….. to wonder exactly WHAT specific lie was told to protect Price William ?

[Thisisnotreallymyname]

Just that !
In the trailers for the next Harry / Meghan Netflix , Harry talks about how Courtiers lied to protect William .
Hmmmm - what could he gave done that needed lies told to us ?

And to be honest, now that the real Harry is showing his true colours, Im pretty certain the palace must have covered up a fair few of Harry’s faux pas too

Wouldn't be a great shock if someone that privileged and that daft had done more stupid shit than the public were ever aware of. This is why I don't think anything too damaging about William is going to be revealed. Basically because that opens up the possibility of retaliation.

It was as all of over the US and Australian media about William and the affair. No doubt there has been more than one. The reason it wasn’t reported here is that there’s is a press Injunction!

William strikes me as cold and imperious with all the entitlement of male royals past and present.

No wonder Kate always looks so pinched and miserable.

The whole lot of them are idiots and need to go!
In the meantime we can at least have a bit of fun with them by treating them like the soap opera that they are.

Its about the nazi uniform harry wore and pw told him to get it.

The journalist wasn’t suggesting let the Royal Family die in case that is how you read it. He was saying let all the press coverage of this hyped up soap drama die. He knows it won’t, too many people making money out of it, both H and M and tabloid media. Also drums up a nice little cultural war for various sides to stoke up unnecessarily. A great deflection of the many serious issues the U.K. faces.

If you think describing the Royal family as having consensual form of withered emotional suffocation as nasty, fair enough. I don’t think it’s incredibly nasty. I thought it was acknowledged that the older members of the family were v reserved. I expect the younger generations are less so.

No, it was the 'withered emotional suffocation' bit I thought was particularly horrible. There's a chasm of difference between being reserved and suffering from 'withered emotional suffocation'.

I wonder if it's because we're so used to seeing celebrities and tbh many people emoting all over the place that if someone behaves with a bit of emotional reserve and resilience the perception is that they're cold and emotionally stunted. There is plenty of evidence that members of the RF having loving relationships with their nearest and dearest.

A pp has stated Kate always looks pinched and miserable. There is a plethora of evidence available showing this is patently untrue. The Queen knew what a happy family looked like, she was brought up in a close and loving one. The younger members of the family appear to have fun when they're in each others company.

No wonder Kate always looks so pinched and miserable

She never looks anything of the sort! Quite the opposite in fact.

They've never said anything about a quiet life.theyve said they don't want to be attacked.they don't want the kind of intrusion.they wantvtheir own voice.thats what they've done.
Where have they hurt Kate?
They are speaking out.
There are countless programs on the royal lives.channel 5 we see you!
They've simply made their own.their own story.
I found it interesting.weve never gotten this view point before.
If Kate and will had made this documentary we'd all be cooing and calling it their love story,journey,royal life together awwww.

I can only imagine the footage if she’d managed to barge her way into Balmoral when the Queen was dying An Australian journo said they constantly attacked and bad mouthed the RF and yet they were acting like two cats scratching at the door of the Queens bedroom desperate to be let in when the Queen was dying.

They've never said anything about a quiet life Cobblers! Go and listen to Harrys' speech about why they were leaving the UK, because that's EXACTLY what he said.

Correct, they never said a senior royal.

When Meghan related the situation, during the earlier part of the interview, I think she said she wouldn’t say who said it as it would be too damaging.

When Harry was asked about it when he joined the interview later, he said he would never reveal what had been said.

I’m really torn on this - and I know I’ll be told I shouldn’t be. On the one hand, a victim should not be compelled to release more than they want to say. On the other hand, when it’s alluded to so publicly, which will naturally lead to intense speculation covering just about everyone in the family, that doesn’t feel right.

I know this is very basic, but the basis of our laws are “innocent until proven guilty”. By that, I DON’T mean that I assume whoever it is did not make the comment. Far from it. But I do think that, if you make an allegation, then you need to provide the full facts. If your aim is to expose a wrong-doing - and to hope that, from that, it is in some way righted by fundamental changes - then the fundamental details need to be known.

