Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

Using t*mpongate as an insult

145 replies

tigger2022 · 05/05/2023 14:48

Ok I’m probably going to get piled on but whatever…

Does anyone feel a bit uncomfortable about the way some people casually drop in references from Camilla/Charles’s leaked telephone conversation as a drive-by insult? Or casually use it as a cruel nickname for them or something?

Having that leaked was such a violation, and when it’s referenced so callously to try and humiliate them it feels as ick to me as if people were quoting from leaked revenge porn or something.

OP posts:
LadyWithLapdog · 06/05/2023 09:59

LadyWithLapdog · 06/05/2023 08:06

You can’t un-know it. It’s such an unusual thing that it’s going to be remembered and, yes, ridiculed. I hear what you’re saying about victims of crime and all that, but it is what it is. It won’t be the punchline to any sophisticated jokes, but it will be there for a while to come.

@DanceMonster here’s what I said and, as you pointed out, it’s not complex and it’s fine to disagree.

DanceMonster · 06/05/2023 10:00

LadyWithLapdog · 06/05/2023 09:59

@DanceMonster here’s what I said and, as you pointed out, it’s not complex and it’s fine to disagree.

Show quote history

I know what you said. I told you multiple times that I’d read it.

spottybug · 06/05/2023 19:59

DanceMonster · 05/05/2023 15:15

I actually agree. They were the victims of a crime and I think it’s pretty tasteless to refer to it as a joke. It’s not the fact that it’s about tampons, joking about anything that was illegally leaked from a private conversation is a shitty thing to do. And I’m a massive republican who thinks the monarchy is a revolting institution, so my opinions on it have nothing to do with the people themselves.

I agree with this too tbh

luckylavender · 06/05/2023 21:31

wildinthecountry · 05/05/2023 15:21

I feel it's more the younger people who talk about tampon-gate really , for those of us who were around then it's ancient history . Most of us don't really care , except it was a huge invasion of privacy .

I was around then. I don't really agree with you.

Original poster
tigger2022 · 06/05/2023 23:18

Just to correct something because I think this is relevant: tabloids sat on the tapes for years because of concerns about the legality of how they were obtained. Charles and Camilla’s affair was already public knowledge by the time they were released because Diana had exposed it in the Andrew Morton book. Diana and Charles were already separated before the tapes were published. So the tapes weren’t exposing anything other than the salacious details of the sort of things C&C talk about when they think they are in private. If C&C had not been victims of phone hacking, their affair would still be public knowledge.

Also my main point is about people using it as a cheap joke or easy low blow. Right or wrong it’s a part of history that they were released so I am not suggesting they should never be spoken of (I mean I started a thread about them!!) but it’s more about using them purely to insult. It feels like participating in the violation.

OP posts:
LadyWithLapdog · 07/05/2023 07:01

OP, I read the tampon conversation happened in 1989, C & D separated December 1992 and the convo published Jan 1993 in Australia and then Jan 1993 in the Times. Considered of enough importance due to Charles being future head of Church. A very tight timeline between the events.

By all means, go ahead and tut and disapprove of uncouth jokes, but you’re on a hiding to nothing if you think this will go away. It’ll become less relevant, though the hypocrisy for the head of Church is forever there. You’re expected to look up to a flawed and hypocritical man.

SheikYerboutiii · 07/05/2023 07:26

Right or wrong it’s a part of history that they were released so I am not suggesting they should never be spoken of
So it’s part of history but a part that people aren’t allowed to use as evidence in a trial in case it jogs people’s memories of said part of history. Christ love, you’re all over the place pick a fucking Lane

Roussette · 07/05/2023 07:39

MrsFinkelstein · 06/05/2023 09:36

You don't want the public who have turned up, as well as all the visiting Heads of State to be protected?

All big events cost money for security. Unfortunately it's now a fact of modern life.

Show quote history

What a peculiar twisting of my words by you, nice try though!

I am talking of the Coronation happening at all. Or happening on such a grand scale.
You will know this from my previous posts I am sure. I recognise your name, I'm sure you have read previous posts by me, and nowhere do I even hint at not protecting the public.

He was already our King. It was a big party paid for by us... for him.
I am talking of the cost of the whole unnecessary event.

LadyWithLapdog · 07/05/2023 07:42

He’s been a king since his mummy died. The spectacle yesterday was the knees-up we paid for.

