In a review of Robert Dunn's newbook, William and Kate, Bruce Elder make some observations about royal watchers confirming what most of us already know.
Mr. Elder's comment was in The Sydney Morning Herald's Spectrum supplement on 19 February 2011. It does not seem to be on the web.
….just speculation, fantasy, unsourced gossip and innuendo…..
Let me tell you a secret about Royal reporting. Apart from rare interviews with members of “The Firm” ( Royal Watcher's argot for the Royal Family), it is all surmise, speculation, guesswork, fantasy, widely available but unsourced gossip and innuendo.
Having worked many years with a colleague who was a royal reporter (and a rogue, to boot), I know that a lack of hard evidence never meant a lack of engrossing copy.
Notice that even the gossip and innuendo is not that of some exclusive circle. It's widely available.
So why is it published? Because this junk sells. But this does not make it true. It is not news. It is just surmise, speculation guesswork fantasy, and widely available but unsourced gossip and innuendo.
….gossip and innuendo..
Mr. Elder continues:
My (royal watcher) colleague kept a huge pile of clippings.
In these days of the Internet, the task of cobbling together a plausible story is so much easier, as none demonstrates in this picture book, with minimal text, designed to cash in on the engagement.
The result in this case is a souvenir with pages and a hardcover.
…quoting private Royal conversations – invariably invented…
But let's hear it again about Royal watching: it is all surmise, speculation, guesswork, fantasy, and widely available but unsourced gossip and innuendo.
We see a lot of that on one of the sites controlled by the republican movement. This often includes Royal gossip and innuendo all with a touch of vitriol. This follows from a similar column in Crikey by their "Republican Royal Watcher".
This republican royal watcher is even given to claim that he knows the content of private conversations between members of the Royal Family.
He is not alone in that, Richard Butler, writer Robert Lacey and the American Kitty Kelley do the same.
Richard Butler, after the announcement that he would become The Queen’s representative in Tasmania , actually quoted on ABCTV from a purported conversation between The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh over the landslide defeat of the 1999 referendum to turn Australia into a republic. The suggestion was they wanted Australia to become a republic.
Such stories should be taken with a large spoon of salt. The Queen and the Duke would hardly talk about such a matter in the presence of a witness. The proposition that either would leak details of their conversation is laughable.
…from someone who was there…
Readers may be interested in comparing this with the evidence of someone who was actually dining with the Queen and the Duke on the night of the referendum.
The widely syndicated Canadian, Mark Steyn, says with complete authority in the leading Canadian journal, Macleans on 21 April, 2006:
“As the only journalist on the planet within six feet of a royal facial expression that day, I can exclusively reveal that I haven't the foggiest as to the Queen's or the Duke of Edinburgh's feelings.”
This stream of royal gossip and innuendo on this republican Pravda can be dismissed as rubbish with vitriol.
It is invented to lend support for their agenda, which is to shred our Constitution and our Flag without revealing what is to replace them..
Why don't the republicans just work out what they want to do to our Constitution and our Flag, and tell the people?