Page 11 | The Yorks 2 !

jeffgoldblum · 2025-08-05T19:49:35+00:00

Sorry missed end of thread ! had a slight hiccup. anyway thread 2 ready for tomorrows new article. 😁

CathyorClaire · 07/08/2025 09:52

jumpingthehighjump · 06/08/2025 22:01

I believe he’ll trade some of the properties and money for a more low-key version of monarchy

I would put money on that not happening

I think a lot of people imagined Charles would do the same.

Ain't gonna happen. Charles didn't. William won't
I would be happy to eat my words. But I think they like it all far too much to make any changes

Edited

I agree entirely.

I've noted yet more speculation about W as monarch today as in how he's planning to deal with A including the possibility of removing his title.

Personally I think C will step in now to ensure A isn't seen playing dress-up, attending church or being driven with the rest of the gang and...that'll be it.

W won't take any action beyond that partly because he won't need to and partly because serious (to them) actions like taking titles invites even more public scrutiny than they're already 'suffering'.

CurlewKate · 07/08/2025 10:08

TheAutumnCrow · 07/08/2025 09:24

I’m a socialist, a feminist and a mild-mannered republican. Can’t stand the Blairs and their luxury beliefs. They’ve done what many former socialists in London have done - they rubbed shoulders with the super rich and wanted a bit of that. Just a bit, mind, so that they can rationalise it in their own minds as not too greedy.

A few of the heir-adjacent royals seem the same - the super rich move in their circles, and the royals get ideas of acquisition. Andrew and Harry, as spares and counsellors of state, seem to have felt it acutely and been encouraged by their spouses to pursue not just wealth but avarice itself, as a proxy for the power they don’t have.

Funny how the women always get the blame!

CathyorClaire · 07/08/2025 10:12

KC’s reign has been a bit of a nightmare up to now, with the attacks of the Sussexes to deal with and then the serious illness of himself and Catherine.

I agree.

I always expected the wheels to come off once E2 died but while illness has obviously played a role I really didn't expect the rest of the show to implode so spectacularly and so unedifyingly as quickly as it has.

Backs up my belief that they should have called a dignified halt to the whole thing at that point.

CurlewKate · 07/08/2025 10:12

vera99 · 07/08/2025 09:39

Gosh the Mail going long on Lownie's book stating that PP had an affair with Sarah Ferguson's mother !

Well, they were pretty enmeshed families!

CoffeeCantata · 07/08/2025 10:14

Ploachedplorridge · 07/08/2025 09:20

CoffeeCantata · Today 09:58
Of course building up wealth is not compatible with socialism!
It’s basic stuff.
From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. That’s the basic tenet of socialism.
No, you can’t be wealthy while others are poor AND virtue-signal that you’re a socialist.

Nonsense! I think you are confusing communism with socialism
aren’t you?

Take Clement Atlee, one of our arguably greatest PMs, who was born in to an upper middle class family, the son of a wealthy London solicitor. He went to Oxford, and practised as a barrister. The volunteer work he carried out in London's East End exposed him to poverty, and his political views shifted his political views to the left after that and he then created the NHS.

Imho the RF can more justifiably be accused of hypocrisy when they visit food banks and homeless shelters.

Edited

No. The only difference between socialism and communism is that communists believe in violent revolution to attain their objectives and socialists in gaining power democratically. Otherwise their beliefs are the same.

In the West we’ve adopted social democratic systems which are less dogmatic. If the Blairs, or people who say, send their children to independent schools (like Vanessa Redgrave, who claimed to be in the Socialist Workers’ Party at the time) are socialists, then so am I.

Im just allergic yo hypocrisy and virtue-signalling- those who live very privileged lives, bend their much-declared principles to serve their own interests while also wanting to claim the moral high ground.

Clement Atlee, whom I mostly admire, insisted on sending his daughters to private schools as did Eric Hobsbawm, avowed communist, apparently. I can’t bear ‘Do as I say, not as I do’.

CoffeeCantata · 07/08/2025 10:16

TheAutumnCrow · 07/08/2025 09:24

I’m a socialist, a feminist and a mild-mannered republican. Can’t stand the Blairs and their luxury beliefs. They’ve done what many former socialists in London have done - they rubbed shoulders with the super rich and wanted a bit of that. Just a bit, mind, so that they can rationalise it in their own minds as not too greedy.

