Prince Philip

[Biscoffaddict]

Just head that Prince Charles has been to visit him in hospital due to ‘exceptional circumstances’. He’s never visited him in hospital before and apparently left looking emotional. It doesn’t look good does it? I wonder how this will play out given the pandemic?

@TheKeatingFive I can read, but I can't read deleted posts and @Roussette says it has/ may be deleted.

And, my own life is too busy to read 36 pages here. I was responding to ONE poster, so why you have to jump in is odd.

If I'd seen that post about he would dire of a broken heart I'd have said then it was bollocks.

And I am sure that being royal (just) Harry can have a huge amount of say when the film is aired.

I was responding to ONE poster, so why you have to jump in is odd.

Why am I not allowed to correct your assumption again?

Is there a rule on here that you can’t respond to a post directed to someone else?

I didn’t realise that post had been deleted, but given your comment, you should know it existed.

I think it is heartbreaking that the relationship with Harry and PP has hit such a storm towards the end of PP's life. I suspect he had far more in common with Harry than William, although he could obviously empathise with both, having lost both of his parents at such a young age.

Assuming that PP is aware of what's going on (he was at Sandringham at the time of the January 2020 summit, until minutes before Harry arrived), and would presumably be aware of Harry no longer heading up the Marines (handed to him by PP with the instruction not to 'cock it up'), he must be both saddened and angry.

As members of the older generation where duty comes first, he and HM must find it very hard to understand where this all came from. Harry is not a teenager having a blip.

@Sparklingbrook in my view it can create a distorted picture of what was said. Obviously there has to be a line but that thread the other day, you, rousette and i were on it. It was zapped and there were so many deletions. It gave the picture that posters were piling on to make vile comments about meghan. I didnt see that. Might have missed a few comments of course but i was terrified to comment on meghan so i focused on harry who should get a job
That thread seemed to me like impressions of h&m. They are holy grails now. Mumsnet just panic and press delete. That's not how you see it! But it's how that thread played out. Once it's gone it's gone so all we can do is disagree now. There's no record of what was actually said.

[quote Number3BigCupOfTea]@Sparklingbrook in my view it can create a distorted picture of what was said. Obviously there has to be a line but that thread the other day, you, rousette and i were on it. It was zapped and there were so many deletions. It gave the picture that posters were piling on to make vile comments about meghan. I didnt see that. Might have missed a few comments of course but i was terrified to comment on meghan so i focused on harry who should get a job
That thread seemed to me like impressions of h&m. They are holy grails now. Mumsnet just panic and press delete. That's not how you see it! But it's how that thread played out. Once it's gone it's gone so all we can do is disagree now. There's no record of what was actually said.[/quote]
That really isn't as I see it. It's up to MNHQ when they get a report to decide whether the poste is libel, breaks talk guidelines or goady or whatever. And H&M threads always have plenty of that sort of post, let's face it.
I also think that some of the threads should be zapped if it's getting to the point there's so many deletions it makes no sense.

That said, I never scroll back on a thread more than a couple of posts and don't go trying to find posts from yesterday or further back to check things.

I have only just realised this is the PP thread, and there we are going on about H&M.
There's another thread for that.

Yes I know you viewed it differently, but the annoying thing is, that thread was not a pile on of nasty comments about meghan. You were telling me what not to say. I was telling rousette not to make them holy grails. People were telling me what not to say and i was telling peoplevnot to police the thread. Yawn. It got boring. But it's gone now so there is no record of what was actually said. Handy for mumsnet. They are scared to have any h&m threads now, even if it's an inoccuous discussion of how the interview with james corden went etc.. it's gone. Supporting the narrative that all threads about h&m turn vile.

Anyway, it's so boring. Im boring myself now.

@Number3BigCupOfTea

Yes I know you viewed it differently, but the annoying thing is, that thread was not a pile on of nasty comments about meghan. You were telling me what not to say. I was telling rousette not to make them holy grails. People were telling me what not to say and i was telling peoplevnot to police the thread. Yawn. It got boring. But it's gone now so there is no record of what was actually said. Handy for mumsnet. They are scared to have any h&m threads now, even if it's an inoccuous discussion of how the interview with james corden went etc.. it's gone. Supporting the narrative that all threads about h&m turn vile.

Anyway, it's so boring. Im boring myself now.

If it helps I don't even remember that particular thread, but they are all pretty formulaic now. Everyone telling everyone else what they can and can't say, lots of accusations of gatekeeping and policing. Loads of deletions. Yawn indeed.

Number3BigCupOfTea

That's interesting. If it's the thread I am thinking of, I thought it was absolutely awful. Seriously.

I did report one (just ONE. I have been accused in the past of reporting all the time. I do not. I think posters should stand by what they post BUT) When you report you get a copy of what was said in your acknowledgement from MNHQ. I read it more than once, it was beyond belief and I could not repeat what was written in a huge lengthy rant about MM, paragraphs of vitriol. It was stuff I would not be saying about my worst enemy. I could not imagine what was going on in someone's head to feel so so much hate about someone they don't know and also really won't know the full picture of what has gone on.

