Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
From the same era, the entire House of York is an obvious one. It’s the reason they claimed the crown through the female line.
It's all a load of pish anyway. How many royal dynasties back then were not originally established by force of arms ?
Interesting piece from Siberia about Ice soldiers. Sort of backs up @Dura_Ace recent tales. Russians seem to embrace a masochistic patriotism even as they inflict cruelty on others. This war isn't ending soon.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
What it's worth, I think Harry has distinct facial similarities with Charles, Elizabeth and Phillip. He also has similarities with Hewitt but I find those of a more superficial nature.
Undoubtedly DNA testing will have been done; undoubtedly the result will never be made public.
I am sure the current rift with Harry has nothing to do with that result. Oh no, nothing at all.
Would any newspaper dare to try to get a DNA result and publish it?
Highly illegal, so no, I would think not.
(Oh, and readily deniable, of course.)
It's amusing to think of foreign intelligence services getting the DNA samples. They wouldn't even need one from the king - they'd only need them from Harry and James.
Just from Harry I think, if you Google ancestry dna there's lots of companies who for 30 quid will process a sample and tell you who your cousins and adopted at birth twins are, so it's good odds it would throw up a closeish relative of the putative dad.
Astonished at the argument a few posts back that we can all pile on Mr and Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor because everyone - apparently except me - knows he's illegitimate anyway.
Given the uncertainty inherent in that that argument, it's one for open season on every single Royal. Direct inheritance of royal blue blood is where it's at if one is a royalist.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
What it's worth, I think Harry has distinct facial similarities with Charles, Elizabeth and Phillip. He also has similarities with Hewitt but I find those of a more superficial nature.
Undoubtedly DNA testing will have been done; undoubtedly the result will never be made public.
I am sure the current rift with Harry has nothing to do with that result. Oh no, nothing at all.
Would any newspaper dare to try to get a DNA result and publish it?
Highly illegal, so no, I would think not.
(Oh, and readily deniable, of course.)
It's amusing to think of foreign intelligence services getting the DNA samples. They wouldn't even need one from the king - they'd only need them from Harry and James.
Another respect in which Putin is notoriously paranoid. He even has his own travel portapotty guy to bring his motions back to the motherland.
Does anyone know where to find the detailed Opinium polling tables? OGH clearly does. But nothing has been published on the Opinium "Resources" page linked to on the right since the October 5th poll, so I don't.
Sorry to harp on about this, but can anyone please point me in the right direction on this point? If there was a positive reply last night, I missed it.
Interesting piece from Siberia about Ice soldiers. Sort of backs up @Dura_Ace recent tales. Russians seem to embrace a masochistic patriotism even as they inflict cruelty on others. This war isn't ending soon.
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
What it's worth, I think Harry has distinct facial similarities with Charles, Elizabeth and Phillip. He also has similarities with Hewitt but I find those of a more superficial nature.
Undoubtedly DNA testing will have been done; undoubtedly the result will never be made public.
I am sure the current rift with Harry has nothing to do with that result. Oh no, nothing at all.
Would any newspaper dare to try to get a DNA result and publish it?
Highly illegal, so no, I would think not.
(Oh, and readily deniable, of course.)
It's amusing to think of foreign intelligence services getting the DNA samples. They wouldn't even need one from the king - they'd only need them from Harry and James.
Just from Harry I think, if you Google ancestry dna there's lots of companies who for 30 quid will process a sample and tell you who your cousins and adopted at birth twins are, so it's good odds it would throw up a closeish relative of the putative dad.
Astonished at the argument a few posts back that we can all pile on Mr and Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor because everyone - apparently except me - knows he's illegitimate anyway.
Given the uncertainty inherent in that that argument, it's one for open season on every single Royal. Direct inheritance of royal blue blood is where it's at if one is a royalist.
Not the argument, Harry is still in the line of succession, as are Archie and Lilibet. Meghan isn't
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
There are also some much later legends about his earlier life and childhood that were not included in the Bible. For example, a tradition that as a baby his bath water had healing powers.
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
In Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary take the fam to the Temple when Jesus was twelve. He somehow gets left behind there for a couple of days, ending up in deep conversation with the Temple elders. He's then a bit sassy to his worried mum.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
Given 66% of Sun readers voted Tory or UKIP in 2015 I doubt Clarkson's views are a million miles from many of the paper's readers, even if distasteful.
The Sun? A woman paraded naked? No, I don't see a connection myself.
Flinging public faeces at those they don't like? Nah. None at all.
The whole thing seems awfully stage-managed to give MM a magnificent victory over the forces of the gammony British press if you ask me, but I am very cynical.
Was Clarkson party to that stage-management or was his article just a happy coincidence?
Yes, if the (I admit very tinfoily) stage management theory is correct, Clarkson would have agreed to be stooge, presumably in return for some future preferment. I dunno. It all just seems a bit fake to me. Fake gammon (actually a remainer Cameronite), fake right wing media outlet, fake article that doesn’t actually take any shots at what is a very easy target, but fires both barrels into the author's own foot.
Or he, and the entire editorial team of the Sun, could be completely stupid. I just don't think they are.
And who is orchestrating the Sun and Clarkson to do this? By what mechanism? The problem with these conspiracy theories is that when you get down to actual mechanics it doesn't make sense. Also, Jeremy Clarkson is an old man at the end of a successful career. What "future preferment" would he need?
The Sun is merely a small part of a huge media empire. And Murdoch's properties have always been anti-Royal. I wouldn't have a clue what commercial arrangements there might be in the future for BSkyB, Fox, M&H, JC, Netflix etc. I merely speak as I find. The article is oddly UN-damaging to MM in every regard for a purported polemical attack against her. That fits with my notion of the Sussex's as too brittle and too lacking in subtlety to approve copy that is genuinely critical of them in any way.
OR it could just be a fucking stupid article - there's that.
Probably the latter.
Right now, MM is about as popular as the government is, but it was still a nasty article.
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
There are also some much later legends about his earlier life and childhood that were not included in the Bible. For example, a tradition that as a baby his bath water had healing powers.
Jesus also visited the UK according to that bloody dirge that is Jerusalem.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
What it's worth, I think Harry has distinct facial similarities with Charles, Elizabeth and Phillip. He also has similarities with Hewitt but I find those of a more superficial nature.
Undoubtedly DNA testing will have been done; undoubtedly the result will never be made public.
I am sure the current rift with Harry has nothing to do with that result. Oh no, nothing at all.
Would any newspaper dare to try to get a DNA result and publish it?
Highly illegal, so no, I would think not.
(Oh, and readily deniable, of course.)
It's amusing to think of foreign intelligence services getting the DNA samples. They wouldn't even need one from the king - they'd only need them from Harry and James.
Just from Harry I think, if you Google ancestry dna there's lots of companies who for 30 quid will process a sample and tell you who your cousins and adopted at birth twins are, so it's good odds it would throw up a closeish relative of the putative dad.
Astonished at the argument a few posts back that we can all pile on Mr and Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor because everyone - apparently except me - knows he's illegitimate anyway.
Given the uncertainty inherent in that that argument, it's one for open season on every single Royal. Direct inheritance of royal blue blood is where it's at if one is a royalist.
