The Yorks 2 !

[jeffgoldblum]

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

It’s The Attenbury Emeralds.

You just tell yourself that.

I’m not trying to be a goody-goody but I don’t think we have a right to know about people’s relationships- particularly infidelities. Yes - it may be titillating and I’m only human - it’s a cheap thrill to read a bit of gossip. But that’s not the same as having a right to know such things. So to me Andrew’s and Fergie’s financial sins and any beh aviour which has caused an embarrassment diplomatically is fair game and needs to be exposed to scrutiny. But who’s shagging who - I don’t think we have a right to scrutinise that unless it’s a matter of national security or changes the course of history.

That’s why, true or not, I think the Susan Barrantes allegation is odd here.

New Lownie article just dropped in the Mail. Edit - which is just their paywalled articles summarised on the main site.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-14979493/Prince-Andrew-biography-Trump-Epstein-assassination-plot-Palace-Confidential.html

Andrew Lownie wrote a biography of the Mountbattens.
Has anyone read it and if so, is there anything in it alluding to the Kincora House Belfast allegations ?

I tend to agree with you in principle though I have a more moral friend than me whose view on infidelity (he hasn’t done it) is that any politician who lies about their marriage is probably lying about other things and therefore not to be trusted. I think he comes from the high-end, Jimmy Carter-esque school of morality probably inwardly regretting missed opportunities, who knows. Still, he does have a point.
If we all had that view, Saint Justine (hallowed be her name) would be worth half the money she is. And if Harry or Meghan were caught playing away, I can see many here throwing that into the pot without qualms.

@vera99

I don’t like H&M, but I would be sad to read of their relationship going down the pan. But with them - they’ve made their relationship rather the point - they don’t have any other USP. And of course some see Meghan as the obstacle to H reconciling with his family (I feel it’s more serious than that…) so you could argue that any breakdown in their marriage would be legitimate news. I would say that, if they split, it definitely would be, but we should hear it from them, when they’re ready - not as gossip.

People have different perspectives on morality so I absolutely respect an individual’s right not to want to discuss people’s marriages and objecting to others doing so!

This is a public forum however and I believe this is about far more than idle gossip.

Also I find it hard to believe that misogyny and women not supporting other women can be the real issue for the objections because Meghan is regularly laid in to from all directions about everything from her pregnancy bump, previous marriage, possible relationships, her voice, her lack of business prowess, her apparent lack of mothering skills and her feet!

Ditto respect for the dead, as Diana is regularly castigated and disparaged on these boards for her affairs, being mad (apparently) and manipulative.

What could be misogynistic is royal wives being forced to pretend to play happy families in public while their husbands “play the field” in private, if the royal wives do not enjoy the same freedoms that is. I have put that as respectfully as I can.

Anyway, I’m afraid that if we have a royal family who are supported by the public purse, and the general public are invited via their PR departments and the press to participate in their births, engagements, weddings and funerals, in order to maintain their privileged position, and the public’s engagement with the institution, then they do invite us in to their private lives.

And harsh though it may be, and although they try, they cannot expect the same public and press not to be interested in other aspects of their lives eg the not so happy parts! In other words, they can’t have it both ways!

Also, if you you and your family hold high office, take public funds, become head of many of our institutions eg Church of England, the forces, and you generally assume an exalted position above others, you and your family give speeches on aspects of British life, asking us to reflect on our own behaviour at Christmas for example, and on our environmental consumption, how we raise our children, how we treat others, and you head up youth organisations such as the King’s Foundation and DoE, and represent us as a nation, it is disappointing in a general sense to discover that the behaviour of some members of the RF are much worse than that of the general population.

And that they have presented a very different image in public.

Sorry if that offends but that’s my personal view on it.

Btw sorry but I also I think there is a bit of hypocrisy in the arguments about titillation.

An elected head of state as favoured by us republicans would be far more boring! And rightfully so!

Having an elected head of state would serve five purposes all at once:

-it would relieve the individuals in the RF from being the focus of public gossip, especially the children

-accounts could be open and transparent with no confusion between public and private funding

-the public would only have to pay for one person and their spouse and perhaps two official buildings

-if the HoS proves to be avaricious, corrupt, dishonest, or incompetent, or a sex pest, they can be voted out!