A few of the heir-adjacent royals seem the same - the super rich move in their circles, and the royals get ideas of acquisition. Andrew and Harry, as spares and counsellors of state, seem to have felt it acutely and been encouraged by their spouses to pursue not just wealth but avarice itself, as a proxy for the power they don’t have.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

I agree!

TheAutumnCrow · 07/08/2025 10:17

Always makes me smile wryly these days at how uncomfortable the Labour Party front bench MPs are singing ‘The Red Flag’ at conference, @CoffeeCantata.

CoffeeCantata · 07/08/2025 10:18

jamnpancakes · 07/08/2025 09:42

Next we will be reading PP is Andrew's father and hence the attraction between SF. and PA 😂😂😂

Nothing would surprise me!

Original poster

jeffgoldblum · 07/08/2025 10:25

LidlAmaretto · 06/08/2025 21:14

I think a more pertinent question might be why Harold as a similarly falling star wasn't permitted the same licence.

Yes. I wonder whether any of this would have happened if TLQ has said Harry and Meghan would be in the same position as Anne's kids? They are cousins after all. No titles, but allowed to make their own money and still turn up to Royal events etc. Whats the difference? At least they would have had some control over them.

It was much too late for this Harry already had a title.

OP posts:

CoffeeCantata · 07/08/2025 10:25

TheAutumnCrow · 07/08/2025 10:17

Always makes me smile wryly these days at how uncomfortable the Labour Party front bench MPs are singing ‘The Red Flag’ at conference, @CoffeeCantata.

Yes indeed.

Political dogmatism and party politics in general are off-putting to me. I find the divisiveness of contemporary politics really depressing.

In real life I have friends of various persuasions and guess what…we agree on 90% of things - yet because some people like to label themselves politically and publicly declare their affiliation (I find this embarrassing and always cough politely while they’re at it) it creates divisions that don’t really exist.

I believe in a welfare state, the NHS, fair treatment for employees, a public service broadcaster and well-regulated economy. Oh, and a constitutional monarchy.But I don’t identify with one political party.

CoffeeCantata · 07/08/2025 10:27

Sorry for digression - I was provoked into a froth by the Blair’s mansion!😲😀

Original poster

jeffgoldblum · 07/08/2025 10:32

jumpingthehighjump · 07/08/2025 06:02

Should that be corrected to say "he has more bathrooms in his ONE Montecito mansion than William has rooms in his one of many houses he has"

William of course also has a Georgian mansion in Norfolk with 40 rooms, a 20 room Kensington Palace apartment, his Windsor house and of course there's talk of Fort Belvedere which none of us even knew existed and is actually a Castle with 59 acres and three cottages.

Comparisons are futile. We pay for William. Harry we dont.

Show quote history

We are still paying for Harry ! , where do you think the money for his court cases comes from?

OP posts:

jumpingthehighjump · 07/08/2025 10:34

We were talking property.

CurlewKate · 07/08/2025 10:39

I can’t resist coming out of temporary purdah to say that a million years ago I wrote a song called “When the Red Flag became The Red Rose”which was very popular among my leftie friends…!

Puzzledandpissedoff · 07/08/2025 10:43

There are all kinds of elites across the political spectrum and the battle against corruption is endless. Self-interested people will always find ways to advantage themselves and find ways around restrictions

Spot on, @CoffeeCantata, and that's why it isn't even purely about the money for some of us republicans, realising as we do that there'd still be greed and corruption with alternative systems

At least, though, there'd be some hope of actual accountability being in place to restrict the worst horrors rather than a blanket "We're not allowed to discuss it in Parliament", and if even that didn't work a mechanism would exist for getting rid of them

We are still paying for Harry! , where do you think the money for his court cases comes from?

Edited to add this is also very true, @jeffgoldblum, and that's without the possibility that Charles is still funding him and finding a way to charge much of it to us

I think, though, that Harry's supposed to pay the costs for his lost cases (?) but whether the money will ever be forthcoming is something else again

Original poster

jeffgoldblum · 07/08/2025 10:45

You wrote “ comparisons are futile. We pay for William . Harry we don’t .

if you are only talking about property, you should have said that we pay towards Williams property, we no longer pay towards Harry’s.

