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.

I have downloaded to kindle but not read it yet. I will get round to it. But also have downloaded as audiobook on Spotify so one or another will get round to it.

I think you are being a tad hasty here!
im very grateful that posters have arrived to so robustly divert attention away from scruffy, unkempt William and poor apparently made up cancer Catherine!
the comments were getting quite personal and unkind!
so for that I applaud them .

JeffG, no regulars on the Royal boards have said that William is scruffy or cancer is made up for Kate.
Maybe address the individual posters who said that, they were just one or two

No of course not! I was just grateful that posters have arrived and completely diverted the conversation away from the original one.
of course that might not have been the actual intention!
and if you look I did in fact challenge both comments at the source!!

These things have been said. How do you know they are not regulars ? Could be name changers? One regular poster has chosen her words carefully on Catherine's cancer and has refused to elaborate on those words.

Can I add Graham Smith's 'Abolish The Monarchy Why we Should and How we will' to the list of well reviewed books on several platforms?

He makes some pretty solid arguments despite apparently batting for team lemon.

I prefer Stephen king myself, more than enough horror and his books are highly reviewed.😁

it's fans that buy them.

I've seen one royalist just today just on this thread who's read them.

Personally I read a lot of royal books on both sides of the argument.

It's currently Robert Hardman's biography of E2 which is so far pretty nauseating in its sycophancy but I'll persevere 😀

I'm very fond of good King Steve myself

Now there's a thought 😂

On that I think we are certainly on the same page!!🤣

Lownie’s Traitor King was a fab read - Edward viii.

This article seems quite pertinent to this thread:

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/royal-family-attending-half-the-events-it-used-to-as-state-funding-triples

Basically less 'working' albeit exacerbated by the illness, scandal enforced dropout and flouncing we'd already spotted but ever increasing troughing.

But...as many people have pointed out, there's a world of difference between nipping down the road and cutting a ribbon, and a foreign trip with full on head of state meetings/Royal meet and greet and dinners. Yet both apparently score 1 on the 'attending events' scale which appears to be THE benchmark of how hard a person works.

@APlateOfMixedFanciesAndANicePotOfTea Yes, ad nauseum. It will be ignored because it doesn’t forward the narrative.

I don't know if people who are regular now said things about Catherine's cancer because there was a lot of name changing after she announced she had cancer. But I do know that regular names, some of whom I'd previously had a lot of respect for even when I didn't agree with them, did join in with the rumour and lies that invaded social media following Catherine's announcement of her abdominal surgery and her break from Royal duties.

As I said, it's impossible to tell if the people who were accusing Catherine and William of a number of things I'm not going to repeat, as I believe the threads are still there, are still regulars here. But I can say that many of those who encouraged and spread lies were regulars then.

Seeing that such doubts exist, that's because the institution has failed to maintain transparency. The initial "not cancer" statement followed by a vague diagnosis was a PR disaster that involved Photoshop, silence that fueled public mistrust. When you combine that with a pattern of minimal work, the remission defense only works for so long before it looks like a shield for a lack of duty and to try to attack people who dare ask questions. The world doesn't work like that, she had cancer but so most people who need to work while in treatment and specially life is back to normal, with some adjustments, once in remission. And while she has every right to privacy, the public is naturally going to be skeptical when a clear diagnosis is withheld, especially given the existing perception that she has always been workshy.

Let’s be honest: if Meghan exhibited the same behaviour and work ethic, the same group shielding Catherine would be in an uproar (and with reason). It’s hypocritical to ignore the Palace's role in creating this suspicion, especially when the institution is simultaneously embroiled in scandals involving Andrew and the royals documented ties to illicit financial and criminal figures, just to point a few issues. Their credibility is at rock bottom.

Seeing that such doubts exist, that's because the institution has failed to maintain transparency.

Kensington Palace announced on 17th January 2024 that the Princess of Wales had gone in for planned surgery the day before; that she was expected to say in hospital 10-14 days; that she was not expected to take part in public engagements until after Easter. They also said she wanted to maintain as much normality for the children as possible, and asked for privacy.

On 23rd March (so just before Easter, i.e. within the time period mentioned initially) she made her personal statement saying that cancer had been found in tests after the operation, that she was having chemotherapy, and that they had taken time to break the news to the children in the most appropriate way.

Kensington Palace statement

Nothing complicated; no silence; no lack of transparency. The doubts are only in the minds of those who prefer to twist perfectly straightforward statements.

Christ what must it be like to live in your head.

The initial not cancer statement: you mean, before it was diagnosed? She should have announced she had cancer before she knew she had it?

The vague diagnosis: she said she had cancer, that seems pretty clear? Or is she not permitted to say she has cancer without telling you where? What about KC3, should he have disclosed where he has cancer too?

It's currently Robert Hardman's biography of E2 which is so far pretty nauseating in its sycophancy but I'll persevere 😀

Taking one for team 🍋😄 Cathy.

I’m assuming you are not claiming @Windsandstarsas a regular.

@noonames I really wouldn’t bother.

I know, you’re right 🫤

Always nice to think that inaccuracies are ignorance rather than deceit but not always the case.

Why are you bringing Meghan into this?

Don’t take the bait! , it seems to be a thing lately, no doubt to provoke a response.

I knew people like you would twist things and go to personal attacks, not even surprised, that doesn't help your case.

You're missing the point. The criticism isn't that they aren't permitted to keep medical details private. The point is that they are currently struggling to balance historical secrecy with the demands of 24/7 modern media scrutiny. By being vague and then oscillating between silence and fake information and attacking common people like Virginia, they inadvertently fuel the very speculation they complain about. It’s not about needing to know the specific type of cancer, about the fact that the institution historically struggled to provide clear information and gv contradictory info, which creates a trust deficit that isn't just in their heads—it's a documented communications . Will you fail.to understand again and go to personal attacks again?