I might be more inclined to believe claims of the royals' innocence as regards racism if the Duke of Edinburgh didn't have such a long record of the same. Even if it wasn't Philip himself it's not difficult to believe that a family that has condoned his remarks for decades might have other members who believe and say stupid things.
Oh totally, one of the worst royal offenders on the racism front was Harry.
Not helped by the racism of the British Press, which are notorious for having a two-faced relationship with the royals. It's not as if the press didn't plague Diana, or Kate or Sarah Ferguson, or....
Harry has never been the sharpest knife in the box. He had to be given 'special help' to pass 2 A levels so that he could go to Sandhurst .
Special help in his case is allegedly someone helping him beyond mere guidance.
I don't understand what you mean; could you explain, please?
I think EM is hinting that teachers at Eton may have breached JCQ rules on how much help is given to candidates, up to and possibly including doing coursework that the student should have completed for themselves.
Ok; thank you. I didn't know there were such allegations.
The allegations were made by a former teacher at Eton whose contract had not been renewed and who was claiming unfair dismissal. She was awarded damages for unfair dismissal, but her claim that she had written part of Prince Harry's coursework was rejected. Eton said that Harry wrote his own course work and the teachers had simply "suggested vocabulary."
Ok; thank you. I didn't know there were such allegations.
The allegations were made by a former teacher at Eton whose contract had not been renewed and who was claiming unfair dismissal. She was awarded damages for unfair dismissal, but her claim that she had written part of Prince Harry's coursework was rejected. Eton said that Harry wrote his own course work and the teachers had simply "suggested vocabulary."
In fairness, intensive "support" with coursework is relatively common. When I was at school it was an open secret that Textiles achieved a 100% A*-C pass rate by "guiding" their students through the practical and supporting paperwork. Food tech did the same but less intensively. The pressures on teachers create an inherent conflict of interest, not aided by coursework assignments often being poorly thought out. I don't think I've ever crossed the line myself, but I've crept right up to it because I want my students to have the best chance possible.
Harry has never been the sharpest knife in the box. He had to be given 'special help' to pass 2 A levels so that he could go to Sandhurst .
Special help in his case is allegedly someone helping him beyond mere guidance.
I don't understand what you mean; could you explain, please?
I think EM is hinting that teachers at Eton may have breached JCQ rules on how much help is given to candidates, up to and possibly including doing coursework that the student should have completed for themselves.
Yes that's the one. The allegations were around at the time that he had "help" with course work
Curiosity killed: Not as a racist question but as "have you really thought this through?" "Do you know what you are getting into?" "Have you really planned how this is going to work?"
...........er, I think you've made the contrary case!!!!!!!!!!
Ok; thank you. I didn't know there were such allegations.
The allegations were made by a former teacher at Eton whose contract had not been renewed and who was claiming unfair dismissal. She was awarded damages for unfair dismissal, but her claim that she had written part of Prince Harry's coursework was rejected. Eton said that Harry wrote his own course work and the teachers had simply "suggested vocabulary."
In fairness, intensive "support" with coursework is relatively common. When I was at school it was an open secret that Textiles achieved a 100% A*-C pass rate by "guiding" their students through the practical and supporting paperwork. Food tech did the same but less intensively. The pressures on teachers create an inherent conflict of interest, not aided by coursework assignments often being poorly thought out. I don't think I've ever crossed the line myself, but I've crept right up to it because I want my students to have the best chance possible.
Yes I remember when Miss Mark the elder was doing her DT GCSE. She did it all on her own at home within the time limit set. Other children with influential parents didn't get it done in time and here was a round robin petition to extend the time which was what happened (if you were late you were automatically docked 10%). I wouldn't sign it: the time was set, that was it. Several parents were very indiscreet about the help they gave to the child - tbh it was pretty obvious whose Dads had done the woodwork when you saw all the projects together.
I complained about the extended timescales and asked for an extra 10% in marks for Miss M who, true to form, had delivered on time and on spec. I was a marked man by Head and some Staff thereafter to the extent that the Head had to issue a formal apology for things he said publicly.
Somewhat Bizarrely over 20 years later Miss M goes into the same school in her role as a Psychiatric Professional
Certain protected categories of people cannot be seen to fail, to the point where even their failures are rewritten in the public narrative. It's like the Matrix, but just for rich people.
Were A British person, who was monolingual, to be planning a wedding with a Polish person whose family spoke no English, to be asked Have you thought this through ? How do you feel that any possible children might have difficulty in relating to two slightly different communities ? Would that be considered as 'racist' ?
