to wear whatever fun hat he wants.

Archie is going to be knocked further and further down as time goes on.    George, Charlotte and Louis will presumably have children before Archie does.   The succession goes through William, his children and their children, and so on, before it gets to Harry and his kids.   Margaret's children are so far down the line of succession right now, most people forget about them.   

Speaking of Margaret, no one complained when she didn't parade pictures of her kids around after birth.   This is a "tradition" that started with Diana and the birth of William.    Anne didn't do it with her kids, and Zara was born AFTER the wedding of Charles and Diana.  Peter Phillips and Zara's kids were born without having to do this and they are inthe line of succession too.   In fact, Zara had her kids in an NIH hospital not a private one.   So basically it was 3 people did it before Meghan said no -- Diana, Fergie and Kate.   that's it.   So Meghan hardly ruined a long standing tradition.   

As for the idea that Meghan wanted to sell the pictures, there is absolutely no proof of that.   Unlike OTHER Royal Brides, Meghan was never caught in a pay for access scandal.    Someone noted that being part of the royal family is part ambassador, part philanthropist.   I think Meghan was just FINE with that role considering the things she had done before marrying Harry.   She had done work with the UN, she supported charities.   She wasn't "Hollywood" by any means.   She mostly lived in Toronto and was pretty low key.   IF the tabs had just done the run of the mill criticism of the newest Royal, she probably would have stuck it out.   She is not afraid of hard work and as an actress she knew criticism comes with the territory.   What was the last straw was the unrelenting RACISM.   It did not stop.   So they got out rather than continue to subject themselves to it.   I do think the pandemic messed up how they really thought the break was going to go.   Also I really do think they thought they could be working Royals in Britain when they were there and then do their own thing in LA.    The Queen kiboshed that, so they had to pivot.   Then the world went mad and all plans were off.

[swanpride]

Aren't the currently developing a TV show for Netflix? And isn't Meghan supposed to do voice work? Sure, their opportunities are currently limited, but it's not if they completely vanished. If not for the need to pay for security, they would have no problems at all.

[BitterApple]

I honestly don't see that much racism. It seems like the majority of the public was thrilled for Harry and Meghan. She was allowed to spend Christmas at Balmoral when she was still a girlfriend, which was unheard of for that family. As far as the tabloids, they hated Kate when she first hit the scene, so it comes with the territory. I think it's a convenient excuse Harry and Meghan made for why they wanted to leave. 

 

[Growsonwalls]

22 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

I honestly don't see that much racism. It seems like the majority of the public was thrilled for Harry and Meghan. She was allowed to spend Christmas at Balmoral when she was still a girlfriend, which was unheard of for that family. As far as the tabloids, they hated Kate when she first hit the scene, so it comes with the territory. I think it's a convenient excuse Harry and Meghan made for why they wanted to leave. 

 

Uh there was the BBC reporter who called Archie a "chimp."

And then there was the kensingtonroyal social media comments, which were exhausting because they kept deleting racist comments. That must have been a nightmare to run that account when every other comment is "Kate you are our White Queen."

ETA: I found one account that kensingtonroyal had blocked. It was some delusional lady who said that Harry was the father of her kids. She lives in South Australia. Crazy stuff.

Edited November 20, 2020 by Growsonwalls

[swanpride]

In a slight defence of this incident, this guy apparently always uses ape pictures and supposedly didn't consider the implication to use one in connection to a bi-racial child. That might be even true, but just because something isn't intended, it doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't racist. Racism is rarely someone calling someone else a "n-word", often it is more subtle and baked in the system.

Just within in a year, there were headline commenting on Meghan's "exotic DNA" and how she was "(almost) straight outta Compton", even though there is no relation between her and Compton outside her skin colour. Then there was the double standard, like Kate "cradling her baby bump" but when Meghan did it, it was suddenly "pride" and "vanity". William gifting Kate avocados was a praised gesture, but Meghan eating one was suddenly her dismissing "human rights abuses and droughts". It's f... avocado for gods sake.

And it wasn't just the tabloids either...ie one of their (extended) relatives wore a f... blackamoor brooch when she met Meghan the first time.

