To be sick of the royal propaganda the UK is fed?

[Ukisgaslit]

I know most people don’t give a damn about the Windsors any more .

However , in a week when we learn about Philip’s affairs - notably with Sarah Ferguson’s mother ( all covered up of course like the rest of their debachery) we are now expected to swallow the line that William and Kate’s next mansion is ‘paid for by William and Kate themselves ‘

No . That’s not the complete truth .Every penny the Windsors have , they have taken from the people . We now know William and Charles make millions from public services like the NHS schools and charities . We only know about this as a result of dogged journalistic digging . And most of the mainstream media barely covered the scandal .

There are many threads here about how the UK is in steep decline and how people are suffering . Yet the royals are taking in half a billion a year and charging charities on top !

At least admit to us that all their money is stolen from us ?

Oh and if you haven’t heard the queen knew all about Andrew pocketing money via ‘pitch at the palace’

She was told repeatedly by officials . She did nothing
Can we have some facts please ?
The Windsors are a total facade - they are all like Andrew - he’s just the latest fall guy .

Andrew Lownie is not 'some bloke', he's a highly respected historian.

Propaganda? You mean stuff in the media people are free to switch off from

It is not one great big ball of conspiracy, maybe if people were happy in their own life they wouldn't be fixated on the royals? The obesseion is weird

Oh I see @SixtySomething

Personal statements , FBI files ( which stated Mountbatten’s interest in young boys made him a security risk-sound familiar?), closed records, etc etc all not good enough for you

Its all a ‘bandwagon?

Sadly one that is only starting to be able to access evidence decades after the death of the alleged perpetrator
( btw I believe it was Lownie who revealed the FBI files - he spent his inheritance on court cases trying to access papers - it an expensive business this bandwagon )

You claim no interest in the royals but dismiss evidence of their offences as not meeting your high standards.

I assume you think Chris Moore and Andrew Lownie are on the same bandwagon?

I wonder what your thoughts on Andrew are ?

The RF own the Government whoever that may be. The media runs the stories but what are we going to do? No one is going to announce a vote to get rid of the Monarchy and supposedly people are spending billions just to come to the UK and stand on The Mall. I'm all for a Crowdfunder for the RF. Let those who want them pay.

Quite.

I've seen it shrugged off as probably part of the deal they agreed to in living on a royal estate and it being absolutely fine as they were moved to comparable or better properties but peasant sweeping is still pretty poor optics.

This is from an interview with Lownie about his book on Mountbatten . Obviously it’s better to read the book to get the whole picture but readers of this thread can draw some conclusions from this :

Roughly, how many people did you interview for The Mountbattens? Your acknowledgements section is a lengthy six pages long including with thanks to ‘Sean’ and ‘Amal’ ‘for so bravely speaking out for the first time about their experiences over 40 years ago.’ Can you tell us a bit about those two interviews, both interviewees being subjected to Mountbatten’s pedophilia when they were young boys?
I spoke to over a hundred people. I was amazed how many people were still alive who had worked closely with the Mountbattens. They included their driver from 1948, Dickie’s Military Secretary, Dickie’s valet throughout the 1960s, their gamekeeper, personal pilot, a steward from the 1950s, personal protection officer, ADC, godchildren, private secretaries and members of the family including their daughter Lady Pamela Hicks.
I was introduced to ‘Sean’ and ‘Amal’ through a contact in Ireland. Neither had spoken publicly before and it took time to win their confidence and to ensure they were telling me the truth. The detail about people and places persuaded me they were but I have still left the reader to make up their own mind. A former wartime driver Norman Nield has gone on the record saying he brought young children to Mountbatten, and there are FBI reports about Dickie’s proclivities so ‘Amal’ and ‘Sean’ are not the only evidence of his pedophilia. My blocked attempts to have various government papers referring to Mountbatten and a Belfast care home Kincora, where boys were sourced, and to have the car logs for August 1977 when the boys were abused further suggests there is some sort of cover up.

This interview was from 26.org - it’s a writers’ organisation I believe .

I'm amazed at your vitriol.
What is fuelling it?
Do you think King Charles was the victim of sexual abuse?
You're leaping wildly at any offensive angle on me that you can grasp, so it seems likely you're doing the same with the names you're chucking around.
Here's one back: Carl Beech.

