Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

The King rejects cut-price coronation in favour of ‘glorious’ pomp and pageantry

521 replies

tatalan · 22/12/2022 11:56

Monarch wants to use ceremony to showcase ‘UK plc’ internationally, despite being deeply conscious of the cost of living crisis

www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/12/21/king-rejects-cut-price-coronation-favour-glorious-pomp-pageantry/

How do you feel about this?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
Roussette · 14/04/2023 20:04

MarshaBradyo · 14/04/2023 20:02

I’d just wait. If it’s something rather that The Guardian stirring it’ll come out.

They love a bit of click bait so it might be something or nothing.

Show quote history

Something.

It's the start of a microscope on finances of the RF

MarshaBradyo · 14/04/2023 20:06

We’ll see. I don’t trust The Guardian reporting on much at all so will wait for it to hit across media.

If it is as you say it will. No need to read The Guardian.

Roussette · 14/04/2023 20:10

MarshaBradyo · 14/04/2023 20:06

We’ll see. I don’t trust The Guardian reporting on much at all so will wait for it to hit across media.

If it is as you say it will. No need to read The Guardian.

Bearing in mind it took the Guardian nearly ten years of pushing to uncover something, can't link now, am on my phone, we'll be lucky.
Thank god for these people prepared to investgate

Happyvalleyfan · 14/04/2023 20:12

MarshaBradyo · 14/04/2023 20:06

We’ll see. I don’t trust The Guardian reporting on much at all so will wait for it to hit across media.

If it is as you say it will. No need to read The Guardian.

If you don’t trust the Guardian on this, what source of independent news would you trust? By independent I mean not influenced by politics or owned by people like Murdoch who may not want to publish negative articles on certain members of the RF (as they make them so much money)?

MarshaBradyo · 14/04/2023 20:16

Happyvalleyfan · 14/04/2023 20:12

If you don’t trust the Guardian on this, what source of independent news would you trust? By independent I mean not influenced by politics or owned by people like Murdoch who may not want to publish negative articles on certain members of the RF (as they make them so much money)?

Show quote history

If it’s big it’ll hit all outlets.

I get people are excited / interested and posting just read it posts rather than summarising.

That’s fine we all find different things engaging or otherwise. I’m just taking the easy road and I’m sure if it’s big I’ll hear about it.

Happyvalleyfan · 14/04/2023 20:17

Roussette · 14/04/2023 20:10

Bearing in mind it took the Guardian nearly ten years of pushing to uncover something, can't link now, am on my phone, we'll be lucky.
Thank god for these people prepared to investgate

Show quote history

It took them 10 years to get the black spider letters KC wrote to lobby the government and influence policy published.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/prince-charles-black-spider-memos-lobbying-ministers-tony-blair

Prince Charles's 'black spider memos' show lobbying at highest political level | Prince Charles letters | The Guardian

Publication of 27 letters after 10-year legal battle shows heir to the throne petitioning ministers on subjects from the Iraq war to alternative therapies<br>

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/prince-charles-black-spider-memos-lobbying-ministers-tony-blair

Tigger1895 · 14/04/2023 20:23

So it’s the pomp that makes it special and not the reason for the pomp?

Roussette · 14/04/2023 20:36

Happyvalleyfan · 14/04/2023 20:17

It took them 10 years to get the black spider letters KC wrote to lobby the government and influence policy published.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/prince-charles-black-spider-memos-lobbying-ministers-tony-blair

Show quote history

Thank you. That's what I referred to.

purpledalmation · 14/04/2023 20:39

MarshaBradyo · 14/04/2023 20:02

I’d just wait. If it’s something rather that The Guardian stirring it’ll come out.

They love a bit of click bait so it might be something or nothing.

Show quote history

Yep, sounds like the usual Guardian shit stirring. Something is either illegal or its legal. They are no shades of grey.

As for Charles spider letters or whatever they were, as he was lobbying for environmental issues, then good for him. The issues about which Charles has expressed public views include farming, genetic modification, global warming, social deprivation, planning and architecture, and people are actual criticising this? Lunatics definitely taken over the asylum.

Roussette · 14/04/2023 20:44

Have you read all the articles?

Doubtful.

So many posters on here do this. They pontificate about articles in relevant media but won't read it.

MarshaBradyo · 14/04/2023 20:48

Something is either illegal or its legal.

Yep. I know it’s of great interest to some and that’s fine. There are all sorts of things people get in to.

If it’s actually illegal it will surface across all outlets.

Roussette · 14/04/2023 20:49

If it’s actually illegal it will surface across all outlets

We are talking about the Rf here.

4plusthehound · 14/04/2023 20:49

purpledalmation · 14/04/2023 20:39

Yep, sounds like the usual Guardian shit stirring. Something is either illegal or its legal. They are no shades of grey.

As for Charles spider letters or whatever they were, as he was lobbying for environmental issues, then good for him. The issues about which Charles has expressed public views include farming, genetic modification, global warming, social deprivation, planning and architecture, and people are actual criticising this? Lunatics definitely taken over the asylum.

Show quote history

The issues about which Charles has expressed public views include farming, genetic modification, global warming, social deprivation, planning and architecture, and people are actual criticising this? Lunatics definitely taken over the asylum.

I think the lunatics are more worried about the views expressed PRIVATELY (between him and various politicians) re tax, private will, land ownership, the amount WE pay HIM to be himself, and all the other fancy pants things around consolidation of wealth.

Which, on reflection, would seem lunatic at all!

