Royal Family Soap Opera

[Pontius Navigator]

I have been told that the Hewitt story is just that and dates don't match.

[Capetonian]

"I have been told that the Hewitt story is just that and dates don't match."
.
There are only two people, or possibly three, who would know. One is dead and the other is unlikely to tell the truth. The third is Harry himself who might know somehow, but he's unlikely to betray any confidences.

[AtomKraft]

The dates might not match, but the hair and the face do.
Also, it's no secret Hewitt was pumping her.

Andy is just the latest of a long line of cheaters.

[AtomKraft]

It all comes back to Charles. A complete fanny.

[AtomKraft]

His views on architecture would have been ignored, were they not his.

[admin]

Need to cool it here guys. Thanks.

As for AK. Sixty years ago I swore an oath of allegiance to HMQ. Don't recollect any attached conditions so it still stands. Plus I think they do a fantastic job. So please take care.

Admin

[Ex-Ascot]

Alison, as fellow retired Royal Air Force personnel being loyal to the The Royal Family could I respectfully request that a very rare ban from this forum be applied to AtomKraft.

[Pontius Navigator]

Ex-A, I think. giving him time to reflect on the last couple of points before any ban.

On an adjacent theme, while the Forces comply with orders from HMG, everyone is cognaisant that they swore allegiance to HMQ. If there was a genuine constitutional divergence then their allegiance is clear.

This was put very well in The Crown where there was a definite movement to overthrow the Wilson Government. The Queen summoned Mountbatten recently dismissed as CDS and told him only an election could change the legitimate Government. Mountbatten acquiesced.

[G-CPTN]

BBC Panorama is set to screen Victoria's interview (recorded before Andrew's) on BBC One on December 2nd @ 20:30 (and available afterwards on BBC iPlayer).

Buckingham Palace stated: “It is emphatically denied that The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts."

Sources say the Duke isn't aware of the backlash around his repeated denials of any sexual relationship with Virginia Roberts.

[om15]

If we can steer ourselves back to the topic, most people on this forum have served in the forces in various capacities in their early years, however, it is more normal in life to meet people who haven't served, these people may not have the same attitude or feelings for the monarchy.
For the moment much of the Queen's duties such as signing laws are being carried out by Jean Claude Junker, and therefore people may wonder what is the purpose of the Royal Family other than to open Gymkhanas and invite Mr Trump for tea.
In order for the general non military members of the public to hold the Royal Family in some sort of esteem it is obvious that in their own interests the members of the Royal Family should be above reproach and set an example of how people and families should conduct themselves.
Repeatedly they are failing to do so, one embarrassing example of bad behaviour after another, examples of privileges being abused and standards lower than ordinary people conduct themselves.
If the size of the official royal family was reduced and they conducted themselves more modestly it might help, the immediate family could ride around London on bicycles, ( in the case of the Queens husband one with a large bell), and the rest could get jobs.
If they are held in ridicule and low esteem by the general public they have only themselves to blame, if Mr Corbyn becomes Prime Minister they may have to look to their laurels if they wish to survive. A quarter of the population intend to vote for a party that intends to sweep away the monarchy, they need to buck up and start behaving properly.

[AtomKraft]

As an ex soldier, and recipient of the Queens shilling, I simply restate my views.
What's the point of a 'Royal' family if they just shag around?

[FD2]

They may be guilty of all these terrible sex crimes AK but they are a great asset to the country and the Monarch is the head of state. Any large family has members who let the side down but apart from Charles' relationship issues, can you say what else he is guilty of, apart from a few 'green' foibles maybe? I'm sure that Charles would be very impressed by your flying experiences and would no doubt say so if you met. As a republican(?) you may be happy to see President Blair or President Corbyn at the top but I don't think your views will be shared by a majority of Britons, or indeed Commonwealth citizens.

I think you are simply wrong about Charles - he may well be the saviour once the baying pack have calmed down over the Andrew business and he is running a corner shop somewhere. Three of the Queen's children made bad marriages and Andrew seems to be guilty of the many faults he's accused of, but lying and being an oaf are not criminal offences and I'm sure his days as a favoured member of the 'team' are over. William will be a monarch who is even more popular with his subjects when his turn comes.

As for your slightly prudish attitude to the sexual matters - it is estimated that up to 10% of children are reared by men who are not their fathers. It happens throughout society - I'm not condoning the behaviour but it just a fact of life amongst human beings and will be in the future. People get bored and play around.

You are out of order in your picking on Camilla because of her looks - that's something we can't help isn't it? Maybe she should be thoroughly modern and have lots of work done on her face eh? Like Cape I never had any time for Diana, as the public side we saw always appeared posing and manipulative but I'm sure that underneath it she was a saint. BTW, why didn't she have the 'guts' to divorce Charles as life was obviously so miserable for her? Too fond of her position maybe?

Funding? An old chestnut but whatever the other points are, the whole of the 'business' brings more dosh into the country in tourism than it may cost. They are a star attraction still, as is the Queen herself.

Charles a 'dick' ? Let's get a little less ad hominem and a little more reasoned.

[FD2]

What's the point of a 'Royal' family if they just shag around?

I agree with you on that AK - they haven't set an example - but there's a bit more to the whole business than the shagging around. Andrew has brought them nearer to disaster than ever. I hope the William/Harry generation will be better that way. Harry can run yoghurt weaving classes in California and leave the royal stuff to his less excitable brother.

[G-CPTN]

There is a long tradition of British Royal males having pre-marital and extra-marital relationships - which were not reported through the then-media (whether out of respect or through D-notices that prohibited reporting to the public).

[Capetonian]

They may be guilty of all these terrible sex crimes

None of them has committed 'a terrible sex crime'. If, emphasis on if, Andrew did pomp that 17 year old girl, it may have been unwise, ill advised, even immoral, but it wasn't a sex crime.
Nor can Charles' infidelities be called sex crimes.

[FD2]

Couldn't agree with you more Cape - I was being sarcastic.

No one has committed any 'crimes' as far as I can see and if there has been a real crime, the person concerned is innocent until proven guilty. I'm sick to death of the Press hinting that someone or other is guilty of this or that and then the shrieking hordes getting involved on social media. All I think Andrew is 'guilty' of is being an oaf, maybe even a bit of a sociopath and that's on lots of evidence. We can make a judgement on that because it's not a crime.

The person I feel most concern for is the Queen. A lifetime of devotion to her duty and I suspect a husband on his last legs; now wondering how she could have been let down so badly by one of her sons when nearing the end of her reign. Oh, and Andrew's daughters too, despite their occasional bad press.

[TheGreenGoblin]

They may be guilty of all these terrible sex crimes

None of them has committed 'a terrible sex crime'. If, emphasis on if, Andrew did pomp that 17 year old girl, it may have been unwise, ill advised, even immoral, but it wasn't a sex crime.
Nor can Charles' infidelities be called sex crimes.

Pedophiles dude! If you are the kind of guy that thinks that one of your mates is doing that kind of thing and you feel it is OK then you are really not the kind of person an honest, decent man would want to know!

[TheGreenGoblin]

They may be guilty of all these terrible sex crimes

None of them has committed 'a terrible sex crime'. If, emphasis on if, Andrew did pomp that 17 year old girl, it may have been unwise, ill advised, even immoral, but it wasn't a sex crime.
Nor can Charles' infidelities be called sex crimes.

Pedophiles dude! If you are the kind of guy that thinks that one of your mates is doing that kind of thing and you feel it is OK then you are really not the kind of person an honest, decent man would want to know!

Pomping young girls, eh? What's your limit, 12 years old, 13, 14? What's your boundary? If the so called "highness" had sex with a 17 year old girl in the USA then he is a pedophile beacause the age of consent there is generally 18...

Or do you believe in the "droigt du seigneur"?

Which makes you a man who is no longer free but a slave... and an immoral one at that! My contempt knows no bounds...

What has happened to morality in this lackadaisical country?

[Alisoncc]

Photographs I've seen seem to indicate they were taken a few decades ago. DofY looks to be in his twenties. So a twenty year old has it off with a seventeen year old, so what's new.

[John Hill]

I believe the girl in the photo is now 36.