Platell: Prince William played ‘the ‘sick dad’ card to cover his clumsy, selfish behaviour’

This is what has been happening for the past five days or so since Prince Andrew’s arrest: Prince William’s allies gleefully briefing everyone that King Charles needs to abdicate so Scooter King can clean up the mess, and the British media constantly going “actually, William sucks too.” It’s wild. Well, the Daily Mail’s Amanda Platell is on another tear following William and Kate’s ridiculous appearance at the BAFTAs on Sunday. Keep in mind, we’ve been talking about the BAFTAs all week because of the outrageous racism on display within the BAFTA organization, and BAFTA’s whole-ass president, Prince William, still has not said one damn word. Please allow Platell to go off on William for the other stuff though.

For a brief moment at Sunday night’s Baftas we saw the return of the Prince William we knew and loved, handsome in a velvet tuxedo beside a resplendent Kate. Yet our future King just had to ruin the moment. He couldn’t resist the urge to make it all about him. When he was asked if he had watched the award-winning British movie Hamnet, about the death of Shakespeare’s young son, he said no – it would be too traumatic for him.

‘I need to be in quite a calm state and I am not at the moment,’ he explained. Which meant, predictably, that all the next day’s headlines were about William’s pain, shamefully and self-indulgently overshadowing the staggering success of the movie at the awards, including that of its leading lady Jessie Buckley who won the Bafta for best actress.

The next day, it was briefed by ‘palace sources’ – and not denied since – that William ‘fears for his father’s health’ as the King continues to fight cancer. It seems to me that Wills was playing the ‘sick dad’ card to cover his clumsy, selfish behaviour on the red carpet. I have no doubt William is deeply concerned about his father’s health. But some might feel he has a funny way of showing it. While Charles carried out 533 royal engagements, including gruelling visits to Canada, Italy and Poland despite still undergoing cancer treatment, his eldest son managed a paltry 202.

Where was William, 43, when the King, 77, needed him most to share the load of royal duties? The answer is that, for the last part of the year, he was huddled away at his new ‘forever home’, Forest Lodge, buried deep in Windsor Great Park in 150 acres of private fenced-off land and surrounded by 24/7 security guards.

Following the arrest of Andrew, formerly known as Prince, over allegations of misconduct in public office in relation to his connections to the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, many have speculated that this could be the end of the monarchy. I am not one of those doomsayers. But I believe that for the monarchy to have a future, especially among Generation Z, who increasingly don’t see the point of a Royal Family, William needs to up his game, start appearing in public more and cut the whingeing. I’m sorry, William, but your future subjects are not losing sleep worrying about your precious mental health.

Unlike my generation, the young in this country do not supinely accept that the royals are above reproach. Gen Z’s mantra is ‘accountability’. How does our reluctant future King square to them the fact that he has a private income of around £23million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall, which is worth £1billion and covers 130,000 acres across 23 counties? He automatically took ownership of the estate when Queen Elizabeth died – no death duties or inheritance taxes like the rest of us – and, unlike his father, he refuses to declare what taxes he actually pays.

While King Charles has proved himself to be a kind, compassionate, thoughtful and tirelessly hard-working royal, the same cannot be said of his eldest son. I have a feeling the nearly 1million young people not working and on benefits, not able to get a job or on the housing ladder and dogged by university debts, will fail to be convinced that ‘workshy Wills’ provides good value for money.

So, your Royal Highness, let me tell you what you can do to impress this lost generation. First, show you’re serious about cutting back the excess and slash some of the 500 royal employees. Strip the hangers-on Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice of their undeserved titles. Ensure the succession continues only with your children Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, which will then be passed on to George’s children. And no one else.

Take away Harry and Meghan’s royal titles, including those of their children Archie and Lilibet – the Sussexes have not for years been working royals and just shamelessly profit off, and tarnish, the royal name.

