Queen and Meghan and harry

[Pixxie7]

Apparently the queen is considering taking legal action to stop the verbal attacks on the royal family.

@ancientgran

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rota
The guardian/independent aren't part of the Royal Rota

[quote KidneyBeans]@ancientgran

The press 'rota' and stories covered is largely controlled by relatively few very wealthy individuals including those within and associated with the RF

It's why papers have specific political allegiances

If the RF press team want a distraction from PA, the papers will create one [/quote]
But if the press team can do that why wouldn't they tell them not to print stuff about him in the first place? That's what I don't get.

@ancientgran
You are right, generally speaking the media ignored or down player prince Andrew for years.

After the newsnight interview in 2019 there was a bit of attention and a promise to step back by andrew. Then back to business as usual, ie ignoring prince Andrew.

But in 2020 for reasons unknown the media went on the attack. Camilla Tominey wrote the infamous she was a prostitute on the game article. Presumably to set the stage for andrew to slither back into public life.
And then of course the law suit forced the issue back into the open now and so now the media are spinning as poor Q etc instead of directly attacking Virginia.

[quote KidneyBeans]@ancientgran

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rota
The guardian/independent aren't part of the Royal Rota [/quote]
But the guardian/independent print stuff about H&M don't they?

"Different times" is something you'd say about something that happened 100 years ago, not 20! The early 2000s were not that different to today!

[quote nottodaybatman]@ancientgran
You are right, generally speaking the media ignored or down player prince Andrew for years.

After the newsnight interview in 2019 there was a bit of attention and a promise to step back by andrew. Then back to business as usual, ie ignoring prince Andrew.

But in 2020 for reasons unknown the media went on the attack. Camilla Tominey wrote the infamous she was a prostitute on the game article. Presumably to set the stage for andrew to slither back into public life.
And then of course the law suit forced the issue back into the open now and so now the media are spinning as poor Q etc instead of directly attacking Virginia.[/quote]
As I said I haven't been following the papers, don't know why but when I retired I seemed to lose the habit, but I thought the papers had written about PA and the accusations it has certainly been on TV

I think PA probably is "innocent" of deliberately sexually abusing the lady.
I think in his mind he couldn't possibly imagine a world where a woman wouldn't be absolutely gagging to have sex with the (in his mind) highly desirable handsome, dashing Navy Prince of the Realm.
I suspect he is so supremely arrogant that it did not cross his mind that she might not be there by choice. And therefore did not believe consent was even something he even needed to consider. I doubt he has ever been told no in his life. I'm sure he saw/sees himself as a person so desirable that no woman would ever turn him down.

But the guardian/independent print stuff about H&M don't they?

Probably - I haven't audited news outlets but if you look at the 'monarchy' section of the guardian online you'll find pretty different selection of headlines to the papers in the Royal rota

@SpindleWhorl

When Thomas Markle talks about his daughter it’s presented as a terrible betrayal (and actually I agree that it is). So why is it ok for Harry & Meghan to dish to dirt on his family? It’s particularly bad form by Harry because it’s his family.

Well, to have a crack at answering this as neutrally as I can, as a person who likes none of them -

One is an absolute nobody of a man who is surrounded by detractors anyway. The other party in your equation is led by a Head of State and Head of a Church, with immense wealth and considerable power, suspected by some of possibly participating in a cover-up of her own son's involvement with a transatlantic sex trafficking operation.

I think we're far from a moral and ethical equivalence here.

Tragic guy vs huge international significance.

The cover up hasn't gone well has it as we've all heard about it.

But if the press team can do that why wouldn't they tell them not to print stuff about him in the first place? That's what I don't get.

Because we have a 'free press'
The royals can't entirely muzzle it.

Can you imagine the outcry if UK papers printed nothing about a high profile legal case involving a member of the RF assaulting a sex trafficking victim.?
It's much smarter to spin stories.

The press on the Royal rota will spin positively knowing that they'll get rewarded with scoops - CT is a classic example of this.

They do write about prince but very softly. Always focused on the queen and prince charles. Very little interest in the victim. And limited interest in the fact that prince continued a friendship with a known paedophile.

But no royal rota reporters rushing to do tv spots talking about prince Andrew. Just a lack of energy and enthusiasm compared the vim and pep they have when wittering about H&M

I don't think they will be making any verbal attacks on the monarchy.

@DaphneDeloresMoorhead

I think PA probably is "innocent" of deliberately sexually abusing the lady. I think in his mind he couldn't possibly imagine a world where a woman wouldn't be absolutely gagging to have sex with the (in his mind) highly desirable handsome, dashing Navy Prince of the Realm. I suspect he is so supremely arrogant that it did not cross his mind that she might not be there by choice. And therefore did not believe consent was even something he even needed to consider. I doubt he has ever been told no in his life. I'm sure he saw/sees himself as a person so desirable that no woman would ever turn him down.

I suspect that exactly how he sees it.

