King Charles treatment of AMW vs PH

[andIsaid]

Does anyone find the contrast really unsettling?

People can say it was wrong of PH to speak about the family etc BUT we cannot say that without also recognizing that KC did exactly the same thing - wrote a book, did the Dimbleby interview etc. In his case though, the late Queen did not cut him off, kick him out of his house etc. Perhaps because he was the heir and perhaps behind the scenes?

No matter what anyone thinks of the rights or wrongs of PH actions, they are not even a shade of grey to AMW.

Revelation after revelation strongly suggests that the family have known all along what they are dealing with.

It is probably why that high profile crisis manager was hired - it suggests they knew what was coming (how did they know?).

For me, this whole debacle highlights that there is real moral paucity in that family and I do wonder why we are stuck with them as our heads of state.

and look how that pannned out !🙄🙄

Well considering what has been happening in Windsor over the last week, in their shoes I’d be very relieved to be living in another country!

Because the profits from Duchy Originals go to charity as do the profits from Highgrove products

A proportion of Duchy Originals profits go to 'charity'.

Waitrose have never disclosed their take.

When Harry wrote his book, apparently The Palace were 'wargaming' 100 things that they were worried about him revealing. What the hell have they been doing if there are 100 things to be embarrassed about?

I have had my arse handed to me on a plate about exactly this!

Minimised as a PR expert's unconfirmable musings.

Still not convinced and even less convinced by what's now playing.

It was Diana who said men in grey suits and maybe this is looking back with rose tinted glasses (I'm 50) but she had more class and grace than any of them.

I remember how angry her brother was at the Royal Family in his speech at her funeral.

When Prince Charles/Duchy of Cornwall owned Duchy Originals - all the profits went to charity and since the brand was sold to Waitrose about £3 million a year goes to charity. The products have raised about £50 million so far.

I have always believed, more or less, the PH version of things. Recollections may vary but the Palace spin machine is talented. Has been for years.

Andrew, however, has always been a twat, and if the press nicknamed him Randy Andy it's because they knew they had stuff on him.

On the issue of Harry’s allegations that there was a scheme of ‘leaking and planting of stories’ specifically involving Camilla - the trouble with this narrative is that he is simultaneously arguing in the High Court that ANL (the Mail) was spying on him and hacking him using unlawful methods. He has previously argued that other papers from the Murdoch and Mirror groups had been doing the same, and indeed accepted a cash settlement a while ago.

Opps - sorry!

I thought that Andrew was the spare to Charles until he (Charles) has children.

Harry = The identified patient + entitled enough to angle for money and position with every press release.

AMW = A sleezebag, who has been caught red handed humping his teddies when he cant avail himself of trafficked women (which he paid for in state secrets).

KC = father to a child who called him out on his toxic dysfunction as a parent and enabler of a brother who should be arrested IMO.

Two completely different situations which cant be compared.

I cant stand Harry and his petulant ways but he is definitely the IP in the RF.

Absolutely this.

I believed from day one that stories about the Sussexes were being made up or embellished to hide the wrongdoings of others .Tbh, I get the impression that Harry’s book was almost ‘tame’ and that he could have revealed much more but chose not to because for some strange reason he still believes in the monarchy
Well it’s all coming out now .In the words of Ronald Reagan
‘ We ain’t seen nothing yet ‘

What stories do you think were made up?

You say that he was protected , but the public knew about all this because it was reported in the press .
I always believed that Harry was used as a scapegoat to divert attention away from William’s wrongdoings .

What stories were embellished and made up ?

The bullying reports, which they claimed were false, were eventually corroborated by multiple independent organisations in the US, along with claims of incompetence. American organisations who have absolutely no affiliation whatsoever with the RF at all, so definitely not leaking anything on behalf of RF to try to drive attention away from anyone.

They desperately wanted to financially benefit from a half in /half out situation, as ‘others were allowed to do’. The only others with titles who were milking that were the York’s, so now we know they approved of what the Yorks were up to, and not only approved, but choose to adopt it as a blueprint for their own future.

Harry and Meghan are Version V11 of the Yorks (thankfully without any government roles), people just don’t want to admit it (Yet !😜).

I can see the concern regarding sibling relationships in doing that. You have one kid growing up who could potentially turn round with a “ha ha, I’m a prince and you’re not” attitude to his siblings. William and Kate will want to put the harmonious relationship of their kids behind any public relations and I get that. The resentment from the other two if they felt they were treated very differently could be off the scale.

But the RF campaigned for ( and got) a system where The eldest child gets everything the Sovereign Grant- as well as the old system where the eldest also has the Duchy of Cornwall, as well as being King, so for the rest if their lives they need to rely on their older sibling for money ( granted its a lot of it) a home on his land and something to do for the rest of their lives. At least under the Civil list they were each paid for Royal work. If W & K bring up entitled kids who want to use their titles to make money in the same way Harry Bea and Eug, after all the talk of them being ' hands on parents' and ' being around for the children' then its obvious that the only way to bring up relatively normal Royal children is to do it like Anne and Edward have- no titles and no Royal role.

C off-loaded the brand to Waitrose when it stopped turning him a profit.

A percentage of the profit now goes back to his own charity but Waitrose also have their percentage and don't disclose how much they make.

Clearly it's worth their while or they wouldn't bother.

Well, the Sussexes stayed close to the Yorks for a reason, even as they were falling out with the Waleses and ‘Pa’.

Well the charity gets £3 million a year without having any production/admin costs and the farmers still have a guaranteed buyer for their crops - so it sounds a pretty good deal.

So if AMW came storming out in a drunken rage and hit the press stood legally on the street there wouldn't be demands for prosecution?

I see to remember he has already done something similar and wasn't prosecuted. I think the story was that he sprayed paint at a load of press, ruining a lot of expensive equipment. There was no demand for him to be prosecuted for criminal damage. Same with the ramming of Buckingham Palace gates that had to be repaired at taxpayers expense because it is a State building etc etc.

So both AMW and Harry have been protected for bad behaviour and criminal acts?

Both of those were AMW. But if Harry, a member of the RF has commutted criminal acts which havent been investigatec then yes he has. The problem isnt whether Harry has also committed criminal acts. Its the RF being above the Law, despite the Police Commissioner saying they arent.

But the RF campaigned for ( and got) a system where The eldest child gets everything the Sovereign Grant- as well as the old system where the eldest also has the Duchy of Cornwall, as well as being King, so for the rest if their lives they need to rely on their older sibling for money ( granted its a lot of it) a home on his land and something to do for the rest of their lives. At least under the Civil list they were each paid for Royal work.

Not quite correct.

The Sovereign Grant covers what was covered before by the Civil List and other official sources of funding ('grants-in-aid' covering royal travel/maintenance of royal palaces/communication).
There were 2 main differences:
It was linked to a percentage of the Crown Estates profits (to be reviewed by parliament at accession and every 5 years), rather than the Civil List which was a specific amount to be voted on each time.
It came from one source only, which made it more easily accountable. It was brought under the scrutiny of the National Audit Office since its creation in 2011.

The system is the same in that the King supports the family, both privately and in official duties (he contributes to the cost of those from the Duchy of Lancaster).