They really aren't holy grails now. Its just that I and others don't agree that she is the spawn of the devil and we say so. And posts like I mentioned above get deleted, quite rightly, there are other places on the internet like Tattle if posters want to stoop as low as that. MN is not like that, never has been, never will be.

I dont think she is the devil either! Some of tge stuff about her pregnancy having been fake made my eyes pop out of my head. But it seems like you cannot now say that they are self-pitying and lack self-awareness and harry is boring and needs a job. I wish i could persuade harry to stop over reaching trying to be a philantropist. He came to life (a bit) doing the assault course on james corden interview. So i would like to see him stop trying so hard to live a life of public service and duty etc... and just set up a business that would put him in his element. Prince harry's boot camp for montecito fatties. Id do it.

Your post made me laugh and I don't totally disagree with it! 🤣🤣
I wanna do the boot camp!

@Roussette

Your post made me laugh and I don't totally disagree with it! 🤣🤣 I wanna do the boot camp!

Count me in too. I would love PH to show me how to dangle from a rope like that.

I remember trying to climb a rope in secondary school when I was 11. It didn't end well

What was actually said was that it is possible to die of a broken heart. Not that it was THE cause
I would think that an emotional upset could finish someone who's already that ill and old. Like another person said, even an extra Hermeseta in their tea could do it.

According to four legal experts the 1953 act did repeal the 1836 act

I know, VInyl, but the key words in the piece were "In our view"

I think the point was that others had different ones, which is why it was referred to the Lord Chancellor for something definitive - and it's the Lord Chancellor's directive which has been sealed

It's going to be interesting to see if anyone steps forward to challenge this again come the time ...

There is a separate thread now about The Times report today

Is there? I'll go and placemark for the deletion message ...

@VinylDetective

The marriage act of 1949, nor the 1953 act, specifically repealled the civil marriage clause for the royal family

According to four legal experts the 1953 act did repeal the 1836 act. This is what they said at the time:

The Government are satisfied that it is lawful for the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker-Bowles, like anyone else, to marry by a civil ceremony in accordance with Part III of the Marriage Act 1949. Civil marriages were introduced in England, by the Marriage Act 1836. Section 45 said that the Act "... shall not extend to the marriage of any of the Royal Family". But the provisions on civil marriage in the 1836 Act were repealed by the Marriage Act 1949. All remaining parts of the 1836 Act, including Section 45, were repealed by the Registration Service Act 1953. No part of the 1836 Act therefore remains on the statute book. ... We are aware that different views have been taken in the past; but we consider that these were overcautious, and we are clear that the interpretation I have set out in this Statement is correct. We also note that the Human Rights Act has since 2000 required legislation to be interpreted wherever possible in a way that is compatible with the right to marry (Article 12) and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination (Article 14). This, in our view, puts the modern meaning of the 1949 Act beyond doubt.

In their view. And also comments on the “modern meaning” of the act.

However, the government at the time of the Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend issue made clear at that time that the1953 changes did not include the royal family.

The interpretation of that is exactly that - their interpretation. The fact they’ve hidden different peoples interpretations and different views suggests that opinion was not unanimous.

Using the human rights act was an interesting get around. The royal family can get married to whoever they like, legally they cannot be stopped, however their role has restrictions and the secrecy shows that there is, and always will be, debate over the legality of the monarch (when he becomes it) and head of the cofe marrying in a civil ceremony and retaining his position. Especially when you hide the evidence used to come to that position.

If it was that simple the CofE would have married them. It’s not simple and the secrecy shows that.

If it was that simple the CofE would have married them

The CoE blessed the marriage. That makes it pretty simple to me.

@VinylDetective

If it was that simple the CofE would have married them

The CoE blessed the marriage. That makes it pretty simple to me.

A blessing holds absolutely zero Lego standing.

If it was as simple as everything being rosy then they’d have married them and not had any question.

The use of the Human Rights Act, as I suspect they’ve used, will potentially be massively interesting for the royal family going forward. All of the restrictions (needing the monarch’s permission, having to wait until 25 if you don’t get it etc) very likely go against the Human Rights Act, but offer a degree of protection to the Crown. The two are, in many ways, incompatible and it will be very interesting to see how they married (pardon the pun) the two.

It holds no Legal standing.

Though I’m sure it holds no Lego standing either

A church ceremony has no legal standing either. It’s signing the register that confers that, the ceremony is purely religious.

Lego

Now Im imagining a lego RF.

I wonder if a google alert goes off at Highgrove whenever us plebs revisit the issue of the validity of PoC’s marriage to MrsPB?

@VinylDetective

A church ceremony has no legal standing either. It’s signing the register that confers that, the ceremony is purely religious.

TBF, the argument was that there is constitutional significance because the monarch is also head of the CofE and defender of the faith. So if there is a conversation to be had it is definitely about “the Constitution” rather than (merely?) “the Law”.

@VinylDetective

A church ceremony has no legal standing either. It’s signing the register that confers that, the ceremony is purely religious.

There are clear differences between the standing of a blessing and a religious marriage when you are the head of that religion.

To suggest otherwise is simply disingenuous.