Here's a weird theory I can't quite shake completely: As I understand it, Meghan was introduced to Harry by a third person. Anyone who knew about her problems getting along with people close to her, including her father, might have guessed she could cause problems for your monarchy. So, did whoever introduced the two come up with the idea on their own, or were they prompted by someone working for an enemy who does not wish Britain well?
I'm not saying that I would give this theory more than a 1 percent probability, but I can't quite help giving it more than a 0 percent.
(I must add that I have some sympathy for Meghan as a person. She wanted (wants?) to be a famous actress, but appears to have little acting talent, and her looks do not fit any of the "types" that Hollywood currently gives big parts to. Perhaps that will change as the number of mixed-race people here grows.)
I think part of Harry's attraction to Meghan (and vice versa) is their estrangement from their divorced fathers.
My view of the psychodynamics of it all: Harry seems to be trying to rescue his mother in his rescue of Meghan. Indeed he is quite open about his fears for her safety from the press, and from mental instability. He is trying to be the husband that his father never was.
I am not recommending this -- let me repeat, I am not recommending this -- but I can't help noting that the Charles-Camilla-Diana problem could have been avoided if the UK accepted, formally or even informally, polygamy.
There are, as I understand it, historical precedents, even in Britain.
It would have been simpler to evolve Royal tradition and make it possible for Charles to marry Camilla. She would have had to convert to Protestantism and then there was the divorce, but they would have been devoted to each other. Camilla wouldn't ever have been an icon like Diana, but it could have worked.
Part of me believes that Harry has destroyed the monarchy now.
If the monarchy are simply horsey Kardashians, they cannot be heads of state.
It's the hypocrisy of the Royals and their sycophants that boils my piss.
When Charles did a massive interview and book that announced to the nation he was an adulterer and had betrayed his wife and disses his family he's cool, when Prince Harry does a book and interview then he gets nothing but opprobrium.
Perhaps the difference is that Charles didn't try to blame everyone else for his failings?
He blames other people for his failings, has been doing it for decades, and more than that he blames other people for getting in his way and not letting him get whatever he wants. He's a far bigger Spoilt C*** than anyone in Hollywood.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see. Beams and motes .....
Speak for yourself. I am not perfect but I have certainly never done anything as bad as cheat on a partner I was committed to. Let alone my wife. Perhaps the reason for the high divorce rate and paternity fraud is how much modern society excuses immorality.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
That is utterly demented, insect-overlord-worshipping, rubbish. I come from ,not to put too fine a point on it, a more than reasonably well off family of landed gentry, and these "rules" you appeal to are unknown to me. the evil lies not in the fact of adultery, but in the marrying her in the first place with no intention of breaking off relations with his girlfriend. It isn't even posh, it's Jeremy Kyle stuff. Diana, whatever her social background, was a remarkably thick love struck teenager; nobody who watched the eve-of-marriage documentary could doubt that for an instant.
I am sorry if my remarks about care workers rankled. They were satirically intended.
"remarkably thick"
Man, you do talk some rubbish.
Watch the eve of marriage video and get back to me about that. She got smarter with time, which is a really uplifting example to all of us.
"Smarter" and "uplifting"
Well, she certainly got her own back on her husband. He may well have deserved it. He should never have married her if he didn't love her - and marrying someone from a broken home such as hers, who was far too young and had no emotional stability or family to sustain her was catastrophically stupid. Those women who make a success when marrying into the royals are those who have that strength of character and a solid family behind them: the Queen Mum, Kate, Sophie.
Diana was no saint. She too committed adultery - and with more than one lover - and her role in the break up of Will Carling's marriage was not "uplifting", as you put it. Nor was her behaviour with Oliver Hoare which reputedly led to his wife threatening to call the police if she did not stop pestering him.
Whether it was "smart" of her to use the press to get her own back and then complain when the monster she had fed continued to pursue her, who can say. She was apparently offered the option of keeping Royal Protection officers after her divorce but chose not to. Was that "smart"?
I rather feel at times that we are being cruel to the people involved by insisting on a royal family, whatever its other virtues may be, simply because of the ludicrous expectations some have of its members. It wasn't just the press doing the emotional bullying of the young princes when their mother died but the public. The royals are neither saints nor evil sinners but flawed humans, like the rest of us, even the late HMQ.
They'd be better off keeping their mouths shut and trying to work out their family dramas in private like the rest of us. All this incontinent soul-baring, whether from Charles or Harry or any of them is so ... well ..... tedious. Vulgar and childish, too.
I am not recommending this -- let me repeat, I am not recommending this -- but I can't help noting that the Charles-Camilla-Diana problem could have been avoided if the UK accepted, formally or even informally, polygamy.
There are, as I understand it, historical precedents, even in Britain.
It would have been simpler to evolve Royal tradition and make it possible for Charles to marry Camilla. She would have had to convert to Protestantism and then there was the divorce, but they would have been devoted to each other. Camilla wouldn't ever have been an icon like Diana, but it could have worked.
The young princes wouldn't have been anywhere near as good looking.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see. Beams and motes .....
In general, people who rant and rave about other peoples’ sexual depravity rarely practice what they preach.
Dim, dim, dim.
Did you fuck someone else the night before you married Mrs F?
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see. Beams and motes .....
In general, people who rant and rave about other peoples’ sexual depravity rarely practice what they preach.
Dim, dim, dim.
Did you fuck someone else the night before you married Mrs F?
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see. Beams and motes .....
Speak for yourself. I am not perfect but I have certainly never done anything as bad as cheat on a partner I was committed to. Let alone my wife. Perhaps the reason for the high divorce rate and paternity fraud is how much modern society excuses immorality.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see. Beams and motes .....
In general, people who rant and rave about other peoples’ sexual depravity rarely practice what they preach.
Dim, dim, dim.
Did you fuck someone else the night before you married Mrs F?
I am not recommending this -- let me repeat, I am not recommending this -- but I can't help noting that the Charles-Camilla-Diana problem could have been avoided if the UK accepted, formally or even informally, polygamy.
There are, as I understand it, historical precedents, even in Britain.
It would have been simpler to evolve Royal tradition and make it possible for Charles to marry Camilla. She would have had to convert to Protestantism and then there was the divorce, but they would have been devoted to each other. Camilla wouldn't ever have been an icon like Diana, but it could have worked.
You would have thought that they would have learnt from Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend.
I am not recommending this -- let me repeat, I am not recommending this -- but I can't help noting that the Charles-Camilla-Diana problem could have been avoided if the UK accepted, formally or even informally, polygamy.
