Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

As schools in England re-open CON members give EdSec Williamson a MINUS 44% rating – politicalbettin

124678

Comments

  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited March 2021

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.

    Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.

    If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
    I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
    I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.

    Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
    A friend was once deputed to escort the queen mum up some stairs. She gets out of the car (she's tiny, he's well over 6 feet) and she looks up at him. "Young man, are you drunk?" Shocked, stammers, "No, Ma'am". "Well I am, so you'd better help me up these stairs". Ice well and truly broken.....
    My father's colleagues had some good Queen Mother ancedotes. Supposedly there was literally a gin trolley on hand for many years to follow her around the various rooms.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited March 2021
    Most callers on Jeremy Vine this morning outraged at the Sussexes attacks on the royal family
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Really stupid to get involved in any way.
    Indeed.

    If a professional investigator was asked to investigate such an allegation, the first thing they would do is ask the complainant for the name of the person who said the alleged remark, when, who else was present, whether it was repeated, what was said in reply, the context, whether there was anything written down afterwards, who else was told about it etc.

    I note that a professional interviewer (Oprah) was unable to ask even these most basic questions, which doesn't say much for her interviewing skills, frankly.

    In the absence of such details, it is virtually impossible to investigate such a vague allegation.

    Making such a claim without being willing to back it up with details is nasty because it is impossible for anyone to defend themselves against it or for there to be any form of closure.
    Oprah must have done thousands of interviews, but is she a professional interviewer in the sense of seeking to extract info like that? She's an entertainment superstar not an interrogator.
    Oh come off it! You are given what looks like gold dust and you don't ask the obvious follow up question: who told you that?

    No. This isn't interrogation. It is basic curiosity. And the lack of follow up is deliberate. It is wounding without striking. It is, frankly, despicable.

    If someone had said something like that to me I'd have had it out with them right away and demanded an apology. Not brought it up two years later in a public forum in such a vague but harmful way.
    My point wasnt she doesnt know how to do such a follow up or was incurious, but that it was not in her interest to be bothered. She got the product she wanted regardless.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

    On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

    I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

    I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

    They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).

    It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
    Just a minor private backyard wedding with the Archbishop of Canterbury, then effectively a service of Thanksgiving at Windsor Castle with the Archbishop too

    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1368753624688566272?s=20
    “Just the three of us” would not constitute a legal wedding: there have to be at leadt two witnesses don’t there?

    And surely this will be easily verified or not by some not particularly enterprising member of the press ordering their marriage certificate from the GRO?
    It's an odd claim to make. If it turns out to be untrue, then it risks undermining the veracity of the other claims they make.

    If true then it is very odd because for a marriage to be legal there need to be two witnesses and it is curious that the AoC and the whole Royal Family would go along with a sham.

    I am curious about it from a professional perspective. Often in investigations people make a claim which can easily be checked and turns out to be untrue. They do it to bolster their case but of course it does the opposite. If people lie about X, why wouldn't they also lie about Y and Z etc.

    So I'll be interested to see what, if anything, we learn about this.
    I'd assume it merely not to be a literal statement. Sadly for investigators people are casual in language.
    Trouble is it was stated as a very clear statement. If it is corrected or shown to be untrue then it risks undermining other equally clear statements made. This was not a casual conversation but a carefully planned interview.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    HYUFD said:

    Most callers on Jeremy Vine this morning outraged at the Sussexes attacks on the royal family

    Self selecting group of people....
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226
    MaxPB said:

    The interview has generated a lot of breathless coverage but is a damp squib in my opinion.

    The central accusation, that someone speculated crassly on a future child’s skin colour, is incredibly dull.

    That's the only allegation that I find substantive tbh, but that's probably because I'm in a mixed race marriage myself so maybe I'm more alert to that kind of casual racism. Though I'd probably give it a pass if it was Philip and understand if the Queen's reactions was "it's Philip, deal with it".
    The royal “expert” on GMB this morning said categorically his sources told him it was not the Queen or Prince Philip and that left two people and their wives.
  • Dura_Ace said:



    It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.

    You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
    No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
    She's a political animal.

    You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
    Like this?

    image
    Well she didn't say it publicly as she did in 2014.

    But the point still stands, had the Queen backed Remain in that way the likes of Casino Royale would have become republicans overnight.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080
    This whole made-for-Emoto-TV interview is seeming to be a little ... Sturgeonesque.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    kinabalu said:

    Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.

    Until CoE and the Archbishop confirm that's what happened I can't believe it. It sounds too far fetched.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Most callers on Jeremy Vine this morning outraged at the Sussexes attacks on the royal family

    Self selecting group of people....
    Not really, Meghan has a -26% rating to +71% for the Queen
    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/entertainment/articles-reports/2020/10/28/royal-popularity-harry-and-meghan-drop
  • gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Charles said:

    The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

    That’s a very unpleasant smear

    Shame on you
    Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

    This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

    If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
    Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

    Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

    Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

    I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
    BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

    Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
    You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


    You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
    Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
    If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
    Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
    Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.

    Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
    Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
    Not even Victorian.

    The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.

    William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
    The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
    But its not the same party and doesn't have the same principles.

    The predecessor party died for a reason.
    To be honest with you, I am taken aback by the number of people on here who claim to be Tory but are so outspoken anti monarchy.
    You shouldn't be.

    The modern day Tory party is all about taking back control from our unelected rulers.

    The Queen is primus inter pares of unelected rulers.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    Dura_Ace said:



    It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.

    You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
    No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
    She's a political animal.

    You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
    Like this?

    image
    Well she didn't say it publicly as she did in 2014.

    But the point still stands, had the Queen backed Remain in that way the likes of Casino Royale would have become republicans overnight.
    The Queen signed the Benn Act to delay Brexit
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    HYUFD said:

    Most callers on Jeremy Vine this morning outraged at the Sussexes attacks on the royal family

    They've gotten some positive attention for it and probably are well set up in America to get sympathy (among those that care) and attention should the palace retaliate. Blowback in the red wall probably wont upset them.

    I'm sure they'll be firm friends at Phillips funeral.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Charles said:

    The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

    That’s a very unpleasant smear

    Shame on you
    Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

    This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

    If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
    Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

    Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

    Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

    I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
    BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

    Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
    You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


    You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
    Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
    If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
    Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
    Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.

    Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
    Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
    Not even Victorian.

    The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.

    William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
    The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
    These online lessons aren't all they are cracked up to be.

    I think I'll drop this politics for beginners course and go learn a language instead.
    I think I might do a thread on the original Tory party's support for Jacobism.
    You could segway from that neatly into how a certain PB'er used regularly to tout JRM as next PM...?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766

    Dura_Ace said:



    It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.

    You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
    No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
    She's a political animal.

    You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
    Like this?

    image
    Reported in the Sun, so it must be true! Good to see where you get your opinions from Philip! Not hugely surprised, though I thought you were normally influenced by The Daily Express! 😂😂😂
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Charles said:

    The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

    That’s a very unpleasant smear

    Shame on you
    Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

    This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

    If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
    Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

    Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

    Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

    I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
    BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

    Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
    You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


    You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
    Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
    If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
    Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
    Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.

    Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
    Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
    Not even Victorian.

    The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.

    William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
    The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
    I, like all others on here, am most likely a direct descendant of an ape. There may be some residual behavioural similarities on some days, but for the most part I'd like to think we have all evolved quite a bit since then! The Tory Party? Who knows?
    Oh I don't know, Johnson is still a bit of a toraig ( vagabond ).
    Is toraig relared to "toerag"?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,451

    Is there a filter I can install to block Harry and Meghan discussion

    Yes, you just need to go a silent monks retreat, for at least a week, maybe two.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    Has anyone pointed out that it`s International Women's Day?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited March 2021

    Dura_Ace said:



    It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.

    You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
    No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
    She's a political animal.

    You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
    Like this?

    image
    Well she didn't say it publicly as she did in 2014.

    But the point still stands, had the Queen backed Remain in that way the likes of Casino Royale would have become republicans overnight.
    Thats why I never worry about taking back power from the monarch - views would shift overnight as you say if they ever sought to push personal politics.

    It's an illusion of power only.
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Charles said:

    The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

    That’s a very unpleasant smear

    Shame on you
    Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

    This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

    If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
    Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

    Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

    Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

    I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
    BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

    Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
    You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


    You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
    Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
    If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
    Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
    Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.

    Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
    Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
    Not even Victorian.

    The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.

    William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
    The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
    These online lessons aren't all they are cracked up to be.

    I think I'll drop this politics for beginners course and go learn a language instead.
    I think I might do a thread on the original Tory party's support for Jacobism.
    You could segway from that neatly into how a certain PB'er used regularly to tout JRM as next PM...?
    Indeed, I will also include a reference to how the current iteration of the Tory party forced the King to abdicate less than a century ago.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    Do we know how much H&M received for the interview and if they have donated it to charity? If they have simply pocketed the cash, then that is a black mark against them.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    tlg86 said:

    Do we know how much H&M received for the interview and if they have donated it to charity? If they have simply pocketed the cash, then that is a black mark against them.

    They say nothing.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Dura_Ace said:



    It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.

    You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
    No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
    She's a political animal.

    You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
    Like this?

    image
    Reported in the Sun, so it must be true! Good to see where you get your opinions from Philip! Not hugely surprised, though I thought you were normally influenced by The Daily Express! 😂😂😂
    You clearly haven't read a single one of my posts ever if you think I'm a fan of the The Sun, or the monarchy, or the Daily Express. I shared that as a criticism not a compliment. 😂😂😂

    I'm from Merseyside and Hillsborough happened when I was a child. I know people who lost relatives that day. I have never read The Sun even once in my entire life and I never will.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,612
    GIN1138 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.

    Until CoE and the Archbishop confirm that's what happened I can't believe it. It sounds too far fetched.
    Sounds like the pre marriage blessing caused confusion for some....
  • tlg86 said:

    Do we know how much H&M received for the interview and if they have donated it to charity? If they have simply pocketed the cash, then that is a black mark against them.

    They received no fee according to the Wall Street Journal.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-interview-with-oprah-fetches-at-least-7-million-from-cbs-11614987461
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766
    Stocky said:

    Has anyone pointed out that it`s International Women's Day?

    Does that mean it is a day for Women that consider themselves international, or is it an internationally recognised day for all of those of that gender? Do the Saudis take part?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766
    DougSeal said:
    Is he the sole proprietor?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.

    Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.

    If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
    I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
    I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.

    Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
    A friend was once deputed to escort the queen mum up some stairs. She gets out of the car (she's tiny, he's well over 6 feet) and she looks up at him. "Young man, are you drunk?" Shocked, stammers, "No, Ma'am". "Well I am, so you'd better help me up these stairs". Ice well and truly broken.....
    At our event the plan was that the council leader would accompany HMQ and I would accompany PP and the whole thing was supposed to be choreographed to the minute so that we all met up at the plaque that the Queen was to unveil before being whisked away to her next destination. As an escort you're basically a spare part just so the royal doesn't have to go round looking lonely on their own, and holding PP back to time was quite difficult, particularly as he wasn't at all interested in the displays of 3D printing and suchlike laid on by students of the local technical college.

    Nevertheless by various ruses, including introducing him to people in the crowd that I didn't know, I was proud to arrive at the designated spot almost to the minute....only to find that the leader had failed to do the same with HMQ and she had already unveiled the plaque and was heading towards the car. "She's done it already and buggered off!", exclaims the Prince.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    Stocky said:

    Has anyone pointed out that it`s International Women's Day?

    Does that mean it is a day for Women that consider themselves international, or is it an internationally recognised day for all of those of that gender? Do the Saudis take part?
    It means we have to bow and scrape to non-UK women even when her initials are MM.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957
    edited March 2021
    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.

    You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
    No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
    She's a political animal.

    You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
    Like this?

    image
    Well she didn't say it publicly as she did in 2014.

    But the point still stands, had the Queen backed Remain in that way the likes of Casino Royale would have become republicans overnight.
    Thats why I never worry about taking back power from the monarch - views would shift overnight as you say if they ever sought to push personal politics.

    It's an illusion of power only.
    I expect when Charles becomes King he may refuse to grant Royal Assent to something he personally disapproves of.

    Or maybe delay it.

    I did read a piece back in 2019 which said Charles wouldn't have granted the prorogation in 2019.

    He would have pointed Boris Johnson hadn't won any votes in Parliament and there appeared to be no majority for him.

    That would have led to a different prorogation crisis.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited March 2021

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Charles said:

    The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

    That’s a very unpleasant smear

    Shame on you
    Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

    This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

    If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
    Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

    Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

    Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

    I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
    BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

    Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
    You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


    You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
    Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
    If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
    Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
    Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.

    Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
    Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
    Not even Victorian.

    The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.

    William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
    The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
    But its not the same party and doesn't have the same principles.

    The predecessor party died for a reason.
    In large part it is, 86% of Tory voters are monarchists for example, far more than support cutting tax for the rich or austerity now.

    The Tory Party remains more a monarchist party than a hardline capitalist party, it is merely non socialist
    There is a difference between being monarchists and landed gentry.

    The modern Tory party may have mostly monarchists in it, but it is not a party of, by or for the landed gentry as you claimed. It hasn't been since it was founded for a very good reason - far more than just the landed gentry vote.

    Its perfectly possible to be a republican and a Tory - like myself, TSE, the most popular Tory Secretary of State amongst Tory members and many more.
    Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.

    You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,722
    HYUFD said:
    So more people think it would make no difference or be better if the monarchy were abolished.

    Excellent poll for Republicans
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:
    So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?

    By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    edited March 2021

    Sean_F said:

    The Duchess of Sussex can take comfort that she is at least far more popular than Prince Andrew.

    https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all

    Who are the 6% of people who think Prince Andrew is doing sterling work?

    They walk among us.
    Republicans playing the longish game?

    Edit: pipped by TSE
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766

    Dura_Ace said:



    It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.

    You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
    No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
    She's a political animal.

    You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
    Like this?

    image
    Reported in the Sun, so it must be true! Good to see where you get your opinions from Philip! Not hugely surprised, though I thought you were normally influenced by The Daily Express! 😂😂😂
    You clearly haven't read a single one of my posts ever if you think I'm a fan of the The Sun, or the monarchy, or the Daily Express. I shared that as a criticism not a compliment. 😂😂😂

    I'm from Merseyside and Hillsborough happened when I was a child. I know people who lost relatives that day. I have never read The Sun even once in my entire life and I never will.
    Oh, go on, you must like the Express. It's right up your street. You can ignore the toadying to the Royals because it toadies to "Boris" so much. Actually, perhaps the Daily Mail is more your thing?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited March 2021

    GIN1138 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.

    Until CoE and the Archbishop confirm that's what happened I can't believe it. It sounds too far fetched.
    Sounds like the pre marriage blessing caused confusion for some....
    Well I know Harry's not the brightest but you'd think they would know the difference between a marriage service and a blessing lol?
  • HYUFD said:


    Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.

    You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.

    Oh behave.

    I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.

    If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.

    Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Posted before, but given it's "Gosh, women" day it's a fitting time to provide a link to a little bit of history about some intriguing Macedonians:
    http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.com/2015/10/macedonian-she-wolves.html

    Shame I couldn't really include Cratesipolis (sacker of cities/the city), who took over running her husband Alexander's army in Greece. Beyond that, I know little about her.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.

    Until CoE and the Archbishop confirm that's what happened I can't believe it. It sounds too far fetched.
    Sounds like the pre marriage blessing caused confusion for some....
    Well I know Harry's not the brightest but you'd think they would know the difference between a marriage service and a blessing lol?
    He’s certainly not a very good advert for Eton College.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Dura_Ace said:



    It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.

    You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
    No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
    She's a political animal.

    You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
    Like this?

    image
    Reported in the Sun, so it must be true! Good to see where you get your opinions from Philip! Not hugely surprised, though I thought you were normally influenced by The Daily Express! 😂😂😂
    You clearly haven't read a single one of my posts ever if you think I'm a fan of the The Sun, or the monarchy, or the Daily Express. I shared that as a criticism not a compliment. 😂😂😂

    I'm from Merseyside and Hillsborough happened when I was a child. I know people who lost relatives that day. I have never read The Sun even once in my entire life and I never will.
    Oh, go on, you must like the Express. It's right up your street. You can ignore the toadying to the Royals because it toadies to "Boris" so much. Actually, perhaps the Daily Mail is more your thing?
    Except you clearly know nothing about what I believe as you always misjudge me and don't understand my principles at all. I don't hide them.

    I've never had a nice word to say about the Fail either.

    Want to try a more sane guess as to what media I would prefer?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766

    GIN1138 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.

    Until CoE and the Archbishop confirm that's what happened I can't believe it. It sounds too far fetched.
    Sounds like the pre marriage blessing caused confusion for some....
    Perhaps they thought the rehearsal was the real thing?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,849
    edited March 2021
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Charles said:

    The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

    That’s a very unpleasant smear

    Shame on you
    Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

    This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

    If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
    Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

    Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

    Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

    I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
    BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

    Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
    You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


    You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
    Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
    If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
    Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
    Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.

    Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
    Liz Truss republicanism/HYUFD remainerism.

    You are either both Tories or neither of you are.
    Liz Truss is an ex LD on the liberal wing of the Conservative Party, as I said she is not a Tory
    Then, sadly, neither are you.
    I'm fairly sure that when we hear people talking about the 'bloody Tories', they make no such distinction...
    I avoid all this nonsense with a very clear and simple definition. If you voted Tory in the general election you are a Tory. The only escape from that status before the next election is a firm resolution (preferably out loud so I can hear) not to do it again.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.

    Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.

    If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
    I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
    I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.

    Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
    That's great. I imagine that gave both of them a good chuckle.
    I think unfortunately it is a often function of the age of the individual. I once remember my great embarrassment when my father (who would now be 94 were he still alive) was at an event in my village and asked a woman who was of Asian ethnicity "Where are you from?" "Cambridge" came the reply. We all knew what he meant, but he didn't intend to be offensive, he just thought he was making interested conversation.
    Also it's a handy conversation prop and there's no doubt that at that age he's simply fallen into a pattern. He's basically spent his life on a world tour, visiting places and meeting people, so picking out people who might have connections with other places and asking about them is a lot easier than the awkward "and what do you do..." questions he'd have to ask otherwise. And once the member of the public had got their anecdote about how PP met the crown prince on his visit to their country of ethnic origin back in 1975, there was nothing more to be said, PP could walk on to the next person.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766

    Dura_Ace said:



    It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.

