Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Privacy Only For Working Royals.

79 replies

WhatAreThey · 29/02/2024 17:52

“If you have 1% of public funding then we can claim public interest, we can invade your privacy on everything because you have public funds supporting you”.

It's not clear why Kate's hospital stay (and the usual visits of her family/friends) would be so much more shrouded in secrecy than the King's.

“This is the same woman who was doing a photo op in full hair/makeup holding her newborn within 24 hours of each of her children's births.” She visited the Sarah Everad incident location with cameras in tow.

Charles was very publicly seen entering and leaving, with his wife also making multiple public visits. Kate was not seen receiving many visits except once from William, but this was to protect her privacy, she was of course in communication with her family and they had other ways of entering the hospital where she was staying.

Charles recently been diagnosed with cancer has not disappeared from public life.

Thomas Kingston's cause of death not yet revealed but many don't expect it to be a secret.

Only Kate and William are to be accorded full privacy as and when inspite of the tax payer funding them with the added esteem of Bentleys and diamonds.

This Forbes article closes with:
The reason for Kate Middleton’s prolonged absence might be melodramatic or mundane, but no one trusts the Palace to tell the truth. The ‘Kate Middleton Is Missing’ Conspiracy Theory, Explained (forbes.com)

If Kate is able to sit up and smile, I believe that KP would have tweeted a carefully staged photo of it. Perhaps this is to help drive attention to her with a big unveiling and then lots of media coverage about how she has been missed and much loved.

In the mean time the Royal Rota is said to be getting restless with so few royals to feed on. Perhaps they should try to find the £80million worth of missing jewelry last worn by you know who!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2024/02/28/the-kate-middleton-is-missing-conspiracy-theory-explained/?sh=13f47e9823c6

OP posts:
Angrycat2768 · 05/03/2024 08:14

underthebun · 04/03/2024 20:08

Perhaps William, because of the Kings diagnosis, has realised that he could be King a lot sooner than he wanted/expected to be. He’s not ready. He has a young family. He wants to protect them. So in preparation for this role, he has decided to set the rules. He has decided that the press and/or social media won’t be allowed to dictate what information is released.

I agree with this, he's setting boundaries

If he is not ready to be King after 40 years, when will he be 'ready'? He will be a Constitutional Monarch. The only responsibility he will have is to make sure he spots any potential legislsation that may mean he or his family have to do something they don't want to do (comply with environmental, tax and race equality laws) and get exemptions in place before they go to Parliament. Him and Harry are the same. Both of them want the wealth, unearned influence and power without any press scrutiny. The days when the Royals could do what they want without anyone telling anyone anything are long gone. If William doesn't want it, he can say that George won't be King, and force us to think of something else.

EdithWeston · 05/03/2024 08:30

He can't say that George won't be King.

He can, like Duke of Windsor, abdicate for himself and any children who are yet to be born.

But an actual person can only make the choice for themselves, once they come of age. So there is nothing William can do to stop George becoming king, but he can make that happen as far in to the future as possible by not abdicating.

Charles won't abdicate either, but he might retire and then we have William as Prince Regent

Angrycat2768 · 05/03/2024 09:30

EdithWeston · 05/03/2024 08:30

He can't say that George won't be King.

He can, like Duke of Windsor, abdicate for himself and any children who are yet to be born.

But an actual person can only make the choice for themselves, once they come of age. So there is nothing William can do to stop George becoming king, but he can make that happen as far in to the future as possible by not abdicating.

Charles won't abdicate either, but he might retire and then we have William as Prince Regent

Really, so despite Parliament being supreme, he can't ask Parliament to enact legislation that dissolves the Monarchy? With a possible 40 year run up? How about saying George will be the last King, and giving us a possible 80 years to disentangle everything? I don't think it will happen, but they aren't even willing to downsize to a European style Monarchy in return for more privacy, so that leads me to believe he absolutely wants to be King, and he absolutely wants to keep the Monarchy in its present form going for as longcas possible. What he doesn't want are any down sides. Including work it seems.