He is not illegitimate and a DNA test showing that his father was not Charles would not render him illegitimate in English law.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
Given 66% of Sun readers voted Tory or UKIP in 2015 I doubt Clarkson's views are a million miles from many of the paper's readers, even if distasteful.
The Sun? A woman paraded naked? No, I don't see a connection myself.
Flinging public faeces at those they don't like? Nah. None at all.
The whole thing seems awfully stage-managed to give MM a magnificent victory over the forces of the gammony British press if you ask me, but I am very cynical.
Was Clarkson party to that stage-management or was his article just a happy coincidence?
Yes, if the (I admit very tinfoily) stage management theory is correct, Clarkson would have agreed to be stooge, presumably in return for some future preferment. I dunno. It all just seems a bit fake to me. Fake gammon (actually a remainer Cameronite), fake right wing media outlet, fake article that doesn’t actually take any shots at what is a very easy target, but fires both barrels into the author's own foot.
Or he, and the entire editorial team of the Sun, could be completely stupid. I just don't think they are.
And who is orchestrating the Sun and Clarkson to do this? By what mechanism? The problem with these conspiracy theories is that when you get down to actual mechanics it doesn't make sense. Also, Jeremy Clarkson is an old man at the end of a successful career. What "future preferment" would he need?
The Sun is merely a small part of a huge media empire. And Murdoch's properties have always been anti-Royal. I wouldn't have a clue what commercial arrangements there might be in the future for BSkyB, Fox, M&H, JC, Netflix etc. I merely speak as I find. The article is oddly UN-damaging to MM in every regard for a purported polemical attack against her. That fits with my notion of the Sussex's as too brittle and too lacking in subtlety to approve copy that is genuinely critical of them in any way.
OR it could just be a fucking stupid article - there's that.
Probably the latter.
Right now, MM is about as popular as the government is, but it was still a nasty article.
I think there's good Clarkson and bad Clarkson.
The latter is a bore and a playground bully.
I am genuinely surprised that in all the outrage around Markle, nobody has noticed he effectively accused Sturgeon of being a sexually depraved serial killer.
I mean, I dislike her. She's incompetent, dishonest, can't be trusted with money and has alarming authoritarian tendencies. She's basically Boris Johnson with a Scottish accent.
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
Not a lot. He did get forgotten by his parents once, and they went back and found him debating with the temple elders in Jerusalem.
It seems that despite the unusual circumstances of his birth, they decided to give him a conventional childhood in a remote part of Israel. At least, after returning from being refugees in Egypt.
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
There are also some much later legends about his earlier life and childhood that were not included in the Bible. For example, a tradition that as a baby his bath water had healing powers.
Jesus also visited the UK according to that bloody dirge that is Jerusalem.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
Given 66% of Sun readers voted Tory or UKIP in 2015 I doubt Clarkson's views are a million miles from many of the paper's readers, even if distasteful.
The Sun? A woman paraded naked? No, I don't see a connection myself.
Flinging public faeces at those they don't like? Nah. None at all.
The whole thing seems awfully stage-managed to give MM a magnificent victory over the forces of the gammony British press if you ask me, but I am very cynical.
Was Clarkson party to that stage-management or was his article just a happy coincidence?
Yes, if the (I admit very tinfoily) stage management theory is correct, Clarkson would have agreed to be stooge, presumably in return for some future preferment. I dunno. It all just seems a bit fake to me. Fake gammon (actually a remainer Cameronite), fake right wing media outlet, fake article that doesn’t actually take any shots at what is a very easy target, but fires both barrels into the author's own foot.
Or he, and the entire editorial team of the Sun, could be completely stupid. I just don't think they are.
And who is orchestrating the Sun and Clarkson to do this? By what mechanism? The problem with these conspiracy theories is that when you get down to actual mechanics it doesn't make sense. Also, Jeremy Clarkson is an old man at the end of a successful career. What "future preferment" would he need?
The Sun is merely a small part of a huge media empire. And Murdoch's properties have always been anti-Royal. I wouldn't have a clue what commercial arrangements there might be in the future for BSkyB, Fox, M&H, JC, Netflix etc. I merely speak as I find. The article is oddly UN-damaging to MM in every regard for a purported polemical attack against her. That fits with my notion of the Sussex's as too brittle and too lacking in subtlety to approve copy that is genuinely critical of them in any way.
OR it could just be a fucking stupid article - there's that.
Probably the latter.
Right now, MM is about as popular as the government is, but it was still a nasty article.
I think there's good Clarkson and bad Clarkson.
The latter is a bore and a playground bully.
Hmm.
What's the man, what's the act, and what's the act that became the man? Does even Clarkson know?
And what does it say about society that there's a very good living to be made acting like a boor and bully?
For the first time ever, Norwegian economy overtakes Swedish.
Note: Population Norway 5.4 million Population Sweden 10.3 million
So, each Norwegian is now almost twice as rich as their neighbours across the border. Of course, this story is completely irrelevant to Scottish public life.
Jeez - that's terribly sad. I was listening to 'Ghost Town' just the other evening. Sad times all round.
Absolutely gutted, saw the Specials 9 times, he was one of a kind
I remember the fist time I saw the Specials, on TOTP doing "Too Much Too Young" it was so far away from what I knew. A revelation, and I have been a fan since, seeing them a couple of times. It was this video I think:
Question for Christians on here (@hyufd) re something that just popped into my brain yesterday. Having not read further than Genesis of the bible can someone tell me is there much (anything) in the bible about Jesus between being born and being an adult?
He preached in the Temple:
“What is man’s greatest joy? To slaughter his enemies, drive them before him, and listen to the lamentations of their women.”
For the first time ever, Norwegian economy overtakes Swedish.
Note: Population Norway 5.4 million Population Sweden 10.3 million
So, each Norwegian is now almost twice as rich as their neighbours across the border. Of course, this story is completely irrelevant to Scottish public life.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
Given 66% of Sun readers voted Tory or UKIP in 2015 I doubt Clarkson's views are a million miles from many of the paper's readers, even if distasteful.
The Sun? A woman paraded naked? No, I don't see a connection myself.
Flinging public faeces at those they don't like? Nah. None at all.
The whole thing seems awfully stage-managed to give MM a magnificent victory over the forces of the gammony British press if you ask me, but I am very cynical.
Was Clarkson party to that stage-management or was his article just a happy coincidence?
Yes, if the (I admit very tinfoily) stage management theory is correct, Clarkson would have agreed to be stooge, presumably in return for some future preferment. I dunno. It all just seems a bit fake to me. Fake gammon (actually a remainer Cameronite), fake right wing media outlet, fake article that doesn’t actually take any shots at what is a very easy target, but fires both barrels into the author's own foot.
Or he, and the entire editorial team of the Sun, could be completely stupid. I just don't think they are.
And who is orchestrating the Sun and Clarkson to do this? By what mechanism? The problem with these conspiracy theories is that when you get down to actual mechanics it doesn't make sense. Also, Jeremy Clarkson is an old man at the end of a successful career. What "future preferment" would he need?
