Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Jonathan Ross

289 replies

Undahpressurah · 10/11/2026 13:49

Is he next?

thought this could be a good place to discuss his ‘jokes’ about a 15 year old going home with Walliams. He clearly knew far more about Brand and Walliams than he let on.

Repulsive.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
BeLemonMoose · 12/11/2026 18:38

I'm not sure I buy that. The press when Diana and Charles got married was virtually always incredibly complimentary of any royals. Royal women were always beautiful and radiant for example, whoever they were. The publishing of royal dirt stories started later.

Sewingbeedamned · 12/11/2026 18:44

BeLemonMoose · 12/11/2026 18:38

I'm not sure I buy that. The press when Diana and Charles got married was virtually always incredibly complimentary of any royals. Royal women were always beautiful and radiant for example, whoever they were. The publishing of royal dirt stories started later.

Well, until they weren't. I think a lot of royals went through periods of bad press prior to that, but I also think that the British aristocracy is such a small world, that any gossip would spread really quickly and could potentially be very embarrassing.

BeLemonMoose · 12/11/2026 18:51

Sewingbeedamned · 12/11/2026 18:44

Well, until they weren't. I think a lot of royals went through periods of bad press prior to that, but I also think that the British aristocracy is such a small world, that any gossip would spread really quickly and could potentially be very embarrassing.

But the aristocracy were all sleeping with each other anyway.
And honestly the scandals before then were Margaret having an affair and Annes dog biting two people. There was loads that didn't come out until the press did start revealing scandals.

IamtheDevilsAvocado · 12/11/2026 20:01

Fancynancie · 10/11/2026 14:43

Well it wasn’t an oddity - it was celebrated on the cover of a middle of the road magazine

He should have been prosecuted for sex with a child...

Also didnt his son marry Mandy's mother??

Strumpetpumpet · 12/11/2026 20:24

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 10/11/2026 18:03

Back in the 1970s, people would have been astounded to hear 16yos referred to as children. Minors, yes, but very much on the verge of adulthood and treated as such, with a lot of independence and resilience expected, and not much of a safety net for those who couldn't cope, sadly. Very few kids stayed at school beyond that age. Of those that did stay on, an even smaller number went on to university, polytechnic or some sort of professional training, and those of us who did get that opportunity were treated as fully adult. No adults at university open days, no expectation that parents would be involved in our lives at all beyond (if we were lucky) a financial contribution to top up the maintenance grant. Lots left with no qualifications. I don't know if most had jobs in their early teens, but lots of my schoolmates had Saturday and holiday jobs then, as I did. Nobody bothered much about 16yos going to pubs or 18 films. As we have seen on this thread, it was widely accepted that 16yos could be sexually active and some of them ended up married. I may be wrong, but I think you could join the armed forces at 16.

I honestly think those of you who were 16 far more recently have little concept of how infantilised teenagers are now by comparison with all previous generations. I'm absolutely not saying that it's a great idea for 16yos to get married, but plenty of us have formed extremely successful long-term relationships at not much older than that (I did myself, 6 year age gap, we've been married for 44 years).

Absolutely. My MIL was 18 when she met FIL, who was 28 in the mid 1960s and there was absolutely nothing unusual about the age gap. I’m almost 60 and I totally agree with you about young people today. Not necessarily saying it’s a bad thing, but definitely more mollycoddled than my generation were.

BeLemonMoose · 12/11/2026 21:25

I agree that 16 was seen as an adult. A young adult, but an adult.
But older men with 16 or 17 year olds were still seen as preying on their youth and inexperience.
In 1960 the average age for women and men to get married was 22 and 25 years old.

Sewingbeedamned · 12/11/2026 23:21

BeLemonMoose · 12/11/2026 18:51

But the aristocracy were all sleeping with each other anyway.
And honestly the scandals before then were Margaret having an affair and Annes dog biting two people. There was loads that didn't come out until the press did start revealing scandals.

My mum said then when the queen was first married there were loads of rumours about Philip hanging out with David Niven and others with the implication it was sleazy/unsavoury and women were involved. Since we are not remotely aristocratic, I am not sure were those rumours came from. There were certain sections of the press that were fawningly obsequious, but I just don't think it's true it was always deferential. And if you go further back there's all kinds of rumours and scandals for earlier monarchs.

NewspaperTaxis · Yesterday 22:17

They tended to go after low-hanging fruit royals like Princess Michael of Kent.

BeLemonMoose · Yesterday 22:29

Sewingbeedamned · 12/11/2026 23:21

My mum said then when the queen was first married there were loads of rumours about Philip hanging out with David Niven and others with the implication it was sleazy/unsavoury and women were involved. Since we are not remotely aristocratic, I am not sure were those rumours came from. There were certain sections of the press that were fawningly obsequious, but I just don't think it's true it was always deferential. And if you go further back there's all kinds of rumours and scandals for earlier monarchs.

The rumours were in foreign newspapers that few British people had access to and from 1961 private eye. Private eye did not follow the UK medias example of avoiding mentioning royal scandals.

But most British people of the time would not have heard of the rumours. Look even today how few people directly read private eye. The difference now is some of its articles get shared on social media.

NewspaperTaxis · Yesterday 22:36

Prince Philip has been associated with the call girl Christine Keeler - reason for what looks like the murder - dressed up as suicide of her pimp - and the press vilification of Keeler that went on for decades.

There is also a very dodgy clip on YouTube of Savile on the Parkinson show with Alan Alda also as guest, where Savile tells a mad story in his scattergun style of getting a young lady in the boot of his car in to Buckingham Palace so she could meet Prince Philip - innocuous at the time but now looking very much like a typically coded message to those in the know: 'I've done stuff for you, you know I know, just so we know...'

YourAmplePlumPoster · Yesterday 23:08

Yes. Prince Phillip was part of the circle around Stephen Ward and Christine Keeler.

Moochucks · Yesterday 23:12

They do always push the narrative that she pursued him, and that he was this awkward young man. Interestingly she apparently had an affair with Sean Hughes who also had rumours of liking younger fans.

I think JR has made a concerted effort to disappear because he knew this was coming.

BeLemonMoose · Yesterday 23:19

YourAmplePlumPoster · Yesterday 23:08

Yes. Prince Phillip was part of the circle around Stephen Ward and Christine Keeler.

I think prince Phillip is well dodgy.
Private eye alleged he was the naked waiter at one of Stephen wards parties.

Sweetandsours · Yesterday 23:31

NewspaperTaxis · Yesterday 22:17

They tended to go after low-hanging fruit royals like Princess Michael of Kent.

I so agree.
I believe the RF have always thrown a few scraps to the media to chew on to distract them from the real stories.
I believe it continues to this day.
Just another large organisation manipulating the dim public.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page