[From The Daily Mail]

As I said this week, the Mail giveth and the Mail taketh away. They were fine with publishing William’s briefing about “being worried about his father’s health,” but in their next breath, the Mail was like “hey, not so fast you lazy a–hole.” Giving him some smacks about hiding out at Forest Lodge, centering himself at every turn and refusing to work? Well, it’s a long time coming. I fear the real point of this is less about mocking the idiot heir and more about the Mail dictating the terms of the Scooter reign though. Like, the stuff about “take away the Sussex titles” is most likely the actual point of all of this. And to that I say… lol. If these people think that the way through their massive crisis is “punishing Prince Harry for marrying a Black woman,” so be it. Let them.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

82 Responses to “Platell: Prince William played ‘the ‘sick dad’ card to cover his clumsy, selfish behaviour’”

  1. Tessa says:

    Take away the keens titles. Of course taking Sussex titles has to be brought in

  2. YankeeDoodles says:

    Royal titles are not like magic. It’s not Harry Potter. Abracadabra, etc. they don’t make you superhuman. I’m not sure why English people seem not to get this — Irish and Scottish people do — but it’s really a peculiar twist of the psyche, to believe that a purely ceremonial designation can outweigh hard work, compassion, sensitivity, stamina, nuance, and perseverance.

    • Smart&Messy says:

      If they ever take away the Sussex titles it will be like the aftermath of the Sussexes leaving. Peg will be relieved and feel like he won, then he will FAFO about the consequences.

      • Jais says:

        This. He’d be happy he won and then go back to doing the least of the least for the most of the most. But eventually, he’d have to find something new to fixate on and what would be left?

      • anotherlily says:

        Harry and Meghan have registered ‘Sussex’ as their family’s legal name. Also legally it would take an Act of Parliament to remove the dukedom and possibly also the Prince title. I think the HRH style is in the monarch’s personal control.

        What happened with Andrew’s titles seems to have been something cooked up between the King and the PM and their advisors. Probably as an attempt to avoid having the public discussions which would be involved in an Act of Parliament. Events have overturned their plans and yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons together with the arrest of Peter Mandelson have ensured the full extent of Andrew’s wrongdoing will be played out in public for many months to come.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Billy Boy needs to be careful about aiding & abetting this completely artificial distinction made between ‘working royal’ & ‘non-working royal’, a distinction concocted to punish Harry & Meghan. What’s the official minimum number of engagements? 100? If so, Katie Keen is in trouble. William, too, if he actually does less as he’s been telegraphing he’s going to do.

    • Bean says:

      Here’s the thing about the titles that the left behinds don’t seem to understand. Harry and Meghan have achieved ‘single name status’. All you have to say is their first names and people know exactly who you’re talking about. Like Cher, Madonna, etc. Titles are meaningless but single name status is meaningful.

      • sunnisideup says:

        Single name titles have to be earnt, inherited titles just happen. Mind you, they don’t have to stop using the titles just because William says so, he has to persuade Parliament that being driven out of your country is as bad as being a ped. Harry and Meghan were very keen to work for the Monarchy,

  3. Smart&Messy says:

    I know it’s off topic but my god Kate’s BAFTA wig was hidious. Like cousin It walking past William in the background.

    • KristenfromMA says:

      Seriously. Does she not own a mirror?

    • Mtl.ex.pat says:

      It just looked so dry and fly away…

    • Millie328 says:

      This is the only place you can say that. American media fawns over her. The comment sections are gushing with praise about her beauty. I made a comment somewhere that she was wearing a wig but I deleted it quickly because I couldn’t handle the wrath.

    • Karen says:

      You are on topic…that wig was ridiculous. I don’t know who advises her. She had a very different hairstyle at Rugby (better one) and the the BAFTAs (messy one)

  4. Jais says:

    And yet what do any of these vestigial titles have to do with William barely doing anything and yet having so much largesse. None of that goes to Beatrice and Eugenie. Or Lili and Archie. Is this the dead cat strategy? Again, if titles are for who is “working” then you might as well have an elected HOS and not a monarchy.

    • Becks1 says:

      So I think it may go along with her argument about “cutting back the excess” but its not like B&E get any sovereign grant money that we know of. So how would removing their designations as princessses change anything?

      If I were someone advising the royal family, I would leave all pre-existing titles alone and issue a new letters patent changing it going forward. Because that’s part of what makes all of this look so punitive – if this really were about slimming down the monarchy (man I hate that term now lol) and trimming the excess etc, the logical thing would be to start with the next generation. Issue a LP making it clear, however it needs to be worded, that only George’s first born is entitled to HRH prince/ss. None of Louis’ children, and Charlotte’s husband will not be granted a title and Charlotte should not expect one in her own name. Make clear NOW that neither Charlotte or Louis will ever be working royals. Set their expectations. Let them become doctors or lawyers or such.