If it’s very damaging to the person then I, for one, would like to know who it is. Because I don’t want to be blindly supporting one of a number of people without knowing the truth.

Am not sure I’ve articulated that well, but it’s late!

Prince Michael of Kent, The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are siblings. Cousins of the Queen. Another cousin is the Duke of Gloucester. All are lower in the order of succession than Beatrice and Eugenie

I don't thinks 'bastards' can inherit the throne. It must be the legitimate offspring of a solemnized marriage. Is there still any dount that Harry isn't one of Charle's - the old Hewitt rumours.

@Coxspurplepippin, thanks for explaining and I think you make some good points.

How can they have done that when she died before Harry got to Balmoral and Meghan didn’t even go with him?

Sorry I realised I might have read your post literally when you were using a figure of speech, apologies if so.

They've never said anything about a quiet life

In January 2020 in a speech at a charity event just before Harry left the U.K. he said he was taking a step back into what he hoped would be a more ‘peaceful life.’

Harry’s words quoted in a Reuters article at that time:

“Our hope was to continue serving the queen, the Commonwealth and my military associations without public funding. Sadly that wasn’t possible,” the prince, the sixth-in-line to the throne, said.

“I’ve accepted this knowing it doesn’t change who I am, or how committed I am. But I hope that helps you understand what it had come to, that I would step back from all I have ever known to take a step forward into what I hope can be a more peaceful life.”

www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-royals-harry-idUSKBN1ZI0TF

Harry arrived late because he was arguing that he wanted Megan with him. He was supposed to be on the flight with the other Royals.

They've been deliberately ambiguous so it casts doubts over the entire family and its harder to prove. If they didn't want to say as its so damaging then they either wouldn't have mentioned it at all or they'd have been excited to detonate it.

It must be very inconvenient for the 'James Hewitt' believers that Harry looks more and more like the King's side of the family as he gets older. There is a striking resemblance between Harry and the late Prince Philip.

Also, it is by now very apparent that Harry hasn't escaped the male-pattern baldness that afflicts the Windsor side of the family.

I dont get the whole "strip them of their titles" thing. It's a monarchy, not Love Island, you can't vote them off.
If you accept a royal family then you accept that God has anointed the head to long reign over the people. I personally don't accept that and struggle to see the relevance of an ancient institution when looked at with modern eyes.

If KC3 were to "strip them of their titles" then he would have to answer why them and not Andrew? That is probably a question he would want to avoid.

I do believe the press are in bed with Kensington palace, remember when Andrew was bringing them bad press so W&K and kids were dropped off at a country pub and told to act normal for the cameras. They are not allowed to photograph them out in the wild, so it must have been staged to draw attention from Andrew.

The Duke and duchess of Sussex titles were gifted to them on their wedding day. These titles can be stripped and they would revert to Price Harry and i believe meghan would be Princess Harry (they don't get to use their first name in this case). It is interesting that H&M use the crown in their 'logo' and happily use their titles when it can bring them financial gain- funny when they evidently despise the monarchy and what it stands for, no?

Andrew has been banned from Royal duties and no longer is HRH- if I remember correctly due to protocol (a notion royalty is founded on) he can't be stripped any further; but he has had everything taken away that they can royal wise.

H&M do the same though, whenever Kate especially has had an engagement or whatever they then release something to the press in an attempt to divert attention. They are just as pathetic (if not more so) than those they are criticising.

Andrew has been banned from Royal duties and no longer is HRH- if I remember correctly due to protocol (a notion royalty is founded on) he can't be stripped any further; but he has had everything taken away that they can royal wise

Whst about his Dukedom? If they could take Harry's away, why not Andrew's?

I agree. I've seen a few photos of him recently and thought how like Charles he is now, and he's always strongly resembled Lady Sarah McCorquodale (one of Diana's sisters), not just his colouring but his features too, especially as a child.

Andrew is still Duke of York

These titles can be stripped and they would revert to Price Harry and i believe meghan would be Princess Harry (they don't get to use their first name in this case).

Yes, because she isn't a princess in her own right. Only by being married to Harry. Not sure how it works for the Princess of Wales.