Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

AMW continuing his effort to end the monarchy part 4

264 replies

simpsonthecat · 08/05/2026 22:01

New thread. This is not ending

OP posts:
Thread gallery
19
CathyorClaire · Yesterday 11:15

Thanks for that extract, simpsonthecat.

Norman Baker is quite right when he says the MW problem stemmed from undue deference. Unfortunately said deference is still an issue today.

He has managed to compile a list of some of MW's TE jaunts from official royal web pages which have now been taken down. It's not complete but it gives a flavour of the frequency and global breadth of the jollies we were forced to subsidise.

ETA said list is in his book.

Tiddlywinks63 · Yesterday 11:15

Ukisgaslit · Yesterday 10:59

Thanks for that @simpsonthecat
Yep they are largely exempt from FOI requests , exempt from most taxes, exempted themselves from environmental laws ( hypocrites ) , exempt , exempt, exempt.

Why do they need layer upon layer of secrecy ?

I think it stems from years of monarchy having a sense of mystic, superiority and power where no one dares question them. It worked well until social media started and the plebs could see more of what went on until now they’re totally scrutinised pretty much 24/7. Certainly when I was young there was very little known about what went on behind the scenes unless it was in the press. And then it was highly sanitised, released by the palace and ‘Never explain, never complain’ rigidly adhered to. Any biographies were written by favoured authors.
Quite rightly everything has changed over the last few years.

simpsonthecat · Yesterday 11:35

Yes, we are in a different era, and what worked during QE2 certainly does not work now, and I really don't see that the Palace has adapted. A 70 year reign ends and nothing really changes that I can see.
We are hearing that William will change things, let's see shall we.....

OP posts:
MyAutumnCrow · Yesterday 12:04

Reddog1 · Yesterday 10:39

The thing that grates a bit about that review is that he mentioned that Andrew “lost his virginity” at 11. No. He was raped. It was CSA.

Otherwise, the review seems even-handed, fair. Hits the right note.

Definitely - all these male writers seem to be striking an off note here. As the Reviewer Robert Jobson himself says, we need to be looking at 'the framing, the sense of the bigger picture and why these things matter'.

It'd be interesting if someone were to write a recent history (through George V > Edward 'David' VIII > George V > Mountbatten & Philip > Elizabeth & Margaret > Gordounstoun > Charles and chums > Andrew > their partners and adult offspring connected with Andrew/Epstein/Diddy/Perry/Maxwell etc, looking specifically at the running theme of early sexual and 'romantic' experiences, being exposed to adult profligacies too young, other abuse, family expectations, the family environment and what was normalised within it.

There's something very wrong at the heart of this family that sits outside of what's considered 'normal' for its social class, its cultural milieu and its time.

The late Queen had difficulty facing up to a lot of things, it seems.

Ukisgaslit · Yesterday 12:07

William will change things for the worse .

He’s already started . Do less, take more, hide more .

Ukisgaslit · Yesterday 12:10

@CathyorClaire

Taking down the web pages because Norman Baker was taking notes! 🤣 How embarrassing

Norman Baker is a force to be reckoned with. I can only imagine the sheer persistence he must have

Verityandsquab654 · Yesterday 13:17

Ukisgaslit · Yesterday 12:07

William will change things for the worse .

He’s already started . Do less, take more, hide more .

But manage to attend the most important Villa games 🙄

Verityandsquab654 · Yesterday 13:35

Mylovelygreendress · Yesterday 09:08

I agree and wish I could remember the
Poster’s name .

If you are not being sarcastic Mylovelygreendress
as it’s often hard to tell on-ne…

… if you agree, then why on earth did you choose to repeat salacious gossip?

Verityandsquab654 · Yesterday 14:03

MyAutumnCrow · Yesterday 10:36

I don't understand why some people are so invested in either putting the royal children on pedestals or tearing them down or caring where they go to school. They're just kids, let them be and let them develop their own personalities instead of the ones the media and public seem so keen to give them.