However,I have zero sympathy for a bloke who chose to sleep with a teenager at a party hosted by a convicted sexual offender

Exactly Kidney. I have no idea if they had sex (I imagine they did but that's my opinion) but how unsavoury and disgusting to have a 41 yo member of the royal family sleeping with a girl who is just 3 years older than your own daughter.

I honestly think that PA has got away with everything all his life, his judgement and behaviour has been bad for decades and the arrogance and entitlement was on full display with the interview. So IF he didn't sleep with her his untouchable air of doing what he wants and being friends with who he wants, even a paedophile, means to me... he deserves all he gets.
I just hope he's sweating a lot at the moment.

As a divorced dad of 2 in his 40s he had the option to sleep with and date women his own age who were not trafficked children

But maybe I am being fussy and not cutting him enough slack.

Oh neither do I @KidneyBeans. Personally I think he should be prosecuted if they have the right evidence, just like everyone else. I find him revoltingly arrogant.
I just think he's so arrogant and entitled that he genuinely believes he's done nothing wrong

Grandson having a bit of a strop VS son being investigated by FBI for potential underage sex offences at home of prolific paedophile who he saw (own words): “probably no more than only once or twice a year." I wonder which would be the bigger headache.

The Queen should be writing daily thank you emails to M&H for providing a bit of light soap opera - a welcome distraction I’m sure.

I wonder how H and M would react if Thomas Markle published his memoirs

I can't answer that, but I almost wish he would, just to see the furore and mental gymnastics on here

As for H&M's views on Andrew, I expect to have to wait until the Queen's gone to hear about that; after all they're unlikely to upset the Head Honcho, knowing she has a major say on things

Regarding “duty” said like it’s a dirty word - isn’t that what the rf is paid for? And why it exists at all? Frankly I don’t care heather they are touchy feely or anything; I want them to do the pageantry stuff, a load of openings and put on a fine royal wedding etc every so often

Can I direct you to 'And What Do You do?' by Norman Baker?

A very fine and succinct dissection of royal 'duty'.

The firm has always had a fall guy

Usually appointed by their own hand.

Most of H&M what they've actually said has been pretty innocuous

Including sniggering up their sleeve at the gawping peasants who were satisfyingly hoodwinked by an eye wateringly expensive circus of a wedding they didn't cough for when the 'real' wedding had been conducted three days previously?

@CathyorClaire

Regarding “duty” said like it’s a dirty word - isn’t that what the rf is paid for? And why it exists at all? Frankly I don’t care heather they are touchy feely or anything; I want them to do the pageantry stuff, a load of openings and put on a fine royal wedding etc every so often

Can I direct you to 'And What Do You do?' by Norman Baker?

A very fine and succinct dissection of royal 'duty'.

The firm has always had a fall guy

Usually appointed by their own hand.

Most of H&M what they've actually said has been pretty innocuous

Including sniggering up their sleeve at the gawping peasants who were satisfyingly hoodwinked by an eye wateringly expensive circus of a wedding they didn't cough for when the 'real' wedding had been conducted three days previously?

There was always going to be a public wedding. I don't blame them for wanting something more private.

But you clearly feel you have a right to their every action 🤷‍♀️
'Sniggering you their sleeve at the peasants' really?
Are you practicing for a creative writing class?

There was always going to be a public wedding. I don't blame them for wanting something more private

Always an option for the by then spare to the spare.

But you clearly feel you have a right to their every action 🤷‍♀️

The royals aren't for me but when members are still lavishly and extensively funded by the taxpayer it's part of the public deal.

'Sniggering you their sleeve at the peasants' really?

Did you watch the Oprah interview?

If smirking was an Olympic sport it would have been a gold.

@CathyorClaire

There was always going to be a public wedding. I don't blame them for wanting something more private

Always an option for the by then spare to the spare.

But you clearly feel you have a right to their every action 🤷‍♀️

The royals aren't for me but when members are still lavishly and extensively funded by the taxpayer it's part of the public deal.

'Sniggering you their sleeve at the peasants' really?

Did you watch the Oprah interview?

If smirking was an Olympic sport it would have been a gold.

The royals aren't for me but when members are still lavishly and extensively funded by the taxpayer it's part of the public deal.

If that's you're concern you might want to focus your ire on the Prince using the public purse to fund his lifestyle with trafficked victims of sexual abuse and any legal fall out that may arise from those poor choices.

It depends on what's important to you, of course

You know who are definitely sniggering at the peasants - the rota and courtiers.

They have the peasants talking about the cost of a wedding when the peasants have funded a long running friendship with a paedophile and now (this is the real belly laugh) the peasants are paying for the legal fees as a result of that friendship and associated activities.

Also should we ask for our money back from Fergie, her marriage ended in divorce. What about camilla and chuck and their affair ruining the first marriage?

Either you get on board with funding the fairy tale element of the monarchy warts and all or campaign for a republic. The RF are people, they will always make mistakes and disappoint you. We do not own them. Demanding your money's worth before they are entitled to liberty feels bit indentured labourer esque.

If charlotte and Louis decide they want out at 18 will you demand they stay and perform as instructed to recoup the cost of their security and education? How many years do they need to serve?