OP posts:

TheAutumnCrow · 07/08/2025 10:52

jeffgoldblum · 07/08/2025 10:45

You wrote “ comparisons are futile. We pay for William . Harry we don’t .

if you are only talking about property, you should have said that we pay towards Williams property, we no longer pay towards Harry’s.

And we don’t even know that, in truth.

How much is the Bank of Pa really subbing Harry per annum or ad hoc, so H can maintain his over-staffed, mega-toileted, car-fleeted, manicure-gardened, water-intensive mansion lifestyle?

CoffeeCantata · 07/08/2025 10:57

@ Yes, and I’m very much in favour of reforms such as fair scrutiny of the royals.

I keep banging on, and I know some pps are sceptical, but I’d put money on changes coming soon - if not from KC, then from William. Maybe I’m psychic 😀 but it just jumps out at me that William has seen and learned a lot from the events of the past few years (and will be taking stock of this week’s revelations, I’m sure). He will want possibly to do less in exchange for less scrutiny and fewer castles! Of course he hasn’t shown signs of this yet - he’s not the monarch - but I think he will, and I don’t blame him.

He comes over to me as much more of a regular guy than previous royals because he’s had more experience of the real world. Charles, sympathetic to him though I am, is still Old School.

Escapefrom1984 · 07/08/2025 10:59

Ploachedplorridge · 07/08/2025 07:47

Edited: quote function didn’t work, this is in reply to Weepixie‘s post below…

A totally, totally different situation! Incomparable in fact.

You don’t earn much comparatively speaking as a barrister, an MP and even as PM, and love him or loathe him, I think we can safely say that Blair worked hard as a lawyer and then serving for three terms as the UK’s youngest post-war PM and then earned a lot thereafter writing his autobiography and speaking and sitting on boards and creating a Foundation. He came from reasonably humble beginnings too. His father was a tax inspector who worked at night school to study law. His mother died in his final year at Oxbridge. He didn’t come from money and he made the very best of his education

And also his wife Cherie - again love her or loathe her - is an exceptionally bright woman who started buying property in London when she was a barrister because she wanted her children to have a proper home once the family left Downing Street. She was the main earner in the family. Daughter of a single parent family (absent father was an actor) in Crosby Liverpool, she went to grammar school and graduated with first class honours from LSE and not many achieve that. Was an exceptionally gifted barrister and Queen’s Counsel. Founded her own Chambers.

Somehow she managed to squeeze in a very successful academic career as well as having four dc alongside her high-flying legal career. All this time she bought up property in London for her dc and developed an impressive property portfolio and good for her I say.

She is now involved in Children in Need, women’s breast cancer care and women’s enterprise and promotion of women’s rights at home and abroad.

You can honestly say that the success of the Blairs came from their brains and their ability to apply themselves and work like demons to achieve their goals. Yes they have wealth and privilege now but they damn well earned it and Cherie suffered a lot in the press because of it and doggedly carried on working nonetheless.

Sorry to write an essay but their privilege is earned unlike the royals who achieve a lot less having been born with silver spoons in their mouths.

Edited

I take the point you are making. But no need to over-egg it. Blair did not come from humble beginnings. He went to a private prep school and then private boarding school - Fettes, the Eton of Scotland!

Cherie Blair exhibited the same money-grabbing style as Fergie - who can forget the supermarket dash in Australia?!

And we have seen the same money grabbing from the current govt front bench - Starmer, a multimillionaire barrister (he practised for a lot longer than Blair) taking £1000s glasses (!) and clothes for himself and his wife.

It seems powerful people/elites have a lot in common, regardless how they came to their positions ……

jumpingthehighjump · 07/08/2025 10:59

jeffgoldblum · 07/08/2025 10:45

You wrote “ comparisons are futile. We pay for William . Harry we don’t .

if you are only talking about property, you should have said that we pay towards Williams property, we no longer pay towards Harry’s.

