Keeping Royal Secrets

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I do feel that the whole thing is being completely misunderstood on here.

The Royal family are complicit in a legal move to conceal certain parts of documents from us. The documents were sold to us in exchange for not paying taxes. I don't care if they contain the sexual secrets of all the Kings and Queens going back to Henry VIII or just a list of what they all had for breakfast.

But The Royal Family and the Government are trying to prevent us seeing something that they have decided is not for our eyes. Even though we own it. Even though it was sold to us in lieu of paying taxes with the proviso it would be available to everyone.

They are taking advantage of their position and it is not the way to behave in a democracy.

Anniebach

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.

Mountbatten was the Queens 2nd cousin once removed, just looked it up. I don't know if I've ever met a 2nd cousin once removed. I guess royalty keep track of relatives.

If I recall correctly, the contents of wills used to be published in our local newspaper.

Alegrias I may have missed it but I didn’t see the word ‘all’ before ‘important historic archives’.
And I’ve also obviously missed how it came to pass that Lord Mountbatten became a member of the RF simply because his nephew married into it. Being a close confidant of one or two family members doesn’t confer membership.

And a second cousin once removed isn’t exactly a member of the RF either.

Mountbatten was the Queens 2nd cousin once removed, just looked it up. I don't know if I've ever met a 2nd cousin once removed. I guess royalty keep track of relatives.

The relationship between Louis Mountbatten and Prince Philip was closer, theworriedwell.
He was Prince Philip's uncle; Philip's mother Alice was Louis Mountbatten's sister.

Germanshepherdsmum

And a second cousin once removed isn’t exactly a member of the RF either.

It depends - is a great-grandson of Queen Victoria royal or not? I think that relationship qualifies.

Germanshepherdsmum

Alegrias I may have missed it but I didn’t see the word ‘all’ before ‘important historic archives’.
And I’ve also obviously missed how it came to pass that Lord Mountbatten became a member of the RF simply because his nephew married into it. Being a close confidant of one or two family members doesn’t confer membership.

I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence GSM, I'm sorry. But what we know is:

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. (quoted above)

So we own the entire archive which is the topic of this discussion. Public funds were used to buy it, with the understanding that is would be available to all. This is also quoted above.

And I'm afraid nit picking about whether Mountbatten is a member of the RF or not is irrelevant. (I know there is a specific definition.) But he was a member of the family that is made up of Royals. He was Phillip's uncle. He is part of their family.

Reading the OP it sounds like the govt are preventing the documents being released. Do we know if the RF are involved in that or is it a govt move. Could there be something else in there they want kept quiet?

I need to read up about it, not something I've had any interest in but nice to understand the background.

Calistemon

^Mountbatten was the Queens 2nd cousin once removed, just looked it up. I don't know if I've ever met a 2nd cousin once removed. I guess royalty keep track of relatives^.

The relationship between Louis Mountbatten and Prince Philip was closer, theworriedwell.
He was Prince Philip's uncle; Philip's mother Alice was Louis Mountbatten's sister.

Oh yes, I know his relationship to Philip , it was the quote that he was the Queen's cousin that I was clarifying. I think most people think of first cousins when you say cousin.

Some of us know our second cousins and first cousins once removed ?

It depends - is a great-grandson of Queen Victoria royal or not? I think that relationship qualifies. Given that she had a big family I would imagine the queen probably had quite a few 2nd cousins or 2nd cousins once removed. I'm not into royal genealogy to actually know. I don't know how many I have for that matter.

theworriedwell

*It depends - is a great-grandson of Queen Victoria royal or not? I think that relationship qualifies.* Given that she had a big family I would imagine the queen probably had quite a few 2nd cousins or 2nd cousins once removed. I'm not into royal genealogy to actually know. I don't know how many I have for that matter.

We mustn't forget Josh Widdicombe and Danny Dyer either!

Nor my second cousin from the posh side of the family ?

Calistemon

Some of us know our second cousins and first cousins once removed ?

I'm sure some do, I'm sure some know their 2nd cousins once removed as well. I'm sure royalty do as well. I think lots don't.

You'd share great grandparents with a second cousin wouldn't you?

Public documents can be and are suppressed all the time. I really don’t understand the fuss over Mountbatten’s diaries. His bisexuality has been known of for years. Why the prurient interest in diaries that, had he not been murdered by the IRA, he may well have left instructions to have destroyed on his death? It is IMO an intrusion too far, as is the desire to see Prince Philip’s will.