LadyWithLapdog · 07/05/2023 07:43

am I on the right thread this? 😂

Inkpotlover · 07/05/2023 08:26

tigger2022 · 06/05/2023 23:18

Just to correct something because I think this is relevant: tabloids sat on the tapes for years because of concerns about the legality of how they were obtained. Charles and Camilla’s affair was already public knowledge by the time they were released because Diana had exposed it in the Andrew Morton book. Diana and Charles were already separated before the tapes were published. So the tapes weren’t exposing anything other than the salacious details of the sort of things C&C talk about when they think they are in private. If C&C had not been victims of phone hacking, their affair would still be public knowledge.

Also my main point is about people using it as a cheap joke or easy low blow. Right or wrong it’s a part of history that they were released so I am not suggesting they should never be spoken of (I mean I started a thread about them!!) but it’s more about using them purely to insult. It feels like participating in the violation.

You've contradicted yourself! You started the thread by saying it's deplorable that people casually use it as a reference but now you're saying it's a part of history, whatever the crap that means, so of course it can be referenced. Yet as you say yourself, it can't be referenced without 'participating in the violation'! Why are you backtracking on what was a valid point?

And to suggest that it was okay it was released because the press sat on it for years is ridiculous. It was a private conversation that was illegally obtained and if it happened now that transcript would never see the light of day. As is right.

I just wish people would quote it accurately if they are going to quote it.

Original poster
tigger2022 · 07/05/2023 08:40

Inkpotlover · 07/05/2023 08:26

You've contradicted yourself! You started the thread by saying it's deplorable that people casually use it as a reference but now you're saying it's a part of history, whatever the crap that means, so of course it can be referenced. Yet as you say yourself, it can't be referenced without 'participating in the violation'! Why are you backtracking on what was a valid point?

And to suggest that it was okay it was released because the press sat on it for years is ridiculous. It was a private conversation that was illegally obtained and if it happened now that transcript would never see the light of day. As is right.

I just wish people would quote it accurately if they are going to quote it.

Show quote history

There is no contradiction - I think I was pretty clear in what the thread is about, I have clarified it several times, and loads of other people have understood perfectly well so I am not going to repeat myself over and over for your benefit.

OP posts:
DanceMonster · 07/05/2023 09:15

Inkpotlover · 07/05/2023 08:26

You've contradicted yourself! You started the thread by saying it's deplorable that people casually use it as a reference but now you're saying it's a part of history, whatever the crap that means, so of course it can be referenced. Yet as you say yourself, it can't be referenced without 'participating in the violation'! Why are you backtracking on what was a valid point?

And to suggest that it was okay it was released because the press sat on it for years is ridiculous. It was a private conversation that was illegally obtained and if it happened now that transcript would never see the light of day. As is right.

I just wish people would quote it accurately if they are going to quote it.

Show quote history

That’s not what the OP said. She was (I think) responding to the posters justifying it’s release on the grounds that it put the affair into the public eye; this is not true, the affair was already known about at the time of release. I believe the point the OP is making is that there was no justification for its release to the public and the sole aim was humiliation, not awareness.

LadyEloise1 · 07/05/2023 09:18

OMG Shock @Sudeko re your post on Friday at 18.07
I've only just seen it.

Inkanta · 07/05/2023 09:19

The affair wasn't public knowledge and no one knew the Morton book had Diana's blessing, prior to this.

Likewhatever · 07/05/2023 09:46

It’s always misquoted. What he actually said is that it would be just his luck to come back as a Tampax. Camilla then carried on the analogy.. What struck me about that conversation was not the mention of a Tampax but how completely inane it was. Still should’ve stayed private though. Tasteless joke in the conversation, tasteless to endlessly repeat and misquote it. So yes, OP, I agree with you.

Inkanta · 07/05/2023 10:03

He’s been a king since his mummy died
Mama.

Sudeko · 07/05/2023 10:20

Likewhatever · 07/05/2023 09:46

It’s always misquoted. What he actually said is that it would be just his luck to come back as a Tampax. Camilla then carried on the analogy.. What struck me about that conversation was not the mention of a Tampax but how completely inane it was. Still should’ve stayed private though. Tasteless joke in the conversation, tasteless to endlessly repeat and misquote it. So yes, OP, I agree with you.

I don't think that is normal banter. He is strange and creepy which is not surprising looking at most men in his family.

Likewhatever · 07/05/2023 19:52

I don't think that is normal banter. He is strange and creepy which is not surprising looking at most men in his family.

Strange and creepy is a bit harsh, I think it was perhaps a strange thing to say but it was never intended to become public. Diana’s Squidgy-gate phone call was equally embarrassing so he wasn’t alone. People do say daft things to their loved ones, mostly no-one else gets to hear them.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread