The Canadian government has issued a statement that they're going to stop paying for RCMP protection for Harry and Meghan "soon".
ION Emily Maitlis has scooped awards from the Royal Television Society for Network Presenter of the Year; her interview with Prince Andrew got 2 gongs - Scoop of the Year
A "gong" is a good thing? Here, in the context of game/reality shows, it means you've failed, they want you to leave NOW, and they may well have let you on the show just so they could make fun of you. (E.g., on "The Gong Show" talent show.)
I don't know the protocol, but would Harry normally wear some sort of tie that would indicate his royal status? Given that (AIUI) he and Meghan aren't even supposed to themselves as "royal" anymore, maybe that's why.
I don't think there's a magic royal tie. He owns any number of "normal" ties, and there's always the regimental tie. He's just doing the "cool dressed-down celeb" act.
ETA: Whenever I saw pics of Harry in the years before all the leaving, he usually wasn't wearing a tie. Open collar. Maybe the press tended to catch him in casual moments.
I think that jacket and no tie has become quite acceptable in certain more informal/new tech business circles, especially in persons under 50 or so years old.
It’s called “business casual,” at least in the US. It has become very common in these parts. These days I, like most other male lawyers I know, only wear a tie if I have a meeting with clients (maybe, depending on the client) or someone else for whom a tie is more appropriate, or am going to court.
It’s called “business casual,” at least in the US. It has become very common in these parts. These days I, like most other male lawyers I know, only wear a tie if I have a meeting with clients (maybe, depending on the client) or someone else for whom a tie is more appropriate, or am going to court.
I found that, in my final days in the Dominion Sacrifices Commission/ Sacrifice Canada, junior managers took up the cool boss uniform of jacket-no-tie; in meetings with clients, I would continue to wear a tie, and found that our clients always deferred to my cravat-authority, my lesser authority notwithstanding. If the Prince has misplaced his Blues and Royals tie, I think I have a King's African Rifles tie and the very rare (and sadly not in good shape) Somaliland Scouts tie, presented to me by the father of an Irish ex.
I know this is bumping up quite a bit, but Prince Harry had a very interesting interview with James Cordan that was aired on CBS last night. Here is the video of it.
I saw part of that last night. I liked it. Especially the bit at the mansion used in the sitcom "Fresh Prince". James Corden started singing the theme song, got Harry to join in--and Harry seemed to know the lyrics fairly well. ROTFL. (JC was jokingly trying to convince H to buy the place and move in. H talked to Meghan on a smart phone, so we could see her, and she played along well.)
H and JC had a long, relaxed talk on the open top of a tour bus, with stops for various things. (Like a military obstacle course. H did well, as expected, and JC did better than I expected.)
Harry seemed very relaxed, and pretty happy.
Question: does H play a musical instrument? Watching his hands and movements throughout the tour bus convo, he seemed like he might.
They've had clips of the Corden-Harry chat on the news, plus a few reports in the press.
Apparently (then) 18 month old Archie asked his great-grandmother (HMQ) for a waffle-maker for Christmas... 🙄
What I thought was funny was the obstacle course they went through. Harry was very courteous through it all, even helping Cordan over some of the challenges. Particularly funny when they went through the mud challenge and Harry came out in clean clothes and Cordan remained in his dirty fatigues.
Corden is a very talented bloke. I haven't seen his tonight show, but I enjoy the stuff I've seen. I was going to say he's a good actor, but I worry that he plays similar roles quite a bit. It would be like saying Adrian Edmonson (who is a very fine actor) was a good actor when you had only seen him on Bottom and The Young Ones.
They need to find some sort of pathway for the monarchs "spare" children. One that doesn't involve automatic armed services followed by kicking their heels and getting into trouble. Why can't they enter normal civilian careers and just lead private lives?
They need to find some sort of pathway for the monarchs "spare" children. One that doesn't involve automatic armed services followed by kicking their heels and getting into trouble. Why can't they enter normal civilian careers and just lead private lives?
You mean like Zara Philips (event rider), Beatrice (works for an AI/data logistics company) or Eugenie (works for an art gallery) ?
They need to find some sort of pathway for the monarchs "spare" children. One that doesn't involve automatic armed services followed by kicking their heels and getting into trouble. Why can't they enter normal civilian careers and just lead private lives?
