Keeping Royal Secrets

I don't agree with having a Royal family or a king or queen. I see them as a huge waste of public money and a very outdated form of leadership. They are rich enough to be able to live a very comfortable life on what ythey already have. Money spent on them could do so much good eg NHS, poor families, social housing etc etc. They are just normal people without any 'magical powers' so why people bow and curtsey to them I can't understand. Respect as you would anybody but that's it.

Coco51

Alegrias1

We are often told on here that despite the financial or democratic problems with the system, having a Royal Family provides continuity and something to fall back in in times of crisis, such as pandemics. So what do we think of this quote from the Sunday Herald this morning, regarding whether certain Royal papers should be released. In this case it should be noted that the papers already belong to belong to the tax payer but we’re not allowed to see the content.

Protecting the dignity of the Queen and working members of the royal family by protecting their privacy in truly private matters preserves their ability to discharge their duties in their fundamental and central constitutional role, not least of unifying the nations (as was seen during the depths of the current pandemic). Roger Smethurst, head of knowledge and information at the Cabinet Office.

On other words, if we know what they were really like in private, we’d never be taken in by their idealised images. They need to keep some things secret because they don’t fit with the image they want to portray.

Thoughts?

Wills are normally available as public records, if you are desperate to see the DoE’s. Since you feel the Royals should open their private business, you presumably would not mind if your own details were a matter of public scrutiny. Do tell.

I have no interest whatsoever in the DoE's will, which you would know if you had read the thread. But even if I did I wouldn't be able to see it because unlike anybody else in society, the RF think their wills need to be private for 90 years.

My will? Everything left to DH and the cats' home. Plus, my deceased 20th Century ancestors have never been responsible for death and suffering of millions. Allegedly.

Totally agree with a previous poster who said we should ALL be entitled to the same levels of privacy. Would also add what the heck did the royals do to help during the Covid pandemic to unify the nations or anything else that was of use?

Ahh but go back far enough and your ancestors would likely have been connected in some way.
The past was a different place. Cant hold people now answerable for perceived crimes of the past.

I don't agree with having a Royal family or a king or queen. I see them as a huge waste of public money and a very outdated form of leadership. They are rich enough to be able to live a very comfortable life on what they already have. Money spent on them could do so much good eg NHS, poor families, social housing etc etc. They are just normal people without any 'magical powers' so why people bow and curtsey to them I can't understand. Respect as you would anybody but that's it.

sazz1

I don't agree with having a Royal family or a king or queen. I see them as a huge waste of public money and a very outdated form of leadership. They are rich enough to be able to live a very comfortable life on what they already have. Money spent on them could do so much good eg NHS, poor families, social housing etc etc. They are just normal people without any 'magical powers' so why people bow and curtsey to them I can't understand. Respect as you would anybody but that's it.

I agree

Mmmm - but without the RF there would be a huge Head of State gap, - we might end up with a Dictator who we had to salute !

We would vote for a president as we vote for prime minister ,
Boris !

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.

We all have secrets that no-one else knows about, families all keep secrets so why shouldn't the Royal family. When I die my will is not going to be made public so why should Prince Philip's.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

Anniebach

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

Unlike the Royal Family, then.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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

Who’s off to Scotland?

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?

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.