MarshaBradyo · 14/04/2023 20:53

Roussette · 14/04/2023 20:49

If it’s actually illegal it will surface across all outlets

We are talking about the Rf here.

Do you mean it’s illegal and nothing will happen except a few Guardian articles?

And some posts on mn

Roussette · 14/04/2023 20:55

MarshaBradyo · 14/04/2023 20:53

Do you mean it’s illegal and nothing will happen except a few Guardian articles?

And some posts on mn

Show quote history

No. I don't mean that. It took 10 years for intensive investigation for the spider letters. The RF finances are protected.

It will take longer as is obvious.

It's needed. Do read the articles.

purpledalmation · 14/04/2023 21:11

In other words a bunch of speculative articles proving nothing.

Roussette · 14/04/2023 21:17

purpledalmation · 14/04/2023 21:11

In other words a bunch of speculative articles proving nothing.

Whatever you say

Hope you've read them fully to dismiss them so easily 😮

4plusthehound · 14/04/2023 21:30

purpledalmation · 14/04/2023 21:11

In other words a bunch of speculative articles proving nothing.

@purpledalmation - "in other words" only works if you have read the articles.

But sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALA won't make it go away. It really won't.

If you support them it the worst thing you could do. You are willfully making yourself blind to their weakness.

AskMeMore · 15/04/2023 01:09

The Guardian is exposing the thefts the Royal Family is guilty of. I hope it is picked up by other outlets.

Roussette · 15/04/2023 05:38

AskMeMore · 15/04/2023 01:09

The Guardian is exposing the thefts the Royal Family is guilty of. I hope it is picked up by other outlets.

Exactly and it is obvious to me that we have posters who won't read the articles and just don't want to know. Let's look at one example...

Buckingham Palace is refusing to explain why 11 pieces of jewellery potentially worth £80m that were official gifts to the royal family are not held in a trove of national heritage.

The jewels, which have been worn by Queen Elizabeth II; Camilla, the Queen Consort, and Catherine, Princess of Wales, are not contained in the royal collection, the custodian of culturally significant items held in trust for the nation.

The pieces include a set of aquamarine jewellery, four brooches and six necklaces, including an extraordinary Cartier necklace of emerald- and brilliant-cut diamonds worth at least £40m given to the late Queen by an Indian prince.

At least four of the items were presented by heads of state. The palace’s policy states that “as a general rule” gifts to the sovereign from another monarch or head of state “automatically” become part of the royal collection, a body that manages items held by the sovereign in trust for the nation.

The Royal Collection Trust, which manages the collection, confirmed that it does not have custody of the 11 jewels.

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson declined multiple invitations to explain the current ownership of the 11 pieces. They suggested the royals do not regard the jewellery as their private property and that the items, which were given to the late queen between 1947 and 1979, “may” in the future be added to the royal collection."

So...all those with your fingers in your ears, do YOU think this is ok? The Queen had between 40 and 70 years to hand over jewels worth millions to be held by the people as part of the royal collection but no, they appear to have been claimed as private property.

4plusthehound · 15/04/2023 06:02

Roussette · 15/04/2023 05:38

Exactly and it is obvious to me that we have posters who won't read the articles and just don't want to know. Let's look at one example...

Buckingham Palace is refusing to explain why 11 pieces of jewellery potentially worth £80m that were official gifts to the royal family are not held in a trove of national heritage.

The jewels, which have been worn by Queen Elizabeth II; Camilla, the Queen Consort, and Catherine, Princess of Wales, are not contained in the royal collection, the custodian of culturally significant items held in trust for the nation.

The pieces include a set of aquamarine jewellery, four brooches and six necklaces, including an extraordinary Cartier necklace of emerald- and brilliant-cut diamonds worth at least £40m given to the late Queen by an Indian prince.

At least four of the items were presented by heads of state. The palace’s policy states that “as a general rule” gifts to the sovereign from another monarch or head of state “automatically” become part of the royal collection, a body that manages items held by the sovereign in trust for the nation.

The Royal Collection Trust, which manages the collection, confirmed that it does not have custody of the 11 jewels.

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson declined multiple invitations to explain the current ownership of the 11 pieces. They suggested the royals do not regard the jewellery as their private property and that the items, which were given to the late queen between 1947 and 1979, “may” in the future be added to the royal collection."

So...all those with your fingers in your ears, do YOU think this is ok? The Queen had between 40 and 70 years to hand over jewels worth millions to be held by the people as part of the royal collection but no, they appear to have been claimed as private property.

Show quote history

God that is GRIM.

May...

MarshaBradyo · 15/04/2023 07:50

AskMeMore · 15/04/2023 01:09

The Guardian is exposing the thefts the Royal Family is guilty of. I hope it is picked up by other outlets.

If it’s such a major story it won’t need to rely on an mner asking people to read articles in The Guardian.

It will be across outlets

Roussette · 15/04/2023 07:56

MarshaBradyo · 15/04/2023 07:50

If it’s such a major story it won’t need to rely on an mner asking people to read articles in The Guardian.

It will be across outlets

Show quote history

I think you can tell Marsha how hard it is to get answers from the Institution
See above..."Buckingham Palace is refusing to explain" and "A Buckingham Palace spokesperson declined multiple invitations to explain the current ownership of the 11 pieces"

I am not dismissing it. Even if you are. A lot of the media is pro Royal hence the uphill battle

MarshaBradyo · 15/04/2023 08:06

Ok well keep going they might get there, or not.

I don’t need to follow it. It’ll surface in time if they find what they need.

Swipe left for the next trending thread