The Sun is merely a small part of a huge media empire. And Murdoch's properties have always been anti-Royal. I wouldn't have a clue what commercial arrangements there might be in the future for BSkyB, Fox, M&H, JC, Netflix etc. I merely speak as I find. The article is oddly UN-damaging to MM in every regard for a purported polemical attack against her. That fits with my notion of the Sussex's as too brittle and too lacking in subtlety to approve copy that is genuinely critical of them in any way.
OR it could just be a fucking stupid article - there's that.
Probably the latter.
Right now, MM is about as popular as the government is, but it was still a nasty article.
I think there's good Clarkson and bad Clarkson.
The latter is a bore and a playground bully.
Hmm.
What's the man, what's the act, and what's the act that became the man? Does even Clarkson know?
And what does it say about society that there's a very good living to be made acting like a boor and bully?
He's a flawed but very talented character. I think society in all eras has glorified individuals who are at the edges of what counts as acceptable behaviour, so I don't think it's a new thing.
However, the incentives have maybe adjusted a bit. To the extent we seem to have a lot of people who are now public dicks but seem to be privately decent enough people, or at least not as bad as their public persona. As distinct from the people who've always been among us, who act the virtuous family guy in public but are monsters behind the scenes.
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Keir Starmer and his party are free to choose their own strategy, but all choices come with costs and benefits. He seems to have concluded that it is worth giving up on Scottish voters for the sake of winning some English gammons. Fine. But just don’t complain afterwards.
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Clarkson isn't gammon. That's a category error. He's a media controversialist with fairly mixed underlying political views but a tendency to libertarianism. A remainer for example, and even his public anti-environmentalism is largely for show, as Clarkson's farm showed.
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Keir Starmer and his party are free to choose their own strategy, but all choices come with costs and benefits. He seems to have concluded that it is worth giving up on Scottish voters for the sake of winning some English gammons. Fine. But just don’t complain afterwards.
If he appeals to Clarkson then maybe he'll appeal to malcolmg too. They are essentially north and south of border versions of each other.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
What it's worth, I think Harry has distinct facial similarities with Charles, Elizabeth and Phillip. He also has similarities with Hewitt but I find those of a more superficial nature.
Undoubtedly DNA testing will have been done; undoubtedly the result will never be made public.
I am sure the current rift with Harry has nothing to do with that result. Oh no, nothing at all.
Would any newspaper dare to try to get a DNA result and publish it?
Highly illegal, so no, I would think not.
(Oh, and readily deniable, of course.)
It's amusing to think of foreign intelligence services getting the DNA samples. They wouldn't even need one from the king - they'd only need them from Harry and James.
Just from Harry I think, if you Google ancestry dna there's lots of companies who for 30 quid will process a sample and tell you who your cousins and adopted at birth twins are, so it's good odds it would throw up a closeish relative of the putative dad.
Astonished at the argument a few posts back that we can all pile on Mr and Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor because everyone - apparently except me - knows he's illegitimate anyway.
Given the uncertainty inherent in that that argument, it's one for open season on every single Royal. Direct inheritance of royal blue blood is where it's at if one is a royalist.
Not the argument, Harry is still in the line of succession, as are Archie and Lilibet. Meghan isn't
You're completely missing the point. She's their wife and mother (respectively). Your public outrage and attacks on her are appalling for a self-professed royalist.
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Clarkson isn't gammon. That's a category error. He's a media controversialist with fairly mixed underlying political views but a tendency to libertarianism. A remainer for example, and even his public anti-environmentalism is largely for show, as Clarkson's farm showed.
Hmm. OTOH his pretend positions only legitimise [edit] and encourage genuine positions in the public - such as, indeed, HYUFD.
Me and some pals have an occasional covers band - weddings, parties, anything. Due to all of us having worked in 'the biz' we've brought in some powerful ringers to sing with us over the years...
For the first time ever, Norwegian economy overtakes Swedish.
Note: Population Norway 5.4 million Population Sweden 10.3 million
So, each Norwegian is now almost twice as rich as their neighbours across the border. Of course, this story is completely irrelevant to Scottish public life.
Plus Norwegian and Scottish oil is bad for the climate and will run out
Choices though: Norway has vast hydro reserves as well as decent wind assets, so it is well placed to decarbonise. It won't have the North Sea bonanza a second time but it has the deep pockets to fund the transition better than most petro-states, and an almost unique track record of avoiding the resource curse.
An independent Scotland could focus on renewable energy generation and become a healthy net exporter. I'm sure if the right decisions were made this could be good news for some regions of Scotland. Rather like an independent London could, well, be London.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
What it's worth, I think Harry has distinct facial similarities with Charles, Elizabeth and Phillip. He also has similarities with Hewitt but I find those of a more superficial nature.
Undoubtedly DNA testing will have been done; undoubtedly the result will never be made public.
I am sure the current rift with Harry has nothing to do with that result. Oh no, nothing at all.
Would any newspaper dare to try to get a DNA result and publish it?
Highly illegal, so no, I would think not.
(Oh, and readily deniable, of course.)
It's amusing to think of foreign intelligence services getting the DNA samples. They wouldn't even need one from the king - they'd only need them from Harry and James.
Just from Harry I think, if you Google ancestry dna there's lots of companies who for 30 quid will process a sample and tell you who your cousins and adopted at birth twins are, so it's good odds it would throw up a closeish relative of the putative dad.
Astonished at the argument a few posts back that we can all pile on Mr and Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor because everyone - apparently except me - knows he's illegitimate anyway.
Given the uncertainty inherent in that that argument, it's one for open season on every single Royal. Direct inheritance of royal blue blood is where it's at if one is a royalist.
Not the argument, Harry is still in the line of succession, as are Archie and Lilibet. Meghan isn't
You're completely missing the point. She's their wife and mother (respectively). Your public outrage and attacks on her are appalling for a self-professed royalist.
So what, she also chose to give up being a working royal and do media interviews trashing the King and Prince and Princess of Wales
Clarkson is anyway employed by the Sun not the Royal Household, he is Murdoch's responsibility not theirs
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Clarkson isn't gammon. That's a category error. He's a media controversialist with fairly mixed underlying political views but a tendency to libertarianism. A remainer for example, and even his public anti-environmentalism is largely for show, as Clarkson's farm showed.
Most gammons like him though, most Remainers and Labour voters don't.
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Keir Starmer and his party are free to choose their own strategy, but all choices come with costs and benefits. He seems to have concluded that it is worth giving up on Scottish voters for the sake of winning some English gammons. Fine. But just don’t complain afterwards.
Even if Labour won every seat in Scotland Starmer still wouldn't be PM unless Labour also gained redwall seats in England.
So it is basic maths. Plus the Supreme Court ruled Starmer could refuse indyref2 indefinitely as PM anyway unless a hung parliament with the SNP holding the balance of power
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Clarkson isn't gammon. That's a category error. He's a media controversialist with fairly mixed underlying political views but a tendency to libertarianism. A remainer for example, and even his public anti-environmentalism is largely for show, as Clarkson's farm showed.
Hmm. OTOH his pretend positions only legitimise [edit] and encourage genuine positions in the public - such as, indeed, HYUFD.
