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.

I have reported this post to MN HQ.

You don’t have to announce it 😂

I announced it because I didn’t want people wrongly assuming that UKisgaslit had reported it.

She is brave enough to stick to one nn.

And I am sure she can stick up for herself.

When I tried sticking to one nn previously across several threads, some posters on this board started to single me out and make “jokes” about me or tried to deliberately derail my posts, so I know from experience that it is not particularly pleasant to be on the other end of it. And it is always republicans funnily enough who are singled out.

It may be mild and jokey in this instance but I have seen it before and “it’s only a joke” is traditionally the bullies defence.

I said several posts back that it wasn’t cool talking about UKisgaslit in posts instead of addressing her directly, but it carried on, so I reported it. Hope that explanation is full enough for you?

If I don’t reply btw it’s because I have to work now as some of us ordinary citizens do!

I said several posts back that it wasn’t cool talking about UKisgaslit in posts instead of addressing her directly, but it carried on, so I reported it. Hope that explanation is full enough for you?

Ah OK, so is IS a rule you made up rather than a MN one. Glad to have that clarified.

Hello, all. Just popping in with a reminder to please avoid personal attacks or singling out certain posters. This really does derail threads. It's possible to discuss things without resorting to this. Thank you.

I’m briefly back but off again in a minute. Before anyone says “ it’s not an airport- you don’t need to announce your departure!”😃, I only say that because I don’t want pps to think I’m ignoring subsequent posts.

Ukisgaslit- why don’t you start a thread on the topic which you are clearly ininterested in, rather than posting on this on? I’m not being sarcastic- it makes sense.

This one was about something else bit despite attempts to get it back on track, you are determined to make it about the constitution. That’s like me going to a tennis club and insisting everyone plays badminton.

Btw none of these changes are particularly complicated - the practice of allowing Charles a first look at laws in order to exclude himself is a custom and practice . It could be stopped tomorrow.

Spot on. That is a total disgrace and, even if legal, corrupt.

How can we deal with posters who are constantly derailing threads by bringing up a completely different subject and being permanently indignant towards anyone who responds to them about the other subject? Ignore them? They also refuse to start their own thread about their favourite subject. It's all very perplexing.

This thread is about Spencer's book and the palace response to it. If you want to discuss abolishing the monarchy why not start a special thread just for that instead of derailing this one?

But @BunnyBunbunbun , that is par for the course on any thread to do with royals, by and large, trying to redirect every discussion to "what about" D&DoS/HAM/H&M.

Successive governments are beyond useless at holding our Monarchy to account
Yet they're meant to work for the people. Yeah right

Yes, I can see that. But the HAMs do overlap a bit with some of the royal threads and there are also separate threads dedicated just to them. I can't understand why the anti-monarchists don't create their own threads and instead insist on derailing other threads.

Yep. Look at the thread "Kate and the Middletons." It was started just to drone on and on about how awful harry and Meghan are.
Nothing to speak of related to the thread title

This is totally on point.
Perhaps posters could read this.

How the book was reported on in the media. Charles Windsor's response and whether it was enough

https://alternativeroyalreporter.substack.com/p/british-royal-journalism-doesnt-exist?utm=

The thread is indeed about Spencer's book.

The discussion is, by and large, about the part of the book where the king may (or may not) have said about said certain things about his ex wife when she died. It also discusses how the palace reacted to that claim. That naturally enough went on to dwell a moment on the power the king/palace/royals in our modern society. Part of that discussion contains a thought or three about having a constitutional monarchy.

In short, in my opinion the thread evolved quite naturally to it's current status.

You could easily bring it back to the book by making interesting points? Granted, that is hard to do at the moment as we are trying to argue about something without having read the source material. Unless you have the book and have managed to read it already.

There are threads to discuss that! , they are however tumbleweeds of activity….no fun if you haven’t got people to argue with.

In the run-up to the release of Swan Song, most of the British media fell over itself to smear Charles Spencer and failed to do its job.

I don’t think this is even true as a starting point - some are even now offering him a sympathetic platform. The papers reported with glee CS’s claims against KC3, to the point where the palace felt they had to say something. It was reported as very damaging to KC3, with the usual ‘could this bring down the monarchy?’ type questions. The press reported the BP rebuttal, then as the serialisation continued, the book seemed more about KC3 and CS than Diana. People began to suspect his motives, just as it became clear that there were also errors of fact involved. CS could have done really well out of this had he written a better book. He started with many of the public still on side.

I think he lost them because:

a) people find the idea that KC3 was giddy like a lottery winner hard to believe when he looks anything but in all the contemporary footage

b) they find the idea that KC3 behaved so badly hard to believe when contemporary interviews with CS contradict this

c) many still have a fondness for Diana, dislike people exploiting her and would prefer she was left to RIP, especially by the man who said he would never profit from her

d) many have a fondness for one or both of her sons, suspect the book is difficult for him / them and disapprove of CS’s carelessness of their feelings, especially since he swore to protect them in the famous eulogy

e) he wasn’t close to Diana as an adult and wasn’t very nice to her either

f) people find it a bit odd and distasteful to include the irrelevant “don’t forget - Charles has big ears” type stories - what has that to do with his sister’s legacy - again raises suspicions that it’s less about her and more about taking potshots at KC3 (which would be fine if he weren’t pretending it’s all about honouring Diana)

g) the style and content are ripe for lampooning and people find the centring of himself a bit eye rolly generally

h) too many basic errors of fact undermine everything - why should anyone believe anything he says when he can’t be relied upon to factcheck / tell the truth

i) everybody likes to prick a pompous, privileged balloon, makes no odds whether royal or merely aristocratic

Excellent points, @LetsNotForgetQueenMary.
Plus...a brilliant user name!

Yes, yes, yes!

A scolding!

spot on

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

I have .
I’ve started several in the more pleasant environment of AIBU and will do again.

Against my better judgement I have responded to inaccuracies and repetition of Windsor PR on here .
And as far I’m aware posters are free to post where they please.

I see the usual claims of mortal insult, and scoldings.

I am not a Windsor fan.

Have you given any more thought to my reasoned questions up above?

Whataboutery:- I am just wondering how much difference it would have made to the sales of the book if CS had said that he and CW had a row on the phone and that one of them - was it CS?- put the phone down because he didn't like CW's attitude or words, without further detail.
However, I suppose the book sales aren't the only reason for writing the book, so inflammatory remarks are perhaps just the name of the game.

Have CS sisters made any comment about the book yet. I wonder did he send them an advance copy of the book as they must feature heavily in it, ditto William.