Monaco and the protective shield the monators hold
 

Elspeth encouraged me to protest here so I will.

We used to be able to have honest conversations about the royals of Monaco, especially Albert, who every knows does not have the most healthy image of the royals. But after the business with Charlene posters quickly divided themselves into two groups. The looks-people who oohhd and ahhd at every picture and didn't find anything wrong with anyone. Then we had the actions-people who looked at Alberts and Charlenes actions and judged based on them. As the judgements hardened and their relationship turned into a facade the critic voices became louder and less tolerant of their behaviour. Then the moderators decided to jump in and delete everything that was said negative about those two "love birds". Since then nothing has been allowed to post about these two except "wow, she looks so beautiful". It is a pity that you don't want to hear what the people in the world think about Albert and Charlene. Instead you want to prentend that everything is fine. That is why we stopped posting and have moved to another forum.

I used to like this forum because of the pictuers and I still do. But everything that is said here is CRAP!! So superficial.

Is royalty above critisism? Even though this is a royal forum does not mean all we can do is to admire and adore and worship. We should be their control in a sense that they have a job to do in this world and if they don't live up to our expectations they better improve and do their duty. Their job is not to look good in pictures and wave from balconies or be pictured feeling different women. Their job is to improve this world, help the poor, raise money for the underpriviledged, free children from slavery, end war, equal out the situation in the world. If they don't know where to start I recommend they read Human Rights Watch site to get ideas http://hrw.org/.

If they don't do their duty there is no reason for having them. All countries could easily be turned into Democracys or whatever, saving the taxpayers money for something wiser and more usuful. I bet people do not want their tax money to only cover the clothing bill for their fashionable prince and princess and the decorations for their huge palaces.

This my opinion!! It is not speculation!!

Honestly Donna we have not deleted negative posts in that thread. They are all there. The only posts that have been deleted/edited have been ones that are off topic, go against copyright or the ones that are against our rules & guidelines- specifically this part of our rules:
I can't speak for any of the other Monaco Moderators, but many over in that thread don't want to listen to anything any of us moderators say. We make posts in that thread & they are ignored.

I don't know what thread you've been reading Donna, but here's a couple of recent posts (one made today) from the Charlene Wittstock thread:
Whichever way I read these, I can't see any reference or allusion to "love birds" or anyone looking "beautiful". But maybe our perceptions are different. :smile:

Warren

I posted just yesterday that Albert looked like Dame Edna and it was deleted. Now, why is that? Am I not allowed to have opinions? I have always cared deeply for Albert, he is my favorite royal but it breaks my heart to see him unhappy, acting stupid and behaving like a two year old, while he looks like a seventy year old.

Another thing. WE LIKE TO SPECULATE, we like to dig behind their action, do phychological research, on our favorite royals. Why are they behaving so stupidly? Why are they so blind? Why why why??? We want them to see the truth, to grow up and think wisely.

We care deeply about our royals, we wouldn't be posting if we didn't. Our speculations are only to try to find the person behind the royal facade. We are trying to find a sensible explanation for their actions to justify to ourselves why we love them. You won't allow us to do that.

Ok I admit. Prince Albert does not look like Dame Edna. But with the right wig and glasses he would. But I have stopped posting anything of substance because I am sick of the mascurade.

But note you wrote "recent". These posts came after the recent exodus of many to the other forum. I agree, out and out attack of royals should not be permitted. I agree with much of what Donna posted. I used to post here but after what I considered a very nasty pm from a moderator I chose not to. In my pm regarding an exchange between another poster and I had merely asked the poster to clarify and explain. I was met with a nasty and biting post from the individual. So I responded pointing out inconsistencies. My response from the moderator was that "we don't need a resident journalist and to cite articles." Number one, I had cited an article in my post unlike the other individual and and number 2 was merely giving my "opinion" as a professional. Trust me, while I enjoy the forums, I haven't worked this long in life to become a journalist for the forums. The tone of the response felt like a personal attack from the moderator. There were many questions here posed about the media and instead of the regular unsubtantiated flow of information I choose to offer (and at the request of other posters) my professional "opinion".