-the public and press once again focus on boring, serious, non-titillating issues such as tax, public spending and education policy, rather than having so much of our public discourse and airways dominated by a family soap opera!

👏👏@Ploachedplorridge, I’m getting a little tired of having my posts policed on these threads.

-if the HoS proves to be avaricious, corrupt, dishonest, or incompetent, or a sex pest, they can be voted out!

Trump.

@Ploachedplorridge Two great posts spot on. I really do think that, in the modern era, it's almost cruel to invest so much national capital and sense of self-worth in what is so clearly a highly dysfunctional family.
It's all smoke and mirrors the accumulated detritus of history and the carefully crafted mythology of a nation.

But this land wasn’t built by elites sitting atop thrones it was built and fought for by countless, often unnamed peasants and workers, toiling for little or nothing, whose sweat and sacrifice laid the real foundations of the country.

Those are the people I want to celebrate and memorialise the ones whose labour shaped this nation. Royalty, down the centuries, yielded nothing except what was taken from them under the threat of their dissolution.

And if they can’t, unitedly and persistently, make the public happy or be deemed worthy of that adulation, then what is their point except to serve as a reminder of just how out of touch, remote, and irrelevant they are, as our country lurches toward darker times?

In the latest Daily Mail Royal YouTube video (around 17:15), the commentator states that there are facts which, if ever revealed, would be “absolutely catastrophic for the monarchy.”

It echoes the very point I made earlier regarding the Tina Brown revelation I heard first-hand. There’s clearly something huge beneath the surface and I’m certain it will break eventually. Those in the know… know.

Even with the titles they still managed to get seated six rows back and no water bottles for you, sir 'n' ma'am at a premiere in Jamaica while sweeping the floor with a ballgown

That must sting...

That was a strange episode

Actually, it was eight rows back and the rest is just tabloid tittle-tattle. I’m sure you’re above all that nonsense!

www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/harry-meghan-put-out-after-31986409

Good in theory but looking around the world at elected Heads of State past and present the practise leaves a lot to be desired. Any solution runs up against the old maxim that power corrupts. I can't think of a system of government that has solved that problem.

I think you’re being a bit hasty and possibly credulous about the Sudan Barrantes allegations.

I think it's entirely plausible and more than likely backed up impeccably.

I don't think royal biographies these days would dare a wild punt.

Hey up - how has this thread morphed back into H&M bashing? I thought protocol, rather like the Letters Patent, prohibited this sort of diversion by convention i.e., completely made up but treated as if it’s somehow important.

Row H 😂

As currently clearly exemplified in the United States of America

We do need the laughing emoticon back. I've no idea why MNHQ in their infinite wisdom decided to take it away.

Possibly, but my criticism is that Lownie treats it as common knowledge. I don’t think it is (??) so it’s bizarre to just drop it into the text without acknowledging that.

It stands out to me for that reason, and I wondered why he’d put it in in that odd way.

That was comedy gold, though, and worth a nostalgic little titter!

Yes, but we dont pay for them! If we do, we have the right to know how our money is being used.

I’ve been reading these threads about the Yorks. As a proud Yorkshirewoman I’m saddened that they have our capital in their names - surely they’d be more suited as Westminster 😁

I’m all for a republic personally - I can’t imagine have to obsequiously kowtow to this bunch of entitled pricks and it angers me that people who need to work to survive have to do so in their palaces and offices. The royal family wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire because you were saving their paintings from destruction so giving them the benefit of the doubt seems like too much to me. I also hate that they’re the fig leaf covering up the absolute leeches of aristocracy that make billions off us all whilst contributing fuck all with their control over legislation and centuries of squirrelling away and avoiding inheritance tax. Urgh! The whole concept is sickening.

The more I read, the more I think most of them are up to their necks in it. Maybe William and Kate less so but I imagine that’s partly because of the endless scrutiny and also him being heir which means there is money and resource abound, so less motive to go scrabbling around for a legitimate businessman to bail you out.