The difficulties with language and culture can be overcome but they will still at times come to the surface.
The difficulties with ethnicity can be overcome but they should not be swept under the carpet and blithely ignored.
Is there not a view ( and it is one that I share) that there are not different races in humanity.
? We all belong to the one human race, although we differ in background, culture, language, religion and ethnicity. When a marriage is proposed it is worth thinking about possible difficulties, not just those that some people call 'race'.
Sometimes there can be greater difficulties when two people from different cities,different cultures, different religions and different social class want to marry.
Does anyone remember the Forthview, you are spot on. Dunno about the polish stuff, but Greek immigrant's kids marrying Italian immigrant's kids sometimes involves glowering camps at weddings. Its not limited to Greeks and Italians, they are just marriages I have heard anecdotes about recently.
At the same time, there have been fierce debates about 'internalised racism' and Meghan's white family vs Doria's silence/silencing from within the Cape Coloured community, for whom light-skinned privilege remains an uncomfortable reality.
It's interesting that you're reporting a view that the Duchess's black mother, Mrs Ragland, is silenced. From my point of view, her lack of public comment has been both sensible and correct, and she has behaved in a dignified and restrained manner. The contrast with the white Markle side of the Duchess's family, who can't stop themselves from yammering to the press at every available opportunity, is marked. Each time a Markle opens their mouth, it makes them look worse.
At the same time, there have been fierce debates about 'internalised racism' and Meghan's white family vs Doria's silence/silencing from within the Cape Coloured community, for whom light-skinned privilege remains an uncomfortable reality.
It's interesting that you're reporting a view that the Duchess's black mother, Mrs Ragland, is silenced. From my point of view, her lack of public comment has been both sensible and correct, and she has behaved in a dignified and restrained manner.
I had thought the same and am interested that there is a potentially a completely different side of things. Thank you @MaryLouise . Here in the UK, to me at least, the story seems to have gone completely cold: the lunchtime news didn't even mention it.
There is some similarity between Harry and the Duke of Windsor. Both were raised in a situation of unique privilege and as a result had unrealistic expectations.
The Duke, of course, was a much more extreme case. He was used to having things his own way, and it took him years to realize that this was no longer the case.
It is not realistic for a member of the royal family to reject those parts of the royal role which don't appeal and expect to keep all the parts that do appeal.
Harry's understanding of the situation was defective; he had no clear idea of what he was giving up when he tried to give up the parts he didn't like.
There is some similarity between Harry and the Duke of Windsor. Both were raised in a situation of unique privilege and as a result had unrealistic expectations.
The Duke, of course, was a much more extreme case. He was used to having things his own way, and it took him years to realize that this was no longer the case.
It is not realistic for a member of the royal family to reject those parts of the royal role which don't appeal and expect to keep all the parts that do appeal.
Harry's understanding of the situation was defective; he had no clear idea of what he was giving up when he tried to give up the parts he didn't like.
Being in a state of arrested development is going to be a feature of being brought up like this. His father appears particularly dysfunctional, but imagine being a person who thinks it's okay to throw a strop if your marmalade spoon isn't exactly where you expect it to be.
The most telling insight of the interview was when Harry said they were all trapped, whether they realised it or not. The whole set up is utterly ridiculous - so there's no wonder that anyone in that situation is going to have unrealistic expectations of what they can and can't do, and what 'ordinary' people think of them - cf Prince Andrew's interview, which he thought had gone well, when everyone else was just open mouthed with horror.
A juicy bit from Andrew, when asked about a party - 'not a party, just an straightforward shooting weekend'. Centuries of breeding went into that remark.
A juicy bit from Andrew, when asked about a party - 'not a party, just an straightforward shooting weekend'. Centuries of breeding went into that remark.
Or 'centuries of in-breeding went into that remark'?
I'll get me coat.
A juicy bit from Andrew, when asked about a party - 'not a party, just an straightforward shooting weekend'. Centuries of breeding went into that remark.
Really? I'd say a party is a quite specific thing. Most of the time I had a few people round for dinner (back when we had people round for dinner, and didn't have the plague), I wouldn't have called it a "party". Going to the pub for a few drinks with friends isn't a "party".
I've never owned a large country house, or gone shooting, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to describe a weekend shooting gathering as a "party", any more than people who play golf, or sail, or play football, or cricket, or whatever else they gather for at a weekend are "having a party".
