To be sick of the royal propaganda the UK is fed?

I highly doubt William and Kate were unaware. They have entire teams of staff to advise them on the associations tied to certain names, just like when Diana considered naming William “John,” and the Queen objected because it was seen as unlucky.
This feels like nothing more than excuses and enabling from older generations trying to defend a criminal family. What’s truly disturbing is the reality that they can rape or could even kill someone and still face no consequences thanks to diplomatic protections. And time and again, their crimes are exposed followed by lame uncoverings. What shocks me most is how the UK public tolerates such corruption and disgrace. People deserve better than this.

I commented on that a while back, and people argued that Charles made William. But if Charles can't admit the (probable) truth about his 'honorary grandpapa', surely William could have had the backbone put his foot down?? And Kate??

William never knew the damn man in the first place, and he's not even a distant relation of Kate's. Why did they saddle their poor son with the name of a probable paedophile? Couldn't it have been the middle name if they had to put it in?

Also it's really weird that William and Catherine names the kids after a pedophile in the family.

This is also other high pediphiles closely linked to that family: Epstein, Seville, Andrew himself for a start.

The top comments on the DM on any article about W&K always go along the lines of:

'Would much rather my taxes went to this lovely family rather than foreign criminals'

'I'm sure that Catherine will make it into a lovely family home'

It's pathetic.

Totally agree. The focus on the i’illegal ’ migrants is to incite hate and prevent us from focusing on the fact that successive Governments have made a mess of the economy
Take for example the lack of social housing .
Governments use migrants / refugees as scapegoats . They want the masses to believe that the reason Johnny can’t get a council house ( despite being on the housing list since time immemorial ) is because a faceless ‘illegal’ immigrant was given priority.
Whereas the truth is that successive governments have refused to invest in social housing .However, they don’t have to answer to the general public who are out there protesting outside hotels in Epping and other places -waving English flags all over the joint

Yet it is ok for William and Kate to move into an eight bedroomed mansion because they are royals and more deserving than the ‘plebs’

Oh I see @SixtySomething

Personal statements , FBI files ( which stated Mountbatten’s interest in young boys made him a security risk-sound familiar?), closed records, etc etc all not good enough for you

Its all a ‘bandwagon?

Sadly one that is only starting to be able to access evidence decades after the death of the alleged perpetrator
( btw I believe it was Lownie who revealed the FBI files - he spent his inheritance on court cases trying to access papers - it an expensive business this bandwagon )

You claim no interest in the royals but dismiss evidence of their offences as not meeting your high standards.

I assume you think Chris Moore and Andrew Lownie are on the same bandwagon?

I wonder what your thoughts on Andrew are ?

I don’t understand why you didn’t know that Phillip had affairs, and why you care so much? It’s old news and he’s dead.

The Royal Family are full of a mix of humans, and are.fallible, individuals are going to do things wrong. They are also born into it (or married into it), it’s not like a job they apply for.. The only thing I expect of them is that they represent the country and do their duty. I think William and Kate do this really well.

i also think the loss of the Royal Family would be a huge loss to the country, both in terms of income, but also history, tradition and gravitas. The royals are used by us diplomatically and politically, they aren’t just window dressing. (Negotiations with Trump being a recent example). All in all I think they are an asset.

Actually Tom Bower did say in Revenge that it's possible that Diana had another lover in 1983. I DO believe that Charles is Harry's father. The resemblance is strong between Harry & Philip.

It does seriously tar my opinion of Diana though if true. Why give your son the burden of having his paternity questioned? Obvs the cheating was bad enough, but this was a whole other layer. She was a hero for her AIDS advocacy & landmine campaign but she was also v flawed.

I'm not saying I think the rumour is true or not but Diana didn't even meet Hewitt intl Harry was born. Porchester was TLQ's friends long before Andrew was born. Her marriage to Phil was rumoured to have been strained for many years before Andrewwas born.

@whackamole666
"Mountbatten was a kiddy fiddler? Really? Who knew?"

Google the Kincora Children's Home scandal. That should tell you all you need to know about the dirty bastard. Apart from that, his sexual proclivities for young men were known for decades but his abuse at the children's home plunged new depths of depravity.

I don't think the issue here is child abuse.
I believe 'many, many women and mothers ' would be more interested in efforts to support contemporary victims of proven child abuse, rather than incendiary posts about commercial, journalistic writings about a long-dead aristocrat.
You don't appear to be interested in whether King Charles was sexually abused, although that is the obvious conclusion leaping out at me.
You have created a new username for this post, so we cannot view your posting history.
Overall, it suggests that you have an interest in undermining social stability.

@SixtySomething
Children in a care home were abused and Mountbatten is being linked to the abuse ring

All covered up until he’s long gone - despite attempts by brave individuals to highlight this in the 70s

THAT is what fuels me
Many many women and mothers have the same visceral response to stories like this .
Im surprised you have to ask what fuels me .

What fuels your casual dismissal of this abuse ?

And no @PollyBell propaganda is a great deal more than ‘stuff in the media’
Look at my post above .
There is suppression of information ( information we have paid for I’d add ) there is distraction, never mind all the bot farms ( the royals are v clumsy with those so easily spotted usually)

@SixtySomething

Yes I know Carl beech
Are you dismissing every other personal account based on that ?

Oh I see @SixtySomething

Personal statements , FBI files ( which stated Mountbatten’s interest in young boys made him a security risk-sound familiar?), closed records, etc etc all not good enough for you

Its all a ‘bandwagon?

Sadly one that is only starting to be able to access evidence decades after the death of the alleged perpetrator
( btw I believe it was Lownie who revealed the FBI files - he spent his inheritance on court cases trying to access papers - it an expensive business this bandwagon )

You claim no interest in the royals but dismiss evidence of their offences as not meeting your high standards.

I assume you think Chris Moore and Andrew Lownie are on the same bandwagon?

I wonder what your thoughts on Andrew are ?