But I think the worst in it were all the people who just dismissed what was going on as "normal" because supposedly the UK is oh so tolerant. This belief actually created a pretty unique form of racism….this is a pretty good video about the topic:

 

 

[PeterPirate]

On 11/16/2020 at 11:18 PM, swanpride said:

Frankly, I think if Diana had lived longer, her perfect image would have been destroyed over time by the tabloid press. But since she died young and tragically, she is still throwing her shadow on the royals.

Not to be disputatious, but I prefer the metaphor still illuminating the royals with her windblown candlelight.

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Speaking of Margaret, no one complained when she didn't parade pictures of her kids around after birth.   This is a "tradition" that started with Diana and the birth of William.    Anne didn't do it with her kids, and Zara was born AFTER the wedding of Charles and Diana.  Peter Phillips and Zara's kids were born without having to do this and they are inthe line of succession too.   In fact, Zara had her kids in an NIH hospital not a private one.   So basically it was 3 people did it before Meghan said no -- Diana, Fergie and Kate.   that's it.   So Meghan hardly ruined a long standing tradition.   

Of course the "tradition" is silly (not to speak of exhausting to the mother), but it was created by Diana and Harry is Diana's beloved son. 

Anne always refused to pretend something she wasn't, even if it was unpopular, like in this case that motherhood would be the most important thing in life to her. And evidently her children weren't worse off for that.    

[Growsonwalls]

1 hour ago, Roseanna said:

Of course the "tradition" is silly (not to speak of exhausting to the mother), but it was created by Diana and Harry is Diana's beloved son. 

Anne always refused to pretend something she wasn't, even if it was unpopular, like in this case that motherhood would be the most important thing in life to her. And evidently her children weren't worse off for that.    

Yeah but Meghan is not Diana's "beloved daughter." I think the tradition is ghastly. No way a woman who just gave birth and still has sutures should be subjected to heels, makeup, hair done, designer dress, just to parade the baby in front of photographers for a minute. Honestly when I saw Kate shaking as she walked down the steps in her 4 inch stilettos I felt her pain. 

[BitterApple]

1 minute ago, Growsonwalls said:

Honestly when I saw Kate shaking as she walked down the steps in her 4 inch stilettos I felt her pain. 

Yikes, which kid was that? 

[Growsonwalls]

2 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

Yikes, which kid was that? 

Charlotte. Apparently it was also freezing that day. But THIS IS RIDICULOUS. Why does a mom who just gave birth have to do this? It's dumb. 

 

[BitterApple]

Thanks for posting the video. Poor Kate almost buckled when she took that first step. I never noticed it before, even when I watched it live. 

The Lindo photo op is an absurd semi-tradition. I don't know why Diana or Fergie did it, much less Kate. You can always just release a few pictures from home.

[Growsonwalls]

5 hours ago, BitterApple said:

Thanks for posting the video. Poor Kate almost buckled when she took that first step. I never noticed it before, even when I watched it live. 

The Lindo photo op is an absurd semi-tradition. I don't know why Diana or Fergie did it, much less Kate. You can always just release a few pictures from home.

I think Fergie did it because Diana did it and Fergie and Diana had a real frenemies relationship -- Diana ended up ghosting her over something dumb. I think Fergie wanted the Lindo wing photo op because anything Diana could do she could do better. 

But as I said, it's a DUMB tradition. I hope if Kate has another kid she won't feel obligated to teeter in stilettos hours after birth. If you look at the video with Charlotte her smile never reaches the eyes. She looks tired underneath all that makeup.

And Meghan and Harry did do a photo op a few days later.

[Umbelina]

5 hours ago, BitterApple said:

Thanks for posting the video. Poor Kate almost buckled when she took that first step. I never noticed it before, even when I watched it live. 

The Lindo photo op is an absurd semi-tradition. I don't know why Diana or Fergie did it, much less Kate. You can always just release a few pictures from home.

I wonder who had the idea for Diana posing?  

I sort of get it with William, since he will be the future King, and then with Harry, so as not to imply he's unimportant.