      The way to start cleaning the house is with those three and their children, but William won’t do anything that “hurts” his children (although I would argue that it would benefit them.)

      • Jais says:

        The LP for future children makes the most sense. But that’s not what this is about. Bc yeah Bea and Eugenie don’t get any money so what does taking their titles do? Nothing. And look take all their titles if that’s what will make them happy but the public is not going to be getting anything out of it. William will still do next to nothing and still get all the SG money and all the duchy money and the next generation will be in the same situation. Honestly, the Wales had a whole LP written to give their children titles from birth, not when Charles became king, but from birth. What was that for then? In hindsight, it looks absurd. None of those kids are working royals so why the need for titles from birth. The titles just aren’t the issue but focusing on them is a way to distract from the real issue. Look at that dead cat over there and not at the monarchy and heir that aren’t fit for purpose .

      • BayTampaBay says:

        If there are fewer or no working Royals, who will do the work that Princess Anne and Duchess Sophie are currently doing?

        I 100% believe that English people want a Royal to show up at their local fete or annual village shindig. This type of “Bread & Butter” engagement actually does bring the monarch closer to people by direct in-person contact. “Bread & Butter” engagements cannot be AI generated or edited.

        Really seeing may lead or leads to really believing.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay then the English people will adjust and get over it, and decide whether they want a king/queen who shows up to a few events a year, or nothing at all.

        This was started by Charles with his insisting on slimming down the monarchy – there were always going to be fewer bread and butter events as the older generation retired or passed away. Driving out H&M made that a certainty.

        This is the monarchy Charles and William wanted, and if the public doesn’t like it, they can make that known.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Jais so the change for the LP for William’s children actually made sense. Without that change, had a girl been born first, she would have been the heir to the throne but she would have been Lady, and a son born after her would have been prince (at the time, the LPs provided that only the oldest son of the oldest son of the PoW was entitled to HRH Prince, as well as all grandchildren in the male line of the monarch.) And remember they were switched before George was born.

        so had it been Charlotte, George and Louis, then it would have been Lady Charlotte, heir to the throne, HRH Prince George, and Lord Louis. So changing those LPs so it started off with HRH Princess Charlotte (potentially) made sense.

        But, you could also argue that they could have just changed the LP so that the oldest son of the oldest son of the PoW was not HRH Prince, and that all of W&K’s children would be known as Lord/Lady, without HRH. Or that only the heir would be HRH Prince/ss, regardless of sex, and any other children would be Lord/Lady. so there were definitely different ways to do it that wouldn’t have made them all HRHs at birth.

        But william was never going to be okay with something that reduced the status of his children. Same way as now, he’s never going to announce that his children will have jobs or careers – they’re going to be dependent on taxpayer funding and the duchies just like he has been for his whole life.

        So the easiest route to trimming the monarchy is one that william will never ever take.

      • lanne says:

        that work will cease to exist because Cain and Unable refuse to do it. That means their kids won’t do it. The old Duke of Kent or Gloucester that still goes out at 90 to do events (poor man needs to be retired–he looks like he rises from the crypt to do an event then returns to it) is a preview of Anne in a few decades. Then nothing.

        The monarchy will die because no one had the foresight of Mary of Teck, who invented the “bread and butter engagements.” She basically invented the whole “go out and be seen” style of royaling that Elizabeth made her trademark, and that became the 20th century modus operandi or royalty. No one from the palaces has created a 21st century image of royalty. Should it look different? If so, how? How should royals be seen to be of use to the public? William and company feel entitled to the adulation and don’t think they have to do anything to earn it. So far they’ve had a compliant media, but when the media is no longer making any money from them–and there’s no money to be made hiding in Forest Lodge, and the Sussex well has run dry, what then? The only target will be the royals themselves.

