As schools in England re-open CON members give EdSec Williamson a MINUS 44% rating – politicalbettin
Comments
-
That would be a really interesting header if any historians out there want to write it. Which generation in history saw the biggest changes in their lifetime. People didn’t live as long as a rule in those days of course.IanB2 said:
I think there's often been massive social change over a similar timescale. Consider from late medieval England of the 1590s under Queen Elizabeth I to the turbulent 1640s, Cromwell and the civil war. Or from the stultified class-ridden society of the Napoleonic wars in 1810 through to the late 19th century industrial revolution.moonshine said:
It’s a bit like how a lot of baby boomers are quite interested in whether a celebrity is gay or not. Doesn’t mean they’re homophobic but it’s a piece of information that was unusual to them growing up so they still find it interesting. When younger generations give a shrug.IanB2 said:
Also it's a handy conversation prop and there's no doubt that at that age he's simply fallen into a pattern. He's basically spent his life on a world tour, visiting places and meeting people, so picking out people who might have connections with other places and asking about them is a lot easier than the awkward "and what do you do..." questions he'd have to ask otherwise. And once the member of the public had got their anecdote about how PP met the crown prince on his visit to their country of ethnic origin back in 1975, there was nothing more to be said, PP could walk on to the next person.Nigel_Foremain said:
I think unfortunately it is a often function of the age of the individual. I once remember my great embarrassment when my father (who would now be 94 were he still alive) was at an event in my village and asked a woman who was of Asian ethnicity "Where are you from?" "Cambridge" came the reply. We all knew what he meant, but he didn't intend to be offensive, he just thought he was making interested conversation.MaxPB said:
That's great. I imagine that gave both of them a good chuckle.IanB2 said:
I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.MaxPB said:
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.Cyclefree said:
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.MaxPB said:The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
The WW2 generation had a similar thing with race in a way that’s pretty uninteresting to boomers and below. We underestimate how much social change there is in one human lifetime now.
I suppose my generation is destined to be seen as “-ist” about gender fluidity, when in our dotage we say things like “ooh did you know she used to be a fella”. It will be amusing to see what Gen Z get accused of by their juniors. Something around gene editing probably.1 -
She just said people should "think carefully about the future", and it was at the direction of her own PM and not of her own initiative.TheScreamingEagles said:
She's a political animal.Casino_Royale said:
No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.Dura_Ace said:
You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.Casino_Royale said:
It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.
You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
FWIW, I don't think it'd be unreasonable for a Head of State to comment on how they might feel about the prospective break-up of that state.0 -
If you ask the question a different way, 69% think we should still have a monarchy, only 21% opposedbigjohnowls said:
A minority think we are better with a monarchy though yesHYUFD said:
No, by a 36% margin more people think we would be worse off if the monarchy went.bigjohnowls said:
So more people think it would make no difference or be better if the monarchy were abolished.HYUFD said:
Excellent poll for Republicans
Excellent poll for Monarchists
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists0 -
If it’s not the Queen or Prince Philip, it is either William, Kate, Charles or Camilla.eek said:
Nope - it's not the racist elderly aunt and it's supposedly been narrowed down to 4 people way higher up in the pecking order (either them or their other halves).HYUFD said:
Princess Michael of Kent would be my guessLuckyguy1983 said:
I am saying this as someone who hasn't watched the interview, but was it definitely a 'hope' being expressed that it wasn't going to be a black baby? That sounds completely stupid apart from anything else - not much Meghan can do about it is there?kinabalu said:Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
What if the conversation was more someone who thought they'd developed a rapport with Meghan (eg. Kate) wondering with pleasure whether the child could have beautiful and unusual colouring - for example caramel skin tone but with blue eyes. It would still be insensitive, and ill-judged, but not intentionally hurtful. If the conversation was more like that, it would be a great pity for it to be weaponised this way.
On the other hand, if it was Princess Michael of Kent, it could have been as portrayed; she thinks the entire Royal family are lumpen proles compared to her anyway.
And from that you can probably have a good idea which person it is...
I would say the likelihood in reverse order is
Charles
William
Kate
Camilla
But really, it’s still a nothing as far as I am concerned. It’s true I may err towards describing things as stupid rather than racist, although I’ve just realised in writing this that my father would now be described as “BAME” these days.
In some ways we are more race obsessed and twitchy about race than we were a generation ago.1 -
I reckon its still her...but she doesn't actually type them out herself, there is a special person whose job it is to do that.GIN1138 said:
I love how that account has had to put (parody) in their handle... Like people genuinely believed HMQ was sat in Buck House sending out those Tweets! 😂FrancisUrquhart said:0 -
So to summarise:HYUFD said:
They cannot be free market classical liberals no, though it is possible for former Labour voters who are patriots to become Tories certainly, as large numbers did in 2019TOPPING said:
Thanks for clearing that up. While there are plenty on here who are not Tories, Labour voting monarchists, meanwhile, absolutely are Tories.HYUFD said:
More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logicPhilip_Thompson said:
So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?HYUFD said:
By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
a) former republican now member of Cons Cabinet = not Tory; while
b) former Lab voter now Cons voter = Tory.
Much appreciated.1 -
Enough people made it to their 60s to make it a valid comparison; the increase in average life expectancy owed most to resolving the causes of infant and childhood (and indeed at birth) deaths, and next most to prolonging later life into the 80s and 90s. People didn't all drop dead at 40 in olden timesmoonshine said:
That would be a really interesting header if any historians out there want to write it. Which generation in history saw the biggest changes in their lifetime. People didn’t live as long as a rule in those days of course.IanB2 said:
I think there's often been massive social change over a similar timescale. Consider from late medieval England of the 1590s under Queen Elizabeth I to the turbulent 1640s, Cromwell and the civil war. Or from the stultified class-ridden society of the Napoleonic wars in 1810 through to the late 19th century industrial revolution.moonshine said:
It’s a bit like how a lot of baby boomers are quite interested in whether a celebrity is gay or not. Doesn’t mean they’re homophobic but it’s a piece of information that was unusual to them growing up so they still find it interesting. When younger generations give a shrug.IanB2 said:
Also it's a handy conversation prop and there's no doubt that at that age he's simply fallen into a pattern. He's basically spent his life on a world tour, visiting places and meeting people, so picking out people who might have connections with other places and asking about them is a lot easier than the awkward "and what do you do..." questions he'd have to ask otherwise. And once the member of the public had got their anecdote about how PP met the crown prince on his visit to their country of ethnic origin back in 1975, there was nothing more to be said, PP could walk on to the next person.Nigel_Foremain said:
I think unfortunately it is a often function of the age of the individual. I once remember my great embarrassment when my father (who would now be 94 were he still alive) was at an event in my village and asked a woman who was of Asian ethnicity "Where are you from?" "Cambridge" came the reply. We all knew what he meant, but he didn't intend to be offensive, he just thought he was making interested conversation.MaxPB said:
That's great. I imagine that gave both of them a good chuckle.IanB2 said:
I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.MaxPB said:
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.Cyclefree said:
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.MaxPB said:The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
The WW2 generation had a similar thing with race in a way that’s pretty uninteresting to boomers and below. We underestimate how much social change there is in one human lifetime now.
I suppose my generation is destined to be seen as “-ist” about gender fluidity, when in our dotage we say things like “ooh did you know she used to be a fella”. It will be amusing to see what Gen Z get accused of by their juniors. Something around gene editing probably.
0 -
It would help if there was a wall chart.IanB2 said:
It's a roller-coaster learning experience in here today, to be sureHYUFD said:
More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logicPhilip_Thompson said:
So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?HYUFD said:
By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?1 -
If they are still republicans they are centre right pro free market liberals not Tories yes.TOPPING said:
So to summarise:HYUFD said:
They cannot be free market classical liberals no, though it is possible for former Labour voters who are patriots to become Tories certainly, as large numbers did in 2019TOPPING said:
Thanks for clearing that up. While there are plenty on here who are not Tories, Labour voting monarchists, meanwhile, absolutely are Tories.HYUFD said:
More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logicPhilip_Thompson said:
So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?HYUFD said:
By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
a) former republican now member of Cons Cabinet = not Tories; while
b) former Lab voters now Cons voters = Tories.
Much appreciated.
If they are former Labour voters who are monarchists now voting Tory then they are Tories indeed.0 -
Pretty different from nights in the centre of Glasgow for the last year or so, and not in any case usually preceded by the likes of this.Philip_Thompson said:
How is that different from any other night in Glasgow?Theuniondivvie said:Brenda will at least be pleased that the Queen’s 11 (copyright Murdo Fraser) are back to winning ways, and that their royalist supporters are celebrating in the traditional way.
https://twitter.com/morlotticarlo/status/1368709045780180997?s=21
https://twitter.com/garygra04735164/status/1368656843170545667?s=21
https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/1368836695626555393?s=21
And to think that there are fuckwits still claiming that the Union flag is an innocuous symbol in Scotland.0 -
Oprah was selected by them for a reason.Cyclefree said:
Oh come off it! You are given what looks like gold dust and you don't ask the obvious follow up question: who told you that?kle4 said:
Oprah must have done thousands of interviews, but is she a professional interviewer in the sense of seeking to extract info like that? She's an entertainment superstar not an interrogator.Cyclefree said:
Indeed.Gardenwalker said:
Really stupid to get involved in any way.rottenborough said:
If a professional investigator was asked to investigate such an allegation, the first thing they would do is ask the complainant for the name of the person who said the alleged remark, when, who else was present, whether it was repeated, what was said in reply, the context, whether there was anything written down afterwards, who else was told about it etc.
I note that a professional interviewer (Oprah) was unable to ask even these most basic questions, which doesn't say much for her interviewing skills, frankly.
In the absence of such details, it is virtually impossible to investigate such a vague allegation.
Making such a claim without being willing to back it up with details is nasty because it is impossible for anyone to defend themselves against it or for there to be any form of closure.
No. This isn't interrogation. It is basic curiosity. And the lack of follow up is deliberate. It is wounding without striking. It is, frankly, despicable.
If someone had said something like that to me I'd have had it out with them right away and demanded an apology. Not brought it up two years later in a public forum in such a vague but harmful way.0 -
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.Gardenwalker said:
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.kinabalu said:Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?0 -
Is it just me - and I almost hesitate to say this from my nice comfy chair 200 miles away - but is that fighting a little bit rubbish?Philip_Thompson said:
How is that different from any other night in Glasgow?Theuniondivvie said:Brenda will at least be pleased that the Queen’s 11 (copyright Murdo Fraser) are back to winning ways, and that their royalist supporters are celebrating in the traditional way.
https://twitter.com/morlotticarlo/status/1368709045780180997?s=21
And what are they fighting about? Is this football related? If so, how does it relate to Nicola Sturgeon?0 -
Nearly a quarter of a century after Diana's death, I can't believe we're still going through all this bullshit. We are a strange country. The Yanks' interest in this circus doesn't help.
3 -
I suspect they just exchanged private vows with one another.Cyclefree said:
It's an odd claim to make. If it turns out to be untrue, then it risks undermining the veracity of the other claims they make.rpjs said:CarlottaVance said:
“Just the three of us” would not constitute a legal wedding: there have to be at leadt two witnesses don’t there?HYUFD said:
Just a minor private backyard wedding with the Archbishop of Canterbury, then effectively a service of Thanksgiving at Windsor Castle with the Archbishop tooCharles said:
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1368753624688566272?s=20
And surely this will be easily verified or not by some not particularly enterprising member of the press ordering their marriage certificate from the GRO?
If true then it is very odd because for a marriage to be legal there need to be two witnesses and it is curious that the AoC and the whole Royal Family would go along with a sham.
I am curious about it from a professional perspective. Often in investigations people make a claim which can easily be checked and turns out to be untrue. They do it to bolster their case but of course it does the opposite. If people lie about X, why wouldn't they also lie about Y and Z etc.
So I'll be interested to see what, if anything, we learn about this.
There might be pressure on the AoC now to comment.0 -
If Liz Truss was not still a republican she would be a Tory then?HYUFD said:
If they are still republicans they are centre right pro free market liberals not Tories yes.TOPPING said:
So to summarise:HYUFD said:
They cannot be free market classical liberals no, though it is possible for former Labour voters who are patriots to become Tories certainly, as large numbers did in 2019TOPPING said:
Thanks for clearing that up. While there are plenty on here who are not Tories, Labour voting monarchists, meanwhile, absolutely are Tories.HYUFD said:
More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logicPhilip_Thompson said:
So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?HYUFD said:
By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
a) former republican now member of Cons Cabinet = not Tories; while
b) former Lab voters now Cons voters = Tories.
Much appreciated.
If they are former Labour voters who are monarchists now voting Tory then they are Tories indeed.0 -
That's a pretty good combination for a modern Tory.HYUFD said:
Being a Thatcherite free marketeer does not make you a Tory. Indeed in many respects Thatcher herself was closer to a Gladstonian Liberal than a Disraelian Tory, only Thatcher's support of the monarchy, despite occasional disagreements with the Queen, meant she was still able to be called a Tory.TheScreamingEagles said:
Oh behave.HYUFD said:
Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.
You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.
I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.
If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.
Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.
The Tory party have evolved and aren't Disraeli's party anymore.
There is a very good reason why the rise of the Labour Party saw many Gladstonian liberals join the Conservative Party.
The modern Tories are the most liberal party of government.0 -
@Theuniondivvie
I don't get Rangers. Do they all vote Scottish Conservative, campaign for the Union amongst their mates and families, and fervently support the monarchy? Or do they simply fly the UJ around as a symbol of their football club, and go on a yob-riot, and nothing more?
Given the images, pictures, quotes and "interviews" with some of them I've seen in the past, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, possibly with some protestant sectarianism on top.2 -
Yes, if she has genuinely changed from her time in the Liberal Democrats to support the monarchy she could now be accepted to be a ToryTOPPING said:
If Liz Truss was not still a republican she would be a Tory then?HYUFD said:
If they are still republicans they are centre right pro free market liberals not Tories yes.TOPPING said:
So to summarise:HYUFD said:
They cannot be free market classical liberals no, though it is possible for former Labour voters who are patriots to become Tories certainly, as large numbers did in 2019TOPPING said:
Thanks for clearing that up. While there are plenty on here who are not Tories, Labour voting monarchists, meanwhile, absolutely are Tories.HYUFD said:
More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logicPhilip_Thompson said:
So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?HYUFD said:
By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
a) former republican now member of Cons Cabinet = not Tories; while
b) former Lab voters now Cons voters = Tories.
Much appreciated.
If they are former Labour voters who are monarchists now voting Tory then they are Tories indeed.0 -
The late 20th to early 21st centuries without a shadow of a doubt. The internet has been the printing press and the steam engine rolled into one over a period of little more than 20 years.moonshine said:
That would be a really interesting header if any historians out there want to write it. Which generation in history saw the biggest changes in their lifetime. People didn’t live as long as a rule in those days of course.IanB2 said:
I think there's often been massive social change over a similar timescale. Consider from late medieval England of the 1590s under Queen Elizabeth I to the turbulent 1640s, Cromwell and the civil war. Or from the stultified class-ridden society of the Napoleonic wars in 1810 through to the late 19th century industrial revolution.moonshine said:
It’s a bit like how a lot of baby boomers are quite interested in whether a celebrity is gay or not. Doesn’t mean they’re homophobic but it’s a piece of information that was unusual to them growing up so they still find it interesting. When younger generations give a shrug.IanB2 said:
Also it's a handy conversation prop and there's no doubt that at that age he's simply fallen into a pattern. He's basically spent his life on a world tour, visiting places and meeting people, so picking out people who might have connections with other places and asking about them is a lot easier than the awkward "and what do you do..." questions he'd have to ask otherwise. And once the member of the public had got their anecdote about how PP met the crown prince on his visit to their country of ethnic origin back in 1975, there was nothing more to be said, PP could walk on to the next person.Nigel_Foremain said:
I think unfortunately it is a often function of the age of the individual. I once remember my great embarrassment when my father (who would now be 94 were he still alive) was at an event in my village and asked a woman who was of Asian ethnicity "Where are you from?" "Cambridge" came the reply. We all knew what he meant, but he didn't intend to be offensive, he just thought he was making interested conversation.MaxPB said:
That's great. I imagine that gave both of them a good chuckle.IanB2 said:
I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.MaxPB said:
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.Cyclefree said:
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.MaxPB said:The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
The WW2 generation had a similar thing with race in a way that’s pretty uninteresting to boomers and below. We underestimate how much social change there is in one human lifetime now.
I suppose my generation is destined to be seen as “-ist” about gender fluidity, when in our dotage we say things like “ooh did you know she used to be a fella”. It will be amusing to see what Gen Z get accused of by their juniors. Something around gene editing probably.0 -
It's an apolitical observation from me, in fact. And I could be wrong - but let's face it that's unlikely.TOPPING said:
He is a supporter of the Labour Party, don't forget. They have form in these things. Don't blame him, it is the institution.Gardenwalker said:
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.kinabalu said:Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.0 -
Man City winning the league shouldn't be too much of a superspreader event.2
-
As a contribution to the general rumour-mongering and low-grade, twitchy speculation, I would be very surprised if it wasn't one of Philip, Princess Michael, Andrew, Camilla, Anne or Edward.Gardenwalker said:
If it’s not the Queen or Prince Philip, it is either William, Kate, Charles or Camilla.eek said:
Nope - it's not the racist elderly aunt and it's supposedly been narrowed down to 4 people way higher up in the pecking order (either them or their other halves).HYUFD said:
Princess Michael of Kent would be my guessLuckyguy1983 said:
I am saying this as someone who hasn't watched the interview, but was it definitely a 'hope' being expressed that it wasn't going to be a black baby? That sounds completely stupid apart from anything else - not much Meghan can do about it is there?kinabalu said:Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
What if the conversation was more someone who thought they'd developed a rapport with Meghan (eg. Kate) wondering with pleasure whether the child could have beautiful and unusual colouring - for example caramel skin tone but with blue eyes. It would still be insensitive, and ill-judged, but not intentionally hurtful. If the conversation was more like that, it would be a great pity for it to be weaponised this way.
On the other hand, if it was Princess Michael of Kent, it could have been as portrayed; she thinks the entire Royal family are lumpen proles compared to her anyway.
And from that you can probably have a good idea which person it is...
I would say the likelihood in reverse order is
Charles
William
Kate
Camilla
But really, it’s still a nothing as far as I am concerned. It’s true I may err towards describing things as stupid rather than racist, although I’ve just realised in writing this that my father would now be described as “BAME” these days.
In some ways we are more race obsessed and twitchy about race than we were a generation ago.0 -
Do you ever read what you post?HYUFD said:
Yes, if she has genuinely changed from her time in the Liberal Democrats to support the monarchy she could now be accepted to be a ToryTOPPING said:
If Liz Truss was not still a republican she would be a Tory then?HYUFD said:
If they are still republicans they are centre right pro free market liberals not Tories yes.TOPPING said:
So to summarise:HYUFD said:
They cannot be free market classical liberals no, though it is possible for former Labour voters who are patriots to become Tories certainly, as large numbers did in 2019TOPPING said:
Thanks for clearing that up. While there are plenty on here who are not Tories, Labour voting monarchists, meanwhile, absolutely are Tories.HYUFD said:
More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logicPhilip_Thompson said:
So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?HYUFD said:
By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
a) former republican now member of Cons Cabinet = not Tories; while
b) former Lab voters now Cons voters = Tories.
Much appreciated.
If they are former Labour voters who are monarchists now voting Tory then they are Tories indeed.0 -
That's nothing, some said Cameron wasnt one, even as PM of the first majority Conservative government in nearly 20 years.MaxPB said:
Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂HYUFD said:
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.Anabobazina said:
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!HYUFD said:
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchistkjh said:
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?HYUFD said:
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.TheScreamingEagles said:
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?HYUFD said:
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.TheScreamingEagles said:FPT
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)Charles said:
That’s a very unpleasant smearTheScreamingEagles said:The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
Shame on you
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)1 -
The Etihad Stadium has been practising social distancing since it opened.Pulpstar said:Man City winning the league shouldn't be too much of a superspreader event.
0 -
A venn diagram might be more useful?TOPPING said:
It would help if there was a wall chart.IanB2 said:
It's a roller-coaster learning experience in here today, to be sureHYUFD said:
More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logicPhilip_Thompson said:
So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?HYUFD said:
By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?2 -
Spoil sport! I was looking for some answer talking about the 5th century or something.DougSeal said:
The late 20th to early 21st centuries without a shadow of a doubt. The internet has been the printing press and the steam engine rolled into one over a period of little more than 20 years.moonshine said:
That would be a really interesting header if any historians out there want to write it. Which generation in history saw the biggest changes in their lifetime. People didn’t live as long as a rule in those days of course.IanB2 said:
I think there's often been massive social change over a similar timescale. Consider from late medieval England of the 1590s under Queen Elizabeth I to the turbulent 1640s, Cromwell and the civil war. Or from the stultified class-ridden society of the Napoleonic wars in 1810 through to the late 19th century industrial revolution.moonshine said:
It’s a bit like how a lot of baby boomers are quite interested in whether a celebrity is gay or not. Doesn’t mean they’re homophobic but it’s a piece of information that was unusual to them growing up so they still find it interesting. When younger generations give a shrug.IanB2 said:
Also it's a handy conversation prop and there's no doubt that at that age he's simply fallen into a pattern. He's basically spent his life on a world tour, visiting places and meeting people, so picking out people who might have connections with other places and asking about them is a lot easier than the awkward "and what do you do..." questions he'd have to ask otherwise. And once the member of the public had got their anecdote about how PP met the crown prince on his visit to their country of ethnic origin back in 1975, there was nothing more to be said, PP could walk on to the next person.Nigel_Foremain said:
I think unfortunately it is a often function of the age of the individual. I once remember my great embarrassment when my father (who would now be 94 were he still alive) was at an event in my village and asked a woman who was of Asian ethnicity "Where are you from?" "Cambridge" came the reply. We all knew what he meant, but he didn't intend to be offensive, he just thought he was making interested conversation.MaxPB said:
That's great. I imagine that gave both of them a good chuckle.IanB2 said:
I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.MaxPB said:
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.Cyclefree said:
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.MaxPB said:The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
The WW2 generation had a similar thing with race in a way that’s pretty uninteresting to boomers and below. We underestimate how much social change there is in one human lifetime now.
I suppose my generation is destined to be seen as “-ist” about gender fluidity, when in our dotage we say things like “ooh did you know she used to be a fella”. It will be amusing to see what Gen Z get accused of by their juniors. Something around gene editing probably.0 -
Some like the monarchy because of the circus. I prefer it boring, that's the point of a figurehead institution in my book. One less thing to worry about.northern_monkey said:Nearly a quarter of a century after Diana's death, I can't believe we're still going through all this bullshit. We are a strange country. The Yanks' interest in this circus doesn't help.
2 -
Some Gladstronian Liberals became Tories, Radicals in the Liberal party helped workers form Labour. The long complexities of British politics.Philip_Thompson said:
That's a pretty good combination for a modern Tory.HYUFD said:
Being a Thatcherite free marketeer does not make you a Tory. Indeed in many respects Thatcher herself was closer to a Gladstonian Liberal than a Disraelian Tory, only Thatcher's support of the monarchy, despite occasional disagreements with the Queen, meant she was still able to be called a Tory.TheScreamingEagles said:
Oh behave.HYUFD said:
Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.
You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.
I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.
If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.
Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.
The Tory party have evolved and aren't Disraeli's party anymore.
There is a very good reason why the rise of the Labour Party saw many Gladstonian liberals join the Conservative Party.
The modern Tories are the most liberal party of government.2 -
Looks like an honest English centre-forward that knows his way around the league.MattW said:
Indeedy.Anabobazina said:
Wasn't there once an MPs' football team, that boasted Ed Balls as star striker??NickPalmer said:
That'd be fab. There used to be a team of MPs who danced in a tap-dancing troupe as the "Division Belles"Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, I was wondering about getting into it in the betting sense.
Hmm.
For playing, that may be the case, although you'd make quite the splash if you ended up in a top team!
"And today the 19 year old Koreans have announced their retirement after the quintet of former British MPs destroyed them at League of Legends."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/toeing-the-party-line-5350451.html
A friend who came to a Labour dinner was placed next to Maria Eagle, who has a keen mind but isn't famous for her frivolity. He asked her in all innocence whether she was a member of this troupe that he'd read about. She was Not Amused.
0 -
I'd go for my earlier example of 1590 to 1640. From a society dominated by religious and social conformity, where sticking out could end your life unpleasantly, to an outpouring of nonconformity and an executed king. The spread of printing among the masses, the bible in English, changes in mobility and social structures. Describing the world of the 1640s to the young of 1590 would have been at least as shocking as any other vision fifty years into the future.DougSeal said:
The late 20th to early 21st centuries without a shadow of a doubt. The internet has been the printing press and the steam engine rolled into one over a period of little more than 20 years.moonshine said:
That would be a really interesting header if any historians out there want to write it. Which generation in history saw the biggest changes in their lifetime. People didn’t live as long as a rule in those days of course.IanB2 said:
I think there's often been massive social change over a similar timescale. Consider from late medieval England of the 1590s under Queen Elizabeth I to the turbulent 1640s, Cromwell and the civil war. Or from the stultified class-ridden society of the Napoleonic wars in 1810 through to the late 19th century industrial revolution.moonshine said:
It’s a bit like how a lot of baby boomers are quite interested in whether a celebrity is gay or not. Doesn’t mean they’re homophobic but it’s a piece of information that was unusual to them growing up so they still find it interesting. When younger generations give a shrug.IanB2 said:
Also it's a handy conversation prop and there's no doubt that at that age he's simply fallen into a pattern. He's basically spent his life on a world tour, visiting places and meeting people, so picking out people who might have connections with other places and asking about them is a lot easier than the awkward "and what do you do..." questions he'd have to ask otherwise. And once the member of the public had got their anecdote about how PP met the crown prince on his visit to their country of ethnic origin back in 1975, there was nothing more to be said, PP could walk on to the next person.Nigel_Foremain said:
I think unfortunately it is a often function of the age of the individual. I once remember my great embarrassment when my father (who would now be 94 were he still alive) was at an event in my village and asked a woman who was of Asian ethnicity "Where are you from?" "Cambridge" came the reply. We all knew what he meant, but he didn't intend to be offensive, he just thought he was making interested conversation.MaxPB said:
That's great. I imagine that gave both of them a good chuckle.IanB2 said:
I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.MaxPB said:
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.Cyclefree said:
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.MaxPB said:The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
The WW2 generation had a similar thing with race in a way that’s pretty uninteresting to boomers and below. We underestimate how much social change there is in one human lifetime now.
I suppose my generation is destined to be seen as “-ist” about gender fluidity, when in our dotage we say things like “ooh did you know she used to be a fella”. It will be amusing to see what Gen Z get accused of by their juniors. Something around gene editing probably.3 -
Marriage is a legal process, and one with public records, so should be easy enough to see if a legal marriage occurred. There would be a registration and witnesses.Casino_Royale said:
I suspect they just exchanged private vows with one another.Cyclefree said:
It's an odd claim to make. If it turns out to be untrue, then it risks undermining the veracity of the other claims they make.rpjs said:CarlottaVance said:
“Just the three of us” would not constitute a legal wedding: there have to be at leadt two witnesses don’t there?HYUFD said:
Just a minor private backyard wedding with the Archbishop of Canterbury, then effectively a service of Thanksgiving at Windsor Castle with the Archbishop tooCharles said:
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1368753624688566272?s=20
And surely this will be easily verified or not by some not particularly enterprising member of the press ordering their marriage certificate from the GRO?
If true then it is very odd because for a marriage to be legal there need to be two witnesses and it is curious that the AoC and the whole Royal Family would go along with a sham.
I am curious about it from a professional perspective. Often in investigations people make a claim which can easily be checked and turns out to be untrue. They do it to bolster their case but of course it does the opposite. If people lie about X, why wouldn't they also lie about Y and Z etc.
So I'll be interested to see what, if anything, we learn about this.
There might be pressure on the AoC now to comment.
For a CoE one, banns read in advance, and had to be under a roof. I don't think a legal marriage could have occurred as described.
Maybe they jumped the broomstick.1 -
Yes, she was treated like shit in the media.eek said:
As was shown last year - and probably even more relevant now...Philip_Thompson said:
I think the notion this has come purely from Meghan is absolutely myopic and untrue. I'd estimate 90% plus of the reporting in recent years has been anti not pro Meghan.Richard_Tyndall said:
You have absolutely no evidence that the Palace were involved in any of the claims against Meghan. Once again that is just your anti-monarchist bias driving your view. Nor is the Palace in a position to stop those outside the place from making comments or claims. Apparently you want them to stay silent on one side but to intervene on the other.Philip_Thompson said:
I think to non-royalists like yourself Meghan getting slandered in the press with character assassination attempts relating to a period she was struggling with her mental health, prior to her speaking about herself struggling with her mental health, is a terrible way to treat her.Richard_Tyndall said:
But it is inevitable and right that those countries will eventually choose to follow the majority of their fellow Commonwealth colleagues and remove the Queen as head of state. Something I completely understand. That is of no import as far as I am concerned. My comment is purely about the claims this significantly increases support for republicanism in this country which is very much wishful thinking by anti-monarchists like yourself.Philip_Thompson said:
There's more than just the UK that has Her Majesty as head of state. There are 16 countries that do. Many of the 16 do not have a white majority too.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nah Sean is quite right. The number of people in the UK who will have their view on the monarchy changed by this is tiny. This wasn't even for the UK market. The couple have burnt all their bridges here already. This was purely for the sake of their new home country - hence the predictable and obvious accusations of racism. It is straight out of the PR playbook.Philip_Thompson said:
You are HYUFD and I claim £5.Sean_F said:
The only people who will take the side of Harry and Meghan are those who dislike the monarchy anyway. Both of them have seen their popularity drop markedly with the general public, according to Yougov.TOPPING said:
Check out the list of Royal engagements (published by someeek said:
It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.kle4 said:
Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.eek said:
It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.Anabobazina said:
They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.Charles said:
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint
https://twitter.com/garius/status/1368852137321631744
Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.nuttermonarchistarchivist in The Times each year). Hundreds and hundreds overall.
When some institution or other gets a visit from a member of the Royal Family it is a matter of huge anticipation and excitement.
Meanwhile, there are not that many working royals.
Not sure what slimming down ou are expecting, save to get rid of Sandringham/Balmoral perhaps saving a few quid.
Have Yougov polled people who have had time to process what has been said? Or just the briefings, attacks and leaks against them prior to them speaking?
Any British republicans who were hoping this was going to change opinion in the UK are going to be sadly disappointed.
This won't just be playing out in the UK but in Jamaica and other countries too. The terrible way Meghan has been treated both in the past and this week will not have endeared the monarchy to Jamaicans and others I suspect.
Edit: And Meghan was only treated terribly in her own mind. It bears no relation to reality.
The bombardment against her for weeks and months now in the media is terrible and has been coming from the palace or friends of the palace. That is reality.
Discretion would have been the better part of valour. The palace should have not leaked or said anything prior to this - all the bullying in the Mail in recent months against her just feeds into what she had to say.
The monarchy would have been better advised to keep a stoic silence on this matter - and encouraged their friendly press to do the same. Instead of seeking to destroy someone feeding into what they have to say.
Meghan is the one who has driven this because she wanted to have ll the benefits of being a Royal without any of the responsibilities. Now that has failed she wants to make use of her Royal connections for her own ends. The only way she can do that is to attack the institution. It is so obvious and again just like the racism claims is designed purely for the US market.
https://twitter.com/michaelhogan/status/13688878063036006415 -
If she tops the ConHome list of Tory Cabinet Ministers, she is accepted as a Tory by the most Tory of Tories, except HYUFD. LOLz.HYUFD said:
Yes, if she has genuinely changed from her time in the Liberal Democrats to support the monarchy she could now be accepted to be a ToryTOPPING said:
If Liz Truss was not still a republican she would be a Tory then?HYUFD said:
If they are still republicans they are centre right pro free market liberals not Tories yes.TOPPING said:
So to summarise:HYUFD said:
They cannot be free market classical liberals no, though it is possible for former Labour voters who are patriots to become Tories certainly, as large numbers did in 2019TOPPING said:
Thanks for clearing that up. While there are plenty on here who are not Tories, Labour voting monarchists, meanwhile, absolutely are Tories.HYUFD said:
More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logicPhilip_Thompson said:
So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?HYUFD said:
By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
a) former republican now member of Cons Cabinet = not Tories; while
b) former Lab voters now Cons voters = Tories.
Much appreciated.
If they are former Labour voters who are monarchists now voting Tory then they are Tories indeed.2 -
Exactly. It cuts through all that narcissistic hogwash. 'KISS'. And on similar note, nobody who voted Tory in Dec 19 can be considered a Remainer. It does not, however, make them a Leaver. That would be pushing things too far.TOPPING said:.
That's asking for a slap from @HYUFD as a large number of those who voted Tory are manifestly not Tories.kinabalu said:
I avoid all this nonsense with a very clear and simple definition. If you voted Tory in the general election you are a Tory. The only escape from that status before the next election is a firm resolution (preferably out loud so I can hear) not to do it again.Nigelb said:
I'm fairly sure that when we hear people talking about the 'bloody Tories', they make no such distinction...TOPPING said:
Then, sadly, neither are you.HYUFD said:
Liz Truss is an ex LD on the liberal wing of the Conservative Party, as I said she is not a ToryTOPPING said:
Liz Truss republicanism/HYUFD remainerism.HYUFD said:
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.Anabobazina said:
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!HYUFD said:
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchistkjh said:
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?HYUFD said:
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.TheScreamingEagles said:
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?HYUFD said:
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.TheScreamingEagles said:FPT
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)Charles said:
That’s a very unpleasant smearTheScreamingEagles said:The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
Shame on you
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
You are either both Tories or neither of you are.
Please rethink and represent.0 -
It was an accurate post, only if she is now a monarchist could she be a ToryGallowgate said:
Do you ever read what you post?HYUFD said:
Yes, if she has genuinely changed from her time in the Liberal Democrats to support the monarchy she could now be accepted to be a ToryTOPPING said:
If Liz Truss was not still a republican she would be a Tory then?HYUFD said:
If they are still republicans they are centre right pro free market liberals not Tories yes.TOPPING said:
So to summarise:HYUFD said:
They cannot be free market classical liberals no, though it is possible for former Labour voters who are patriots to become Tories certainly, as large numbers did in 2019TOPPING said:
Thanks for clearing that up. While there are plenty on here who are not Tories, Labour voting monarchists, meanwhile, absolutely are Tories.HYUFD said:
More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logicPhilip_Thompson said:
So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?HYUFD said:
By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
a) former republican now member of Cons Cabinet = not Tories; while
b) former Lab voters now Cons voters = Tories.
Much appreciated.
If they are former Labour voters who are monarchists now voting Tory then they are Tories indeed.0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/12/prince-harry-racism
This incident doesn’t get enough attention. Given Meg has never googled her husband, I assume she doesn’t know about it.0 -
Lots of circles of aspects of toryness, with such a small space of overlap in the middle that HY would be its only occupant.IanB2 said:
A venn diagram might be more useful?TOPPING said:
It would help if there was a wall chart.IanB2 said:
It's a roller-coaster learning experience in here today, to be sureHYUFD said:
More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logicPhilip_Thompson said:
So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?HYUFD said:
By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?3 -
Its enough to keep the circus going, up to alleged nazi motivation on here!Gardenwalker said:The interview has generated a lot of breathless coverage but is a damp squib in my opinion.
The central accusation, that someone speculated crassly on a future child’s skin colour, is incredibly dull.
The mental health stuff may be more impactful since it's pretty accepted that being a royal is weird and can be messed up.0 -
That's true. But as with vaccine efficacy 92% is not 100% and I fear this is part of your 8%.kinabalu said:
It's an apolitical observation from me, in fact. And I could be wrong - but let's face it that's unlikely.TOPPING said:
He is a supporter of the Labour Party, don't forget. They have form in these things. Don't blame him, it is the institution.Gardenwalker said:
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.kinabalu said:Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
In fact, annualised, you have used up your 8% quotas for the next few years but I am really looking forward to your solid, absolutely incontrovertible 92% posts.0 -
I'll take that as a 'no'.HYUFD said:
It was an accurate post, only if she is now a monarchist could she be a ToryGallowgate said:
Do you ever read what you post?HYUFD said:
Yes, if she has genuinely changed from her time in the Liberal Democrats to support the monarchy she could now be accepted to be a ToryTOPPING said:
If Liz Truss was not still a republican she would be a Tory then?HYUFD said:
If they are still republicans they are centre right pro free market liberals not Tories yes.TOPPING said:
So to summarise:HYUFD said:
They cannot be free market classical liberals no, though it is possible for former Labour voters who are patriots to become Tories certainly, as large numbers did in 2019TOPPING said:
Thanks for clearing that up. While there are plenty on here who are not Tories, Labour voting monarchists, meanwhile, absolutely are Tories.HYUFD said:
More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logicPhilip_Thompson said:
So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?HYUFD said:
By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
a) former republican now member of Cons Cabinet = not Tories; while
b) former Lab voters now Cons voters = Tories.
Much appreciated.
If they are former Labour voters who are monarchists now voting Tory then they are Tories indeed.0 -
Fake News!Anabobazina said:
Looks like an honest English centre-forward that knows his way around the league.MattW said:
Indeedy.Anabobazina said:
Wasn't there once an MPs' football team, that boasted Ed Balls as star striker??NickPalmer said:
That'd be fab. There used to be a team of MPs who danced in a tap-dancing troupe as the "Division Belles"Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Palmer, I was wondering about getting into it in the betting sense.
Hmm.
For playing, that may be the case, although you'd make quite the splash if you ended up in a top team!
"And today the 19 year old Koreans have announced their retirement after the quintet of former British MPs destroyed them at League of Legends."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/toeing-the-party-line-5350451.html
A friend who came to a Labour dinner was placed next to Maria Eagle, who has a keen mind but isn't famous for her frivolity. He asked her in all innocence whether she was a member of this troupe that he'd read about. She was Not Amused.
I recall he played midfield.1 -
That's the big get out clause. That it's Princess Michael of Kent. She's the Gavin Williamson here.HYUFD said:
Princess Michael of Kent would be my guessLuckyguy1983 said:
I am saying this as someone who hasn't watched the interview, but was it definitely a 'hope' being expressed that it wasn't going to be a black baby? That sounds completely stupid apart from anything else - not much Meghan can do about it is there?kinabalu said:Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
What if the conversation was more someone who thought they'd developed a rapport with Meghan (eg. Kate) wondering with pleasure whether the child could have beautiful and unusual colouring - for example caramel skin tone but with blue eyes. It would still be insensitive, and ill-judged, but not intentionally hurtful. If the conversation was more like that, it would be a great pity for it to be weaponised this way.
On the other hand, if it was Princess Michael of Kent, it could have been as portrayed; she thinks the entire Royal family are lumpen proles compared to her anyway.1 -
He'll probably go into bat for the institution but given his own history being accused of racism probably best to say he'll not comment and that palace has his support in whatever they do in response.CarlottaVance said:1 -
The modern Tory Party is very much stiil Disraeli's Party.Philip_Thompson said:
That's a pretty good combination for a modern Tory.HYUFD said:
Being a Thatcherite free marketeer does not make you a Tory. Indeed in many respects Thatcher herself was closer to a Gladstonian Liberal than a Disraelian Tory, only Thatcher's support of the monarchy, despite occasional disagreements with the Queen, meant she was still able to be called a Tory.TheScreamingEagles said:
Oh behave.HYUFD said:
Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.
You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.
I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.
If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.
Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.
The Tory party have evolved and aren't Disraeli's party anymore.
There is a very good reason why the rise of the Labour Party saw many Gladstonian liberals join the Conservative Party.
The modern Tories are the most liberal party of government.
Disraeli was a reformist, One Nation Tory on economics, a staunch monarchist and patriot too.
Boris is also a reformist, One Nation Tory on economics and monarchist and flag waving Brexiteer.
Indeed arguably today's Ed Davey LDs are still more liberal on economics than the current Tory Party.
If the Tories were genuinely liberal they would also not have ended free movement and not have raised corporation tax and not have increased spending on the NHS and via furlough and nor would they have imposed a lockdown (on that basis Reform UK is also more liberal than the Tories)0 -
The other aspect I was shocked by, they are properly astranged from the family. Father and brother don't talk to him, money cut off. They made it sound like the only royal who will take their call is the Queen, and after that interview, not sure she will be rushing to answer any time soon.kle4 said:
Its enough to keep the circus going, up to alleged nazi motivation on here!Gardenwalker said:The interview has generated a lot of breathless coverage but is a damp squib in my opinion.
The central accusation, that someone speculated crassly on a future child’s skin colour, is incredibly dull.
The mental health stuff may be more impactful since it's pretty accepted that being a royal is weird and can be messed up.
That is quite different from just not doing the royal duties stuff.0 -
I've often encountered the situation where I believed something and my wife correcting me was a really, really bad ideaMalmesbury said:
I don't want to really get dragged into this nonesense...moonshine said:
He’s certainly not a very good advert for Eton College.GIN1138 said:
Well I know Harry's not the brightest but you'd think they would know the difference between a marriage service and a blessing lol?Malmesbury said:
Sounds like the pre marriage blessing caused confusion for some....GIN1138 said:
Until CoE and the Archbishop confirm that's what happened I can't believe it. It sounds too far fetched.kinabalu said:Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
But, have you ever encountered the situation where your wife believes something and correcting her is a really, really bad idea?
I don't like being told, but she's normally right in the end.3 -
ABC won't comment unless asked by H&M, or required to by a Court - I would think.Foxy said:
Marriage is a legal process, and one with public records, so should be easy enough to see if a legal marriage occurred. There would be a registration and witnesses.Casino_Royale said:
I suspect they just exchanged private vows with one another.Cyclefree said:
It's an odd claim to make. If it turns out to be untrue, then it risks undermining the veracity of the other claims they make.rpjs said:CarlottaVance said:
“Just the three of us” would not constitute a legal wedding: there have to be at leadt two witnesses don’t there?HYUFD said:
Just a minor private backyard wedding with the Archbishop of Canterbury, then effectively a service of Thanksgiving at Windsor Castle with the Archbishop tooCharles said:
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1368753624688566272?s=20
And surely this will be easily verified or not by some not particularly enterprising member of the press ordering their marriage certificate from the GRO?
If true then it is very odd because for a marriage to be legal there need to be two witnesses and it is curious that the AoC and the whole Royal Family would go along with a sham.
I am curious about it from a professional perspective. Often in investigations people make a claim which can easily be checked and turns out to be untrue. They do it to bolster their case but of course it does the opposite. If people lie about X, why wouldn't they also lie about Y and Z etc.
So I'll be interested to see what, if anything, we learn about this.
There might be pressure on the AoC now to comment.
For a CoE one, banns read in advance, and had to be under a roof. I don't think a legal marriage could have occurred as described.
Maybe they jumped the broomstick.0 -
They're more unionist than average but not monolithically soCasino_Royale said:@Theuniondivvie
I don't get Rangers. Do they all vote Scottish Conservative, campaign for the Union amongst their mates and families, and fervently support the monarchy? Or do they simply fly the UJ around as a symbol of their football club, and go on a yob-riot, and nothing more?
Given the images, pictures, quotes and "interviews" with some of them I've seen in the past, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, possibly with some protestant sectarianism on top.
Poll date 7 May 2015
An online poll by gersnet.co.uk shows the Nationalists will win 30 per cent of the Light Blue vote, a point ahead of Labour.
The popular fans forum took a sample survey size of more than 800 and as of around 9pm this morning, the poll also shows the Tories were on just 23 per cent.
Compared to the large poll that very same day they are
-20% SNP
+5% Labour
+ 8% Tory compared to the average Scot.
Would surely have been a large No majority amongst the fans in 2014, quite how large I'm not sure.3 -
Like most fan bases, they’re a mixed bunch: there are Rangers supporters for Indy, thousands & thousands of them who wouldn’t dream of condoning what those pricks did yesterday and the largest Rangers supporters club in the world is based in Gaelic speaking Stornaway.Casino_Royale said:@Theuniondivvie
I don't get Rangers. Do they all vote Scottish Conservative, campaign for the Union amongst their mates and families, and fervently support the monarchy? Or do they simply fly the UJ around as a symbol of their football club, and go on a yob-riot, and nothing more?
Given the images, pictures, quotes and "interviews" with some of them I've seen in the past, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, possibly with some protestant sectarianism on top.
However there’s a hard core that choose to associate themselves with the Orange Order, Orange marches, NI loyalists, other right wing football groups and hatred of Catholics. They were out in force yesterday, and for better or worse they have chosen the Union flag and the monarchy as their symbols. As it happens I suspect that up until 15 or so years ago they would have tended to vote Labour if they voted at all.3 -
We don't know what was said, what the context was, or who said it. An allegation by Meghan Markle is not the law of the Medes and Persians.eek said:
Nope - it's not the racist elderly aunt and it's supposedly been narrowed down to 4 people way higher up in the pecking order (either them or their other halves).HYUFD said:
Princess Michael of Kent would be my guessLuckyguy1983 said:
I am saying this as someone who hasn't watched the interview, but was it definitely a 'hope' being expressed that it wasn't going to be a black baby? That sounds completely stupid apart from anything else - not much Meghan can do about it is there?kinabalu said:Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
What if the conversation was more someone who thought they'd developed a rapport with Meghan (eg. Kate) wondering with pleasure whether the child could have beautiful and unusual colouring - for example caramel skin tone but with blue eyes. It would still be insensitive, and ill-judged, but not intentionally hurtful. If the conversation was more like that, it would be a great pity for it to be weaponised this way.
On the other hand, if it was Princess Michael of Kent, it could have been as portrayed; she thinks the entire Royal family are lumpen proles compared to her anyway.
And from that you can probably have a good idea which person it is...1 -
https://unherd.com/2021/03/hollywoods-cinderella-has-spoken/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=b8367f2091&mc_eid=836634e34b
But even if those rumours [Meghan's behaviour] are true, it’s an insignificant skirmish in a war that has already been won. Just look at the Sussexes, sitting with Oprah under a vine-draped pergola, Spotify and Netflix deals in hand, as radiant as the California sun. Meghan hasn’t just escaped back to the States with her prince in tow: she’s tossing a lit match over her shoulder — with an assist from Oprah, no less, who might just be the closest thing the US has to a Queen. Is it all a bit contrived? Without question, from the strategic displays of emotion to the “casual” followup with Meghan and Harry as they tend to their backyard flock of rescue chickens. (“I just love rescuing,” Meghan says, in the second-most loaded moment of the interview.)
But that’s Hollywood, and that’s America — and this is Meghan Markle’s home turf. She knows that what we really love, even more than a traditional fairy tale, is an underdog story that ends with a cry for freedom, a confessional interview, and a few tears. Even if it’s all just made for TV.0 -
-
The money cut off is a weird complaint, as if they provide money then they have strongs on you and what you can do is curtailed, so he should be happy about it. That the relationships have broken down that far is very unfortunate particular with the brothers but is unsurprising - they're spreading muck about each other in leaks to newspapers and have done, low key, for quite some time, of course they don't speak anymore.FrancisUrquhart said:
The other aspect I was shocked by, they are properly astranged from the family. Father and brother don't talk to him, money cut off. They made it sound like the only royal who will take their call is the Queen, and after that interview, not sure she will be rushing to answer any time soon.kle4 said:
Its enough to keep the circus going, up to alleged nazi motivation on here!Gardenwalker said:The interview has generated a lot of breathless coverage but is a damp squib in my opinion.
The central accusation, that someone speculated crassly on a future child’s skin colour, is incredibly dull.
The mental health stuff may be more impactful since it's pretty accepted that being a royal is weird and can be messed up.
That is quite different from just not doing the royal duties stuff.
They are moving in very different directions with their lives, they may not be able to repair the relationship as a result. Tragic, but it happens. Reconciliation is not for everyone.0 -
And Israel still?Theuniondivvie said:
However there’s a hard core that choose to associate themselves with the Orange Order, Orange marches, NI loyalists, other right wing football groups and hatred of Catholics. They were out in force yesterday, and for better or worse they have chosen the Union flag and the monarchy as their symbols.Casino_Royale said:@Theuniondivvie
I don't get Rangers. Do they all vote Scottish Conservative, campaign for the Union amongst their mates and families, and fervently support the monarchy? Or do they simply fly the UJ around as a symbol of their football club, and go on a yob-riot, and nothing more?
Given the images, pictures, quotes and "interviews" with some of them I've seen in the past, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, possibly with some protestant sectarianism on top.0 -
Which is a shame when all evidence points to the evil step-mother.kinabalu said:
That's the big get out clause. That it's Princess Michael of Kent. She's the Gavin Williamson here.HYUFD said:
Princess Michael of Kent would be my guessLuckyguy1983 said:
I am saying this as someone who hasn't watched the interview, but was it definitely a 'hope' being expressed that it wasn't going to be a black baby? That sounds completely stupid apart from anything else - not much Meghan can do about it is there?kinabalu said:Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
What if the conversation was more someone who thought they'd developed a rapport with Meghan (eg. Kate) wondering with pleasure whether the child could have beautiful and unusual colouring - for example caramel skin tone but with blue eyes. It would still be insensitive, and ill-judged, but not intentionally hurtful. If the conversation was more like that, it would be a great pity for it to be weaponised this way.
On the other hand, if it was Princess Michael of Kent, it could have been as portrayed; she thinks the entire Royal family are lumpen proles compared to her anyway.1 -
Very unlucky, there are only 50-60 cases a day in Syria.HYUFD said:1 -
Still not looking much like Ian Wright.CarlottaVance said:0 -
There were definitely moments hamming it up for the American audience...the I never googled Harry, it was just true love and the nobody taught me how to be a Princess stuff and stories of having to learn to curtsy and doing it imperfectly, swotting up the national anthem...all stuff straight out of some Disney film.IanB2 said:https://unherd.com/2021/03/hollywoods-cinderella-has-spoken/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=b8367f2091&mc_eid=836634e34b
But even if those rumours [Meghan's behaviour] are true, it’s an insignificant skirmish in a war that has already been won. Just look at the Sussexes, sitting with Oprah under a vine-draped pergola, Spotify and Netflix deals in hand, as radiant as the California sun. Meghan hasn’t just escaped back to the States with her prince in tow: she’s tossing a lit match over her shoulder — with an assist from Oprah, no less, who might just be the closest thing the US has to a Queen. Is it all a bit contrived? Without question, from the strategic displays of emotion to the “casual” followup with Meghan and Harry as they tend to their backyard flock of rescue chickens. (“I just love rescuing,” Meghan says, in the second-most loaded moment of the interview.)
But that’s Hollywood, and that’s America — and this is Meghan Markle’s home turf. She knows that what we really love, even more than a traditional fairy tale, is an underdog story that ends with a cry for freedom, a confessional interview, and a few tears. Even if it’s all just made for TV.
And no way they are true....the Royal family is supported by a massive institution of people, who roles are ensuring everybody knows what is expected and how to do it.
Mike Tindall has talked about it, and how despite all these rules, the likes of the Queen doesn't expect you always to stick to them e.g. he tells a funny story of him and Liz missing the Christmas church service and him sitting in his PJs with her and she is taking the mickey out of herself about messing up takes of her Christmas message.5 -
Given how many Christmas Prince movies are made every year (of which I have embarrassingly watched more than a dozen, as I like cheesy Christmas movies), the plot is only a hair's breadth more 'serious' than those.IanB2 said:https://unherd.com/2021/03/hollywoods-cinderella-has-spoken/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=b8367f2091&mc_eid=836634e34b
But even if those rumours [Meghan's behaviour] are true, it’s an insignificant skirmish in a war that has already been won. Just look at the Sussexes, sitting with Oprah under a vine-draped pergola, Spotify and Netflix deals in hand, as radiant as the California sun. Meghan hasn’t just escaped back to the States with her prince in tow: she’s tossing a lit match over her shoulder — with an assist from Oprah, no less, who might just be the closest thing the US has to a Queen. Is it all a bit contrived? Without question, from the strategic displays of emotion to the “casual” followup with Meghan and Harry as they tend to their backyard flock of rescue chickens. (“I just love rescuing,” Meghan says, in the second-most loaded moment of the interview.)
But that’s Hollywood, and that’s America — and this is Meghan Markle’s home turf. She knows that what we really love, even more than a traditional fairy tale, is an underdog story that ends with a cry for freedom, a confessional interview, and a few tears. Even if it’s all just made for TV.1 -
She doesn't know what we really love. Most people are glad she has buggered off and she can whine as much as she likes on US TV. No-one really cares. Good riddance.IanB2 said:https://unherd.com/2021/03/hollywoods-cinderella-has-spoken/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=b8367f2091&mc_eid=836634e34b
But even if those rumours [Meghan's behaviour] are true, it’s an insignificant skirmish in a war that has already been won. Just look at the Sussexes, sitting with Oprah under a vine-draped pergola, Spotify and Netflix deals in hand, as radiant as the California sun. Meghan hasn’t just escaped back to the States with her prince in tow: she’s tossing a lit match over her shoulder — with an assist from Oprah, no less, who might just be the closest thing the US has to a Queen. Is it all a bit contrived? Without question, from the strategic displays of emotion to the “casual” followup with Meghan and Harry as they tend to their backyard flock of rescue chickens. (“I just love rescuing,” Meghan says, in the second-most loaded moment of the interview.)
But that’s Hollywood, and that’s America — and this is Meghan Markle’s home turf. She knows that what we really love, even more than a traditional fairy tale, is an underdog story that ends with a cry for freedom, a confessional interview, and a few tears. Even if it’s all just made for TV.1 -
Good choice, though a bit earlier when the rapid changes from monarch to monarch on what was and what was permitted worship must have been a nightmare for genuine believers.IanB2 said:
I'd go for my earlier example of 1590 to 1640. From a society dominated by religious and social conformity, where sticking out could end your life unpleasantly, to an outpouring of nonconformity and an executed king. The spread of printing among the masses, the bible in English, changes in mobility and social structures. Describing the world of the 1640s to the young of 1590 would have been at least as shocking as any other vision fifty years into the future.DougSeal said:
The late 20th to early 21st centuries without a shadow of a doubt. The internet has been the printing press and the steam engine rolled into one over a period of little more than 20 years.moonshine said:
That would be a really interesting header if any historians out there want to write it. Which generation in history saw the biggest changes in their lifetime. People didn’t live as long as a rule in those days of course.IanB2 said:
I think there's often been massive social change over a similar timescale. Consider from late medieval England of the 1590s under Queen Elizabeth I to the turbulent 1640s, Cromwell and the civil war. Or from the stultified class-ridden society of the Napoleonic wars in 1810 through to the late 19th century industrial revolution.moonshine said:
It’s a bit like how a lot of baby boomers are quite interested in whether a celebrity is gay or not. Doesn’t mean they’re homophobic but it’s a piece of information that was unusual to them growing up so they still find it interesting. When younger generations give a shrug.IanB2 said:
Also it's a handy conversation prop and there's no doubt that at that age he's simply fallen into a pattern. He's basically spent his life on a world tour, visiting places and meeting people, so picking out people who might have connections with other places and asking about them is a lot easier than the awkward "and what do you do..." questions he'd have to ask otherwise. And once the member of the public had got their anecdote about how PP met the crown prince on his visit to their country of ethnic origin back in 1975, there was nothing more to be said, PP could walk on to the next person.Nigel_Foremain said:
I think unfortunately it is a often function of the age of the individual. I once remember my great embarrassment when my father (who would now be 94 were he still alive) was at an event in my village and asked a woman who was of Asian ethnicity "Where are you from?" "Cambridge" came the reply. We all knew what he meant, but he didn't intend to be offensive, he just thought he was making interested conversation.MaxPB said:
That's great. I imagine that gave both of them a good chuckle.IanB2 said:
I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.MaxPB said:
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.Cyclefree said:
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.MaxPB said:The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
The WW2 generation had a similar thing with race in a way that’s pretty uninteresting to boomers and below. We underestimate how much social change there is in one human lifetime now.
I suppose my generation is destined to be seen as “-ist” about gender fluidity, when in our dotage we say things like “ooh did you know she used to be a fella”. It will be amusing to see what Gen Z get accused of by their juniors. Something around gene editing probably.0 -
Absolutely. This is what makes me more of an anti-republican rather than a pro-monarchist. A nice boring asset which remains above politics.kle4 said:
Some like the monarchy because of the circus. I prefer it boring, that's the point of a figurehead institution in my book. One less thing to worry about.northern_monkey said:Nearly a quarter of a century after Diana's death, I can't believe we're still going through all this bullshit. We are a strange country. The Yanks' interest in this circus doesn't help.
1 -
"No one cares . . . read more on Pages 2 to 17"squareroot2 said:
She doesn't know what we really love. Most people are glad she has buggered off and she can whine as much as she likes on US TV. No-one really cares. Good riddance.IanB2 said:https://unherd.com/2021/03/hollywoods-cinderella-has-spoken/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=b8367f2091&mc_eid=836634e34b
But even if those rumours [Meghan's behaviour] are true, it’s an insignificant skirmish in a war that has already been won. Just look at the Sussexes, sitting with Oprah under a vine-draped pergola, Spotify and Netflix deals in hand, as radiant as the California sun. Meghan hasn’t just escaped back to the States with her prince in tow: she’s tossing a lit match over her shoulder — with an assist from Oprah, no less, who might just be the closest thing the US has to a Queen. Is it all a bit contrived? Without question, from the strategic displays of emotion to the “casual” followup with Meghan and Harry as they tend to their backyard flock of rescue chickens. (“I just love rescuing,” Meghan says, in the second-most loaded moment of the interview.)
But that’s Hollywood, and that’s America — and this is Meghan Markle’s home turf. She knows that what we really love, even more than a traditional fairy tale, is an underdog story that ends with a cry for freedom, a confessional interview, and a few tears. Even if it’s all just made for TV.2 -
All tories. Different urges, different rationales, but all tories.TOPPING said:
So to summarise:HYUFD said:
They cannot be free market classical liberals no, though it is possible for former Labour voters who are patriots to become Tories certainly, as large numbers did in 2019TOPPING said:
Thanks for clearing that up. While there are plenty on here who are not Tories, Labour voting monarchists, meanwhile, absolutely are Tories.HYUFD said:
More Labour voters are monarchists than Republicans, so most Shadow Cabinet members should be monarchists on that logicPhilip_Thompson said:
So one in every eleven Tories is a republican?HYUFD said:
By that logic we should have 2 republicans in the Cabinet. Truss is obviously the most likely candidate but who would be the other one?
a) former republican now member of Cons Cabinet = not Tory; while
b) former Lab voter now Cons voter = Tory.
Much appreciated.0 -
I honestly don't think you can use lockdown or furlough as pointers to political slant. Excepting some very right wing mostly Americans, and an awkward half-way house in Sweden (for a while), they've been adopted to varying degrees in all democracies and by parties of all colours.HYUFD said:
The modern Tory Party is very much stiil Disraeli's Party.Philip_Thompson said:
That's a pretty good combination for a modern Tory.HYUFD said:
Being a Thatcherite free marketeer does not make you a Tory. Indeed in many respects Thatcher herself was closer to a Gladstonian Liberal than a Disraelian Tory, only Thatcher's support of the monarchy, despite occasional disagreements with the Queen, meant she was still able to be called a Tory.TheScreamingEagles said:
Oh behave.HYUFD said:
Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.
You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.
I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.
If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.
Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.
The Tory party have evolved and aren't Disraeli's party anymore.
There is a very good reason why the rise of the Labour Party saw many Gladstonian liberals join the Conservative Party.
The modern Tories are the most liberal party of government.
Disraeli was a reformist, One Nation Tory on economics, a staunch monarchist and patriot too.
Boris is also a reformist, One Nation Tory on economics and monarchist and flag waving Brexiteer.
Indeed arguably today's Ed Davey LDs are still more liberal on economics than the current Tory Party.
If the Tories were genuinely liberal they would also not have ended free movement and not have raised corporation tax and not have increased spending on the NHS and via furlough and nor would they have imposed a lockdown (on that basis Reform UK is also more liberal than the Tories)3 -
This may reveal me to have passed into middle age, but what is the unique gimmick of TikTok? I suppose Vine is not a thing anymore.FrancisUrquhart said:0 -
https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1368815974078615555squareroot2 said:Most people are glad she has buggered off and she can whine as much as she likes on US TV. No-one really cares.
2 -
Yep, there’s still a bit of that, and a smattering of Trumpy tinged 🇺🇸 online. Just another front in the culture war innit.TOPPING said:
And Israel still?Theuniondivvie said:
However there’s a hard core that choose to associate themselves with the Orange Order, Orange marches, NI loyalists, other right wing football groups and hatred of Catholics. They were out in force yesterday, and for better or worse they have chosen the Union flag and the monarchy as their symbols.Casino_Royale said:@Theuniondivvie
I don't get Rangers. Do they all vote Scottish Conservative, campaign for the Union amongst their mates and families, and fervently support the monarchy? Or do they simply fly the UJ around as a symbol of their football club, and go on a yob-riot, and nothing more?
Given the images, pictures, quotes and "interviews" with some of them I've seen in the past, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, possibly with some protestant sectarianism on top.
Ironically some of the people that smashed up George Square last night would have been among the statue defenders that turned up in the same place last year in response to a non existent threat. They ended up rioting then as well.1 -
It's a family business in Syria though, so probably.Richard_Tyndall said:1 -
I don't know why we bother to argue about the definition of a Tory.
Surely the one true definition of a Tory is: Lifelong Labour voter that likes Tony Blair more than Corbyn.2 -
(Not having watched the interview) does Meghan say that she learned about this alleged comment from Harry? If so, possible chain of events:moonshine said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/12/prince-harry-racism
This incident doesn’t get enough attention. Given Meg has never googled her husband, I assume she doesn’t know about it.
Harry: "Hope the bairn's not too black, huh?"
Meghan: "What?!"
Harry: "Uh, that's what gramps said! You know what he's like. I told him off, natch"0 -
She is, and is referring to, Americans, not us.squareroot2 said:
She doesn't know what we really love. Most people are glad she has buggered off and she can whine as much as she likes on US TV. No-one really cares. Good riddance.IanB2 said:https://unherd.com/2021/03/hollywoods-cinderella-has-spoken/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=b8367f2091&mc_eid=836634e34b
But even if those rumours [Meghan's behaviour] are true, it’s an insignificant skirmish in a war that has already been won. Just look at the Sussexes, sitting with Oprah under a vine-draped pergola, Spotify and Netflix deals in hand, as radiant as the California sun. Meghan hasn’t just escaped back to the States with her prince in tow: she’s tossing a lit match over her shoulder — with an assist from Oprah, no less, who might just be the closest thing the US has to a Queen. Is it all a bit contrived? Without question, from the strategic displays of emotion to the “casual” followup with Meghan and Harry as they tend to their backyard flock of rescue chickens. (“I just love rescuing,” Meghan says, in the second-most loaded moment of the interview.)
But that’s Hollywood, and that’s America — and this is Meghan Markle’s home turf. She knows that what we really love, even more than a traditional fairy tale, is an underdog story that ends with a cry for freedom, a confessional interview, and a few tears. Even if it’s all just made for TV.2 -
Look, if you show up somewhere en masse then you might as well have a little riot. Bit of a wasted effort if not.Theuniondivvie said:
Yep, there’s still a bit of that, and a smattering of Trumpy tinged 🇺🇸 online. Just another front in the culture war innit.TOPPING said:
And Israel still?Theuniondivvie said:
However there’s a hard core that choose to associate themselves with the Orange Order, Orange marches, NI loyalists, other right wing football groups and hatred of Catholics. They were out in force yesterday, and for better or worse they have chosen the Union flag and the monarchy as their symbols.Casino_Royale said:@Theuniondivvie
I don't get Rangers. Do they all vote Scottish Conservative, campaign for the Union amongst their mates and families, and fervently support the monarchy? Or do they simply fly the UJ around as a symbol of their football club, and go on a yob-riot, and nothing more?
Given the images, pictures, quotes and "interviews" with some of them I've seen in the past, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, possibly with some protestant sectarianism on top.
Ironically some of the people that smashed up George Square last night would have been among the statue defenders that turned up in the same place last year in response to a non existent threat. They ended up rioting then as well.0 -
Hardly, given most voters are monarchists and the vast majority of Tories are monarchists, my definition of a Tory would be far more likely to lead to a Tory landslide than an incorrect free market liberal definition of a Tory.kinabalu said:
The former can win the Red Wall, the latter can't.
0 -
Isn't it mostly miming to famous people's songs and speeches?kle4 said:
This may reveal me to have passed into middle age, but what is the unique gimmick of TikTok? I suppose Vine is not a thing anymore.FrancisUrquhart said:0 -
Knock Knock
"Hello"?
"I'm just calling round to see if you qualify to be a conservative voter in next Thursday's election....."1 -
Scottish Tories condemn Nicola Sturgeon’s power over ministerial code, despite loophole clearing Priti Patel
‘Scottish Government accountable only to itself’ protests Douglas Ross - but Boris Johnson rejected identical call for change
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotland-tories-priti-patel-bullying-b1813978.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter2 -
The point remains.. noone really cares... next weeks fish and chip paper. Whilst Megan is making loads of money, the average American is having a really hard time.IanB2 said:
She is, and is referring to, Americans, not us.squareroot2 said:
She doesn't know what we really love. Most people are glad she has buggered off and she can whine as much as she likes on US TV. No-one really cares. Good riddance.IanB2 said:https://unherd.com/2021/03/hollywoods-cinderella-has-spoken/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=b8367f2091&mc_eid=836634e34b
But even if those rumours [Meghan's behaviour] are true, it’s an insignificant skirmish in a war that has already been won. Just look at the Sussexes, sitting with Oprah under a vine-draped pergola, Spotify and Netflix deals in hand, as radiant as the California sun. Meghan hasn’t just escaped back to the States with her prince in tow: she’s tossing a lit match over her shoulder — with an assist from Oprah, no less, who might just be the closest thing the US has to a Queen. Is it all a bit contrived? Without question, from the strategic displays of emotion to the “casual” followup with Meghan and Harry as they tend to their backyard flock of rescue chickens. (“I just love rescuing,” Meghan says, in the second-most loaded moment of the interview.)
But that’s Hollywood, and that’s America — and this is Meghan Markle’s home turf. She knows that what we really love, even more than a traditional fairy tale, is an underdog story that ends with a cry for freedom, a confessional interview, and a few tears. Even if it’s all just made for TV.
Only the Tabloids care and they are not caring for Meghan nor Harry.0 -
I assume she meant “married” in the sense that those were the vows that mattered not the legal eventCyclefree said:
Trouble is it was stated as a very clear statement. If it is corrected or shown to be untrue then it risks undermining other equally clear statements made. This was not a casual conversation but a carefully planned interview.kle4 said:
I'd assume it merely not to be a literal statement. Sadly for investigators people are casual in language.Cyclefree said:
It's an odd claim to make. If it turns out to be untrue, then it risks undermining the veracity of the other claims they make.rpjs said:CarlottaVance said:
“Just the three of us” would not constitute a legal wedding: there have to be at leadt two witnesses don’t there?HYUFD said:
Just a minor private backyard wedding with the Archbishop of Canterbury, then effectively a service of Thanksgiving at Windsor Castle with the Archbishop tooCharles said:
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1368753624688566272?s=20
And surely this will be easily verified or not by some not particularly enterprising member of the press ordering their marriage certificate from the GRO?
If true then it is very odd because for a marriage to be legal there need to be two witnesses and it is curious that the AoC and the whole Royal Family would go along with a sham.
I am curious about it from a professional perspective. Often in investigations people make a claim which can easily be checked and turns out to be untrue. They do it to bolster their case but of course it does the opposite. If people lie about X, why wouldn't they also lie about Y and Z etc.
So I'll be interested to see what, if anything, we learn about this.1 -
It's Insta, Twitter or Facebook where the adults hang out?kle4 said:
This may reveal me to have passed into middle age, but what is the unique gimmick of TikTok? I suppose Vine is not a thing anymore.FrancisUrquhart said:0 -
Of course the cool kids don't TikTok or Instagram these days, they Clubhouse.....0
-
Chuckle. But bantering aside - I offered the OpEd that Meghan's acceptance here as bride of Harry would have been less widespread and sincere if she had been "proper" black rather than mixed race. It's not particularly provable or otherwise, but do you not feel that?TOPPING said:
That's true. But as with vaccine efficacy 92% is not 100% and I fear this is part of your 8%.kinabalu said:
It's an apolitical observation from me, in fact. And I could be wrong - but let's face it that's unlikely.TOPPING said:
He is a supporter of the Labour Party, don't forget. They have form in these things. Don't blame him, it is the institution.Gardenwalker said:
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.kinabalu said:Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
In fact, annualised, you have used up your 8% quotas for the next few years but I am really looking forward to your solid, absolutely incontrovertible 92% posts.-1 -
I assume the govt are now fully aware that they're massively behind the majority of the public now, in attitudes to lockdown. My only rationalisation of this is that 'holding the line' on being slow will appease the Nick P's of this world...Gallowgate said:Happy 'being allowed to leave your house for recreation' day everyone
Whilst many say they support the caution, the streets are really busy again, the roads back to normal levels, and the vaccinated are popping in to see one another. It was so nice to see multi generational families at the seaside over the weekend. The law went far too far on restricting social contact; I trust that we learn from this and never do it again.3 -
On the anti-republican question - are there any functions that *require* a "head of state" that couldn't be assigned to either Parliament or Government as appropriate? Can't we just do away with any risk of "President Blair" *and* the constitutional functions of the Monarchy at the same time?2
-
On the "married three days early" thing did they actually say they were legally married three days early?
The BBC write up just says that they "exchanged vows" three days early. That's not the same thing.
I could well understand wanting to have a private ceremony to exchange vows before the ceremony for the world under the glare of the cameras.1 -
That means Lord Sales will be on the Supreme Court for 18 years.TheScreamingEagles said:
And they can bring back Lord Sumption, so he can stop telling us all its ok to break the law.0 -
Interestingly even in the US Kate on +41% is more popular than Meghan on +31%.squareroot2 said:
The point remains.. noone really cares... next weeks fish and chip paper. Whilst Megan is making loads of money, the average American is having a really hard time.IanB2 said:
She is, and is referring to, Americans, not us.squareroot2 said:
She doesn't know what we really love. Most people are glad she has buggered off and she can whine as much as she likes on US TV. No-one really cares. Good riddance.IanB2 said:https://unherd.com/2021/03/hollywoods-cinderella-has-spoken/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=b8367f2091&mc_eid=836634e34b
But even if those rumours [Meghan's behaviour] are true, it’s an insignificant skirmish in a war that has already been won. Just look at the Sussexes, sitting with Oprah under a vine-draped pergola, Spotify and Netflix deals in hand, as radiant as the California sun. Meghan hasn’t just escaped back to the States with her prince in tow: she’s tossing a lit match over her shoulder — with an assist from Oprah, no less, who might just be the closest thing the US has to a Queen. Is it all a bit contrived? Without question, from the strategic displays of emotion to the “casual” followup with Meghan and Harry as they tend to their backyard flock of rescue chickens. (“I just love rescuing,” Meghan says, in the second-most loaded moment of the interview.)
But that’s Hollywood, and that’s America — and this is Meghan Markle’s home turf. She knows that what we really love, even more than a traditional fairy tale, is an underdog story that ends with a cry for freedom, a confessional interview, and a few tears. Even if it’s all just made for TV.
Only the Tabloids care and they are not caring for Meghan nor Harry.
Harry on +36% is more popular than William on +33% stateside though.
https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/04/royal-family-favorability-harry-meghan-oprah/.
In the US overall more favour the Sussexes than the Royals, 29% sympathise more with the Sussexes, 13% with the Royal Family and 23% with neither (though 23% of Republican voters sympathise more with the Royals to just 17% for the Sussexes).
https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/survey-results/daily/2021/03/05/d38f6/1
In the UK the reverse is true, 38% sympathise more with the Royal Family to 18% who sympathise more with the Sussexes and 30% with neither (though 36% of Labour voters sympathise more with the Sussexes to 18% who sympathise more with the Royal Family)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2021/03/04/d9d4d/10 -
I presume Facebook has so many users it is not cool as if your grandmother is on there it isn't trendy. But I'd ahve no idea.Foss said:
It's Insta, Twitter or Facebook where the adults hang out?kle4 said:
This may reveal me to have passed into middle age, but what is the unique gimmick of TikTok? I suppose Vine is not a thing anymore.FrancisUrquhart said:0 -
*It's notFoss said:
It's Insta, Twitter or Facebook where the adults hang out?kle4 said:
This may reveal me to have passed into middle age, but what is the unique gimmick of TikTok? I suppose Vine is not a thing anymore.FrancisUrquhart said:0 -
If it's PM of K it becomes a bit of a non-story. Ditto Philip, Andrew, Camilla.WhisperingOracle said:
As a contribution to the general rumour-mongering and low-grade, twitchy speculation, I would be very surprised if it wasn't one of Philip, Princess Michael, Andrew, Camilla, Anne or Edward.Gardenwalker said:
If it’s not the Queen or Prince Philip, it is either William, Kate, Charles or Camilla.eek said:
Nope - it's not the racist elderly aunt and it's supposedly been narrowed down to 4 people way higher up in the pecking order (either them or their other halves).HYUFD said:
Princess Michael of Kent would be my guessLuckyguy1983 said:
I am saying this as someone who hasn't watched the interview, but was it definitely a 'hope' being expressed that it wasn't going to be a black baby? That sounds completely stupid apart from anything else - not much Meghan can do about it is there?kinabalu said:Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
What if the conversation was more someone who thought they'd developed a rapport with Meghan (eg. Kate) wondering with pleasure whether the child could have beautiful and unusual colouring - for example caramel skin tone but with blue eyes. It would still be insensitive, and ill-judged, but not intentionally hurtful. If the conversation was more like that, it would be a great pity for it to be weaponised this way.
On the other hand, if it was Princess Michael of Kent, it could have been as portrayed; she thinks the entire Royal family are lumpen proles compared to her anyway.
And from that you can probably have a good idea which person it is...
I would say the likelihood in reverse order is
Charles
William
Kate
Camilla
But really, it’s still a nothing as far as I am concerned. It’s true I may err towards describing things as stupid rather than racist, although I’ve just realised in writing this that my father would now be described as “BAME” these days.
In some ways we are more race obsessed and twitchy about race than we were a generation ago.
I'm going Andrew.0
- Yes, let's replace my definition with his. Labour landslide! 
