Who will get hurt the most by a Brit royal family boycott of BBC?

After Lilibet kicks the whole greedy lot many have to work for a living. The only chance they have is delete King Charles and Queen Camilla and fast forward to Wills and Cate. If they don't want to end up on the ash bin of history.

Why would the royal family boycott Big Black Cock? We will take whatever they don’t want. Nothing wrong with sloppy seconds, just ask Kim

The BBC will be hurt most but then the BBC is on it's last legs and will hopefully be no more.

The FIrm needs the press more than the press needs the Firm.

Give Sarah, Duchess of York a role in the queen's 70th Jubilee. Don't leave her out. They both like each other.

What’s with Will & Harry balding so young? Both Charles and Earl Spencer had more hair.

How much BBC were they getting to begin with? I think BBC was already boycotting them.

It depends on how B the BBC is.

are we going to be able to see this in the U.S. It should be required viewing for DLers (except for the spoilsports who insist on cancelling these threads).

This thread is useless without BBC pix.

Honestly I'd love chess pieces carved with their faces, such bone structure, at least on Harry. William drowns his sorrows with treacle tarts. He's still a cutie.

Who cares? This whole family has proven time and again how white trash they are.

I find this behind-the-scenes stuff endlessly interesting. It seems much likelier that all of Charles, William, and Harry’s camps are hustling to make their principals look good (and the others look bad) than the black-and-white tale of evil Harry (aka evil Meghan) vs kindly Prince Charles and hunky Prince William.

Most interesting of all to me is that the Queen’s people seem to just stay out of this? Or perhaps they’re just more subtle and less likely to be caught out when spinning.

Harry is rapidly losing his hair and soon his looks. How long will M tolerate that?

Here’s my theorizing:

Robert Lacey’s book Battle of Brothers details how Prince Charles was a largely absent figure when William and Harry were in their teens, leading to Harry’s pot-smoking wildness and piss poor judgment in wearing the Nazi costume. The book asserts that William was just as, if not more, wild and made similar poor choices, but because the palace wanted to prevent damaging information coming out about a future King, it couldn’t have Charles looking like an absent father or William looking like a pothead. Instead, Harry was sacrificed, with the drug stories spun to be about Charles being a good father who took his son to drug counseling and no mention of William.

This obviously led to simmering resentment in Harry, as did the general idea that the family members more directly in line for throne should be prioritized for good coverage and kept away from scandal. You could tell during the Megxit drama that Harry resented the position this rule put him in.

Fast forward years later to when Harry meets Meghan and gets upset by the racist press coverage. He lashes out and publicly tells the press to cut it out, but that angers Charles because it overshadows attention Charles planned to get for a diplomatic trip (and Charles hates being overshadowed), and maybe angers William because it makes Harry and Meghan the focus of attention the spare is not supposed to have. Thus, when Harry had his little tirade about “Meghan gets what Meghan wants” and there was a Kate vs Meghan showdown over wedding preparations, there are plenty of people in Charles’s and William’s camps willing to share this with the papers to try and take Harry down a notch.

(Whether William was also motivated to share dirt on Harry to distract from the Rose Hanbury affair story is a valid theory, IMO.)

Harry knew this was what was happening, and Meghan was angry about getting bad press (because she, like the rest of these people, has no tolerance for critique), which sent his camp into a briefing war with William and Charles. This is how we were getting so many conflicting stories about Harry and Meghan being either evil or angels on earth.

The most interesting aspect of all of this, to me, is how/whether this led to the Tatler feature story from last year that greatly embarrassed William and Kate. With a straight face, it told the country that William used psychics, Kate had an eating disorder and new-money taste in decor, William preferred the Middletons to his own family, and Kate was the real power behind the throne. It said all of this in the official news source for the aristos, until William insisted on it being withdrawn and much of those details removed. How the heck did that happen?

^I began to read with interest, then tedium set in abruptly

I don't think the scales are balanced quite the way people think it is, and the monarchy has an off way of outlasting entities like Omid Scobie, Jenny Afia, and the journalist whose water the BBC chose to carry.

Omid Scobie just out out Tweet that he did this interview in November of last year- in other words, before it emerged that his pay mistress was a perjurer. Ditto Jenny Afiia.

If the Summary judgement is overturned, and I have an increasing hunch that it will be, all the people who keep carrying Meghan's water for her, and this now includes the public perception of the BBC, will again be left with egg on their faces.

Scobie's statement that he did this interview before Meghan had to admit she lied to the courts is, make no mistake, a CYA legal move advised by his lawyers.

Schillings should have known better.

When those two stories break, all anyone will remember is that the BBC promoted a platform for a known perjurer and her water carriers.

