Poor baby - run home to mummy!

Petera, “if this is regarded as intrusive for the Queen, why is it not intrusive for everyone else?”

It is intrusive for everyone else if others go and look.
The difference is that on GN threads and other social media people want to investigate, discuss, criticise and publicise their thoughts and opinions on what is in fact a private matter, whether wills are published or not.
GN has recently lost a well loved member. How many on here are curious enough to investigate her will, if it exists or would approve of others doing so and publicising their opinions on the details? Or to investigate mine, when I am gone as I have certainly received money from the public purse.

Exactly.

There is a ruling from the High Court.
Following a convention from 1910 the deaths of senior members of the Royal Family have been followed by an application to seal their wills, made to the president of the Family Division of the High Court and debated by the Attorney General, representing the public interest.
The Judge's ruling:
" There is a need to enhance the protection afforded to truly private aspects of the lives of this limited group of individuals in order to maintain the dignity of the Sovereign and close members of her family." (Daily telegraph 17.09.2021)

Mollygo

Petera, “if this is regarded as intrusive for the Queen, why is it not intrusive for everyone else?”

It is intrusive for everyone else if others go and look.
The difference is that on GN threads and other social media people want to investigate, discuss, criticise and publicise their thoughts and opinions on what is in fact a private matter, whether wills are published or not.
GN has recently lost a well loved member. How many on here are curious enough to investigate her will, if it exists or would approve of others doing so and publicising their opinions on the details? Or to investigate mine, when I am gone as I have certainly received money from the public purse.

The answer is "probably none of us are curious enough". So that means you are against the idea of wills being public documents?

Petera No, indeed I’ve made use of the facility in my genealogy research.
I’m against the contents being dragged into the public domain for people to criticise and argue about. I’d hate it if, for example, it was my father’s will (and he too received money from the public purse) that was being criticised in public by people who it really doesn’t concern.

Distaceful

Mollygo

Petera No, indeed I’ve made use of the facility in my genealogy research.
I’m against the contents being dragged into the public domain for people to criticise and argue about. I’d hate it if, for example, it was my father’s will (and he too received money from the public purse) that was being criticised in public by people who it really doesn’t concern.

You are, eloquently, making my point for me. I'm sure you would hate it, as would we all, but you don't - probably - have the time and resources to go to court to prevent it from happening.

No I don’t, but I’m not interesting enough.

Hmmmm Interesting , skilful & disingenuous words to use : ie
Reportedly, Conveyed her wish, Quoted, Let it be known.

The press have been talking about us

This week the Daily Mail covered Republic's Welsh billboards, quoting the leader of the Welsh Conservatives who was upset with us. That prompted lots more coverage, including the Mirror, ABC News, ITV, Sky News, the Sun who focussed on our Prince Andrew billboards, The National and the Express who claim that "Britons were fuming" over our posters.

And LBC GB News.

We’ve now raised over £26,000! Thank you!

Don’t thank me. I wouldn’t contribute a penny to you.

Prince Charles ‘cash-for-honours’ scandal grows with fresh allegations
Prince reportedly ‘met at least nine times’ with William Bortrick, the alleged fixer at heart of the claims.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/19/prince-charles-cash-for-honours-scandal-grows-with-fresh-allegations?fbclid=IwAR1hvW50x3tlj4SeUlrGH3Wbax2XBBKSD_WI6Tcq4SC9E_51fkWtmIqN23Y