Royal Secrets

[Extiainoiapeial]

Critics flag ‘worrying trend’ of keeping royal files under lock and key as thousands set for release to public

This should be interesting. A big cover up again, no doubt.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/11/fears-grow-over-censorship-of-secret-queen-elizabeth-and-philip-papers

The public have a right to know. Too much secrecy.

If someone wants to curtsey or bow to the royals how does that affect you. Who are you to say what people should or shouldn't be doing.

It's optional, so up to the individual.

2000+ engagements per year
Between 8 people, with many of those engagements being sporting or entertainment events. An " engagement" can also be a 10 minute phone call.

For me that is just as and inappropriate in this day and age.. A grown man, who has decided to become a career cleric, who has essentially appointed himself as a representative of god, on this earth, then expects people to call him „”father”, or refer to him as „” your excellency”, or similar, and kiss his ring - these things too should not be happening in 2025. How can there be this kind of hierarchy of spiritual importance? It’s wrong, no one should be addressing other humans like that, or treating others with such reverence only because they claim to be the legitimate representatives of god. Such inappropriate weirdness.

But, that’s an entire other topic/thread.

People can do what they like, and it is optional, but I am allowed to comment on it in exactly the same way you are doing in response to my comment. People are allowed to critique things.

I remember reading it somewhere but stand corrected. William and Kate have 66 staff members, Charles though, has 28 people just looking after him personally, presumably the toothpaste putter on etc, and Buckingham Palace have the 800 staff. Not sure how many people work in the other palaces. Still a huge staff, that should be being streamlined. Slimming down the Monarchy should mean slimmed down costs, not fewer people being paid more money to do less. I doubt even Donald Trump needs 28 people to help him get dressed in the morning.

If a prime minister visited your workplace it would be cleaned specially, repairs would be made prior to their visit. Personnel would be expected to be smart, in uniform if appropriate and be respectful and polite.

He doesn't have 28 staff lined up in the morning to help him dress. The aide who puts toothpaste on his brush, which if true I agree is ridiculous, isn't just employed to do that, he has other duties as well. The 28 staff include chefs and personal assistants who will organise itineraries and clothing etc for overseas trips.

If the rumour about him insisting on having his own personal toilet seat on overseas trips is true, I quite like that idea for myself!

Yes, of course you would make an effort, but you wouldn’t be calling him/her your royal highness or your excellency, or whatever, and you don’t need to curtsy or kiss his hand, and he or she - a democratically elected representative of the people, will be probably be out of office in a few years, due democratic elections.

Apparently his morning valets were reduced to four as part of the slimmed-down monarchy. The Paul Burrell trial was quite revealing on what the staff do – pick up clothes where he leaves them on the floor (surely they can afford a chair like the rest of us dump our clothes onto!), the toothpaste fella, once one held a specimen bottle when he was giving a urine sample. From an old Grauniad piece about it all: “last Christmas, during separate trips to Sandringham, Charles took three butlers, the Queen 11; he took four chefs, his mother 12”.

If it were royals all the homeless would be cleared off the streets. Can't have those royals spying that

You’d be calling the president Mr President or Sir the PM Prime Minister or sir. Secretary of State I’m not sure. So yes there are titles. A friend is a mayor. Madam Mayor is how’s she addressed in formal settings or visits. Edit: we find this hilarious btw! Our mate madam mayor!

I don't call anyone 'Sir'.

Absolutely no one. I would be polite, shake hands, smile but no bowing, head nodding, Sir or anything like that. I have impeccable manners but I am not servile

It’s not servile. It’s the role not the person. It did used to wind me up when younger having to call my younger cousin ‘father’ but I’m over that now. 40 years later

It’s not servile. It’s the role not the person

This is absolutely correct in theory, @WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout, and I used to say the same myself. Until, that is, I learned to spot the flinching when some who enjoy their titles being used - and aren't so skilled in hiding their distaste - don't hear them

My contacts with the RF have been limited, but oddly enough I've noticed this most with church dignitaries - perhaps because they feel they hold the authority of a higher being than most of us?

Me neither, there are no circumstances in which I have or would call anyone sir since leaving school. I would be polite if I met the King, like I would be polite to any visitor at my work, get them to sign in, offer them a tea and a desk if they want one and point out the wifi password.

But that’s essentially every day parlance. We went to Homebase on Sunday and one of the shop assistants addressed my partner and I as Sir and Madame. Still pretty standard these days. And addressing a president as Mr President is correct , so why not address the king as Mr King or Sir king, for example? Instead we have these grandiose fawning titles of your highness, your majesty, your grace, etc - all of which, every single title denote the fact that these are people who are seemingly so much better and important than us. How is it right to ever address anyone in those terms?. It’s the 21st century not the 1400 hundreds!!

When the Queen visited my former workplace (a University), a new toilet was installed just for her use and removed afterwards. This is much more than just sprucing up your workplace for a Prime Minister's visit. Prime Ministers aren't treated as superior beings in the same way as members of the Royal Family.

Gawd, that’s just such an utter waste of money. And what a clear message sent out to us plebs that the royals do not consider our everyday pleb toilets good enough for them.

It's nothing to do with that at all. It has always been done because otherwise the toilet seat that HM or whoever had sat on would be photographed, publicised and maybe even auctioned! That's hardly dignified.

At the risk of sounding like I support the RF over spending, I imagine the queen had a huge kitchen staff to feed all the invited guests and the staff, nobody needs 12 chefs to boil their morning egg.

How on earth could people prove that a particular toilet seat had been sat on by a member of the RF? There is nothing to distinguish one toilet seat from another.

@SleepyHippy3 im not disagreeing about the titles btw just pointing out that it’s not just royals who have them.

My husband has been called sir lots of times and I have been called madam, it's just courteous nothing to do with being servile. Even the Dr's. receptionist uses sir.

It has always been done? That is absolutely disgusting. What a complete waste of taxpayers money

Queen Victoria's ample knickers are auctioned off.

I really don't see what you've said happening because all else aside I suspect the queen rarely uses the brand new toilets that have been installed just for her and if she did and someone went on to take it to an auctioneers and the auction house decided to sell it, well, big deal. If these people were really worried about that why install a whole new toilet? Why not a toilet seat that then got replaced by the old one again? What would stop someone from selling on the toilet/toilet seat once it was removed?

It's a nonsense and a horrible waste of money and materials.