There would be very little popular journalism comment/opinion without pretend positions. And this is fairly true for allegedly serious comment too.
The worrying thing is that this may be infesting academia too, along of course with all aspects of political life.
Incidentally, while I mostly tuned out, the Clarkson lines gave, SFAICS, James O'Brien about three hours of left populist discussion stuff, endlessly recycled, on a slow news day.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
What it's worth, I think Harry has distinct facial similarities with Charles, Elizabeth and Phillip. He also has similarities with Hewitt but I find those of a more superficial nature.
Undoubtedly DNA testing will have been done; undoubtedly the result will never be made public.
I am sure the current rift with Harry has nothing to do with that result. Oh no, nothing at all.
Would any newspaper dare to try to get a DNA result and publish it?
Highly illegal, so no, I would think not.
(Oh, and readily deniable, of course.)
It's amusing to think of foreign intelligence services getting the DNA samples. They wouldn't even need one from the king - they'd only need them from Harry and James.
Just from Harry I think, if you Google ancestry dna there's lots of companies who for 30 quid will process a sample and tell you who your cousins and adopted at birth twins are, so it's good odds it would throw up a closeish relative of the putative dad.
Astonished at the argument a few posts back that we can all pile on Mr and Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor because everyone - apparently except me - knows he's illegitimate anyway.
Given the uncertainty inherent in that that argument, it's one for open season on every single Royal. Direct inheritance of royal blue blood is where it's at if one is a royalist.
Not the argument, Harry is still in the line of succession, as are Archie and Lilibet. Meghan isn't
You're completely missing the point. She's their wife and mother (respectively). Your public outrage and attacks on her are appalling for a self-professed royalist.
So what, she also chose to give up being a working royal and do media interviews trashing the King and Prince and Princess of Wales
Clarkson is anyway employed by the Sun not the Royal Household, he is Murdoch's responsibility not theirs
But you aren't employed by the Sun. You're gleefully signing up to some thoroughly nasty stuff. And you are taking sides in a Royal Family argument when you are only a commoner. Who authorised you to do that?
He's a flawed but very talented character. I think society in all eras has glorified individuals who are at the edges of what counts as acceptable behaviour, so I don't think it's a new thing.
However, the incentives have maybe adjusted a bit. To the extent we seem to have a lot of people who are now public dicks but seem to be privately decent enough people, or at least not as bad as their public persona. As distinct from the people who've always been among us, who act the virtuous family guy in public but are monsters behind the scenes.
I'm not usually very cynical, but I think that roving personalities like Clarkson are dependent on causing controversy to maintain their careers, and seek it quite deliberately. I shouldn't think he really cares about Meghan very much, but it suits his bar-room profile to sound off, and it suits his controversial image to sound off in such a vile way. "Let's say yuck, then ignore him" is the best response.
Rishi Sunak tells the Daily Mail: "Peace of mind is about knowing that public services like the NHS are going to be there for you and your family when you need them."
Sky's @skynewsniall to health minister Will Quince: "Is Mr Sunak taking the Mickey?"
For the first time ever, Norwegian economy overtakes Swedish.
Note: Population Norway 5.4 million Population Sweden 10.3 million
So, each Norwegian is now almost twice as rich as their neighbours across the border. Of course, this story is completely irrelevant to Scottish public life.
Barclay in emergency talks with ambulance unions (due to strike Weds) today - Talks not about averting strike as govt won’t discuss pay, but rather on handling of 999 calls - Govt wants cat 2 calls - such as strokes/serious chest pain - covered across all trusts 3/ - https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1605122702959792128
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Clarkson isn't gammon. That's a category error. He's a media controversialist with fairly mixed underlying political views but a tendency to libertarianism. A remainer for example, and even his public anti-environmentalism is largely for show, as Clarkson's farm showed.
Most gammons like him though, most Remainers and Labour voters don't.
He knows who his market is
Not sure that is true. I'm a fan and most of my friends are. He is very entertaining.
For the first time ever, Norwegian economy overtakes Swedish.
Note: Population Norway 5.4 million Population Sweden 10.3 million
So, each Norwegian is now almost twice as rich as their neighbours across the border. Of course, this story is completely irrelevant to Scottish public life.
Away from the royal stuff, there is a really big disaster unfolding on the continent and still no one's paying attention. Inflation running at 10.5% and wage growth at 2.9%, European workers are seeing an absolutely massive real terms wage cut this year and next year with little prospect of recovery in salaries.
No one has figured out how to square this circle, not the treasury or anyone in Europe. In two years everyone in Europe, the UK included, is going to be much poorer than today. As a society we've never dealt with a prolonged period of less resources to go around and it's going to mean very tough decisions need to be taken wrt state expenditure everywhere.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
What it's worth, I think Harry has distinct facial similarities with Charles, Elizabeth and Phillip. He also has similarities with Hewitt but I find those of a more superficial nature.
Undoubtedly DNA testing will have been done; undoubtedly the result will never be made public.
I am sure the current rift with Harry has nothing to do with that result. Oh no, nothing at all.
Would any newspaper dare to try to get a DNA result and publish it?
Highly illegal, so no, I would think not.
(Oh, and readily deniable, of course.)
It's amusing to think of foreign intelligence services getting the DNA samples. They wouldn't even need one from the king - they'd only need them from Harry and James.
Just from Harry I think, if you Google ancestry dna there's lots of companies who for 30 quid will process a sample and tell you who your cousins and adopted at birth twins are, so it's good odds it would throw up a closeish relative of the putative dad.
Astonished at the argument a few posts back that we can all pile on Mr and Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor because everyone - apparently except me - knows he's illegitimate anyway.
Given the uncertainty inherent in that that argument, it's one for open season on every single Royal. Direct inheritance of royal blue blood is where it's at if one is a royalist.
Not the argument, Harry is still in the line of succession, as are Archie and Lilibet. Meghan isn't
You're completely missing the point. She's their wife and mother (respectively). Your public outrage and attacks on her are appalling for a self-professed royalist.
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Clarkson isn't gammon. That's a category error. He's a media controversialist with fairly mixed underlying political views but a tendency to libertarianism. A remainer for example, and even his public anti-environmentalism is largely for show, as Clarkson's farm showed.
Hmm. OTOH his pretend positions only legitimise [edit] and encourage genuine positions in the public - such as, indeed, HYUFD.
There would be very little popular journalism comment/opinion without pretend positions. And this is fairly true for allegedly serious comment too.
The worrying thing is that this may be infesting academia too, along of course with all aspects of political life.
Incidentally, while I mostly tuned out, the Clarkson lines gave, SFAICS, James O'Brien about three hours of left populist discussion stuff, endlessly recycled, on a slow news day.
Populist journos all need each other.
Hmm again. But I suppose there is a difference between explicitly considering different lines of argument, and professedly signing up to one exclusively (especially if one doesn't mean it.)
For the first time ever, Norwegian economy overtakes Swedish.
Note: Population Norway 5.4 million Population Sweden 10.3 million
So, each Norwegian is now almost twice as rich as their neighbours across the border. Of course, this story is completely irrelevant to Scottish public life.
