QEII would never have let this s**t show happen!?

[OliviaBean]

I didn't always agree with how she dealt with things, particularly Andrew but since she passed away, it seems no one is at the wheel.

I don't think Charles is strong enough to deal with them all.

H&M are monetising away, Kate seems to have said f*k it and f*k conforming (good for her) and William, god knows what he's playing at.

I just can't imagine the current situation would have occurred if QE was alive.

You mean the media tantrum that Kate and Meghan aren't playing by their rules?

How dare Kate refuse to be seen in public so that the press can monetise her?

And how outrageous that Meghan wants to raise money to fund her lifestyle.

@Stringagal some theories are obviously nonsense. But if people could in the late 80s have posted on MN about Diana and William splitting up, lots would have said that was nonsense and would never happen. I remember some people expressing disbelief that it could be true Charles was having an affair with Camilla, because why would Charles choose Camilla over Diana. But he did.

A silly photo was released which is a bit embarrassing.

More than ‘a silly photo’ ’a bit embarrassing.’

Major News Agency Says Kensington Palace Is “Absolutely Not” a Trusted Source After Photo Debacle Agence France-Presse will now rigorously review photos released by the Prince and Princess of Wales. - Harper’s Bazaar March 14, 2024

And:

Asked if Kensington Palace can maintain its reputation as a “trusted source” following the photo controversy, Chetwynd [Global News Director] said, “Absolutely not. Like with anything, when you’re let down by a source, the bar is raised and we’ve got major issues internally as to how we validate that photo. We shouldn’t have done [it], it violated our guidelines, and therefore we sent out notes to all our team at the moment to be absolutely super more vigilant about the content coming across our desk, even from what we would call trusted sources.”

“Talking about the line between acceptable and unacceptable photo edits, Chetwynd said, “One thing that’s really important is that you cannot be distorting reality for the public. ... The big issue here is one of trust and the lack of trust of the general public in institutions generally and in the media. So it’s extremely important that a photo does represent broadly the reality that it’s in, and therefore it is not in a sense telling some kind of lie or some kind of false truth around an event that happens.”

I feel sorry for Kate. I really do. I don’t understand how they let her be the ‘fall guy’ for this. The RF have history of not protecting the women who marry in.

^^
^^

I agree that Kate is being hung out to dry here.

She did have her "annus horribulus" too but she dealt with everything with dignity, always putting on her Public/ Royal face to the people. She was also quite private, none of this airing her dirty linen in public whatsoever. One thing I heard she apparently did say that was very sad - when that vile pair in California named their child "Lilibet", the Queen apparently said, "I don't own anything. I don't own the palaces, the paintings or the jewels. All i had was my (nick)name and they've even taken that"... If true that's heartbreaking...but i digress.

And that was where the current madness started. I lived right in the middle of central London then, and people lost their minds. Crying in the street. A book of condolence in Tesco effing Metro. Trainloads of ghouls arriving to look at flowers. It was nuts. The performative grief! I can’t believe that most of them were so publicly grief-stricken when members of their own family died. The cult of celebrity is madness. Care about the people you actually know.

Yes, releasing a photo that was actually a composite of other ones or whatever was silly and embarrassing. Still not serious though. So news agencies won't trust photos from them anymore? OK. So? They will though because the pictures sell papers.

Asked if Kensington Palace can maintain its reputation as a “trusted source” following the photo controversy, Chetwynd [Global News Director] said, “Absolutely not. Like with anything, when you’re let down by a source, the bar is raised and we’ve got major issues internally as to how we validate that photo.

I'm fairly sure the agencies will manage to hold their noses and print KP images in future if they can make money out of it.

I don't know, the whole thing around Diana's death was handled pretty terribly until Tony Blair stepped in.

But I agree we haven't seen them handle things quire this badly before. For me, that's the story now. The PR disaster is much more interesting than "where's Kate?". (Recovering after an operation).

I don’t believe a word of it, not least because it’s not true. Tabloid mawkishness. HMQ owned Balmoral and Sandringham, and their estates and contents, personally, and the Queen’s privy purse, at a minimum. Neither was she given to that sort of emotional talk, at least where anyone who might repeat it would hear.

@Citrusandginger No the press agencies destroy their reputation if they publish fake photos. They will of course publish photos from the palace that are not faked.

She didn't stop Charles and Camilla and the tampons, Andrew, It's a Royal Knockout, Diana to name but a few....

, the Queen apparently said, "I don't own anything. I don't own the palaces, the paintings or the jewels. All i had was my (nick)name and they've even taken that"... If true that's heartbreaking...but i digress.

That didn’t happen. The Queen had enormous private wealth. And lived a luxurious lifestyle and had probably the most expensive sporting interests possible - she owned a stable of thoroughbred racing horses (I believe Charles sold the racehorses when he inherited?)

@Overtheatlantic yes I know she was.

But what I mean is the everyday people didn't have access or expect access to her 24/7 and /or to rile each other up across the internet over her expected non-appearance. It might have been mentioned on the news but that's all. It's the 24/7ness of it thats different and the fact we feel closer to famous people. They make videos/tiktoks/teams calls from inside their houses whereas before people only had access to proper press photos,

I mean I like the Royal Family as imperfect as they are but I would have just seen a bulletin on the news that she was having an Op and I wouldn't have thought anything else of it, whereas I've found myself reading lots of the posts on here and occasionally taking part.

If there are ill people as we have been told, what would the queen do differently? Didn't the people around her make decisions anyway? If there's infidelity then that happened on her watch. I don't think you can avoid illness all the time.

Zara and her husband are also monetising. People have bills to pay.

“For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?”

She would know exactly what's expected. If she is responsible she did it on purpose so people could question things more, the ring etc.

It wouldn't be 'heartbreaking' if she said that; it would be crass, untrue, tone-deaf and self-indulgent to an unbearable degree. She owned an enormous amount, and passed it on to her heir without inheritance tax. She made sure the Royal Family's wealth kept increasing and that she could keep it private and out of public scrutiny as they got richer and richer. The idea of her saying that all she owned was her name is grotesque. I very much doubt she did!

Oh come on you must be too young to remember the 90s! This is just a bit of a blip compared to that era!

That's what I thought but even if she didn't say it, it's true that you just don't name your kid another family member's NICKNAME. If that was reported in a thread on here with the Op saying that had happened in their family, people would be raging. However, that toxic pair have absolutely no class and are poison so it's pretty much all you would expect from them. The Queen was still the last of the Royals to conduct herself with dignity and present as a real Monarch.

So lets hate on Harry and Meghan again then? Same old same. They left four years ago. Let it go.

@Bbq1 ", "I don't own anything. I don't own the palaces, the paintings or the jewels. All i had was my (nick)name and they've even taken that"... "

If she said that I have even less respect for her than I did before. But obviously she didn't.

You don’t know any of them. Judging someone’s character without knowing them is prejudice. I can’t even imagine how you’d feel if you were subject to such character assassination on the basis of someone in the street’s impression of you, and it was then promulgated online.

What is a real monarch? A real monarch is the person who holds the title. People have different personalities and priorities. The crucial thing is that none of it actually affects you. All of this fuss is so pointless. What do you all want to happen here? What’s the outcome all the conspiracists are looking for?

Do you honestly believe every photo press agencies put out is genuine?

I mean it was pretty daft to put out a cut & paste job & call it a photo, but I'm finding the - we can't possibly print that - hyperbole a bit much.

@Bbq1 "The Queen was still the last of the Royals to conduct herself with dignity and present as a real Monarch."

What- asking for donations to rebuild Windsor? Supporting Andrew? Condoning Charles's affair?