And the monarchy will look vindicated.

ITV got a nice bit of change out of it with the Christmas concert hosted by one of the monarch's most popular members and its future Queen, and if things really go south with the ANL case and the bullying report, ITV will be grateful not to have run that documentary. It will be sitting in the Winner's Corner.

^*odd (not off) way

R15 - The TATLER story was a revenge hatchet job on Kate. Anna Pasternak is a joke: she's the one who wrote the "roman a clef" about Diana's affair with Hewlett. As far as the Lacey book goes, it basically put it out there that William should have stood in for his father where Harry was concerned - as if a 15 year old was supposed to bring up a13 year old. It came down harder on William as if he was somehow responsible for taking on Charles' duties as a father. And, Harry had shown some "issues" as a child, long before Diana died - she called him her "wild child" and mentioned her concerns to the psychiatrist she was seeing. Everyone had known for some time that Harry was a loose cannon, and everyone knew when he quite the military, as Max Hastings said, that Harry was a train wreck waiting to happen.

William was only two years older than Harry and going through his own issues of loss and adolescence. As it was, Diana had leaned on William far too heavily for any young son. The book was considered to be a bit kinder to the Sussexes than later emerging info warranted, and Lacey began to realise that might have come across as a bit of a fool and not really on the inside as he'd like people to think.

So, when the real shit about the Sussexes started to hit the fan last spring with all the lies Meghan and Harry told in the ghastly Oprah interview whilst Philip was dying, Lacey issued an "updated" (read: re-edited) on the original book with a more warty picture of Meghan and Harry, including the incident where Meghan left that food market in Fiji after five minutes. Lacey's "new" edition of the book was excerpted in the TIMES (UK) and the last column contained that incident. Meghan filed a press complaint about the article - which went nowhere. The TIMES left the story up till it was time to take it down.

The aristo set do tend to run a bit wild in their teens - it's a laddish culture. But it was totally untrue that the Palace covered up for William and not Harry: the Palace covered up endlessly for Harry, hiding his drug abuse, his cruelty (he beat up sex workers in San Diego whilst on shore leave there), and instead crafted the public facade of the cheeky, carefree, impish soldier boy.

William and Harry threw a 50th birthday party for Charles - during the festivities, the 14 year old Harry suddenly stripped to his skin, ran around the room starkers, and then ran out, leaving his father and brother mortified, and the guests hugely embarrassed.

Harry and Meghan are both mentally ill. William may have his problems, and so may Charles - most humans do, and all families have shadows in the corners.

But the Sussexes are much closer to the line separating "troubled" from "mentally ill".

And they have only themselves to blame for prying open the lid of the Pandora's Box of their respective psyches.

R13 - Don't kid yourself. The Queen is like the Don: layers and layers of capos and button men between her and the world, but don't think for a moment she doesn't know what's going on.

The BBC were fools to run this just as Meghan got outed as a perjurer. This was all done in fall 2020, before the Oprah interview, the Dax Shepherd interviews, the Lilibet name fiasco, and Harry and Meghan sending in Gayle King and Omid Scobie to tell the public that phone calls between Charles and Harry, and William and Harry, weren't going well, and to try to blackmail the BRF by threatening "more dirt" if the BRF didn't "address" the "concerns" of poor wittle H and M.

But now all out there for the world to see are the interviews and the lies and the Lilibet fiasco and worst of all, the materials showing that Harry and Meghan tried to deceive not only the press and public, but the courts, about their involvement in Scobie's book and Knauf's involvement in "crafting" that letter.

When the rest of it comes out, everyone will forget the petty shit in that "documentary" and only remember what a lying conniving perjuring bitch Meghan is, and how much hate Harry has for his family buried in his petulant, sour, whingeing heart.

Meghan and Harry are, in the end, both intensely unlikable, and that's the real difference between them and the Cambridges.

I'm glad I don't pay my TV licence, 86% of which funds the BBC. I never watch their awful programs. I stopped paying when they scrapped the exemption for pensioners.

1/10, R15.

So, the latest on the "documentary" is that, at Harry's insistence, in Part 2, the term "Megxit" will be ditched for the term "Sussexit".

I arsk you all, friends and countrymen: is this not a noble feminist gesture from the prince who roughed up sex workers in San Diego whilst a serving member of HM's armed forces, and who once had to be stopped by his brother on the polo field from abusing the poor animal said prince was riding?

Edward has had more BBC than any of them

And he still can't give it up

[quote]Who will get hurt the most by a Brit royal family boycott of BBC?

Clearly, the Datalounge.

Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

The British Royal Family is on its last leg.

They probably won't survive until the end of the 21st century.

We'll see.

