The sudden unusual turn on Princess Kate

[Whatt]

Today, I wanted to share something thought-provoking that has caught my attention recently - a noticeable change in the way the media portrays Kate Middleton.

Some publications that previously showed favor towards Kate (DM cough, cough) have started publishing stories that present her in a more critical light. It's an interesting shift.

Firstly, there's a story circulating about an encounter between Kate and a convicted murderer at a charity event. Additionally, there's talk of the taxpayer potentially providing support for her family's struggling business. This raises questions about the circumstances surrounding their business venture and the implications it may have for public funds.

What's intriguing is the parallel being drawn between Kate's current media treatment and the scrutiny faced by Meghan Markle in the past. It's worth discussing whether there's a connection or simply a coincidence.

Furthermore, there's some buzz on Twitter suggesting that Kate may have unintentionally upstaged the King during the Chelsea Flower Show. While it may seem like harmless gossip, it's interesting to consider the impact of such events on the monarchy's reputation. Some even speculate that Camilla might have been involved in the leak of these stories, adding an extra layer to the intrigue.

Taking a step back, it's worth pondering whether the monarchy should be concerned about being upstaged in this day and age. Are we witnessing a shift in priorities and expectations?

CathyorClaire · Today 13:39
surely there needs to be a tightened policy on royal gifts administered independently of the palace.
It's not good enough to leave the royals or their aides arbiters of what constitutes a gift to the state as opposed to a personal gift.

Are there gifts from foreign governments, royalties etc given to "the British State"? I've never heard of such. Surely gifts are given to the Royal on tour, or sent for an occasion, birth, marriage, or similar.

Can you give examples of gifts to the State which have been appropriated by the Royals?

That's why I asked if she'd acquired any of her husband's stamps. When it comes to the number of members of the RF really being German, as the comedy programmes still pull out, Queen Mary really was German-born, I believe. Princess May of Teck? Been on a hill near there, looked over at the Teck hill.

No, she was actually born in Kensington Palace. Her father was a German nobleman, her mother was a granddaughter of King George III.

Can you give examples of gifts to the State which have been appropriated by the Royals?

It's all in the link I posted above but:

King Charles renting out Edinburgh property given to mother in role as queen | Monarchy | The Guardian

The other royal collection: Windsors’ multimillion-pound private trove of art may include official gifts | Monarchy | The Guardian

Revealed: official gifts to royal family contained in £100m ‘private’ stamp collection | Monarchy | The Guardian

Official jewellery gifts to royals worth £80m are not in national collection | Queen Elizabeth II | The Guardian

The very best that can be said is the lines have been rather conveniently blurred in favour of the royals.

Thank you. I stand corrected.

CathyorClaire · Yesterday 20:06

Thank you for that.
At a brief glance it appears that the phrase seems to be "State gifts to the Monarch"
I take that to mean a gift from the State being visited to the visiting Monarch.

The various "Royal Collections" are very valuable, but I don't the RF selling bits off and pocketing the proceeds.
Various Royal Collections go on display at times, just like Collections in Museums.

Would you really prefer Royal Collections to be sold and the proceeds given to the Government, to be spent on "the People"?

I am really enjoying learning the history about the Royal Family from both sides of the camp. Is the fact about the royal family owning every horse true?

Also there seems to be a lot of flack about William and Kate not attending the women's World cup final.

No, @Whatt . They don't own every horse.

Since you ask the whole damn lot ! Loot acquired by the bloody hand of the sword and laundered through centuries of accrued made up 'tradition' and here we are a man, a funny hat and clothes and the invocation of the sky fairy 'God' as the cherry on top. It is literally all made up and like Georgina Meldrew never said, frankly I don't believe it. 😀

"God" save the "King". whales...

Now I'm going to look her up on Wiki, Maireas, and see if she ever lived at Tek/Teck.🙂

She never lived there! It was a title of her father's. She was minor British royalty, being the granddaughter of the Duke of Cambridge, who was a son of George III. She's quite an interesting character. I reas an interesting biography of her (Ben Pimplott, I think). She was engaged to the Duke of Clarence, then he died of the flu, so she was married off to his younger brother (later George V).

vera99 · Today 09:42
Since you ask the whole damn lot ! Loot acquired by the bloody hand of the sword and laundered through centuries of accrued made up 'tradition' and here we are a man, a funny hat and clothes and the invocation of the sky fairy 'God' as the cherry on top.

You haven't answered my question at all. You seem to be talking about stuff looted back in the days of Imperial expansion. Whether, and, what, in that category should be returned is a different question.
And talking about funny hats and sky fairies does your argument no favours.

Are you equally angry about the British Museum holding on to the Elgin Marbles?
Or is it only the RF who must give back gifts and purchases?