You mean like Zara Philips (event rider), Beatrice (works for an AI/data logistics company) or Eugenie (works for an art gallery) ?
Not particularly, but I don't want King Charles either. At least an elected head of state can be voted out.
Yes, and their powers could be severely limited right from the start, as in most European democratic republics (France perhaps being an exception, inasmuch as their President seems to have a lot more power than we thought our dear Queen had...).
No. He had one for a while but all it produced was royal related content (and not very good) plus he pi**ed off his oldest brother by being the only media outlet not to stick to the agreement about his nephew, William, being left aline while he was at St Andrews.
As...pretty?...as royal life might seem from the outside, I think it's also a trap. Your life is set out in certain terms from the beginning; you're in a glass fishbowl or a bell jar; and if you try to adapt the situation so you can be happy (choice of spouse (Princess Margaret, IIRC), career, country of residence, etc.), the Powers That Be get very upset.
Perhaps in the UK, but as Canadians will need the unanimous agreement of ten provinces on abolition, then of a design for a replacement, I suspect that we'll be keeping them centuries after they leave Sandringham for a cottage in the Gatineaus. Although, having gone through a winter or two, they may be off to Oz.
If the British abolished the Monarchy, I think that would be it for Australia too. I can't be bothered to look it up, but support for a Constitutional Monarchy runs at just high enough to keep a republic off the agenda. We will accept Chaz or Bill no worries. Mind you, there is the Commonwealth to consider. I suppose it would be possible for the Brits to go Republic and have the Monarch remain as head of the Commonwealth.
Perhaps in the UK, but as Canadians will need the unanimous agreement of ten provinces on abolition, then of a design for a replacement, I suspect that we'll be keeping them centuries after they leave Sandringham for a cottage in the Gatineaus. Although, having gone through a winter or two, they may be off to Oz.
We're keeping them just to spite the Americans, that's why we've kept them this long.
Which I had to explain this week to my Visa-student from india coworkers this week. Fir them snti-Crown bias is more ingrained.
Perhaps in the UK, but as Canadians will need the unanimous agreement of ten provinces on abolition, then of a design for a replacement, I suspect that we'll be keeping them centuries after they leave Sandringham for a cottage in the Gatineaus. Although, having gone through a winter or two, they may be off to Oz.
We're keeping them just to spite the Americans, that's why we've kept them this long.
Well, that's just sad. I suspect the vast majority of Americans have no idea there's any relationship between Canada and the royal family, and wouldn't care even if they did know about it.
Perhaps in the UK, but as Canadians will need the unanimous agreement of ten provinces on abolition, then of a design for a replacement, I suspect that we'll be keeping them centuries after they leave Sandringham for a cottage in the Gatineaus. Although, having gone through a winter or two, they may be off to Oz.
We're keeping them just to spite the Americans, that's why we've kept them this long.
Well, that's just sad. I suspect the vast majority of Americans have no idea there's any relationship between Canada and the royal family, and wouldn't care even if they did know about it.
You might want to sleep beside an elephant for a few centuries before you call it sad. It's a difference marker, that's all. The only related factor is that if we ever do move away from the monarchy, then we will never call our head of state a president.
As far as Americans' knowledge of a relationship between Canada and the Queen, I have found in my professional life (including 6 years of effectively running a programme which frequently dealt with US specialists on Canada), that there is almost no idea among most people in the US of anything about Canada. Snow and Justin Trudeau, and that's it. Those with whom I have spoken who do know about the monarchy and Canada seem to be more annoyed about it than even my Québec separatist friends-- I'm still not sure why.
Perhaps in the UK, but as Canadians will need the unanimous agreement of ten provinces on abolition, then of a design for a replacement, I suspect that we'll be keeping them centuries after they leave Sandringham for a cottage in the Gatineaus. Although, having gone through a winter or two, they may be off to Oz.
We're keeping them just to spite the Americans, that's why we've kept them this long.
Which I had to explain this week to my Visa-student from india coworkers this week. Fir them snti-Crown bias is more ingrained.
And Americans are more infatuated with the Royal Family than ever. I think our interest in them was sparked when a young Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip were married. We all were in love with Diana and we tend to think of her boys as one of us--well, at least one of them.
Well, some Americans, maybe. None that I'm acquainted with. Nor do I know any that have a problem with Canada's setup--that just sounds bizarre. Why? Those I know are basically, "Meh, whatever."
To be honest, this may be a function of the people I live among. When they think of Canada, it's usually in the form of "I can't wait to go back there on vacation." And what other people do about their royals is their business.
Now if you want to start a fight, you start talking hockey.
You forgot maple syrup. Of course, ours is better. And the old Dudley Do-Right RCMP cartoons.
OH, and Canadian coins! With Herself on them. They hide in amongst our proper coins, until we actually try to USE them. Stores may occasionally take them. AFAIK, vending machines in the US still don't take them. This can occasion muttered words.
Not sure what US kids are being taught today about Our Neighbor To The North. I think I was mostly taught about fur trappers, Native peoples, pioneers, French and Indian war, sorting out the Canadian/US border.
Canada was/is periodically in the news and other media: Pierre Trudeau; fishing rights; Rudolf Nureyev and Dame Margot Fontayne (I don't remember their Canadian connection); First Nations; parliamentary stuff (that most of us probably don't understand); royal stuff (with a connection that many of us know about, but most of us don't really understand); hockey; soccer/football (I think); travel destination; Calgary stampede; Lucy Maud Montgomery and her Anne of Green Gables books; "Murdoch Mysteries" and "Frankie Drake Mysteries" on TV; various quietly Canadian folks living and working in the US (e.g., William Shatner and many, many, many others); etc.
I think US and Canadian accents and usage are similar enough that many people just don't notice, and so don't have any clues they're talking to a Canadian. And most folks in the US don't get much chance to hear Canadians talk at length. Some of us do know that there are certain vocabulary clues ("serviette" for napkin, "elastic" for rubber band, "biscuit" for cookie, "boot" for car trunk, etc.).
When did being born as the "spare" half of the "heir and spare" last work out? It seems an invidious position - raised as a potential future monarch and then expected to live a different life in adulthood to the life for which you were trained.
Harry's position is not happy, although he does seem to have the nous to be actively trying to forge his own life. Andrew's life has not been happy. Princess Margaret's life was not happy.
George the VI was the second son, underlining the need to have a "spare" all dressed up with potentially nowhere to go. Ditto George V, whose elder brother died aged 28.
Queen Victoria's second son was in a different situation because they had a European title available and he became the Duke of Saxe-Coburg Gotha.
Perhaps in the UK, but as Canadians will need the unanimous agreement of ten provinces on abolition, then of a design for a replacement, I suspect that we'll be keeping them centuries after they leave Sandringham for a cottage in the Gatineaus. Although, having gone through a winter or two, they may be off to Oz.
We're keeping them just to spite the Americans, that's why we've kept them this long.
Well, that's just sad. I suspect the vast majority of Americans have no idea there's any relationship between Canada and the royal family, and wouldn't care even if they did know about it.
You might want to sleep beside an elephant for a few centuries before you call it sad. It's a difference marker, that's all. The only related factor is that if we ever do move away from the monarchy, then we will never call our head of state a president.
“Difference marker”, fine. But if it really were a spiteful gesture of which the intended target is oblivious, it would be sad regardless of whether or not the animus is justified.
Referring to Elizabeth Windsor (if that is how one prefers to think of her) as 'Brenda' may perhaps pass as mildly amusing on the first occasion, but repeated it becomes increasingly tedious. The same, I am afraid (though I heartily agree with the sentimen) goes for 'Brexshit'. I.m sorry to be pompous and po-faced, but there is is. I just need to get it off my chest.
Perhaps in the UK, but as Canadians will need the unanimous agreement of ten provinces on abolition, then of a design for a replacement, I suspect that we'll be keeping them centuries after they leave Sandringham for a cottage in the Gatineaus. Although, having gone through a winter or two, they may be off to Oz.
We're keeping them just to spite the Americans, that's why we've kept them this long.
Well, that's just sad. I suspect the vast majority of Americans have no idea there's any relationship between Canada and the royal family, and wouldn't care even if they did know about it.
You might want to sleep beside an elephant for a few centuries before you call it sad. It's a difference marker, that's all. The only related factor is that if we ever do move away from the monarchy, then we will never call our head of state a president.
“Difference marker”, fine. But if it really were a spiteful gesture of which the intended target is oblivious, it would be sad regardless of whether or not the animus is justified.