Plus Norwegian and Scottish oil is bad for the climate and will run out
Choices though: Norway has vast hydro reserves as well as decent wind assets, so it is well placed to decarbonise. It won't have the North Sea bonanza a second time but it has the deep pockets to fund the transition better than most petro-states, and an almost unique track record of avoiding the resource curse.
An independent Scotland could focus on renewable energy generation and become a healthy net exporter. I'm sure if the right decisions were made this could be good news for some regions of Scotland. Rather like an independent London could, well, be London.
You can't run an economy on renewable alone and Scotland has such a huge deficit Westminster subsidises an independent Scotland would have to impose deep austerity or massive tax increases, especially if it wanted to rejoin the EU
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Keir Starmer and his party are free to choose their own strategy, but all choices come with costs and benefits. He seems to have concluded that it is worth giving up on Scottish voters for the sake of winning some English gammons. Fine. But just don’t complain afterwards.
Even if Labour won every seat in Scotland Starmer still wouldn't be PM unless Labour also gained redwall seats in England.
So it is basic maths. Plus the Supreme Court ruled Starmer could refuse indyref2 indefinitely as PM anyway unless a hung parliament with the SNP holding the balance of power
Bloody red wall. It's becoming like a religious tenet.
First of all the idea the so-called red wall is some unique outpost of gammony racists who are all gagging for hard brexit and want to send back all the migrants is nonsense, it's a collection of constituencies with a broad diversity of political views but which happen to have been demographically trending towards the Tories.
Secondly Labour will get away with a bit of authoritarianism this time because everyone's desperate to get the Tories out, but if they go too far they'll risk creating "they're all the same" apathy among the liberal voter base they need to keep onside.
Labour doesn't need to win rightwingers, it needs to win moderate floating voters who opted for Johnson over Corbyn last time.
Indeed, it seems that Jesus did very little in terms of being the Messiah until he was baptised by John the Baptist, and became born again.
There are almost no people from the ancient world whose childhood was recorded at all. Why should it be? Jesus is no exception. That which is recorded is probably mostly legitimation myth.
Lots can be imagined rationally from the religious and cultural background of 1st century Galilee. E P Sanders (who died recently) 'The Historical Figure of Jesus' (Penguin) is both reliable and accessible.
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Keir Starmer and his party are free to choose their own strategy, but all choices come with costs and benefits. He seems to have concluded that it is worth giving up on Scottish voters for the sake of winning some English gammons. Fine. But just don’t complain afterwards.
Even if Labour won every seat in Scotland Starmer still wouldn't be PM unless Labour also gained redwall seats in England.
So it is basic maths. Plus the Supreme Court ruled Starmer could refuse indyref2 indefinitely as PM anyway unless a hung parliament with the SNP holding the balance of power
Bloody red wall. It's becoming like a religious tenet.
First of all the idea the so-called red wall is some unique outpost of gammony racists who are all gagging for hard brexit and want to send back all the migrants is nonsense, it's a collection of constituencies with a broad diversity of political views but which happen to have been demographically trending towards the Tories.
Secondly Labour will get away with a bit of authoritarianism this time because everyone's desperate to get the Tories out, but if they go too far they'll risk creating "they're all the same" apathy among the liberal voter base they need to keep onside.
Labour doesn't need to win rightwingers, it needs to win moderate floating voters who opted for Johnson over Corbyn last time.
In 2005 Blair won a majority of over 50 by winning all the redwall seats and white working class seats in areas of the Midlands, Kent and Essex on just 35%. He could afford to leak lots of 'progressive' voters to the LDs and Greens in inner city and university towns as most of those seats were safe Labour anyway under FPTP
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
Given 66% of Sun readers voted Tory or UKIP in 2015 I doubt Clarkson's views are a million miles from many of the paper's readers, even if distasteful.
The Sun? A woman paraded naked? No, I don't see a connection myself.
Flinging public faeces at those they don't like? Nah. None at all.
The whole thing seems awfully stage-managed to give MM a magnificent victory over the forces of the gammony British press if you ask me, but I am very cynical.
Was Clarkson party to that stage-management or was his article just a happy coincidence?
Yes, if the (I admit very tinfoily) stage management theory is correct, Clarkson would have agreed to be stooge, presumably in return for some future preferment. I dunno. It all just seems a bit fake to me. Fake gammon (actually a remainer Cameronite), fake right wing media outlet, fake article that doesn’t actually take any shots at what is a very easy target, but fires both barrels into the author's own foot.
Or he, and the entire editorial team of the Sun, could be completely stupid. I just don't think they are.
And who is orchestrating the Sun and Clarkson to do this? By what mechanism? The problem with these conspiracy theories is that when you get down to actual mechanics it doesn't make sense. Also, Jeremy Clarkson is an old man at the end of a successful career. What "future preferment" would he need?
The Sun is merely a small part of a huge media empire. And Murdoch's properties have always been anti-Royal. I wouldn't have a clue what commercial arrangements there might be in the future for BSkyB, Fox, M&H, JC, Netflix etc. I merely speak as I find. The article is oddly UN-damaging to MM in every regard for a purported polemical attack against her. That fits with my notion of the Sussex's as too brittle and too lacking in subtlety to approve copy that is genuinely critical of them in any way.
OR it could just be a fucking stupid article - there's that.
Probably the latter.
Right now, MM is about as popular as the government is, but it was still a nasty article.
I think there's good Clarkson and bad Clarkson.
The latter is a bore and a playground bully.
I am genuinely surprised that in all the outrage around Markle, nobody has noticed he effectively accused Sturgeon of being a sexually depraved serial killer.
I mean, I dislike her. She's incompetent, dishonest, can't be trusted with money and has alarming authoritarian tendencies. She's basically Boris Johnson with a Scottish accent.
But she is not Rose West.
But you are forgetting - its ok to propose nasty things to nasty people you disagree with (Farage) not ones that you like (Markle).
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
Given 66% of Sun readers voted Tory or UKIP in 2015 I doubt Clarkson's views are a million miles from many of the paper's readers, even if distasteful.
The Sun? A woman paraded naked? No, I don't see a connection myself.
Flinging public faeces at those they don't like? Nah. None at all.
The whole thing seems awfully stage-managed to give MM a magnificent victory over the forces of the gammony British press if you ask me, but I am very cynical.
Was Clarkson party to that stage-management or was his article just a happy coincidence?
Yes, if the (I admit very tinfoily) stage management theory is correct, Clarkson would have agreed to be stooge, presumably in return for some future preferment. I dunno. It all just seems a bit fake to me. Fake gammon (actually a remainer Cameronite), fake right wing media outlet, fake article that doesn’t actually take any shots at what is a very easy target, but fires both barrels into the author's own foot.
Or he, and the entire editorial team of the Sun, could be completely stupid. I just don't think they are.
And who is orchestrating the Sun and Clarkson to do this? By what mechanism? The problem with these conspiracy theories is that when you get down to actual mechanics it doesn't make sense. Also, Jeremy Clarkson is an old man at the end of a successful career. What "future preferment" would he need?
