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?

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

I'd prefer the 'private' collections of art and stamps to be properly collated then absorbed into the Royal Collection and made freely available for expert study along with viewing in public exhibitions.

The opacity surrounding the treatment of gifts is astounding.

I was going to write, “walk me through this”.

Why is cash so terrible?

So you think you own these people and they are not allowed to have anything that belongs solely to them?

Hopefully paper… If it was given in pennies I’d take it as an insult

Don’t know where it ends but in the case of the museums in Britain it has already begun. Countries are asking for their stuff back. And some of it has been returned already.

So you think you own these people and they are not allowed to have anything that belongs solely to them?

They do exceptionally nicely out of the nation even without the chance to filch rare items under rules they themselves have made up.

It'd be nice to see them share a bit more when an awful lot of this stuff is just mouldering in storage but I'm not holding my breath.

Do you have any ideas as to how you would want them "to share a bit more when an awful lot of this stuff is just mouldering in storage". Do you mean you want the RF to sell stuff and give the money to the government of the day to spend on 'the people', or put artefacts on show, where members of the public can visit and look at them?

Most of them are. The jewels in The Guardian article that was posted earlier as an example of them "stealing" them were all put on public display. There is also a transparent process for requesting to view them.

It'd destroy the Coinstar machine in Asda for sure.

Do you have any ideas as to how you would want them "to share a bit more

As I've already said upthread:

I'd prefer the 'private' collections of art and stamps to be properly collated then absorbed into the Royal Collection and made freely available for expert study along with viewing in public exhibitions.

The jewels in The Guardian article that was posted earlier as an example of them "stealing" them were all put on public display.

Yes. That's why I specifically referred to the art and stamps.

They might put them on public display, they are still claiming them as their private property. So they control who has access and can sell them if they want to.
The Queen sold expensive horses gifted to her as head of state.

And even had the cheek to push the hosts to provide her with them. They really are shameless grifters. All of them - 2 electric bars on the fire my arse !

Two horses fit for a queen, please.

That’s what Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II had asked for as a gift during her state visit to Germany in 1978, weekly Der Spiegel reported Monday.

The expensive present raised eyebrows among German bureaucrats at the time, who noted that the Holsteiner and the gray Elizabeth requested cost more than any other offering made to a visiting head of state since the end of World War II.

Nevertheless, Germany’s then-President Walter Scheel approved the gift in the interests of good bilateral relations, Der Spiegel reported citing previously confidential archive papers.

https://apnews.com/article/germany-britain-royal-visit-queen-elizabeth-charles-7e1edcad174ae955584734de9642c1f7

CathyorClaire · 19/08/2023 19:32
Do you have any ideas as to how you would want them "to share a bit more

As I've already said upthread:

I'd prefer the 'private' collections of art and stamps to be properly collated then absorbed into the Royal Collection and made freely available for expert study along with viewing in public exhibitions.

But they are open for expert study. I know historians who have had access to the Royal Archive.
And doesn't Buck Palace open regularly, with displays of clothing and art? You can also tour Windsor Castle.

Has anyone written to the Palace and suggested that next year one of the places which opens has an exhibition of the stamps? I'm assuming that Windsor Castle and Kensington Palace and Buckingham Palace are all open for part, if not all of the year. BP just a short time, I know.

But they are open for expert study. I know historians who have had access to the Royal Archive.
And doesn't Buck Palace open regularly, with displays of clothing and art? You can also tour Windsor Castle.

As stated I'm talking specifically about art and stamps although I've no doubt the historians don't have access to anything in the archive sealed or sensitive (Philip's will for instance) just as they won't have access to the private collections.

Buckingham Palace and Winsor cost £££ to enter and the numbers being herded along involved means there's little opportunity for in-depth study even of the royal collection (owned by the monarch in trust for the nation) paintings the royals haven't decided are for their eyes only:

The masterpieces kept in royal palaces out of sight of British public | Art | The Guardian

Also worth noting how hard it is to track the publicly available things down in the first place.

But they are open for expert study. I know historians who have had access to the Royal Archive.

Access to the archive seems to depend on the number of hoops said experts are willing or able to jump through:

Access (rct.uk)

I’ not aware of any substantial library or archive collection that doesn’t have access terms and conditions?

I’ not aware of any substantial library or archive collection that doesn’t have access terms and conditions?

Please can you provide some examples from private collections belonging to families maintained by the public purse?

Please can you provide some examples from private collections belonging to families maintained by the public purse?

Of course - Winston Churchill’s archives. Obviously, as PM for many years he was publicly funded, and his role as wartime PM is why his records were regarded as of national importance.

The Churchill Collection include archives owned by the National Trust (publicly funded) and loaned to the wider Churchill archive at Churchill College, Cambridge. You can’t just walk in and and look through them, though. And they no longer let people see the originals.

(Helpfully though, like the Royal Collection, they have been wording on a project to digitise the collection, to make it more accessible)

CathyorClaire · Yesterday 20:10
As stated I'm talking specifically about art and stamps although I've no doubt the historians don't have access to anything in the archive sealed or sensitive (Philip's will for instance).

That's fine - I wouldn't ask any family to make public sensitive letters, diaries etc of living people, their parents, or even their grandparents.
We really don't have a divine right to know all current scandals. Historians can wait.

The key word here being ‘family’ .

So the point is being misunderstood - deliberately or otherwise.

The Churchill FAMILY is not maintained by the state .
The Windsors are, hence the problem!

Windsors are effectively taking what fancy when in fact such gifts belong to us , the state .

Sound familiar ?

And anyone who thinks for one moment that it is just a matter of a bit of paperwork for historians to gain access , I ask you to look up the historian Andrew Lowry and his battle to reveal some truths about Mountbatten ( or dear Dickie, to the ‘royals’)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/03/mountbattens-biographer-claims-he-has-been-spied-on-by-the-british-state

Of course - Winston Churchill’s archives.

Churchill and his family weren't funded by the public from cradle to grave nor was he given the profit from national assets as private income.

The Churchill Collection include archives owned by the National Trust (publicly funded)

The NT is a charity raising its own funds and supplemented by grants which they have to apply for year after year.

We really don't have a divine right to know all current scandals. Historians can wait.

I disagree but that sentiment suits the royals just fine.

Windsors are effectively taking what fancy when in fact such gifts belong to us , the state

Exactly this.

.

I don’t think there is an analogue in the UK then, as your are describing a unique category there. Unique categories do tend to have their own rules.

It might be more appropriate than to compare other countries with monarchies. In both Denmark and Sweden for example, there are the Royal Archives (stored with the rest of the the National Archive collections and accessible on the same terms as them) and the Royal Family’s archives, which are private and only accessible with special permission.

Unique categories do tend to have their own rules.

Yet we know that royal 'rules' can become very fluid if and when it suits.

If we're comparing monarchies and access this quote on royal art collections from the article I linked above is quite an eye-opener:

Similar collections in France, Spain, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark have been largely ceded to state ownership and to palaces open to the public, or to more freely accessible national museums, either by revolution or by mutual agreement.

Similar collections in France, Spain, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark have been largely ceded to state ownership and to palaces open to the public, or to more freely accessible national museums, either by revolution or by mutual agreement.

Yes - Oliver Cromwell sold Charles’ I large and valuable collection of artworks after he had him executed!