Since you ask and modern Greece both wants to and has the capacity to have them returned responsibly then yes. The word 'Elgin' should be in quotes as he is the thief. The correct terminology is Parthenon Sculptures now and while we're at it the Benin Bronzes should go back as well. A lot of the property is theft argument is that their assets have been seized and laundered over centuries and I wouldn't want wholesale nationalisation of their assets just an approach that would subject them particularly in the case of land and houses which can't be stuffed offshore to be subject to the same rules as us. If that means we National Trust a few of them then so be it.

Back to your post they seem to have nicked a fair few stamps. (see what I did there !)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/13/revealed-official-gifts-to-royal-family-contained-in-100m-private-stamp-collection

here we are a man, a funny hat and clothes and the invocation of the sky fairy 'God' as the cherry on top. It is literally all made up and like Georgina Meldrew never said, frankly I don't believe it. Oh my splitting sides

vera99 · Today 13:04
Since you ask and modern Greece both wants to and has the capacity to have them returned responsibly then yes. The word 'Elgin' should be in quotes as he is the thief.
I have no strong opinion on the Elgin marbles, but he wasn't a thief. The Turkish Sultan, who ruled Athens at the time, sold them (£35k is usually mentioned) and gave permission for them to be shipped to England.

Even The Guardian has to "weasel" around the stamps gift. They were a present to the Queen on her 90th birthday and added to her grandfather's stamp collection.
What would you have had her do with them? As far as I know the donor hasn't objected, and there is no Philatelic Museum.

I think that gifts given on official business should belong to the state, but the Guardian article also says that two of QE2's wedding gifts should belong to the state. Wedding gifts, even those given to a future queen, should be considered her personal property.

There is a set of guidelines about gift giving - it’s mainly to record and acknowledge gifts given officially as state gifts - similar to any head of state gifts we give to other countries. And to protect the royals against claims of quid pro quo from any gift giver who might send very valuable stuff to the various royals and then claim a special relationship because of it.

I think there’s some caveat about ‘prior personal relationships’ and specific occasions such as weddings or birthdays.

So a hefty wedding gift to a new royal couple from a foreign prince who’s a beloved distant cousin can be considered a personal gift, but the gold bars from evil dictator trying to buy influence in aristocratic circles is added to the ‘state gifts’ pile and put away somewhere.

It’s very difficult to police that line though, which is why there was so much confusion over the Saudi diamond earrings that Meghan wore and which category they belong in - personal gift to do what she wants with, or state gift to be diplomatically managed and kept in the UK.

Also royals are allowed to keep any gifts under the value of 150 pounds as personal gifts if they want to buy if they are given on a royal tour then they must still be recorded in a list.

The royal website as some hilarious lists of the huge amounts of stuff that gets pressed on the royals during those walkabouts - lots of framed photos of themselves - I wonder if there’s a place they keep them or just chuck them away.

@vera99 , had we had a world of equal distribution, there would be no artefacts, no historic palaces or stately homes or philanthropic buildings. No pyramids, Venetian palaces, Greek temples… Everything has come from someone higher up the food chain. Where does “giving things back” end?

Here’s the list for Sussexes trip to Australia in 2018 - they’d just announced the pregnancy so we’re inundated with baby stuff.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/the_duke_and_duchess_of_sussex_australia_fiji_tonga_and_new_zealand_october_2018.pdf

Buying stolen goods doesn't legitimise them but makes you a receiver of stolen goods. Had the Romans nicked Stonenhenge and shipped it off to Rome then I would be supporting a campaign to get them back and reinstalled in Salisbury Plain. Oh, and Cleopatra's Needle should go back as well.

The stamps could go to the Postal Museum with a regal apology or sold on the open market and the funds going to Royal charities, let's say. I imagine the Royal Household with the acquiescence of the monarch would stoutly resist any incursions on their private fiefdoms or question to their legitimacy lest they open a can of worms.

Okay here’s the official guidance re gifts

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media-packs/gifts_policy_2003.pdf

With Pol Pot at Year Zero if taken to extremes. In my dreams there will be a Royal Commission to look at abolition of the monarch and one of the workstreams will be private/public wealth. When it comes to the transition we will be generous if they go quietly and with good grace. Probably a house apiece but not a Royal Palace. Of course, it is highly unlikely to happen in my lifetime or if it did, it would be indicative of a very unhappy realm for sure, and I don't wish that.But it is part of national success that we can throw brickbats at the highest in the land. I do think there is an outside chance they may abolish themselves as frankly they may have had enough of living in glasshouses whilst vexatious malcontents seek to damage the panes.

I think we can all agree millions in cash in a carrier bag is beyond the pale. How about they said I'm sorry that's not the way we do business your Emir.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/25/prince-charles-is-said-to-have-been-given-3m-in-qatari-cash

I think we can all agree millions in cash in a carrier bag is beyond the pale.

No, we can’t actually! Cash transactions are red flag for money laundering but if due diligence checks are done, and the source of the funds and the donor verified, there is nothing wrong with them.