Either way, I agree, posing for photos right after a birth is a bit strange.

[swanpride]

I mean, if a mother wants to do it, okay, but if she doesn't want to do it, nobody should complain about having to wait a little bit longer. We are no longer in the middle ages, where it was common to witness the coupling of the newly wed, or at Versaille, where it was apparently a Honor to watch the king taking a sh...

[Roseanna]

On 11/19/2020 at 4:29 PM, Umbelina said:

You have no idea what that nanny did or said.  None.

She could have hurt the baby, she could have used racist terms, she may have been stealing, she may have been taking photos to sell.  None of us knows what she was doing, so none of us can say "What Mehgan did was wrong."

The crux of the matter is that it was bad publicity for Meghan. Whatever the reason for firing was, she should have acted in the manner that the nanny kept silent.      

On 11/19/2020 at 11:33 AM, DkNNy79 said:

There are valid criticisms, but yeah Meghan cutting out her toxic family is IMO not one of them.  If I were in her shoes I would've cut them out as well.  They were shown not to be trust worthy and selling stories to the press about her.

 

On 11/19/2020 at 3:30 PM, Umbelina said:

I feel nothing but sympathy for Meghan with her awful family there.  How humiliating to see it played out in newspapers around the world.  Anyone who has had a "mean drunk" or money grubbing family member knows the pain just in private settings, imagine it played across the world?  Ugh.

It's clear that no person of sense and decency doesn't speak to the press in the way Meghan's step-sister and father have done, even if there were cause to complain, for that is the surest way to break relationships for good. 

But again, that was bad publicity for Meghan. The courtier who said that she had "baggage" wasn't wrong.  

I have noticed that people who have always had only had only good relationship, think that "there must be something wrong in both parties".       

[Dr.OO7]

On 11/19/2020 at 6:40 PM, Growsonwalls said:

But as I said, I find the whole Lindo wing "tradition" grisly. It's nuts that Kate had to stand outside in stiletto heels and a full set of makeup with her blowout hair hours after giving birth. 

 

Which is the very reason she was praised for showing her post partum bump, making it clear that no amount of hair and makeup can hide that.

Meghan really only got a few days reprieve and still had to look far more perfect than any woman who just gave birth a few days ago would, thus the praise for her showing HER bump.

[Umbelina]

8 hours ago, Dr.OO7 said:

Which is the very reason she was praised for showing her post partum bump, making it clear that no amount of hair and makeup can hide that.

Meghan really only got a few days reprieve and still had to look far more perfect than any woman who just gave birth a few days ago would, thus the praise for her showing HER bump.

Speaking of pregnant royals?  This is kind of fun, royal pregnancies through the years, well, QEII's years as sovereign anyway.  https://www.mabelandmoxie.com/The+Most+Adorable+Photos+Of+Country+Stars+Their+Kids

Edited November 22, 2020 by Umbelina
the link!

[dubbel zout]

One reason the royals present their newborns is that it then buys them some privacy later on. No one is trying to sneak into the hospital to watch them sneak out. No one chases the car taking the family home. It's a controlled environment: You give the press want it wants now and it leaves you alone later (for a while, at least).

It's gross this dance happens, but it's also a part of royal life. Tradeoffs like this are made all the time. The press takes pictures of the Cambridge children's first day of school in exchange for leaving them alone after that, etc.

[swanpride]

Yes, and they got their damned pictures, they just had to wait a few days until the mothers felt up to it.

[Growsonwalls]

4 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

One reason the royals present their newborns is that it then buys them some privacy later on. No one is trying to sneak into the hospital to watch them sneak out. No one chases the car taking the family home. It's a controlled environment: You give the press want it wants now and it leaves you alone later (for a while, at least).

It's gross this dance happens, but it's also a part of royal life. Tradeoffs like this are made all the time. The press takes pictures of the Cambridge children's first day of school in exchange for leaving them alone after that, etc.

