Depends if drives are planned for the following day. Ditto so hungover cannot handle a gun is frowned on too.
But there's a lot of assumptions in that too: land to raise grouse, deer or the pheasant they were probably shooting in Norfolk, and owned shoots not syndicated or raising money for the estate so friends and family don't get to play as a waste of a much needed money making opportunity.
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.
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.
This.
Actually, partly this. Most shoots are networking events, a kind of extended business lunch but with more killing.
A private event, as opposed to a corporate one, is going to be different.
It's no fun being upper-class if people keep mistaking you for rich middle-class, so one needs to make sure one says 'sofa' a lot to distinguish oneself.
They'll mistake you for American, maybe. I looked at the examples and found at least half of them on either side to be characteristic of Americans. And we can't hear your accent when you type.
On the Lord Protector tangent: it was used as a title for regents ruling on behalf of child kings. For example, Jane Seymour's eldest brother was Lord Protector for Edward VI. Cromwell didn't just pick the title out of thin air.
You are right though and probably in more ways than you think. Nothing 'positions' British people in the complex and murky ecosystem of our arcane class structure than the way they speak.
That said, I can 'hear' American accents when I read US posters posts and Australian accents when I read posts by Australian shipmates. That will largely be information my brain supplies because I know their place of origin, but it's not just that.
I can hear Scottish accents when I read posts by Scottish shipmates and posh Home Counties accents with those from those parts. I daresay it's largely to do with associations I make in my mind.
So a chart of U and Non-U expressions presented visually rather than aurally wouldn't necessarily work. Even with aural accompaniment it may not mean a great deal unless you had the particular associations and cultural cues to go with it.
Having been thinking about some of the discussion re not believing Meghan Markle about what she knew when, about her mental health. feeling she did not want to live any more, racism. There are implications: if your friends and family know that's what you think, I don't think they will ever talk to you about what they're feeling, and they won't ask you to help them. This is beyond the ship for the most part, but thought it was worth writing it.
It's no fun being upper-class if people keep mistaking you for rich middle-class, so one needs to make sure one says 'sofa' a lot to distinguish oneself.
But no no no. It is middle class who are most concerned about U words. The point is that if you are truly upper class you no longer need worry about whether you are using U words or not. Everyone will know you are upper class no matter what words you use. Upper-middle-class thus affect not to worry about whether words are U or not in effort to show they are not middle class. Middle-middle class use exclusively U-words in effort to show they are not lower-middle class. Lower-middle class use non-U words but stress about it worrying that others might think they are working class.
It is middle class who are most concerned about U words. The point is that if you are truly upper class you no longer need worry about whether you are using U words or not. Everyone will know you are upper class no matter what words you use. Upper-middle-class thus affect not to worry about whether words are U or not in effort to show they are not middle class. Middle-middle class use exclusively U-words in effort to show they are not lower-middle class. Lower-middle class use non-U words but stress about it worrying that others might think they are working class.
You've got the 'U-words' and the 'non-U-words' the wrong way round. The words that the upper class use because they don't need to worry are U-words. The words the middle-middle-class use to show they're not lower-middle-class are the non-U words.
Hence, loo is U; toilet is non-U. Asking 'what?' when you haven't heard is U; asking 'pardon?' is non-U.
Harry met Meghan at a blind date in 2016, and married in 2018. There were quite a few reports in the UK Press that for that wedding to happen so fast, the planned wedding of Princess Eugenie was put back. Compared to William who met Kate in 2001 and married her in 2011, that's a whirlwind. Nor did it give a lot of time for Meghan to learn much about the British press or how things work in the Royal Family. Tobteally know ehwt she was getting into.
I can postulate a family member questioning Harry, who has not had the most enlightened past as to racism:
how will you cope in various scenarios, including how would you cope if your children were dark skinned. 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?"
Did Ms Markle come all the way to the UK for this blind date or did it happen some other way ?
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.
Just as a point of fact it wouldn't have been anything to do with Ghislaine Maxwell's birthday: she was born on Christmas Day and I can't see HMQ and the rest of the family having a joint do for Maxwell and Princess Alexandra.
