Keeping Royal Secrets

What, in your wildest imagination, could it be? Do share!

Germanshepherdsmum

The Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William all seem able to fulfil their constitutional roles. I don’t believe some terrible secret is being kept from me.

I do. The chief information person from the cabinet said so. Way back on page 1.

not least of unifying the nations

Need I say more?

How about Andrew?

The Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William all seem able to fulfil their constitutional roles. I don’t believe some terrible secret is being kept from me.

It's perfectly reasonable to want to know that they're fit to live the privileged lives that their roles afford them.

Calistemon

I don't know, but I loved Josh Widdicombe's episode.

I didn't see that one. Might have a look for it.

Germanshepherdsmum

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.

It's entirely unfair to call it prurient.

I started this thread about 100 years ago to point out that the government and the Royal family are are preventing us from knowing particular things. Things that they think we need to be kept ignorant of, in order that the Royal family can fulfil their constitutional roles. In other words, if we knew these facts, we might think they made them unfit to do their jobs.

If there are things that make them unfit to do their jobs. I'd like to know about it, please.

Forget the will. Forget anybody's sexual preferences. Red herrings.

I don't know, but I loved Josh Widdicombe's episode.

Oh yes the Danny Dyer episode was funny wasn't it. He seemed quite oblivious about who his famous ancestors were until it was explained. He couldn't even say Plantagenet if I remember correctly.

I wonder how far the connection has to go back for you to be considered royal? I mean I don't think many people think Danny Dyer is royalty but the connection is a long way back.

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.

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?

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 ?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.