I appreciate greatly the photos on this site. I think a fantastic job is done. Same with the flow of information on the other royal house threads. However, if you look prior to the comments listed above, for some reason the Grimaldi's have become, imo, hallowed and cannot be criticized. Can things get out of control? Yes, and I believe standards should be set. But it just got to the point for myself and others that the "looks" camp was the only acceptable route. There is a difference between opinion and speculation and in my opinion can be difficult to differentiate, however, I think there has been an inconsistency on which ones posts remain and which ones deleted OR you get a private message from a moderator indicating you've crossed the line. IMO no one should be out and out nasty. However, it can be fun to agree that we disagree. Some are better writers and more "colorful" when stating their opinions. When sniping and personal attacks happen, of course the moderators needs to step in.

Again, in any event I do think there are some fantastic things on this site. :smile:

See, this isn't true. You only have to look at the threads to see criticism all the way through them. The problem is that your "judgements hardened" is our "offensive bordering on libellous." There are ways of disapproving of a person's behaviour without resorting to saying that she looks like a mangy cow and acts like a mongrel bitch in heat and probably has half a dozen sexually transmitted diseases and deserves every last one of them. It ought to be possible to criticise a person without sinking to those depths. I realise that some people find that sort of thing amusing and it becomes a challenge to see how creative you can be in trashing a person, but we prefer to maintain some civility in the threads.

You said that "Since then nothing has been allowed to post about these two except "wow, she looks so beautiful." Warren pointed out a couple of posts where that wasn't the case, and you dismissed them as too recent. What time frame are you talking about? I've looked back at old Charlene Wittstock threads and seen criticisms running through every one of them.

Part of the problem is that the thread is a current-events thread, and we close those threads after 10 pages. The way things are going in the Monaco forum, a thread could hit 10 pages in a couple of days, with nothing whatever being said about current events. As long as talking about the relationship and the people involved is of greater interest to posters than discussing their current events, we may be better off doing what we've done in a couple of other forums and starting a "what do you think of..." thread like the one about Fred and Mary in the Danish forum.

However, a thread like that would be for people to post opinions and reasons for those opinions, not an excuse for a prolonged hate session. Much as you don't seem to believe it, the moderators here do know the difference.

Sure you're allowed to have opinions. But surely you can see the difference between "Albert looks like Dame Edna" and "it breaks my heart to see him unhappy, acting stupid and behaving like a two year old, while he looks like a seventy year old"? The first is just a way of getting cheap laughs because, while he may look unhappy or older than his age, he very obviously doesn't look like Dame Edna. The second is a genuine criticism from a person who cares about what happens to him, and is a good basis for a conversation.

That's fine. There's always going to be a fuzzy distinction between wondering about motives and outright speculation. In the British forum we have threads going about whether Diana was murdered and when Charles and Camilla restarted their affair (if in fact they ever stopped it), which is more a matter of speculation than anything. However, when a discussion about why a royal behaves in a certain way start veering into comments like "of course he hates black people or he wouldn't have treated her that way," "she must have herpes by now," "he prefers sleeping with children, especially little boys," "obviously she was sexually abused by her father when she was a child since she's so insecure," you can expect to see them being deleted.

Yes, we will. In fact, we're trying to help you do that. The point is that when people leave serious discussions behind for smart remarks about which animal Charlene looks like and how many sheep and goats Albert sleeps with on a good day, and everyone piles on in order to be more outrageous than the last, that's when the ability to have a serious conversation about the royals you care about is compromised.

Well, with the right wig and glasses, wouldn't we all?:lol:

All I can say about that is that if you've stopped posting anything of substance, you're not doing yourself any favours. It's the lack of substance that's the problem.

I will freely admit to posting some hair-raising and even bitter comments in the Monaco threads and I've received private messages because of it. As much as I dread to receive pm's from one of the mods, I know it keeps TRF tolerable to be on. I've been on some of the other boards and I don't last 10 minutes. It's awful. I end up feeling sorry for the very people I myself criticize.