The Sun is merely a small part of a huge media empire. And Murdoch's properties have always been anti-Royal. I wouldn't have a clue what commercial arrangements there might be in the future for BSkyB, Fox, M&H, JC, Netflix etc. I merely speak as I find. The article is oddly UN-damaging to MM in every regard for a purported polemical attack against her. That fits with my notion of the Sussex's as too brittle and too lacking in subtlety to approve copy that is genuinely critical of them in any way.
OR it could just be a fucking stupid article - there's that.
Probably the latter.
Right now, MM is about as popular as the government is, but it was still a nasty article.
I think there's good Clarkson and bad Clarkson.
The latter is a bore and a playground bully.
Hmm.
What's the man, what's the act, and what's the act that became the man? Does even Clarkson know?
And what does it say about society that there's a very good living to be made acting like a boor and bully?
While that is part of Clarkson's act, you cannot get past the fact that he makes very good TV. He made Toip Gear what it was (with help from others). Look at the mess the BBC made of it after he left. He now makes Top Gear The Grand Tour for Amazon and its just as good. The programmes are not even really about cars. They appeal to a certain demographic - men with mates who banter, pull stunts, tell jokes etc. They do it very well. Sometimes it crosses a line.
Has Sunak negotiated with the nurses yet? Or does he want more pointless political damage.
I’m coming to the conclusion that he’s not so great at this politics lark.
Government is briefing that he's prepared for a long fight .
So give it a couple of weeks.
He’s a fool.
I don't think Sunak's a fool, but there is just no way that the government can come out of a fight with the nurses looking good. Even a win, in the sense of breaking the strikes without upping the pay offer, would be a massively Pyrrhic victory given the level of public sympathy for the nurses.
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Keir Starmer and his party are free to choose their own strategy, but all choices come with costs and benefits. He seems to have concluded that it is worth giving up on Scottish voters for the sake of winning some English gammons. Fine. But just don’t complain afterwards.
If he appeals to Clarkson then maybe he'll appeal to malcolmg too. They are essentially north and south of border versions of each other.
That’s just plain slander. Malcolm is not a misogynist. Nor does he incite racial hatred and violence.
Away from the royal stuff, there is a really big disaster unfolding on the continent and still no one's paying attention. Inflation running at 10.5% and wage growth at 2.9%, European workers are seeing an absolutely massive real terms wage cut this year and next year with little prospect of recovery in salaries.
No one has figured out how to square this circle, not the treasury or anyone in Europe. In two years everyone in Europe, the UK included, is going to be much poorer than today. As a society we've never dealt with a prolonged period of less resources to go around and it's going to mean very tough decisions need to be taken wrt state expenditure everywhere.
I'm sorry that can't be right. I keep being told its all to do with brexit. Is that not the whole truth?
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Keir Starmer and his party are free to choose their own strategy, but all choices come with costs and benefits. He seems to have concluded that it is worth giving up on Scottish voters for the sake of winning some English gammons. Fine. But just don’t complain afterwards.
If he appeals to Clarkson then maybe he'll appeal to malcolmg too. They are essentially north and south of border versions of each other.
That’s just plain slander. Malcolm is not a misogynist. Nor does he incite racial hatred and violence.
Are you having a laugh? He is constantly rude about anyone who dares disagree about Scottish independence. Comically so, thankfully.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
Given 66% of Sun readers voted Tory or UKIP in 2015 I doubt Clarkson's views are a million miles from many of the paper's readers, even if distasteful.
The Sun? A woman paraded naked? No, I don't see a connection myself.
Flinging public faeces at those they don't like? Nah. None at all.
The whole thing seems awfully stage-managed to give MM a magnificent victory over the forces of the gammony British press if you ask me, but I am very cynical.
Was Clarkson party to that stage-management or was his article just a happy coincidence?
Yes, if the (I admit very tinfoily) stage management theory is correct, Clarkson would have agreed to be stooge, presumably in return for some future preferment. I dunno. It all just seems a bit fake to me. Fake gammon (actually a remainer Cameronite), fake right wing media outlet, fake article that doesn’t actually take any shots at what is a very easy target, but fires both barrels into the author's own foot.
Or he, and the entire editorial team of the Sun, could be completely stupid. I just don't think they are.
And who is orchestrating the Sun and Clarkson to do this? By what mechanism? The problem with these conspiracy theories is that when you get down to actual mechanics it doesn't make sense. Also, Jeremy Clarkson is an old man at the end of a successful career. What "future preferment" would he need?
The Sun is merely a small part of a huge media empire. And Murdoch's properties have always been anti-Royal. I wouldn't have a clue what commercial arrangements there might be in the future for BSkyB, Fox, M&H, JC, Netflix etc. I merely speak as I find. The article is oddly UN-damaging to MM in every regard for a purported polemical attack against her. That fits with my notion of the Sussex's as too brittle and too lacking in subtlety to approve copy that is genuinely critical of them in any way.
OR it could just be a fucking stupid article - there's that.
Probably the latter.
Right now, MM is about as popular as the government is, but it was still a nasty article.
I think there's good Clarkson and bad Clarkson.
The latter is a bore and a playground bully.
I am genuinely surprised that in all the outrage around Markle, nobody has noticed he effectively accused Sturgeon of being a sexually depraved serial killer.
I mean, I dislike her. She's incompetent, dishonest, can't be trusted with money and has alarming authoritarian tendencies. She's basically Boris Johnson with a Scottish accent.
But she is not Rose West.
But you are forgetting - its ok to propose nasty things to nasty people you disagree with (Farage) not ones that you like (Markle).
Like those who demand Lineker and Gary Neville are cancelled, but throw their hands in the air in despair when the calls grow louder to admonish Clarkson and Piers Morgen?
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Keir Starmer and his party are free to choose their own strategy, but all choices come with costs and benefits. He seems to have concluded that it is worth giving up on Scottish voters for the sake of winning some English gammons. Fine. But just don’t complain afterwards.
If he appeals to Clarkson then maybe he'll appeal to malcolmg too. They are essentially north and south of border versions of each other.
That’s just plain slander. Malcolm is not a misogynist. Nor does he incite racial hatred and violence.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
Given 66% of Sun readers voted Tory or UKIP in 2015 I doubt Clarkson's views are a million miles from many of the paper's readers, even if distasteful.
The Sun? A woman paraded naked? No, I don't see a connection myself.
Flinging public faeces at those they don't like? Nah. None at all.
The whole thing seems awfully stage-managed to give MM a magnificent victory over the forces of the gammony British press if you ask me, but I am very cynical.
Was Clarkson party to that stage-management or was his article just a happy coincidence?
Yes, if the (I admit very tinfoily) stage management theory is correct, Clarkson would have agreed to be stooge, presumably in return for some future preferment. I dunno. It all just seems a bit fake to me. Fake gammon (actually a remainer Cameronite), fake right wing media outlet, fake article that doesn’t actually take any shots at what is a very easy target, but fires both barrels into the author's own foot.
Or he, and the entire editorial team of the Sun, could be completely stupid. I just don't think they are.
And who is orchestrating the Sun and Clarkson to do this? By what mechanism? The problem with these conspiracy theories is that when you get down to actual mechanics it doesn't make sense. Also, Jeremy Clarkson is an old man at the end of a successful career. What "future preferment" would he need?