        Honestly, I hope the Wales get targeted now. Whatever they have on William should be aired now. Better now than waiting 10 years. If they wait 10 years, then the royals will throw the Wales younger kids under the bus to protect the King. I have no doubt in my ming that William would sacrifice his own younger kid to protect himself. He has his own father and brother as a role model for that. So for Louis’s sake, I hope the soptlight falls on William next.

      • Jais says:

        Thanks @becks1. I knew there was an original reason that had to do with gender but couldn’t remember. And as you say, in hindsight, there were other ways to address it, but especially as the conversation has become about working royals and titles. To me, the whole working title argument makes no sense when you take into account his children.
        @baytampabay, and yes they are going to lose the bread and butter events and while that might be what the people want, I don’t think William intends to give the people what they want.
        @lanne, once William gets rid of everyone else’s titles, yes you would imagine that will truly make them bigger targets. They will be all that’s left.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Note how all this talk about “slimming down” the monarchy NEVER mentions money, i.e. cutting back on their expenses and reducing the money they take from the tax payers. No talk of reduction there – just talk of fewer “working” royals (fewer to share the money with) and removal of titles from people who annoy William.

        The slimming down of the monarchy ought to be about reducing the amount of public money they receive and not about how many royals there are. It is a clever misdirect from Charles’ office. They have steered the dicussion to be about who is in and who is out, and about titles – and everybody forgets that the Sovereign Grant keeps increasing.

      • HuffnPuff says:

        That’s exactly it, Becks1. Whenever we hear these calls to remove titles, I think “You first”. It’s clear WandK never think that far though (or ever). You can take away everyone else’s titles but now you’re setting a precedent for your own children. Not to mention, doesn’t that water down Andrew’s punishment? Way to show your intense concern and caring for the victims.

      • Deborah1 says:

        @Becks1 – But he doesn’t care about hurting other royal children, does he? e.g. Lili, Archie, Beatrice and Eugenie. I’m all for removing titles and honours from royals who have committed crimes (i.e. Andrew) but to take titles from those who have not smacks of spite. I appreciate Beatrice and Eugenie may be a grey area though but the Sussex children are blameless.

      • Deborah1 says:

        I’ll rephrase that. “I’m all for removing titles and honours from royals *suspected* of committing crimes”, because in Andrew’s case, he hasn’t been convicted of anything – yet.

      • samipup says:

        @ Becks1…An unexpected Waylon and Willie reference! How delightful!

      • Bqm says:

        @jais that wasn’t what the LP was for. It was because the law had changed that the firstborn child of William and Kate would now reign regardless of gender. So if r had been the firstborn, and George the second, she’d still be the future monarch. But the 1917 LP only gave “the eldest son of the eldest son of the POW” HRH status. So Charlotte could’ve been the heir and just styled as a lady while George, the spare, would be an HRH. It wound up being moot as George was firstborn but it got people thinking about the future.

        “ The Queen’s Letters Patent revises King George V’s 1917 decree that only the eldest son of the Prince of Wales’s eldest son was entitled to be styled His Royal Highness and a Prince. According to this document, the daughters and younger sons of the Prince of Wales’s eldest son were to be styled as children of a Duke. These ducal titles would change to royal titles once the Prince of Wales succeeded to the throne.The Queen’s decree ensures that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s eldest child is a daughter, she will be styled a Princess rather than a Lady.
        The recent Letters Patent reflect the succession reforms that are currently in the process of being ratified by the governments of the United Kingdom and the fifteen other commonwealth realms that have the Queen as Head of State. The reforms introduce absolute primogeniture, which would make the eldest child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge a direct heir to the throne regardless of gender. These reforms have prompted a broader analysis of royal titles to ensure they reflect a scenario where the eventual heir might be a woman with a younger brother. The equalization of titles for the monarch’s great-grandchildren of both genders is part of this process of succession reform.”

  5. Becks1 says:

    Well, at least along with the Sussexes, she seems to want them to take all nonworking royals titles away. I don’t get her bit though about the LoS being George, Charlotte, Louis, then george’s children, and no one else. That’s…..that’s how it works? Right now its George Charlotte Louis HARRY, and then his children, but the minute George has a child, that child goes before Charlotte. If he has 3 children, then Charlotte is bumped down even further. As is Louis. Is she saying that the monarchy should end with George’s children??

    Anyway, the notable thing to me here (because the Sussex line is boring and overused*) is the two points that we’ve seen brought up several times over the last week regarding William – his lack of work, and Forest Lodge. Its clear that both of those are huge sticking points for the press. The Wales expect the press to cover for them and to create fawning story after fawning story about them, and it feels like the press is finally saying – you’ve gotta give us SOMETHING to work with and stop acting like entitled twits. More photo ops, less expensive moves, etc.

    *I mean, like Kaiser said – if anyone at the palaces is looking at this crisis and thinks, yes, removing titles from Harry and Meghan and their children is the way to fix this – well, they really are tone deaf idiots, aren’t they?

    • Nic919 says:

      The problem is William and to a lesser extent Kate, but their hierarchical system doesn’t want to admit it because that means they have a huge issue on their hands.

    • Jais says:

      The FL isolation really does have them worked up. If the engagement moments were closer to that of Charles, I wonder if it would be that much of an issue.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think the engagement issues are part of it, and their weak ass defense of Adelaide three years ago. The press was already mad about the Adelaide move and then had to semi-defend it, and then the Wales were like, well, CANCER, have to move again.

        But no one complains about Charles “hiding out” at Highgrove* or Sandringham or Balmoral – because he’s seen regularly in between.

        *I do think part of the difference is that those places do not have the shroud of secrecy around them that Forest Lodge now has. Highgrove gardens are open to the public at times, as are the grounds at Sandringham and I think you can even visit the actual house during the summer. Balmoral offered tours this summer. So maybe that’s part of it? Charles has never hidden himself away like W&K do.

      • lanne says:

        No one can inspect how the Wales really live at Forest Lodge, either. Separate wings of the house? Mistresses coming and going? Middleton Wing? All the other palaces provide some accountability for how the royals live. There are records of Epstein being invited to Buckingham Palace and Balmoral. They could have the entire Nazi party come to Forest Lodge and no one would know.

    • Adventure says:

      How on earth do these people need a staff of 500? And how do you have 500 staff supporting you, and yet you still continue to fail so spectacularly year after year? It’s Billy the Bully who needs to have his titles taken away, so he can scoot around at home in his skivvies, watch his sports, swig back his spirits, and shirk his responsibilities without any scrutiny. The monarchy has swiftly turned into a joke. No one would miss them if they never showed up again.

    • Bqm says:

      @becks she’s saying it should go William, Kate and their kids. Then, as George marries and has kids, just his. Then as his hypothetical family ages, just his and so on. Just keep it to the heir and his family once they have one and they’re old enough to help. Like if Harry was still in the uk, he’d only be a working royal until his niece and nephews were old enough to carry on then he’d step back. But Archie and Lili would never be. Theoretically Charlotte and Louis will help until George is either of age or has a family then step back.

      I think this is how the Spanish are now centered. There’s the Dowager Queen, the king and queen and their daughters. But Leonor is married or queen I don’t think Sophia will be a working royal. It’ll be Leonor, her spouse, her mother if she’s still living.

  6. Well she started out great naming all his royal selfishnesses flaws but she just had to end it in the shitter by wanting to take titles away from the Sussexes!

    • Tessa says:

      And Charles is not kind hearted

    • Dee(2) says:

      Right? Like titles don’t cost money. If you want to take away their apartments/homes or make them pay market rent for their central London property have at it.

      But being referred to as ” Princess or Prince” has nothing to do with Williams tax free income, paltry working numbers, and increasingly isolationist ways.

      I don’t understand why they think that these people won’t be able to still utilize the connections that come with titles, even if you officially take them away. How many Prince’s, Counts , Archduke’s are running around Europe right now trading off of titles that haven’t existed for 150 years?

      Also it’s wild to write that Harry and Meghan are ” tarnishing” the royal name. They are currently on a humanitarian mission at a refugee camp. You just had someone perp walked, and one of the co-founders of the heir’s major project had to resign from his company due to Epstein
      connections.

      • anotherlily says:

        The Letters Patent that allowed all of William’s children to have princely titles from birth changed the previous rule by which only the firstborn son of the heir to the Prince of Wales would be a Prince from birth. No such change was made for Harry’s children. They became Prince/Princess when their grandfather became King.

        The previous rule had been made before the legal change which abolished male primogeniture. Charlotte was never in the position of being displaced by a younger brother.

  7. Tuesday says:

    Beatrice and Eugenie’s “undeserved” titles? They are going to screw up the whole thing. You don’t earn a title, you get one because you’re born to royalty. If we start discussing who deserves one and who doesn’t, then no one gets one. Abolish the monarchy!

    • First comment says:

      Exactly. That’s the point of an hereditary monarchy. So, if you had to earn a title, shouldn’t William be excluded from his lack of work and impact?

    • Me at home says:

      Which is why the titles are a complete non-starter and a convenient red herring for Willy. Parliament’s hereditary peers aren’t going to vote to put anyone’s titles in jeopardy. But Willy waves titles around to distract us from his £23m+/year tax free income in remuneration for 202 engagements, many of those footie games. Squirrel! Look at the titles.

    • Ciotog says:

      If they make it about who deserves a title they’re going down a bad road for themselves. Because none of them do.

    • Hypocrisy says:

      Peggy is targeting the women and children like most abusers he goes after those he thinks are weaker than he is.. he is a red flag walking because for him he talks of stripping the titles of the women and children as if he it is his own personal public flogging of them all.. it’s sick. Notice he isn’t stripping Edward, Sophie or James along with all the other royals in the los.. just the hated brother and the women and children.. so assuming Chuck is alive to see number 8 removed then 5,6,7,9,10&12 must be lumped together so Peggy can lash out at them to feel important it’s sickening.. Andy is arrested for (allegedly) selling state secrets for access to rape trafficked children and women what exactly have the rest done that even compares to that evil?

    • Julianna2 says:

      Yes, if William and the Royal Rat media keep talking about taking away titles, then there goes the ‘Magic Blood’ rationale for having a Royal Family. Credit to another poster who used the ‘magic blood’ term first (my apologies for not remembering who used this term).

      If titles can be taken away, then there is no Magic Blood and no rationale for Royalty. Wouldn’t it be nice if the beer guzzling Prince William and the Royal Rats had enough intelligence to make this connection!

  8. Tessa says:

    Only George should get title but only when a working royal

  9. Julie says:

    All this while Harry and Meghan are in Jordan to see how they could help the massive refugees needs. Do these people truly believe that the Sussexes will stop their charity works if they don’t have their title? There are many to affirm that they profit from it but I have yet to see one describe how they profit.

  10. Tarte Au Citron says:

    Platell definetly got the green light to bite. More please!! 😍

    • DeeSea says:

      It does seem that the dam is truly breaking this time. I don’t want to get my hopes up, but I do sense that we’ve passed a tipping point and that this genie won’t go back into the bottle. (Trying to think how I can squeeze a few more metaphors into this comment!)

  11. Chrissie T says:

    Apparently Buckingham Palace was searched by the police because Andrew has offices and an apartment there but yeah sure Harry is the one tarnishing the royal name. At this rate not having a title will be an bigger advantage in future. People will be turning them down. Zara Phillips and the awful rugby player she married have been exploiting their connections to royalty for profit for years but she doesn’t have a title so that’s fine.

    • Tessa says:

      Scooter still would not be satisfied if he takes Sussex titles imp

    • Gabby says:

      “At this rate not having a title will be an bigger advantage in future.”

      This right here. Titles are going to age as well as red MAGA hats in the not-too-distant future.

  12. Eurydice says:

    I don’t think this is about H&M – at this point, that’s just the obligatory addition whenever the subject of taking away titles comes up. The BM know that H&M are doing fine on their own.

    What’s different here is the trashing of William. She’s speaking out loud what we’ve been saying for a long time, especially since Charles was diagnosed. Why can’t William show up when he’s needed, why does Anne have to do the investitures because he seems too drunk to stand up straight? All the embiggening articles about how William is coming into his own, he’s becoming a global whatever and diplomatic whatnot, none of them have come true. The press have been trying to burnish him up, but he’s not even suited to be PoW, never mind King. And all that fawning by the press has led to zero content from William – just some stale events, fake photos and seclusion in Forest Lodge. The press are angry.

  13. Tarte Au Citron says:

    Has there been a BAFTA that William attended and NOT put his foot in it?