There are, as I understand it, historical precedents, even in Britain.
It would have been simpler to evolve Royal tradition and make it possible for Charles to marry Camilla. She would have had to convert to Protestantism and then there was the divorce, but they would have been devoted to each other. Camilla wouldn't ever have been an icon like Diana, but it could have worked.
The young princes wouldn't have been anywhere near as good looking.
Probably would have been a lot less glamour all round. But perhaps that's unfair - maybe Camilla would have been a media darling too.
This thread is very weird. Jim M seems to be drunk, Beinndarg randomly insults the unknown wife of a pseudonomynous poster, and everyone hypothesises about the detailed lives of a family that none of us know.
Part of me believes that Harry has destroyed the monarchy now.
If the monarchy are simply horsey Kardashians, they cannot be heads of state.
It's the hypocrisy of the Royals and their sycophants that boils my piss.
When Charles did a massive interview and book that announced to the nation he was an adulterer and had betrayed his wife and disses his family he's cool, when Prince Harry does a book and interview then he gets nothing but opprobrium.
Perhaps the difference is that Charles didn't try to blame everyone else for his failings?
He blames other people for his failings, has been doing it for decades, and more than that he blames other people for getting in his way and not letting him get whatever he wants. He's a far bigger Spoilt C*** than anyone in Hollywood.
Yes, Harry and Charles (and William too) show the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
I am not recommending this -- let me repeat, I am not recommending this -- but I can't help noting that the Charles-Camilla-Diana problem could have been avoided if the UK accepted, formally or even informally, polygamy.
There are, as I understand it, historical precedents, even in Britain.
It would have been simpler to evolve Royal tradition and make it possible for Charles to marry Camilla. She would have had to convert to Protestantism and then there was the divorce, but they would have been devoted to each other. Camilla wouldn't ever have been an icon like Diana, but it could have worked.
The young princes wouldn't have been anywhere near as good looking.
Probably would have been a lot less glamour all round. But perhaps that's unfair - maybe Camilla would have been a media darling too.
Perhaps the Daily Express would already have gone out of business. Seems a fair trade.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see.
Beams and motes .....
Good point if it were in any way relevant. It is not. There is no doubt, and it is not even denied on behalf of Charles, that he got engaged to Diana with the intention of carrying on with Camilla during the engagement and marriage. If he had broken off with Camilla, done his best but then gone back to her, I would have not a word to say about it. But brown nosing him and her for what they actually did takes sycophancy to a whole new level. Well done.
I have not brown-nosed anyone. I am, FWIW, probably mildly Republican by inclination, though changing the Head of State is not even in my top 200 list of important things to do in Britain. I don't know the truth about Charles's marriage and neither I would suggest do you. No-one outside a marriage itself (not even the children) can really have a true idea of what really goes on in a marriage. Some humility in expressing a view would be wise - rather than your confident assertion that Charles is as evil as a mass murderer, which is hyperbolic nonsense.
This thread is very weird. Jim M seems to be drunk, Beinndarg randomly insults the unknown wife of a pseudonomynous poster, and everyone hypothesises about the detailed lives of a family that none of us know.
Maybe tomorrow we can get back to politics?
To be honest, I think it shows how little underlying interest there is in politics at the moment. We are in a bit of a waiting game -18 months to the next GE, 22 to the next US Presidential elections, few elections in Europe this year, Ukraine in stalemate etc.
He reported loaning his campaign more than $700,000 in the 2021-22 cycle despite having only $55,000 in earned income
Plus
The complaint also accuses Santos of misrepresenting his campaign’s spending. It notes that his campaign reported “an astounding 40 disbursements between $199 and $200, including 37 disbursements of exactly $199.99,” thereby eluding requirements to keep a receipt, invoice or canceled check for all spending above $200.
Santos is incredibly fortunate that the Republican majority is so narrow.
This thread is very weird. Jim M seems to be drunk, Beinndarg randomly insults the unknown wife of a pseudonomynous poster, and everyone hypothesises about the detailed lives of a family that none of us know.
Maybe tomorrow we can get back to politics?
Silly, Nick. Think it through and you'll get to the point I was making. Probably.
He reported loaning his campaign more than $700,000 in the 2021-22 cycle despite having only $55,000 in earned income
Plus
The complaint also accuses Santos of misrepresenting his campaign’s spending. It notes that his campaign reported “an astounding 40 disbursements between $199 and $200, including 37 disbursements of exactly $199.99,” thereby eluding requirements to keep a receipt, invoice or canceled check for all spending above $200.
Santos is incredibly fortunate that the Republican majority is so narrow.
He seems to have lied about just about everything in his life, that level of brazenness is almost impressive, so everything else just seems to fit.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see. Beams and motes .....
In general, people who rant and rave about other peoples’ sexual depravity rarely practice what they preach.
Dim, dim, dim.
Did you fuck someone else the night before you married Mrs F?
Watch it, or you'll be sin binned.
Sorry. Language aside it seems a fair point though.
For all those deluded souls who still argue that the NYT is a liberal left publication.
Brazilian voters ousted President Jair Bolsonaro after a single tumultuous term on Oct. 30 and returned the leftist former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to replace him. Some of Bolsonaro’s supporters did not take defeat quietly. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1612215121903845380
Please explain why Lula is described as a ‘leftist’, and Bolsanaro not ‘authoritarian right’, or ‘semi-fascist’ ?
The most pathetic thing about the NYT coverage and most other coverage too is how they're saying ooooh, isn't it just like some sh*t that happened in the USA two years ago. I even read one article that explained that Brasilia was a federal district that for some purposes has state status, just like Washington DC. Strangely it didn't mention that the president of Brazil is directly elected.
They might as well say ooooh, Fernando Haddad - isn't he just like Kwasi "mini-budget" Kwarteng? In fact that would be a less stupid thing to write, even if it doesn't say much about what's happening in Brazil.
Or Jair Bolsonaro - just like the Shah of Iran, isn't he? Or is it Idi Amin? Or Fulgencio Batista,maybe? After all, Ukraine is just like Cuba, or twice as bad, or something, so why can't Brazil be? People get paid for writing this infantile E grade at A Level sh*t?
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see. Beams and motes .....
Speak for yourself. I am not perfect but I have certainly never done anything as bad as cheat on a partner I was committed to. Let alone my wife. Perhaps the reason for the high divorce rate and paternity fraud is how much modern society excuses immorality.
Good for you.
(I cast no aspersions on you. Let me be clear on that)
The lawyer in me merely notes inclusion of the phrase "a partner I was committed to." In a hypothetical cross-examination in a drama series, the next question to the witness by a Kavanagh KC in the eponymous drama would be: "Have you ever cheated on a partner you were not committed to?"
Part of me believes that Harry has destroyed the monarchy now.
If the monarchy are simply horsey Kardashians, they cannot be heads of state.
It's the hypocrisy of the Royals and their sycophants that boils my piss.
When Charles did a massive interview and book that announced to the nation he was an adulterer and had betrayed his wife and disses his family he's cool, when Prince Harry does a book and interview then he gets nothing but opprobrium.
Perhaps the difference is that Charles didn't try to blame everyone else for his failings?
He blames other people for his failings, has been doing it for decades, and more than that he blames other people for getting in his way and not letting him get whatever he wants. He's a far bigger Spoilt C*** than anyone in Hollywood.
Yes, Harry and Charles (and William too) show the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Charles doesn't blame others for his failings? He explains away marrying Di because his dad made him do it and ran away.
PB may think it never changes minds, but it has flipped me to republican tonight.
This thread is very weird. Jim M seems to be drunk, Beinndarg randomly insults the unknown wife of a pseudonomynous poster, and everyone hypothesises about the detailed lives of a family that none of us know.
Maybe tomorrow we can get back to politics?
To be honest, I think it shows how little underlying interest there is in politics at the moment. We are in a bit of a waiting game -18 months to the next GE, 22 to the next US Presidential elections, few elections in Europe this year, Ukraine in stalemate etc.
We are barely more than a year from the start of the US Primaries. And we are just six months away from the first Republican Presidential debates.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see. Beams and motes .....
Speak for yourself. I am not perfect but I have certainly never done anything as bad as cheat on a partner I was committed to. Let alone my wife. Perhaps the reason for the high divorce rate and paternity fraud is how much modern society excuses immorality.
Good for you.
(I cast no aspersions on you. Let me be clear on that)
The lawyer in me merely notes inclusion of the phrase "a partner I was committed to." In a hypothetical cross-examination in a drama series, the next question to the witness by a Kavanagh KC in the eponymous drama would be: "Have you ever cheated on a partner you were not committed to?"
If you cheated on them, would that not be evidence that you were not actually committed to them?
So, in fact, it is impossible to cheat on a partner to which you are committed.
To the headline article, no. Whilst I suspect the government under Sunak will end up being quite businesslike, he is unlikely to connect with the public to the degree required. Neither can Starmer admittedly but people are tired of the Conservatives.
Ukraine. The Ukrainians are looking close to a notable defeat on the Bakhmut front with rumours that they are pulling out of the nearby town of Soledar on that front and the Russians are throwing more forces in to close the deal. This potentially exposes the northern side oif Bakhmut further to a Russian encircling movement.
Despite the popular opinion in the media that the Russian assault in this area has no strategic sense to it, it does because of the concept of a contigous area of control in the Donbas for Russia and locally because Bakhmut straddles major junctions. but only if a) they can exploit it and b) was the cost worth the gain. The curiois thing about the Ukrainian defensive approach has the been the sparing use of their artillery on front line targets. Their kit is very accurate and given a lot of this front is pretty much derelict, its possible power to inflict damage on Russian formations seem clear, but they havent used their best kit.
The fight on the battlefield has no clear winner at the moment but with the ground now starting to freeze, someone could strike out.
He reported loaning his campaign more than $700,000 in the 2021-22 cycle despite having only $55,000 in earned income
Plus
The complaint also accuses Santos of misrepresenting his campaign’s spending. It notes that his campaign reported “an astounding 40 disbursements between $199 and $200, including 37 disbursements of exactly $199.99,” thereby eluding requirements to keep a receipt, invoice or canceled check for all spending above $200.
Santos is incredibly fortunate that the Republican majority is so narrow.
New York Democratic opposition research was either incredibly sub-moronic in its incompetence; OR amazingly savvy in NOT revealing the truth (such as it is) regarding George Santos, thus allowing him to be elected as a Human Time Bomb embedded in the US House Republican Conference.
Given the rest of the NYD 2022 election "strategy" for example going out of there way to lose not just to Santos, but to piss away three other Democratic seats (partly due to exploded congressional gerrymander than never was) am about 99.46% certain the answer = Plan A.
This thread is very weird. Jim M seems to be drunk, Beinndarg randomly insults the unknown wife of a pseudonomynous poster, and everyone hypothesises about the detailed lives of a family that none of us know.
Maybe tomorrow we can get back to politics?
To be honest, I think it shows how little underlying interest there is in politics at the moment. We are in a bit of a waiting game -18 months to the next GE, 22 to the next US Presidential elections, few elections in Europe this year, Ukraine in stalemate etc.
We are barely more than a year from the start of the US Primaries. And we are just six months away from the first Republican Presidential debates.
I reckon a few tests for the Conservatives this year - byelections and locals but admittedly thin pickings in 2023 unless Sunak calls Labour's bluff
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see. Beams and motes .....
Speak for yourself. I am not perfect but I have certainly never done anything as bad as cheat on a partner I was committed to. Let alone my wife. Perhaps the reason for the high divorce rate and paternity fraud is how much modern society excuses immorality.
Good for you.
(I cast no aspersions on you. Let me be clear on that)
The lawyer in me merely notes inclusion of the phrase "a partner I was committed to." In a hypothetical cross-examination in a drama series, the next question to the witness by a Kavanagh KC in the eponymous drama would be: "Have you ever cheated on a partner you were not committed to?"
If you cheated on them, would that not be evidence that you were not actually committed to them?
So, in fact, it is impossible to cheat on a partner to which you are committed.
It depends on what you mean by "committed", I suppose. In a significant number of Italian marriages, adultery will happen but the man or woman remains committed to the spouse and the family, even if they take some of their pleasure elsewhere.
In a courtroom, the question will be asked because the KC knows that the witness is a lying hypocrite and has laid a trap into which the witness walks.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see.
Beams and motes .....
Good point if it were in any way relevant. It is not. There is no doubt, and it is not even denied on behalf of Charles, that he got engaged to Diana with the intention of carrying on with Camilla during the engagement and marriage. If he had broken off with Camilla, done his best but then gone back to her, I would have not a word to say about it. But brown nosing him and her for what they actually did takes sycophancy to a whole new level. Well done.
I have not brown-nosed anyone. I am, FWIW, probably mildly Republican by inclination, though changing the Head of State is not even in my top 200 list of important things to do in Britain. I don't know the truth about Charles's marriage and neither I would suggest do you. No-one outside a marriage itself (not even the children) can really have a true idea of what really goes on in a marriage. Some humility in expressing a view would be wise - rather than your confident assertion that Charles is as evil as a mass murderer, which is hyperbolic nonsense.
