Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on November 27, 2017, 01:03:53 PM
-
The go ahead far thinking Spectator thoughts on a bloke called Harry and a women called Meghan getting engaged. I am presuming the idea was write some click/comment bait.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-the-union-of-royalty-and-showbiz/
-
You didn't warn us it was by Melanie McDonagh. You are a bad man.
-
You didn't warn us it was by Melanie McDonagh. You are a bad man.
Isn't she the woman, I was going to say lady but thought better of it, upon whom Rita Skeeter was based?
-
Isn't she the woman, I was going to say lady but thought better of it, upon whom Rita Skeeter was based?
Apart from finding this woman/lady thing a bit odd, the answer to that would be no.
ETA: I wonder if the Melanie you might be thinking of is Melanie Phillips but the answer to that would be no as well
-
The go ahead far thinking Spectator thoughts on a bloke called Harry and a women called Meghan getting engaged. I am presuming the idea was write some click/comment bait.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-the-union-of-royalty-and-showbiz/
What an unpleasant article! >:( I wish them both well. :)
-
What an unpleasant article! >:(
... though very far from wrong in every particular.
-
Harry & Meggy should be made Duke and Duchess of Middlesex, it would be very hip and LGBTQQIP2SAA.
-
... though very far from wrong in every particular.
Seriously? You think that simply because Markle is divorced she's unsuitable to marry a royal? Aside from Catholics like McDonagh I don't see the rest of the nation really giving a fuck, any more than people 'love' the Queen any more or less because she didn't leave Philip and marry a footman.
As for her snide 'Princess Meghan' comment, she won't be a princess.
Do I give a shit about this? Not really, but this article is just a gob of spite.
-
Markle will make history as the first mixed race member of the British Royal family, which is a huge PLUS, imo.
-
Melanie McDonagh doesn't seem to realise that the royal family are not stuck in a time warp when it comes to divorce and, in any case, Prince Harry is a fair way from being in line to the throne.
Agree with floo & Rhiannon it is an unpleasant article, a gob of shite.
-
Seriously? You think that simply because Markle is divorced she's unsuitable to marry a royal?
No - that was horseshit in 1936, never mind now.
I meant that the whole thing is a fusion of royalty and showbiz. It's an X Factor-style royal engagement.
-
No - that was horseshit in 1936, never mind now.
I meant that the whole thing is a fusion of royalty and showbiz. It's an X Factor-style royal engagement.
That’s the headline. It’s not the article content. Like NS said, it’s click bait.
-
That’s the headline. It’s not the article content.
This looks like it is:
What the engagement will do is consolidate the real nature of the modern royal family, which is part of the entertainment and showbiz side of the nation.
-
This looks like it is:
No, the focus as a snobbish lifestyle judgement on someone for being both divorced and liberal.
-
No, the focus as a snobbish lifestyle judgement on someone for being both divorced and liberal.
Yes I know - I don't expect otherwise from the Speckled Tater. The point is the content isn't belied by the headline (or vice versa).
-
I switched on the lunchtime news to the seemingly endless tide of sycophancy. I'm afraid each time such an announcement is made it reinforces my republicanism. I may have to just ignore the news until next summer - which given the state of the world may be no bad thing in itself.
-
Yes I know - I don't expect otherwise from the Speckled Tater. The point is the content isn't belied by the headline (or vice versa).
Isn’t the point of content to reflect and elaborate on the headline?
-
I switched on the lunchtime news to the seemingly endless tide of sycophancy. I'm afraid each time such an announcement is made it reinforces my republicanism. I may have to just ignore the news until next summer - which given the state of the world may be no bad thing in itself.
I’m waiting for the announcement that we get a day off but it’s not looking likely.
-
Markle will make history as the first mixed race member of the British Royal family, which is a huge PLUS, imo.
What's race?
-
There is one other thing which doesn't seem to have surfaced yet ... did I hear that this young woman is - not only divorces, of mixed race, politically liberal - but also Catholic?
-
There is one other thing which doesn't seem to have surfaced yet ... did I hear that this young woman is - not only divorces, of mixed race, politically liberal - but also Catholic?
Now allowed and not of interest to Melanie McDonagh (at least in a bad way)
-
Now allowed and not of interest to Melanie McDonagh
... any more than are the policies of the Church of England, presumably, though she seems to have a keen interest in them.
-
I switched on the lunchtime news to the seemingly endless tide of sycophancy. I'm afraid each time such an announcement is made it reinforces my republicanism. I may have to just ignore the news until next summer - which given the state of the world may be no bad thing in itself.
Yep.
No harm to the couple, but the tide of kowtowing sycophancy to an unelected anachronism turns my stomach.
-
I switched on the lunchtime news to the seemingly endless tide of sycophancy. I'm afraid each time such an announcement is made it reinforces my republicanism. I may have to just ignore the news until next summer - which given the state of the world may be no bad thing in itself.
I share your pain.
I swear, when the current incumbent leaves a vacancy I'm going into a total news blackout mode for at least six weeks, even more so than now. No laptop, no live telly, no phone, no nowt.
-
There is one other thing which doesn't seem to have surfaced yet ... did I hear that this young woman is - not only divorces, of mixed race, politically liberal - but also Catholic?
Yes, nominally so I gather.
-
... any more than are the policies of the Church of England, presumably, though she seems to have a keen interest in them.
Well, as indicated not of interest in a bad way. Melanie McDonagh as a practising Papist will presumably be proud as punch that a papal infiltrator has seduced a scion of the heretical CoE with a view to taking rUK into a United States of Papism (USP)
-
Blimey! I don't think Meghan is a practising Catholic & Harry isn't high up on the royal food chain. It won't be any different to, say, Prince Michael of Kent's marriage to a divorced Catholic except that Harry has a higher profile.