It's an outdated antiquated entity in today's world.

They've been saying that since, what, the 1500s? It's still here.

Nicholas Witchell, the most obsequious royal correspondent on UK TV. He’ll be retiring soon I should imagine. He always has his tongue jammed up their arses.

^ ?

There are still exemptions for some pensioners, r21, and it's very hard to get away with not having a licence. Are you American?

R30, Nicholas Witchell is the one Charles was caught on camera telling Harry and William that he can't stand him.

BBC has 3 legs to stand on.

R1 is such an idiot.

Poor hygiene, too.

Reeky from the stews, Madame?

R32 no I'm not and they can suck my balls, the rotten money-grubbing buggers!

Those exemptions don't apply to the vast majority of pensioners who deserve to keep their money and not fund the crap they give us.

Really, the BBC is who comes off worst in this.

The BBC and Jenny Afia, Meghan's own lawyer, making not one but two appearances to assure the public that her client is absolutely not guilty of bullying her staff.

The statements had the unmistakable stamp of a frantic attempt to deflect a locomotive coming straight at one by whistling whilst tied to the rails.

One noted that this time, however, Afia tried to cover her arse by adding that she wouldn't want to negate anyone's experience.

No, dear, we wouldn't want to that, would we? Those negated might sue your arse off for defaming them by suggesting they were liars . . . Like your client.

The whole thing reeked of a replay of a journalist on the make taking a leaf out of Martin Bashir's playbook and scavenging the bones of the Windsors for a leg up. Cheap shots, totally biased, and using one side of the family as a club to beat the other side without any regard for nuance or truth.

Only, this time, the club wasn't the charismatic, beautiful, genuinely loved Princess of Wales, with ten years of stellar work for the nation behind her, but the intensely unlikable Sussexes.

My guess is that it is the BRF that will come out looking mor ed like the victims to Britons.

The BBC shouldn't have touched this with the proverbial bargepole.

Anything interesting or of note come out of the second episode?

R38 No, the entire thing was a predictable rehash of old beed news and accusations and the Sussexes as victims. It had the dam spiteful, vindictive tone as everything else with the Sussex fingerprint.

Afia's statement on this segment, on the same topic, Meghan's bullying, was the only interesting bit. Because it was filmed in May, shortly after the bullying investigation news came out, but before Meghan was caught perjuring herself in court.

It was a classic case of explaining making the case for the opposite of what the explanation is trying to deny.

That was the only interesting bit, because of the recent balloon full of legal shit that just popped over Meghan's head.

Oh, and the accompanying podcast that allegedly contains the bits about the brothers' households is being "delayed" for "further editing". Transition: this is the bit William will sue over.

They may think Charles is bluffing, but not William.

^*bad (not beed) news

[quote]Who will get hurt the most by a Brit royal family boycott of BBC?

I suspect you, OP.

You.

As the ANL Legal thread is now paywalled, I have to put this up here. It's quite interesting, and it means one of two things: the Appeal Court found for ANL and this statement is the first salvo in Jenny Afia, on her client's behalf, trying to get in front of the story and make it look like some trick of malfeasance Knauf perpetrated on the court, rather than her client's credibility being totally undermined by client's own dishonesty.

Or, the Appeal Court found for Meghan, and as Afia knows perfectly well that the public know Meghan lied to the court, to try to deflect attention from that fact, and make it look, again, like Meghan was the real victim and the Court in its wisdom thwarted this nefarious plot by said courtier, whom everyone knows is Jason Knauf.

Both scenarios are possible, but if I were willing to put my hand in my wallet, I'd bet on the former rather than the latter scenario.

The tone is just a tad off for the winner's voice, and as the parties have all been informed already of the decision that will be published on Thursday morning, this reeks not of virtue triumphant, but damage control.

Also in the string of responses is Valentine Low's tweet: he broke the bullying story in the TIMES, and Afia accused his piece of containing numerous "inaccuracies". Low states that Afia notably hasn't deigned to tell him what those inaccuracies were.

If the decision is to overturn the Summary Judgement, the timing couldn't be more exquisite.

And as Knauf has not made any secret of the fact that, as he stated publicly, he regretted not submitting witness statements during the initial stages of the case, and that's why he submitted them during the appeal process, Afia's accusation is ludicrous. Afia knows quite well that Knauf knew, certainly Charles Camilla, and William and Kate knew, that Meghan lied numerous times to the High Court.

Knauf knew he had colluded in those lies, and decided to correct that.

Afia's statement suggests that such correction is the crime, and not her client's dishonesty.

This is the tone of someone flailing. If they knew they'd won the case, I think the tone would be otherwise.

Well, we shall find out on Thursday morning.