and quite right too. Really; just because the media agenda says both are now sinners - we must NOT allow the country to be ruled by the two broken systems of Media and Law. I'm sorry I (and I hope everyone else) will NOT treat Andrew or Harry or Meghan as villains just because media feels they can be painted as such in order to construct great stories. Fiction, but great stories.

I've had enough. King Edward had to leave the throne because he had the cheek to oppose media pressure. Marry a Divorcee??? Appalling. Force him to resign. Abdicate. Why? Because media told him to and we agreed.

King Charles (happily married to a divorcee) must stand up and stop the Media and - far worse - the legal system; police; judges; lawyers - to break the law.

The vile Giuffre woman; like the vile Heard woman; cannot be allowed to be adopted as Heros and Heroines in civilised society.

JK2006 wrote:


King Charles (happily married to a divorcee) must stand up and stop the Media and - far worse - the legal system; police; judges; lawyers - to break the law.



If he tried it would mean the end of the Monarchy...In 5, 10, 20 years - but the end.

Not if it is done cleverly WYOT. Getting a public petition organised. Issuing a statement that makes sense (and lays blame elsewhere - NOT on the media). Gives the media an excuse to turn on a sixpence (which they do easily). Somehow involve a pretty girl with a photographic bosom ("baby in Falklands, now 21, says ANDREW was a hero"). The media can be manipulated if they think ratings/circulation will increase.

JK2006 wrote:
Not if it is done cleverly WYOT. Getting a public petition organised. Issuing a statement that makes sense (and lays blame elsewhere - NOT on the media). Gives the media an excuse to turn on a sixpence (which they do easily). Somehow involve a pretty girl with a photographic bosom ("baby in Falklands, now 21, says ANDREW was a hero"). The media can be manipulated if they think ratings/circulation will increase.

Interesting. I hadn't thought about it from a manipulation angle...

Wyot wrote:
JK2006 wrote:


King Charles (happily married to a divorcee) must stand up and stop the Media and - far worse - the legal system; police; judges; lawyers - to break the law.



If he tried it would mean the end of the Monarchy...In 5, 10, 20 years - but the end.

I think the events of the past week say the meejah should tread carefully.

hedda wrote:
Wyot wrote:
JK2006 wrote:


King Charles (happily married to a divorcee) must stand up and stop the Media and - far worse - the legal system; police; judges; lawyers - to break the law.



If he tried it would mean the end of the Monarchy...In 5, 10, 20 years - but the end.

I think the events of the past week say the meejah should tread carefully.

Yes and I am sure they will for a while...but King Charles may be a different proposition to the late Queen in terms of people's hearts and minds. I hope he does a good job; but I suspect it may get "interesting"....

To expand my last point: I think the majority now in this country aged below 60 say, are royalists not monarchists. That is, it is The Queen primarily and her family that they are interested in.

The Queen they loved (rightly) but I suspect that few now are committed constitutional monarchists who will always support the principle of the institution regardless of the incumbents. I doubt most could even describe what constitutional monarchy even is...

I think many commentators today are conflating royalism with monarchism; and therefore assuming a healthy future for The Windsors.

And I think this is a big mistake.