(I'd not heard of Melanie McDonagh before. On looking her up I found she is an unusual mixture of feminism and tradition. Her article is unpleasant though - unkind really.)
-
Seriously? You think that simply because Markle is divorced she's unsuitable to marry a royal?
I'm struggling to see why this is an issue. There is virtually zero chance that Harry will come close to being monarch so far down the pecking order in line to the throne that he is.
But if this is an issue (I don't see how it is) then surely it is a much greater issue for Charles (1st in line to the throne) who is not only married to a divorcee, but is also divorced himself.
-
Exactly.
Times have changed and the royals have moved with the times, I don't see Meghan Markle's nominal Catholicism or her divorce to be an issue now.
(I believe the Queen of Spain was divorced before she married the King.)
-
The BBC seems to think that this is the most important news story right now that we are all passionately interested and utterly delighted in the wonderful and ground-breaking news that two adults want to get married.
I'm happy for them, as I would be for any adults wishing to marry, but utterly sick that the odious institution that is the monarchy still persists to the extent that this story should be of any significant interest to the rest of us: have we run out of worryingly smoky volcanoes or incompetent politicians?
-
The older I get, the less my republicanism is related to it being an inegalitarian institution which supports a sclerotic approach to privilege (which it is) , and the more I becomes a republican because unless you are a psychopath being part of it is a cruel and unusual punishment.
-
(I'd not heard of Melanie McDonagh before. On looking her up I found she is an unusual mixture of feminism and tradition. Her article is unpleasant though - unkind really.)
Not merely egregiously unpleasant (no great revelation to me in an organ one of whose former editors was a certain A. B. De Pfeffel Johnson) but just plain barmy. I mean, unfit to marry Prince Harry on the grounds of being divorced?
-
Not merely egregiously unpleasant (no great revelation to me in an organ one of whose former editors was a certain A. B. De Pfeffel Johnson) but just plain barmy. I mean, unfit to marry Prince Harry on the grounds of being divorced?
Agreed.
-
Just agreeing with two Scottish friends above. Apparently, some unemployed benefit claimant is going to be claiming housing benefit for future wife and probable sprogs. Gosh, exciting. Late film tonight: 'How the Romanovs came to a sticky end', starring Barbara Windsor and Bernard Bresslaw.
-
Looks like no public holiday. Bugger! When I was self employed I would have been happy with that as not stealing but as an employee, I was hoping to get something back on my paying for the wedding.
-
Yes, nominally so I gather.
Harry might have to do a prince Michael of Kent thing and give up a claim to the throne, then (which wouldn't be a bad thing)
Or they could abolish the daft Act of settlement and disestablish the CofE - which would be an added bonus.
-
Harry might have to do a prince Michael of Kent thing and give up a claim to the throne, then (which wouldn't be a bad thing)
Or they could abolish the daft Act of settlement and disestablish the CofE - which would be an added bonus.
The Catholic thing in the AoS is gone.
-
Couldn't we have them all embalmed and put them in Mme Tussaud's? The royalists could still go along and salivate, and it would work out a lot cheaper.
-
The BBC seems to think that this is the most important news story right now that we are all passionately interested and utterly delighted in the wonderful and ground-breaking news that two adults want to get married.
I'm happy for them, as I would be for any adults wishing to marry, but utterly sick that the odious institution that is the monarchy still persists to the extent that this story should be of any significant interest to the rest of us: have we run out of worryingly smoky volcanoes or incompetent politicians?
Yep.
I'm sure those depending on food banks tonight, those freezing in their homes, those terrified of the transition to Universal credit will be rejoicing with the BBC when the BBC tells them they should be happy.
How much is this going to cost the taxpayer...maybe old Brenda can take away some of the cash she trousered into the Caiman Islands to avoid tax, to pay for it?
-
To be honest, that's sort of what I think happens already. It's a straitjacket of non thinking. And I applaud both William and Harry for at least some attempt to break out of that but they couldn't say selling arms that I might use on my army stuff is wrong. So they are so restricted as to be puppets. And to be challenged by a Spectator controversialist who wants to support an institution that used to suppress her and her ilk.
-
The Catholic thing in the AoS is gone.
Technocally, it hasn't - 'cos the monarch has to be supreme governor of the CofE...if Harry wants to remain in direct line, he might be in a sticky position.
At the General Assembly of the CofS of two years back, at which I was a commissioner intent on five days' kip, the Kirk, in one of those brilliant milliseconds, passed a deliverece sending a 'humble petition (why 'humble') to Lizzie to abolish the Act of Settlement once and for all.
As far as I know, the auld wifie didn't respond.
-
Couldn't we have them all embalmed and put them in Mme Tussaud's? The royalists could still go along and salivate, and it would work out a lot cheaper.
I know a good recipe for embalming unguents.....
-
The tabloids will be taking their attention off benefit fraudsters in the near future! It's good news for a change, I just watched Prince Harry and Meghan's interview on Youtube and she is extremely relaxed and articulate. They seem to be a good match with their humanitarian interests, fortunate to have found eachother.
-
The tabloids will be taking their attention off benefit fraudsters in the near future! It's good news for a change, I just watched Prince Harry and Meghan's interview on Youtube and she is extremely relaxed and articulate. They seem to be a good match with their humanitarian interests, fortunate to have found eachother.
Is it good news for those who might die because of govt policy because people go 'Aw!'?