Yup. On a previous trip 3 years earlier to promote Suits she was interviewed for a cable entertainment news programme and said she was looking for a British boyfriend. She later asked another guest at an event whether she could introduce her to any famous British men. Shortly after this she began a friendship with somebody who'd been on The X Factor but he dropped her.
(Why do I know all this? Our lodger is obsessed with the woman! )
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.
I thought shooting parties happened in shooting galleries.
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.
I thought shooting parties happened in shooting galleries.
Yes. I'm surprised the Royals are so open about drug abuse. Let nobody say that they are good for nothing drains on the public purse. If even Prince Philip can get hooked on horse, anybody can. This really humanises the whole family for me.
The family narcotic addicts were the late Edward Duke of Kent and Princess Helena ( Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein), third daughter & fifth child of Victoria
The family narcotic addicts were the late Edward Duke of Kent and Princess Helena ( Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein), third daughter & fifth child of Victoria
More recent Royals (particularly the late mother of the present Queen and Princess Margaret) were more about the booze, and fags in the case of the latter.
Just a quickie ... apologies to Gramps49. I have been unnecessarily snarky and rude to him.
I admit I know very little of the intrigue of the royal family. But I do not expect my international brothers and sisters to completely understand the intrigue of the system in the United States.
It is middle class who are most concerned about U words. The point is that if you are truly upper class you no longer need worry about whether you are using U words or not. Everyone will know you are upper class no matter what words you use. Upper-middle-class thus affect not to worry about whether words are U or not in effort to show they are not middle class. Middle-middle class use exclusively U-words in effort to show they are not lower-middle class. Lower-middle class use non-U words but stress about it worrying that others might think they are working class.
You've got the 'U-words' and the 'non-U-words' the wrong way round. The words that the upper class use because they don't need to worry are U-words. The words the middle-middle-class use to show they're not lower-middle-class are the non-U words.
Hence, loo is U; toilet is non-U. Asking 'what?' when you haven't heard is U; asking 'pardon?' is non-U.
A thought about the issue of passport, keys, etc.: Royalty have staff to take care of these things. Nothing sinister about it. She had no idea what she'd got herself into. No wonder she was scared and lonely. Yes, probably all this was explained to her. I doubt if she understood half of the things said to her in a funny accent.
A fair number of Harry's previous girlfriends took themselves off when identified by the tabloid press. Most of that list were English and presumably concluded that whatever Harry had to offer as the spare did not outweigh the palace protocols and inconveniences of living in a media goldfish bowl. As Meghan might have realised had she not prided herself on not doing any research.
As Meghan might have realised had she not prided herself on not doing any research.
Where did you learn that she "prided" herself on this?
If she said she had googled Harry, she'd be derided for that. And what should she have read? And how should she have known to read it? It's obvious that she didn't know what she was getting herself into, but I don't see how she could have known.
She could have asked Harry ? Especially things like whether she’d be expected to curtsy to the queen - whether the formality thing was in public only is something he’d obviously know.
It would never have occured to me to ask when to curtsy to the Queen - I'd have assumed that it was strictly for public affairs if you're a member of the family.
Love is blind or otherwise clouds critical judgement. Most of us have over-looked some things at various times. "I'm marrying this man, I'm marrying his family" "He's not going to be the king or anything serious".
I suppose if I were marrying into a prominent family I might look at what happened to others who married in, or ask my girlfriend/boyfriend are there things you think I should know ?
It was all over the press, for example, that Diana Spencer was required to call Prince Charles sir up until they were married.
There are entire books on British etiquette and the palace has formal advisors.
The queen is a woman who chooses to be woken up by a military bagpiper on a daily basis ...
It was all over the press, for example, that Diana Spencer was required to call Prince Charles sir up until they were married.
This was 40 years ago, the year Meghan Markle was born, so perhaps she can be forgiven for not remembering. I was 18, and I don't remember it.
There are entire books on British etiquette and the palace has formal advisors.
So it's a lot, and someone new is likely to make mistakes.
The queen is a woman who chooses to be woken up by a military bagpiper on a daily basis ...
Wow.
And I would point out that those of you who know such things have picked up details over the course of a lifetime of living in your culture.
Meghan was in her late 30s, they wanted children, so they didn't fart around for 10 years like William and Kate did in their 20s before getting married. They dated for over a year before getting engaged, which seems reasonable. In a more forgiving atmosphere, say a loving family, things probably would have been easier.
