The British Royal Family #5

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grrr everything's double posting from my phone.
 
Last edited:
The royal family's statement the other day didn't say the story was false, it said it contained "inaccuracies and misrepresentations." Not quite the same thing.

If the story was truly false, I assume that's what the statement would have said.
 
La Louve said:
RSBBM

One only needs to read back through the last couple of threads to ask the (IMO legitimate question) "Should we believe unverified magazine stories about Harry and Meghan?"

That's the double standard I reject.
Click to expand...

No, we should not believe unverified magazine stories about any of them because we are, on the whole, intelligent, reasonable, logical people who know that articles get made up for click bait and advertising revenue. The minute I read "a source said" or "according to a friend" or "a palace insider" I assume the story is most likely a load of bollocks and I check a more reputable news source before regurgitating it on here.

People who pore over tabloids and trashy magazines and blindly believe those kinds of nameless/faceless reports are a bit intellectually - or morally - challenged. Just my opinion, of course.
 
Last edited:
La Louve said:
The royal family's statement the other day didn't say the story was false, it said it contained "inaccuracies and misrepresentations." Not quite the same thing.

If the story was truly false, I assume that's what the statement would have said.
Click to expand...

That is true. According to the palace: “This story contains a swathe of inaccuracies and false misrepresentations which were not put to Kensington Palace prior to publication.” (link)

I had to look up swathe. It means to "wrap, bind, or swaddle; wrap up closely or fully." I think that means that the story was wrapped or bound with false and incorrect information.
 
otto said:
That is true. According to the palace: “This story contains a swathe of inaccuracies and false misrepresentations which were not put to Kensington Palace prior to publication.” (link)

I had to look up swathe. It means to "wrap, bind, or swaddle; wrap up closely or fully." I think that means that the story was wrapped or bound with false and incorrect information.
Click to expand...

Swathe = swath

Had to look that one up, too long in the US
 
La Louve said:
RSBBM

One only needs to read back through the last couple of threads to ask the (IMO legitimate question) "Should we believe unverified magazine stories about Harry and Meghan?"

That's the double standard I reject.
Click to expand...

Thank you, La Louve, my old friend. I had to break my silence on this thread to thank you for stating what is obvious to any thinking person who cares about truth and kindness. Most are savvy enough to know that unverified stories quoting “insiders” and “friends” are made up mostly out of thin air to paint the subject in the worst possible light and sell ads. Other than rare lawsuits, the victims of these stories just have to hope that most people are discerning enough to know that tabloids make stuff up all.the.time. Sadly, people believe what fits their chosen beliefs and will interpret negatively whatever the object of their dislike does, even if it doesn’t need to be interpreted that way. Sort of like the “ladies” in “The Music Man” song ‘Pick a little, talk a little.”


Meredith Willson – Pick-a-Little, Talk-a-Little Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

“Be kind. For everyone is fighting a hard battle.”
 
Verifying sources isn't unique to the Royal Family. Everything that is published has to be double checked.

We can trust the multiple sources that have published the palace statement describing the Tatler story as garbage (paraphrasing).
 
Lilibet said:
Thank you, La Louve, my old friend. I had to break my silence on this thread to thank you for stating what is obvious to any thinking person who cares about truth and kindness. Most are savvy enough to know that unverified stories quoting “insiders” and “friends” are made up mostly out of thin air to paint the subject in the worst possible light and sell ads. Other than rare lawsuits, the victims of these stories just have to hope that most people are discerning enough to know that tabloids make stuff up all.the.time. Sadly, people believe what fits their chosen beliefs and will interpret negatively whatever the object of their dislike does, even if it doesn’t need to be interpreted that way. Sort of like the “ladies” in “The Music Man” song ‘Pick a little, talk a little.”


Meredith Willson – Pick-a-Little, Talk-a-Little Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

“Be kind. For everyone is fighting a hard battle.”
Click to expand...
Then again there is the ' looks like a duck, quacks like a duck', school of thought.
 
otto said:
Verifying sources isn't unique to the Royal Family. Everything that is published has to be double checked.

We can trust the multiple sources that have published the palace statement describing the Tatler story as garbage (paraphrasing).
Click to expand...

It’s worth saying the DM was accurate early on. The rift, MM bucking the system, Kate not being invited to the shower, MM’s assistants leaving etc.

*bucking the system-panty hose, leaking to friends, not attending certain BRF events, lack of Archie photos, public major announcement versus personal discussions, political views publicized and more.
 
Last edited:
Sherwood Park said:
View attachment 249049

I couldn't help but notice the staircase. Beautiful.
Click to expand...

I googled the staircase and found this one known as The Grand Staircase but I don't think it's the same one.

Question is, just how many golden staircases does Her Majesty have?


grand-staircase-buckingham-palace-01.jpg


289465-1338218255.jpg


Douglas Morison (1814-1847) - The Grand Staircase seen from the Marble Hall, Buckingham Palace

XD136827_Buckingham-Palace-The-Grand-Staircase.jpg


Buckingham Palace, The Grand Staircase
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 65 more.
Total: 2,800 (members: 66, guests: 2,734)

Online statistics

Members online
66
Guests online
2,734
Total visitors
2,800
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,115
Messages
17,963,461
Members
228,687
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top