And no @PollyBell propaganda is a great deal more than ‘stuff in the media’
Look at my post above .
There is suppression of information ( information we have paid for I’d add ) there is distraction, never mind all the bot farms ( the royals are v clumsy with those so easily spotted usually)

@SixtySomething

Yes I know Carl beech
Are you dismissing every other personal account based on that ?

Not at all.
Do you think King Charles was the victim of sexual abuse?
I'm still wondering what fuel is driving you?

Maybe they are just getting on with their life and not coming up with things that are not there?

@SixtySomething
Children in a care home were abused and Mountbatten is being linked to the abuse ring

All covered up until he’s long gone - despite attempts by brave individuals to highlight this in the 70s

THAT is what fuels me
Many many women and mothers have the same visceral response to stories like this .
Im surprised you have to ask what fuels me .

What fuels your casual dismissal of this abuse ?

I don't think the issue here is child abuse.
I believe 'many, many women and mothers ' would be more interested in efforts to support contemporary victims of proven child abuse, rather than incendiary posts about commercial, journalistic writings about a long-dead aristocrat.
You don't appear to be interested in whether King Charles was sexually abused, although that is the obvious conclusion leaping out at me.
You have created a new username for this post, so we cannot view your posting history.
Overall, it suggests that you have an interest in undermining social stability.

I am also curious at the vitriol.
As I have already said, I am a Republican, but it needs sensible debate, not vitriol and hate flung about wildly.
Until Republicans can engage in a reasonable manner, nothing will ever change

Mountbatten may be dead but some of his victims are still with us. It is possible to care about all victims of abuse.

I have no idea whether KC was abused and we are never likely to know...so I don't know how you can claim this as a conclusion. Just as we can't know for sure whether Andrew's daughters were ever at risk from Epstein. I would think probably not, as his modus operandi seemed to be to select victims from backgrounds which made them vulnerable. That is not the same as not being interested.

I am just not seeing the 'vitriol' you are claiming, from posters including the OP or from this thread as a whole. Just legitimate anger that privileged people escape the scrutiny and justice which any other alleged criminals would be subject to.

Wanting necessary social change - so that unacceptable behaviour is no longer tolerated regardless of the status of the perpetrator, and all victims see justice - is legitimate and nothing to do with 'undermining social stability'.

@SixtySomething

I don’t know what you are talking about about re my username .
I’ve created several threads in the past year .

I’ve no idea about Charles and whether he was abused / and or is an abuser .
Do you ?

As for suggesting that I’m undermining society by posting on mumsnet ….

When you say young men, do you mean overage? From the book I remember that even if some of the young men were of age, another issue was that often they were underlings in the navy which obviously means they may have consented so as not to lose their job ..

Actually Tom Bower did say in Revenge that it's possible that Diana had another lover in 1983. I DO believe that Charles is Harry's father. The resemblance is strong between Harry & Philip.

It does seriously tar my opinion of Diana though if true. Why give your son the burden of having his paternity questioned? Obvs the cheating was bad enough, but this was a whole other layer. She was a hero for her AIDS advocacy & landmine campaign but she was also v flawed.

'Its possible'? That doesn't mean anything, and what does Tom Bower know? Tom Bower seems to have a massive axe to grind about Harry and Meghan that is not journalistically balanced IMO.

You also have to take into account that when Charles wanted the public to accept Camilla, there was a huge campaign promoting their 'love story' and a narrative that Diana cheated too (which she did) but as you said, would she really have taken a lover when she was trying for a child with her heir to the Throne husband, just 3 years into her marriage and when shed not long given birth and suffered from depression during her pregnancy?

Tom Bower is one nasty, vindictive old wretch. I wouldn't trust anything he says.

Yep, Alice Keppel was her great gran. Alice's daughter Violet was Vita Sackville-West's girlfriend and a v good Nancy Mitford-style novelist (Mitford actually based Lady Montdore on her). At least the family were a bit more interesting then. Then they became regular hunting, shooting, etc obsessed toffs ☹️

Sorry, that was meant to be quoting cumbriaisbest.

I wouldn't say the revelations coming out really show most of the royal family to possess gravitas...

You do have to wonder how they manage to 'do things wrong' as often as they do when they have so very many experts and advisers on tap 24/7.