  14. Me at home says:

    Platell is doing some good work here, but the titles issue is a complete sideshow.

    Stripping titles from the York sisters and the Sussexes would be purely symbolic. None of them, nor the Tindalls, Edward’s kids, or whoever else, receives duchy or Crown Estate payments today. (And stripping titles is probably a non-starter anyway, because hereditary peers would hate it.) Stripping titles wouldn’t affect William’s precious £23m/yr tax-free income, affect all those the grace and favor apartments, or shrink the Crown Estate payments by a single £1.

    The real issues are 1. who qualifies as a “working royal” and should therefore get paid for their “work” out of duchy income, from the Crown Estate, or even in the form of grace-and-favor apartments. In other words, does Platell think the York sisters (retaining their titles or not) should be allowed to represent the BRF on UK charities? And 2. What’s appropriate compensation? As Platell points out, Willy’s 202 engagements last year don’t remotely justify his £23m+ tax free income.

    • Me at home says:

      Just did the math, £23m/202 engagements = £115,000 per engagement, tax free. Many of those 1/2 hour photo ops, chats with staff, or involving footie matches.

      (And that’s not even counting the Crown Estate payments, free lodging at various palaces, security, etc.)

    • Jay says:

      I think that money might be a much quicker and easier way to address this than trying to implement complicated title reforms. I believe that if you remove the monetary value of these titles and the expectation of taxpayer support, that would be a better way.

      The British government should drastically reduce or just abolish the sovereign grant altogether. It’s just not fit for purpose. Every other aspect of a budget is examined to decide whether it’s worthwhile and a good use of taxpayer monies. Why should early education, healthcare, or other important government services be under scrutiny while meanwhile Kate and William must move in to their fifth house? If the public decides they want to give the monarch a small stipend, fine, but I think the days of distant cousins filling out the balcony should be long over.

      Earlier in this thread, it was mentioned that the British public expects the royals to attend village fetes and ribbon cuttings, and that may be true, but 1. I wonder if they want that more than, say, more nurses or better social programs and 2. The heir has very helpfully told everyone that when he’s king he’s not going to bother with any of that nonsense anyway (he’ll accept the money though, obvs). Plus, those sort of bread and butter functions could be done by someone else, maybe someone actually local, more qualified or connected to the project, or more able to bring media attention to it. Let’s face it, the Windsors don’t exactly have star power, and mostly the engagements they deign to do are either “listening and learning” or a dull two sentence “speech” about a program or centre they just learned about the other day.

      If the Windsor family wants to continue living in lavish palaces, they can do so with the earnings from their extensive land holdings and investments ( which they can also pay taxes on btw).

      • windyriver says:

        Absolutely. @ArtHistorian made a similar comment above. They can also drop the exemptions for the RF from other rules and regulations the rest of the population is required to follow.

      • jais says:

        Well, yes, money reform is the answer. And that’s why they are focusing on the titles. It’s verrrry purposeful.

  15. TN Democrat says:

    It wasn’t “just” the dad is sick card Willy pulled. He also pulled the KeEN has CaNCeR card and used that as an excuse to do jacksh#t the year before last. The “precancerous cells” explanation for Keen completely vanishing for months while Willy popped up a few times unable to stand up straight is a ticking time bomb. Both are clearly mentally ill and both have appeared in public clearly altered. Both have been covered for ruthlessly by the rota at the expense of the Sussexes. An investigation into the quid pro quo arrangement the left behinds have with the rota, the use of bot armies and the full extent of the cover-up around Willy will burn what is left of the house of Windsor to the ground.

  16. Brassy Rebel says:

    I don’t think that William appearing in public more often will help preserve the monarchy at all. It would probably hasten its end. He is surely one of the most awkward and uncomfortable public figures ever. And he’s not handsome even in a tux.

  17. QuiteContrary says:

    I get that she had to pay the Sussex tax, but she pointed out several really good things here that I hope landed with her readers.

    — William is lazy as hell and his engagement numbers are PUNY.
    — He has a private income of around £23million a year from the Duchy of Cornwall, which is worth £1billion and covers 130,000 acres across 23 counties and he paid no death duties or inheritance taxes when he automatically took ownership of it.
    — He is “clumsy,” “selfish,” “whingeing” and self-centered.
    — ‘Workshy Wills’ does not provide “good value for money.”

