Sussex Whiplash

[ConstantGarden1]

Sometimes, all the different media outlets who purport to know the inner workings of all things Sussex can give me whiplash. One moment the Sussex duo are on the outs with everyone, hemorrhaging or devoid of influential friends, making no headway with Netflix, losing money, can’t afford their mortgage and claimed to no longer be relevant. Then Suits saw an upsurge in viewers - fantastic ratings on Netflix, the BBC buys Suits, Invictus is being promoted via Harry’s award and trips, he receives a heartfelt standing ovation, Meghan finishes filming a new Netflix series purportedly linked to a nascent commercial venture and a new podcast is set for next year.

‘Lonely’ Harry, as some will insist on writing, is also not something that rings true for me. He has too much charisma, energy, interests, causes and is a people person. I also cannot think of anyone who needs to say I am friends with x, y, and z on a regular basis for the benefit or not of strangers. We don’t know who they are friends with, really. Meanwhile, pundits continue to engage those interested in the couple with whatever they can attributing the information to some made up mysterious ‘sources’. I suspect their real friends are quietly keeping their own counsel. Especially, now they have seen the mutual pathological loathing that Harry and the tabloids have towards one another. Can’t say I blame them either.

Now there is this:

https://www.paleycenter.org/join-us/support-us/paleyhonors/

Frank A. Bennack, Jr., Chairman, Maureen J. Reidy, President & CEO

and

Tribute Chairs

Ariel Emanuel, Jon Feltheimer, Whoopi Goldberg, Taraji P. Henson, Matt Johnson, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Gayle King, Debra L. Lee, Mellody Hobson and George Lucas, Scott Mills, The Honorable Nicole Avant and Ted Sarandos, Kerry Washington, Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex

Invite You to

Cocktail Reception 6:30 pm
Dinner & Program 7:30 pm

The Beverly Wilshire Hotel
9500 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Cocktail Attire

Considering Whoopi G had less than favourable words for the couple I’d like to have been a fly on the wall at any meetings held. No doubt ‘netizens’ will have their microscopes to the ready to give us all their ‘insights’ regarding the events of the evening. No doubt I’ll get whiplash again when all their combined fingers hit the keyboards.

@Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar you're right, it was Thatcher. She was a good friend of Savile . I doubt very much she knew anything at all - she was many things, but she had a moral compass and was not an enabler. Thatcher put him on the Honours list, the late Queen would have no reason to question it.
It's a sordid and shocking episode and we can only hope lessons were learned.

Yes I remember her on Jim’ll Fix It 😬

He was a hugely popular, feel good, philanthropist at the time for all but those who had inside knowledge into his true self. I doubt he used his time with the leaders and influencers to show his dark side and burn his bridges. He would have saved that arrogance for the little people with no voice and no choice.

My FiL came across Savile through work and he said he always had young ladies with him and he felt he was a slimy bastard, but he had no idea of the depths of Savile’s depravity. I’m sure there were many who had their suspicions, but as you say, he hid in plain sight and was very skilled at deception. It sounds incredible now that no one sussed him out, but hindsight is a wonderful thing

My DH came across him through work too and thought he was " just a bit odd". I did point out he was not going to prey on a 6 foot rugby playing male journo. He was also aware that he had the keys to Broadmoor which he also found "a bit odd". I do find that incredible, even for the times.

As well as his multiple victims, I feel sorry for the likes of Frank Bruno, I think an entirely good hearted man who he manipulated into shaking hands with Peter Sutcliffe. So may people fell for the act, Royal and non Royal, hiding in plain sght indeed, although I hold the BBC responsible as I'm sure they knew quite a lot from an early stage.

Yes, he implicated a lot of people who were completely unaware. I remember at the time of Charles and Diana's separation, he offered to mediate and I remember people thinking it was a good idea!

I hold the BBC responsible as I'm sure they knew quite a lot from an early stage

I agree with this. I hold Esther Rantzen in particular contempt. She's on record as saying she'd heard rumours but felt as a junior reporter she couldn't do anything about them. The unforgivable part for me is that later on as a popular investigative journalist in her own right and founder of Childline she still did and said nothing even when there was still a possibility of holding Savile to account.