I think he was asked if he met Epstein at a party, to which he replied, 'not a party ...' In fact, 'a straightforward shooting weekend' became a saying for a while.
But it was a party. A shooting party. You don't honestly think that there isn't any socialising 'party' element to a whole weekend, given it's dark at least some of the time?
It's like arguing that having a few friends around for a sit down evening meal somehow isn't a dinner party. It is, whatever word or phrase you want to use instead.
Well, that's U and non-U for you. They're always referred to as shooting parties.
You know how you go to a restaurant, and the staff might refer to your group as a "party of six"? They don't mean that you're having a party. Similarly, I don't think a "shooting party" is a subset of what is called in common parlance a party.
It's like arguing that having a few friends around for a sit down evening meal somehow isn't a dinner party. It is, whatever word or phrase you want to use instead.
Perhaps I have an idiosyncratic use of the word "party" but in general, I wouldn't call a dinner party a party.
I mean, sure. But Andrew was simply trying and failing to convince us that a whole weekend shoot wouldn't have provided ample opportunity to socialize with the other guests, with copious food and alcohol on offer, and perhaps other entertainments.
Fixating on the word party and saying this wasn't a party because it was a shooting weekend (where he made up one of the er, shooting party) is diversionary sophistry.
Most people in a shooting party aren't there to shoot.
I thought the point was that 'just a straightforward shooting weekend' implies the sort of thing everyone does all the time as a matter of course.
(i.e. the point wasn't whether or not you can describe shooting as a party, but that the Duke of York has no idea what ordinary people do with their weekends.)
Well, that's U and non-U for you. They're always referred to as shooting parties.
You know how you go to a restaurant, and the staff might refer to your group as a "party of six"? They don't mean that you're having a party. Similarly, I don't think a "shooting party" is a subset of what is called in common parlance a party.
Correct. If you use the word "party" by itself, the immediate and usual connotation is an event focused primarily on drinking, dancing and general carousing, where both sexes are in equal attendance with probably large numbers.
"Shooting Party" on the other hand suggests a small group of mainly males walking across the moors, killing birds.
In this instance, Prince Andrew, ghastly though he might be, would have been right to deny that he met Epstein at "a party" (assuming, of course, that they DID meet on a shooting weekend).
I thought the point was that 'just a straightforward shooting weekend' implies the sort of thing everyone does all the time as a matter of course.
(i.e. the point wasn't whether or not you can describe shooting as a party, but that the Duke of York has no idea what ordinary people do with their weekends.)
Yes, I think that's why it became a 'meme' for a while.
In this instance, Prince Andrew, ghastly though he might be, would have been right to deny that he met Epstein at "a party" (assuming, of course, that they DID meet on a shooting weekend).
I refer the honourable gentleman to the notion that it does get dark over a 48 hour period, unless this particular shooting party was located in either Svalbard, or that they hunting penguins. And no, British shoots don't sequester their guests in moorland bunkers overnight, leaving them searching the skies for the first light of dawn, so that they can resume their shooting.
The ghillies will still beat the birds towards you.
But the point here is not the intricacies of highland vs lowland shoots, it's the idea that there wouldn't be ample time for drunken socialising as well. Prince Andrew was relying Matliss' ignorance of what goes on at these events by saying "it wasn't a party, it was a shooting weekend". Those with any passing knowledge of the set-up might have nodded at that point, but the distinction he was trying to draw was deliberately false. He absolutely would have met Epstein in a social context, repeatedly, across the weekend, with wives, girlfriends and mistresses also in attendance.
Because according to Prince Andrew he didn't throw a birthday party for Ghislaine Maxwell, it was just a shooting weekend (at Sandringham, the second time Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were entertained at royal properties, the first was a party at Buckingham Palace).
@quetzalcoatl was complaining that the Duke of York saying that his "ordinary shooting weekend" wasn't a party was somehow juicy. Here, by the way, is a link to the transcript of the interview in question.
EM: Am I right in thinking you threw a birthday party for Epstein's girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell at Sandringham?
PA: No, it was a shooting weekend.
EM: A shooting weekend.
PA: Just a straightforward, a straightforward shooting weekend.
I'm not saying that a "shooting weekend" wouldn't include times of drinking, eating and relaxing. But the point is that this isn't the main function. And if the question was specifically about a "birthday party" then it is no surprise that the Prince answered the way he did. The question was being slanted in such a way as give a certain implication (birthday party most likely = drunken debauchery}. Any sensible person would have avoided walking into that trap.