    This isn’t a good day for KP and I’m glad of it.

  18. Amy Bee says:

    This is the DM exerting pressure on William to follow their demands. The Palace listened to the press when Harry announced that he and Meghan were going to step back and they’ve been paying for that ever since.

    • BLACK ELDERBERRY says:

      NO – the palace no listened to the press – only William, in Charles’s absence, took the documents Harry had submitted to his father regarding his departure from his desk (at his request) and handed them over to the press, specifically that pig Dan Wootton ( he probably had something on him, he has something on everyone). You could call it a coup d’état.

  19. Mel says:

    Parliament is in charge of titles. They can’t strip anyone of anything without rolling though them first. They’re not going to agree, so he’s just talking out of his butt. As usual. Also, unlike Willard is totally deluded about his popularity, they aren’t going to damage whatever rep they have to carry out his stupid revenge fantasies.

  20. Lady Digby says:

    Wilbur is getting pulverised here because monarchists like Amanda rightly judge that he’s letting everyone down. Infact he’s the biggest threat to the continuation of the monarchy which the Fail supports. The Firm is under fire because of Andrew and a long-term cover-up approved by late Queen and current King. Andrew and William both have been coddled and protected because they share the same character flaws and believe their position as offspring of the monarch gives them a free pass in life. Amanda wants Wilbur to straighten up and fly right. She’s fed up with the endless feeble excuses about school runs and barely showing up and then slovenly and unprepared. He enjoys a life of largess his entire life and he is now being presented a bill. He’s PoW and should be knocking out 500 engagements a year plus 2 Royal Tours from now on. The Fail have been yanking his chain since 2024 because once he was promoted to PoW he should have upped gear not acted like he’s about to retire and do even less. Platell is marking his homework and giving him an F for Fail because none of this is good enough and he’s paid too much to be so mediocre and barely “present” at events.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Did she ever write an article about how William pulled the ‘sick wife’ card? I mean, it was right there in front of her!

    • Unblinkered says:

      Amanda Platell is to be congratulated on starting ti mark his homework, thank God someone is.
      And as @LadyDigby so accurately comments above, W is paid far too much for what is mediocre behaviour, starting with showing up, at home and abroad, slovenly and unprepared. Let’s have some professionalism as the £23m man hits his mid-40s.

  21. Me at home says:

    Agree with all the adjectives Platell used about Willy, and it’s too bad about the Sussex tax.

    I mean, the British press should have been pointing all this out for years.

    But also wondering how much of this is egged on by Charles or Camilla because they’re po’d that KP is briefing that Charles should abdicate/is going to die soon?

  22. Lady Digby says:

    If Will has to go into rehab to “calm down” would we be told or would we be lied to that he been sent on an ultimate secret course that requires his attention for the next year?

  23. Monc says:

    He has the WORST smile

  24. samipup says:

    See at first I thought the “Andrew formally known as Prince” was funny, but now I’m thinking that the phrase connects the awesome musician Prince with pedos.

  25. therese says:

    I’m sorry, but I don’t understand this at all. Rather circuitous. What does anyone else have to do with Will’s laziness? How does shafting the girls and getting rid of titles make up for Will’s lack of drive? That’s just weird.

  26. BeanieBean says:

    This Platell is British, right? Does she not know how the line of succession works? William just can’t remove everybody from the list except his own kids; I mean, their own paper has already published the rather lengthy process they need to go through to get Andrew off that list. They want everybody off? All 100 or so? Oops, google tells me it’s 5k+. Huh.

  27. jferber says:

    Very nice, William, using sick people as a shield for your own selfishness, laziness and lack of initiative. And some of those sick people may be wearing their supposed sickness as a shield for themselves (Kate?)

  28. ChillinginDC says:

    I think this ends with the UK just getting rid of them and not paying for them anymore. Which is at it should be during a huge affordability crisis. No one should be paying this people outside of the monarch and heir. Everyone else get jobs and go about your days.

  29. Tarte Au Citron says:

    She is Australian, but has lived in the UK for many years. Platell was the Conservative Press Secretary way back when.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment