to think William and Kate's Christmascard this year was badly judged?

[tinkywinkyshandbag]

So not only has William been hectoring us about climate change and sustainable travel, but there's been a pandemic which has been a pandemic which for many people has been financially devastating, and for most of us a holiday seems a distant pipe dream. So this year of all years they have chosen a photo of themselves all looking tanned and relaxed on a (presumably free) holiday. Just feels a tad ill judged?

I find the adulation of Kate very strange, she married a royal (who for me are nothing special), that's it. After that she's acting a part. You'd swear there was some magical sparkle coming off her. Very strange.

@OliviaBean I agree. I have nothing against her. But these people don't know her. Kate really doesn't let a personality show, we know nothing much about her. What does she spend her time doing? What hobbies or interests does she have? We have no idea.
How can you adore someone when you don't know them one little bit? They seem to just be adoring her because she has nice hair, good skin and wears nice, but bland clothing. Its all projection.

Photography and tennis.

Okay, thanks. The family snaps I guess are the photography. I had forgotten she liked watching tennis.
Maybe I would really like her if I met her, maybe not. But her public image is one of blandness. Someone on MN said they worked with her and they just remember a quiet woman who didn't make much of an impression. That is what she seems like to me as well.

Really, don't we all have more to worry about. Nice snap, nice family...

Sure we all have real-life stuff. But I always wonder why people comment dismissively on Royal Family threads like that if they are not interested in the RF?
I mean I am not interested in football. But I wouldn't go on a football forum and say to people upset their team lost a game and talking about what players did wrong - its a game, haven't you got anything better to worry about?
Just seems strange.

@PicsInRed

Wealthy family of 5 spend luxury holiday abroad during global pandemic which has separated families long term or permanently and totally destroyed livelihoods, then publish photo for their peasants to admire.

Badly judged is practically a euphemism in this case.

This

The CPS has admitted there was enough evidence to prosecute:
But Charles wouldn’t have known this. The CPS said it about decade after the fact.

I wouldn't continue to associate with someone known to have received a caution for sex offences, no.

Not even a close friend or close relative, who had given you a different account? You’d have no doubts whatsoever that if the CPS had looked at all the evidence and decided a caution was a way to go, it must have been a serious offence?

What else do you think might have been 'going on'?

What went in with Cliff Richards?

And this caution was about something that happened with a 19 year old man 'Something that happened' when Ball was over 60.

Which still doesn’t make him a paedophile. And it wasn’t uncommon for older gay men to have young gay companions around that time, was it?

The most charitable explanation is that Charles is a very poor judge of character. The other explanation is that Charles doesn't think Ball did anything wrong.

I agree. My question is, why is Charles not given the benefit of the doubt in it when so many other are?

But provably, Charles was sufficiently aware of what he imagined to be "monstrous wrongs" against Ball to engage heavily in supporting Ball; he even offered to "see-off this horrid man if he tries anything again” (which frankly I find worrying in itself)

Of an assault of an adult. Not of paedophillia. In a scenario where it could well have been imagined as a he said he said situation by someone who is being fed one side of the story.

And yes, these letters were written after Ball had been cautioned and resigned. If you were genuinely unaware of this I'd suggest it shows that you perhaps haven't looked into the matter sufficiently, considering this is our future monarch

I have looked in to it. I’m asking whether Charles continued to offer his unwavering support after the man was convicted of paedophillia and nothing you have written confirms that.

I find the adulation of Kate very strange, she married a royal (who for me are nothing special), that's it. After that she's acting a part. You'd swear there was some magical sparkle coming off her. Very strange.

Yes, and people have short memories if they don’t recall how she was judged when she first came on the scene. She was treated as if she were shit on the Royal shoe.

I find the adulation of Kate very strange, she married a royal (who for me are nothing special), that's it. After that she's acting a part. You'd swear there was some magical sparkle coming off her. Very strange.

Unfortunately Royals are pretty special if you use the criteria of rarity.
There's not that many of them in the world.

@BoredZelda

I find the adulation of Kate very strange, she married a royal (who for me are nothing special), that's it. After that she's acting a part. You'd swear there was some magical sparkle coming off her. Very strange.

Yes, and people have short memories if they don’t recall how she was judged when she first came on the scene. She was treated as if she were shit on the Royal shoe.

That's true, I remember she took a lot of crap for quite a while. Now she's just this magical royal who can do no wrong. Part of that of course is due to Meghan. Not a huge fan of any of them but Meghan is definitely targeted in a negative light and Kate is now a saint.