-
The tabloids will be taking their attention off benefit fraudsters in the near future! It's good news for a change, I just watched Prince Harry and Meghan's interview on Youtube and she is extremely relaxed and articulate. They seem to be a good match with their humanitarian interests, fortunate to have found eachother.
No doubt though that there are many other equally happy couples whose happiness isn't thrust on others.
-
Technocally, it hasn't - 'cos the monarch has to be supreme governor of the CofE...if Harry wants to remain in direct line, he might be in a sticky position.
At the General Assembly of the CofS of two years back, at which I was a commissioner intent on five days' kip, the Kirk, in one of those brilliant milliseconds, passed a deliverece sending a 'humble petition (why 'humble') to Lizzie to abolish the Act of Settlement once and for all.
As far as I know, the auld wifie didn't respond.
If he were to become left footer, ok, still an issue but being married to one is ok, now.
-
Is it good news for those who might die because of govt policy because people go 'Aw!'?
I just think with all the shit in the world it’s nice to go ‘aww’ for a change. So many people aren’t happy and these two are. Pretending this isn’t happening doesn’t take the shit away.
-
I just think with all the shit in the world it’s nice to go ‘aww’ for a change. So many people aren’t happy and these two are. Pretending this isn’t happening doesn’t take the shit away.
Who said it did? But because of what it is, even if by no choice of those involved, it"s a distraction and people die because of a govt that will precisely use it as such.
-
lol!
http://newsthump.com/2017/11/27/royal-engagement-delights-people-who-enjoy-paying-for-weddings-theyre-not-invited-to/
-
Absolutely Rhiannon, that's what I meant and I'm sure fellow posters knew that is what I meant. I've been a bit down of late and the news has cheered me up, doesn't mean my problems have gone away but I've had a bit of a lift today. I don't usually have a day off on Mondays and first thing this morning I was wishing I'd gone to work!
At work tomorrow I will undoubtedly be seeing some people who are having a struggle financially & in other ways but I'd bet without exception they all feel happy about Prince Harry and Meghan's engagement & don't grudge them anything. They'll have their problems, everyone does.
-
I can’t say it’s cheered me up exactly but two people are happy. And that’s nice.
-
Yup! I've gone back to thinking about other things unfortunately :D - but we get through it in the end (sigh).
-
Yeah, well a friend of mine on benefits thinks it's an enormous distraction to the inept introduction of UC but obviously you're happy so fuck'em
-
Yeah, well a friend of mine on benefits thinks it's an enormous distraction to the inept introduction of UC but obviously you're happy so fuck'em
Agreed.
And when I visit a friend of mine who is both blind and epileptic yet told he was fit to work, he'll be ecstatic as well.
Still, at least he got his benefit on appeal - after three months of no electricity in his house because he couldn't affoird it.
Should I take him a union jack to wave as a sign of loyalty?
-
Do you seriously think I don't know people with those problems and don't get involved with them???? I'm pretty sure I've come on here and had a good moan.
The engagement is a pleasant distraction for a short while, the wedding will be the same. We'll be back to normal in no time.
It's usually those who have the least who do not resent people such as Meghan and Harry.
(PS:- Just seen this headline on MSN - Millions of people will have their benefits frozen for another year.)
-
I switched on the lunchtime news to the seemingly endless tide of sycophancy. I'm afraid each time such an announcement is made it reinforces my republicanism. I may have to just ignore the news until next summer - which given the state of the world may be no bad thing in itself.
I find the stupid grin on the faces of everyone presenting this never ending royal saga really sickening, is the grin required by whichever company happens to be involved?
I dare say we'll be getting the usual running commentary on this lot now, like how many times they've farted this morning, where do their farts register on the Richter scale and on and on and on and on and on and on___________
ippy
-
Oh no, no bannings please! There are bound to be differences of opinion. We move on.
My husband was funny a little while ago & I don't normally go in for, "My husband says...", but he heard the interview with Meghan and Harry, that was fine, and then went on to say, "But that prat Charles!" Well it was funny when he said it, you'd have had to have been here and seen his face.
I'd not thought much about Meghan being part African-American but a generation ago that would have been unthinkable in the royal family and lots of other families. Racism seemed to be almost built into people then, any 'foreigner' was suspect. So Meghan and Harry are trail blazers in that regard but said it was never an issue for them. Their union will be a good thing for 21st century UK. They'll also set a fine example with their humanitarian work. Just my opinion.
-
The BBC presenters do seem to be competing to see who can be the most sycophantic. The stupid grins are a sight to behold. I wish the couple well but had hoped we'd moved on from this sort of coverage of royal stuff. Sadly not.
-
I don't like the sycophancy either, Maeght. Whenever I watch a documentary programme about the Royals it makes me cringe, however members of their family, cousins and the like, and close friends, are quite different and come across naturally.
(& on a trivial note, the couple have similar shaped noses in profile.)
-
Maybe the Moderators could consider moving this to the "Politics" Topic?
-
We have strayed a bit off topic with comments about benefit cuts but I don't see Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's engagement as political.
-
The go ahead far thinking Spectator thoughts on a bloke called Harry and a women called Meghan getting engaged. I am presuming the idea was write some click/comment bait.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-the-union-of-royalty-and-showbiz/
Blimey. I don't think I've read a more mean spirited article this year.
-
Isn’t the point of content to reflect and elaborate on the headline?
The headline is there to catch your eye and make you buy the magazine/click the link. Frequently it is not even written by the author of the article.
-
The engagement is a pleasant distraction for a short while, the wedding will be the same. We'll be back to normal in no time.
It's a pleasant distraction for about two minutes from my point of view. I am not a republican but I do not like the wall to wall sycophantic news coverage that Royal engagements generate. A couple of minutes jut before the news report is all that is necessary.
-
Blimey. I don't think I've read a more mean spirited article this year.
and it comes from someone who is supportive of the monarchy.
-
and it comes from someone who is supportive of the monarchy.
... unless they marry divorcees anyway.
-
Whilst weddings of any sort, even my own, don't get me excited, many people seem to enjoy a Royal Wedding; it will no doubt be an antidote to the doom and gloom of Brexit.
-
I'd not thought much about Meghan being part African-American but a generation ago that would have been unthinkable in the royal family and lots of other families. Racism seemed to be almost built into people then, any 'foreigner' was suspect. So Meghan and Harry are trail blazers in that regard but said it was never an issue for them. Their union will be a good thing for 21st century UK. They'll also set a fine example with their humanitarian work. Just my opinion.
Surely, the trail blazer was his elder brother? After all, he married the daughter of a bus driver and a waitress.
-
Surely, the trail blazer was his elder brother? After all, he married the daughter of a bus driver and a waitress.
Err - explain please
-
Err - explain please
Presumably HH was referring to the fact that William married a 'commoner', i.e. neither another royal nor a member of the aristocracy (as in the latter case his father did). It's inaccurate though as no trail was blazed in this - Princess Anne married a commoner in 1973 (two of her siblings did so later). And I've no idea what the bus driver and the waitress refers to; Kate Middleton's parents were flight despatchers for BA.
-
Kate Middleton's parents were flight despatchers for BA.
... who had significant inherited wealth in trusts, had long-standing ties to the aristocracy and who set up a multi-million pound business and whose family had been rubbing shoulders with the royals for decades. So maybe a 'commoner' in as much as no title, but far, far away from being an ordinary family in the manner most of us might understand. Most ordinary families don't send their daughter to board at one of the top public schools in the country.
-
IMHO Prince Harry is a likable dope who was put into the army to give him a job because he was not particularly good at anything, and being photographed at a fancy dress party wearing a mock nazi uniform was not a good idea. I do remember the concert for Princess Diana in 2007, the announcer asked for a round of applause for Princes William & Harry for agreeing to the concert going ahead. Harry, in a bored daze & not taking much notice of what was going on, was seen casually clapping along with everybody else until his brother told him that it is not etiquette to applaud oneself.
-
IMHO Prince Harry is a likable dope who was put into the army to give him a job because he was not particularly good at anything, and being photographed at a fancy dress party wearing a mock nazi uniform was not a good idea. I do remember the concert for Princess Diana in 2007, the announcer asked for a round of applause for Princes William & Harry for agreeing to the concert going ahead. Harry, in a bored daze & not taking much notice of what was going on, was seen casually clapping along with everybody else until his brother told him that it is not etiquette to applaud oneself.
I think Harry is currently at the height of his public role appeal - think Prince Andrew in the 1980s, but that will diminish as William's kids get older and Harry is increasingly seen as a rather minor and peripheral royal (as both Andrew and Edward have in recent years).
It wouldn't surprise me if Harry and Meghan eventually relocate to the USA, allowing them to live a rather more normal life outside of the public glare, and potentially allowing her to resume her career. If that happened I don't think it would be a bad thing at all.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42156565
They are getting married in May at St George's Chapel, Windsor, so it will be much smaller affair than most Royal weddings, and the Royals will be forking out for it themselves.
-
The link says that MM is a Protestant, but it was claimed here yesterday that she's Catholic ???
-
The link says that MM is a Protestant, but it was claimed here yesterday that she's Catholic ???
She went to a Catholic school. People made assumptions.
-
Ohhhhhh.
-
Just because people attend Catholic schools doesn't necessarily mean they are Catholic, although naturally one might make that assumption.
-
The link says that MM is a Protestant, but it was claimed here yesterday that she's Catholic ???
Bit of an odd comment in the link:
'Ms Markle, 36, a protestant, will be baptised and confirmed before the wedding ...'
Does that mean she is converting, or merely never baptised or confirmed. She went to a private Catholic Girls School in the states. That doesn't mean she was necessarily a Catholic, maybe they were happy merely to take the money. I think the school she went to doesn't restrict admission to catholics, indeed seems to be open to admissions from any background - you do have to be good enough academically and have sufficient dosh though!
-
Bit of an odd comment in the link:
'Ms Markle, 36, a protestant, will be baptised and confirmed before the wedding ...'
Does that mean she is converting, or merely never baptised or confirmed. She went to a private Catholic Girls School in the states. That doesn't mean she was necessarily a Catholic, maybe they were happy merely to take the money. I think the school she went to doesn't restrict admission to catholics, indeed seems to be open to admissions from any background - you do have to be good enough academically and have sufficient dosh though!
Some individual churches require one party to be baptised, some both, before a church wedding. Tbh I'm surprised but it may be a choice on her part.
She won't have been baptised a Catholic as the Anglican church recognises Catholic baptism. It means she hasn't been baptised before.
-
Bit of an odd comment in the link:
'Ms Markle, 36, a protestant, will be baptised and confirmed before the wedding ...'
Does that mean she is converting, or merely never baptised or confirmed. She went to a private Catholic Girls School in the states. That doesn't mean she was necessarily a Catholic, maybe they were happy merely to take the money. I think the school she went to doesn't restrict admission to catholics, indeed seems to be open to admissions from any background - you do have to be good enough academically and have sufficient dosh though!
Looking into this a bit further the school she attended seems to 'major' in getting their ex-pupils into acting positions - virtually all their famous alumni are actors. Given that she came from a theatre/film (her father is an Emmy winning lighting director) then this school was probably a good fit regardless of the religion of the family (if they had one at all).
-
Some individual churches require one party to be baptised, some both, before a church wedding. Tbh I'm surprised but it may be a choice on her part.
She won't have been baptised a Catholic as the Anglican church recognises Catholic baptism. It means she hasn't been baptised before.
Apparently she's Jewish!
https://www.jta.org/2017/05/24/life-religion/is-meghan-markle-jewish-the-internet-is-confused
Or maybe not - I suspect she has no meaningful religious involvement ... which makes her ideal as a Brit.
-
Apparently she's Jewish!
Any more offers?
-
Any more offers?
Oh there'll be plenty.
-
What does it matter what religion she is if any? It appears she has never been a Catholic and it's quite true that lots of Catholic schools, especially private ones, take non-Catholics. It's the same here, parents choose a school for its academic reputation, religion is secondary to that.
IMHO Prince Harry is a likable dope who was put into the army to give him a job because he was not particularly good at anything, and being photographed at a fancy dress party wearing a mock nazi uniform was not a good idea. I do remember the concert for Princess Diana in 2007, the announcer asked for a round of applause for Princes William & Harry for agreeing to the concert going ahead. Harry, in a bored daze & not taking much notice of what was going on, was seen casually clapping along with everybody else until his brother told him that it is not etiquette to applaud oneself.
Rather scathing and dismissive of someone who has grown up considerably since those times. Has absolutely nothing to do with his and Meghan's engagement.
Prof Davey: It wouldn't surprise me if Harry and Meghan eventually relocate to the USA, allowing them to live a rather more normal life outside of the public glare, and potentially allowing her to resume her career. If that happened I don't think it would be a bad thing at all.
[/quote]
Who knows what will happen in the future but I think both of them have a lot of substance which is shown in their passionate commitment to particular causes and charities. They could be good representatives for both UK and USA.
I'm no great fan of the armed forces but it certainly was right for Harry and he proved himself there. He has matured into a fine man.
From the interview they gave from their home, they seem ideally suited.
Glad to hear they will be marrying at Windsor, less pomp.
I deliberately asked people who came to see me at work today what they thought about the engagement - I threw it in casually along with offering coffee. They were all delighted & showed no resentment whatsoever despite their own difficult circumstances.
(Not seen the latest so will now peruse the news.
Later: done! Nothing I haven't learned here, ie Meghan's family is not Catholic (father is Episcopalian), they're getting married at St George's, Windsor.)
-
Just because people attend Catholic schools doesn't necessarily mean they are Catholic, although naturally one might make that assumption.
A friend of mine - a Pagan - sent both of her daughters to Catholic School - she reckoned that there was no better place for them to go to learn how to do a ritual properly.
-
What does it matter what religion she is if any?
To the overwhelming majority of people, absolutely not a jot.
To the author of the article in the OP, apparently quite a bit.
-
She seems to be stuck in a time warp.
-
Err - explain please
As has been suggested, it was a clumsy attempt at identifying Catherine's parents as commoners - they had both been cabin crew before becoming flight dispatchers.
I did break my own iron rule and watched the tv interview last night. I found Meghan Merkle to be a pleasant, interesting, articulate young woman who I would be pleased to accept into my own family. I am not a monarchist, but I do wish the couple well. It is easy to be sanctimonious and use the circumstances of Harry's birth to deny him his humanity.
Meghan attended an all-girls private Roman Catholic school. I suspect (looking for confirmation or denial) that one of her parents was RC and the other not.
-
One can only say NFN
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-42144611
-
Very original!
The engagement did not take precedence over other news tonight; I'm glad to say the diphtheria outbreak in Yemen was bigger news. It's heartbreaking - for another thread though.
-
News about this event which has disappointed/angered me:
Apparently, Miss Merkle will be baptised into the CofE and then confirmed in a private ceremony before the wedding.
She will also be naturalised as a British citizen.
It must be like being abducted by aliens.
-
In other news the German population is confused and shocked at the news that Prince Harry is to marry Mrs Merkel.
(not mine - but it made me giggle)
-
News about this event which has disappointed/angered me:
Apparently, Miss Merkle will be baptised into the CofE and then confirmed in a private ceremony before the wedding.
She will also be naturalised as a British citizen.
It must be like being abducted by aliens.
It's her choice. She'll presumably have dual citizenship. As for the baptism and confirmation, we'd already found out she wasn't a Catholic (and we'd have heard if she was Orthodox), she and Harry have chosen to marry in an Anglican church which is not in the parish where they live, so it follows she'll be required to go through some formalities. Nothing to be upset about, there's no force involved.
Meghan may well like all the quaint little English customs ;D. In any case it will be a private ceremony, and a quick one, a pity there is any publicity about it. It is her business after all.
In other news the German population is confused and shocked at the news that Prince Harry is to marry Mrs Merkel.
(not mine - but it made me giggle)
Very good.
-
Apparently she's Jewish!
https://www.jta.org/2017/05/24/life-religion/is-meghan-markle-jewish-the-internet-is-confused
Or maybe not - I suspect she has no meaningful religious involvement ... which makes her ideal as a Brit.
That was my understanding too. Perhaps she sees it as nothing more than changing teams? As an aside, can one "De-Jew"? I understand that the rabbinate consider anybody born Jewish to always be Jewish (much to the chagrin of some, a good example being former Variety editor Peter Bart), but I am not sure of the position regarding converts.
-
I've just been reading about the 'reasons' and it seems Meghan Markle is being baptised and confirmed because the Queen is head of the Anglican Church and she's marrying into the royals.
Her previous marriage was to a Jewish person and they had a Jewish wedding but she didn't convert to Judaism.
I understand why some may have misgivings, my own view is that there is little point making a commitment to a religion unless you are a believer but to them it is probably a small formality. Let's face it, people have been marrying in church without having any commitment for centuries! She may well have some Christian faith, we don't know, the important thing is that the two of them want to be married, it's not anyone else's business how they do it.
-
Quite honestly I am amazed at the whole furore.
William and Harry are so far from having even a remote chance of getting thier arses on the throne that the whole thing is a nonsense.
The two boys have already made it clear that as HM the Q and Nick the Greek power down they are going to be taking a far greateer active part in promoting those things, like the Invicta (?sic) games, that they are interested in.
The have also made it clear that they do not intend to sit back and get paid for doing diddley-squat.
They, if no-one else among the Royals, seem to realise that they live in the 21st century and the 'times they are a'changing'.
-
Furore has died down for a while.
-
William and Harry are so far from having even a remote chance of getting thier arses on the throne that the whole thing is a nonsense.
On Harry - I agree with you. He is, in effect, currently 6th in line (albeit 5th is still a foetus) so has pretty well zero chance of becoming monarch.
William - that's a different matter - he will almost certainly become monarch in due course. But if his father lives to the same age as his father's father, then he will be kicking his heels for another 27 years at the least.
-
Jolly glad I think they will be too, they have freedom to be involved in so many things.
-
The two boys have already made it clear that as HM the Q and Nick the Greek power down they are going to be taking a far greateer active part in promoting those things, like the Invicta (?sic) games, that they are interested in.
I don't see why this will change when Liz and Phil die. I think currently they already have free reign to support causes that interest them. And this is hardly new - Charles has been doing it for decades - indeed he has had a lot of flack for pursuing his own interests and agendas and interfering when perhaps he should not have.
The have also made it clear that they do not intend to sit back and get paid for doing diddley-squat.
Well now that's an interesting comment. The question arises whether Royals should effectively engage in public duties, in effect full time, or whether they should have their own career and do the occasional public duties. This is where there have been issues in the past, and I see history repeating itself. Think back to the 70s and 80s - both Charles and Andrew had 'careers' in the armed forces, but both gave them up to become 'full time' Royals, in part linked to being of an age where they should be settling down, marrying and starting a family.
Sounds familiar doesn't it. Now I think most people might accept that Charles (as directly in line to the throne) could perhaps be justified in being a full time royal. But Andrew - I think with hindsight he would have been much better off perusing his own career throughput his working life. And I think the same is true for William and Harry - the former (directly on the line to the throne) is perhaps justified in a full time Royal career - the latter, well I think not.
And actually given the longevity I think it is rather better even for the person directly in line for to the throne to spend their working life in a broadly normal career, given that they are likely to be in their 60s or 70s before becoming monarch.
They, if no-one else among the Royals, seem to realise that they live in the 21st century and the 'times they are a'changing'.
Sure they have somewhat different personalities compared to earlier Royals, but other than that the approach is identical to the last generation - think 1987 - peak Charles & Di, Andrew & Fergie - all that 'It's a Royal knockout stuff'. It's basically Will & Kate, Harry & Meghan but perhaps with somewhat poorer PR advice back then.
-
They, if no-one else among the Royals, seem to realise that they live in the 21st century and the 'times they are a'changing'.
In which case they should voluntarily disenfranchise themselves with immediate effect.
-
I don't see why this will change when Liz and Phil die. I think currently they already have free reign to support causes that interest them. And this is hardly new - Charles has been doing it for decades - indeed he has had a lot of flack for pursuing his own interests and agendas and interfering when perhaps he should not have.
Well now that's an interesting comment. The question arises whether Royals should effectively engage in public duties, in effect full time, or whether they should have their own career and do the occasional public duties. This is where there have been issues in the past, and I see history repeating itself. Think back to the 70s and 80s - both Charles and Andrew had 'careers' in the armed forces, but both gave them up to become 'full time' Royals, in part linked to being of an age where they should be settling down, marrying and starting a family.
Sounds familiar doesn't it. Now I think most people might accept that Charles (as directly in line to the throne) could perhaps be justified in being a full time royal. But Andrew - I think with hindsight he would have been much better off perusing his own career throughput his working life. And I think the same is true for William and Harry - the former (directly on the line to the throne) is perhaps justified in a full time Royal career - the latter, well I think not.
And actually given the longevity I think it is rather better even for the person directly in line for to the throne to spend their working life in a broadly normal career, given that they are likely to be in their 60s or 70s before becoming monarch.
Sure they have somewhat different personalities compared to earlier Royals, but other than that the approach is identical to the last generation - think 1987 - peak Charles & Di, Andrew & Fergie - all that 'It's a Royal knockout stuff'. It's basically Will & Kate, Harry & Meghan but perhaps with somewhat poorer PR advice back then.
Care to comment on Prince Edward?
-
Care to comment on Prince Edward?
No man is an island, but he is.
-
No man is an island, but he is.
;D
-
Care to comment on Prince Edward?
In what respect?
-
In what respect?
You ignored him in your appraisal of the activities of the royal family, despite the fact that he has followed a totally different way of life from his siblings.
He is the son of the monarch but is not - it appears - a member of "the firm". He has followed a career in theatre and tv management (not paticularly successfully).
-
Care to comment on Prince Edward?
He is OK, he brought back Wessex after 1000 years, I look forward to him bringing back Middlesex, Huntingdonshire, and Westmoreland, too.
And why are those historic counties showing as spelling errors on this site?
If he becomes King Edward IX (OK he should really be Edward XII (I am sure that he appreciates the same), I will take any Earldom that he offers.
-
He is OK, he brought back Wessex after 1000 years,
He didn't bring it back at all - he was offered the name as a title. I guess no other suitable title was available.
I look forward to him bringing back Middlesex, Huntingdonshire, and Westmoreland, too.
And under what authority would be able to 'bring back' those counties. And actually the names still exist and are prominent - it is merely that they aren't administrative regions any more. Perhaps you are unaware that Middlesex, for example, has its own cricket team, and a University as examples.
I like the names, and we should ensure they still are recognised, but not as formal administrative counties - we've move on.
If he becomes King Edward IX (OK he should really be Edward XII (I am sure that he appreciates the same), I will take any Earldom that he offers.
He won't - he is currently 9th in succession (soon to be 10th).
-
You ignored him in your appraisal of the activities of the royal family, despite the fact that he has followed a totally different way of life from his siblings.
He is the son of the monarch but is not - it appears - a member of "the firm". He has followed a career in theatre and tv management (not paticularly successfully).
He is different to William and Harry, as Edward is a 4th child so was already a much more 'minor' royal, even at the same age William/Harry are now. He is much less a full time royal than the others, but actually his upbringing was identical - top school, university, the military (albeit he didn't last). Since then he has effectively used his contacts to 'play' at being in theatre/tv - being serially unsuccessful, and without the safety net of the money he gets as a royal would be effectively bankrupt.
-
I agree with your characterisation of Edward, Prof, but the significant point, surely. is that he has been allowed to be "different".
-
The Philips children seem to have done reasonably ok.
-
The Philips children seem to have done reasonably ok.
AS has Anne who works away without reams of publicity (good or bad).
-
He didn't bring it back at all - he was offered the name as a title. I guess no other suitable title was available.
That is incorrect, he told his mum that was the title that he wanted.
And under what authority would be able to 'bring back' those counties. And actually the names still exist and are prominent - it is merely that they aren't administrative regions any more. Perhaps you are unaware that Middlesex, for example, has its own cricket team, and a University as examples.
I lived in Middlesex (Harrow) and joined the Middlesex Society as a gesture of solidarity.
I like the names, and we should ensure they still are recognised, but not as formal administrative counties - we've move on.
We have moved into the era of regions based around cities-like a mini version of Putin's Russia!
He won't - he is currently 9th in succession (soon to be 10th).
Every Man Must Have a Dream (Liverpool Express, 1976)
-
AS has Anne who works away without reams of publicity (good or bad).
I’ve met her a handful of times. She’s a good egg.
-
I’ve met her a handful of times. She’s a good egg.
Of all the royals she is the one I like most.
She has clearly inherited her father's way of saying things but somehow without the controversial element he sometimes supplies.
I liked her approach to her work with children - can't remember the exact quote but along the lines of:
You don't necessarily have to like children to want to help them.
-
Of all the royals she is the one I like most.
She has clearly inherited her father's way of saying things but somehow without the controversial element he sometimes supplies.
I liked her approach to her work with children - can't remember the exact quote but along the lines of:
You don't necessarily have to like children to want to help them.
I met her through her work with the Spinal Injuries Association.
And I once queued behind Zara Philips in the Winchcombe Co-Op. She was buying cigarettes.
-
I quite fancy having a King Xan - in Kind Hearts and Coronets terms I only have to remove 25 people and a foetus to get there.
-
I once queued behind Zara Philips in the Winchcombe Co-Op. She was buying cigarettes.
The Lame Claim to Fame thread is still around here somewhere.
-
The Lame Claim to Fame thread is still around here somewhere.
I didn’t mention that Richard Johnson was waiting outside for her.
-
I quite fancy having a King Xan - in Kind Hearts and Coronets terms I only have to remove 25 people and a foetus to get there.
Would King Xan thank you for it though?
-
Would King Xan thank you for it though?
I sincerely doubt it but if my inner Dennis Price (who was apparently blessed with the full name Dennistoun Franklyn John Rose-Price, if wiki is correct - King Dennistoun would be good as well) - took over, he's my choice.
-
Harry might have to do a prince Michael of Kent thing and give up a claim to the throne, then (which wouldn't be a bad thing)
Or they could abolish the daft Act of settlement and disestablish the CofE - which would be an added bonus.
Just to note that Prince Michael of Kent is back in line after the Perth agreement - she's at number 45 currently
-
Their's nothing particularly wrong with any of these so called royals, no doubt some are better than others but beside all of that the principle of having a royal family in the first place, yuk!
ippy
-
Their's nothing particularly wrong with any of these so called royals, no doubt some are better than others but beside all of that the principle of having a royal family in the first place, yuk!
ippy
Apart fron the Royals, Buckingham Palace and various other Royal connected buidings what else do we have to bring in millions of tourist dollars from the States?
-
Apart fron the Royals, Buckingham Palace and various other Royal connected buidings what else do we have to bring in millions of tourist dollars from the States?
people visit Versailles. You can chop their little heads off and people will still flock
-
Apart fron the Royals, Buckingham Palace and various other Royal connected buidings what else do we have to bring in millions of tourist dollars from the States?
France gets more visitors that the UK.
Paris gets more visitors than London.
Versaille gets more visitors than Buckingham Palace.
Sorry to burst your bubble with some facts.
-
We have moved into the era of regions based around cities-like a mini version of Putin's Russia!
Err - have you checked out the names of our traditional counties. A large proportion effectively mean exactly that - the region based around a city
e.g. Northaptonshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Leicestershire, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire ... I could go on.
-
Err - have you checked out the names of our traditional counties. A large proportion effectively mean exactly that - the region based around a city
e.g. Northaptonshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Leicestershire, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire ... I could go on.
. . . and on and on and on and on . . . ..
-
There would still be plenty to see in London even if we didn't have the royal family but they are of interest to a lot of people.
There's no new news about the royal engagement which I think from what they said in their interview, they'll be pleased about.
-
Apart fron the Royals, Buckingham Palace and various other Royal connected buidings what else do we have to bring in millions of tourist dollars from the States?
I wouldn't be for beheading any of them but I don't see that the French tourist industry has particularly suffered from the lack of royals, why wouldn't ours be much the same without them too?
Regards ippy
-
I wouldn't be for beheading any of them but I don't see that the French tourist industry has particularly suffered from the lack of royals, why wouldn't ours be much the same without them too?
Regards ippy
It's not as though the tourists typically actually see the royals in person anyway - they come to look at the houses.
-
Apart fron the Royals, Buckingham Palace and various other Royal connected buidings what else do we have to bring in millions of tourist dollars from the States?
As has been said Owlswing, we have many historic buildings with royal connections which even the British flock to see, with or without royal people on show. However it seems some foreign tourists really love the UK, cities especially London, picturesque bits, and the 'character of the people' (I put that in single quote because there are so many different types of people here, but that's what is said). I've known loads of them who, having been, long to come back, younger ones like to work and live here if only for a while, older ones bring their children! We may wonder why ::), but that's how it is. Royalty is only part of it.
-
There would still be plenty to see in London even if we didn't have the royal family but they are of interest to a lot of people.
There's no new news about the royal engagement which I think from what they said in their interview, they'll be pleased about.
There was some interesting polling done straight after the engagement was announced. People were asked whether they were 'pleased', 'disappointed' or 'indifferent' or 'don't know'
A majority of those polled said 'indifferent', despite the wall to wall media coverage which tries to imply that we should actually give a damn.
And this is also probably good news for the couple too - effectively that most people really don't care - that two people, neither of whom they know have decided to get married is frankly their own business and nothing to get bothered about.
-
They strike me as wanting to be known for what they do rather than for being royal. Apart from their excellent financial position (& there are plenty of super rich people in this country, many of whom we've never heard), they seem to be fairly ordinary.
-
As has been said Owlswing, we have many historic buildings with royal connections which even the British flock to see, with or without royal people on show. However it seems some foreign tourists really love the UK, cities especially London, picturesque bits, and the 'character of the people' (I put that in single quote because there are so many different types of people here, but that's what is said). I've known loads of them who, having been, long to come back, younger ones like to work and live here if only for a while, older ones bring their children! We may wonder why ::), but that's how it is. Royalty is only part of it.
'Royalty is only part of it'. Yes unfortunately.
ippy
-
To you, yes, important to some and great fun at times. Also gives people something to moan about!
-
... they seem to be fairly ordinary.
How would you know - what we see of the Royals (particularly William/Kate and Harry) is exceptionally carefully choreographed by their PR team so we see exactly what they want us to see, which may be completely different to how they actually are.
I have a close relative who is the Royal correspondent of a major US-based magazine, so spends most of his time chasing around after the royals. You wouldn't believe how carefully managed any interaction with the press is. Basically complete editorial control over the questions to be asked and complete editorial control over what is written/released from interviews etc.
-
I did say,"seem". What more can we know of people with whom we're not up close and personal? Good thing most of the time. I think my neighbour over the road seems very pleasant, goodness knows what goes on indoors, people might say the same about me. It doesn't matter.
-
I did say,"seem". What more can we know of people with whom we're not up close and personal? Good thing most of the time. I think my neighbour over the road seems very pleasant, goodness knows what goes on indoors, people might say the same about me. It doesn't matter.
That neighbour? Oh just no!!! They have specially made duvet covers made out of panda skin. Pandas that are shot by poachers after being tortured!
-
I did say,"seem". What more can we know of people with whom we're not up close and personal? Good thing most of the time. I think my neighbour over the road seems very pleasant, goodness knows what goes on indoors, people might say the same about me. It doesn't matter.
Sure people can be different in private than in public. But that isn't what I am talking about - I am talking about an exceptionally carefully controlled public image, created by the palace press office. And if you don't play by their rules you simply don't get access any more.
So of course the PR machine want to portray William and Harry as pretty normal - and they have been highly successful at creating that image. Whether they actually are in real life, neither you nor I know - and indeed nor do journalists who have followed them for years and interviews them countless times.
-
I'm not entirely sure what is meant by normal.
-
Whilst weddings of any sort, even my own, don't get me excited, many people seem to enjoy a Royal Wedding; it will no doubt be an antidote to the doom and gloom of Brexit.
The trouble is that Brexit is really important. Distractions from it are bad.
-
You are assuming that people understand what is going wrong any more than they understood what they were voting for or against.
But pretty dress!!!!
-
But pretty dress!!!!
If it’s not that it’ll be something else. Melania’s Xmas decs, some woman called Emily on a card...
-
Moderator A number of posts which were a derail and concentrated on Brexit have been removed and merged with the existing Brexit thread
-
I'm not entirely sure what is meant by normal.
Actually nor am I. The word Robbie originally used was actually 'ordinary' - I changed that to normal.
Regardless of what we consider 'normal' or 'ordinary' to mean, we have no idea whether William or Harry are 'normal' or 'ordinary', because we are only ever allowed to see the PR-spun image that comes out of the palace press office via their ruthless policing of the royal's public image.
That someone who has spent the past 20 years as a royal correspondent, with countless encounters and interviews really has no idea what they are actually like speaks volumes. If he does not know with all that privileged access, how on earth can we.