What's up with Kate?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › What's up with Kate?

1 | 2

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3232614 20-May-2024 12:57

What was crazy was that people felt they were owed an explanation. And if they didn't get one in their own timeframe they made up their own. Damn buttwipes.

Yes for sure. Business as usual for celebrities and celebrity gossip of any kind.

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3232615 20-May-2024 13:08

gzt:
What was crazy was that people felt they were owed an explanation. And if they didn't get one in their own timeframe they made up their own. Damn buttwipes.

Yes for sure. Business as usual for celebrities and celebrity gossip of any kind.

The greatest minds talk about ideas

Lesser mind talk of events

And the least among us gossip about other peoples lives

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3232675 20-May-2024 13:48

chatterbox:

I knew there would be some reasonable explanation. What was crazy was that people felt they were owed an explanation. And if they didn't get one in their own timeframe they made up their own. Damn buttwipes.

People were owed an explanation. They support the royal family to the tune of around £100 million annually. There are appropriate ways to communicate something like this in a sensitive and respectful manner, or even just to say we have personal reasons for not wanting to go into detail now, but we will explain later. Stony silence is not it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3232696 20-May-2024 14:18

Rikkitic:

chatterbox:

I knew there would be some reasonable explanation. What was crazy was that people felt they were owed an explanation. And if they didn't get one in their own timeframe they made up their own. Damn buttwipes.

People were owed an explanation. They support the royal family to the tune of around £100 million annually. There are appropriate ways to communicate something like this in a sensitive and respectful manner, or even just to say we have personal reasons for not wanting to go into detail now, but we will explain later. Stony silence is not it.

Quick Google search.

Brand Finance, which bills itself as the world's leading brand valuation consultancy, estimated that the royals contributed 1.77 billion pounds ($1.95bn) to the UK economy in 2017 through a combination of the Crown Estate's revenues and indirect benefits for tourism, trade, media and the arts.

Crown Estate's revenues : Net income £312.7 million (2022) £269.3 million (2021) 75% to HM Treasury 25% to The Monarch

I an guessing the UK is getting more than its monies worth.

However they royals are still people and are still entitled to a private life, especially when it is entitled curiosity and gossip demanded of them.

And no I am not a royals fan, though I have been to some of the castles etc.

Getting rid of the royals would be like closing Disneyland.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3232704 20-May-2024 14:38

The royals have a job. Their job is to be public, not private. Of course there are (ought to be) limits to that, but they can't be compared to ordinary private families. If some kind of family crisis is happening, they have every right to keep the details to themselves, but because of their unique position in society, they also have an obligation to communicate with their subjects. The traditional royal stonewall is counter-productive and just leads to tabloid rumour. Better to at least acknowledge that something is going on.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

floydbloke

3523 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3232706 20-May-2024 14:41

Rikkitic:

... There are appropriate ways to communicate something like this in a sensitive and respectful manner...

They did

Rikkitic:

... even just to say we have personal reasons for not wanting to go into detail now, but we will explain later. Stony silence is not it.

The hounding from the (tabloid) media and the nosy gossip mongers would have been no different than what it was.

Seems to me that Kate and family needed some certainty and some time to process it all before going public.

side note: Why is this in Politics?

Did Eric Clapton really think she looked wonderful...or was it after the 15th outfit she tried on and he just wanted to get to the party and get a drink?

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3232709 20-May-2024 14:46

Rikkitic:

The royals have a job. Their job is to be public, not private. Of course there are (ought to be) limits to that, but they can't be compared to ordinary private families. If some kind of family crisis is happening, they have every right to keep the details to themselves, but because of their unique position in society, they also have an obligation to communicate with their subjects. The traditional royal stonewall is counter-productive and just leads to tabloid rumour. Better to at least acknowledge that something is going on.

I have a job, that job does not give my employer access to my private life.
The people are NOT their subjects, they ceded that to parliament a long time ago, the position is mostly ceremonial.
If "the people" tried to enter into my life, they would get something far more offensive than stonewalled.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3232721 20-May-2024 15:13

sir1963: Getting rid of the royals would be like closing Disneyland.

And cancelling Real Housewives and Bridezillas.

1 | 2