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.

I'd be calling them whatever the preferred terminology is, because I have manners.

Maybe more for security reasons? If the Queen was visiting a place where staff toilets were in a block, her bodyguards would not be allowed in there.

You wouldn’t be calling a president or prime minister or what ever „”Your Majesty”. And in 2025 we shouldn’t be calling any another human being „”Your Majesty”, „”Your Royal Highness”, just because one of their ancestors won a fight, in a muddy field a 1000 years ago. Such nonsense.

There certainly wouldn't be the case at the University the Queen visited. There are really senior members of staff with their own suite of rooms/bathrooms etc which would be completely private.

This practice is just part of the myth that the Royal Family are superior to us mere mortals/subjects.

I would imagine then in that scenario that one of the private bathrooms would be designated for the Queen only and for security reasons guarded so that no one else had access.

As I said, a completely new toilet was installed and then removed after the visit. I don't know whether they built a separate room/bathroom, or just removed an existing toilet, but either way she wasn't expected to use an existing toilet, no matter how fancy/luxurious/private it was. I don't know whether the cost was paid by the University or the Palace, but either way the taxpayer funded it.

I haven’t read the thread ( I will)
but the norm is that the council / visit location pay the expenses for a visit from the Windsors .
Id say your university paid for it .

I started a thread about the Dispatches programme revealing the Windsors charging charities and hospitals etc.
Their finances are Byzantine but the real secrets - they wont be revealed until after we are gone if at all . And our children and grandchildren will be asking how we let this grift go on so long, never mind the bowing and scraping

Part of the myth making in recent years has been the perfect family narrative .
Royals never had to pretend to be perfect but the Windsors needed mass support from the middle classes in the 20th century so we now get the William doing the school run nonsense . They are just like us lol

It helps if the taxpayer is both ill informed and unquestioning

Sorry I meant to say the myth making of the perfect family narrative means separations and affairs must be covered up at all costs
They generally don’t need to divorce - just live separately and turn up for photo ops
The queen managed to maintain a mystique but that’s all gone . Maybe it’s because it’s all dull men for the next century- if they last that long

Those further for the ‘top job’ can and do of course divorce

I agree

I’d add however that when you cost the country half a billion a year and are selling yourself as the perfect family - knowing what is true and what isn’t re the ‘gossip’ could be seen as in the public interest

But yes - I’m particularly annoyed about the sealing of the Andrew ‘trade envoy’ information. What is that hiding ?
The Windsor / nazi stuff will all be out soon enough - they must reckon 3 or 4 generations does it . They may be wrong about that one though

Don't forget about their lack of paying the going rate tax like the rest of us. I don't object to them being here but I most certainly don't want to fund them being here regardless of how little that is per week for me.

@mainecooncatonahottinroof work? It's hardly taxing to read a few briefing notes and turn up to chat to people.

I'd be calling them whatever was deemed to be polite, but probably "sir"?? Out of respect for the office, more so than the holder?

Clearly it would not be "your majesty" or "your royal highness" because neither a president nor a prime minister is royalty.

I am not sure what your point is but your post is nonsense.

In life, there are "taxing" jobs and less "taxing" jobs. I can only speak of what I know. My job can be pretty full-on and "taxing".

I don't know how "taxing" it is to be a royal but I know I would abso-fucking-lutely hate having to be briefed, suited and booted, and converse with strangers. Plus have my life scrutinised and criticised by all and sundry.

You have not done it, so you have no idea whether or not it is "taxing".

Bizarre that you think you have the faintest clue what you are on about!

We shouldn’t be calling any one your royal highness or your majesty, even if it’s considered polite, because no person should be addressing another person in those terms.

Why is the tone of all your posts so confrontational, and you put down anyone who has anything, other than glowing sycophantic platitudes, to say about the Monarchy? Us plebs are allowed to have opinions as well you know.

Is it the person or the role? I’m thinking when a judge is addressed as ‘your honour’, ‘my lord’ or ‘my lady’. District judges as sir or madam. Thinking on it I suspect it’s the role.

@SleepyHippy3 yes I agree. It's the usual tedious response from @mainecooncatonahottinroof.

Back to my post I now remember when out of the court room I’d address the judge as ‘Judge’. In the court your honour. Don’t remember coming across any of the Lord judges out of court. Masters of the high court were known as Masters however I came across them. Sorry musing on a tangent.

I’ve met Charles and Camilla, back before they were king and queen, in the course of work. I was polite (because I am!) but I didn’t sir or yer majesty or whatever them; there’s really no need to be deferential or curtsy and such. (I did make a terrific joke that made him do a posh person spoffle spoffle laugh and squeal “Don’t be so silly!” and flap his hand, but that’s by the by.)

The point I was trying to make, although badly, is that yes there are forms of address which are fine and make sense e.g Mr President, Sir, Madam (in every day parlance), Doctor etc, Prime Minister etc. But i truly believe that in this day and age no human being should be addressing another human being, especially one with unearned privilege and wealth „”Your Royal Highness” or „”Your Majesty”, terms denoting superiority over everyone else, which is what the Monarchy essentially is. We pay them to be better than us. And that’s very wrong.

Yes I see your point as to this day and age, but I suppose in my head it’s the role not the person & to me that makes it ok, but everyone won’t necessarily agree with me.

Yes, you are right, it’s specifically addressing the role. But for me that role shouldn’t exist because I don’t believe the Monarchy should exist in general.

And that’s a different interesting topic isn’t it? As I’ve said before I’m a constitutional monarchist not a royalist & will be until such time as a valid thought out alternative can be considered. I’m so wary after Brexit to break the status quo. I also like some of the individuals in the RF and can’t abide others!

I think that's fair enough if the bowing and scraping is to the role to be polite but not deferential if you don't believe the role deserves deference.
I think deference in the public is a bit ' serf-y' but harmless. However, the deference by people in authority is more harmful. As said above, the government makes and passes laws, but the Monarch can and does lobby for exemptions from proposed laws to benefit themselves, regularly. The government ( of all stripes) then fall over themselves to do it. The courts agree to keep their secrets, the press stay quiet about what they know, and minimise revelations and investigations unless it's about Andrew or Harry when they go to town. Parliament, the courts and the press have a job to do in a democracy, and that is to hold the powerful to account. Not protect the powerful, especially when there is no way to remove them. Parliament should be at the very least, have to declare exemptions given to the Monarch from proposed legislation, and the reasons why instead of it being hidden in plain sight, knowing that a deferential press and most MPs won't bother to highlight or scrutinise it. The Monarchy when questioned can always say 'We fully comply with the Law' when the Law says they don't have to comply with it.