Harry v NGN 2

[mainecooncatonahottinroof]

I don't think we're done talking - and I never start threads!

As you were!

The implication was there and it’s not just me who thought that. Why do you think the Sussex Squad raiding this board is a ridiculous claim as apparently you have never heard of them?

That explains it. Thank you Orca

And since then, many posters have mentioned lots of discussions about Mumsnet threads off-site, so I don’t see why the Facebook one is beyond the realms of possibility?

I don’t expect BigWillyLittleTodger
to concede their mistake so I am off to feed the cat.

I find your posts consistently passive aggressive, you find my posts rude, which like you have said to me, isn’t my problem.

I post quite a bit on the RF board and I have never seen a RF Facebook page mentioned.
How far back are we talking?

If that post was made on the RF board orca it must have been deleted as it doesn’t exist now. Not sure why it would have been deleted as on the face of it, it wouldn’t have broken but who knows!. Was it FB or was it that weird short lived MN spin-off/copycat page, was it Mumchat or something? I do recall a bit of a drama about that and the RF board..

There was a conversation about whether the existence of a FB page titled Royal Purple (or similar) was linked to posters on here who had purple in their names.

Advanced Search shows that there are very few posts with both words “Facebook” and “group” in this topic, and none of them are posters confessing to having one!

There are a few allegations that such a group existed around the time of the “numbered threads” and when a rival forum called Net Mums was set up - which is before my time, and from previous comments is I gather around the time Harry and Meghan got married I think, so seven years ago?

It was also alleged, but denied, that one existed because there was a Facebook group called “Royal Purple” (d’uh…) and that was similar to various usernames at the time.

That’s all I could find.

Cross-posted, myrtleWilson! We seem to have discovered the same information though. 😀

One of the things the pro-H&M posters used to do regularly, when they were in full speight with lots of new-name posters on the case, was to announce when they were leaving the thread.

I haven't been here as long as many of you. In that time though there have definitely been posts that indicate people talk off board about Royal family posts. I'm not sure why that is surprising though, isn't that how social media works these days? I always assume that what I say here could be posted elsewhere and dissected, mostly because I've seen it happen when I was on twitter over and over again in various different contexts with various social media outlets (not to me personally). I don't think what I post is that interesting but if someone wants to pull it apart elsewhere that's up to them.

I have to disagree with a poster about whether the Squad coordinate. I used to see them on twitter (I saw both them and Kates Rangers) discussing how to respond to things and there are definitely patterns of times of posting and set phrases here from time to time. It's not a new thing though, from what I hear Taylor Swift fans can be similar, or Cumberbitches or whatever Tom Hiddlestons fans call themselves etc etc. It's online fandom.

I’m clearly an innocent when it comes to other SM sites as I would have considered it bad form to talk about people on a different platform. Every day is a school day as they say.

@Extiainoiapeial i think it was you (hopefully I haven’t got my threads mixed up), that said it would take at least a decade, to start the mechanism for a republic and I agree, I can’t really see a political party even thinking of doing so.

There was also an allegation of a secret FB full of royalists to coordinate “attack lines” but that was from a poster who was affronted that several other posters were calling out her casual deployment of Kate having an eating disorder because she had the temerity to eat dessert and be slim (Kate at the rave)

Anyway all this talk of secret FB reminds me of The West Wing and Josh and the secret plan to fight inflation

I admire their commitment, I really couldn't be arsed spending my time discussing threads

Well I just fell down a bit of a rabbit hole on Reddit where lots of people seem to gather to discuss Mumsnet posts - mainly so that they can say stuff about posters or threads that would get them deleted on MN - so troll hunting TAAT etc

The Redditers commenting on the royal family boards are very much republicans or anti monarchy and very critical of anyone posting pro royal family content. Seems to be mainly the same few posters who are particularly critical and @Serenster I’m not sure whose feelings you hurt here because they are MAD about you! Which is peculiar because you are one of the main posters who never makes things personal or attacks people on here, which is what they are claiming!

No mention yet of me 😥- better up my game!

I said this in response to a ridiculous claim of co-ordinated Sussex supporter raids on this board.

You seem very certain of the motives of “Sussex supporter” posters.

See yet another poster derailing this thread.

Why can’t posters show some respect. Start your own threads. You want to talk about republicanism go ahead, you want to talk about Meghan being the subject of the racist British press, knock yourself out. Start a thread with that title.

However, it’s bad form to derail yet another thread just to be contrary and start arguments with posters. Constantly quoting and looking for attention.

Talk about what you want, but stick to the topic or create your own thread.

Me too! Blimey... some people take MN very seriously 😂

Congratulations @serenster on having an impact!

Note to self, must try harder..

Come on now 😂. I'm never sure if you (as in me and others ) are allowed to name other SM groups so I don't but I do know where I can go ON MN to read certain posters discussing the RF threads. I'm not allowed to link to other posts though.
It happens .
It's there in black and white to see.

I'm not saying you are on there. I don't have a paid sub to search out things.

I think the Facebook group issue is a good example of how things deteriorate on here. Someone mentions something and instead of that point being debated it's "what about" it's infuriating and gets people backs up. It comes across as an attempt to point score rather than deal with the issue at hand

Vaguely on topic, I imagine a party could start the mechanism to shut down the monarchy if the King/William/the next heir (I can never get the Cambridge kids straight) did something so wildly egregious that public outcry demanded it – sort of the equivalent of an entire tabloid newspaper closing down after a public enquiry. Unfortunately I think Charles is quite dull as far as outcry-provoking behaviour goes. He married his worst scandal.

Alternatively it would be something stupid, a Brexit referendum equivalent – some politician throws us republicans a bone, promising a referendum on the royals as a sop, but we win by a whisker…

@pelargoniums I think the likelihood of a British politician offering a referendum on anything at all in the future is very unlikely!

I agree - a direct heir being someone unpalatable would be the fastest way to encourage more republican sentiment.

I am not in there. I do not even know what you are talking about

Before you can take any steps to abolish the monarchy, you have to decide what you're going to put in its place.

You'd be wiping out more than a thousand years of constitutional development.

All very well to say we'll have an elected HoS.

Who will be eligible to stand? What will the voting method be - FPTP or something else? How long will a term of office be? How many terms of office? What powers will s/he have? Purely ceremonial or a real check on the powers of the government? Political or non-political? How do you get rid of an elected HoS mid-term?

What about the Commonwealth countries that still have a monarchy, or want to retain the monarch as Head of the Commonwealth?

Then you've got to get all of that through Parliament.

Then there’s the churn of Heads of State, all of them needing lifelong pensions and security. And the cost of electing them in the first place.

@JoyousGreyOrca I think you were the person who touted that there was a FB group with royalists on and it was discussed on MN ? I'm catching up here with all the posts. I cannot recall anything of the sort or of a discussion but you seemed to say so that it did indeed exist. Apologies if I got the wrong impression.

What I'm saying to you is that there IS discussion by Sussex supporters here on MN where they talk about the Royal boards and they discuss their group. Maybe you got the wrong end of the stick?

Just checked and you did say this. Maybe you got the wrong end of the stick?