Does this latest royal family headline show press hypocrisy?

[Constantrunner]

This latest headline exposes the hypocrisy of the press.

Have they constantly complained about books and articles? No. This statement is unusual, because of the nature of the claims.

I don’t think it’s interest in Diana so much as in the salaciousness stuff about Charles.

Either you’re 45+ and could answer questions on her on Mastermind, or you just don’t care.

Charles Spencer is as bad as anyone else trying to make money from his dead sister who died 30 years ago
the book is un-necessary and in really bad taste and think of William and Harry too and how they might be feeling, clearly no consideration for his “sisters beloved boys”

Why would it not be “fine” for William to say she was paranoid? I think he knew her better than any of us and bore the brunt of her mental instability, very much resulting from Martin Bashir’s despicable conduct (introduced to her by Earl Spencer - lovely).

I feel very sorry for William, who I am sure loved his damaged mother very much, and if he describes her behaviour in that way, I respect that. Her emotional state wasn’t his fault

Hey? I’ve read loads of books about the RF (Abdication Crisis etc) - I don’t remember the RF ever complaining. When have they complained?

Asserting the fact that a book may not represent events with objective truth isn’t complaining. If the Palace hadn’t issued that mild and diplomatic statement, people like OP would take silence as assent.

I totally agree.

my children (well-educated 30ish and brought up to take an interest in all kinds of things) have zero interest in Diana, although I’ve told them about her in the past.

They know who the current royals are but Diana is ancient history to them.

I totally agree.

my children (well-educated 30ish and brought up to take an interest in all kinds of things) have zero interest in Diana, although I’ve told them about her in the past.

They know who the current royals are but Diana is ancient history to them.

If the royal family don't want this for the future, they need to wind up the monarchy and become private citizens.

You think the royal family (which is not the same as the monarchy) could decide unilaterally to completely change our constitution without reference to parliament or voters..... what makes you think they have the power to do that?

Harry and Meghan, who are private citizens.

Harry and Meghan don't think they are private citizens.

I think it makes him worse than others.

He was a shit brother during her lifetime but has taken every opportunity to cash in on her memory. But then he has huge alimony issues because he’s been a shocking husband to several unfortunate women.

If course if the royal family said they were standing down, the monarchy would be finished. Do you really think the public would accept a monarch who was a third cousin twice removed?

And my pint about Harry and Meghan was you are mainly obsessed with them on this board. It doesn't matter who the topic of the thread is, it always comes back to Harry and Meghan who are private citizens.
Do you all find the actual royal family so boring that you need to keep talking about harry and Meghan?

Possibly, as long as it’s not Earl Spencer (nb I have not checked how many times removed he is)

You do know in a hereditary monarchy you don't get to choose? You get whose next.

Did you know that it's a Constitutional Monarchy and Parliament is Sovereign?

Yes, do we need to point out again how many times Parliament has decided to remove the obvious next monarch?

Are you trying to be clever? The whole point of monarchy is it is hereditary, rather than merit based. Sometimes the public and/or parliaments revolt and monarchies get their heads chopped off or have to flee.

Yes in theory the monarchy has very limited power. In practice the British royal family have had hundreds of laws changed to benefit them.

No, I am clever.
Look it up, it's on the government website.
I understand that you're angry, but there really is no need for the snark.

Exactly. I think some basic reading and comprehension of the system would help some posters.
Rather than just being rude.

I apologise. But I have no idea what you are trying to say

Edward abdicated 90 years ago.
The last time before that was in 1688.
We have a hereditary monarchy. There is no calculation of merit or suitability for the role.

Ok, good of you to apologise. Many wouldn't.
Effectively, because Parliament is Sovereign, they have to agree to the next monarch on the Accession Council. The monarch can be removed (as happened in the Glorious Revolution, and with Edward VIII).
The cabinet papers re Edward make for interesting reading. He had no intention of abdicating; he was forced.

You may think, well it hasn't happened in a while? It's not been necessary, the monarch has always Assented to whatever law Parliament has passed, and done as they're told.
It's a very real possibility though.
We do not have an Absolute Monarchy.

Sorry you are wrong. There is an interest amongst under 25 year olds about Diana.

Your question was “would the public accept” - which itself introduces the possibility of the public not accepting. My answer was they might accept it. The ref to CS was a joke but if the situation were to arise where the continuation of the monarchy meant some distant relation on the throne, I think it would depend on who it was. A reasonably sensible, intelligent, self-aware person, maybe. Danny Dyer, probably not (although he does have a following tbf).

You are a bit of a lone voice on this thread OP, I’d summon that lilac hedgehog poster to back you up if I were you.