# Prime Time Ghouls ?



## Bill Stewardson (Jul 30, 2017)

The media seems to think that when it comes to a royal who has been dead for two decades we are all "prime time ghouls" , is this really the case ?

Do enough people on the street really want to know the tawdry personal details about the private life of a royal ? 

Would it attract advertising from any of our huge selling gutter comics ? 

Would you watch ?

The brother of the concerned long dead royal is pleading for the programme not to be shown, which likely guarantees it will be.


----------



## Amigo (Jul 30, 2017)

I think this latest proposed programme using the very private videos made with her then voice coach is tawdry and exploitative. The voice coach has sold the videos after 20 yrs and should have had enough integrity to let her secrets die with her.

However, I did watch the recent documentary in which William and Harry talked movingly about their mother and the impact of her life and death. Her humanity clearly challenged the Palace stuffiness and she's left a legacy of real compassion in her boys who I think make her proud.

Sadly Diana remains an enormous public draw and I suspect these unseen videos will have quite an impact on how we are left feeling about the institution of royalty and certain key players. Certain senior royals must be very nervous indeed. Arguably the public have a right to know but much depends how the information is presented.


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 30, 2017)

It's ever been thus with the 'royal' family, going back two centuries. The public for sure have a right to know - we pay to keep them in luxury, though the personal cost to each of us is pennies. Just as we have a right to know, they have a duty to set an example to 'their' people. George V knew that, particularly after the rather bad example set by his predecessor, and the establishment knew that when another Edward, this time number 8, decided to marry a twice divorced American. 

Though those events occurred when there was almost a press blackout on news from the Windsor family's behaviour, that no longer applies. 

Diana was an unfortunate girl promoted beyond her educational capabilities. I think the people recognised that, and what got the Windsors annoyed was her consummate ability to communicate with ordinary people. She just couldn't communicate with Royals. The more their treatment of her by the Windsors comes to light, the better in my opinion. Specially the treatment by our next king, who told Diana, speaking of Camilla, that the Prince of Wales was entitled to a mistress. That's not a tawdry detail of a private life, it's emblematic of an odious attitude of entitlement. Let's hope that Charles is the last of that generation of male monarchs who have that attitude.


----------



## Amigo (Jul 30, 2017)

mikeyB said:


> It's ever been thus with the 'royal' family, going back two centuries. The public for sure have a right to know - we pay to keep them in luxury, though the personal cost to each of us is pennies. Just as we have a right to know, they have a duty to set an example to 'their' people. George V knew that, particularly after the rather bad example set by his predecessor, and the establishment knew that when another Edward, this time number 8, decided to marry a twice divorced American.
> 
> Though those events occurred when there was almost a press blackout on news from the Windsor family's behaviour, that no longer applies.
> 
> Diana was an unfortunate girl promoted beyond her educational capabilities. I think the people recognised that, and what got the Windsors annoyed was her consummate ability to communicate with ordinary people. She just couldn't communicate with Royals. The more their treatment of her by the Windsors comes to light, the better in my opinion. Specially the treatment by our next king, who told Diana, speaking of Camilla, that the Prince of Wales was entitled to a mistress. That's not a tawdry detail of a private life, it's emblematic of an odious attitude of entitlement. Let's hope that Charles is the last of that generation of male monarchs who have that attitude.



I agree Mike and my use of the word 'tawdry' refers more to the revelations that are to emerge about her infidelities too! She proved too hot for Charlie to handle and out-manoeuvred him!


----------



## Copepod (Jul 30, 2017)

Who was paid for the videos?!? They were filmed for private voice tutoring, not public screening onTV


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 30, 2017)

That was true of much of the film we have of concentration camps in the last war- never meant for public consumption. That's an over the top comparison, but nonetheless it's not for the royal family to judge what is private. Thats if anybody cares, of course.


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jul 30, 2017)

I'm very surprised that an ordinary person would know that The Prince of Wales said any such thing to his wife re having a mistress.

I would have hoped that standards centuries ago lagged behind those which are supposed to be evident in this day and age.

Having a dislike for the royals does seem to cause some to think that they have a right to peer deeply into their private lives, even to the tenth degree.

All seems like putting a Sun front page on national television to me.

I do not agree that because they are royals and we pay taxes that we "own them" ,,, where does the line get drawn ??


----------



## Copepod (Jul 30, 2017)

mikeyB said:


> That was true of much of the film we have of concentration camps in the last war- never meant for public consumption. That's an over the top comparison, but nonetheless it's not for the royal family to judge what is private. Thats if anybody cares, of course.


I was alluding to the fact that someone (voice coach or someone connected with voice coach) has chosen to sell private material for personal gain. I'm not sure that many of the service personnel who filmed liberation and effects of concentration camps were paid for the material, beyond cost of film stock. Some images were recorded by service personnel in film units, so it belonged to units / Ministry of Defence (or equivalent at end of WWII), not the individuals who filmed. I'm not trying to comment on whether film should be shown or not, nor who should make the decision, just querying if someone should offer the videos for sale.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 30, 2017)

I still think Diana was far too young when she married Charles - she was only 19, for goodness sake, far too young to be thrust into such a demanding role, with hardly a second of privacy, and the press intrusion was - and still is - relentless  They shouldn't show it, certainly not at such a difficult time for her sons, 20 years on almost to the day  I don't need to know what she said, and neither does anyone else.


