To think the BBC just love sticking the boot into the Sussexes

[SueDenime]

BBC

Aropos of sod all, they feel the need to mention that there will inevitably be comparisons between the Cambridges' 'by royal standards, modest home' and the Sussexes' 'very much more expansive, multi room accomodation'.

I wouldn't have even thought to compare the two and I'm fairly sure most people wouldn't either. In fact the thing that sticks out the most by far is the fact that this is the Cambridges' third home. And school fees alone will be £50k a year. What cost of living crisis?!

But, yeah. Any excuse to set the cat amongst the pigeons where H&M are concerned, it seems.

The British fashion industry ? I don’t recall her wearing much in the way of British fashion other than a VB sweater .

There's no claim it's a modest home. The word modest was used along with 'by royal standards'. His grandmother lives in Buckingham Palace. This house, by those standards, is modest.

The British fashion industry ? I don’t recall her wearing much in the way of British fashion other than a VB sweater

She did though. Off the top of my head I remember a small Scottish bag company, M&S, plus a range of higher end couture stuff. This isn't the narrative people wanted to hear however, so it got ignored.

@MorrisZapp
'Modest' when compared to Buckingham Palace!

So NOT modest .

Exactly. Why not just own it.

"They need to be close to the Queen, and the DC have no privacy in London. So, they're taking a home on the Windsor estate and making that their main base. They'll keep KP as their London base and their offices will stay there. They love Amner Hall (sp) but its location isn't convenient right now. The children are looking forward to starting their new school."

There's no need for all the "modest", "less showy than his brother" BS. He's the future king and has umpteen properties to choose from. He's adding another to the list. None of us actually think his life is anything like ours.

That's exactly what the article says.

So why use the word modest at all ?

i thought you were talking a bout K&W
its not like they do much.

Tin foil hat theory :

The writer knew exactly what he was doing and that using the word 'modest' would elicit this response

Because that's what writing is? Taking bare facts and fleshing them out, adding detail etc?

I'm not a royalist, I'd happily scrap the whole thing. But removing half of a sentence in order to disagree with it makes no sense.

@MorrisZapp
meant there was no need to insert the idea that it was modest at all!

It was a choice .

With the state of the country W and K adding another home to the 3 they already have needs ' managed'

I've just looked up the writer of the piece and in an interview he says he has been described as both sycophantic and subversive .

Interesting .

Maybe that's why we are reading different things into 'modest'

I agree with OP that the reference to Harry was irrelevant.

I think the British media really fucked up with their vilification and chasing away of H&M and realise it hence the constant need to bring them up.

I’m not a royal watcher at all and even I could see how much buzz H&M generated. They could have done wonders for tourism. Many people around the world were excited by a brown woman being in the family and Harry was seen as a bit of a lad as being the little brother meant he had less restrictions. The palace could have really used this as a way to reignite the Commonwealth and post -Brexit pro-world agenda.

You can see the financial motivation for the press in live action in the Daily Mail. Every move of K&W is carefully managed by the palace so the only way the press gets stories are if they have been given a story by the palace. The stories are very formulaic e.g. isn’t K the best mother ever!, Charlotte the best little girl ever! etc etc. It will attract a couple of hundred comments on the actual story at best with some agreeing K is best mother. Then inevitably you’ll see within the comments, the comparisons to H&M e.g. ‘If only H&M were like K&Wbut they’re not because blah blah.

On the same page you’ll see a story on H&M which is clearly clickbait. 2 hours after the story’s been published, there are already 3.5k comments, thousands of shares. H&M generate so much interest the Daily Mail’s google analytics count must be off the charts. They generate a shit ton of money. Whereas the world really isn’t as interested in K&W no matter how hard the palace tries. Even Williams rumoured affair generated less buzz than when Megan didn’t wear tights.

The palace needs to employ better people and work out a way to bring H&M back in. The reason the press keep inserting them in is because there’s public interest. The palace were stupid to not protect them in the early days.

The existence of a royal family circus in 2022 is a disgrace. The fawning nonsense and showering of wealth on completely normal people, while millions live in poverty is mind-numbingly wrong.

The vitriol towards Harry and Meghan is moronic. The fawning to William and Kate is pathetic. Any coverage of the royal family is out of touch, tone deaf and irrelevant.

I respect the queen purely as someone who has done a decent job of the job she was given, and after her death, the whole sickening, ludicrously expensive circus should end.

Nauseating and embarrassing, the lot of them. But not as embarrassing as the idiots who think they 'know' the inside story and internal machinations and rivalries/ambitions of H&M/W&K and think they're part of some riveting narrative.

I don't know anyone who 'follows' the royal family, nor anyone who gives a shit about any of them. Absolutely bonkers, the whole thing.

@Endlesssummer2022 @Baoing
I agree with most of what you both say.
I didn't know that about the daily mail clicks but it makes sense .

As a republican I actually thought crap the royals might actually benefit from Meghan , when she first appeared .

But the royals couldn't cope with someone with a bit of intelligence and who questioned the nonsense.

I'm interested in what happens next with Harry as he's someone who seems to be undergoing change and that's always interesting .

Ask the BBC!

I find the Cambridges' utterly objectionable. Love how they've think they can deceive us plebs by spinning the acquiring of a third property as "downsizing"; oh look at how grounded and in touch we are with the great unwashed!!!

Imagine if it were H&M acquiring a third property. We would have had a media outcry about the cost of fuel for not "both the houses" but all THREE houses!!!

seeing as HMQ was only persuaded to pay income tax very recently,

Thirty years ago is very recent?

Harry and Meghan only have two houses - nothing to criticise there!

When viewed from how long 'royals' have been milking the populace , yes it's much too recent .

It's still not wholehearted or on the same basis as the rest of us but that's a whole other thread .

Liz spans the age of deference and today .
Charlie's in for a shock .

Liz spans the age of deference and today

I think that's true. There's a lot of goodwill towards the queen, even grudgingly from Republicans like myself - purely on the basis that she's done a decent job of her job, regardless of the fact that her 'job' shouldn't exist. Fewer young people (ime) support the monarchy - or have any interested in it - and the cost of living crisis will also greatly affect the optics.

After the queen dies, there will be far, far less deference. Far less automatic 'respect.' There will be a MUCH louder call for accountability and fairness.

That appalling royal cosplay (that truck/inspecting the troops?) that William and Kate did on their ridiculous 'tour' was really, really bad and showed that for all the spin, the next generation of royals are absolutely clueless.

That appalling royal cosplay (that truck/inspecting the troops?) that William and Kate did on their ridiculous 'tour' was really, really bad and showed that for all the spin, the next generation of royals are absolutely clueless

Requested by the Jamaican government who were their hosts. Quite possibly they were set up but they were in no position to refuse.

The Jamaica 'royal' visit was very revealing .

W and K hadn't a clue. I don't know or care who requested the colonial wave by @Blossomtoes , it was embarrassing.
Jamaica will be a republic by 2025. It would be sooner but their constitution requires a referendum .
Good luck to them and their demand for reparations

@Novella4

They didn't get to choose where they went, the Jamaican government did. The government either miscalculated their own people or deliberately set them up

Quite possibly they were set up but they were in no position to refuse

Set up and in no position to refuse. Yes. That's a very plausible explanation if you're willing to suspend your disbelief from the bloody moon.