Sickening 😡

I saw that Louis Theroux in depth interview with Savile - I always thought Theroux knew more but didn't push it.
What's that phrase about evil and good people doing nothing?

Presumably it was Margaret Thatcher, who was a great friend of Saville, who had the one and only choice in the matter.

This bears repeating and the fact Charles was not the monarch at the time either so to put blame at his door is very unfair.

I always thought Theroux knew more but didn't push it.

I agree although I think he's now expressed regret for that?

John Lydon pushed it and got brutally sidelined for many years.

I do agree Thatcher's support for him is entirely inexplicable given she must have been privy to similar intel available to Charles.

It's all so murky 😡

@smilesy and @Uricon2 Ugh, got a little shiver down my spine reading your posts about your FIL/DH meeting him. Knowing what we know now, it's incredible that the man didn't exude pure evil - but I suppose if he had, he wouldn't have got away with what he did.

I think that Kate and William have tried to give their children a more average experience of life. They are surrounded by the glitz and glamour in a lot of their life, but their day to day life in Adelaide cottage seems more ‘normal’ than growing up in big castles surrounded by a retinue of servants.

I’vev wondered if they’ve chosen to do this because they feel it is a step towards something resembling a more normal (less royal) life style for their children.

I’m sure that’s why. They also don’t have live in staff so at the end of the day they can just be a normal family. Once William becomes King they’ll be forced to live differently so I’m sure they’re making the most of it while they can.

Is there anything you won’t blame Charles for? There were people who actually knew what was going on at the BBC they are the ones who should be held accountable, do you really think that Jimmy Saville would let his evil mask slip in front of royalty? he would have been charm personified Charles would have absolutely no idea that he was a child rapist, this point in your post is absolutely ridiculous and unfair, should he issue and apology for knowing and speaking to Rolf Harris as well? Maybe issue an apology on behalf of the Queen for her “bad judgement

Well I won’t blame Charles for shite made up by anonymous people on the internet and brought here like people do: “I heard this about Meghan/Kate ’ ‘I read this about Harry/William’ only to then present some completely made up scenario and then criticise them for it.

Members of the royal family seem to have bad judgement when it comes to certain types of people. How about they acknowledge that bad judgement, and recognise that naively (or stubbornly because they know better and can’t be told) giving legitimacy to these people is something to regret.

I’m stunned by this history of Jimmy Savile. He published an autobiography in 1973. It’s astonishing to me how Charles, and the Queen’s govt, could possibly have not been aware that this bloke is someone they should be cautious about socialising with publicly or privately.

I despair for the ‘intelligence services’ associated with govt and the royal family if they saw nothing to question about Jimmy Saville.

Have a read: www.news.com.au/news/jimmy-savile-boasts-of-six-girls-in-a-tent-charity-fee-in-1974-outofprint-autobiography/news-story/f4be759f9eb7f539bc809a1f7368214d?sv=7942a66fc003c382b3a4ace63252cbb

@DeftLemonDog

“Members of the royal family seem to have bad judgement when it comes to certain types of people. How about they acknowledge that bad judgement, and recognise that naively (or stubbornly because they know better and can’t be told) giving legitimacy to these people is something to regret.”

It’s not only members of the RF who misjudge people. We all do . I used to work with a man I considered a friend . Had a coffee at tea break , chatted daily etc . One day he didn’t turn up at work . He had been arrested for Child Sexual Abuse . I was in shock but I never ever suspected. Nor did anyone else. Should I apologise ?

No why? You aren’t a member of a very public family of which the head is also head of state and you’d not added any legitimacy to that person. His victims did not have to look at photos of him and yourself in the media having a jolly old time on country walks and so on. This is what I mean by giving legitimacy to these people. Yes, Charles would have been worked on and flattered by Saville, in return he was given a ‘royal stamp of approval’ as it were by the heir to the throne. I’m tired of reading about RF members’ naivety claims. They should obviously doubt themselves more. There’s been too many questionable people around the RF and invited into their homes/palaces.

Nor do you have access to an intelligence services and advisors who, if doing their job, would have warned you off any sort of friendship with this man or other men like Peter Ball.
Actually, we know for sure. they did try to warn Charles off his friendship with Peter Ball.

“Prince Charles told Ball in a letter in February 1995, two years after the bishop had accepted the police caution, which was read to the inquiry: “I wish I could do more. I feel so desperately strongly about the monstrous wrongs that have been done to you and the way you have been treated.”

Harry is not the only one with questionable judgement in things. It’s a family trait.

@DeftLemonDog

"I’vev wondered if they’ve chosen to do this because they feel it is a step towards something resembling a more normal (less royal) life style for their children."

Gosh I would never have thought about this in a million years.

I think the difference is that Harry makes terrible mistakes and has bad judgement, blames others and monetises his victimhood, with the additional spice of lies.

I’m tired of reading about RF members’ naivety claims.

This absolutely.

Charles claimed not to have understood that the acceptance of a police caution involved an admission of guilt and once again apparently no-one around him (those paid to look after his interests) thought to tell him 🙄

Not only did Charles maintain contact with Ball, he also contacted Lambeth Palace on his behalf and went on to buy a house that he could rent.

As I said I don't hold a candle for any of them but if we're scrutinising and criticising bad choices it seems fair to apply said scrutiny to all.

So Jimmy Saville is added to the Bingo Card list, what with that and Mein Kampf Charles really does have a lot of explaining to do, just had a thought, did he shake hands with Donald Trump? I think he might have done, if he’s elected we will know where the blame lies, the downfall of the west will lay at his door for sure.

No why? You aren’t a member of a very public family of which the head is also head of state and you’d not added any legitimacy to that person. His victims did not have to look at photos of him and yourself in the media having a jolly old time on country walks and so on. This is what I mean by giving legitimacy to these people.

In the case of Peter Ball this point stands, in the case of Jimmy Saville it holds no water as no one in the Royal Family knew of his crimes, as hard as you try Jimmy Saville’s crimes do not belong at the door of Charles, Diana or the Queen anymore than the crimes of PDiddy lie at the door of William and Harry.

In the case of Peter Ball this point stands, in the case of Jimmy Saville it holds no water as no one in the Royal Family knew of his crimes, as hard as you try Jimmy Saville’s crimes do not belong at the door of Charles, Diana or the Queen anymore than the crimes of PDiddy lie at the door of William and Harry.
**

I have not said Jimmy Saville’s crimes belong at the door of Charles etc.. I’m not going to repeat myself again.

There is no point in twisting my words in order to change the direction of the argument to suit yourself and the impulse to dismiss any criticisms of RF members.

Why the need to be so rudely sarcastic?

Have a good day.

The only person changing the direction is you, when did this become a thread about Jimmy Saville? Oh yes when you introduced it with your usual whataboutery derailment of the thread, and if I’m guilty of “dismissing any criticism of the royal family” have you heard of the expression pot, kettle black with regards to your slavish defence of Prince Harry?

You are right. I have gone off topic. It happens all the time on this board. On most threads on the RF and on Mumsnetters in general. But I’ve not twisted your words.

I’m not a ‘a slavish defender of Harry’ as you might see if you read my posts a little more carefully. But it seems on here if you criticise any of the RF members other than Harry and Meghan, you get cast in the role as being ‘a slavish defender of Harry.’

You don’t like my options? Scroll on.

I think one is branded a "slavish defender if Harry" when one defends Harry.

The idea that there are two tidy camps, and that one is made up of "haterz" is badly misplaced. It's completely possible to both praise and criticise any particular individuals in the family, and that frequently happens. It's based on their words and actions, and actions that deserve criticism will find it gets it.

That's how reputations change over time. Look at the Duchess of Edinburgh - she was castigated as undeserving of being in the RF, a total money-grubbing disgrace, married to the useless prince with the string of failures. Now it seems they can't put a foot wrong. Why? Because they didn't respond to the criticism, did abandon the "half-in half-out" model (which after what they did was never to be repeated). They chose "in" and basically did nothing that would attract particular comment, let alone negative comment, for 20 years. By which time the Fake Sheikh cash-for-access scandal was largely forgotten, over written.

It goes both ways - like how the Duke of York was in the 80s, the immensely popular, dashing war hero. Over time, the pompous prick and utter sleaze showed itself.

Opinions on Charles have varied enormously over the years. But the views that were crackpot a few decades ago have become far more mainstream and there has been a sense of knowing what he stands for.

So now the next generation are in the years that will build or wreck their reputations.