Jonathan Ross

I so agree.
I believe the RF have always thrown a few scraps to the media to chew on to distract them from the real stories.
I believe it continues to this day.
Just another large organisation manipulating the dim public.

I think prince Phillip is well dodgy.
Private eye alleged he was the naked waiter at one of Stephen wards parties.

They do always push the narrative that she pursued him, and that he was this awkward young man. Interestingly she apparently had an affair with Sean Hughes who also had rumours of liking younger fans.

I think JR has made a concerted effort to disappear because he knew this was coming.

Yes. Prince Phillip was part of the circle around Stephen Ward and Christine Keeler.

Prince Philip has been associated with the call girl Christine Keeler - reason for what looks like the murder - dressed up as suicide of her pimp - and the press vilification of Keeler that went on for decades.

There is also a very dodgy clip on YouTube of Savile on the Parkinson show with Alan Alda also as guest, where Savile tells a mad story in his scattergun style of getting a young lady in the boot of his car in to Buckingham Palace so she could meet Prince Philip - innocuous at the time but now looking very much like a typically coded message to those in the know: 'I've done stuff for you, you know I know, just so we know...'

The rumours were in foreign newspapers that few British people had access to and from 1961 private eye. Private eye did not follow the UK medias example of avoiding mentioning royal scandals.

But most British people of the time would not have heard of the rumours. Look even today how few people directly read private eye. The difference now is some of its articles get shared on social media.

They tended to go after low-hanging fruit royals like Princess Michael of Kent.

My mum said then when the queen was first married there were loads of rumours about Philip hanging out with David Niven and others with the implication it was sleazy/unsavoury and women were involved. Since we are not remotely aristocratic, I am not sure were those rumours came from. There were certain sections of the press that were fawningly obsequious, but I just don't think it's true it was always deferential. And if you go further back there's all kinds of rumours and scandals for earlier monarchs.

I agree that 16 was seen as an adult. A young adult, but an adult.
But older men with 16 or 17 year olds were still seen as preying on their youth and inexperience.
In 1960 the average age for women and men to get married was 22 and 25 years old.

Absolutely. My MIL was 18 when she met FIL, who was 28 in the mid 1960s and there was absolutely nothing unusual about the age gap. I’m almost 60 and I totally agree with you about young people today. Not necessarily saying it’s a bad thing, but definitely more mollycoddled than my generation were.

He should have been prosecuted for sex with a child...

Also didnt his son marry Mandy's mother??

But the aristocracy were all sleeping with each other anyway.
And honestly the scandals before then were Margaret having an affair and Annes dog biting two people. There was loads that didn't come out until the press did start revealing scandals.

Well, until they weren't. I think a lot of royals went through periods of bad press prior to that, but I also think that the British aristocracy is such a small world, that any gossip would spread really quickly and could potentially be very embarrassing.

I'm not sure I buy that. The press when Diana and Charles got married was virtually always incredibly complimentary of any royals. Royal women were always beautiful and radiant for example, whoever they were. The publishing of royal dirt stories started later.

Yes, my take was it was all about possible stories from the past coming up and embarrassing the RF. And let's be honest, the press would have had a field day with any "dirt".

@BeLemonMoose I think it was more to do with external royal conventions and pressure not just from the Queen & Philip - first ensuring the Royal blood line was genuine. Charles & Di got married in 1981 and DNA testing didn't exist until about 1985/6 so it wasn't something that could be identified. second avoiding any scandal from previous partners selling stories to the News of the World. This was well before the law of privacy developed and celeb injunctions.

I remember when that was explained in the media that he had to marry a virgin. I am about Diana's age if she was still alive obviously. And I and my friends were totally taken back at the idea Charles had to marry a virgin. That requirement must have come from Queen Elizabeth and Philip, because it was certainly not expected of young women by that stage

She apparently did a bit from her stand up show - which was the blancmange routine that has caused all this fuss - as part of the chat. Jonathan Ross is paid (particularly by ITV who are much less indulgent of him than the Beeb were) to make guests look good and have some light chat so the conversation is directed towards the bits of business the guests want to do. It's not a real conversation (see also Graham Norton)

So Aisling Bee did do that as part of her stand up on the show?

Which is wrong. It's already been explained multiple times that the question was a tee-up for Aisling Bea to do a bit from her stand up show. The expressions of the men were supposed to represent hang dog awkwardness as part of the joke. Honestly it's no wonder comedy is dying on its arse if this is the level of interpretation!

No I mean the Aisling Bea response
Didn't someone say upthread it was part of her stand up routine?

No, I don't think so. Some of his stuff is scripted, but you can't have a completely scripted chat show. It wouldn't work. I think he has a framework and then ad-libs.

Agree although someone upthread aggressively disagreed when I pointed this out. To be fair to old Charlie though, I think it was clear he had to marry someone young so there was no history, rather than his preference. O think it’s obvious that the age gap was part of the problem, although there were many. It was more institutional and societal creepiness.

Wasn't it a scripted thing ?

Thanks for the explanation!