I am not claiming the royal family is not dysfunctional - just that I wouldn’t marry into the family of a head of state without doing some due diligence because I’d assume things would be pretty fucked up.
Essentially, I am entirely convinced it is a rigid fairly racist institution and it must have been a nightmare - but I am entirely unsurprised by that. I am surprised that you’d go into it with your eyes closed - it doesn’t make the way she was treated right.
I am not claiming the royal family is not dysfunctional - just that I wouldn’t marry into the family of a head of state without doing some due diligence because I’d assume things would be pretty fucked up.
Essentially, I am entirely convinced it is a rigid fairly racist institution and it must have been a nightmare - but I am entirely unsurprised by that. I am surprised that you’d go into it with your eyes closed - it doesn’t make the way she was treated right.
I suppose if I were marrying into a prominent family I might look at what happened to others who married in, or ask my girlfriend/boyfriend are there things you think I should know ?
It was all over the press, for example, that Diana Spencer was required to call Prince Charles sir up until they were married.
There are entire books on British etiquette and the palace has formal advisors.
The queen is a woman who chooses to be woken up by a military bagpiper on a daily basis ...
I think this sort of thing provides the most compelling argument for abolishing the monarchy. It's a kind of state-sponsored regime of familial abuse. Nobody should be born into this weird shit and be expected to endure it as some kind of national "duty".
I suppose if I were marrying into a prominent family I might look at what happened to others who married in, or ask my girlfriend/boyfriend are there things you think I should know ?
It was all over the press, for example, that Diana Spencer was required to call Prince Charles sir up until they were married.
There are entire books on British etiquette and the palace has formal advisors.
The queen is a woman who chooses to be woken up by a military bagpiper on a daily basis ...
I think this sort of thing provides the most compelling argument for abolishing the monarchy. It's a kind of state-sponsored regime of familial abuse. Nobody should be born into this weird shit and be expected to endure it as some kind of national "duty".
I think you're right, except that the royal family are part of some sado-masochistic ritual, which is embedded in English identity. Abuse, lying, repression, coldness, all raised up on an altar.
As an American with no particular stake in the outcomes of this mess, I'll just point out that Americans tend to peculiarly individualistic notions about marriage and culture. That is, many of us consider the marriage alliance to be primarily about the two individuals involved, and very little about the conjoining of their respective "tribes."
I'm not at all sure this view of marital alliances applies to royal marriages, as these have (until quite recently in human history) typically been governed more by geopolitical considerations than by personal preferences.
One would think, though, that Markle (having already achieve celebrity status in US culture, might have been better-prepped as to what she was getting herself into in joining this "tribe."
I still find it hard to believe that M had heard nothing about the royal family. Did she never read newspapers or watch TV? The whole thing about the royal family is that if one of them so much as farts, endless columns are written about it. And I know that North America is just as fixated as the UK. Just stand in the supermarket checkout queue and count how many magazines on the rack have royal family related headlines.
It would never have occured to me to ask when to curtsy to the Queen - I'd have assumed that it was strictly for public affairs if you're a member of the family.
I think the curtsy is being a little bit over-analysed. What she said was that it was only when Harry asked her if she knew how to curtsy that 'the penny dropped' as to what she was letting herself in for. Which suggests to me:
1. It's not specifically about the curtsy; the curtsy is just symbolic of the whole mass of royal protocol;
2. To me, 'the penny dropped' suggests she did know intellectually that royalty is full of protocol, and the curtsy question was what brought it home on a visceral level.
Comments
But there's a lot of assumptions in that too: land to raise grouse, deer or the pheasant they were probably shooting in Norfolk, and owned shoots not syndicated or raising money for the estate so friends and family don't get to play as a waste of a much needed money making opportunity.
This.
Actually, partly this. Most shoots are networking events, a kind of extended business lunch but with more killing.
A private event, as opposed to a corporate one, is going to be different.
You are right though and probably in more ways than you think. Nothing 'positions' British people in the complex and murky ecosystem of our arcane class structure than the way they speak.
That said, I can 'hear' American accents when I read US posters posts and Australian accents when I read posts by Australian shipmates. That will largely be information my brain supplies because I know their place of origin, but it's not just that.