I do agree; but I suppose that part of the problem is that rather a few royals have now been profilic in their descriptions of their school days, which has aroused the public's interest, as it was intended by them to do (especially Harry). If royals write or give interveiws about being children, then certain elements of the public (helped by the media) become more curious about royal children.

Charles's descriptions of Gordonstoun are pretty famous - 'Colditz in kilts' - and varied. https://www.independentschoolparent.com/school/senior-sixth-form/king-charles-iii-at-gordonstoun/

Harry wrote perhaps rather too much about his years at Eton in his assisted outpouring, Spare. Diana was free with her opinions, too, on the subject of schools and schooling, when her sons were obviously still children.

I really wish that the tide could be turned back on the more prurient types of interest in the children. I'm probably going to express this clumsily, but I think that the absolute spectacle of the last Sandringham Xmas Day walk, with the shouting and hugging and daft presents, was bonkers. Whatever 'cultural contract' the royals think they have with the public, during these times of world-wide social media, is rapidly shifting away from the one they think they had safely negotiated with the UK-based media. And the Men In Grey Suits need to keep up. Charlotte on the cover of HELLO! was ridiculous, but it arose of images already put in the public domain.

I do agree about the madness of the Easter walks with members of the public behaving completely inappropriately screaming at the royal dc and asking for selfies with children. Ridiculous.

I think there has always been a salacious interest in the schools the royals have attended, which is why there was a reporting ban when Wills and Harry were at Eton, but I don’t think it’s Spare particularly to blame or any other publication, for the most recent prurience.

I think it’s to do with the internet and the general rise of social media such as You Tube and Instagram and the corresponding proliferation of content.

People have clocked on to the fact that they can make money this way eg there is already an Instagram account or three about the royal children and there’s even one devoted to Princess Charlotte’s fashion. It all appeals to the public’s lowest instincts and the technology is relatively easy and accessible. Hence the explosion in royal podcasts, royal conspiracy theories, videos of people lip-reading the royals and sites devoted to the royal children.

It’s all utterly barking as far as I am concerned but a useful distraction for some I suppose from the really important things happening in the country eg child poverty and if I may I would like to quote the following figures from the Child Poverty Action Group:

4 million
children are growing up in poverty in the UK

8
children in an average classroom of 30 (27%) are living in poverty

7 out of 10
children living in poverty have at least one parent in paid work

350,000
children were lifted out of poverty when the two-child limit was removed

47%
of children from Black and Asian communities are in poverty, compared to 22 per cent of white children

41%
of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty

40%
of children in poverty live in a family where someone is disabled

I think that the UK would be a better place if the headlines, podcasts, Instagram and You Tube posts and reels, focused on the above figures rather than the brand of Princess Charlotte’s cardigan or where Prince George is going to school.

Ukisgaslit · Yesterday 16:07

@Verityandsquab654

Thank you for that post .

Verityandsquab654 · Yesterday 19:37

Ukisgaslit · Yesterday 16:07

@Verityandsquab654

Thank you for that post .

Thanks Ukisgaslit 🪴

I don’t mean to be preachy, it just upsets me.

I just think we focus on the wrong things and our values are skewed. We revere wealth and status and somehow that is equated with respectability and religion and the head of the CofE. Sorry to go really off topic now but I’m genuinely confused by it all.

CathyorClaire · Yesterday 20:12

Ukisgaslit · Yesterday 12:10

@CathyorClaire

Taking down the web pages because Norman Baker was taking notes! 🤣 How embarrassing

Norman Baker is a force to be reckoned with. I can only imagine the sheer persistence he must have

I don't think they realised Norman Baker was taking notes. Probably more part of the cack-handed moves to get ahead of the narrative and demonstrate to the plebs they were 'doing something' about the MW buffoon.

That said, I'm extremely grateful NB had the foresight to capture the information while it was out there.

As you say, a force to be reckoned with. How they must loathe him 😆

CathyorClaire · Yesterday 20:51

All in it, yep.

The strenuous efforts of the daughters to avoid financial scrutiny and their hiring of attack-dog lawyers to suppress Andrew Lownie's revelations tell us all we need to know.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page