Having said that I think the Monaco boards and Prince Albert in particular are lightening rods. Our beloved Prince Rainier has died and Albert just doesn't live up to him in any way shape or form. He's had scandal after scandal with his hidden children suddenly coming out of the closet. He dates the same women who tons of forum members see as gold-diggers, bimbos, etc. Scores of us want Caroline to be in charge. We scream sexism. It gets stressful.

First of all, I am going to admit that prior to becoming a moderator I rarely visited the Monaco board at all. But since becoming one, I have had the opportunity to participate on a couple of threads (mainly the Charlene, Albert and Jazmin threads), and I must admit that Donna you are correct, it appears that there are two types of posters on these boards: the "gushers" who think that everything Charlene does is great and the "haters" who think she is the Devil incarnate and Tamara is a tramp. Don't get me wrong....there are a few rational thinkers in between but they are quickly silenced or leave the board altogether due to the nastiness that abounds it.

Donna.....In reference to your post comparing Albert to Dame Edna, not being a Monaco moderator..I am going to take a wild guess and say I would have deleted the post because it added nothing to the discussion. What type of response were you looking for? What does Albert looking like Dame Edna have to do with the current events of Charlene Wittstock? But you should note that that post #87 in the Charlene Wittstock Current News #6 remains...and thats the post that you compare Albert to Dame Edna. And yes, gushing post after gushing post is also frustrating and adds nothing to the discussion. But as moderator I usually leave them in, as most of them are in fact harmless. If some of those gushing posts weren't submitted, most threads wouldn't get bumped as new posts and they (the threads) would just sit there dormant and new members wouldn't get exposed to them. Would you prefer that we remove all harmless and mean posts totally together? Some threads would be remarkably light.

What on earth has this girl done that is so bad?! Yes, I have seen the pictures of her kissing his chest...but honestly what other person hasn't done so? Would it have been better if was done in the privacy of a bedroom? Perhaps they weren't aware of the presence of the paparazzi. Is Charlene guilty of inappropriate behavior for kissing her date/boyfriend? I think not, moreso of guilty of getting caught. And how long ago was this? Two to three years ago...will it follow the girl to her grave? Its interesting to note that Grace too in her time was accused of inappropriate behavior. So maybe Albert is dating a girl just like Mom.

People make constant comparisons of Charlene with Princess Grace. Comments are consistently thrown in that she is not Grace, Princess Grace would have NEVER done that, etc. First, has anyone ever heard the girl compare herself to Grace. Secondly, did anyone on this board personally know Princess Grace? Why are people constantly comparing royal behavior between the 1950's and 2006? There is no comparison and she is not ROYAL. No one knows what any of the royals did during that time period because it was much more easy to handle the press. So in all fairness you can't compare the "courtship/dating relationship" of Albert and Charlene with Grace and Rainier. Until their engagement was announced, most Americans had 1) never heard of Monaco much less a Prince of Monaco and 2) didn't know she was dating him. And please note, that I am only referencing America since Grace was a US citizen.

And you are right, most of the things written on this board are speculation. But there is a difference between speculating that so and so would make a better Princess than Charlene than making negative comments (again with no proof) that Charlene has no self esteem, isn't really training for the Olympics, is dating Albert because he has money and he is a Prince, etc. There is a fine line between speculation and being just plain mean, nasty, and dare I say it libelous.

Do you know what is really frustrating as a moderator and a fellow poster...its when one of the "haters" says something about Charlene and a rational person will make a comment addressing their post/statement basically questioning the validity of the statement...and the hater just blows over the comment. Never addresses it, never backs up their statement. Nothing...they just move on to the next vile or sarcastic comment.

Not everyone has to like Charlene or any other royal for that matter. Its what makes the board so interesting. Truthfully....I think they both could do better...but who am I to say?

You all have a point and of course you are all wise and good thinking. I agree that comments about how many sheep Albert sleeps with on a good day are not the most polite.

BUT - since some of us dislike Charlene as immensily as you know - because of her lack of class, lack of elegance, lack of silence, lack of taste, lack of education, etc - we are so sick of her repeated appearances. We have already discussed what we don't like about her and how we see her. But she shows up again and again and again ... and again ... and again. Everytime she leaves we think she is gone, but then she shows up again. At least I want to throw up at the look of her face hanging around him. It is so obvious that they do not look like a couple in love, but we can't say that because it is speculation. The papers had to photoshop a good photo of them together because they looked horrible together. It is so obvious what is going on between them but we can't say anything because it is speculation. He doesn't love her, that is obvious from his cheating around and him looking horrible around her, and she is just after the title (speculation!!!).

So I guess you are right. The problem is not because the moderators are getting stricter, but that the situation is getting far too disgusting to discuss. I still think you should let us speculate, fantasize and humorize on a moderately nice level. But then again, there is a forum where we can do those things so maybe this forum is best like it is now. Great for viewing and posting pictures.

I have to agree with Donna. I replied yesterday to a post and it was deleted within minutes! I don't know why. I thought I formulated it politely, I could have backed it up with proof, but thought that that wasn't necessary as it was well known. (No point in repeating the same thing over and over again.) I only gave well founded criticism on Andrea as the previous poster in that thread made him into an angel and expressed his/her opinion that Alberts behaviour was dragging down the Casiraghis as well. Which I in turn find insulting for Albert, the Casiraghis are definitely no angels, but hey, I don't have moderating rights.

ZOnk1189:
This was not years ago, it was less than 6 months ago. With Albert.

Not libelous. Definitely not libelous. We can back it up with evidence, but we're not allowed to post it.......

And still more of the same (i.e. sheep comment).

Okay..my time was off. Six months ago..six days ago. What difference does it make. Is she the Princess of Monaco? No..then she can kiss who she likes. And yes with Albert, because I am going to guess if it was anyone else...no one would care. And for the record, it didn't seem that he minded.

And while you certainly may view any thread you like..if you don't like Charlene and are amazed that she is still around...why do you constantly pop in and out of the thread to see how she is doing? Thats what I don't get. I don't care for certain royals and as a result..I might view their thread but I usually don't comment. Sometimes if you have nothing nice to say..why say anything at all. But like I said...you are certainly free to visit and comment on any thread you like. I just say...why torture yourself?

And what type of evidence can you provide to produce that Charlene has no morals..besides the picture of her kissing Albert's nipples. That is on the forum and anyone can see it at any time. Are you talking about other men she has slept with...a list perhaps. Now that would be libelous wouldn't it.

In regards to your post regarding Andrea...I am going to take a guess that it was deleted because the thread was about Charlene. Off topic.

A lot of things that have been said so far in criticism and in defense of the forum are true. Personally I have limited my posts here due to the fact that to me the gushers are annoying. But I consider this my personal problem. I am just not the kind of person that thinks that everyone dating a Grimaldi must be a great person, because otherwise they wouldn't be dated by the Grimaldis. I know a lot of people can not find fault with their respective partners until they are history and even then some people feel the need to defend them. And to me it is solely on the basis that they once dated a Grimaldi. I doubt that they would judge anyone that way in the real world or if it was there own partners. But then again that is my personal problem.

Personally I like to find out more about the people and judge them by their actions and their words, if they are available. That is how I came to not approve of Charlene. I admit that my comments where not always nice, but I didn't not resolve to name calling. I believe I mostly tried to ridicule. If I crossed a line, I don't mind my post being deleted, though I don't think that many of mine were deleted for that reason.

But what I found really curious that apparently I was stapled by some as a Charlene critic and thus would not be able to write anything positive or in her defense. When someone criticised her for being without style because she travelled with unmatching lagguage, I posted that people should cut her some slack. When criticism becomes as unfounded and superficial as the gushing, then it is just as annoying, even though you might be considered by some to belong to the same "camp". Strangely enough I was the one being attacked by a moderator. Go figure. I am under the impression that no matter what I post it is taken as criticsm. So I thought it is better not to post here anymore and have discussions elsewhere like a lot of other posters that have come as well. A lot of people criticise there as well, but somehow it sort of regulates itself and moderators are fairly discrete. There is the occasional remark to get back on topic or post in another thread, but that is roughly it. The moderators do post their opinions as well, but I haven't got the impression that I am being stereotyped when they respond to my posts.