I just find the pressure on the mom to look immaculate in the photo op kind of gross. Kate and Diana are lucky that they had fairly uncomplicated births. What if they had needed an emergency C-section? Would they still have been "required" to brave the crowds with their belly sewn up? Would Kate had to have worn a designer dress and stiletto heels? 

I also don't get why in the age of Instagram this photo op is necessary. Many celebrities now release birth photos on social media a few days after birth. It's become the new normal. 

The other royal tradition that really annoys me is royal tours to third world countries. No matter how well-intentioned these tours always look like Catherine the Great visiting the traveling Potemkin villages. 

[Umbelina]

A veritable love story to Anne, it shows her fall when riding as well as other things touched on during the show.

[swanpride]

Frankly, they assume too much knowledge in the audience in the show. I am not sure if even Brits still remember that Anne was once at Olympia, never mind non-Brits.

[GaT]

On 11/15/2020 at 5:50 AM, Kiddvideo said:

I’m on the 5th episode of the 4th season. Maybe because this is modern history it feels much more like a tabloid or news magazine format than previous seasons. I like history, but apart from the tiaras and jewels, I’m not much of a BRF fan girl. I’ll finish the series, but I’m not certain if it’ll get more interesting for me.

I watched the first episode of season 4, & haven't gotten around to watching any more of them. I watched the first 3 seasons as soon as I could, but I just don't feel the pull with season 4. I don't know if it's because I remember what happened with Diana, or if it's because it feels kind of repetitive because of Meghan, but I'm just not that interested.

[AZChristian]

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

A veritable love story to Anne, it shows her fall when riding as well as other things touched on during the show.

No wonder she's Philip's favorite . . . she looks just like him when you look at their profiles.

[Roseanna]

Now I have learned why Diana's brother Earl of Spencer claims that she was manipulated to give the Panomara interview. According to him, the journalist claimed that Twiggy who took care of William and Harry when they were with Charles had an affair with him and falsified checks to show that the tabloids had paid to a couple staff members.

The journalist in question is sick, so he can't answer, but BBC have promised to check the claims. 

 

[Umbelina]

So a lot of talk in another thread about the so called "uproar" in the UK about Morgan's show.  Putting my response here,

Honestly, if people can't enjoy or understand the difference between "historical drama" and documentaries?  Boo Hoo.

I'm rather tired of the acceptance of the dumbing down of society.  Warning messages?  Seriously?  Ridiculous.  

If Royalty is getting worried about continuing on?  It's not because of a TV show, and there have certainly been much more critical shows, many of those actually in documentary style.

Honestly I think all these "palace insiders say" is about a huge number of people who will lose their jobs if the monarchy ends when the lovely Elizabeth dies, and the country is expected to accept Charles and Camilla as King and Queen.  Understandably, there won't be enough jobs out there for them all in Britain.  How many maid, cook, butlers, sub "back stairs" whatevers, gardeners, drivers, and various and sundry and endless workers can honestly expect to get a comparable job if the monarchy goes belly up?

I think it's possible, and I think they are panicking.  So they are targeting Peter Morgan's little show, when honestly?  This stuff has been out there forever, and guess what?  Many don't need Peter Morgan for them to dislike the Monarchy, or Charles and Camilla.  They already do.  There are far more scathing documentaries out there. 

 

[buttersister]

Quote

Which family member wore that blackamoor brooch to the wedding or engagement party?  

That bitch was the Princess Michael of Kent, married to Prince Michael of Kent, a grandson of King George V. 

I assume she's also got a name of her own. I know she's currently got a troublesome case of Covid-19.

[Roseanna]

10 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Honestly I think all these "palace insiders say" is about a huge number of people who will lose their jobs if the monarchy ends when the lovely Elizabeth dies, and the country is expected to accept Charles and Camilla as King and Queen.  Understandably, there won't be enough jobs out there for them all in Britain.  How many maid, cook, butlers, sub "back stairs" whatevers, gardeners, drivers, and various and sundry and endless workers can honestly expect to get a comparable job if the monarchy goes belly up?

I think it's possible, and I think they are panicking.  So they are targeting Peter Morgan's little show, when honestly?  This stuff has been out there forever, and guess what?  Many don't need Peter Morgan for them to dislike the Monarchy, or Charles and Camilla.  They already do.  There are far more scathing documentaries out there.