EchoChamber · 05/03/2024 09:33

Sometimes I think people will only be appeased if she invites the press in to photograph her in her nightie looking rough, holding up a colostomy bag or whatever. It’s absolutely sick.

ColleenDonaghy · 05/03/2024 09:43

EchoChamber · 05/03/2024 09:33

Sometimes I think people will only be appeased if she invites the press in to photograph her in her nightie looking rough, holding up a colostomy bag or whatever. It’s absolutely sick.

Nah that'll still be a coverup for a failed marriage or something. There is no appeasing.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 05/03/2024 09:45

Really, so despite Parliament being supreme, he can't ask Parliament to enact legislation that dissolves the Monarchy? With a possible 40 year run up? How about saying George will be the last King, and giving us a possible 80 years to disentangle everything?

Leaving aside the impossibility of legislating for a situation in 80 years time, surely if PW can ask Parliament to do that (can he actually ask them to do that?) then surely George when he becomes king can just ask Parliament to reverse it.

Geebray · 05/03/2024 11:00

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 05/03/2024 09:45

Really, so despite Parliament being supreme, he can't ask Parliament to enact legislation that dissolves the Monarchy? With a possible 40 year run up? How about saying George will be the last King, and giving us a possible 80 years to disentangle everything?

Leaving aside the impossibility of legislating for a situation in 80 years time, surely if PW can ask Parliament to do that (can he actually ask them to do that?) then surely George when he becomes king can just ask Parliament to reverse it.

Indeed. Because no government is allowed to enact anything that can't be changed by a future government.

Think about it - all one govt would have to do is get a large majority then pass a vote on "We will rule in perpetuity".

stayathomer · 05/03/2024 11:02

I thought it was horrendous that she had to stand and smile for photos after having a baby. If someone has been in the hospital leave them as long as they need. Same with aftercare

Ratsoffasinkingsauage · 05/03/2024 11:04

Indeed @EchoChamber These topics bring out the very worst in people. It really reveals how spiteful and disgusting some people are at their core.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The things people says about others are a deep reflection on themselves and really no reflection on the person they are discussing. Some poster on here would do well to take a moment to remember that.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 05/03/2024 12:52

Think about it - all one govt would have to do is get a large majority then pass a vote on "We will rule in perpetuity"

Could all get very Handmaid's Tale very fast.

CwmYoy · 05/03/2024 12:56

Dear God, OP. Please stop it you sound ridiculous and very silly.

Not your business.

ChimneyPot · 05/03/2024 12:58

EdithWeston · 05/03/2024 08:30

He can't say that George won't be King.

He can, like Duke of Windsor, abdicate for himself and any children who are yet to be born.

But an actual person can only make the choice for themselves, once they come of age. So there is nothing William can do to stop George becoming king, but he can make that happen as far in to the future as possible by not abdicating.

Charles won't abdicate either, but he might retire and then we have William as Prince Regent

Does converting to Catholicism and getting the kids confirmed in the Catholic Church still work to take them all out of the line of succession if he is so inclined?

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 05/03/2024 12:59

CwmYoy · 05/03/2024 12:56

Dear God, OP. Please stop it you sound ridiculous and very silly.

Not your business.

According to the OP's logic if you are at all funded by the taxpayer then you should expect no privacy because your life is a matter of public interest.

Pretty sure PI would wane damn fast when details of my 50% taxpayer funded existence became public.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 05/03/2024 13:02

ChimneyPot · 05/03/2024 12:58

Does converting to Catholicism and getting the kids confirmed in the Catholic Church still work to take them all out of the line of succession if he is so inclined?

Can marry an RC but not become an RC, according to this, so yes. That would be a constitutional upheaval to end them all if PW did that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32073399

Angrycat2768 · 05/03/2024 15:11

Geebray · 05/03/2024 11:00

Indeed. Because no government is allowed to enact anything that can't be changed by a future government.

