Keeping Royal Secrets

It was all a bit more nuanced than that Alegrias. It was a great pity that the country had to be partitioned but there were so many complex threads involved. Several absolutely adamant sides which simply would not compromise. Absolutely tragic. My grandparents lived there and my Dad was born there. They could see see all sides to the problem.
Mountbatten was very late to it all and under pressure to just get it done.

The current working royals had nothing to do with the partition of India.

Nobody whoever they happen to be can be held responsible for their ancestors actions.

I agree with you. So why are the complicit in moves to prevent the details of the matter being made available to historians?

Alegrias1

Is one of your family's private matters that you mismanaged the partition of India and caused the death of millions?

No, didn't think so.

The current working royals had nothing to do with the partition of India.

Nobody whoever they happen to be can be held responsible for their ancestors actions.

Is one of your family's private matters that you mismanaged the partition of India and caused the death of millions?

No, didn't think so.

We all have private matters in our lives. Who would want every private detail printed for the nosy and nit picking to talk about? Isn't it enough to be gawped at and have ridiculous newspaper articles printed about you, your family and friends, that you can't even attempt to counter as you would then spend your entire life answering every increasingly silly question? Whether we need a monarchy or not is another matter, but the RF are what they are through accident of birth - I wouldn't want to be part of that for all the money, palaces and status. If there are private matters within the family let them stay there - I'm not interested, and see no reason to assume that they are scandalous.

Alegrias1

^Arts Council England says the Acceptance in Lieu scheme allows important historic archives to be given “to the nation” as a way of settling tax bills, and that “material accepted under the scheme is allocated to public museums, archives or libraries by the appropriate minister and is available for all ”^

Just leaving this here...

It doesn't say, unless the RF don't want you to know about it.

Wanting jam and butter on both sides of your loaf, as my old granny used to say.

Sometimes the artworks remain in their "home" with the proviso that they must be made available to the public. This relies upon the house being open a certain number of times a year. Needless to say the dates and times are often not well publicised and are at inconvenient times/dates.

These type of people don't keep poncey rubbish diaries!! They are carefully written accounts of their lives in a professional and regal capacity, bigging themselves up because they know that one day, probably the world will read them! Mountbatten was a real manipulative and cunning player, if you like, he had the ear nose and all the other bits of the monarch he virtually ran the monarchy inclognito! (Northern terminology) he manipulated Phillip to marry princess Elizabeth, then Charles with Di. He was an odious racist and not averse to chumming up with some very dubious types to get what he wanted, his diary? Dynamite!

I'm going to post this then I'm going for a cuppa.

Its got nothing to do with sex.

Its not even really got anything to do with Partition.

Its got a lot to do with people thinking they are above the law and making the adoring masses feel sorry for them when they are bending the law to suit themselves.

Arts Council England says the Acceptance in Lieu scheme allows important historic archives to be given “to the nation” as a way of settling tax bills, and that “material accepted under the scheme is allocated to public museums, archives or libraries by the appropriate minister and is available for all ”

Just leaving this here...

It doesn't say, unless the RF don't want you to know about it.

Wanting jam and butter on both sides of your loaf, as my old granny used to say.

Gillycats

I’m puzzled as to why people are so hell bent on dragging up the past so much these days. Current issues need transparency of course but what happened in the past, although we should learn from mistakes, cannot be changed. What would anyone gain from the Queen being humiliated? How would you like it? Everyone is entitled to privacy unless they have broken the law.

I like your post Gillycats. Some people including on GN would gain satisfaction from knowing something that would make the Queen feel humiliated.
An historian wants to find evidence of someone’s bisexuality? Why?
Or investigate someone’s sex life-voyeurism. I expect he is without sin himself.
I have a certain agreement with anti RF with when I think of the money side of things, and I’ve been interested in the Partition of India for personal reasons, but this prurient interest the personal details of anybody, royal or not is unpleasant to say the least.

Actually, it would surprise me very much if Louis Mountbatten¨s dairy contains any information that is not available to the public already.

As far as I remember we have known since I was a teenager in the 1960s that Lady Mountbatten had an affair with Nehru, that both Mountbattens were pally with the Duchess of Argyll who was a by-word for scandalous conduct in Scotland, that Louis tried with varying degrees of success or failure to keep Princess Margaret out of trouble, and that he had a generation earlier said that George VI was the safer bet, as Edward VIII was far too pally with Mosely.

Be that all as it may, most historical archives ban the publication or access by the public to documents felt to be of a sensitive nature, either for the country, or for the family of whoever the papers had belonged to or were about.

How long the injuction is in place can vary according to circumstance.