It's possible but it's also possible that they knew a different side of Diana than people who met her only for a moment.

The most important thing IMO is the general question whether it's OK to make novels, movies and series about persons who are still living (except Diana, Margaret and the Queen Mother). 

Plus, "Peter Morgan's little show" makes him much money, so I understand that William who, like Harry, has traumatic memories not only about their mother's death but witnessing their parents quarreling in private and opening themselves about their affairs in public, doesn't like Morgan using their parents for his own end.

[swanpride]

So...the different reporting regarding Kate and Meghan isn't something you noticed? You didn't notice her being called "exotic"? You do realise that one can be racist without actually using obvious slurs, right?

[ruby24]

11 hours ago, Umbelina said:

 

Honestly I think all these "palace insiders say" is about a huge number of people who will lose their jobs if the monarchy ends when the lovely Elizabeth dies, and the country is expected to accept Charles and Camilla as King and Queen.  Understandably, there won't be enough jobs out there for them all in Britain.  How many maid, cook, butlers, sub "back stairs" whatevers, gardeners, drivers, and various and sundry and endless workers can honestly expect to get a comparable job if the monarchy goes belly up?

I think it's possible, and I think they are panicking.  So they are targeting Peter Morgan's little show, when honestly?  This stuff has been out there forever, and guess what?  Many don't need Peter Morgan for them to dislike the Monarchy, or Charles and Camilla.  They already do.  There are far more scathing documentaries out there. 

 

Do you think this likely to happen? Because honestly, it doesn't seem that unrealistic to me, that the monarchy may very well end when Elizabeth dies. Do you think the British public will really accept Charles and Camilla of all people as King and Queen? When this is the only monarch the vast majority of them have ever known?

I don't know. It will definitely not be the same thing. I mean, given how loved Diana was, it is probable that had she and Charles been able to work it out (in an alternate universe, I know), you could see a world where the public would embrace the idea of the two of them as reigning monarchs and it could have ensured the survival of the monarchy beyond Elizabeth. She would have been a great asset to the crown, ironically, had they, or even just Charles, shown her some love. Now? It's questionable.

[qtpye]

11 hours ago, Umbelina said:

So a lot of talk in another thread about the so called "uproar" in the UK about Morgan's show.  Putting my response here,

Honestly, if people can't enjoy or understand the difference between "historical drama" and documentaries?  Boo Hoo.

I'm rather tired of the acceptance of the dumbing down of society.  Warning messages?  Seriously?  Ridiculous.  

If Royalty is getting worried about continuing on?  It's not because of a TV show, and there have certainly been much more critical shows, many of those actually in documentary style.

Honestly I think all these "palace insiders say" is about a huge number of people who will lose their jobs if the monarchy ends when the lovely Elizabeth dies, and the country is expected to accept Charles and Camilla as King and Queen.  Understandably, there won't be enough jobs out there for them all in Britain.  How many maid, cook, butlers, sub "back stairs" whatevers, gardeners, drivers, and various and sundry and endless workers can honestly expect to get a comparable job if the monarchy goes belly up?

I think it's possible, and I think they are panicking.  So they are targeting Peter Morgan's little show, when honestly?  This stuff has been out there forever, and guess what?  Many don't need Peter Morgan for them to dislike the Monarchy, or Charles and Camilla.  They already do.  There are far more scathing documentaries out there. 

 

In the episode that is Fagan, I began to realize how many useless people rely on the Royals for a paycheck. It is like my local DMV refusing to do anything online because it would eliminate a some government employees whose jobs have become obsolete.

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Do you think this likely to happen? Because honestly, it doesn't seem that unrealistic to me, that the monarchy may very well end when Elizabeth dies. Do you think the British public will really accept Charles and Camilla of all people as King and Queen? When this is the only monarch the vast majority of them have ever known?

