Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasm
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of it
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
Would that be the America of Jim Crow and the KKK? Of Operation Condor? Of Mayor Daley and Tammany Hall?
I lived in America for five formative years. The one thing about America to be certain of is that it contains the worst of mankind as well as the best, incredible beauty as well as trashy ugliness, of high ideas and the lowest common denominator. It has always been both a shining city on the hill, and home of some of the darkest deeds.
In that, nothing has changed. Indeed I would argue that pretty much all countries have their dark side as well as positive ones. It is just that in America we see more of it.
The America of the Moon Landings, that's the America I miss. That, for me, was Peak America. Deeply flawed - as you say - still riven with racial divide - but wow, they put a man on the moon: more than 50 fucking years ago. 50 years ago!!! Mobile phones were science fiction. Thruppeny bits were a thing. We all ate cheese in triangles. A man on the fucking moon!??!!
That's the America that, sadly, seems to have departed this world. Superbly optimistic, absolutely self confident - NOT self hating - truly generous in spirit, if ugly in its power, sometimes. An America ascendant that wanted to help the world, and did so.
Gone gone gone.
Get a grip man.
That same America has revolutionised personal transport with Tesla as they did with Ford. That same America has revolutionised private space travel with SpaceX and other private space companies.
Not everything is seen through the guise of "woke" or "anti-woke".
A monumental shift. Yes, America has brilliant companies and world-class innovation. But the decline is brisk
Was it really 50% of global?
it probably was in the early 1950s.
Of course, most of the world's industrial capacity had been destroyed by the Second World War, so it was always going to be hard to stay at that level.
It was never going to be desirable either, since the US has nothing even close to 50% of the world's population.
The rest of the world not being as impoverished is a good thing.
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
Do you think the Queen has no feelings? Of course she does but unlike Madame Hollywood, who actually was only ever a C list actress anyway and only got to be A+ list through joining the royal family, Her Majesty puts public service rather than her own narcissism as the priority
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.
Good news for HYUFD - the BBC have released an instructional video so that members of the fairer sex need not descend into depravity like the Duchess of Success did:
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.
Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.
The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasm
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of it
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". Sorry
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votes
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
There was an attempted coup that failed.
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.
China overtakes US in rankings of world's richest people
The bank’s annual wealth survey found there were 100 million Chinese people among the world’s top 10% of richest people, compared with 99 million in the US.
Looking further afield this will really open the debate about the Monarchy's future in NZ, Australia and Canada especially.
I doubt it will make the slightest difference.
In Australia the conservative PM Scott Morrison and his more rural and outer suburban supporters will remain monarchists and more sympathetic to the royal family, the Labor opposition leader Albanese and his urban supporters will remain republicans and more sympathetic to the Sussexes.
In Canada both the PM Trudeau and the leader of the Opposition O'Toole are monarchists so it will make zero difference there with only the third party NDP having an element of republicanism.
In New Zealand it might make a slight difference when the Queen dies given the Labor PM Ardern is a republican but even there she has said constitutional issues are off the table for now
Just because certain political leaders are monarchists does not mean that some of the allegations will have caused concern. Its only 23 years since the last referendum in Australia - and in that time Charles & Andrew et al. hardly won over the Republican cause. Canada (where Meghan M will garner significant support) is also likely to be unimpressed, I'm not saying the Queen will be shown the door, but beyond that.........
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.
Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.
That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.
Did anyone check to see if he was blinking in morse code during the interview?
The idea there aren't confident women within the royals is a hoot. Anne and the Queen herself are both very confident indeed. Kate and Sophie are quieter but that's the way they are
The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasm
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of it
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". Sorry
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votes
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
There was an attempted coup that failed.
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.
China overtakes US in rankings of world's richest people
The bank’s annual wealth survey found there were 100 million Chinese people among the world’s top 10% of richest people, compared with 99 million in the US.
Wow.
China having 4x the population and a fairly closed domestic market
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
It's important to understand the plight of titled millionaires, after all.
The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasm
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of it
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". Sorry
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votes
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
There was an attempted coup that failed.
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.
America's strength isn't from having more people. The USSR had a bigger population than the USA.
America's strength is from challenging itself internally (which wokism is doing) and developing technological progress (Silicon Valley, SpaceX etc) and being better off per capita (which it is, 4-fold over the Chinese).
I think more people, from immigration, has been a strength of the US. It has contributed to the growth of the economy, creating more opportunities for innovation. It has kept the country young. It has provided a constant supply of people who believed in the country so much they were willing to take the risk of leaving family and familiarity behind.
I'd say it's the single biggest difference between the US ideal and China. The election of Trump was symptomatic of the US turning away from that ideal (perhaps inevitable eventually, as immigration is something of a Ponzi scheme).
The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasm
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of it
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". Sorry
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votes
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
There was an attempted coup that failed.
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.
China overtakes US in rankings of world's richest people
The bank’s annual wealth survey found there were 100 million Chinese people among the world’s top 10% of richest people, compared with 99 million in the US.
Wow.
China having 4x the population and a fairly closed domestic market
Germans are concerned China is about to decontent their economy
The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasm
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of it
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". Sorry
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votes
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
There was an attempted coup that failed.
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.
China overtakes US in rankings of world's richest people
The bank’s annual wealth survey found there were 100 million Chinese people among the world’s top 10% of richest people, compared with 99 million in the US.
Wow.
China having 4x the population and a fairly closed domestic market
I was thinking more about how unequal America is that 100 million Chinese are wealthier than 250 million Americans.
The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasm
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of it
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". Sorry
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votes
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
There was an attempted coup that failed.
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.
America's strength isn't from having more people. The USSR had a bigger population than the USA.
America's strength is from challenging itself internally (which wokism is doing) and developing technological progress (Silicon Valley, SpaceX etc) and being better off per capita (which it is, 4-fold over the Chinese).
I think more people, from immigration, has been a strength of the US. It's contributed to the growth of the economy, creating more opportunities for innovation. It's kept the country young. Its provided a constant supply of people who believed in the country so much they were willing to take the risk of leaving family and familiarity behind.
I'd say it's the single biggest difference between the US ideal and China. The election of Trump was symptomatic of the US turning away from that ideal (perhaps inevitable eventually, as immigration is something of a Ponzi scheme).
We (mankind) all just gotta keep breeding breeding. Immigration is zero sum from a growth perspective. Can squeeze plenty out of juice out of this old planet once we start using energy sustainably and making food scientifically.
And after that the solar system is a big old place with untold natural resources. No reason we shouldn’t be aiming for a trillion souls in the solar system by the end of say the 22nd century if we manage to slow the death rate to a near standstill.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Maybe this is a modern day fable - Harry is Rapunzel, rescued from a life of entrapment and deprivation by a warrior princess from afar:
The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasm
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of it
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". Sorry
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votes
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
There was an attempted coup that failed.
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.
China overtakes US in rankings of world's richest people
The bank’s annual wealth survey found there were 100 million Chinese people among the world’s top 10% of richest people, compared with 99 million in the US.
Wow.
China having 4x the population and a fairly closed domestic market
I was thinking more about how unequal America is that 100 million Chinese are wealthier than 250 million Americans.
I wonder if anyone will respond with a counter-interview. I suppose the right thing to do is hope it dies down, which I think it will. It's pretty thin gruel. If there were to be one it would be William and Kate.
The best response would be to say nothing other than to express good-will towards them and wish them every happiness in the future.
They probably will, officially, as it is the right move, but there's clearly a war going on, and briefings come from somewhere and presumably still would, since why let the opponent launch unanswered salvoes? (reasoning both sides no doubt employ)
If they do counter-brief (probably unwise) then they need something better than the rather lame stories about bullying. It's bad if these stories are true, but it's trivial compared to the allegations Harry and Meg are making.
Some of them are quite specific and quite shocking.
eg Did the Royal Household really confiscate Meghan's passport and driving licence?! I find it very hard to believe. Why would they do that? That's basically kidnapping. However it is the kind of detailed allegation that probably does require explicit refutation. Which is why, I fear, the Royals can't just remain loftily silent, even tho that would be preferable, in many ways
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.
He just reminds me of a divvy.
Imagine if your Grandfather was at deaths door in hospital and at that moment you go on International TV and slag off his family. Harry must make his Grandfather proud.
I dont think Meghans allegations of racism ring true at all. The fact that she refused to name the person concerned is despicable
No, but her script writers/adviers will have told her to include it as an easy way to push the buttons of the urban millenial and Gen-Z demographic. Just as Diana accused unnamed courtiers of sexism a quarter of a century ago. They are both good actresses, and, like all such, totally cynical and manipulative.
One day, I imagine, when she gets sick of Harry, she'll turn on all this on him, and then he'll have cause to remember President Trump's words of (for once) wisdom ...
Daily Mirror: "worst royal crisis for 85 years". The whole death of Diana period just pass them by?
Of course the real issue in the interview which is being conveniently glossed over is the role of the tabloid press, which these days basically incorporates what was once called "the serious press" as well.
Because a lot of the criticisms of the Royal Family and how it operates, basically stems from the need to maintain distance from the press and steer clear of public controversy. And even now i suspect most people in the UK are just shrugging their shoulders and want the whole thing to move on - but it is the press that are out for blood and demanding that the Palace issue statements - knowing perfectly well that there isn't really much they can say that will change much. Even if they attempt to refute/explain some accusations, it will just leave questions following about anything they don't address.
It is just a fact of life that you can't choose your (royal) family, you can't run diversity drives, sack individuals that step out of line or make mistakes etc etc. And most people know that.
And on the supposed "racism" issue - i'll bet you can find a hundred stories in the press from a few years ago asking questions about how "the country" would react to a black member of the royal family. All sh*t stirring as usual.
I saw a clip where Oprah expressed shock about the racism.stuff.. I mean this faux shock.. as if it hadn't been mentioned before the recordings whst was going to be said and how it woukd be said . Treat Meghan and Harry like Mrs Simpson and Edward V111 refuse to receive them again.. bar for funerals.
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.
He just reminds me of a divvy.
Imagine if your Grandfather was at deaths door in hospital and at that moment you go on International TV and slag off his family. Harry must make his Grandfather proud.
I would guess that Harry is quite uncomfortable with this all being focussed on the Royal Family, when what he wants it to be about is the press. He did talk about how they were all "trapped"/prisoners of the institution. This is his close relatives they are talking about after all, and most people will put up with more than the average from members of their own family, and know which ones will occasionally say inappropriate things - and rarely out of malice but just at attempts at "humour" etc. But he's not bright enough to realise how the interview would be portrayed - because the press is hardly going to accept itself as the target.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.
He just reminds me of a divvy.
Imagine if your Grandfather was at deaths door in hospital and at that moment you go on International TV and slag off his family. Harry must make his Grandfather proud.
I would guess that Harry is quite uncomfortable with this all being focussed on the Royal Family, when what he wants it to be about is the press. He did talk about how they were all "trapped"/prisoners of the institution. This is his close relatives they are talking about after all, and most people will put up with more than the average from members of their own family, and know which ones will occasionally say inappropriate things - and rarely out of malice but just at attempts at "humour" etc. But he's not bright enough to realise how the interview would be portrayed - because the press is hardly going to accept itself as the target.
If Harry had any class he would have delayed the release of the interview until his Grandfather was out of hospital.
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.
He just reminds me of a divvy.
Imagine if your Grandfather was at deaths door in hospital and at that moment you go on International TV and slag off his family. Harry must make his Grandfather proud.
I would guess that Harry is quite uncomfortable with this all being focussed on the Royal Family, when what he wants it to be about is the press. He did talk about how they were all "trapped"/prisoners of the institution. This is his close relatives they are talking about after all, and most people will put up with more than the average from members of their own family, and know which ones will occasionally say inappropriate things - and rarely out of malice but just at attempts at "humour" etc. But he's not bright enough to realise how the interview would be portrayed - because the press is hardly going to accept itself as the target.
If Harry had any class he would have delayed the release of the interview until his Grandfather was out of hospital.
If Harry had any class, he wouldn't have done the interview.
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
Do you think the Queen has no feelings? Of course she does but unlike Madame Hollywood, who actually was only ever a C list actress anyway and only got to be A+ list through joining the royal family, Her Majesty puts public service rather than her own narcissism as the priority
And that, I think, is the nub of the problem. The Royals - and any incomers - lead extraordinary managed lives, surrounded by courtiers whose attitudes are not entirely dissimilar to those of Monsieur HYUFD. For most of them, clearly, that will mean being encased in the comfortable cotton wool of slavish admiration. Imagine being Megan and having your life managed 24 hours a day by those who are consumed by so much bile. Neither side will understand the other.
The royal family will survive, most of us British could not care less what some narcissistic California based multimillionaires trashing the brand which made them say
It's not just California, the New York Times, which has developed some weird Fear and Loathing of Britain, possibly because Brexit (but I'm not sure why), is practically having an orgasm
I have to say I am now feeling about as cold towards America as I have been in my lifetime, though mainly the sneering liberal coastal elite part of it
Trump and the more extreme forms of BLM and Wokery (exported around the world) have, taken together, made me look at America in a much more critical and unforgiving way. I am rather glad it is a power in swift relative decline, it is half mad and a danger to others.
I miss the old America, generous, sane and sensible, for all its flaws. But it seems to have gone for good. I just wish the replacement wasn't China.
China was always going to be the replacement as soon as it abandoned Marxism as the largest population on earth.
China may be an authoritarian dictatorship but one thing you certainly cannot say it is either is filled with left liberal wokery as the new US elite seems to be.
The US no longer has the strength nor the will to push its agenda and values of freedom and democracy as so much of its elite hates what it and the traditional west stood for, so it no longer deserves to be number 1 really either.
Instead we are moving to a more multipolar world where China, the US and India will lead but none having supreme power
People dismiss Wokery as a passing fad, but it is actually a serious menace to America's prosperity. I could choose any number of examples - check the abolition of SATS - but let's go for something more surprising. AI and GPT3
The whole field has been invaded by Wokeyness and is now bedevilled.
I can easily foresee this incredible technology going unused, or being crippled - in America - as it is surrounded by furious rows over alleged bias in the algorithms. Lots of AI researchers are worried this will happen.
Who will benefit? China, of course. They will build GPT4 and they won't give a toss about its political correctness, or lack of.
Indeed, superpowers don't get to be superpowers by guilt and self hate, they get to be superpowers by ruthlessness, strength and fierce patriotism.
Yes we need to treat people of all backgrounds and races fairly and equally but no we do not need to be filled by self hate, with that comes weakness in terms of leadership, weakness in terms of projection of values and weakness economically as well
Completely preposterous bullshit that shows you don't know anything about America.
"Guilt and self hate" is a strength not a weakness. It is America's forte and it has riven American for hundreds of years, though thankfully not as badly as the 1850s and 1860s, but it never stopped.
The 1960s when America was putting a man on the moon was when flower power activists and antiwar activists were challenging the Vietnam War, the draft and the age of social and sexual revolutions was going on. It was the decade of "I have a Dream" and countless challenges to civil rights.
America's strength is its ability to fight and challenge itself to be the best version of itself it can be. What you see as a weakness is its fundamental long running principle that leads America to evolve from strength to strength while "strong" regimes become stale, rot from the inside out and eventually collapse.
With even the best will in the world, it is extremely hard to see a country which elects Donald Trump as president as a country that is also "moving from strength to strength". Sorry
Democracy worked, they realised they'd made a mistake and they got rid of him.
A Donald Trump in Russia like Putin gets in office and never leaves it, except via a casket.
He is clearly insane and he got 70 MILLION votes
Also, in case you missed, there was an attempted coup. In Washington DC
Much as I would love to believe America is its old self, it ain't. And I don't see how it can be, now that China is so strong. The American century is over, the Chinese century begins. If we're "lucky" it will just be a half century, before the ROBOT MILLENNIUM
There was an attempted coup that failed.
As for China you overegg it. The only reason China has more GDP than the USA is because it's got more than 4x the population with a quarter of the GDP per capita that America does.
Brilliant argument. Were you president of the Oxford Union, perchance?
"The only reason China is bigger than America is because... China is bigger than America"
Brute strength is brute strength. It is what it is, whether it comes from a massive population (China) or possessing all the best parts of an entire and fertile continent (America)
America has never before faced this. A country that is its equal, and almost certain to surpass it. When these New Hegemon moments occur, in human history, they often result in terrible war. Cf declining Britain v rising Imperialist Germany in 1914.
We have to hope that this passing of the torch is peaceful. Trump is not an encouraging sign. But who knows.
Biden is surprisingly hawkish v China.
No, having a billion poor people doesn't make you strong.
America's strength isn't from having more people. The USSR had a bigger population than the USA.
America's strength is from challenging itself internally (which wokism is doing) and developing technological progress (Silicon Valley, SpaceX etc) and being better off per capita (which it is, 4-fold over the Chinese).
I think more people, from immigration, has been a strength of the US. It's contributed to the growth of the economy, creating more opportunities for innovation. It's kept the country young. Its provided a constant supply of people who believed in the country so much they were willing to take the risk of leaving family and familiarity behind.
I'd say it's the single biggest difference between the US ideal and China. The election of Trump was symptomatic of the US turning away from that ideal (perhaps inevitable eventually, as immigration is something of a Ponzi scheme).
We (mankind) all just gotta keep breeding breeding. Immigration is zero sum from a growth perspective. Can squeeze plenty out of juice out of this old planet once we start using energy sustainably and making food scientifically.
And after that the solar system is a big old place with untold natural resources. No reason we shouldn’t be aiming for a trillion souls in the solar system by the end of say the 22nd century if we manage to slow the death rate to a near standstill.
Generally speaking I am in favour of more consciousness in the Universe rather than less.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
This is the bit of the Meghan hate that I really don't get. She just wanted to be a princess with all the trappings, so she seduced poor misguided Harry. Then persuaded him to give all that up, so that she doesn't get any of the royal trappings, just gets Harry and some money. But she had plenty of money already, so really she just gets Harry. So she either screwed up her schemes big time or... all she ever really wanted was Harry.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
I think she probably at least in part thought that she could "change" the royal family, or at least her preconceived perception of what it was. There were huge numbers of articles beforehand suggesting that if that was her belief then it was misguided, because much of what the Royal Family is, is controlled by its unique status in the country, and definitely isn't a good place to introduce unplanned disruptive change. Where it is perceived that changes are needed they are carefully planned and choregraphed over years, not over weeks and days. And she was wrong. Maybe you are right - love was blind. But the outcome was not unpredictable and was widely predicted.
It's no good saying that the Royal Family had to "adapt" to accommodate her. She had to at least go into it with her eyes open and be prepared to meet them half way.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.
That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
I'm a republican and have only mild feelings about this whole thing (tending to think that, whilst I'm sure they feel upset about some things, a couple who are serious about avoiding the limelight should probably avoid it).
A lot of republicans don't dislike the people involved - we are just left cold by it and feel it'd probably be better to knock it on the head when the Queen passes.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.
Paul Waugh clearly doesn't understand Laffer curves. Of course at some points raising rates increases tax - 0% to 1% for example will do so. The Laffer argument is that you reach a point when further increases become counter-productive. Most often upper-rate income tax (which is quite high) is used as an example. It could be the case that CT was at or near the viable maximum, but I suspect not. Also there has been clear economic change, and there's every reason to believe that further economic change is ahead of us.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.
That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
I'm a republican and have only mild feelings about this whole thing (tending to think that, whilst I'm sure they feel upset about some things, a couple who are serious about avoiding the limelight should probably avoid it).
A lot of republicans don't dislike the people involved - we are just left cold by it and feel it'd probably be better to knock it on the head when the Queen passes.
Republicans often say 'when the Queen passes' will be a good time to 'knock it on the head' or whatever. But Charles becomes King the second her majesty passes.
There is no interregnum during which a serious debate might arise.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.
That assumes that the pressures in the Royal Family are caused by the Royal Family and/or controllable by them.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.
With the current media, what lessons? Hide away more?
Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.
That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
I'm a republican and have only mild feelings about this whole thing (tending to think that, whilst I'm sure they feel upset about some things, a couple who are serious about avoiding the limelight should probably avoid it).
A lot of republicans don't dislike the people involved - we are just left cold by it and feel it'd probably be better to knock it on the head when the Queen passes.
Republicans often say 'when the Queen passes' will be a good time to 'knock it on the head' or whatever. But Charles becomes King the second her majesty passes.
There is no interregnum during which a serious debate might arise.
"The Queen is dead, long live the king!"
We often say on here when discussing "when will x leave post" markets that things generally don't change. I think that is even more applicable to the monarchy. The reality is that unless a political party (probably Labour) sticks the abolition of monarchy (possibly with a referendum) in their manifesto - and wins - then nothing will change.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.
That assumes that the pressures in the Royal Family are caused by the Royal Family and/or controllable by them.
It's a family built entirely of unearned, in the normal sense of the word, wealth and position. In return for their privelige, their lives are of duty and service to the nation. That's it. That's the deal. That's precisely what Meghan should have known the contract was about when she married into it all.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
It isn't. And takes like this explains much of why that is.
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
I think Meghan had more to prove because she was an American, and might not always have been given the benefit of the doubt as a result. We have previous experience with a high-profile American socialite marrying a royal, and it didn't end well.
That meant she got a rough ride in the press at times, that wasn't always fair, and she assumes that must be down to racism. Because in the States it probably would be.
It's a far easier answer than the more complex one of sensitivities related to history and self-reflection that she might otherwise have had to do.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.
That assumes that the pressures in the Royal Family are caused by the Royal Family and/or controllable by them.
It's a family built entirely of unearned, in the normal sense of the word, wealth and position. In return for their privelige, their lives are of duty and service to the nation. That's it. That's the deal. That's precisely what Meghan should have known the contract was about when she married into it all.
One thing that came across to me last night was how important the platform to speak and titles were to her, but how little she liked the hierarchy in the royal family and the constraints placed upon that speech.
So she didn't accept the deal and, ultimately, that's why she left.
Paul Waugh clearly doesn't understand Laffer curves. Of course at some points raising rates increases tax - 0% to 1% for example will do so. The Laffer argument is that you reach a point when further increases become counter-productive. Most often upper-rate income tax (which is quite high) is used as an example. It could be the case that CT was at or near the viable maximum, but I suspect not. Also there has been clear economic change, and there's every reason to believe that further economic change is ahead of us.
I think you mean McFaden doesn't understand. Waugh was merely quoting the shadow minister.
This is a much more complex story than either Diana's or Wallis Simpson's, and there's arguably endless moral shades of grey in it, as well as more political and social issues raised. From a moral point of view, there's a good argument that the Palace, Press and Meghan all have responsibility, and rather than only the transatlantic culture-clash issues of 1936, or the press, intrusion and modernity/traditionalism issues of 1997, there's questions of race, hollywood, social media, and a trillion others.
The sheer potential size and parameters of the story will concern the royals, and they'll have to come up with some sort of response fairly quickly.
Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.
Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.
As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.
She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.
I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.
What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.
The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
Yes of course there is some petty racism in the establishment - but its wider than that. It isn't just about skin colour. It isn't just about marrying a colonist. Their issue - and this ties straight back into their treatment of Harry's mum - is simple:
They have an old-fashioned view of the world where wifey is a simpering beautiful arm accessory. If wifey breaks the code and starts speaking out with confidence and eloquence, that is the real threat to them. Had Hazza married a white English woman, confident and headstrong and not willing to simper and wear hats, then she would have received the same levels of vitriol. As Diana did.
The monarch is a woman...
No, she is the sovereign. She doesn't speak her mind, isn't eloquent other than when reading a speech they have given her, doesn't give her own opinions or speak out on her own issues. The Queen is the diametrically opposed position to Diana/Megan/Fergie.
The Queen does what the job is supposed to be about ie public service and duty and quietly getting on with the job without drawing too much attention to oneself.
Meghan is an actress for whom ego, feeling and narcissism are all
I rest my case. She is - in your opinion - an Uppity Woman full of her own ideas instead of those of her husband, she even has her own career, her own success - an *actress*. How dare a woman have feelings? She should Know Her Place.
She must be a cracking actress. Judging by your posts this morning she`s proper taken you in.
Harry is no actor though. Indeed he reminds me of his mother, mercurial, passionate, impetuous, unafraid of unpopular causes, and oozing compassion.
He just reminds me of a divvy.
Imagine if your Grandfather was at deaths door in hospital and at that moment you go on International TV and slag off his family. Harry must make his Grandfather proud.
I would guess that Harry is quite uncomfortable with this all being focussed on the Royal Family, when what he wants it to be about is the press. He did talk about how they were all "trapped"/prisoners of the institution. This is his close relatives they are talking about after all, and most people will put up with more than the average from members of their own family, and know which ones will occasionally say inappropriate things - and rarely out of malice but just at attempts at "humour" etc. But he's not bright enough to realise how the interview would be portrayed - because the press is hardly going to accept itself as the target.
If Harry had any class he would have delayed the release of the interview until his Grandfather was out of hospital.
If Harry had any class, he wouldn't have done the interview.
Be fair. At least he took a principled decision never to share details of that discussion about Archie's skin tone.
Looking further afield this will really open the debate about the Monarchy's future in NZ, Australia and Canada especially.
I doubt it will make the slightest difference.
In Australia the conservative PM Scott Morrison and his more rural and outer suburban supporters will remain monarchists and more sympathetic to the royal family, the Labor opposition leader Albanese and his urban supporters will remain republicans and more sympathetic to the Sussexes.
In Canada both the PM Trudeau and the leader of the Opposition O'Toole are monarchists so it will make zero difference there with only the third party NDP having an element of republicanism.
In New Zealand it might make a slight difference when the Queen dies given the Labor PM Ardern is a republican but even there she has said constitutional issues are off the table for now
Just because certain political leaders are monarchists does not mean that some of the allegations will have caused concern. Its only 23 years since the last referendum in Australia - and in that time Charles & Andrew et al. hardly won over the Republican cause. Canada (where Meghan M will garner significant support) is also likely to be unimpressed, I'm not saying the Queen will be shown the door, but beyond that.........
Except that was always a possibility. It's been predicted for years that there may well be a reevaluation of things when the Queen dies. Long term there are potentials but this doesnt seem particularly relevant to it, as the arguments for against are unchanged, so since no one seems to expect the debate to be opened sooner, nothing has really changed.
I cannot wait for someone to link it to Barbados when they become a republic, despite them planning to do it for ages.
The idea there aren't confident women within the royals is a hoot. Anne and the Queen herself are both very confident indeed. Kate and Sophie are quieter but that's the way they are
Fergie was outspoken too. And Zara Phillips isn't quiet either.
If you look at what Meghan says, regardless of the situation or the issue, she's always the victim.
Looking further afield this will really open the debate about the Monarchy's future in NZ, Australia and Canada especially.
I doubt it will make the slightest difference.
In Australia the conservative PM Scott Morrison and his more rural and outer suburban supporters will remain monarchists and more sympathetic to the royal family, the Labor opposition leader Albanese and his urban supporters will remain republicans and more sympathetic to the Sussexes.
In Canada both the PM Trudeau and the leader of the Opposition O'Toole are monarchists so it will make zero difference there with only the third party NDP having an element of republicanism.
In New Zealand it might make a slight difference when the Queen dies given the Labor PM Ardern is a republican but even there she has said constitutional issues are off the table for now
Just because certain political leaders are monarchists does not mean that some of the allegations will have caused concern. Its only 23 years since the last referendum in Australia - and in that time Charles & Andrew et al. hardly won over the Republican cause. Canada (where Meghan M will garner significant support) is also likely to be unimpressed, I'm not saying the Queen will be shown the door, but beyond that.........
Except that was always a possibility. It's been predicted for years that there may well be a reevaluation of things when the Queen dies. Long term there are potentials but this doesnt seem particularly relevant to it, as the arguments for against are unchanged, so since no one seems to expect the debate to be opened sooner, nothing has really changed.
I cannot wait for someone to link it to Barbados when they become a republic, despite them planning to do it for ages.
It is treason to imagine or speak of the death of the sovereign.
The correct phrase to use is "when there is a change in monarch".
Paul Waugh clearly doesn't understand Laffer curves. Of course at some points raising rates increases tax - 0% to 1% for example will do so. The Laffer argument is that you reach a point when further increases become counter-productive. Most often upper-rate income tax (which is quite high) is used as an example. It could be the case that CT was at or near the viable maximum, but I suspect not. Also there has been clear economic change, and there's every reason to believe that further economic change is ahead of us.
I think you mean McFaden doesn't understand. Waugh was merely quoting the shadow minister.
I read it as Waugh quoting and endorsing - however I may, as you suggest, be wrong.
The argument has been doing the rounds a bit anyway and is false, although the Chancellor's 6% hike is certainly going to be an interesting test of where we are on the CT curve.
(I was also in part responding as the subject contains no blood-colour references)
Pretty much what I have been saying on here. At the moment Boris's tanks are not so much on Labour's lawn as building ditches and fortifications there. It doesn't leave Labour many places to go. They need a strong, clear voice that sounds distinctive. But they've got SKS instead.
I am an assiduous follower of PB, but unfortunately have only come out of the woodwork on a couple of occasions. I would like to thank, however, who recommended the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman which I bought and devoured within a weekend. I came away with a feeling that, despite the horrendous sacrifices made by millions during the war, most of the main protagonists were related and that the whole affair was big family squabble. The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).
Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.
That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
I'm a republican and have only mild feelings about this whole thing (tending to think that, whilst I'm sure they feel upset about some things, a couple who are serious about avoiding the limelight should probably avoid it).
A lot of republicans don't dislike the people involved - we are just left cold by it and feel it'd probably be better to knock it on the head when the Queen passes.
Republicans often say 'when the Queen passes' will be a good time to 'knock it on the head' or whatever. But Charles becomes King the second her majesty passes.
There is no interregnum during which a serious debate might arise.
"The Queen is dead, long live the king!"
He will be, although there is a period for reflection before the coronation.
I'm not saying it's at all likely, though. Just saying calling it a day at that point would be sensible.
Comments
Surely it would be better to keep the name quiet rather than light the fuse...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9340209/DOMINIQUE-SAMUELS-clash-Royals-culture-NOT-colour.html
The rest of the world not being as impoverished is a good thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
"Taken me in"...?
Kate and Sophie are quieter but that's the way they are
I’m not naming the accused she has tainted all of them with suspicion and left them unable to respond. In what world is that just?
Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?
Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
I'd say it's the single biggest difference between the US ideal and China. The election of Trump was symptomatic of the US turning away from that ideal (perhaps inevitable eventually, as immigration is something of a Ponzi scheme).
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article227867925/Chinas-gefaehrlicher-Autarkie-Plan-Deutschlands-Abhaengigkeit-wird-zur-Falle.html
And after that the solar system is a big old place with untold natural resources. No reason we shouldn’t be aiming for a trillion souls in the solar system by the end of say the 22nd century if we manage to slow the death rate to a near standstill.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9341281/Piers-Morgan-storms-GMB-furious-row-weatherman-Alex-Beresford-Meghan-Markle.html
Maybe this is a modern day fable - Harry is Rapunzel, rescued from a life of entrapment and deprivation by a warrior princess from afar:
Rapunzel!
Rapunzel!
Let down your heirs
Or something.
One day, I imagine, when she gets sick of Harry, she'll turn on all this on him, and then he'll have cause to remember President Trump's words of (for once) wisdom ...
Of course the real issue in the interview which is being conveniently glossed over is the role of the tabloid press, which these days basically incorporates what was once called "the serious press" as well.
Because a lot of the criticisms of the Royal Family and how it operates, basically stems from the need to maintain distance from the press and steer clear of public controversy. And even now i suspect most people in the UK are just shrugging their shoulders and want the whole thing to move on - but it is the press that are out for blood and demanding that the Palace issue statements - knowing perfectly well that there isn't really much they can say that will change much. Even if they attempt to refute/explain some accusations, it will just leave questions following about anything they don't address.
It is just a fact of life that you can't choose your (royal) family, you can't run diversity drives, sack individuals that step out of line or make mistakes etc etc. And most people know that.
And on the supposed "racism" issue - i'll bet you can find a hundred stories in the press from a few years ago asking questions about how "the country" would react to a black member of the royal family. All sh*t stirring as usual.
Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
The Royals - and any incomers - lead extraordinary managed lives, surrounded by courtiers whose attitudes are not entirely dissimilar to those of Monsieur HYUFD.
For most of them, clearly, that will mean being encased in the comfortable cotton wool of slavish admiration.
Imagine being Megan and having your life managed 24 hours a day by those who are consumed by so much bile.
Neither side will understand the other.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/mar/09/steve-bells-if-the-queen-orders-an-inquiry-over-meghans-interview
It's no good saying that the Royal Family had to "adapt" to accommodate her. She had to at least go into it with her eyes open and be prepared to meet them half way.
Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
A lot of republicans don't dislike the people involved - we are just left cold by it and feel it'd probably be better to knock it on the head when the Queen passes.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1369190824282624001
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1369190973444591618
That might of course be a problem for Andrew if ever a federal warrant was issued.
There is no interregnum during which a serious debate might arise.
"The Queen is dead, long live the king!"
It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.
Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?
Biden will probably sign his massive 'new deal' package. $1.9 trillion!!
A brilliant move that will avoid a slump or a guaranteed return to 1960s inflation? We will shortly see.
That meant she got a rough ride in the press at times, that wasn't always fair, and she assumes that must be down to racism. Because in the States it probably would be.
It's a far easier answer than the more complex one of sensitivities related to history and self-reflection that she might otherwise have had to do.
So she didn't accept the deal and, ultimately, that's why she left.
The sheer potential size and parameters of the story will concern the royals, and they'll have to come up with some sort of response fairly quickly.
I cannot wait for someone to link it to Barbados when they become a republic, despite them planning to do it for ages.
If you look at what Meghan says, regardless of the situation or the issue, she's always the victim.
BREAK!
The correct phrase to use is "when there is a change in monarch".
The argument has been doing the rounds a bit anyway and is false, although the Chancellor's 6% hike is certainly going to be an interesting test of where we are on the CT curve.
(I was also in part responding as the subject contains no blood-colour references)
You don't like people doing it to you.
The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).
I'm not saying it's at all likely, though. Just saying calling it a day at that point would be sensible.