The Sun is merely a small part of a huge media empire. And Murdoch's properties have always been anti-Royal. I wouldn't have a clue what commercial arrangements there might be in the future for BSkyB, Fox, M&H, JC, Netflix etc. I merely speak as I find. The article is oddly UN-damaging to MM in every regard for a purported polemical attack against her. That fits with my notion of the Sussex's as too brittle and too lacking in subtlety to approve copy that is genuinely critical of them in any way.
OR it could just be a fucking stupid article - there's that.
Probably the latter.
Right now, MM is about as popular as the government is, but it was still a nasty article.
I think there's good Clarkson and bad Clarkson.
The latter is a bore and a playground bully.
I am genuinely surprised that in all the outrage around Markle, nobody has noticed he effectively accused Sturgeon of being a sexually depraved serial killer.
I mean, I dislike her. She's incompetent, dishonest, can't be trusted with money and has alarming authoritarian tendencies. She's basically Boris Johnson with a Scottish accent.
But she is not Rose West.
But you are forgetting - its ok to propose nasty things to nasty people you disagree with (Farage) not ones that you like (Markle).
Like those who demand Lineker and Gary Neville are cancelled, but throw their hands in the air in despair when the calls grow louder to admonish Clarkson and Piers Morgen?
Interesting - I regard Neville as a hypocrite for Qatar (and Lineker too, for that matter). I also think Lineker treads close to the line of not respecting BBC neutrality. He is also grossly overpaid by the BBC - there are others who could do the job at a fraction of the price. Do people want them cancelled? Or do they want to watch a football match without being hectored by multi-millionaire ex footballers about things that aren't football?
I'm not a fan of any cancel culture, but free speech has limits too. In the current case societal opprobrium is correcting the sin.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
From the same era, the entire House of York is an obvious one. It’s the reason they claimed the crown through the female line.
It's all a load of pish anyway. How many royal dynasties back then were not originally established by force of arms ?
The Japanese Royal Family are descended from the Sun.
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Keir Starmer and his party are free to choose their own strategy, but all choices come with costs and benefits. He seems to have concluded that it is worth giving up on Scottish voters for the sake of winning some English gammons. Fine. But just don’t complain afterwards.
If he appeals to Clarkson then maybe he'll appeal to malcolmg too. They are essentially north and south of border versions of each other.
That’s just plain slander. Malcolm is not a misogynist. Nor does he incite racial hatred and violence.
No. He only incites xenophobic hatred and violence.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
From the same era, the entire House of York is an obvious one. It’s the reason they claimed the crown through the female line.
It's all a load of pish anyway. How many royal dynasties back then were not originally established by force of arms ?
The Japanese Royal Family are descended from the Sun.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
What it's worth, I think Harry has distinct facial similarities with Charles, Elizabeth and Phillip. He also has similarities with Hewitt but I find those of a more superficial nature.
I think exactly the opposite. Indeed it has seemed blindingly obvious to me since he was a boy. It always made me feel some empathy both for him and for Charles.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
What it's worth, I think Harry has distinct facial similarities with Charles, Elizabeth and Phillip. He also has similarities with Hewitt but I find those of a more superficial nature.
I think exactly the opposite. Indeed it has seemed blindingly obvious to me since he was a boy. It always made me feel some empathy both for him and for Charles.
Just looked up GoT scene Clarkson says he was referencing in his Meghan article as I didn’t watch the show. He was referencing a violent misogynistic fantasy. And people are raising in this in his DEFENCE?!?? What have we come to?
You should never take anything Clarkson writes seriously. It is all a performance which inevitably goes too far at times. That's where an editor should intervene, but this one has obviously slipped through the net.
It does read differently if you aren't familiar with the original scene, though. To make something like that up is clearly much worse than just referencing it, even if isn't acceptable either way.
You could even read the piece as a comment on GoT itself if you were being really generous. Is it really that much better?
I’m probably wrong here, but I suspect most who are decrying Clarkson probably don’t like his TV shows, and those defending him, do.
No. I think not. This is just too nasty. It doesn't say much for those who defend him or his editor or his newspaper. Or the supposed Royalists who wish that on a Royal. Either you believe in genetic blue blood and divine right, or you don't.
I like his TV and lots of his writing, this was horrible, I am not a royalist, but a straw man is a straw man. No main stream UK royalist has asserted divine right since about 1700, nobody ever said it in any way affected anyone other than the actual monarch.
You’ve missed our very own @HYUFD on the divine right of kings then…
I was going to say that. Thank you. But I will add, to counter his excuse, that Mr Windsor-Mountbatten is very much in the line of succession. And, therefore, in the line of divine whatever it is called. So, therefore, any children of his and Mrs W-M.
In any case, the genetic issue remains. Either one believes in heredity or one doesn't - one can't just pick and choose. That's why it is so insane of supposed royalists and their favourite newspapers to attack one lot of royals relentlessly.
Without making any comment on the H&M saga beyond saying that Clarkson is an utter dick, I would however cast doubt on your claim that there is any genetic connection between Harry and the Royal line. Not that this has made much difference in the past as it is the legally declared position that matters rather than the truth or otherwise of a genetic link.
Henry Tudor has entered the chat.
Indeed. I am sure ydoethur can probably dig up a few more examples from history.
What it's worth, I think Harry has distinct facial similarities with Charles, Elizabeth and Phillip. He also has similarities with Hewitt but I find those of a more superficial nature.
Undoubtedly DNA testing will have been done; undoubtedly the result will never be made public.
I am sure the current rift with Harry has nothing to do with that result. Oh no, nothing at all.
Would any newspaper dare to try to get a DNA result and publish it?
Highly illegal, so no, I would think not.
(Oh, and readily deniable, of course.)
It's amusing to think of foreign intelligence services getting the DNA samples. They wouldn't even need one from the king - they'd only need them from Harry and James.
Just from Harry I think, if you Google ancestry dna there's lots of companies who for 30 quid will process a sample and tell you who your cousins and adopted at birth twins are, so it's good odds it would throw up a closeish relative of the putative dad.
Astonished at the argument a few posts back that we can all pile on Mr and Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor because everyone - apparently except me - knows he's illegitimate anyway.
Given the uncertainty inherent in that that argument, it's one for open season on every single Royal. Direct inheritance of royal blue blood is where it's at if one is a royalist.
He is not illegitimate and a DNA test showing that his father was not Charles would not render him illegitimate in English law.
Who gives a monkey's chuff anyway, bore the arse off you talking about the hooray henry parasites
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Keir Starmer and his party are free to choose their own strategy, but all choices come with costs and benefits. He seems to have concluded that it is worth giving up on Scottish voters for the sake of winning some English gammons. Fine. But just don’t complain afterwards.
If he appeals to Clarkson then maybe he'll appeal to malcolmg too. They are essentially north and south of border versions of each other.
That’s just plain slander. Malcolm is not a misogynist. Nor does he incite racial hatred and violence.
No. He only incites xenophobic hatred and violence.
Starmer is a cretinous afrse licking fence sitting champagne socialist Labour arsepipe of eth worst kind , a Tory in sheeps clothing. What thick dunderheided clown suggested I would like him.