I personally interpreted SPK's comment as meaning the "difference marker" thing, but expressed with a bit of snarky humour.
Sorta like a Scot, married into a family of non-Scots, might say "I like to bring a bottle of Glenfidditch to the family Christmas dinner, because my in-laws hate it!" He's not really saying he wants to tick off his in-laws, just that his preference in drink is something that helps distinguish him from the rest of the brood.
For myself, I have often heard Canadians say that we should keep the monarchy because it helps maintain a distinct culture from the Yanks, but I have rarely, if ever, heard someone say that we should do it to deliberately antagonize the Yanks. (Well, maybe members of some weirdo neo-loyalist mini-sects who had their last hurrah some time circa 1977, but that's about it.)
I know this is bumping up quite a bit, but Prince Harry had a very interesting interview with James Cordan that was aired on CBS last night. Here is the video of it.
I find myself not even slightly interested. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex chose to walk away from their responsibilities. That's their choice - but it makes them just another pair of two-bit pointless "celebrities". I'm not interested in anything a Kardashian might have to say, and I don't really care about their opinions either.
Comments
ION Emily Maitlis has scooped awards from the Royal Television Society for Network Presenter of the Year; her interview with Prince Andrew got 2 gongs - Scoop of the Year
And it is so here.
I don't think there's a magic royal tie. He owns any number of "normal" ties, and there's always the regimental tie. He's just doing the "cool dressed-down celeb" act.
ETA: Whenever I saw pics of Harry in the years before all the leaving, he usually wasn't wearing a tie. Open collar. Maybe the press tended to catch him in casual moments.
I found that, in my final days in the Dominion Sacrifices Commission/ Sacrifice Canada, junior managers took up the cool boss uniform of jacket-no-tie; in meetings with clients, I would continue to wear a tie, and found that our clients always deferred to my cravat-authority, my lesser authority notwithstanding. If the Prince has misplaced his Blues and Royals tie, I think I have a King's African Rifles tie and the very rare (and sadly not in good shape) Somaliland Scouts tie, presented to me by the father of an Irish ex.
Apparently (then) 18 month old Archie asked his great-grandmother (HMQ) for a waffle-maker for Christmas... 🙄
I saw part of that last night. I liked it. Especially the bit at the mansion used in the sitcom "Fresh Prince". James Corden started singing the theme song, got Harry to join in--and Harry seemed to know the lyrics fairly well. ROTFL. (JC was jokingly trying to convince H to buy the place and move in. H talked to Meghan on a smart phone, so we could see her, and she played along well.)
H and JC had a long, relaxed talk on the open top of a tour bus, with stops for various things. (Like a military obstacle course. H did well, as expected, and JC did better than I expected.)
Harry seemed very relaxed, and pretty happy.
Question: does H play a musical instrument? Watching his hands and movements throughout the tour bus convo, he seemed like he might.
If nothing else, it gave H a fun afternoon out, and a chance for a relaxed talk about various situations.
What I thought was funny was the obstacle course they went through. Harry was very courteous through it all, even helping Cordan over some of the challenges. Particularly funny when they went through the mud challenge and Harry came out in clean clothes and Cordan remained in his dirty fatigues.
Given the possible fall-out over the *Queen's Consent* issue, perhaps she'll abdicate anyway.
Useless baggage, most of them.
You mean like Zara Philips (event rider), Beatrice (works for an AI/data logistics company) or Eugenie (works for an art gallery) ?
So you fancy President Boris?
Not particularly, but I don't want King Charles either. At least an elected head of state can be voted out.
I was thinking more of Andrew and Harry.
Yes, and their powers could be severely limited right from the start, as in most European democratic republics (France perhaps being an exception, inasmuch as their President seems to have a lot more power than we thought our dear Queen had...).
If I recall, Prince William is in an air ambulance service and has rescued at least one person off the coast.
As...pretty?...as royal life might seem from the outside, I think it's also a trap. Your life is set out in certain terms from the beginning; you're in a glass fishbowl or a bell jar; and if you try to adapt the situation so you can be happy (choice of spouse (Princess Margaret, IIRC), career, country of residence, etc.), the Powers That Be get very upset.
I disagree. Charles and Williams are doing very well.