OK. You would be OK with a 34 year old deceiving a naive 20 whatever year old into marriage for purely pragmatic reasons, and making vows they never intend to keep, and you can't see any distinction between that and the very common case of marrying now, drifting into adultery later?
I can't see what is going on here. Are you really incapable of seeing the distinction or is this a stab at appearing sophisticated? If you are OK with this, is any form of emotional deceit off limits? Example?
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see.
Beams and motes .....
Good point if it were in any way relevant. It is not. There is no doubt, and it is not even denied on behalf of Charles, that he got engaged to Diana with the intention of carrying on with Camilla during the engagement and marriage. If he had broken off with Camilla, done his best but then gone back to her, I would have not a word to say about it. But brown nosing him and her for what they actually did takes sycophancy to a whole new level. Well done.
I have not brown-nosed anyone. I am, FWIW, probably mildly Republican by inclination, though changing the Head of State is not even in my top 200 list of important things to do in Britain. I don't know the truth about Charles's marriage and neither I would suggest do you. No-one outside a marriage itself (not even the children) can really have a true idea of what really goes on in a marriage. Some humility in expressing a view would be wise - rather than your confident assertion that Charles is as evil as a mass murderer, which is hyperbolic nonsense.
OK. You would be OK with a 34 year old deceiving a naive 20 whatever year old into marriage for purely pragmatic reasons, and making vows they never intend to keep, and you can't see any distinction between that and the very common case of marrying now, drifting into adultery later?
I can't see what is going on here. Are you really incapable of seeing the distinction or is this a stab at appearing sophisticated? If you are OK with this, is any form of emotional deceit off limits? Example?
You're not simply making a distinction, so I don't know why you are pretending that is what is happening here. Many people might make a distinction. You're making a distinction that one is 'absolute evil', whereas others might wish to reserve that label for things other than egregious adultery.
This thread is very weird. Jim M seems to be drunk, Beinndarg randomly insults the unknown wife of a pseudonomynous poster, and everyone hypothesises about the detailed lives of a family that none of us know.
Maybe tomorrow we can get back to politics?
To be honest, I think it shows how little underlying interest there is in politics at the moment. We are in a bit of a waiting game -18 months to the next GE, 22 to the next US Presidential elections, few elections in Europe this year, Ukraine in stalemate etc.
We are barely more than a year from the start of the US Primaries. And we are just six months away from the first Republican Presidential debates.
I reckon a few tests for the Conservatives this year - byelections and locals but admittedly thin pickings in 2023 unless Sunak calls Labour's bluff
He'd be a fool to call that bluff without at least giving himself a chance of some kind of getting a reasonable hand.
Here's a weird theory I can't quite shake completely: As I understand it, Meghan was introduced to Harry by a third person. Anyone who knew about her problems getting along with people close to her, including her father, might have guessed she could cause problems for your monarchy. So, did whoever introduced the two come up with the idea on their own, or were they prompted by someone working for an enemy who does not wish Britain well?
I'm not saying that I would give this theory more than a 1 percent probability, but I can't quite help giving it more than a 0 percent.
(I must add that I have some sympathy for Meghan as a person. She wanted (wants?) to be a famous actress, but appears to have little acting talent, and her looks do not fit any of the "types" that Hollywood currently gives big parts to. Perhaps that will change as the number of mixed-race people here grows.)
I think part of Harry's attraction to Meghan (and vice versa) is their estrangement from their divorced fathers.
My view of the psychodynamics of it all: Harry seems to be trying to rescue his mother in his rescue of Meghan. Indeed he is quite open about his fears for her safety from the press, and from mental instability. He is trying to be the husband that his father never was.
That is a great post. I too think it’s all about his mum. And the shocking way she was taken from him at a young age. In his search for blame, it magnifies everyone and everything who may have put her there that night, and every wrong done to her in life and death magnified too.
William, Harry and Charles and Diana all had horrible lives really. And for the reason look no further than approach of the press to this story, and their thinking attacks on Harry is some sort of defence of the monarchy. Who do the Newspaer editors think owns the Monarchy? I’m sure they would answer that they do - it makes me think of them like Skullion installed as Master and presiding over the traditional customs, such as glassing a caged swan to death at the end of the banquet, because that’s the traditional custom and nothing should attempt to stop it. And its that mindset that ensures the Royal Family have had horrible lives.
Am reminded (for some reason?) of Jimmy Carter's famous "lust in my heart" comment during the 1976 presidential election campaign.
Actually, what Carter said for publication in Playboy magazine was that he'd "looked on a lot of women with lust" and "committed adultery in my heart many times".
Context was that "Jimmy Who?" the Georgia peanut farmer turned Governor then nominated for President in the wake (or was it woke?) of Watergate, was trying to shed some of his goody-goody Sunday school teacher image. To make him somewhat less rice and rare to the majority of American voters North and West of the Grits Line.
HOWEVER think that Carter's comments - or revelations - also echo his evangelical Baptist belief, that we are ALL sinners, in heart and deed, saved from the consequences of our sins only by the grace of God. AND if God can forgive us, then we should try to forgive each other, and ourselves.
This thread is very weird. Jim M seems to be drunk, Beinndarg randomly insults the unknown wife of a pseudonomynous poster, and everyone hypothesises about the detailed lives of a family that none of us know.
Maybe tomorrow we can get back to politics?
To be honest, I think it shows how little underlying interest there is in politics at the moment. We are in a bit of a waiting game -18 months to the next GE, 22 to the next US Presidential elections, few elections in Europe this year, Ukraine in stalemate etc.
We are barely more than a year from the start of the US Primaries. And we are just six months away from the first Republican Presidential debates.
Am reminded (for some reason?) of Jimmy Carter's famous "lust in my heart" comment during the 1976 presidential election campaign.
Actually, what Carter said for publication in Playboy magazine was that he'd "looked on a lot of women with lust" and "committed adultery in my heart many times".
Context was that "Jimmy Who?" the Georgia peanut farmer turned Governor then nominated for President in the wake (or was it woke?) of Watergate, was trying to shed some of his goody-goody Sunday school teacher image. To make him somewhat less rice and rare to the majority of American voters North and West of the Grits Line.
HOWEVER think that Carter's comments - or revelations - also echo his evangelical Baptist belief, that we are ALL sinners, in heart and deed, saved from the consequences of our sins only by the grace of God. AND if God can forgive us, then we should try to forgive each other, and ourselves.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see. Beams and motes .....