This being so, it makes no difference whether the papers have been paid for by taxpayers' money providing the funding for their purchase, given as a gift by the original owner, or purchase by private funding.

How would you like it?

But she's not me, and she's not you, she's the Queen. Head of State of our country, which is a position of power. So if a document about Uncle Louis shows him to be responsible for one of the most disastrous events of the 20th Century, whether she likes us knowing or not is not really relevant, is it?

Who’s off to Scotland?

Off to Scotland and apparently without a thought for their staff and possible transmission of Coronavirus apparently

I’m puzzled as to why people are so hell bent on dragging up the past so much these days. Current issues need transparency of course but what happened in the past, although we should learn from mistakes, cannot be changed. What would anyone gain from the Queen being humiliated? How would you like it? Everyone is entitled to privacy unless they have broken the law.

Most of us don't care about anybody's sex life. History cares if he messed up the Partition of India.

Precisely, Alegrias.

Though I think many are fairly well aware that the Partition of India was a messed up rush job..

www.crowdjustice.com/case/andrew-lownies-case/

Using almost £4.5 million of public money, Southampton University purchased the entire Broadlands archive (including the Mountbattens’ diaries and letters) from a Mountbatten family trust The purchase was enabled with the help of grants, including almost £2 million from the National Heritage Memorial Fund and £100,000 from Hampshire County Council, and partly through the Acceptance in Lieu tax scheme with the approval of HMRC.

Arts Council England says the Acceptance in Lieu scheme allows important historic archives to be given “to the nation” as a way of settling tax bills, and that “material accepted under the scheme is allocated to public museums, archives or libraries by the appropriate minister and is available for all.”

Most of us don't care about anybody's sex life. History cares if he messed up the Partition of India.

We really should know the details ?

A historian is seeking access to the diaries and letters of Earl Mountbatten of Burma and his wife, the countess, which he believes could contain evidence of his bisexuality.

Andrew Lownie, a fellow of the Royal Historical Society, also hopes to find proof of the earl’s lovers including Shirley MacLaine, the Hollywood actress, and his role as a “fixer” in the marriage of his cousin, the Queen, to his nephew, Prince Philip.

Anniebach

Putin wouldn’t do such a thing, he is an honourable man !

Unlike the Royal Family, then.

Putin wouldn’t do such a thing, he is an honourable man !

Alegrias1

The main purpose of this thread appears to have been lost.

Everybody deserves privacy including the Royal family. But some historic documents, written by the DoE’s uncle, are in the possession of a university, having been sold to them by his family. However, historians, academics and the man on the Clapham Omnibus are not allowed to know the contents of those documents because it might affect the Queen’s dignity.

The Information Commissioner said they should be made public. The government intervened to stop parts of them being made public. Representatives of the Royal Family also intervened to do the same thing. You and I couldn’t do that. Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer couldn’t do that. The Royals are not being subjected to the same laws as the rest of us.

And seeing as how Putin has made an appearance on this thread, how would you feel if you read that Putin had prevented the publication of documents that made him or his family look bad?

Double standards.

?Indeed. The family sold the diaries without removing the contents that are trying to be redacted. So either the contents are innocuous or the family wanted them to be in the public domain. I am not happy with such censorship? Don't the owners of the diaries have a say in this?

Dignity is as dignity does. If the DoE made a dignified will, then how will it impact on the dignity of the royal family if we know what was in it?

I think for truly private things, like conversations between members of the royal family, I'd not expect reports when Anne says to her mother "I've got terrible wind" or even if they discuss politics between themselves. But when our unelected head of state expresses a political opinion to someone who actually has the power to change laws and national policies then yes I think the royal in question should be willing to be accountable - in person.

The main purpose of this thread appears to have been lost.

Everybody deserves privacy including the Royal family. But some historic documents, written by the DoE’s uncle, are in the possession of a university, having been sold to them by his family. However, historians, academics and the man on the Clapham Omnibus are not allowed to know the contents of those documents because it might affect the Queen’s dignity.

The Information Commissioner said they should be made public. The government intervened to stop parts of them being made public. Representatives of the Royal Family also intervened to do the same thing. You and I couldn’t do that. Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer couldn’t do that. The Royals are not being subjected to the same laws as the rest of us.

And seeing as how Putin has made an appearance on this thread, how would you feel if you read that Putin had prevented the publication of documents that made him or his family look bad?

Double standards.

Theoddbird

I would say to anyone....how would you like all your dirty laundry hanging out in public? The answer would be NO. We are all entitled to privacy. The royal family live so much of their life in the public gaze I think they are entitled to some privacy occasionally.

Actually as far as I am aware any will which goes to probate can be seen.