I don't know. It will definitely not be the same thing. I mean, given how loved Diana was, it is probable that had she and Charles been able to work it out (in an alternate universe, I know), you could see a world where the public would embrace the idea of the two of them as reigning monarchs and it could have ensured the survival of the monarchy beyond Elizabeth. She would have been a great asset to the crown, ironically, had they, or even just Charles, shown her some love. Now? It's questionable.

Diana and Charles may have worked it out, but not while Camilla was around.  

I think Australia will bolt for sure when QE II dies.  I don't think Canada will, at least I haven't heard a lot of rumblings from my Canadian friends about the whole monarchy thing, but who knows?  

I don't think anyone is ever going to forget those phone calls between Charles and Camilla, then there is that whole Charles will be head of the Church thing, which will bother at least some of the religious crowd.  

 

I don't know.  I think they might accept William and Kate, but Charles and Queen Camilla?  I just can't see it.  I think it's held together for this long because who would seriously think they could get enough support to throw the Queen out?  Christopher Hitchens certainly wanted to, and had support, but honestly, she has honorably done her duty for such a long time.

We shall see.  I think it would take a while to accomplish either way, I doubt they will toss Gladys and Fred out on their asses while the country is still mourning.  There is also the whole "what do we do with all of this enormous wealth, and all the palaces, and most of all, all the people who would no longer have a job?"

Obviously they could make several of them museums, or state buildings for government.  Some of them are owned privately by various family members, and God knows they have enough personal money to keep most of their staff on.

Charles' idea of "slimming down" is a good one, but the problem is, I think many of his "subjects" would be happy to tell him:  "You and Camilla go first please."

2 hours ago, qtpye said:

In the episode that is Fagan, I began to realize how many useless people rely on the Royals for a paycheck. It is like my local DMV refusing to do anything online because it would eliminate a some government employees whose jobs have become obsolete.

AND the uniforms, Charles had special extra fancy one made for his employees (according to DVD commentary on The Queen explaining why all of Charles' servants were so fancy and with so much bling.)

A guy with a sword standing every few feet as Mrs. Kennedy walked up to her tea with the queen?

Those massive gardens, and the special ones Charles dreamed up for just one of his houses?  The people who drive and maintain the limos, the staff that is liaison with #10, the people that handle the royals' correspondence and answer phones, all of the people caring for the horses, and cleaning the game from the hunting...it must be thousands of people.  Are the Queen's Guard also regular military, or are they just hers?  

(ETA I didn't realize Diana was listening to her husband having phone sex with Camilla while he was on the toilet!)

Edited November 24, 2020 by Umbelina
throw and added audio track

[Ellaria]

14 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Honestly, if people can't enjoy or understand the difference between "historical drama" and documentaries?  Boo Hoo...

...If Royalty is getting worried about continuing on?  It's not because of a TV show, and there have certainly been much more critical shows, many of those actually in documentary style...

...I think it's possible, and I think they are panicking.  So they are targeting Peter Morgan's little show, when honestly?  This stuff has been out there forever, and guess what?  Many don't need Peter Morgan for them to dislike the Monarchy, or Charles and Camilla.  They already do.  There are far more scathing documentaries out there. 

Agree. There is a lot of opinion that drama = documentary. Morgan is telling the story that he wants to tell. If there are those that feel it is "not complimentary" to the Royal Family, they can make their own show that paints these events differently. There are also a ton of documentaries on Netflix and Prime already in existence.

I'm relatively sure that the concerns about the monarchy existed before The Crown began and will endure after it has ended.

4 hours ago, Roseanna said:

The most important thing IMO is the general question whether it's OK to make novels, movies and series about persons who are still living (except Diana, Margaret and the Queen Mother). 

Plus, "Peter Morgan's little show" makes him much money, so I understand that William who, like Harry, has traumatic memories not only about their mother's death but witnessing their parents quarreling in private and opening themselves about their affairs in public, doesn't like Morgan using their parents for his own end.

Is that the most important thing? Why should the Royal Family be considered "hands off" just because they are the Royal Family? Should the PMs also receive the same exception? 

This is begs a much larger question about the press in general and how they cover celebrities and politicians, etc. The press can be cruel and intrusive in the UK and the US. However, no one - not the Royal Family - should be immune from press coverage simply because of their title, their social position or job. 