Think about it - all one govt would have to do is get a large majority then pass a vote on "We will rule in perpetuity".

Why would they change it though, if its the will of the Monarch? Why would they want to force someone to do something they don't want to do? I would hope they would have better things to do if the Windsors decided they didn't want to be Monarchs than to reestablish a system best suited to running a country 500 years ago! As I said, the chances of it happening are remote, not least because they do want to be Monarchs, no matter how much they cry crocodile tears about how hard it is, and they do it for the sake of the country.

wordler · 05/03/2024 15:19

Angrycat2768 · 05/03/2024 09:30

Really, so despite Parliament being supreme, he can't ask Parliament to enact legislation that dissolves the Monarchy? With a possible 40 year run up? How about saying George will be the last King, and giving us a possible 80 years to disentangle everything? I don't think it will happen, but they aren't even willing to downsize to a European style Monarchy in return for more privacy, so that leads me to believe he absolutely wants to be King, and he absolutely wants to keep the Monarchy in its present form going for as longcas possible. What he doesn't want are any down sides. Including work it seems.

Edited

But none of that is up to William or Charles or George, it's up to us. The whole house of Windsor clan could take themselves out of the running and under the current rules we'd just have to find the next family in line and put them in place.

We have a parliamentary system which runs with a hereditary constitutional monarch as head of state. All we (our elected representatives) have to do is propose, and vote on a replacement system and with enough votes it goes through, and then with enough work it happens.

The current incumbents of the role don't get to decide the system for the rest of us - they just get to decide for themselves if they want to accept the role or not.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 05/03/2024 15:24

Why would they change it though, if its the will of the Monarch? Why would they want to force someone to do something they don't want to do?

  1. Because no parliament is allowed to enact something that can't be reversed by a future government
  2. Because you're arguing for an absolutist monarch who controls parliament and the last time that was tried ended rather badly.
  3. Because we have no idea that William doesn't want to be king. He can be looking forward to it while at the same time having ambivalent thoughts about it.

no matter how much they cry crocodile tears about how hard it is, and they do it for the sake of the country

Can you point out examples of when they've done this?

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 05/03/2024 15:28
  1. Because no parliament is allowed to enact something that can't be reversed by a future government

Reversed by a future parliament, not government.

EdithWeston · 05/03/2024 15:39

I was trying to work out who would be the next heir if the entire Windsor clan was somehow disqualified

George V founded the House of Windsor, so it would have to be the descendants of the next of his siblings to have issue still living - and I think that's David Carnegie, Duke of Fife

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 05/03/2024 15:42

EdithWeston · 05/03/2024 15:39

I was trying to work out who would be the next heir if the entire Windsor clan was somehow disqualified

George V founded the House of Windsor, so it would have to be the descendants of the next of his siblings to have issue still living - and I think that's David Carnegie, Duke of Fife

Now that's esoteric knowledge, @EdithWeston . How far down the line of succession would you have to go for a monarch if the Windsors were disqualified?

We could always turn to the Jacobites, I suppose. Oh no, Catholics.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 05/03/2024 15:45

I've just wikied him and I thing you're right - the highest person in line of succession who's not a descendant of George V.

EdithWeston · 05/03/2024 15:51

How much further down the line?

He's currently 81st
Then there are 6 of his descendants

Then it's King Harald of Norway and his descendants

mathanxiety · 05/03/2024 15:55

This is all very ghoulish and unbecoming.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 05/03/2024 15:56

mathanxiety · 05/03/2024 15:55

This is all very ghoulish and unbecoming.

What is? unbecoming to who?

wordler · 05/03/2024 15:56

mathanxiety · 05/03/2024 15:55

This is all very ghoulish and unbecoming.

Ghoulish? Unbecoming? What makes you say that?

Swipe left for the next trending thread