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
Without some gammons who voted for Boris and like Clarkson in the redwall Starmer has no chance of becoming PM
Keir Starmer and his party are free to choose their own strategy, but all choices come with costs and benefits. He seems to have concluded that it is worth giving up on Scottish voters for the sake of winning some English gammons. Fine. But just don’t complain afterwards.
If he appeals to Clarkson then maybe he'll appeal to malcolmg too. They are essentially north and south of border versions of each other.
That’s just plain slander. Malcolm is not a misogynist. Nor does he incite racial hatred and violence.
No. He only incites xenophobic hatred and violence.
Comments
How many royal dynasties back then were not originally established by force of arms ?
https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1605100606468882434?t=wvUdRUl44g2y275dVlNV1Q&s=19
Meanwhile it looks grim on the Ukraine government's scorecard. Likely to pass 100 000 claimed dead Russian soldiers and 3 000 tanks by Christmas.
https://twitter.com/GeneralStaffUA/status/1605100974120480769?t=BV3XCsTevHNN1-ODmb6SFw&s=19
Given the uncertainty inherent in that that argument, it's one for open season on every single Royal. Direct inheritance of royal blue blood is where it's at if one is a royalist.
He even has his own travel portapotty guy to bring his motions back to the motherland.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/cia-director-bill-burns-on-war-in-ukraine-intelligence-challenges-posed-by-china
...Most conflicts end in negotiations, but that requires a seriousness on the part of the Russians in this instance that I don't think we see.
At least, it's not our assessment that the Russians are serious at this point about a real negotiation...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/63887059
The betting reckons Mead is almost guaranteed to win.
There are also some much later legends about his earlier life and childhood that were not included in the Bible. For example, a tradition that as a baby his bath water had healing powers.
The latter is a bore and a playground bully.
I mean, I dislike her. She's incompetent, dishonest, can't be trusted with money and has alarming authoritarian tendencies. She's basically Boris Johnson with a Scottish accent.
But she is not Rose West.
It seems that despite the unusual circumstances of his birth, they decided to give him a conventional childhood in a remote part of Israel. At least, after returning from being refugees in Egypt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk8Sre9nndM
Mr. Eagles, of course Jesus visited. He came to Yorkshire, to see his dad.
Royals are watched and observed all the time, and DNA tests nowadays are very easy - you can do it from a stray hair.
If Harry truly wasn't the son of Charles the truth would have come out years ago.
What's the man, what's the act, and what's the act that became the man? Does even Clarkson know?
And what does it say about society that there's a very good living to be made acting like a boor and bully?
Look at how well the establishment covered up stuff.
Note:
Population Norway 5.4 million
Population Sweden 10.3 million
So, each Norwegian is now almost twice as rich as their neighbours across the border.
Of course, this story is completely irrelevant to Scottish public life.
https://www.svd.se/a/dwJ60X/norsk-ekonomi-gar-om-den-svenska-for-forsta-gangen
https://youtu.be/rdu8VOWk3pg
Stop arselicking revolting gammons, it never ends well.
Yours,
A very ex Labour voter.
“What is man’s greatest joy? To slaughter his enemies, drive them before him, and listen to the lamentations of their women.”
https://twitter.com/MerrynSW/status/1604790356360548353?s=20&t=9VBEil8yd_Wkzhk_0pz5xA
Plus Norwegian and Scottish oil is bad for the climate and will run out
However, the incentives have maybe adjusted a bit. To the extent we seem to have a lot of people who are now public dicks but seem to be privately decent enough people, or at least not as bad as their public persona. As distinct from the people who've always been among us, who act the virtuous family guy in public but are monsters behind the scenes.
I’m coming to the conclusion that he’s not so great at this politics lark.
@OpiniumResearch
🚨LATEST
@OpiniumResearch
/
@ObserverUK
poll🚨
Labour lead remains consistent at 14 points over the Conservatives.
Con 29% (nc)
Lab 44% (+1)
Lib Dems 9% (+1)
Green 5% (-1)
Reform UK 8% (+2)"
Oh man - Terry Hall.
Me and some pals have an occasional covers band - weddings, parties, anything. Due to all of us having worked in 'the biz' we've brought in some powerful ringers to sing with us over the years...
https://twitter.com/estellecostanza/status/1605116406248472577
An independent Scotland could focus on renewable energy generation and become a healthy net exporter. I'm sure if the right decisions were made this could be good news for some regions of Scotland. Rather like an independent London could, well, be London.
Clarkson is anyway employed by the Sun not the Royal Household, he is Murdoch's responsibility not theirs
So give it a couple of weeks.
He knows who his market is
So it is basic maths. Plus the Supreme Court ruled Starmer could refuse indyref2 indefinitely as PM anyway unless a hung parliament with the SNP holding the balance of power
The worrying thing is that this may be infesting academia too, along of course with all aspects of political life.
Incidentally, while I mostly tuned out, the Clarkson lines gave, SFAICS, James O'Brien about three hours of left populist discussion stuff, endlessly recycled, on a slow news day.
Populist journos all need each other.
Sky's @skynewsniall to health minister Will Quince: "Is Mr Sunak taking the Mickey?"
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/is-sunak-taking-mickey-minister-mocked-over-pm-over-nhs-claims_uk_63a16d60e4b03e2cc5036abb
Centre left = bad
Scottish oil = bad
Far right = good
British oil = good
It must be great living in simpleton world.
- Talks not about averting strike as govt won’t discuss pay, but rather on handling of 999 calls
- Govt wants cat 2 calls - such as strokes/serious chest pain - covered across all trusts 3/
- https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1605122702959792128
No one has figured out how to square this circle, not the treasury or anyone in Europe. In two years everyone in Europe, the UK included, is going to be much poorer than today. As a society we've never dealt with a prolonged period of less resources to go around and it's going to mean very tough decisions need to be taken wrt state expenditure everywhere.
Brown royals = bad
That’s Toryboy world.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scotlands-record-high-deficit-puts-eu-entry-in-doubt-n767r2knn
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/there-truth-behind-urban-myth-4941098
First of all the idea the so-called red wall is some unique outpost of gammony racists who are all gagging for hard brexit and want to send back all the migrants is nonsense, it's a collection of constituencies with a broad diversity of political views but which happen to have been demographically trending towards the Tories.
Secondly Labour will get away with a bit of authoritarianism this time because everyone's desperate to get the Tories out, but if they go too far they'll risk creating "they're all the same" apathy among the liberal voter base they need to keep onside.
Labour doesn't need to win rightwingers, it needs to win moderate floating voters who opted for Johnson over Corbyn last time.
Lots can be imagined rationally from the religious and cultural background of 1st century Galilee. E P Sanders (who died recently) 'The Historical Figure of Jesus' (Penguin) is both reliable and accessible.
Top GearThe Grand Tour for Amazon and its just as good. The programmes are not even really about cars. They appeal to a certain demographic - men with mates who banter, pull stunts, tell jokes etc. They do it very well. Sometimes it crosses a line.Malcolm is not a misogynist. Nor does he incite racial hatred and violence.
It's written down.
I'm not a fan of any cancel culture, but free speech has limits too. In the current case societal opprobrium is correcting the sin.