I can hear Scottish accents when I read posts by Scottish shipmates and posh Home Counties accents with those from those parts. I daresay it's largely to do with associations I make in my mind.
So a chart of U and Non-U expressions presented visually rather than aurally wouldn't necessarily work. Even with aural accompaniment it may not mean a great deal unless you had the particular associations and cultural cues to go with it.
But no no no. It is middle class who are most concerned about U words. The point is that if you are truly upper class you no longer need worry about whether you are using U words or not. Everyone will know you are upper class no matter what words you use. Upper-middle-class thus affect not to worry about whether words are U or not in effort to show they are not middle class. Middle-middle class use exclusively U-words in effort to show they are not lower-middle class. Lower-middle class use non-U words but stress about it worrying that others might think they are working class.
Hence, loo is U; toilet is non-U. Asking 'what?' when you haven't heard is U; asking 'pardon?' is non-U.
ION one of her co-stars from that soap has taken issue with the interview, timing, etc.
Just as a point of fact it wouldn't have been anything to do with Ghislaine Maxwell's birthday: she was born on Christmas Day and I can't see HMQ and the rest of the family having a joint do for Maxwell and Princess Alexandra.
(Why do I know all this? Our lodger is obsessed with the woman! )
I thought shooting parties happened in shooting galleries.
That's where you shoot up
More recent Royals (particularly the late mother of the present Queen and Princess Margaret) were more about the booze, and fags in the case of the latter.
Benson & Hedges could take the blame for both George V1 (lung cancer) and the Duke of Windsor ( laryngeal cancer); both 60 a day enthusiasts.
I admit I know very little of the intrigue of the royal family. But I do not expect my international brothers and sisters to completely understand the intrigue of the system in the United States.
Apology accepted.
Aha! Sorry, yes, backwards!
Why would the accent be an issue?
Where did you learn that she "prided" herself on this?
If she said she had googled Harry, she'd be derided for that. And what should she have read? And how should she have known to read it? It's obvious that she didn't know what she was getting herself into, but I don't see how she could have known.
Oh come on, it’s like agreeing to marry Putin’s daughter and thinking that your life would carry on as normal.
I know f all about the Kremlin but I think I’d ask some questions.
It would never have occured to me to ask when to curtsy to the Queen - I'd have assumed that it was strictly for public affairs if you're a member of the family.
It was all over the press, for example, that Diana Spencer was required to call Prince Charles sir up until they were married.
There are entire books on British etiquette and the palace has formal advisors.
The queen is a woman who chooses to be woken up by a military bagpiper on a daily basis ...
This was 40 years ago, the year Meghan Markle was born, so perhaps she can be forgiven for not remembering. I was 18, and I don't remember it.
So it's a lot, and someone new is likely to make mistakes.
Wow.
And I would point out that those of you who know such things have picked up details over the course of a lifetime of living in your culture.
Meghan was in her late 30s, they wanted children, so they didn't fart around for 10 years like William and Kate did in their 20s before getting married. They dated for over a year before getting engaged, which seems reasonable. In a more forgiving atmosphere, say a loving family, things probably would have been easier.
Essentially, I am entirely convinced it is a rigid fairly racist institution and it must have been a nightmare - but I am entirely unsurprised by that. I am surprised that you’d go into it with your eyes closed - it doesn’t make the way she was treated right.
This
Very foolish.
I think you're right, except that the royal family are part of some sado-masochistic ritual, which is embedded in English identity. Abuse, lying, repression, coldness, all raised up on an altar.
I'm not at all sure this view of marital alliances applies to royal marriages, as these have (until quite recently in human history) typically been governed more by geopolitical considerations than by personal preferences.
One would think, though, that Markle (having already achieve celebrity status in US culture, might have been better-prepped as to what she was getting herself into in joining this "tribe."
Sorry, but I don't buy it.
I think the curtsy is being a little bit over-analysed. What she said was that it was only when Harry asked her if she knew how to curtsy that 'the penny dropped' as to what she was letting herself in for. Which suggests to me:
1. It's not specifically about the curtsy; the curtsy is just symbolic of the whole mass of royal protocol;
2. To me, 'the penny dropped' suggests she did know intellectually that royalty is full of protocol, and the curtsy question was what brought it home on a visceral level.