William denounced as "workshy" due to lack of royal engagements he performs

[SpaEnjoyer]

I read this article in the DM which was originally brought to my attention by my MIL, who has a very keen interest in goings-on involving the RF.

'His absences have not gone unnoticed': Norman Baker asks when 'workshy William' is going to step up https://mol.im/a/15908021

I must admit I was surprised to learn that William has attended fewer events than KC and Anne over the last 3 years. I agree with the sentiment that he needs to step up to ease the burden on his father.

Seriously ? Your post attempting to dismiss the numerous financial and legal facts published in two books with one remark in a tabloid

Is that it ?Thats your post?

Read even one book and come back.

Again I know the anti Windsor arguments are hitting the mark when posters and authors are attacked - not the arguments

Why do royalists not read ‘royal mint , national debt ‘ or ‘what do you do ?’

Do you prefer not to know ?
Thats a weak strategy.

I don’t recall attempting to dismiss the numerous financial and legal facts published in two books. I didn’t mention the books at all, nor any financial or legal facts. I rather think I laughed at your claim that Norman Baker’s research is meticulous, in the context of this thread about an article quoting NB’s use of the Easter service as evidence of William’s laziness.

I’ve read them! , spare yourself.

Ha! Life is too short to read all the novels on my list, so Norman’s meticulous research is, shall we say, somewhat less of a priority.

The Norman Baker? Is he titled?

I don't think I've insulted here, jeff but so far on this thread I've had a summary of posts I'm alleged to have made on other threads dragged across to this one, an accusation I don't post in good faith, a suggestion made not to waste time responding to me and now snippy comments from what I can only assume is someone who's name-changed but whose style is reminiscent of a poster I prefer to swerve.

Anyway. Enough already.

Back to lazy arse W 😁

I think it’s clear to see what is going on here

Carry on fiddling while Rome burns, royalists .

To be honest, if you are not prepared to read his books, your opinion matters little.

His book Royal Mint, National debt is absolutely fascinating. It details how a bankrupt Royal family in 1760 has gone from that to the massive wealth they have now. Bit of a history lesson in there. As one historian said... it will shake the beliefs of even the most fervent Royalists. The reviews from many royal historians was positive about the publication.

So you dismiss him all you like, it means your opinion counts for nothing because you are not prepared to put aside your dislike of him (for some reason)

Yes I'm sorry to say it read like you have had people unfairly criticising your opinions, by undermining the sources you have given.

I read the Harry and Meghan thread and, alternatively, someone is criticised for saying that you should give sources when you make a claim. There are posts from some of the same people on here.

It would be helpful if posters desisted from the personal jibes, please.

His book Royal Mint, National debt is absolutely fascinating. It details how a bankrupt Royal family in 1760 has gone from that to the massive wealth they have now.

Agree entirely.

It's shocking stuff.

@CathyorClaire
I havent seen any insulting of posters by you on here. I was very puzzled to read that accusation and did look to see if I missed something!
We don't always agree but your posts sometimes make me laugh because they go for the jugular about our dear royals and sometimes I just need that!

And it is really bad form to tell posters to ignore any poster. It demeans the poster suggesting that course of action, very embarrassing for them.

So we’re not able to opine on anything unless we’ve read all of the author’s work?

How rude to tell @noonamestheir opinion counts for nothing.

I don’t dislike Norman, I’m sure he’s a lovely man. I quite liked him as a MP iirc. I don’t think William works hard, I don’t know how hard he works, in the absence of any evidence provided here. I am commenting on a thread about a newspaper article, not about Norman’s books. It does quote him though, and even that shows his research is anything but meticulous, given that he uses non attendance at a private family event to suggest laziness at work. (Or of course his research could be meticulous but he’s choosing to use irrelevancies to prop up an argument which, if this is the case, I guess must be a bit flimsy.)

Ok to tell posters that their opinion counts for nothing though, eh?

It's not rude. They are dismissing and ridiculing an author who has written many books without having read a thing written by him except some DM clickbait stuff. It counts for nothing for me because the criticism seems unwarranted in those circumstances. . Others may feel different. Up to them.

Yes. It reminds me of Spare Harry's book and other books on the RF out there. I feel my opinion on a book counts for nothing if I can't be arsed to actually read the books!

"This shows that Norman Baker’s meticulous research is having an impact and you’ve no response".
@UKisgaslit Is this enthusiastic endorsement of Norman Baker's work based on YOUR interpretation of the facts he presents, or merely that his conclusions from his data agree with your views?
An interesting AI review of NB's critical analysis of data states

[Royal Family Analyses] Provocative but Subjective
Financial Scrutiny: In his books focusing on the British monarchy (such as And What Do You Do?) Baker heavily scrutinizes royal finances, tax exemptions, and lobbying. 1, 2]
Factual Basis: These books rely on documented public spending and legislative data, making his core financial claims verifiable. However, the conclusions he draws from this data are heavily influenced by his republican political stance, leading to highly subjective interpretations of the monarchy's behavior. 1, 2, 3, 4]

Verdict Summary
When Norman Baker relies on hard documentary evidence and parliamentary inquiries, his works are generally credible and factually reliable. However, when he writes on covert state activities or controversial deaths, his writing frequently strays into speculation, and his conclusions should be read with a critical eye. 1, 2, 3, 4]

Edited: typo

I didn’t dismiss or ridicule Norman. I laughed at the poster who said his research was meticulous, when it very clearly isn’t in the article that this thread is discussing.

Fair enough. That article.

But I wasn’t expressing any opinion on Norman’s books? This thread is about a press article.

I have read his books, in many instances with a politely raised eyebrow. He is a a man of very strong views, that is clear. he’s also a man who believes that facts are only of value if they fit his thesis, and if they don’t, they are either disregarded or changed. You are aware he is the same Norman Baker who also wrote a book claiming the former government weapons inspector Dr David Kelly did not commit suicide in 2003 but was in fact murdered by an Iraqi hit squad, a crime known to, but secretly covered up by, the UK authorities. It’s a conspiracy theory up there with the theory that Diana was murdered by British intelligence sources (which he also has believes in, by the way!). I don’t tend to find the arguments of avowed conspiracy theorists particularly persuasive, personally.

The other thing about reading his books is that you can accept the actual facts he does lay out and still disagree with him that they are a terrible thing.

OK. I appreciate that now.

Ok, good, thank you.

I want to read his David Kelly book, it's on my list.