[Roseanna]

5 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Is that the most important thing? Why should the Royal Family be considered "hands off" just because they are the Royal Family? Should the PMs also receive the same exception? 

This is begs a much larger question about the press in general and how they cover celebrities and politicians, etc. The press can be cruel and intrusive in the UK and the US. However, no one - not the Royal Family - should be immune from press coverage simply because of their title, their social position or job. 

Of course it concerns *all*. 

I don't think that one should honor paparazzi pictures and phone hacking with the name of "press coverage". It's dirt. But it sells. 

I find the British publicity habits rather strange: before Margaret Thatcher admitted in Parliament that Anthony Blunt had been a Soviet spy, nobody could say, and prove, it in public without being sued for libel, even though it was a matter of real national interest.

[Ellaria]

7 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

Of course it concerns *all*. 

I don't think that one should honor paparazzi pictures and phone hacking with the name of "press coverage". It's dirt. But it sells. 

I find the British publicity habits rather strange: before Margaret Thatcher admitted in Parliament that Anthony Blunt had been a Soviet spy, nobody could say, and prove, it in public without being sued for libel, even though it was a matter of real national interest.

I'm not supporting paparazzi, phone hacking, etc either. I detest that stuff.

Alternatively, I believe that it is OK to make movies and TV shows about living people, including the Royal Family. 

[PeterPirate]

Brits think all Americans are exotic, no?  

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by PeterPirate

[AZChristian]

5 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Plus, "Peter Morgan's little show" makes him much money . . . 

And Peter Morgan isn't the only one who's making a TON of money from Netflix.  Just sayin'.

5 hours ago, DarkHorse said:

Exactly. I am very cynical about Meagan. I think she married into the Royals as a business opportunity and then when she realized she would have to play by someone else's rules and had to work, she went crying to Harry who she has firmly under her thumb and they left the family. He probably didn't think it would go that far and that they would concede but like his mother, he seems very out of touch with the way the Queen does things. 

So now Markle uses him to try and get work in Hollywood. Really embarrassing.

I agree with you.  From a September article on cnn.com:

"Why is Netflix interested in the Hollywood Royals?

A question I’ve seen asked on social media. Why would Netflix be interested in a couple who have zero experience in the position they’re being hired for?

Simple. Name recognition.

Let’s not beat around the bush here. Netflix hasn’t signed Prince Harry and Meghan Markle because of their stellar accomplishments in the industry.

They’re most likely hoping to cash in on the popularity of The Crown and use the name-value behind Prince Harry primarily, and Meghan Markle, to drive new subscribers."

[swanpride]

But that's what always happens. And it is not like Meghan wouldn't have been able to get projects hadn't she married Harry. She was a successful actress beforehand. If anything it is he who takes advantage of his name not her, because she actually has experience in the business, while he doesn't.

[Growsonwalls]

Can I also say I'm tired of the Diana hagiography in the tabloids? I understand she was popular and she did great charity work. But measuring every single royal lady against Diana does nothing other than clickbait. 

This was especially ridiculous during the coverage of Megxit. So many articles showing pictures of William and Harry as kids saying "What would Diana think?"

Kids grow up. They become adults. Sometimes the adults grow apart. And sometimes they reconnect. It's all part of life. I hope William and Harry can reconnect but if they don't it's none of our business either. 

[swanpride]

I am mostly tired of Netflix now offering up to me every single stupid documentary or made of TV movie ever made related to the royals. Apparently there is even one about the love story between Elizabeth and Phillip. But just because I watch the Crown it doesn't mean that I care about that dreck, I am just interested in history, and fictional accounts of history are always a good starting point to look up actual history.

[Trillian]

11 hours ago, ruby24 said:

Do you think this likely to happen? Because honestly, it doesn't seem that unrealistic to me, that the monarchy may very well end when Elizabeth dies. Do you think the British public will really accept Charles and Camilla of all people as King and Queen? When this is the only monarch the vast majority of them have ever known?