And also "are you so close to this person that you hosted a birthday party for her?" To which the answer given was "no, but she came to a shooting weekend on her birthday." There's plenty of evasiveness and obliviousness in the Duke of York's interview, but this particular snippet strikes me as perfectly reasonable.
Somehow I can't shake the suspicion that a "shooting weekend" really does mostly consist of drinking. It's probably a lot like a "weekend of boating at the lake" that way.
Either way, Maxwell and Epstein were Prince Andrew's guests. Either way, Prince Andrew has not cooperated with US federal officials investigating sex trafficking of girls. Either way, he's in such disgrace that he's had to retire from public life.
Well, that's U and non-U for you. They're always referred to as shooting parties.
What is "U"?
Re shooting. This sounds like they go somewhere and there are planned activities in addition to carousing, in this case to shoot guns at some animals as set up by someone's employees. Not really hunting.
In the United States, "pissed" means very angry or offended.
Yes, I know. Something else I've learned is that the title 'Lord Protector' - applied only twice in British history - means trying to protect the Lord God Almighty which is how you seem to have misunderstood and misapplied it.
I'm pretty sure I've looked up my ancestry on line too and found that I am related to certain US Presidents such as Calvin Klein, Buster Keaton and King Kennedy who held court at Camelot on the river Potahtomac.
There would have been shooting in the hours of daylight. Too much drinking at luncheon would be frowned on (makes you lax with the gun and it's not done to pepper the lower orders with shot) but drinking and partying and bragging about one's "bag" would be the order of the day in the evening.
Comments
Not helped by the racism of the British Press, which are notorious for having a two-faced relationship with the royals. It's not as if the press didn't plague Diana, or Kate or Sarah Ferguson, or....
I don't understand what you mean; could you explain, please?
I think EM is hinting that teachers at Eton may have breached JCQ rules on how much help is given to candidates, up to and possibly including doing coursework that the student should have completed for themselves.
The allegations were made by a former teacher at Eton whose contract had not been renewed and who was claiming unfair dismissal. She was awarded damages for unfair dismissal, but her claim that she had written part of Prince Harry's coursework was rejected. Eton said that Harry wrote his own course work and the teachers had simply "suggested vocabulary."
In fairness, intensive "support" with coursework is relatively common. When I was at school it was an open secret that Textiles achieved a 100% A*-C pass rate by "guiding" their students through the practical and supporting paperwork. Food tech did the same but less intensively. The pressures on teachers create an inherent conflict of interest, not aided by coursework assignments often being poorly thought out. I don't think I've ever crossed the line myself, but I've crept right up to it because I want my students to have the best chance possible.
Yes that's the one. The allegations were around at the time that he had "help" with course work
...........er, I think you've made the contrary case!!!!!!!!!!
Yes I remember when Miss Mark the elder was doing her DT GCSE. She did it all on her own at home within the time limit set. Other children with influential parents didn't get it done in time and here was a round robin petition to extend the time which was what happened (if you were late you were automatically docked 10%). I wouldn't sign it: the time was set, that was it. Several parents were very indiscreet about the help they gave to the child - tbh it was pretty obvious whose Dads had done the woodwork when you saw all the projects together.
I complained about the extended timescales and asked for an extra 10% in marks for Miss M who, true to form, had delivered on time and on spec. I was a marked man by Head and some Staff thereafter to the extent that the Head had to issue a formal apology for things he said publicly.
Somewhat Bizarrely over 20 years later Miss M goes into the same school in her role as a Psychiatric Professional
The difficulties with language and culture can be overcome but they will still at times come to the surface.
The difficulties with ethnicity can be overcome but they should not be swept under the carpet and blithely ignored.
Is there not a view ( and it is one that I share) that there are not different races in humanity.
? We all belong to the one human race, although we differ in background, culture, language, religion and ethnicity. When a marriage is proposed it is worth thinking about possible difficulties, not just those that some people call 'race'.
Sometimes there can be greater difficulties when two people from different cities,different cultures, different religions and different social class want to marry.
It's interesting that you're reporting a view that the Duchess's black mother, Mrs Ragland, is silenced. From my point of view, her lack of public comment has been both sensible and correct, and she has behaved in a dignified and restrained manner. The contrast with the white Markle side of the Duchess's family, who can't stop themselves from yammering to the press at every available opportunity, is marked. Each time a Markle opens their mouth, it makes them look worse.