Speak for yourself. I am not perfect but I have certainly never done anything as bad as cheat on a partner I was committed to. Let alone my wife. Perhaps the reason for the high divorce rate and paternity fraud is how much modern society excuses immorality.
Good for you.
(I cast no aspersions on you. Let me be clear on that)
The lawyer in me merely notes inclusion of the phrase "a partner I was committed to." In a hypothetical cross-examination in a drama series, the next question to the witness by a Kavanagh KC in the eponymous drama would be: "Have you ever cheated on a partner you were not committed to?"
No, I have never cheated on any partner. Only immoral people do that.
This thread is very weird. Jim M seems to be drunk, Beinndarg randomly insults the unknown wife of a pseudonomynous poster, and everyone hypothesises about the detailed lives of a family that none of us know.
Maybe tomorrow we can get back to politics?
To be honest, I think it shows how little underlying interest there is in politics at the moment. We are in a bit of a waiting game -18 months to the next GE, 22 to the next US Presidential elections, few elections in Europe this year, Ukraine in stalemate etc.
We are barely more than a year from the start of the US Primaries. And we are just six months away from the first Republican Presidential debates.
Bet against Trump.
Ladbrokes will still give you 3/1 on Biden. If you believe he will almost certainly run, that's a great bet IMHO.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see. Beams and motes .....
Speak for yourself. I am not perfect but I have certainly never done anything as bad as cheat on a partner I was committed to. Let alone my wife. Perhaps the reason for the high divorce rate and paternity fraud is how much modern society excuses immorality.
Good for you.
(I cast no aspersions on you. Let me be clear on that)
The lawyer in me merely notes inclusion of the phrase "a partner I was committed to." In a hypothetical cross-examination in a drama series, the next question to the witness by a Kavanagh KC in the eponymous drama would be: "Have you ever cheated on a partner you were not committed to?"
No, I have never cheated on any partner. Only immoral people do that.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see.
Beams and motes .....
Good point if it were in any way relevant. It is not. There is no doubt, and it is not even denied on behalf of Charles, that he got engaged to Diana with the intention of carrying on with Camilla during the engagement and marriage. If he had broken off with Camilla, done his best but then gone back to her, I would have not a word to say about it. But brown nosing him and her for what they actually did takes sycophancy to a whole new level. Well done.
I have not brown-nosed anyone. I am, FWIW, probably mildly Republican by inclination, though changing the Head of State is not even in my top 200 list of important things to do in Britain. I don't know the truth about Charles's marriage and neither I would suggest do you. No-one outside a marriage itself (not even the children) can really have a true idea of what really goes on in a marriage. Some humility in expressing a view would be wise - rather than your confident assertion that Charles is as evil as a mass murderer, which is hyperbolic nonsense.
OK. You would be OK with a 34 year old deceiving a naive 20 whatever year old into marriage for purely pragmatic reasons, and making vows they never intend to keep, and you can't see any distinction between that and the very common case of marrying now, drifting into adultery later?
I can't see what is going on here. Are you really incapable of seeing the distinction or is this a stab at appearing sophisticated? If you are OK with this, is any form of emotional deceit off limits? Example?
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see.
Beams and motes .....
Good point if it were in any way relevant. It is not. There is no doubt, and it is not even denied on behalf of Charles, that he got engaged to Diana with the intention of carrying on with Camilla during the engagement and marriage. If he had broken off with Camilla, done his best but then gone back to her, I would have not a word to say about it. But brown nosing him and her for what they actually did takes sycophancy to a whole new level. Well done.
I have not brown-nosed anyone. I am, FWIW, probably mildly Republican by inclination, though changing the Head of State is not even in my top 200 list of important things to do in Britain. I don't know the truth about Charles's marriage and neither I would suggest do you. No-one outside a marriage itself (not even the children) can really have a true idea of what really goes on in a marriage. Some humility in expressing a view would be wise - rather than your confident assertion that Charles is as evil as a mass murderer, which is hyperbolic nonsense.
OK. You would be OK with a 34 year old deceiving a naive 20 whatever year old into marriage for purely pragmatic reasons, and making vows they never intend to keep, and you can't see any distinction between that and the very common case of marrying now, drifting into adultery later?
I can't see what is going on here. Are you really incapable of seeing the distinction or is this a stab at appearing sophisticated? If you are OK with this, is any form of emotional deceit off limits? Example?
Charles married someone he did not love.
That is unforgiveable.
Lots of people marry for reasons other than love.
Indeed, I know several happy marriages where one of the partners will cheerfully admit to only falling in love after tying the knot.
NickPalmer said: "This thread is very weird. Jim M seems to be drunk, . . ."
What's that Latin phrase? Famous enough so that even I know it? Ah, yes. "In vino veritas."
I am curious about your thinking. I made two simple points, that whoever introduced Harry to Meghan did not do the UK a favor, and that the Charles-Camilla-Diana problem could have been avoided had the UK kept older customs. Both of these are about politics, in my humble opinion.
And, as I thought was obvious, in both points I was partly joking.
If you disagree with either or both, tell us why.
(For the record: For years, on most days I have limited myself to a single drink with my evening meal, and, as I get older I am more inclined to skip the drink, than have two drinks. Tonight, for example, I poured myself a small glass of an inexpensive Australian chardonnay to go with my orange mandarin chicken. I finished the meal some minutes ago and am about half way through the wine.)
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see.
Beams and motes .....
Good point if it were in any way relevant. It is not. There is no doubt, and it is not even denied on behalf of Charles, that he got engaged to Diana with the intention of carrying on with Camilla during the engagement and marriage. If he had broken off with Camilla, done his best but then gone back to her, I would have not a word to say about it. But brown nosing him and her for what they actually did takes sycophancy to a whole new level. Well done.
I have not brown-nosed anyone. I am, FWIW, probably mildly Republican by inclination, though changing the Head of State is not even in my top 200 list of important things to do in Britain. I don't know the truth about Charles's marriage and neither I would suggest do you. No-one outside a marriage itself (not even the children) can really have a true idea of what really goes on in a marriage. Some humility in expressing a view would be wise - rather than your confident assertion that Charles is as evil as a mass murderer, which is hyperbolic nonsense.
OK. You would be OK with a 34 year old deceiving a naive 20 whatever year old into marriage for purely pragmatic reasons, and making vows they never intend to keep, and you can't see any distinction between that and the very common case of marrying now, drifting into adultery later?
I can't see what is going on here. Are you really incapable of seeing the distinction or is this a stab at appearing sophisticated? If you are OK with this, is any form of emotional deceit off limits? Example?
