To ask where the hashtag prince of pegging came from?

[Apileofballyhoo]

DH is looking at Twitter and it's obviously about Prince William's alleged affair but can't figure out where it's coming from now all of a sudden. Anyone in the know?

It's not a great time for the UK to be toppling their monarchy because one of its princes like it up the .

If these speculations are true, Prince William should come out as polyamory or queer and ride it out on the Pride bandwagon.

Unless anything impacts W doing his job (and I think W&K are doing a brilliant job)
What job?

@taybert

Gossip about lawful private lives shouldn’t be a matter of public interest.

Sorry but this is very naive. It's always been exceptionally hard to define "public interest", as opposed to "that which the public is interested in". But if you seek to make speculation about people's private lives off limits as a matter of course, you risk restricting people's legitimate right to challenge the official narrative which they are given and that's a problem for democracy.

At the most narrow definition yes it may not strictly be in the public interest for people to know that HRH Prince William likes taking it up the khyber. But where do you draw the line? Do you say that any reporting on or speculating on the private lives of the royal family is off limits?

Had you done that the scandalous treatment of Princess Diana by Prince Charles and the Royal Family in general would never have come to light. There are plenty of other cases in history, such as the Profumo Affair etc, which would also have been made illegal to report or comment upon if there had been rules about not reporting on people's private lives but which actually had much broader significance. It's then a slippery slope for politicians, royals or other public figures to seek to prevent people reporting on these things.

The line between grubby tittle-tattle and public interest isn't always as clear cut as a lot of people like to suggest. The numerous affairs which Charles and Diana had during their marriage were on the face of it not matters of huge public interest but they did have profound constitutional significance. Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky is another example. On the face of it it was "just" an affair but actually it raised profound questions about his trustworthiness and competence. I'm not saying that anyone who has an affair is automatically untrustworthy in their public role but it points to a capacity to deceive and surely something which members of the public have a right to know about.

Finally, the HRH Cambridges are in a position of considerable authority and power. I have a lot of sympathy for them and I wouldn't wish their lives on my worst enemy but you have to allow scrutiny of people in such positions of power.

@Thepeopleversuswork top-notch comment. Looking like the people have won!

Is it any coincidence that the Republic of France doesn't take any shit from their rulers and they are getting 4% increase in their energy bills whilst are doubling or even tripling?

We are presented with the image of the perfect family. That is part of their deal is selling their image. You can not be surprised that people are interested in any information that shatters that image.

Wills will also be head of the CoE eventually. His marital conduct is very much not irrelevant to that position.

In a more general sense, it is totally hypocritical to keep wheeling out the happy family for photo ops, but expect everyone to quietly turn the other way when he's shagging the mistress.

After the Queen goes we get a referendum as to whether we still want a monarchy. If they lose we get Buck House and Winsdor to be national museums. They get a tax settlement to be decided by Parliament and then they retire to be treated as any other member of society - no handouts, no special treatment. Then and only then do I not give a flying fuck at what they get up to. We get to be a republic with an elected President who has you know actual power so when a populist PM, tries to pro-rogue parliament to force through law - we get push back rather than just sign here ma'am nonsense. Oh and Andrew gets his interview under caution with the FBI.

It's not a great time for the UK to be toppling their monarchy because one of its princes like it up the.

Topping the monarchy

Why not? We elected a Prime Minister on the basis he has messy hair and got stranded on a zip wire.

Wills will also be head of the CoE eventually. His marital conduct is very much not irrelevant to that position.

Mmm, the royal family and particularly the monarch and future monarchs do occupy a specific and unusual position. Their private lives are part of the deal, particularly those with religious roles, and I don't see how the royal family continues to exist without them fulfilling that end of the bargain. I've some sympathy actually, one of the many reasons I'm not a fan of the monarchy as an institution is that it doesn't always seem particularly kind to the people on the inside. Gilded cage etc. But that's what the deal is.