----------



## Ditto (Jul 30, 2017)

We'll be watching, we're royalists and are fascinated and always watch anything with the Royals in it. I used to know so much about the royal family, forgotten most of it now though. My daughter loved Diana and we used to get all the books/mags. If you like that kind of thing what harm can it do? On the other hand how did these tapes which were never meant for anybody other than Diana and that dastardly fiend of a money grubbing therapist come to be for public consumption? He 'lost' them once and I'd like to know how they ended up with Paul Burrell? They should have been destroyed long ago. I'll still be watching though.


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jul 31, 2017)

Ditto said:


> We'll be watching, we're royalists and are fascinated and always watch anything with the Royals in it. I used to know so much about the royal family, forgotten most of it now though. My daughter loved Diana and we used to get all the books/mags. If you like that kind of thing what harm can it do? On the other hand how did these tapes which were never meant for anybody other than Diana and that dastardly fiend of a money grubbing therapist come to be for public consumption? He 'lost' them once and I'd like to know how they ended up with Paul Burrell? They should have been destroyed long ago. I'll still be watching though.



Ive no doubt it will draw huge numbers, as the Sun does.

Just disappoints me.


----------



## Lisa66 (Jul 31, 2017)

Don't get me started on this type of "journalism"! 
I agree Bill. I shan't be watching and I see certain newspapers (?!) have similar articles running. Sadly there's always money to be made as plenty (not me or anyone I know) of people seem to be interested in this and the very private lives of others....royal or not...public interest or not.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 31, 2017)

Lisa66 said:


> Don't get me started on this type of "journalism"!
> I agree Bill. I shan't be watching and I see certain newspapers (?!) have similar articles running. Sadly there's always money to be made as plenty (not me or anyone I know) of people seem to be interested in this and the very private lives of others....royal or not...public interest or not.


I may be wrong, but apparently the Daily and Sunday Express have run some sort of story about Diana since the day she died  Met her in 1988 at the National Parks Festival at Chatsworth House - lovely lady


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jul 31, 2017)

Lisa66 said:


> Don't get me started on this type of "journalism"!
> I agree Bill. I shan't be watching and I see certain newspapers (?!) have similar articles running. Sadly there's always money to be made as plenty (not me or anyone I know) of people seem to be interested in this and the very private lives of others....royal or not...public interest or not.



I see  the whole thing as another step downwards for our gutter level media.


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jul 31, 2017)

Northerner said:


> I may be wrong, but apparently the Daily and Sunday Express have run some sort of story about Diana since the day she died  Met her in 1988 at the National Parks Festival at Chatsworth House - lovely lady



I see no interest at all in that womans antics, what I do see is a total lack of respect for her children and grandchildren.


----------



## Matt Cycle (Jul 31, 2017)

Bill Stewardson said:


> The media seems to think that when it comes to a royal who has been dead for two decades we are all "prime time ghouls" , is this really the case ?
> 
> Do enough people on the street really want to know the tawdry personal details about the private life of a royal ?



Henry VIII has been dead for nearly 500 years and we've had several films, TV programmes and countless school topics about the intimate details of his life, marriages and death.  No videotapes as far as I am aware.  His first cousin 14 times removed is still alive.  Have these people no respect?


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch (Jul 31, 2017)

Money for old rope my dad used to call it. I certainly won't be watching as I make a point of not watching, or indeed reading anything about the current Royal family, make of that what you will!


----------



## Ditto (Jul 31, 2017)

I wouldn't wipe my derriere on the Sun or the Daily Star. I read the Daily Mirror if available for the Perishers.  Are they still going? It's ages since I read a 'paper.


----------



## Bill Stewardson (Jul 31, 2017)

Ditto said:


> I wouldn't wipe my derriere on the Sun or the Daily Star. I read the Daily Mirror if available for the Perishers.  Are they still going? It's ages since I read a 'paper.



Slightly off topic, one year I was sat on Centre Court, and the nice old lady sat next to me, Union Jack hat and jacket, says to me " you may want to use my field glasses young man" so I reply " hello, why is that" her reply " Pippa is over there" , my honest reply " who is Pippa" ?  " at which point she got a face on and blanked me for the entire day ! Turns out Pippa is one of the Middletons ,,,, ah well, you learn something everyday.


----------



## Ditto (Jul 31, 2017)

LOL she's Kate's sister. Now _she_ has a great derriere!


----------



## mikeyB (Jul 31, 2017)

So has my missus, which is about as important.


----------



## Amigo (Jul 31, 2017)

mikeyB said:


> So has my missus, which is about as important.



A nice observation after 40 yrs Mike!


----------

