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?

@ChangingMyNameForThis1

Don't be daft, I work for a fashion brand that dresses both Kate and William around once a month (there's no 'Royal Team' by the way, any contact with them only ever involves one seamstress and our creative director). The idea that we all get gossip on their sex life is laughable. In reality, their inner circle is tiny, it's mostly composed of close family and very longstanding staff and these people don't 'leak' because their access to the couple is built exclusively on trust. In fact, the thing I find most shocking is how constricted their lives really are. They can't even go for a walk on their own. The idea that they're shagging around like their parents did while their mates sit around gossiping about it is way off the mark. They live in an extremely gilded cage and they both suffer for it. I couldn't do it.

This shocked me just for the crass entitled optics of it all and it's like a thread in a jumper when you start pulling big holes appear.

Oops wrong video ...

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

You are right: the pegging thing is a red herring, funny though it is. But the Rose Hanbury stuff has been around for years.

I’m not necessarily of the view that there’s never smoke without fire. But the rumour does have enough staying power to make me think it has legs. I also think the bizarre way the tabloids have skirted around it without actually coming out and saying it is quite telling. They clearly want to write it without being injuncted or sued and feel that the rumours of a “feud” are as much as they can get away with.

“And they were all in my book, which had appeared three years previously. Panorama was a televised version of Diana: Her True Story. With the exception of the revelation about her affair with James Hewitt, Diana was only saying in that Panorama interview things that she had disclosed before to me.
“She very successfully used me to speak over the heads of the Palace ‘men in grey,’ as she called them, with Diana: Her True Story. Panorama was a similar attempt to reach over their heads and speak directly to her people—and it was a triumph. It is hugely ironic that somebody who tried so hard to articulate her message should find herself muzzled, after her death, by the very organization she trusted to deliver it, the BBC.

“Yes, Martin did scare her half to death with the stories he told her. That helped convince her that the only way she could be physically safe, and continue to have access to her boys, was to put out her side of the story on television. But don’t forget she wrote a note to the BBC saying that she was happy with the interview and the way the interview was handled. What she had to say on Panorama was not an aberration, it was part of a pattern.”

www.thedailybeast.com/prince-william-has-silenced-his-mother-princess-dianas-biographer-andrew-morton-says

Just saw that Cambridge fans on Twitter have started an email campaign to contact a university in Canada to try to get a student kicked out, because she has the same name as someone who's been tweeting about the pegging thing. Even though the account doing the tweeting is very obviously an older British woman living in London and not a student (account is ten years old, not a new account).

Between this and the charity Meghan Markle supports having to shut their social media because they got so many threats and so much abuse from Cambridge fans, the whole thing is really getting out of hand.

I like gossip, but if you feel the need to contact someone's boss or uni just because you don't like their opinion on a celeb it's time to take a break from the Internet.

Yeah yeah course.

After everything that's gone on with Andrew I couldn't care less what k and w do behind closed doors.

Hopefully they are all happy with whatever is actually going on.

I couldn’t work out the relevance of the video to your comment, but I enjoyed that classic Monty Python sketch very much, thank you.

They couldn't afford horses when they made the movie so they improvised by pretending to be on horses and clicking coconut shells. Great movie and a great comic take on what is a "monarch".

That "word" is still trending which is now frankly weird. I would love to see one of those Twitter analyses that breaks down hashtags and maps out where movements are coming from. That's how they monitor Russian bots and the like.

If one wanted to go down a conspiracy rabbit hole one could posit eroding trust in western institutions - in this case, the British monarchy - and attacking and ridiculing an heir helps to create fertile ground for degrading the societal glue that holds us together. I'm no monarchist indeed pretty much a republican but if we do ever get rid of the monarchy it won't be because we are in happy times, like a canary in a coal mine the signals will indicate that time is out of joint.

The fact that MN clearly has no intention of taking down either of these threads is astounding and quite intriguing.

If we wish to have a president instead. Looking around over the decades there's been some pretty rum ones sexually and corruption wise

I agree, and I'm not sure who is pulling the strings but we are certainly being played.

No way would MN let this stand in normal times, indeed the first few posts got pulled as 'not in the spirit'

So have they been told to leave it up?

Is this because heavy censorship makes it seem more plausible, is it a double bluff, whatever it is definitely interesting.

That's a bit conspiracy theorish. Clearly the BRF have a lot of control over the British media but the idea that there's some shadowy secret control thingis up there with lizard people.

MN no doubt want the threads left up because a high profile story generates so many clicks and views. Nothing libellous has been said apart from pp going "Obviously Meghan leaked this." It's not libel to speculate on a rumour and no one actually believes it. I strongly doubt they were told to leave it up.

A friend of mine once tweeted something as a joke and it went viral and she had loads of people accusing her of being all sorts of different important people or being paid to tweet, people were insistent there had to be some Big Meaning and political agenda behind her tweet, when she was just a bored kid! Most likely this rumour was started by bored kids or Sussex stans. Conspiracy theorists are psychologically wired to want everything to have a Big Meaning and to believe that someone is in control, because the idea that no one is in control and it's just random is too scary for them. But most things that happen are pretty random and just people being people.

Anything about royals trends, because there are so many Royal stans on Twitter and the feud keeps things going between rival 'sides' much as it does on royal threads here. The pegging story went mega-viral frankly because it's funny, about sex, about royal sex, and maybe partly as a kick against the obvious Palace attempts to suppress the affair story - tell people they can't talk about something and they'll want to talk about it all the more. And royals just are great gossip fodder. They always have been.

An honest debate on whether we need to have a monarchy has flowed from the starting point of an unprecedented trending globally on Twitter of a particular hashtag leading to tangential stories in the mainstream press. Why wouldn't a liberal-leaning (probably if you examine the Twitter threads of the founder and site that don't mention the Jubilee once, republican sympathies) not want to facilitate that debate? All power to MNHQ !

Yeah. Honestly I think MN do what most companies do, which is try to firefight problems or issues that come up, and try to find a compromise between what keep posters happy and keep them posting and reading, and not getting sued or pissing off advertisers.

Look at all the trans stuff, they've had to figure out a way to not alienate GC posters who make up a significant %, while also not being completely attacked in the press for being transphobic and losing advertisers as a result. Or look at the names you're not allowed to discuss, like the Radletts or the other MM. Anyone who runs a company knows there are some people it's just not worth bothering with because of the hassle they'll give you.

People who spend a lot of time online often think that everything is done on purpose as part of some grand masterplan but in reality most people just try to bumble through day by day.

Well written summary of the story to date.

www.thecut.com/2022/07/prince-of-pegging-trends-with-prince-william-affair-why.html?utm_campaign=thecut&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw

Except we know they do go out and about. The bike ride where a photographer ambushed them, Kate went to the Sarah Everard vigil unnoticed, I have seen William myself near Balmoral, Kate has been photographed in shops. In terms of true friends their circle probably is very small, but that is the case for most people.

And the rumour is that it is the woman who was doing the act who leamed, not the Royals.

Clearly the BRF have a lot of control over the British media but the idea that there's some shadowy secret control thingis up there with lizard people.

It's not about conspiracy theories but lawyers and PR behind the scenes. It's been heavily speculated that lawyers have been in touch with MN during the early H&M turmoil days and back then every posting that was vaguely negative was deleted. This was what actually enraged quite a number of users because it made certain topics entirely above discourse and above free speech. It was basically censorship like communist China. Any vaguely critical posting from hair, clothing or even references to gossip blogs, under which DeuxMoi definitely falls, were deleted for potentially spreading false rumours.

The earlier (unproven) opinions on this thread about whether M&H could have been behind the hashtag would absolutely 100% have been deleted within minutes during 2019. However MN's moderation of M&H have cooled down dramatically over the years, coincidentally soon after they moved to the US. So it leads to the theory that there is no longer any legal pressure behind MN to closely moderate certain topics.

Law firms sending cease and desist message to social platforms platforms or users are extremely common. Plenty of Instagrammers or Tiktokers have received similar documents when they post controversial opinions about a person or company. There has actually been a case of a company trying to sue a MN user last year for posting a review of a product she didn't think was that good (it was a kit for entertaining kids on flights or something).

So this whole business is bizarre in the sense it means MN have either not received any official documentation and are therefore not obliged to remove it. Or they began deleting the threads but were told to leave them up (as someone above mentioned). The double bluff theory might be plausible in the sense it's "too ridiculous" so they are letting people go crazy with it to prove it's fake. This is a very bad choice tbh as the case of Prince Andrew proves that people are fully willing to believe that anything is possible within the RF. If this was the idea of their new PR guy, he'll probably find himself on the chopping block soon.

Kate (Doc) was criticized on mumsnet for attending the Sarah Everard vigil in London as it was on the Saturday after Meghan and Harry's interview with Oprah had been broadcast on tv and it was seen , by some anyway , as a bit of a publicity stunt.
They can never win whatever they do.

When you wake up in a palace every day waited on hand and foot and glide effortlessly grazing on some of the best mankind has to offer and are wealthier than Croesus and your children and grandchildren will be as well believe me as Charlie Sheen was won't to say YOU ARE WINNING...

Everything I read criticised her because she took along a photographer and stole the front pages of all the media as a result. It did take attention away from the vigil and Sarah Everard.

MN have for a while let any old shit stand about H and M and deleted anything vaguely critical of C and W. Their policy seemed to change about in the last six months and criticism is now allowed.
The fact you talk about Andrew as an example where the public will believe any negative rumour made me do a giant eye roll. There was evidence against Andrew, but he refused to be interviewed by the US police and the UK police refused to touch it.

She was criticised and rightly so, because nothing the royals do is in a bubble or off their own back, it’s all orchestrated on their behalf. If she really wanted to go incognito she could have, but conveniently the photos ended up on the front page of the papers.

The fact you talk about Andrew as an example where the public will believe any negative rumour made me do a giant eye roll.

I used that as an example because it's clearly not a rumour. The vast majority of people believe he is guilty but was never truly brought to justice. And because he's part of the RF inner circle, it's a risky strategy to assume the public will not believe something because it's "too ridiculous" or "too sordid". Obviously in no way comparing the exact activities in question, but you get the idea. It's about the assumption that the public will or will nor form opinions about the RF based on how they try to control the narrative.