Charles married someone he did not love.
That is unforgiveable.
Lots of people marry for reasons other than love.
Indeed, I know several happy marriages where one of the partners will cheerfully admit to only falling in love after tying the knot.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see.
Beams and motes .....
Good point if it were in any way relevant. It is not. There is no doubt, and it is not even denied on behalf of Charles, that he got engaged to Diana with the intention of carrying on with Camilla during the engagement and marriage. If he had broken off with Camilla, done his best but then gone back to her, I would have not a word to say about it. But brown nosing him and her for what they actually did takes sycophancy to a whole new level. Well done.
I have not brown-nosed anyone. I am, FWIW, probably mildly Republican by inclination, though changing the Head of State is not even in my top 200 list of important things to do in Britain. I don't know the truth about Charles's marriage and neither I would suggest do you. No-one outside a marriage itself (not even the children) can really have a true idea of what really goes on in a marriage. Some humility in expressing a view would be wise - rather than your confident assertion that Charles is as evil as a mass murderer, which is hyperbolic nonsense.
OK. You would be OK with a 34 year old deceiving a naive 20 whatever year old into marriage for purely pragmatic reasons, and making vows they never intend to keep, and you can't see any distinction between that and the very common case of marrying now, drifting into adultery later?
I can't see what is going on here. Are you really incapable of seeing the distinction or is this a stab at appearing sophisticated? If you are OK with this, is any form of emotional deceit off limits? Example?
Charles married someone he did not love.
That is unforgiveable.
Lots of people marry for reasons other than love.
Indeed, I know several happy marriages where one of the partners will cheerfully admit to only falling in love after tying the knot.
If you are both upfront about that beforehand and both people go in with their eyes wide open. That is clearly not what happened with Charles and Diana.
NickPalmer said: "This thread is very weird. Jim M seems to be drunk, . . ."
What's that Latin phrase? Famous enough so that even I know it? Ah, yes. "In vino veritas."
I am curious about your thinking. I made two simple points, that whoever introduced Harry to Meghan did not do the UK a favor, and that the Charles-Camilla-Diana problem could have been avoided had the UK kept older customs. Both of these are about politics, in my humble opinion.
And, as I thought was obvious, in both points I was partly joking.
If you disagree with either or both, tell us why.
(For the record: For years, on most days I have limited myself to a single drink with my evening meal, and, as I get older I am more inclined to skip the drink, than have two drinks. Tonight, for example, I poured myself a small glass of an inexpensive Australian chardonnay to go with my orange mandarin chicken. I finished the meal some minutes ago and am about half way through the wine.)
I'm in an Indian restaurant in Phoenix, and currently have a small beer.
Depending on the quality of the food, a second beer may be ordered.
Harry and Meghan are less popular even than the current government. The public see them as whining shits.
I remember when the adulteress and husband stealer Camilla Parker Bowles was as popular Myra Hindley.
I remember when Harry and Meghan were hugely popular. But, the more they revealed themselves, the less that people liked them.
But you learn about Charles's and Camilla's behaviour before and during his marriage and you think yeah cool? Truly remarkable.
I don't care. Diana was not the poor innocent little girl she tried to make herself out to be. She came from a very wealthy family of landed gentry who knew exactly how the rules worked. She got what she wanted - at least initially - which was to be the most recognisable woman in the world and she played it for all she was worth.
Personally I think they all behaved pretty poorly but to claim this was some sort of great evil is to condemn vast numbers of people in this country to that same judgement. Adultery is sordid and not something I would applaud but the idea that Charles and Camilla were uniquely evil is just bullshit.
While we are on the subject of evil I would suggest that your views on care workers - that they have no value, should be paid minimum wage and taxed to the hilt are far more 'evil' than anything you could accuse the King of.
If adultery during a marriage is evil then a very large proportion of the population of this country are evil, given the divorce rate and the percentage of children who are not fathered by those they believe to be their biological father.
The level of hyperbole over other people's failed marriages and parenting is ridiculous, when we don't know the full story and when, frankly, our own lives would likely not withstand this sort of scrutiny by strangers, most of them seeing what they want to see.
Beams and motes .....
Good point if it were in any way relevant. It is not. There is no doubt, and it is not even denied on behalf of Charles, that he got engaged to Diana with the intention of carrying on with Camilla during the engagement and marriage. If he had broken off with Camilla, done his best but then gone back to her, I would have not a word to say about it. But brown nosing him and her for what they actually did takes sycophancy to a whole new level. Well done.
I have not brown-nosed anyone. I am, FWIW, probably mildly Republican by inclination, though changing the Head of State is not even in my top 200 list of important things to do in Britain. I don't know the truth about Charles's marriage and neither I would suggest do you. No-one outside a marriage itself (not even the children) can really have a true idea of what really goes on in a marriage. Some humility in expressing a view would be wise - rather than your confident assertion that Charles is as evil as a mass murderer, which is hyperbolic nonsense.
OK. You would be OK with a 34 year old deceiving a naive 20 whatever year old into marriage for purely pragmatic reasons, and making vows they never intend to keep, and you can't see any distinction between that and the very common case of marrying now, drifting into adultery later?
I can't see what is going on here. Are you really incapable of seeing the distinction or is this a stab at appearing sophisticated? If you are OK with this, is any form of emotional deceit off limits? Example?
Charles married someone he did not love.
That is unforgiveable.
Lots of people marry for reasons other than love.
Indeed, I know several happy marriages where one of the partners will cheerfully admit to only falling in love after tying the knot.
If you are both upfront about that beforehand and both people go in with their eyes wide open. That is clearly not what happened with Charles and Diana.
"And now comes another blow to our self-esteem, that mental characteristic that is the most fundamental of all modern human rights. My fellow scribbler in this august journal, Mr. Charles Norman, alerted me recently to a site that, through artificial intelligence, will produce a coherent and even cogent short essay on almost any subject. He illustrated the site’s powers by requesting of it a Marxist-Leninist critique of Winnie-the-Pooh, citing the work of the late Marxist historian and ferocious snob Eric Hobsbawm. The resulting paragraphs, generated in a matter of seconds, were better written than many a contemporary PhD student could manage, and in fact approximated what I myself would have written if I had been asked to produce something on the same subject.
I then tried a Marxist analysis of Lewis Carroll’s “The Walrus and the Carpenter.” With true Marxist lack of humor, the answer came back almost instantaneously that, among other things, the oysters in the poem suffered from false consciousness, insofar as they were duped by the Walrus and the Carpenter to go for a walk with them in the belief that their exploiters meant well by them."
