Okay , I'm just going to say it... where is Kate Middleton?

[Tuesdayalready]

(or for the MN purists, Catherine) The most high profile and popular member of royal family has not been seen since Christmas. I do think it's quite strange and so many rumours from the foreign press. And before anyone starts jumping down my throat about her having hysterectomy / crohns / ad infimum / I've had both a hysterotomy and half my intestine removed and was back in work within a 8 weeks.

The one about James II's queen was very well aimed, I have to admit - one of the men who was claimed to be the father of her child was the Papal Nuncio - who was called Count D'Adda. And these weren't just broadsheets being sold in the street, copies found their way into the palace and into the royals' private rooms for them to find.

And one ballad when Mary II died openly called for William to do the country a favour and die as well. Deference my foot.

Is that me you are describing as pearl clutching?

I don’t remember anything you are talking about because I think twitter is nasty so I stay away from it. I’m sure we wouldn’t be on reading the same feeds anyway.

The few voices who've said over and over that it's nasty to 'spread those rumours' are being well and truly drowned out - to the extent that they are probably having to acknowledge to themselves that a few unpleasant rumours are in fact true.

Hang on - so if enough people amplify a rumour on social media, despite the fact that there has never been a shred of actual evidence to support it (but plenty that undermines it) that gossip on social media actually makes it more likely to be true? That’s quite the proposition! 🤣

Sound and fury signifying nothing is the same, no matter whether the volume is dialled to 2 or 11.

I think the royals have largely ignored The Windsors, The Crown, the Gary Janetti show, Southpark, Have I got news for You etc etc too, Novella4

It has been said that the great, or not so great, British tabloids have their origins in these often scurrilous broadsheets and pamphlets mocking the royals. Deferential? I don't think so.

That's so not true though?

Edward II was very much NOT secure, he was under threat of excommunication at one point and his Barons famously made him exile Gaveston and eventually deposed him

Henry VIII, NOT in the slightest bit secure, papal bulls of excommunication, Holy Roman Emperor threatening to invade, years without a clear heir which is why his council had him constantly under pressure to keep marrying even though he didn't realy want to marry again after Jane Seymour

Elizabeth II was in some ways the more secure out of all the monarchs I mentioned, the nearest her reign came to tottering was after Diana's death and even then not much really (pace Alistair Campbell)

You make a false distinction between 'satire' and the 'media' - I am talking about ALL forms of popular demotic communication

You also make a grave error in dismissing events as being 'centuries ago' as though that makes them irrelevant. 7 centuries is literally a blink of an eye in the history of human civilisation. We are neurologically exactly the same.

I see you are focussing on centuries ago - the monarchy could then choose to ignore the satire as they were ‘above it all’ and relatively secure

That is no longer the case - which no doubt explains the uneasy deals with the tabloids*

There were no deal with the tabloids in previous centuries because there weren't any. All the chipping and jibing at the royals came in popular culture - ballads and broadsheets published underground and carried around the country by pedlars and travellers; when it didn't emanate from the court itself, that was.

(And tell Edward II, Charles I and James II that they were 'secure).'

Tabloids are not driving this obsession with where the PoW is. They've been quiet and just reporting what KP says because they've learned the lessons of August 1997 and know they went too far that time. And that if they go too far this time there goes their access when the royals DO want something known.

Hang on - so if enough people amplify a rumour on social media, despite the fact that there has never been a shred of actual evidence to support it (but plenty that undermines it) that gossip on social media actually makes it more likely to be true? That’s quite the proposition! 🤣

Oh come on. You know there's THE truth and then there's MY truth, doncha?

That's absolutely fair but only if you're correct that there's not a shred of evidence to support what's being said. I don't think you are correct in that, hence me thinking that it's a good thing for facts to be known and aired rather than the public being fed fake stories.

What are the facts that need to be aired and what are the fake stories we're being fed?

George IV, who was Regent for his father for the decade up to 1820 was absolutely savaged by popular caricaturists, Cruikshank in particular, as the obese, elderly buffoon with a penchant with obese women. So impactful were these that they still overshadow any historic view of “Prinny” 200 years on.

You know if there was evidence that the papers could stand up, they would have run with the story though? And they have told us they have been trying to get evidence for this story for years now. And in a world of tabloids, chequebook journalism and everybody carrying a discreet camera with them at all times, there is still no published story beyond “rumours exist”. Which is not the same thing at all.

They're humans. I respect their right to a private life.

It’s good Twitter can have its uses and point out William wasn’t even handed regarding football teams.

It was also been useful in helping highlight that Meghan bullied staff.

But it’s also a mess of a platform. The lunatics are running the asylum. I don’t think anyone has said no one should tweet about any royal, just it crosses the line too frequently and becomes a frenzy. It’s the platform of edge lords run by king edge lord himself. The stuff about Meghan faking her pregnancies and Kate being an alcoholic are just beyond the pale for most sane people

(Loving all the history fans’ posts on the thread, by the way!)

Lizards who won't lend lip gloss and have disagreements about bridesmaids dresses. Bastards.

😂

Also, @Serenster and @MrsDanversGlidesAgain - Spitting Image! I remember how they portrayed Andrew as a boor, Fergie as grasping and called Charles "The Ear to the Throne". His puppet actually had ears that flapped!
Hardly deferential.
You know what? They said nothing.

That the ‘royals’ ignore it wasn’t exactly my point .
Firstly I don’t believe they do ignore it - didn’t Ryanair for example get a phone call after one their tweets ? The crown is hardly satire - if anything , the little I saw was flattering .
What do you suggest they do about a US to programme ?
But my point was centuries ago the ‘royals’ could afford to ignore criticism and satire because there was little question about the place of the monarchy
They can’t now . They are already on shaky ground and there isn’t a lot they can do about that because the entire edifice they have built is out of time - in both senses of the phrase

I'm a big fan of Blackadder and his dealings with the monarchs.

I can’t possibly agree with you, @ToffeeTalk . How is one to sort the truth from rumour, or malicious rumour? I’m sure you’ve seen the strange or unpleasant rumours about Meghan and Harry? Do you subscribe to there’s no smoke without fire?

The royals are one thing - but what about politics? Riots, nay revolutions, have been started by those with bad intent getting the social media ball rolling. Elections will be subject to the same dark forces.

Even on a small level, if enough people in year 10 are sharing that Sophie shagged Sam… is that the truth that must be out in the open, or a devastating rumour begun by a nasty kid?

But my point was centuries ago the ‘royals’ could afford to ignore criticism and satire because there was little question about the place of the monarchy

Maaaayyyybe so, but there was a LOT of question about who / which family should comprise the monarchy. Many more pretenders / legit claimants / rival claimants. I'd say the House of Windsor Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is WAY more secure than the House of Tudor, for example. The House of Tudor had about 5 legit rival claimants at various points (and I don't even include the Plantagenet branches in that!); the House of Windsor Saxe-Coburg-Goth has none.

But my point was centuries ago the ‘royals’ could afford to ignore criticism and satire because there was little question about the place of the monarchy

That wasn't your original point though was it?

Your point was that there used to be an 'age of deference' when the media refrained from criticising the royals. As many of us have pointed out, such an age has never existed.

No you have misunderstood
I said age of deference in the media Technically Howgarthian ( I prefer Swift myself) satire is media. But most people think of ‘media’ as modern .

In fact now that I think about it there probably was much more a push to use the mass media by the royals in the early and mid 20th century - the UK has been using propaganda for a long time .

The Royal Family have never, ever been above satire, criticism and mockery.