Thanks for the thread start
@Chita , and well done
@cjguk
On your post
@Kotare last thread
I take your point from a distaste point of view, but without the enablement of the Sussexes by our Monarch we'd not be here and he is part of the contagion. We discuss everything on Tattle but stay on track, and you could say that Rose Hanbury should be discussed on another thread too as a different "theme". Or toast, pets, or difficult relatives. Who decides?
The fact is that our Monarch has a long and sleazy proven association with p...dos, and if the press had no qualms about airing PA's dealings with JE and VG, our King's dealings should be similarly looked at. But the press dare not. Nor should we dare not. We've extensively discussed PA and JE on here. Is the King different? At least PA has to some extent paid for his transgressions but Charles has not.
Any "positioning of King Charles alongside perverts" was his choice, not ours, and he was not a victim of any of them though others were.
The problem is that he's above the law - avoided for example giving evidence in the Peter Ball child sex abuse High Court hearing not long ago though he had a lot to answer for. His son is above the law too, and their abuse of power and privilege comes as naturally as breathing.
But nobody wants to offend anyone on here, so we can leave it at that. It's been openly aired and that's sufficient, so we'll crack on amicably.
Imagine, if Smegs had been successful in the exam she was supposed to take (foreign services?), she would have had us on the ninth world war by now 
