Did William really cheat on Kate?

[ttcstop]

I keep hearing this rumour and I'm just curious to know where it comes from? Where is the evidence?

In the Crown the Queen after confronting Philip about his 'consort' agrees that to prevent scandal she should be seen greeting her to prevent gossip. Philip was a dashing 50 year old and her a 20 year old aristocratic beauty. It looks like what it was with carriage driving thrown into the heady horsey mix. The Queen graciously invited Countess Braybourne to the 30 limit covid funeral as well.

So agree with this.

I have no idea if W has cheated on K, I'd like to think not, I think he'd be an absolute idiot if he has because I honestly think she is now the glue that holds the RF together. She is calm, serene, does her job really well, looks fab, acts the right way at the right time etc. Yes, she is a bit boring, but she is stable.. and glamorous. And to be frank, that is all you need to be.

If they were to divorce I think it would be absolutely catastrophic for the RF. Without her what have they got? Just William... who is not mega popular, comes across a bit icy and uptight at times, and not relateable at all in my opinion. This is JUST my opinion I must stress before I get jumped on.

I think we musn't forget that they only let us see what they want us to see. We are spoonfed an image of them. Charles, the eco man, means well, tries his best, loves his children in a cack handed way etc. Camilla... if I hear one more time 'she kept her head down' I might scream. Or 'she'd be fun on a night out'. We are fed this image!
She might be boring and mean. She might be lovely. Who knows, but I just laugh out loud when people talk like they know her. They don't! Nor Charles, nor any of them.

@vera99 that settles it then - if it was in the Crown 😂

"The Crown" is not a documentary, and really shouldn't be used as evidence.

Cross post! It's so strange how people take it to be the absolute truth.

Indeed, @Roussette , no-one knows but for some reason people keep stirring the pot. Unpleasant motives.

I'm rather sad and disappointed that this old rumour mongering thread has been brought out of retirement!

Heavens! Do we really still want to live in a society where royal favours are granted in rotation to three aristocrat families owing to some accident of birth hundreds of years ago; with privilege embedded in the very heart of our establishment?

Or if we do, why doesn’t the King change the tradition and place a working class family in the line up too? (Yes I am being serious …why not? ) All of these “historical traditions” were made up at some point presumably?

It’s all the attendant unspoken privilege that goes along with these appointments that worries me and how all of that privilege and influence trickles down in to the Lords and other institutions… .

I completely take your point, but for decades now these roles have been ceremonial only (highly unlikely to be paid!) and are part time, requiring the holder to don a uniform and attend various functions and undertake various ceremonial duties. So basically a part time commitment for someone who has their own income and sufficient leisure time to fit the commitments around their life.

The real roles with influence and impact are those in the Royal Household itself, which are paid, involve promotion and assessment and from and into which people often move in and out of the Civil Service. Those are available to people from diverse backgrounds, and presumably are the roles that most people will want.

(Tongue in cheek but I don’t think it’s stretching things too much to compare the Lord Great Chamberlain to a football team’s mascot. Highly visible, wears a uniform, has close proximity to the platers and the team and there to add to the excitement of the event…🤣)

Not necessarily all unpleasant.

I have nothing against the individuals concerned. I think it must be torturous being a member of the RF tbh.

Wills and Kate seem pretty ok to me!

Some of us genuinely would prefer a Republic though.

I think we are allowed to say that aren’t we?

And I think it’s ok to challenge the stories we are being fed on both sides of the argument!

@Onthenextcourt67 🤔 ??
How on earth is me saying that malicious gossip is unpleasant means that I'm trying to shut up republicans?? Bloody hell, that's a reach.
Believe what you want, have the politics that you want, but unfounded and malicious gossip is not acceptable in my opinion. You can be republican or royalist all you like, but do not accuse me of trying to shut down debate when I have done no such thing.

A sane post on here, @jeffgoldblum . Good point.

It isn’t a surprise though is it? @jeffgoldblum

As for unpleasant motives @Maireas? Not a surprise there either I’m afraid.

Nono of anyone's business except Kate's.

Exactly, @ArcaneWireless . I can't think why anyone would want to hurt a couple like that, and keep fanning the flames.

As ever, you make good points Serenster and YY to the mascot analogy 😃.

Incidentally, is it the Great Lord Chamberlain who has to walk backwards in front of the Monarch on various occasions? I must admit to quite enjoying that spectacle!

I agree that most of the roles are largely ceremonial. You will know better than me whether that holds true for most of the “great officers of state” we’ll see at the Coronation, but I am inclined to think it does?

I was thinking more about hereditary and life peers; take a figure such as Nicholas Soames who was mentioned earlier in the thread, who was both an equerry to the then POW and also a government minister and all of the “soft power” and influence residing in him. You know how it works - a whisper in someone’s ear - a matter put to bed … . It’s about access more than anything.

At the other end of the spectrum, struggling to think back to my secondary school history lessons; High Sheriffs are non-political and yet don’t they have civic duties despite being royal appointments?

And all the roles and titles in between? The Archbishops and Bishops who have the monarch’s ear and sit in the House of Lords? The ex military leaders?

I think it’s fair to say that the monarchy, without having political power, does have substantial soft power and influence that extends quite far through the establishment of the UK and beyond.

Perhaps it’s naive of me to wish it otherwise, but do we want our children growing up respecting wealth and privilege and connections above fairness, equality and merit?

I know a large part of the RF’s role is to support and initiate charities and good works and to represent the UK abroad, but I happen to think nowadays it is increasingly anachronistic to do that from a base of enormous privilege and wealth.

I think the time has come when an appointed Head of State, who has won the position on merit, would serve us better.

He is in breach of contract and the Official Secrets act, then.

Indeed,@Allthegoodnamesarechosen . Imagine being in that role and risking it all to spread malicious gossip. If it's true then he's an idiot.

Och I can. All about the froth. A little bit about agendas. Or vice versa.

So in the interest of joining in…

A large egg in my recently bought box of eggs, was laid by a chicken featured on Oprah.

The stories they have to say. It would make your hair curl. I fully believe them to be true.

Unfortunately I cannot provide proof as I poached it for the dog.

Same pish. Different but absolutely equally credible source.

I see. All is clear.....

Gosh, that’s a bit of a strong reaction Maireas!

I wasn’t specifically accusing you of shutting down debate. I was defending the right to discuss this in general.

I’m not someone who enjoys or indulges in malicious gossip as a rule. But I think this falls under the category of legitimate interest.

I explained why in my post of 0.06- it’s a little disingenuous to say that this issue is purely private - I think it is private in one sense only. In another though, the RF invite the public to witness and be involved in their births, marriages and deaths. It’s somewhat hypocritical therefore to expect that interest to abate in relation to other aligned matters, such as an affair, which could impact on the future of the institution.

I know what the right to debate is, @Onthenextcourt67 . I enjoy a good debate. Some people try to shut debate down, or get personal when they are unable to. This is not "legitimate interest". It's prurient and nasty and intended to hurt. There seems to be some sort of agenda.

Oh, and I've been invited to plenty of weddings - doesn't give me the right to spread unpleasant things about the couple.

Well we will have to respectfully agree to differ on that point Maireas.

I was trying to make a wider point about the Palace image makers and what is presented to us as fact, when none of us really know the truth.

I think Harry and Meghan frequently make the point that even if we've been invited to their wedding etc etc, privacy is privacy.
I think that is correct for William and Kate, too.

Pippa wouldn't have called her child born a year or so after, Rose. Would have been tainted surely?!