Keeping Royal Secrets

If the Kincora sex scandal is mentioned it may further be hushed up.

We don't really need to know.

Alegrias1

^I am curious to know just what 'secrets' Alegrias thinks are being kept from us.^

I don’t know MaizieD. They’re secrets.

But if you look at the quote from Roger Smethurst, he says that there are things that are private about the RF, that if they were not private, might make it difficult for them to fulfil their constitutional roles. So there is something we don’t know about them, that might make people pause and think that perhaps they are not the right people to be fulfilling the constitutional role that they are currently fulfilling.

But of course we are not allowed to know what that thing is. Its not a grown up way to run a country IMO.

Mountbatten thought a Mountbatten should be the head of the country so I'm not sure his views would be very balanced.

I know someone who has kept detailed diaries for decades and he has arranged with a trusted friend to burn them as soon as he dies. Seems like the 2nd best idea, the first being don't put it in writing or nowadays don't put it on the internet.

Chestnut

Whitewavemark2

Oldwoman70

Why would anyone be interested in what is in the Duke of Edinburgh's Will?

Well that isn’t the point. The law says that everyone’s will is public property EXCEPT the Sovereigns.

They should be upholders if the law as it is all done in the Sovereigns name.

Everyone's will is public property? How so?

It is the law.

Well my parents' wills are sitting here with me, so they are not public property. I imagine many millions of other wills are not public property either.

But if you look at the quote from Roger Smethurst, he says that there are things that are private about the RF, that if they were not private, might make it difficult for them to fulfil their constitutional roles. So there is something we don’t know about them, that might make people pause and think that perhaps they are not the right people to be fulfilling the constitutional role that they are currently fulfilling.

Yes, I saw that in your earlier post, Alegrias, I'm just desperately trying to think of what this difficulty might be

Chestnut

Well my parents' wills are sitting here with me, so they are not public property. I imagine many millions of other wills are not public property either.

I think they are when you submit them to the probate office, or something like that.

Well we'll never know MaizieD. We little people can't possibly be trusted with the truth about the family that sit at the top of society

Chestnut

Well my parents' wills are sitting here with me, so they are not public property. I imagine many millions of other wills are not public property either.

? but anyone could ask for and be entitled to receive a copy.

I do know why it is law but my brain has packed up for the day, and only fit for chit chat?

Chestnut

Well my parents' wills are sitting here with me, so they are not public property. I imagine many millions of other wills are not public property either.

I think that once they've been through probate the information on how much money they left is public. I don't know, though; I'm only familiar with the probate summaries available through genealogy sites.

There must be a reason why wills are made public though. I have read it but buggered if I can remember at the moment.

Oh I know google!

I hope for their sake, William and Kate are squeaky clean.?

Chestnut

Well my parents' wills are sitting here with me, so they are not public property. I imagine many millions of other wills are not public property either.

They may be at some time in the future.
Wills are on sites such as Ancestry (brilliant for family historians).

Namsnanny I hope for their sake, William and Kate are squeaky clean.?
No-one's squeaky clean, surely?! They wouldn't be normal would they?

I don't know Calistemon, it's just going to be difficult for them, with more and more scrutiny. More than the Queen and DofE ever had.

eazybee

I am perfectly content with their public image and role and have little interest in their private lives. I don't idolise them.

That applies to my view of most people in the public eye, royal or not.

Fair enough, eazybee

No-one should be above the law but I do think they are subject to too much scrutiny.

If someone does their job properly and their private life does not impinge on their work, should it matter?

No wills in the families of anyone here will be on the front pages of every newspaper with headlines- he left more to x than to y, followed by opinions from royal experts as to why
x got more than y .

Alegrias1

This is not about them having secrets, as such. Its about them keeping things hidden and using the government and courts to do it, when us knowing those things might make us question whether they are up to the job.

Absolutely agree.

poshpaws I agree with Alegrias too.

Well now you've got me thinking - what could possibly be in those documents that would be so damning, that we would change our view of certain members of the RF and possibly think them unfit to do their job? The mind boggles!

Chestnut

Well my parents' wills are sitting here with me, so they are not public property. I imagine many millions of other wills are not public property either.

My uncle had my grandmother's will but he couldn't stop me getting a copy of it. Once probate is granted a will is a public document.

The uncle concerned was the only executor of the will and he fully intended to be the only beneficiary too. The fact that wills are made public meant that we could easily stop him.

Whitewavemark2

Mountbatten was Viceroy of India, he is part of our history. His diaries are part of our historical records. It isn’t about tittle tattle but about using primary resource.

For whom, academics yes. Red tops and tittle tattlers, anti monarchists , their reason would only be for vouyerism , possible homophobia , and to sell their rags.
Even now the vultures are gathering to besmirch a murdered Royal.

The main purpose of having a royal family is voyeurism and gossip.

Mountbatten would have destroyed these diaries if he didn't want posterity to paw over them. They have been sold so they should all now be available to historians or who ever needs access. It seems pretty clear cut to me.

Galaxy

The main purpose of having a royal family is voyeurism and gossip.

It just struck me, not in a republican anti monarchy contentious way, what is the purpose of a royal family ? Serious question? I’m not talking about how the queen has done what she’s done for so long etc, I’m not being anti Charles pro Diana or anti Harry po William etc
For those who are pro monarchy what is the reason ?

Galaxy

The main purpose of having a royal family is voyeurism and gossip.

That is certainly true on GN?.

Never heard of The Sunday Herald so just googled it, explains
much.