Careful what you wish for, look what the British public elected to be PM…

Respect to @TomPinch for the Eulalie reference. You brightened up my day! (As has this thread).

Careful what you wish for, look what the British public elected to be PM

Ireland do a great job, I'm not sure why it would be beyond the Brits.

It's more of a figurehead there as it would be in the U.K., so would attract a different type of candidate.

🤣🤣

It is only an accident of birth that we do not have King Andrew.

Not read the whole thread… but why is everyone assuming it’s William? Prince Edward could fit the bill just as well.

Are you suggesting Rose is pegging Edward?

No - I don’t the the rumours suggest who it is, I wouldn’t think it was Rose!

Yep, plus it would only have taken one accident for Andrew to be first in line now. There was plenty of time between Andrew making Epstein's acquaintance and Charles's sons having kids when the three of them were all together and a single crash or incident would've done it.

Not really something we need to be concerned about now given the number of people and continents involved fortunately, but there was a time when it could've happened.

I wonder if the powers that be, grey men, are tracking down the source of this rumour. The younger royals seem to be less never complain never explain than their granny.

We are "subjects" not citizens.

Maybe you are one of the tiny number of people who fall into the category of 'British subject', but the huge majority of Brits are citizens, not subjects. The legal category of 'subject' was all but abolished around 40 years ago.

Subject vs Citizen - a bit old but apparently still a bit grey - once the Tories take us out of the European Convention on Human Rights we will have taken a step back. According to Monty Python, we are constitutional peasants.😃

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4191613.stm

No, it's not really 'grey'. Hardly anyone is legally a 'subject'.

"Until 1949, nearly everyone with a close connection to the United Kingdom was called a ‘British subject’.

All citizens of Commonwealth countries were collectively referred to as ‘British subjects’ until January 1983. However, this was not an official status for most of them.

Since 1983, very few people have qualified as British subjects."

www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-subject

The pegging thing's obviously a ridiculous internet skit. No one can possibly know what his bedroom predilections are, and as long as they remain between consenting adults I don't see why anyone gives a stuff. That's a great deal more than can be said for his uncle. It's also very interesting that persistent scandals elsewhere in the family consistently, and conveniently, deflect attention from the gravity of his.

The Rose rumours, however, do have legs; this becomes clear on reading between the lines. They've been going the rounds on SM and international MSM far longer than the tweet in question, and they predate Meghan Markle by some margin, which is relevant as she seems to be a convenient scapegoat for any adverse publicity within that family. Add to that the equally persistent rumours that Hanbury's husband is a friend of Dorothy's, not least the fact that the British media breathed not one word despite the fact that the stench of this story just wouldn't go away elsewhere. All this augurs strongly of either a mutually beneficial relationship between the Windsors and the media - one which throws certain lesser family members to the wolves to preserve the reputations of those further up the hierarchy - or a super-injunction.

The Windsors are capable of fighting very dirty. Comparing Harry's and his wife's story to that of his late mother, it's uncanny the number of times history seems to be repeating himself. Cf. MSM has 'proved' that everything coming out of their mouths is a lie, their credibility is threatened by persistent suggestions that one or both are mentally ill, they're more interested in commerce/designer clothes etc., than needy causes, on and on, ad nauseum. It's like a stuck record. Windsor PR is very effective, but it's nothing if not repetitious. The patterns are there.

Boris Johnson is Prime Minister. William's consensual adult activities, whatever they may be, pale to invisibility in comparison. (And Johnson has an actual supposedly mature demanding diplomatic job!)

I see that some Cambridge stans are trying and woefully failing to get #PrinceHarryIsIntoPegging trending. Which is pathetic but also sort of funny since it misses the point so much. The reason this rumour has captured the public imagination is because it runs so polar to William's extremely stuffy and conservative image. Maybe he and Kate are swinging from the chandeliers every night but that's his public image. It just wouldn't be shocking if it was Harry and Meghan, since they're so clearly hot for each other.