Another interesting point I have noticed, when last year I posted my impressions from the enthronement etc, people enjoyed the posts and thought it was great to have someone in the midsts of things, but when I said what I overheard people say on the streets in Monaco, I was deleted and asked not to post things like that. But if a tabloids quote a source to the palace or people in Monaco love Charlene and want to see them marry, that is ok. I ask myself where are the sources there? How come when I say that this is not at all general opinion and which is the source ( I think that was the same source that said there woud be a marriage announcement in August) of the tabloids (actually I do not think that source exists), I am not allowed to say that. A lot of people seem to take the tabloids at face value, why shouldn't I be allowed to tell them what it is really like in Monaco? Surely there are people in Monaco who think the Grimaldis are great and can not do wrong, but there are also a lot of critics and my democratic believe is that they should be heard as well. They have been silenced for a long time (as the problem with the fired journalist revealed), now slowly people start behaving normal and saying their opinion in public (even though still very carefully). Unfortunetely those opinions don't go with the image the tabloids like to set, so it is never reported in the media and everyone thinks that people are uncorking there bottles for an upcoming wedding.

Anyways, no one forces me to post here and when I don't feel welcome I just leave or limit my posts. At present I don't find the discussions very stimulating, so I don't feel the need of posting. I have nothing to say, because no matter what I write it will be taken the wrong way here and those who are interested in my honest opinion are posting elsewhere and that is where I communicate with them, because I feel free to communicate with them without having to watch every single word.

Well, OK, but her repeated appearances are just something you'll have to put up with. Sure, go ahead and discuss your feelings about why she's doing it, but, however fed up you are, there's never any excuse for descending into profanity and outright aggression.

Well, I said it was a fine line - if you can have a fine line along a fuzzy grey area, of course ;) - but I don't think this is just speculation at all. If a person's body language is screaming that he's uncomfortable with a situation and another person is ostentatiously trying to pretend otherwise, you're dealing with observation every bit as much as speculation.

However, it's a lot more likely that you'll be more successful with a comment like "he doesn't look like a man in love, I mean look at how he's leaning away from her and not making eye contact" than "it's obvious he can't stand the sight of her, and anyway why should he because she looks exactly like a tramp! How COULD he even be SEEN with her! He's a total jerk!!!" If your opinions are clearly grounded in actual observations, you've got an area of common ground with others who are looking at the same photos or reading the same articles. If you're just letting your dislike of Charlene and your disappointment with Albert take over, the thread is going to stop being a discussion and just be a parade of individual rants.

I think one of the problems here is that nothing new is happening; it's the same old same old happening over and over. So you don't really have anything new to say, just the same things at a higher level of frustration. I mean, I can see where it's understandable if you really hate what's going on, but it isn't going to kill you to moderate the way you express it. In the course of conversation with other people who are essentially strangers, including a range of ages from children to senior citizens and a liberal sprinkling of people who don't have good English, it's much more helpful to be more rather than less calm.

If you want to speculate and fantasize - and I hope the "moderately nice level" goes without saying ;) - feel free to start a thread in Royal Chit Chat.

Now, are you interested in a "what is your opinion of Charlene and Albert" thread in the Monaco forum for opinions that don't go over the boundary into speculation and fantasy, or has this stuff been done to death already?

OK, whatever. Up to you, of course.

If a post is deleted and you don't know why, you can always PM a moderator and ask. That particular post was deleted for being entirely about Andrea, which is off topic; we've had other threads in the main forum suddenly turn into Casiraghi threads when someone started posting off topic, so this was more of a pre-emptive action than anything.

I wouldn't be too sure about "definitely not libelous" in relation to a comment about "only dating him because he has money." I mean, that's certainly what it looks like but we don't know. It would be a lot better if these sorts of comments were formulated as opinions than as set-in-rock fact. And as soon as someone starts with a comment about "syphilis-raddled whore" (no, that wasn't in the Monaco forum - it was a Diana fan getting a bit critical of Camilla - but some comments in Monaco have come damn near), we're asking for a lawsuit.