Just all very strange.

My question is, why is Charles not given the benefit of the doubt in it when so many other are?

Maybe because it's not a one-off and he has form for having had close associations with sex predators. See Laurens van der Post and Jimmy Savile.

Which many others have received the benefit of the doubt?

Doesn't look Christmassy at all.

It needs to look Festive otherwise it's just a holiday / family shot.

BoredZelda I'm really not clear on why you're so determined to suggest Peter Ball wasn't a paedophile, and that by extension Charles's relationship with him didn't involve supporting one - unless you're somehow connected, or have met, either of them and are now regretting your original impression?

From the CofE's own review, link here: www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/report-of-the-peter-ball-review-210617.pdf

the learned Judge then made it clear that, by eventually pleading guilty to the matters against him, Ball had “expressly” – an adverb used repeatedly by the Judge - accepted a number of matters
Those matters included: (among others, my selection here)
exploiting, over many years, boys and vulnerable young men for his sexual gratification

I think you'll find that word "boys" explains why he was a paedophile after all, but doubtless you'll try to claim it somehow doesn't count or otherwise downplay the entire relationship

I hadn’t seen it till now.
What a beautiful family.
I think it’s lovely.

My question is, why is Charles not given the benefit of the doubt in it when so many other are?

Because we are known by the company we keep - especially when it's a lot of different predators, consistently, over many decades.

The UK government has a habit of deploying the Royals when there is a trade deal in the offing in the Middle East and some royal-on-royal schmoozing is required - call it soft diplomacy.

In the past, Charles and Andrew have been associated with facilitating arms deals. No indication of anything like that here, but there could be strategic and economic advantages to William and family being seen to holiday in Jordan, from the perspective of the government.

My question is, why is Charles not given the benefit of the doubt in it when so many other are?

Because he’s a total twat and everyone hates him?

Maybe because it's not a one-off and he has form for having had close associations with sex predators. See Laurens van der Post and Jimmy Savile.

If you look at the sheer number of close associations he will have had in a life time running in those circles, stands to reason there’s a likelihood that somebody has done something. A guy my dad was in the army with in the 70s is now a convicted paedophile. Then, the guy who ran our local Scout unit and was a friend of his from school also was also convicted. We also had a family friend who was found in bed with his 17 year old babysitter. All these associations were decades apart, and e had absolutely no knowledge of them but does my dad “have form” for associating with sexual predators?

I'm really not clear on why you're so determined to suggest Peter Ball wasn't a paedophile, and that by extension Charles's relationship with him didn't involve supporting one - unless you're somehow connected, or have met, either of them and are now regretting your original impression?

Oh don’t be so ridiculous. I never said Ball wasn’t. There appears to be a (deliberate?) lack of comprehension on your part. The accusation was, that Charles knowingly supported a paedophile, bought him a house blah blah blah. At the time Charles did that, Bell had only been cautioned for what was deemed by those who prosecute, to be a low level sexual assault of an adult. You can only be clear that he supported a paedophile if that support continued after he had been convicted of that. And as you clearly haven’t been able to find any proof that he did, the original accusation is clearly false.

If you were friends with someone and years later they did something awful, would you be expected to be accused of having supported them in that action?

I couldn’t really give two shits about who our next monarch will be, I’m not an ardent royalist in any way, but to use this to further what is clearly just a hatred of the monarchy is superficial and shows a real lack of critical thinking.

Because he’s a total twat and everyone hates him?

Having never met him, I have no idea if the former is true, but you are correct it is all about a hatred of him.

@FreedomFaith

It's not exactly Christmassy either is it? It's fairly boring to be honest. I'd be disappointed if I received that kind of card for Christmas.

Have to say this is exactly what I thought, it just doesn't seem at all Christmassy!

And Kate's dress seems quite warm, and an autumnal colour, whereas the rest of them are in shorts / sundresses - so it just seems a bit of a mismatch within the picture itself as well...

@HangingDitch

I think they should’ve gone with something much more miserable. Maybe something taken in Margate in the rain.

LOL 🤣

It’s not like it really affects you

It’s a pretty standard family photo, albeit not too Christmassy

I know loads of people who went on holiday this year so they aren’t exactly an exception

Its a nice photo why are people so pissed? Their are more pressing problems in the world why do you care so much!

why are people so pissed

Because it's Saturday night and we don't have to get up in the morning (I know Friday is the traditional night for the 'drunk thread' but conditions are similar)

See also the creeping Americanisation thread