Royal row between King Charles and Earl Spencer 3

[Viviennemary]

A new thread and book not even published till Tuesday. I checked on Amazon and its only 12th on the non fiction bestseller list. Doesn't show Earl Spencer in a very good light imho.

There are some VERY over invested people on this thread. Unless they know the parties involved on the RF side, why would they bother defending a family like that. Or maybe they are members of the RF bot factory. Or are bored, or something.

I find it all so amusing, as Frank Sinatra sang one time.

Royal Threads Lurker here - has anyone mentioned the PM programme today R4 15 mins in. Quite entertaining!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0031t3m?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Or maybe they are members of the RF bot factory

Talking about the Royal Family and bot factories - there have been a couple of recent news articles about bot farms aimed at attacking the RF, as they are seen as a stabilising influence on the country and in intergovernmental discussions.

It's interesting how those outside the country can sometimes appreciate their importance more than those inside.

Times https://archive.is/vcjqU

Telegraph https://archive.is/OJywR

This weird idea again that people only care about those they know personally. It trotted out daily on here and it’s just imbecilic.

i care about fairness and I feel for anyone who is being unjustly pilloried in the press or on SM. You don’t need to be acquainted with them personally to have a sense of justice.

I mean the cheek of them, interfering with a sacred species like the British Royal Family. How very dare they! This is the problem, there's a lot of it about and sometimes it's much more subtle than "revealing" the emergence of a fourth sibling, which is akin to a skit, but maybe that's another aim.

It is out there, and works on both sides of the issue. Neither side is immune. Spotting it is nigh on impossible, but being a sceptic and finding humour in most things is one of life's great gifts for sure.

Thanks Lelivre for that link.
PM is quite right in what he says and I think quite right to pursue it further.

Are you aware that the King is the head of state of the United Kingdom? They're a little more than some random old family with grand titles.

Yes you may care about injustice, so do I and so do most people, however it is relative. I don't have much sympathy for either side, it is just too ridiculous for me to support one side or the other, I don't care enough about them and they will not lose any of their privileges or money so the injustice is merely words. Words that the immediate RF have dished out over the years, and some have been nasty and dismissive too. Most of the "words" were said by those now deceased though. The current monarch is decent enough as a representative of us, but as for other things, I am not so sure.

It is indeed a soap opera. Without it the RF has no raison d'etre anymore. Apart from rubber stamping legislation and representing us the people at home and abroad, which they do very well IMO.

So let the show go on I say.

there's a lot of it about and sometimes it's much more subtle than "revealing" the emergence of a fourth sibling, which is akin to a skit, but maybe that's another aim.

Did you look at the substance of the articles, rather than one minor detail?

We are dealing with disinformation on a global scale, intended to disrupt governments.

No I had no idea, so you are telling me that King Charles is actually the Head of State of the UK? OMG thanks for letting me know.😉

Yes I know that, which is why I mentioned bots in my post. What more do you want me to say? My point was that bots are not just aiming at the RF it is in other directions also. So subtle we hardly know it's happening. And bots can work FOR the RF also.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are more such clangers. Spencer can get away with saying a lot of unsubstantiated stuff by referring to phone calls from 30 years ago or citing private conversations with people who are now dead and can't speak for themselves to confirm whether what he's saying is true. But if, in his zeal to throw around allegations, he's getting something as easily verifiable as when Piers Morgan was Mirror editor wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if his book is littered with such factual errors. He's so arrogant, he probably didn't bother to fact check a single thing and just relied on his very distorted memory, which he regards as infallible.

Piers Morgan was not the editor of the Mirror in 1993. Earl Spencer is simply inaccurate and has apologised. It’s truly sloppy to make an assumption. Morgan wants the first editions withdrawn.

The Mirror has supported her anti landmine crusade wholeheartedly. Diana wanted them to publicise her landmine event in Angola in 1997 and they even took pictures! She liked newspapers when it suited her. Morgan is famously tetchy but he’s correct about what job he was doing! Spencer isn’t.

Getting v v bored indeed with this you must be a bot/you must work for the RF business. It's the ultimate in lazy thinking and if the posters coming out with it can't think of any other rebuttal apart from those, is it really worth their time being here?

I mentioned the possibility of bots but I'm not sure if you referring to me!

If you are, I don't care, I'll stay and write whatever I wish within the MN guidelines and if posts like mine are getting close to the bone well.... denial is a river somewhere over there.

Yes I'm also getting pissed off with it. I'm not even that fussed about what he's said about KC, I just think he's a money grabbing shit for making money out of his dead sister when he said he wouldn't. Historian my arse.

Historian my arse

Ive only read one of his books, the one about the White Ship, and enjoyed that apart from his persistently calling the penultimate Saxon king Edward the Confessor: when that title was given to him 40 years after the White Ship sank - so at the time he'd have been called King Edward and nothing else. It was a minor detail but it suggested a lack of checking.

I think that's an important issue. People who think it's great (because they're republican in sympathy) when bots from hostile powers attack the RF are missing the point - whatever your political views, they are attacking the UK HoS, and that's not good. And such people are playing right into their hands.

They might not like the royals, but would they willingly play Russia or China's game?

It's like those who hate the Commonwealth and rejoice when say, Jamaica, says it wants to leave. Yes - but it's probably China which is going to move in and replace any British influence there. Again, that's a bit sinister because it's so strategic.

(to be clear: of course countries should be free to leave the CW - the late Queen always emphasised that. In itself it's not a problem...except for the replacement of links with Britain with links with superpowers hostile to us.)

Well Andrew was a great friend of Epstein so that sort of cancels it out. Lord Mountbatten.....the stories are well k own about him Charlie himself was and is no saint and The Queen paid all the millions of pounds to try and make the Epstein problem disappear, so I think trying to make out that our RF is more moral issues laughable

Exactly, @CoffeeCantata.

People often haven't looked at the history of the Commonwealth, or seriously considered the alternatives.

There are reasons that there were 8 countries in the group when the Queen came to the throne, and 56 when she died.
There are reasons that the last 4 of those admitted had no historical constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom or other Commonwealth states.
There are reasons that more African countries have applied to become member states.

Exceptionally far behind even for me and a bit of a derail but if the 2015 statement was indeed instigated by MW and should have been regarded as a cautionary tale it does lead me to wonder why they went on to compound the error and allow him to whitewash his subsequent standing down in his own words and as his own decision.

Returning to the present, with all the expert advice available on tap I think it's quite surprising the Palace issued such an immediate response to the very first 'bombshell' without waiting to see what else might be alleged.

FTR I do believe on balance C3 said it but without context and solid corroborating evidence it was foolish hugely inadvisable to include it in a book.

Maybe the Palace had been shown an advanced copy so they felt confident in their reply 🤷‍♀️. It’s got a bit lost in the Piers Morgan debacle since then 😬

Savile.

Ball.

Mountbatten

Van der Post.

I’ve read that some of the very small CW countries saw membership as beneficial because it gave them a place at the table which they wouldn’t otherwise get.

And as you say the fact that some non-ex-empire countries have asked to join and some which had left re-joined is quite telling.

Maybe the Palace had been shown an advanced copy

I'd be quite surprised if this was the case TBH.