I'm disappointed the fabric controversy has petered out. Come on HYUFD don't let ydoethur and Big G off the hook so lightly.
Now where did I put that spoon.
I didn't, as I posted earlier 'The only cases of a Medieval church becoming a Victorian church would be if the original Medieval church completely burnt down or was demolished and a new one was built in its place by the Victorians, like my parents' church https://speldhurstchurch.org/about/building/history/'
That's funny because I thought you were arguing about the definition of fabric before you put the goalposts on wheels.
I was arguing we still have Medieval Churches unlike Ydeothur who argued because of fabric changes they are apparently all Victorian
No. I said that on the definition you insisted on, I.e. mainly original fabric, there were no medieval churches.
You then demonstrated you don’t know what fabric means in this context, and have no understanding of church buildings or their history.
Classic Tory disease - think they know better than experts and end up talking utter nonsense while blaming everyone else for their cockups.
Are you sure you’re not Michael Gove or Nick Gibb?
I'm disappointed the fabric controversy has petered out. Come on HYUFD don't let ydoethur and Big G off the hook so lightly.
Now where did I put that spoon.
I didn't, as I posted earlier 'The only cases of a Medieval church becoming a Victorian church would be if the original Medieval church completely burnt down or was demolished and a new one was built in its place by the Victorians, like my parents' church https://speldhurstchurch.org/about/building/history/'
That's funny because I thought you were arguing about the definition of fabric before you put the goalposts on wheels.
I was arguing we still have Medieval Churches unlike Ydeothur who argued because of fabric changes they are apparently all Victorian
No. I said that on the definition you insisted on, I.e. mainly original fabric, there were no medieval churches.
You then demonstrated you don’t know what fabric means in this context, and have no understanding of church buildings or their history.
Classic Tory disease - think they know better than experts and end up talking utter nonsense while blaming everyone else for their cockups.
Are you sure you’re not Michael Gove or Nick Gibb?
For the purposes of this argument Medieval Church walls and exterior are still primarily Medieval. Whatever definition of fabric you use they are not mainly Victorian unless completely burnt down or demolished and rebuilt by the Victorians
I'm disappointed the fabric controversy has petered out. Come on HYUFD don't let ydoethur and Big G off the hook so lightly.
Now where did I put that spoon.
I didn't, as I posted earlier 'The only cases of a Medieval church becoming a Victorian church would be if the original Medieval church completely burnt down or was demolished and a new one was built in its place by the Victorians, like my parents' church https://speldhurstchurch.org/about/building/history/'
That's funny because I thought you were arguing about the definition of fabric before you put the goalposts on wheels.
I was arguing we still have Medieval Churches unlike Ydeothur who argued because of fabric changes they are apparently all Victorian
No. I said that on the definition you insisted on, I.e. mainly original fabric, there were no medieval churches.
You then demonstrated you don’t know what fabric means in this context, and have no understanding of church buildings or their history.
Classic Tory disease - think they know better than experts and end up talking utter nonsense while blaming everyone else for their cockups.
Are you sure you’re not Michael Gove or Nick Gibb?
For the purposes of this argument Medieval Church walls and exterior are still primarily Medieval. Whatever definition of fabric you use they are not mainly Victorian unless completely burnt down or demolished and rebuilt by the Victorians
I was using your definition of medieval. Which is not the one you’ve just restated.
Comments
My view of the psychodynamics of it all: Harry seems to be trying to rescue his mother in his rescue of Meghan. Indeed he is quite open about his fears for her safety from the press, and from mental instability. He is trying to be the husband that his father never was.
Here’s the peroration.
https://fallows.substack.com/p/ok-there-was-something-positive-in
… House Democrats will always put
—American values over autocracy…
—benevolence over bigotry,
—the Constitution over the cult,
—democracy over demagogues,
—economic opportunity over extremism,
—freedom over fascism,
—governing over gaslighting,
—hopefulness over hatred,
—inclusion over isolation,
—justice over judicial overreach,
—knowledge over kangaroo courts,
—liberty over limitation,
—maturity over Mar a Lago [big laughs from the Dem side],
—normalcy over negativity,
—opportunity over obstruction,
—people over politics,
—quality of life issues over QAnon,
—reason over racism,
—substance over slander,
—triumph over tyranny,
—understanding over ugliness,
—voting rights over voter suppression,
—working families over the well-connected,
—xenial over xenophobia [meaning “hospitality”—a word I was not familiar with],
-‘yes we can’ over ‘you can't do it,’ and
—zealous representation versus zero-sum confrontation.…
County Orders Evacuations for Montecito, Toro Canyon, Sycamore Canyon, Local Campgrounds During Flash Flood Warning
https://www.noozhawk.com/santa-barbara-county-shelter-place-montecito-storm-communities-flash-flood-warning/
… Montecito has received more than 8 inches of rain in the last 12 hours and another 8 inches is predicted to fall in the Monday-Tuesday storm, Montecito Fire Chief Kevin Taylor said. The watershed is acting unpredictably, according to firefighters on the ground there, he added…
Well, she certainly got her own back on her husband. He may well have deserved it. He should never have married her if he didn't love her - and marrying someone from a broken home such as hers, who was far too young and had no emotional stability or family to sustain her was catastrophically stupid. Those women who make a success when marrying into the royals are those who have that strength of character and a solid family behind them: the Queen Mum, Kate, Sophie.
Diana was no saint. She too committed adultery - and with more than one lover - and her role in the break up of Will Carling's marriage was not "uplifting", as you put it. Nor was her behaviour with Oliver Hoare which reputedly led to his wife threatening to call the police if she did not stop pestering him.
Whether it was "smart" of her to use the press to get her own back and then complain when the monster she had fed continued to pursue her, who can say. She was apparently offered the option of keeping Royal Protection officers after her divorce but chose not to. Was that "smart"?
I rather feel at times that we are being cruel to the people involved by insisting on a royal family, whatever its other virtues may be, simply because of the ludicrous expectations some have of its members. It wasn't just the press doing the emotional bullying of the young princes when their mother died but the public. The royals are neither saints nor evil sinners but flawed humans, like the rest of us, even the late HMQ.
They'd be better off keeping their mouths shut and trying to work out their family dramas in private like the rest of us. All this incontinent soul-baring, whether from Charles or Harry or any of them is so ... well ..... tedious. Vulgar and childish, too.
Did you fuck someone else the night before you married Mrs F?
https://amp.lbc.co.uk/world-news/france-hospital-evacuated-man-has-ww1-shell-up-anus/
Maybe tomorrow we can get back to politics?