Re Zonk's post:
?
He didn't mind and has been equally critized for that. But I was trying to say that instead of the situation being old and irrelevant (and with an other boyfriend), this particular situation was current, with Albert and thus relevant in discussions about Charlene and Albert.

Because I do care for Albert and at the moment that sort of includes Charlene. And it is the Monaco forum...

I wasn't talking about morals and neither were you. The things you did mention in your first post can more or less be substantiated with facts, quotes and the actions of the people in question.

Very true. You're totally right there. Just tell me where I should have posted it. In the Andrea Casiraghi tread, if that one exists? Then it would be a total random post that no-one would understand as they would have missed the post that provoked it. Not to mention the context it was made in.

Zonk, I am not attacking you, believe me. But I have a slight feeling we're talking in two different languages. ;) Here, imagine that these are red roses and that I'm giving them to you as an honest peace offering:
:flowers::flowers::flowers::flowers::flowers::flowers::flowers::flowers::flowers:

Elspeth: True,maybe these things could be better formulated. But strictly speaking, everything we say is speculation. We don't know a thing for sure and as even the people involved say and do things that are contradictory, we can't even trust what they say. So every word becomes mere speculation or a personal opinion. We can close the board!;) What speculation is allowed and what not? Where is the fine line?

Ghislaine...believe me I am not taking any of it personal.

My comment about more of the same and than pointing out the sheep comment was an example (and I apologize if I wasn't clear) of how when someone ask legitimate questions or make comments..certain members respond by cliche or smart remarks. Never addressing or answering the question at hand. Example..."I agree that comments about how many sheep Albert sleeps with on a good day are not the most polite." I mean, seriously...was that even necessary? I thought we were trying to have a reasonable and serious discussion. I could have come back with several comments in that manner (and actually deleted quite a few) but chose not to because they didn't add to the discussion at hand.

And yes, you are right..since the situation just happened six months it is relevant. But on the other hand, you can beat a dead horse to death (and forgive me for the saying) but its still dead. It was addressed months ago and talking about it is not going to change the fact that happened. They were on a private vacation. Are they not entitled to act anyway they want (within the law) on a private vacation? And yes, I do think they better discretion should have been used but really....they are hunted by the press.

And I am sorry, I still agree with my comment that if you don't like Charlene why do you participate in her thread. Yes, you care for Albert...just stick to his....she doesn't seem to appear so much in his as hers. And then she won't drive you batty (figure of speech). In reference to Charlene's morals or lack thereof: it is implied that she lacks morals when certain members question/state that she should act a certain way or she is loose because she wears certain things or acts a certain way when displaying affection. She has been called names that most would associate with a slut or whore...if that doesn't have to do with anyone's morals what does?

And yes, I believe Andrea does have a thread..and yes again...you have a point that if you posted the comment,most members would be scratching their heads...thinking where did Ghislaine get that from? But think of it from this point of view...if the comment stayed...then others would have felt the need to comment on Andrea's morals and suitabily as well...and then the thread isn't about Charlene...its temporarily diverted to comments about Andrea? Does that make sense?

And thanks for the flowers!

although i have never posted on the monaco forum, as a NEW member i have already experience deleted posts and warnings by moderators. mine occured when my posts discussed the recent marriage of prince alwaleed. two articles are presently on the web dealing with prince alwaleed's humanitarian dealings, but they mention his wife, princess ameera. i was told that was speculation, and when i responded on the thread and not be pm, i was dressed down. the problem is alot of this stuff is speculation. saudi marriages are RARELY announced in print. especially the fourth marriage. i had nothing negative to say in my post other than i noticed she was not given the distinction of HRH. so far, my experience is that this forum stiffles free speech and exchange of ideas. especially, if the ideas differ from the moderators. i question whether i will stay on this forum other than to look at the pics. this forum is becoming nothing more than a glossy magazine without substance.

The fine line is whether a person is able to back up their opinion with observations and such facts as we have available. We're not opposed to people posting opinions, because, as you rightly say, in most cases that's all we have. However, things that have no basis in anything beyond wishful thinking and imagination really aren't helpful.