I answered a post about Harry's property. So it was pretty obvious that was what the conversation was about.
I will be more careful in future to spell it out so there is no confusion

Original poster

jeffgoldblum · 07/08/2025 11:01

Puzzledandpissedoff · 07/08/2025 10:43

There are all kinds of elites across the political spectrum and the battle against corruption is endless. Self-interested people will always find ways to advantage themselves and find ways around restrictions

Spot on, @CoffeeCantata, and that's why it isn't even purely about the money for some of us republicans, realising as we do that there'd still be greed and corruption with alternative systems

At least, though, there'd be some hope of actual accountability being in place to restrict the worst horrors rather than a blanket "We're not allowed to discuss it in Parliament", and if even that didn't work a mechanism would exist for getting rid of them

We are still paying for Harry! , where do you think the money for his court cases comes from?

Edited to add this is also very true, @jeffgoldblum, and that's without the possibility that Charles is still funding him and finding a way to charge much of it to us

I think, though, that Harry's supposed to pay the costs for his lost cases (?) but whether the money will ever be forthcoming is something else again

Edited

I was thinking about how to explain my feelings puzzled , in a way that makes sense.
im not sure it will work but , here goes! 🤣

I like the status quo , I like having a constitutional monarchy for precisely the reason that others don’t like it.

power and the pursuit of it ( and wealth) corrupts ultimately anyone, those who may have started of wanting to take office to right the wrongs they saw around them end up behaving exactly in the same way they disagreed with in the beginning.
ultimately anyone who wants and pursues power are exactly the sort of people who should not have it.

the royal family ( in direct line to the throne) are there by an accident of birth, they didn’t set out to pursue it , it was already theirs , they therefore were not striving for it !
( yes I’m aware if we go back in time kings did do battle for the title, I’m of course referring to modern times) .
im not sure if I’m explaining this properly, it’s sometimes difficult to put into text the thoughts swirling about in my mind.

OP posts:

Hoolahoophop · 07/08/2025 11:11

Does anyone think that right now, is actually a really good time to expose and bury the Andrew scandal?

I mean, everyone has so much to worry about he is just another example of everything being a bit shit. At the moment there is actually quite a lot of support and sympathy for KC and PW. Because of their illness and the public fallout with Harry (more sympathy on balance for the royals than Harry I would imagine) So another knock to the family is just another knock, something they can overcome. If they can ensure the public know that they fully disapprove of Andrew's antics they can move on, and it wont come out at a time when they are more vulnerable.

MrsLeonFarrell · 07/08/2025 11:14

I like Tony Benn's questions but there needs to be another

If we remove you what will fill the vacuum?

Something always does, even indirectly.

Original poster

jeffgoldblum · 07/08/2025 11:15

Hoolahoophop · 07/08/2025 11:11

Does anyone think that right now, is actually a really good time to expose and bury the Andrew scandal?

I mean, everyone has so much to worry about he is just another example of everything being a bit shit. At the moment there is actually quite a lot of support and sympathy for KC and PW. Because of their illness and the public fallout with Harry (more sympathy on balance for the royals than Harry I would imagine) So another knock to the family is just another knock, something they can overcome. If they can ensure the public know that they fully disapprove of Andrew's antics they can move on, and it wont come out at a time when they are more vulnerable.

Possibly I suppose ?
but I’m leaning towards the fact that Andrew lownie has finished his book and desperately wants us to buy it! 😁

OP posts:

CoffeeCantata · 07/08/2025 11:17

Hoolahoophop · 07/08/2025 11:11

Does anyone think that right now, is actually a really good time to expose and bury the Andrew scandal?

I mean, everyone has so much to worry about he is just another example of everything being a bit shit. At the moment there is actually quite a lot of support and sympathy for KC and PW. Because of their illness and the public fallout with Harry (more sympathy on balance for the royals than Harry I would imagine) So another knock to the family is just another knock, something they can overcome. If they can ensure the public know that they fully disapprove of Andrew's antics they can move on, and it wont come out at a time when they are more vulnerable.

I agree. They’ve got to acknowledge this and be seen to deal with it and learn from it, but it could be an opportunity even- a kind of break with the past and a resolution to do things differently.