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.

Does indeed look that way.

For the sake of clarity, I don’t have much time for ANY of the Royal family, other than William and Catherine. With regard to the Jimmy Saville stuff, that was well before my time, so not something I am knowledgeable about to debate.

Now the current lot of grifters is a different matter, i.e. the Yorks and the Sussex’s riding the privilege of the British Royal family without any official role, and believing a birthright to a title is all they need to demand and expect that privilege, and in the case of the Harry who, until everything went belly up for them in the US, has had nothing good to say about the UK.

It is so amusing to watch anti monarchy, stake a claim that of all of them, Harry is the only one allowed to benefit from that privilege.

It’s because they aren’t real republicans or really anti monarchy but actually h and m fans riding the wave.

Take ypur head out of the sand. Everything on thst list is true.

The UK government asked William to meet with him. It's called diplomacy.

It is so amusing to watch anti monarchy, stake a claim that of all of them, Harry is the only one allowed to benefit from that privilege.

Not strictly true is it? How many times has Zara and Mike Tindall sold their story to Hello magazine. Twice I think. They released pictures of first baby for six figures through them. No one would have been interested if she hadn't been Anne's daughter. And all Zara's endorsements purely because of her name.

Peter Phillips trousering 6 figures for hampers on QE2s 90th birthday bash in London. Thank goodness his next money making venture of installing an ice rink at Kensington Palace fell flat. But he did manage to sell milk on Chinese TV. He's done well out of his name.

None of the people mentioned in your post has titles .

Zara and Mike Tindall can do what they want as private citizens, now if they were off to Australia Polo events or selling their story to Hello as HRH the Duke and Duchess of Gatcombe Park, or the HRH Prince and Princess of Norfolk, then that’s a different matter.

The only ones using and abusing royalt titles for personal gain are the Sussex’s and the Yorks.

Exactly, as unpleasant as some of his job might be, it’s part of his job to do it. Good on him for handling his job professionally and not allowing any personal bias get in the way.

Here is some balance info about Earthshot:
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/prince-william-charity-donations-sultan-epstein-files-cwbkrqm0l?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqdQpnCEeje2dh8frmMe3hNWAtRW7vrZtEt9Jr2R3AmjkSc0BsPkW41UGZPP6G0%3D&gaa_ts=699da54a&gaa_sig=6b31g10oRAZ2YobPQ3X70d912S3Utdqf3D078Ya8XJVGdYrjDsxCJKZaVfmxoSw67ISTAxiyqW-RZVJO_v9HKg%3D%3D

What's that got to do with the price of fish?!

They are trading on their connections

That wasn’t the question or point was it!

Well, I believe it was. There is no way anyone would be interested in Zara or Mike's baby if she weren't Anne's daughter. Or PeterP selling milk to the Chinese with a mock up of Buckingham Palace in the background... that would not have happened without his royal connection. Not having a title is irrelevant.

They are not trading nor abusing a Royal title, that is the point. The only non working Royal trading on Royal titles are The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, and (not anymore) the Ex Duke and Duchess of York.

The titles should be removed. But do you honestly think my examples I listed above would have happened if they weren't royal? Nope.
They will still carry on because of the connection.

Exactly quite clear what you originally posted! , not entirely sure why the goal posts are moving or why suddenly non titled , non hrh family members so far down the los are suddenly getting thrown into the pot? 🤷‍♀️

Because they make money from their royal connections maybe?

Just a thought

None of the people you mentioned have the same privileges that the Yorks or the Sussex’s have had , they don’t get security funded by taxpayers, are you comparing their place in the RF to the Yorks or the Sussex’s?
do you think the Yorks or Sussex’s would choose or like to be downgraded to their position?

The titles should be removed.

@simpsonthecat you are preaching to the converted on that one ! Non working royals should not have titles and, in Harry’s case, not expect any tax payer funding.

Undoubtedly they will continue to benefit from being the son, grandchild, niece, cousin of the British King, like a gazillion nepo-babies of celebrities before them, (although there is backlash against that now)

Don't care whether they like it or not. They should be.
The less titles the better AFAIC

Yes all non working royals should have their titles removed immediately.

And I may be accused of being mean ! But I don’t think that divorced people should keep their titles either, Sarah should have lost her title the minute they divorced.

They are all in it, up to their necks. Anyone remember kc's friendship with js? How the rf tried to get js to act as a marriage guidance person between kc and pd?

The whole rf are grifters, abusers and rotten to the core.

Only people who need titles are the current King, Queen and the future King. Thats all, Charlotte and Louis shouldn't get titles either they are just spares after all.

It's not new for any institution to struggle with how it blends "legacy rules" for old timers and "brave new world" rules for the newcomers.

I still think that's there's a massive difference in how their two cases are handled, but also Prince Harry's "treatment" is BECAUSE of Andrew. Because they know what's gone before with a rogue, titled and aggrieved spare on the loose.

If Harry and Meghan had played it cool they could have had the "Zara and Mike" deal. They wanted too much their own way, and didn't have the slightest clue about the implications of HIHO.

Zara and Mike might trade on their connections, but they don't interfere politically to our knowledge.