I had thought the same and am interested that there is a potentially a completely different side of things. Thank you @MaryLouise . Here in the UK, to me at least, the story seems to have gone completely cold: the lunchtime news didn't even mention it.
The Duke, of course, was a much more extreme case. He was used to having things his own way, and it took him years to realize that this was no longer the case.
It is not realistic for a member of the royal family to reject those parts of the royal role which don't appeal and expect to keep all the parts that do appeal.
Harry's understanding of the situation was defective; he had no clear idea of what he was giving up when he tried to give up the parts he didn't like.
Being in a state of arrested development is going to be a feature of being brought up like this. His father appears particularly dysfunctional, but imagine being a person who thinks it's okay to throw a strop if your marmalade spoon isn't exactly where you expect it to be.
The most telling insight of the interview was when Harry said they were all trapped, whether they realised it or not. The whole set up is utterly ridiculous - so there's no wonder that anyone in that situation is going to have unrealistic expectations of what they can and can't do, and what 'ordinary' people think of them - cf Prince Andrew's interview, which he thought had gone well, when everyone else was just open mouthed with horror.
Or 'centuries of in-breeding went into that remark'?
I'll get me coat.
Really? I'd say a party is a quite specific thing. Most of the time I had a few people round for dinner (back when we had people round for dinner, and didn't have the plague), I wouldn't have called it a "party". Going to the pub for a few drinks with friends isn't a "party".
I've never owned a large country house, or gone shooting, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to describe a weekend shooting gathering as a "party", any more than people who play golf, or sail, or play football, or cricket, or whatever else they gather for at a weekend are "having a party".
But it was a party. A shooting party. You don't honestly think that there isn't any socialising 'party' element to a whole weekend, given it's dark at least some of the time?
It's like arguing that having a few friends around for a sit down evening meal somehow isn't a dinner party. It is, whatever word or phrase you want to use instead.
You know how you go to a restaurant, and the staff might refer to your group as a "party of six"? They don't mean that you're having a party. Similarly, I don't think a "shooting party" is a subset of what is called in common parlance a party.
Perhaps I have an idiosyncratic use of the word "party" but in general, I wouldn't call a dinner party a party.
Fixating on the word party and saying this wasn't a party because it was a shooting weekend (where he made up one of the er, shooting party) is diversionary sophistry.
Most people in a shooting party aren't there to shoot.
(i.e. the point wasn't whether or not you can describe shooting as a party, but that the Duke of York has no idea what ordinary people do with their weekends.)
Correct. If you use the word "party" by itself, the immediate and usual connotation is an event focused primarily on drinking, dancing and general carousing, where both sexes are in equal attendance with probably large numbers.
"Shooting Party" on the other hand suggests a small group of mainly males walking across the moors, killing birds.
In this instance, Prince Andrew, ghastly though he might be, would have been right to deny that he met Epstein at "a party" (assuming, of course, that they DID meet on a shooting weekend).
Yes, I think that's why it became a 'meme' for a while.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the notion that it does get dark over a 48 hour period, unless this particular shooting party was located in either Svalbard, or that they hunting penguins. And no, British shoots don't sequester their guests in moorland bunkers overnight, leaving them searching the skies for the first light of dawn, so that they can resume their shooting.
But the point here is not the intricacies of highland vs lowland shoots, it's the idea that there wouldn't be ample time for drunken socialising as well. Prince Andrew was relying Matliss' ignorance of what goes on at these events by saying "it wasn't a party, it was a shooting weekend". Those with any passing knowledge of the set-up might have nodded at that point, but the distinction he was trying to draw was deliberately false. He absolutely would have met Epstein in a social context, repeatedly, across the weekend, with wives, girlfriends and mistresses also in attendance.
@quetzalcoatl was complaining that the Duke of York saying that his "ordinary shooting weekend" wasn't a party was somehow juicy. Here, by the way, is a link to the transcript of the interview in question.
What is "U"?
Re shooting. This sounds like they go somewhere and there are planned activities in addition to carousing, in this case to shoot guns at some animals as set up by someone's employees. Not really hunting.
Yes, I know. Something else I've learned is that the title 'Lord Protector' - applied only twice in British history - means trying to protect the Lord God Almighty which is how you seem to have misunderstood and misapplied it.
I'm pretty sure I've looked up my ancestry on line too and found that I am related to certain US Presidents such as Calvin Klein, Buster Keaton and King Kennedy who held court at Camelot on the river Potahtomac.