Seems a fair trade.
He reported loaning his campaign more than $700,000 in the 2021-22 cycle despite having only $55,000 in earned income
Plus
The complaint also accuses Santos of misrepresenting his campaign’s spending. It notes that his campaign reported “an astounding 40 disbursements between $199 and $200, including 37 disbursements of exactly $199.99,” thereby eluding requirements to keep a receipt, invoice or canceled check for all spending above $200.
Santos is incredibly fortunate that the Republican majority is so narrow.
They might as well say ooooh, Fernando Haddad - isn't he just like Kwasi "mini-budget" Kwarteng? In fact that would be a less stupid thing to write, even if it doesn't say much about what's happening in Brazil.
Or Jair Bolsonaro - just like the Shah of Iran, isn't he? Or is it Idi Amin? Or Fulgencio Batista,maybe? After all, Ukraine is just like Cuba, or twice as bad, or something, so why can't Brazil be? People get paid for writing this infantile E grade at A Level sh*t?
(I cast no aspersions on you. Let me be clear on that)
The lawyer in me merely notes inclusion of the phrase "a partner I was committed to." In a hypothetical cross-examination in a drama series, the next question to the witness by a Kavanagh KC in the eponymous drama would be: "Have you ever cheated on a partner you were not committed to?"
PB may think it never changes minds, but it has flipped me to republican tonight.
So, in fact, it is impossible to cheat on a partner to which you are committed.
Ukraine. The Ukrainians are looking close to a notable defeat on the Bakhmut front with rumours that they are pulling out of the nearby town of Soledar on that front and the Russians are throwing more forces in to close the deal. This potentially exposes the northern side oif Bakhmut further to a Russian encircling movement.
Despite the popular opinion in the media that the Russian assault in this area has no strategic sense to it, it does because of the concept of a contigous area of control in the Donbas for Russia and locally because Bakhmut straddles major junctions. but only if a) they can exploit it and b) was the cost worth the gain. The curiois thing about the Ukrainian defensive approach has the been the sparing use of their artillery on front line targets. Their kit is very accurate and given a lot of this front is pretty much derelict, its possible power to inflict damage on Russian formations seem clear, but they havent used their best kit.
The fight on the battlefield has no clear winner at the moment but with the ground now starting to freeze, someone could strike out.
Given the rest of the NYD 2022 election "strategy" for example going out of there way to lose not just to Santos, but to piss away three other Democratic seats (partly due to exploded congressional gerrymander than never was) am about 99.46% certain the answer = Plan A.
In a courtroom, the question will be asked because the KC knows that the witness is a lying hypocrite and has laid a trap into which the witness walks.
I can't see what is going on here. Are you really incapable of seeing the distinction or is this a stab at appearing sophisticated? If you are OK with this, is any form of emotional deceit off limits? Example?
William, Harry and Charles and Diana all had horrible lives really. And for the reason look no further than approach of the press to this story, and their thinking attacks on Harry is some sort of defence of the monarchy. Who do the Newspaer editors think owns the Monarchy? I’m sure they would answer that they do - it makes me think of them like Skullion installed as Master and presiding over the traditional customs, such as glassing a caged swan to death at the end of the banquet, because that’s the traditional custom and nothing should attempt to stop it. And its that mindset that ensures the Royal Family have had horrible lives.
Am reminded (for some reason?) of Jimmy Carter's famous "lust in my heart" comment during the 1976 presidential election campaign.
Actually, what Carter said for publication in Playboy magazine was that he'd "looked on a lot of women with lust" and "committed adultery in my heart many times".
Context was that "Jimmy Who?" the Georgia peanut farmer turned Governor then nominated for President in the wake (or was it woke?) of Watergate, was trying to shed some of his goody-goody Sunday school teacher image. To make him somewhat less rice and rare to the majority of American voters North and West of the Grits Line.
HOWEVER think that Carter's comments - or revelations - also echo his evangelical Baptist belief, that we are ALL sinners, in heart and deed, saved from the consequences of our sins only by the grace of God. AND if God can forgive us, then we should try to forgive each other, and ourselves.
Easy to say, hard to do!
See also John 8.7.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veD7Emts1Po
SSI - So what have YOU accomplished today?
That is unforgiveable.
Indeed, I know several happy marriages where one of the partners will cheerfully admit to only falling in love after tying the knot.
What's that Latin phrase? Famous enough so that even I know it? Ah, yes. "In vino veritas."
I am curious about your thinking. I made two simple points, that whoever introduced Harry to Meghan did not do the UK a favor, and that the Charles-Camilla-Diana problem could have been avoided had the UK kept older customs. Both of these are about politics, in my humble opinion.
And, as I thought was obvious, in both points I was partly joking.
If you disagree with either or both, tell us why.
(For the record: For years, on most days I have limited myself to a single drink with my evening meal, and, as I get older I am more inclined to skip the drink, than have two drinks. Tonight, for example, I poured myself a small glass of an inexpensive Australian chardonnay to go with my orange mandarin chicken. I finished the meal some minutes ago and am about half way through the wine.)
I agree with @beinndearg
Charles' behaviour was sh1tty. If he was my father, I would struggle to forgive him.
Depending on the quality of the food, a second beer may be ordered.
"And now comes another blow to our self-esteem, that mental characteristic that is the most fundamental of all modern human rights. My fellow scribbler in this august journal, Mr. Charles Norman, alerted me recently to a site that, through artificial intelligence, will produce a coherent and even cogent short essay on almost any subject. He illustrated the site’s powers by requesting of it a Marxist-Leninist critique of Winnie-the-Pooh, citing the work of the late Marxist historian and ferocious snob Eric Hobsbawm. The resulting paragraphs, generated in a matter of seconds, were better written than many a contemporary PhD student could manage, and in fact approximated what I myself would have written if I had been asked to produce something on the same subject.
I then tried a Marxist analysis of Lewis Carroll’s “The Walrus and the Carpenter.” With true Marxist lack of humor, the answer came back almost instantaneously that, among other things, the oysters in the poem suffered from false consciousness, insofar as they were duped by the Walrus and the Carpenter to go for a walk with them in the belief that their exploiters meant well by them."
https://www.takimag.com/article/artificial-art/
You then demonstrated you don’t know what fabric means in this context, and have no understanding of church buildings or their history.
Classic Tory disease - think they know better than experts and end up talking utter nonsense while blaming everyone else for their cockups.
Are you sure you’re not Michael Gove or Nick Gibb?
Is this an admission you were wrong?