    You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
    No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
    She's a political animal.

    You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
    Like this?

    image
    Reported in the Sun, so it must be true! Good to see where you get your opinions from Philip! Not hugely surprised, though I thought you were normally influenced by The Daily Express! 😂😂😂
    You clearly haven't read a single one of my posts ever if you think I'm a fan of the The Sun, or the monarchy, or the Daily Express. I shared that as a criticism not a compliment. 😂😂😂

    I'm from Merseyside and Hillsborough happened when I was a child. I know people who lost relatives that day. I have never read The Sun even once in my entire life and I never will.
    Oh, go on, you must like the Express. It's right up your street. You can ignore the toadying to the Royals because it toadies to "Boris" so much. Actually, perhaps the Daily Mail is more your thing?
    Except you clearly know nothing about what I believe as you always misjudge me and don't understand my principles at all. I don't hide them.

    I've never had a nice word to say about the Fail either.

    Want to try a more sane guess as to what media I would prefer?
    Confused.com?
  • The question is when do they celebrate their wedding anniversary.

    Experience tells me that if you forget anniversaries then your other half never lets you forget.

    I mean that's the reason I got married on Halloween, so I'd never forget it.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    kinabalu said:

    Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.

    Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.

    One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"

    One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.

    There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.

    I find this a bizarre idea, really.

    Maybe you are projecting.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,722

    DougSeal said:
    Is he the sole proprietor?
    They will sock it to the competition now
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    kinabalu said:

    Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.

    Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.

    One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"

    One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.

    I am saying this as someone who hasn't watched the interview, but was it definitely a 'hope' being expressed that it wasn't going to be a black baby? That sounds completely stupid apart from anything else - not much Meghan can do about it is there?

    What if the conversation was more someone who thought they'd developed a rapport with Meghan (eg. Kate) wondering with pleasure whether the child could have beautiful and unusual colouring - for example caramel skin tone but with blue eyes. It would still be insensitive, and ill-judged, but not intentionally hurtful. If the conversation was more like that, it would be a great pity for it to be weaponised this way.

    On the other hand, if it was Princess Michael of Kent, it could have been as portrayed; she thinks the entire Royal family are lumpen proles compared to her anyway.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    HYUFD said:

    Most callers on Jeremy Vine this morning outraged at the Sussexes attacks on the royal family

    Fascinating
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:


    Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.

    You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.

    Oh behave.

    I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.

    If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.

    Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.
    Being a Thatcherite free marketeer does not make you a Tory. Indeed in many respects Thatcher herself was closer to a Gladstonian Liberal than a Disraelian Tory, only Thatcher's support of the monarchy, despite occasional disagreements with the Queen, meant she was still able to be called a Tory.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Charles said:

    The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

    That’s a very unpleasant smear

    Shame on you
    Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

    This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

    If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
    Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

    Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

    Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

    I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
    BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

    Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
    You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


    You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
    Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
    If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
    Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
    Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.

    Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
    Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
    Not even Victorian.

    The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.

    William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
    The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
    But its not the same party and doesn't have the same principles.

    The predecessor party died for a reason.
    To be honest with you, I am taken aback by the number of people on here who claim to be Tory but are so outspoken anti monarchy.
    Why? They're anti-BBC, anti-expert and anti-civil service nowadays; they'd be anti-NHS if it weren't political suicide and if they're not anti-union, no one who is could have done a better job of putting it in peril. Being anti-monarchy is merely the logical next step.

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232

    HYUFD said:


    Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.

    You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.

    Oh behave.

    I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.

    If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.

    Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.

    You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
    No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
    She's a political animal.

    You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
    Like this?

    image
    Well she didn't say it publicly as she did in 2014.

    But the point still stands, had the Queen backed Remain in that way the likes of Casino Royale would have become republicans overnight.
    Thats why I never worry about taking back power from the monarch - views would shift overnight as you say if they ever sought to push personal politics.

    It's an illusion of power only.
    I expect when Charles becomes King he may refuse to grant Royal Assent to something he personally disapproves of.

    Or maybe delay it.

    I did read a piece back in 2019 which said Charles wouldn't have granted the prorogation in 2019.

    He would have pointed Boris Johnson hadn't won any votes in Parliament and there appeared to be no majority for him.

    That would have led to a different prorogation crisis.
    You can't blame the Royals for the Brexit prorogation crisis - fact is that the ghastly Leavers should never have embarrassed the monarchy and run roughshod over the constitution to begin with.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    .
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Charles said:

    The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

    That’s a very unpleasant smear

    Shame on you
    Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

    This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

    If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
    Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

    Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

    Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

    I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
    BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

    Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
    You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


    You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
    Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
    If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
    Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
    Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.

    Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
    Liz Truss republicanism/HYUFD remainerism.

    You are either both Tories or neither of you are.
    Liz Truss is an ex LD on the liberal wing of the Conservative Party, as I said she is not a Tory
    Then, sadly, neither are you.
    I'm fairly sure that when we hear people talking about the 'bloody Tories', they make no such distinction...
    I avoid all this nonsense with a very clear and simple definition. If you voted Tory in the general election you are a Tory. The only escape from that status before the next election is a firm resolution (preferably out loud so I can hear) not to do it again.
    That's asking for a slap from @HYUFD as a large number of those who voted Tory are manifestly not Tories.

    Please rethink and represent.
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,013
    HYUFD said:



    Never have I seen a more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence than from these 2 multi millionaires as seems to be the case with this disgraceful interview.

    Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

    I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!

    So in your book giving an interview to Oprah is a worse offence than supporting Hitler?

    And now you've made me comment on all this utter bollocks. I shall return to my quiet, dismissive republicanism.

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    DougSeal said:
    Is he the sole proprietor?
    No, but that's shoe business I guess.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Dura_Ace said:



    It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.

    You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
    No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
    She's a political animal.

    You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
    Like this?

    image
    Reported in the Sun, so it must be true! Good to see where you get your opinions from Philip! Not hugely surprised, though I thought you were normally influenced by The Daily Express! 😂😂😂
    You clearly haven't read a single one of my posts ever if you think I'm a fan of the The Sun, or the monarchy, or the Daily Express. I shared that as a criticism not a compliment. 😂😂😂

    I'm from Merseyside and Hillsborough happened when I was a child. I know people who lost relatives that day. I have never read The Sun even once in my entire life and I never will.
    Oh, go on, you must like the Express. It's right up your street. You can ignore the toadying to the Royals because it toadies to "Boris" so much. Actually, perhaps the Daily Mail is more your thing?
    Except you clearly know nothing about what I believe as you always misjudge me and don't understand my principles at all. I don't hide them.

    I've never had a nice word to say about the Fail either.

    Want to try a more sane guess as to what media I would prefer?
    Confused.com?
    I think that must be yours since you always confuse a Thatcherite free market social liberal like myself with a socially conservative extremist.

    I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to have a real guess. There's three elements of the media that have reporting or editorials that I like none of which you've named. Though by no means would I agree with all of any of them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    kinabalu said:

    Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.

    Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.

    One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"

    One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.

    I am saying this as someone who hasn't watched the interview, but was it definitely a 'hope' being expressed that it wasn't going to be a black baby? That sounds completely stupid apart from anything else - not much Meghan can do about it is there?

    What if the conversation was more someone who thought they'd developed a rapport with Meghan (eg. Kate) wondering with pleasure whether the child could have beautiful and unusual colouring - for example caramel skin tone but with blue eyes. It would still be insensitive, and ill-judged, but not intentionally hurtful. If the conversation was more like that, it would be a great pity for it to be weaponised this way.

    On the other hand, if it was Princess Michael of Kent, it could have been as portrayed; she thinks the entire Royal family are lumpen proles compared to her anyway.
    Princess Michael of Kent would be my guess
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,748
    Brenda will at least be pleased that the Queen’s 11 (copyright Murdo Fraser) are back to winning ways, and that their royalist supporters are celebrating in the traditional way.

    https://twitter.com/morlotticarlo/status/1368709045780180997?s=21

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226
    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.

    Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.

    If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
    I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
    I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.

    Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
    That's great. I imagine that gave both of them a good chuckle.
    I think unfortunately it is a often function of the age of the individual. I once remember my great embarrassment when my father (who would now be 94 were he still alive) was at an event in my village and asked a woman who was of Asian ethnicity "Where are you from?" "Cambridge" came the reply. We all knew what he meant, but he didn't intend to be offensive, he just thought he was making interested conversation.
    Also it's a handy conversation prop and there's no doubt that at that age he's simply fallen into a pattern. He's basically spent his life on a world tour, visiting places and meeting people, so picking out people who might have connections with other places and asking about them is a lot easier than the awkward "and what do you do..." questions he'd have to ask otherwise. And once the member of the public had got their anecdote about how PP met the crown prince on his visit to their country of ethnic origin back in 1975, there was nothing more to be said, PP could walk on to the next person.
    It’s a bit like how a lot of baby boomers are quite interested in whether a celebrity is gay or not. Doesn’t mean they’re homophobic but it’s a piece of information that was unusual to them growing up so they still find it interesting. When younger generations give a shrug.

    The WW2 generation had a similar thing with race in a way that’s pretty uninteresting to boomers and below. We underestimate how much social change there is in one human lifetime now.

    I suppose my generation is destined to be seen as “-ist” about gender fluidity, when in our dotage we say things like “ooh did you know she used to be a fella”. It will be amusing to see what Gen Z get accused of by their juniors. Something around gene editing probably.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited March 2021
    The way it's described here though it really does sound like a genuine wedding (and the main wedding was a very expensive sham) ?



    "Three days before our wedding we got married. The vows we have framed," said the Duchess.

    "We called the archbishop, and we just said, 'Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world, but we want our union between us."

    The ceremony was "just the two of us in our back yard with the Archbishop of Canterbury."

    Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has always kept the confidence."





    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/08/duke-duchess-sussex-got-married-secret-three-days-fairytale/
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited March 2021
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.

    Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.

    One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"

    One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.

    I am saying this as someone who hasn't watched the interview, but was it definitely a 'hope' being expressed that it wasn't going to be a black baby? That sounds completely stupid apart from anything else - not much Meghan can do about it is there?

    What if the conversation was more someone who thought they'd developed a rapport with Meghan (eg. Kate) wondering with pleasure whether the child could have beautiful and unusual colouring - for example caramel skin tone but with blue eyes. It would still be insensitive, and ill-judged, but not intentionally hurtful. If the conversation was more like that, it would be a great pity for it to be weaponised this way.

    On the other hand, if it was Princess Michael of Kent, it could have been as portrayed; she thinks the entire Royal family are lumpen proles compared to her anyway.
    Princess Michael of Kent would be my guess
    Nope - it's not the racist elderly aunt and it's supposedly been narrowed down to 4 people way higher up in the pecking order (either them or their other halves).

    And from that you can probably have a good idea which person it is...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:
    So more people think it would make no difference or be better if the monarchy were abolished.

    Excellent poll for Republicans
    No, by a 36% margin more people think we would be worse off if the monarchy went.

    Excellent poll for Monarchists
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,766

    DougSeal said:
    Is he the sole proprietor?
    They will sock it to the competition now
    Only if he polishes up his presentation skills
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Charles said:

    The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

    That’s a very unpleasant smear

    Shame on you
    Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

    This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

    If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
    Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

    Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

    Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

    I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
    BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

    Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
    You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


    You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
    Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
    If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
    Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
    Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.

    Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
    Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
    Not even Victorian.

    The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.

    William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
    The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
    But its not the same party and doesn't have the same principles.

    The predecessor party died for a reason.
    In large part it is, 86% of Tory voters are monarchists for example, far more than support cutting tax for the rich or austerity now.

    The Tory Party remains more a monarchist party than a hardline capitalist party, it is merely non socialist
    There is a difference between being monarchists and landed gentry.

    The modern Tory party may have mostly monarchists in it, but it is not a party of, by or for the landed gentry as you claimed. It hasn't been since it was founded for a very good reason - far more than just the landed gentry vote.

    Its perfectly possible to be a republican and a Tory - like myself, TSE, the most popular Tory Secretary of State amongst Tory members and many more.
    Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.

    You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.
    This politics class is surely going off script?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    So more people think it would make no difference or be better if the monarchy were abolished.

    Excellent poll for Republicans
    No, by a 36% margin more people think we would be worse off if the monarchy went.

    Excellent poll for Monarchists
    45% indifference amongst the young isn't particularly great
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:
    So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?

    By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
    More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logic
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.

    Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.

    If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
    I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
    I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.

    Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
    That's great. I imagine that gave both of them a good chuckle.
    I think unfortunately it is a often function of the age of the individual. I once remember my great embarrassment when my father (who would now be 94 were he still alive) was at an event in my village and asked a woman who was of Asian ethnicity "Where are you from?" "Cambridge" came the reply. We all knew what he meant, but he didn't intend to be offensive, he just thought he was making interested conversation.
    Also it's a handy conversation prop and there's no doubt that at that age he's simply fallen into a pattern. He's basically spent his life on a world tour, visiting places and meeting people, so picking out people who might have connections with other places and asking about them is a lot easier than the awkward "and what do you do..." questions he'd have to ask otherwise. And once the member of the public had got their anecdote about how PP met the crown prince on his visit to their country of ethnic origin back in 1975, there was nothing more to be said, PP could walk on to the next person.
    My battalion was once visited by a general of ancient disposition and habits and I walked him around the soldiers of which several he stopped to talk to.

    His line was each time:

    Him: and where do you come from?
    Soldier: Hartlepool (say)
    Him: Ah...[pause]...and how's Hartlepool?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,054

    Sean_F said:

    The Duchess of Sussex can take comfort that she is at least far more popular than Prince Andrew.

    https://yougov.co.uk/ratings/politics/popularity/royalty/all

    Who are the 6% of people who think Prince Andrew is doing sterling work?

    They walk among us.
    Republicans playing the longish game?

    Edit: pipped by TSE
    Or paedophiles...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    So more people think it would make no difference or be better if the monarchy were abolished.

    Excellent poll for Republicans
    No, by a 36% margin more people think we would be worse off if the monarchy went.

    Excellent poll for Monarchists
    45% indifference amongst the young isn't particularly great
    To be honest you would probably get that on pretty much any subject
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,722
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    So more people think it would make no difference or be better if the monarchy were abolished.

    Excellent poll for Republicans
    No, by a 36% margin more people think we would be worse off if the monarchy went.

    Excellent poll for Monarchists
    A minority think we are better with a monarchy though yes
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

    On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

    I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

    I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

    They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).

    It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
    They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.

    For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
    It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
    Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.

    It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
    It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.

    This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint

    https://twitter.com/garius/status/1368852137321631744

    Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.
    Check out the list of Royal engagements (published by some nutter monarchist archivist in The Times each year). Hundreds and hundreds overall.

    When some institution or other gets a visit from a member of the Royal Family it is a matter of huge anticipation and excitement.

    Meanwhile, there are not that many working royals.

    Not sure what slimming down ou are expecting, save to get rid of Sandringham/Balmoral perhaps saving a few quid.
    The only people who will take the side of Harry and Meghan are those who dislike the monarchy anyway. Both of them have seen their popularity drop markedly with the general public, according to Yougov.
    You are HYUFD and I claim £5.

    Have Yougov polled people who have had time to process what has been said? Or just the briefings, attacks and leaks against them prior to them speaking?
    Nah Sean is quite right. The number of people in the UK who will have their view on the monarchy changed by this is tiny. This wasn't even for the UK market. The couple have burnt all their bridges here already. This was purely for the sake of their new home country - hence the predictable and obvious accusations of racism. It is straight out of the PR playbook.

    Any British republicans who were hoping this was going to change opinion in the UK are going to be sadly disappointed.
    There's more than just the UK that has Her Majesty as head of state. There are 16 countries that do. Many of the 16 do not have a white majority too.

    This won't just be playing out in the UK but in Jamaica and other countries too. The terrible way Meghan has been treated both in the past and this week will not have endeared the monarchy to Jamaicans and others I suspect.
    But it is inevitable and right that those countries will eventually choose to follow the majority of their fellow Commonwealth colleagues and remove the Queen as head of state. Something I completely understand. That is of no import as far as I am concerned. My comment is purely about the claims this significantly increases support for republicanism in this country which is very much wishful thinking by anti-monarchists like yourself.

    Edit: And Meghan was only treated terribly in her own mind. It bears no relation to reality.
    I think to non-royalists like yourself Meghan getting slandered in the press with character assassination attempts relating to a period she was struggling with her mental health, prior to her speaking about herself struggling with her mental health, is a terrible way to treat her.

    The bombardment against her for weeks and months now in the media is terrible and has been coming from the palace or friends of the palace. That is reality.

    Discretion would have been the better part of valour. The palace should have not leaked or said anything prior to this - all the bullying in the Mail in recent months against her just feeds into what she had to say.

    The monarchy would have been better advised to keep a stoic silence on this matter - and encouraged their friendly press to do the same. Instead of seeking to destroy someone feeding into what they have to say.
    You have absolutely no evidence that the Palace were involved in any of the claims against Meghan. Once again that is just your anti-monarchist bias driving your view. Nor is the Palace in a position to stop those outside the place from making comments or claims. Apparently you want them to stay silent on one side but to intervene on the other.

    Meghan is the one who has driven this because she wanted to have ll the benefits of being a Royal without any of the responsibilities. Now that has failed she wants to make use of her Royal connections for her own ends. The only way she can do that is to attack the institution. It is so obvious and again just like the racism claims is designed purely for the US market.
    I think the notion this has come purely from Meghan is absolutely myopic and untrue. I'd estimate 90% plus of the reporting in recent years has been anti not pro Meghan.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    IanB2 said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FPT

    Charles said:

    The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?

    That’s a very unpleasant smear

    Shame on you
    Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)

    This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'

    If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
    Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.

    Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.

    Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.

    I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
    BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?

    Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
    You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.


    You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
    Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
    If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
    Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
    Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.

    Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
    Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
    Not even Victorian.

    The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.

    William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
    The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
    But its not the same party and doesn't have the same principles.

    The predecessor party died for a reason.
    To be honest with you, I am taken aback by the number of people on here who claim to be Tory but are so outspoken anti monarchy.
    Why? They're anti-BBC, anti-expert and anti-civil service nowadays; they'd be anti-NHS if it weren't political suicide and if they're not anti-union, no one who is could have done a better job of putting it in peril. Being anti-monarchy is merely the logical next step.

    There are far more libertarians on PB than the general population of whom barely 10% are in that category, that is all
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    So more people think it would make no difference or be better if the monarchy were abolished.

    Excellent poll for Republicans
    No, by a 36% margin more people think we would be worse off if the monarchy went.

    Excellent poll for Monarchists
    45% indifference amongst the young isn't particularly great
    To be honest you would probably get that on pretty much any subject
    You're probably right. It would be interesting to see that figure over time to see whether this is normal youthful indifference that hardens into support as they get older.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    kinabalu said:

    Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.

    Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.

    One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"

    One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.

    There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.

    I find this a bizarre idea, really.

    Maybe you are projecting.
    He is a supporter of the Labour Party, don't forget. They have form in these things. Don't blame him, it is the institution.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,080

    Mr. Palmer, I was wondering about getting into it in the betting sense.

    Hmm.

    For playing, that may be the case, although you'd make quite the splash if you ended up in a top team!

    "And today the 19 year old Koreans have announced their retirement after the quintet of former British MPs destroyed them at League of Legends."

    That'd be fab. There used to be a team of MPs who danced in a tap-dancing troupe as the "Division Belles"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/toeing-the-party-line-5350451.html

    A friend who came to a Labour dinner was placed next to Maria Eagle, who has a keen mind but isn't famous for her frivolity. He asked her in all innocence whether she was a member of this troupe that he'd read about. She was Not Amused.
    Wasn't there once an MPs' football team, that boasted Ed Balls as star striker??
    Indeedy.


  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    HYUFD said:


    Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.

    You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.

    Oh behave.

    I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.

    If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.

    Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.

    You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
    No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
    She's a political animal.

    You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
    Like this?

    image
    Well she didn't say it publicly as she did in 2014.

    But the point still stands, had the Queen backed Remain in that way the likes of Casino Royale would have become republicans overnight.
    Thats why I never worry about taking back power from the monarch - views would shift overnight as you say if they ever sought to push personal politics.

    It's an illusion of power only.
    I expect when Charles becomes King he may refuse to grant Royal Assent to something he personally disapproves of.

    Or maybe delay it.

    I did read a piece back in 2019 which said Charles wouldn't have granted the prorogation in 2019.

    He would have pointed Boris Johnson hadn't won any votes in Parliament and there appeared to be no majority for him.

    That would have led to a different prorogation crisis.
    You can't blame the Royals for the Brexit prorogation crisis - fact is that the ghastly Leavers should never have embarrassed the monarchy and run roughshod over the constitution to begin with.
    Isn't that democracy lark a terrible thing.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    kle4 said:

    eek said:

    Charles said:

    Good morning

    I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot

    On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive

    I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony

    I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing

    They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).

    It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
    They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.

    For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
    It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
    Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.

    It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
    It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.

    This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint

    https://twitter.com/garius/status/1368852137321631744

    Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.
    Check out the list of Royal engagements (published by some nutter monarchist archivist in The Times each year). Hundreds and hundreds overall.

    When some institution or other gets a visit from a member of the Royal Family it is a matter of huge anticipation and excitement.

    Meanwhile, there are not that many working royals.

    Not sure what slimming down ou are expecting, save to get rid of Sandringham/Balmoral perhaps saving a few quid.
    The only people who will take the side of Harry and Meghan are those who dislike the monarchy anyway. Both of them have seen their popularity drop markedly with the general public, according to Yougov.
    You are HYUFD and I claim £5.

    Have Yougov polled people who have had time to process what has been said? Or just the briefings, attacks and leaks against them prior to them speaking?
    Nah Sean is quite right. The number of people in the UK who will have their view on the monarchy changed by this is tiny. This wasn't even for the UK market. The couple have burnt all their bridges here already. This was purely for the sake of their new home country - hence the predictable and obvious accusations of racism. It is straight out of the PR playbook.

    Any British republicans who were hoping this was going to change opinion in the UK are going to be sadly disappointed.
    There's more than just the UK that has Her Majesty as head of state. There are 16 countries that do. Many of the 16 do not have a white majority too.

    This won't just be playing out in the UK but in Jamaica and other countries too. The terrible way Meghan has been treated both in the past and this week will not have endeared the monarchy to Jamaicans and others I suspect.
    But it is inevitable and right that those countries will eventually choose to follow the majority of their fellow Commonwealth colleagues and remove the Queen as head of state. Something I completely understand. That is of no import as far as I am concerned. My comment is purely about the claims this significantly increases support for republicanism in this country which is very much wishful thinking by anti-monarchists like yourself.

    Edit: And Meghan was only treated terribly in her own mind. It bears no relation to reality.
    I think to non-royalists like yourself Meghan getting slandered in the press with character assassination attempts relating to a period she was struggling with her mental health, prior to her speaking about herself struggling with her mental health, is a terrible way to treat her.

    The bombardment against her for weeks and months now in the media is terrible and has been coming from the palace or friends of the palace. That is reality.

    Discretion would have been the better part of valour. The palace should have not leaked or said anything prior to this - all the bullying in the Mail in recent months against her just feeds into what she had to say.

    The monarchy would have been better advised to keep a stoic silence on this matter - and encouraged their friendly press to do the same. Instead of seeking to destroy someone feeding into what they have to say.
    You have absolutely no evidence that the Palace were involved in any of the claims against Meghan. Once again that is just your anti-monarchist bias driving your view. Nor is the Palace in a position to stop those outside the place from making comments or claims. Apparently you want them to stay silent on one side but to intervene on the other.

    Meghan is the one who has driven this because she wanted to have ll the benefits of being a Royal without any of the responsibilities. Now that has failed she wants to make use of her Royal connections for her own ends. The only way she can do that is to attack the institution. It is so obvious and again just like the racism claims is designed purely for the US market.
    I think the notion this has come purely from Meghan is absolutely myopic and untrue. I'd estimate 90% plus of the reporting in recent years has been anti not pro Meghan.
    As was shown last year - and probably even more relevant now...

    https://twitter.com/michaelhogan/status/1368887806303600641
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    moonshine said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.

    Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.

    If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
    I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
    I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.

    Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
    That's great. I imagine that gave both of them a good chuckle.
    I think unfortunately it is a often function of the age of the individual. I once remember my great embarrassment when my father (who would now be 94 were he still alive) was at an event in my village and asked a woman who was of Asian ethnicity "Where are you from?" "Cambridge" came the reply. We all knew what he meant, but he didn't intend to be offensive, he just thought he was making interested conversation.
    Also it's a handy conversation prop and there's no doubt that at that age he's simply fallen into a pattern. He's basically spent his life on a world tour, visiting places and meeting people, so picking out people who might have connections with other places and asking about them is a lot easier than the awkward "and what do you do..." questions he'd have to ask otherwise. And once the member of the public had got their anecdote about how PP met the crown prince on his visit to their country of ethnic origin back in 1975, there was nothing more to be said, PP could walk on to the next person.
    It’s a bit like how a lot of baby boomers are quite interested in whether a celebrity is gay or not. Doesn’t mean they’re homophobic but it’s a piece of information that was unusual to them growing up so they still find it interesting. When younger generations give a shrug.

    The WW2 generation had a similar thing with race in a way that’s pretty uninteresting to boomers and below. We underestimate how much social change there is in one human lifetime now.

    I suppose my generation is destined to be seen as “-ist” about gender fluidity, when in our dotage we say things like “ooh did you know she used to be a fella”. It will be amusing to see what Gen Z get accused of by their juniors. Something around gene editing probably.
    I think there's often been massive social change over a similar timescale. Consider from late medieval England of the 1590s under Queen Elizabeth I to the turbulent 1640s, Cromwell and the civil war. Or from the stultified class-ridden society of the Napoleonic wars in 1810 through to the late 19th century industrial revolution.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Brenda will at least be pleased that the Queen’s 11 (copyright Murdo Fraser) are back to winning ways, and that their royalist supporters are celebrating in the traditional way.

    https://twitter.com/morlotticarlo/status/1368709045780180997?s=21

    How is that different from any other night in Glasgow?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,612
    moonshine said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.

    Until CoE and the Archbishop confirm that's what happened I can't believe it. It sounds too far fetched.
    Sounds like the pre marriage blessing caused confusion for some....
    Well I know Harry's not the brightest but you'd think they would know the difference between a marriage service and a blessing lol?
    He’s certainly not a very good advert for Eton College.
    I don't want to really get dragged into this nonesense...

    But, have you ever encountered the situation where your wife believes something and correcting her is a really, really bad idea?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    I love how that account has had to put (parody) in their handle... Like people genuinely believed HMQ was sat in Buck House sending out those Tweets! 😂
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?

    By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
    More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logic
    Thanks for clearing that up. While there are plenty on here who are not Tories, Labour voting monarchists, meanwhile, absolutely are Tories.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232

    HYUFD said:


    Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.

    You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.

    Oh behave.

    I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.

    If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.

    Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.

    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.

    You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
    No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
    She's a political animal.

    You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
    Like this?

    image
    Well she didn't say it publicly as she did in 2014.

    But the point still stands, had the Queen backed Remain in that way the likes of Casino Royale would have become republicans overnight.
    Thats why I never worry about taking back power from the monarch - views would shift overnight as you say if they ever sought to push personal politics.

    It's an illusion of power only.
    I expect when Charles becomes King he may refuse to grant Royal Assent to something he personally disapproves of.

    Or maybe delay it.

    I did read a piece back in 2019 which said Charles wouldn't have granted the prorogation in 2019.

    He would have pointed Boris Johnson hadn't won any votes in Parliament and there appeared to be no majority for him.

    That would have led to a different prorogation crisis.
    You can't blame the Royals for the Brexit prorogation crisis - fact is that the ghastly Leavers should never have embarrassed the monarchy and run roughshod over the constitution to begin with.
    Isn't that democracy lark a terrible thing.
    The government taking it upon itself to close down parliament is 'democracy' in your book? That rather says it all.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Happy 'being allowed to leave your house for recreation' day everyone
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164

    tlg86 said:

    Do we know how much H&M received for the interview and if they have donated it to charity? If they have simply pocketed the cash, then that is a black mark against them.

    They received no fee according to the Wall Street Journal.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-interview-with-oprah-fetches-at-least-7-million-from-cbs-11614987461
    If I were advising them, I think I'd make sure that that was widely known.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,226

    moonshine said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.

    Until CoE and the Archbishop confirm that's what happened I can't believe it. It sounds too far fetched.
    Sounds like the pre marriage blessing caused confusion for some....
    Well I know Harry's not the brightest but you'd think they would know the difference between a marriage service and a blessing lol?
    He’s certainly not a very good advert for Eton College.
    I don't want to really get dragged into this nonesense...

    But, have you ever encountered the situation where your wife believes something and correcting her is a really, really bad idea?
    Very good!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?

    By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
    More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logic
    Thanks for clearing that up. While there are plenty on here who are not Tories, Labour voting monarchists, meanwhile, absolutely are Tories.
    They cannot be free market classical liberals no, though it is possible for former Labour voters who are patriots to become Tories certainly, as large numbers did in 2019
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited March 2021
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:


    Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.

    You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.

    Oh behave.

    I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.

    If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.

    Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.
    Being a Thatcherite free marketeer does not make you a Tory. Indeed in many respects Thatcher herself was closer to a Gladstonian Liberal than a Disraelian Tory, only Thatcher's support of the monarchy, despite occasional disagreements with the Queen, meant she was still able to be called a Tory.

    In some ways yes, in some ways no. Gladstone had a very strong social-humanitarian streak, and always looked to social reform rather than only classical economic liberalism. Thatcher was really a stew of Gladstonian Liberalism, only on the economic front, and much more abrasive and unyielding Hayekian neoliberalism, I would say.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited March 2021
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Do we know how much H&M received for the interview and if they have donated it to charity? If they have simply pocketed the cash, then that is a black mark against them.

    They received no fee according to the Wall Street Journal.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-interview-with-oprah-fetches-at-least-7-million-from-cbs-11614987461
    If I were advising them, I think I'd make sure that that was widely known.
    They made it very clear at the start of the interview. Along with the supposed "ground rules".
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?

    By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
    More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logic
    It's a roller-coaster learning experience in here today, to be sure ;)

This discussion has been closed.