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?
It wasn't gossip, she wrote down what she thought of people.
And if she'd denied Mrs X a service because she didn't like her, Mrs X is entitled to compensation.
If she gave Mrs Z a job because she thought she was a good egg, but denied it to Mrs Y just because she wrongly thought she was a bad'un, Mrs Y deserves compensation.
No.
She was dead and it was gossip.
?
Certainly not,
But GSM if that lady had been an important person in the politics of the village, who had influence over decisions that were made about the people she wrote about, wouldn't it have been important to understand what she thought about her neighbours?
Many years ago I knew an elderly lady who seemed very nice but was known to keep a little black book recording what the village people did over many years. After she died her nephew was horrified by what she had written about her neighbours and burned it. You would never have dreamed that such a kindly lady would write about her ‘friends’ in the way she did.
Mountbatten might have made the decision to destroy his diaries, we’ll never know, but his family made the decision to sell them. That we do know. We don’t know why, we just know that they did make that decision.
And yet his family sold them and therefore put them into the public domain. The family is in a position to know whether Mountbatten wanted his diaries to be destroyed or not but perhaps they just needed the money.
I really don't think it matters GSM.
The person in question was the last viceroy and had a huge impact on the history of the UK from the middle of the 20th Century right up until now. If we start censoring historical papers based on whether we think the person wanted us to know or not, where does that stop? Its fair to say that people deserve privacy but when it comes to historical research, people's writings are important.
I don't think this is about salacious gossip in the red tops, although many are trying to portray it that way. This is a historical record and I think its important that we know how things were being played out.
Alegrias1
HE WROTE THEM.
If he didn't want us to think that's what he thought, he shouldn't have written it down.
I don't think people write diaries of historical importance so that they don't forget their dentist appointment. They write them so that generations to come can understand how they were thinking at the time.
The person I know who has kept diaries for years does it because he likes to reflect on how things have changed, to check if his view now actually matches up with how he felt at the time. He has no intent for anyone to read them, he has asked someone he trusts not to read them to burn them
Because of his position in his field other people might be very interested but that doesn't mean he has to share them. Mountbatten was fit and well when he died, if he had lived longer he might have made a decision to destroy them. We will never know.
Alegrias he might have intended to destroy them!or leave instructions to that effect. He didn’t expect to die when he did. Some people live a Walter Mitty existence alongside the persona they project to the outside world and write their fantasies in journals. Who can say that what he wrote is truth or fantasy?
Germanshepherdsmum
*Lincslass*, that is typical of Grany. The diaries may contain untruths and he is not here to explain or defend what he decided to write. I’m rather surprised that his descendants decided to cash in by selling them. Perhaps I shouldn’t be.
Diaries aren't necessarily absolute truths.
They are opinions, written from the point of view if the diarist.
It was stupid of his family to sell them but perhaps they thought they would be of historical importance and should be preserved for posterity by an academic institution.
Shropshirelass
Private papers are just that! We do not have a right to know everything and that is the way it should stay. Royalty or not, everyone has a right to privacy.
But the diaries are not private. His family sold them.
HE WROTE THEM.
If he didn't want us to think that's what he thought, he shouldn't have written it down.
I don't think people write diaries of historical importance so that they don't forget their dentist appointment. They write them so that generations to come can understand how they were thinking at the time.
Private papers are just that! We do not have a right to know everything and that is the way it should stay. Royalty or not, everyone has a right to privacy.
Lincslass, that is typical of Grany. The diaries may contain untruths and he is not here to explain or defend what he decided to write. I’m rather surprised that his descendants decided to cash in by selling them. Perhaps I shouldn’t be.
Grany
Absolutely disgraceful behaviour from the royals.
Royals at war with BBC over ‘tittle tattle’ documentary #TomorrowsPapersToday
Royals have no right to censor anything produced for public viewing. Too much secrecy as it is for a family supported by the taxpayer.
We need transparency, this manipulative power they hold with the media rota system is devisive and allows them the ability to squash reports of their behaviour and leak stories about more minor royals to keep tabloids fed. Hidden wealth, cash for honours,affairs,racism. Etc,etc
If it is not true, they have every right to make a fuss. Slander comes to mind.
Who owns the diaries? I can't work out if it is the university or the nation.
Prof Jenny Hocking
@palaceletters
Royal cover-up of Mountbatten's papers continues. Historian Andrew Lownie has spent £250,000 on FOI to open Mountbatten's 'public' archive. Lownie succeeded, Southampton Uni still refuses to open. Support Lownie's crowdfunding campaign for history's sake #auspol #twitterstorians
Andrew Lownie
@andrewlownie
Anger over ‘grotesque abuse’ of £600,000 case to keep Mountbatten papers secret theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/07/anger-over-grotesque-abuse-of-600000-case-to-keep-mountbatten-papers-secret
I corrected myself immediately after that post Calistemon about getting the names mixed up. The Sunday Herald and the Herald on Sunday are entirely different publications. The Sunday Herald was a famously independence supporting newspaper which ceased publication in 2018. So nothing was published in it yesterday.
There is now a paper called the Herald on Sunday which has a different political slant. More like the weekday Herald which was always Unionist. And that's where I first saw the report. Which has now been picked up by the Telegraph, the Express and I think, the Guardian.
As you were.
Absolutely disgraceful behaviour from the royals.
Royals at war with BBC over ‘tittle tattle’ documentary #TomorrowsPapersToday
Royals have no right to censor anything produced for public viewing. Too much secrecy as it is for a family supported by the taxpayer.
We need transparency, this manipulative power they hold with the media rota system is devisive and allows them the ability to squash reports of their behaviour and leak stories about more minor royals to keep tabloids fed. Hidden wealth, cash for honours,affairs,racism. Etc,etc
Alegrias1
Calistemon
Keep trying though, it's entertaining
You asked for thoughts but, of course, it's a way of goading other posters if they give an opinion.
I'll just bugger off.You twice tried to make out this was motivated by my desire for independence. What's that if its not goady? Well it's wrong as well, obviously...
Just for the record, no I did not.
The newspaper in question is the Sunday Herald, not the Herald on Sunday which ceased publication several years ago. My fault for not being clear about that.
It's a serious paper, not a gossip sheet. Besmirchment can work both ways.
It is a newspaper which seriously advocates Scottish independence and it was the newspaper I was referring to.
As you were.
What fresh hell must Philip’s will contain to make the royal family look any worse?
Catherine Bennett
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/20/what-fresh-hell-must-philips-will-contain-to-make-the-royal-family-look-any-worse
Historians are usually interested in every facet of the individual they are studying, Gsm. Diaries are excellent primary sources for them. No reason why they shouldn't be available for study.
If had they been available for historical research and no decision made to withhold part of them, no-one, apart from historians, would have been interested.
Calistemon
^Keep trying though, it's entertaining^
You asked for thoughts but, of course, it's a way of goading other posters if they give an opinion.
I'll just bugger off.
You twice tried to make out this was motivated by my desire for independence. What's that if its not goady? Well it's wrong as well, obviously...
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