I actually don’t see the British easily becoming a republic. But, if they do, I think it will be because of a strong republican sentiment and not because of feelings about the person of the monarch. Anti-monarchists dislike the monarchy regardless of the monarch.  Monarchists aren’t much likely to overturn their entire system of government And their beloved institution because they don’t like the king or his wife. They might call for him to step aside in favour of his son, but there is no constitutional mechanism to force him to do so.  Given Charles’ age, it’s more likely, I think, that the people who dislike him will grumble, but accept that he’s unlikely to reign for long. 
 

At any rate, I’m not sure Charles and Camilla are as disliked as they were in the years after Diana’s death.  Camilla was originally roasted over the coals (as were Anne, and, originally, Kate) but she’s kept her head down, “worked” (as far as what the Royals do can be called work) hard, acted modestly and charitably.  On my occasional forays into the British press, I don’t see the same vitriol thrown at her as in the past.  

4 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

Can I also say I'm tired of the Diana hagiography in the tabloids? I understand she was popular and she did great charity work. But measuring every single royal lady against Diana does nothing other than clickbait. 

This was especially ridiculous during the coverage of Megxit. So many articles showing pictures of William and Harry as kids saying "What would Diana think?"

Kids grow up. They become adults. Sometimes the adults grow apart. And sometimes they reconnect. It's all part of life. I hope William and Harry can reconnect but if they don't it's none of our business either. 

I’m also am tired of St Diana. It’s hard not to believe that, if she had lived, the cracks in the saintly appearance would’ve appeared.  Charles was too much of a gentleman (or wanted to appear so) to publicly fight back with the truth about the mother of his children. She was such a media seeker she may well have ended up doing it herself had she been given enough time.

[Umbelina]

I could call Charles many things, but "gentleman" wouldn't be on my list.

As far as Diana?  She's been torn to shreds by the press as much as she's been made a saint.  According to TPTB she was even killed by the press, isn't that enough?

Although I was on youtube last night when I could not sleep, and was surprised that many of the "True Crime" channels are starting to dig more into Diana's death, the whole "was she murdered" thing is gaining interest again.  I only listened to one, but I have to say, he listed some facts that were interesting and a few newly discovered details.  Also the whole Bashir thing is back of course, with even Harry commenting, along with William that they want it investigated.

I'm not about to go down that rabbit hole again, but obviously, some people are, with the obvious suspects, royals or those who need to keep the royal machine going.

Edited November 24, 2020 by Umbelina
added stuff

[Growsonwalls]

9 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I could call Charles many things, but "gentleman" wouldn't be on my list.

As far as Diana?  She's been torn to shreds by the press as much as she's been made a saint.  According to TPTB she was even killed by the press, isn't that enough?

Although I was on youtube last night when I could not sleep, and was surprise that many of the "True Crime" channels are starting to dig more into Diana's death, the whole "was she murdered" thing is gaining interest again.  I only listened to one, but I have to say, he listed some facts that were interesting and a few newly discovered details.  

I'm not about to go down that rabbit hole again, but obviously, some people are, with the obvious suspects, royals or those who need to keep the royal machine going.

She has been sanctified after her death. There are endless Diana tributes, Diana coffee books, a whole cottage industry of Diana biographies. Kate can't wear a tiara without direct Diana comparisons. I will say that both Harry and William have in their ways been expert at keeping the Diana hagiography alive. William by posing in pictures that seem to echo some Diana poses:

And giving Kate Diana's ring:

Harry by repeatedly using Diana's death as the reason he's so hostile towards the press and also as a reason for Megxit. 

The truth was Diana was just another human being, like all the royals. She probably had ways she was wonderful and had moments when she wasn't so wonderful. This cottage industry of Diana sainthood is just annoying. Camila has done a lot of charity work that the royals never touched beforehand -- advocacy for domestic violence victims and sex workers. It's not glamorous work but she does it.

Also ... Diana was not killed by the BRF. She was killed by a drunk driver and wasn't wearing a seat belt. It's prosaic and dull but that's the fact. 

Edited November 24, 2020 by Growsonwalls