Ginger and his wife should just be ignored
Perhaps in the UK, but as Canadians will need the unanimous agreement of ten provinces on abolition, then of a design for a replacement, I suspect that we'll be keeping them centuries after they leave Sandringham for a cottage in the Gatineaus. Although, having gone through a winter or two, they may be off to Oz.
We're keeping them just to spite the Americans, that's why we've kept them this long.
Which I had to explain this week to my Visa-student from india coworkers this week. Fir them snti-Crown bias is more ingrained.
You might want to sleep beside an elephant for a few centuries before you call it sad. It's a difference marker, that's all. The only related factor is that if we ever do move away from the monarchy, then we will never call our head of state a president.
As far as Americans' knowledge of a relationship between Canada and the Queen, I have found in my professional life (including 6 years of effectively running a programme which frequently dealt with US specialists on Canada), that there is almost no idea among most people in the US of anything about Canada. Snow and Justin Trudeau, and that's it. Those with whom I have spoken who do know about the monarchy and Canada seem to be more annoyed about it than even my Québec separatist friends-- I'm still not sure why.
And Americans are more infatuated with the Royal Family than ever. I think our interest in them was sparked when a young Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip were married. We all were in love with Diana and we tend to think of her boys as one of us--well, at least one of them.
To be honest, this may be a function of the people I live among. When they think of Canada, it's usually in the form of "I can't wait to go back there on vacation." And what other people do about their royals is their business.
Now if you want to start a fight, you start talking hockey.
You forgot maple syrup. Of course, ours is better.
OH, and Canadian coins! With Herself on them. They hide in amongst our proper coins, until we actually try to USE them. Stores may occasionally take them. AFAIK, vending machines in the US still don't take them. This can occasion muttered words.
Not sure what US kids are being taught today about Our Neighbor To The North. I think I was mostly taught about fur trappers, Native peoples, pioneers, French and Indian war, sorting out the Canadian/US border.
Canada was/is periodically in the news and other media: Pierre Trudeau; fishing rights; Rudolf Nureyev and Dame Margot Fontayne (I don't remember their Canadian connection); First Nations; parliamentary stuff (that most of us probably don't understand); royal stuff (with a connection that many of us know about, but most of us don't really understand); hockey; soccer/football (I think); travel destination; Calgary stampede; Lucy Maud Montgomery and her Anne of Green Gables books; "Murdoch Mysteries" and "Frankie Drake Mysteries" on TV; various quietly Canadian folks living and working in the US (e.g., William Shatner and many, many, many others); etc.
I think US and Canadian accents and usage are similar enough that many people just don't notice, and so don't have any clues they're talking to a Canadian. And most folks in the US don't get much chance to hear Canadians talk at length. Some of us do know that there are certain vocabulary clues ("serviette" for napkin, "elastic" for rubber band, "biscuit" for cookie, "boot" for car trunk, etc.).
FWIW.
Great idea. No more Civil list until they work to repay the cost of their training
Harry's position is not happy, although he does seem to have the nous to be actively trying to forge his own life. Andrew's life has not been happy. Princess Margaret's life was not happy.
George the VI was the second son, underlining the need to have a "spare" all dressed up with potentially nowhere to go. Ditto George V, whose elder brother died aged 28.
Queen Victoria's second son was in a different situation because they had a European title available and he became the Duke of Saxe-Coburg Gotha.
I personally interpreted SPK's comment as meaning the "difference marker" thing, but expressed with a bit of snarky humour.
Sorta like a Scot, married into a family of non-Scots, might say "I like to bring a bottle of Glenfidditch to the family Christmas dinner, because my in-laws hate it!" He's not really saying he wants to tick off his in-laws, just that his preference in drink is something that helps distinguish him from the rest of the brood.
For myself, I have often heard Canadians say that we should keep the monarchy because it helps maintain a distinct culture from the Yanks, but I have rarely, if ever, heard someone say that we should do it to deliberately antagonize the Yanks. (Well, maybe members of some weirdo neo-loyalist mini-sects who had their last hurrah some time circa 1977, but that's about it.)
I find myself not even slightly interested. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex chose to walk away from their responsibilities. That's their choice - but it makes them just another pair of two-bit pointless "celebrities". I'm not interested in anything a Kardashian might have to say, and I don't really care about their opinions either.