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.
But it doesn’t make sense as humor (except maybe as a sad self-own) if the in-laws never notice or care.
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.
I think that's exactly why Private Eye coined the whole Brenda thing (i.e. to get some pomposity off a few chests).
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.
But it doesn’t make sense as humor (except maybe as a sad self-own) if the in-laws never notice or care.
Well, historically, Americans have generally been hostile to the British monarchy, and if you go back far enough, there probably was widespread awareness among the population that the land to the north was under the rule of said monarch.
So with that as the historical background, framing current Canadian support for the Crown as "spiting" Americans has a certain humourous resonance, even if very few Americans today feel literally spited.
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.
I think that's exactly why Private Eye coined the whole Brenda thing (i.e. to get some pomposity off a few chests).
Yes, but to this outsider at least, it’s become trite enough to convey its own pomposity or smugness.
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.
I think that's exactly why Private Eye coined the whole Brenda thing (i.e. to get some pomposity off a few chests).
So they did.
I prefer to think of HMQ as *Betty*, or sometimes *Useless Betty*, which gets the feelings of frustration off my chest (as does the use of the word *Brexshit*).
Humble apologies to anyone who might be offended, especially the poster who coined the phrase The Perfect Monarch to describe our head of state.
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.
I think that's exactly why Private Eye coined the whole Brenda thing (i.e. to get some pomposity off a few chests).
Yes, but to this outsider at least, it’s become trite enough to convey its own pomposity or smugness.
Well we all have our views and opinions on the triteness, suitability or otherwise of any play on names of public figures. If that's how we wish to refer to them - and it's legal - then that's how it is.
john holdingEcclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
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.
FWIW, of your four vocabulary clues, only one works more than occasionally. No canadian would use biscuit for cookie, or boot for car trunk. A few might use elastic, but most would use rubber band -- actually most would say elastic band. Serviette and napkin are both commonly used with napkin probably more common.
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.
Really??
Although "Brenda" is a little out of date these days, in my experience it was always used with a certain degree of informal warmth.
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".
Agreed. They seem to want the fame and privilege of being Royals without the boring stuff of responsibilities and duties. Thankfully, their sojourn on Vancouver Island was brief. America can have 'em.
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.
I think that's exactly why Private Eye coined the whole Brenda thing (i.e. to get some pomposity off a few chests).
Yes, but to this outsider at least, it’s become trite enough to convey its own pomposity or smugness.
Well we all have our views and opinions on the triteness, suitability or otherwise of any play on names of public figures. If that's how we wish to refer to them - and it's legal - then that's how it is.
Of course. I never suggested otherwise, nor would I.
What I did was point out how one’s choices might be interpreted by others.
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.
Really??
Although "Brenda" is a little out of date these days, in my experience it was always used with a certain degree of informal warmth.
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".
Agreed. They seem to want the fame and privilege of being Royals without the boring stuff of responsibilities and duties. Thankfully, their sojourn on Vancouver Island was brief. America can have 'em.
As far as I could see their main duty appeared to be acting as whipping boys for the British press, whose motivation appeared to be either directly racist or playing up to the racism of their readers.
I'm not surprised they opted to get out of the whole ridiculous business.
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.
Really??
Although "Brenda" is a little out of date these days, in my experience it was always used with a certain degree of informal warmth.
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".
Agreed. They seem to want the fame and privilege of being Royals without the boring stuff of responsibilities and duties. Thankfully, their sojourn on Vancouver Island was brief. America can have 'em.
As far as I could see their main duty appeared to be acting as whipping boys for the British press, whose motivation appeared to be either directly racist or playing up to the racism of their readers.
I'm not surprised they opted to get out of the whole ridiculous business.
Yes.
Good for them, even if it does prove difficult to re-invent themselves, as it were.
If you go back and look at British newspapers around the time of the Sussex's engagement and in the run-up to the wedding the coverage was overwhelmingly positive. If they erred in any way it was in over-egging the Duchess's standing on the celebrity scale. She was highly praised for her informality, for things like her initiative with the Grenfell Tower women, her support for girls' education, etc. The general tone was very positive (with the exception of the toxic Piers Morgan) and every newspaper took the view that it was a brilliant thing to see the little boy who had walked behind his mother's coffin 20 years before finding love and happiness. When the nonsense began with Meghan's half-siblings and father the sympathy was all for her.
The negativity started when they suddenly decided to keep under wraps where the baby was born and they started to put up the "keep out" signs - partly to do with the cost of converting Frogmore Cottage back from 5 flatlets into a single dwelling.
At the moment the Sussexes had better pray that the latest news on Prince Philip isn't a precursor to his demise: if it is public opinion towards them will be brutal.
At the moment the Sussexes had better pray that the latest news on Prince Philip isn't a precursor to his demise: if it is public opinion towards them will be brutal.
Why will it be brutal?
HRH is a very old, frail, man - are you saying that the Sussexes might somehow be regarded as at least partially responsible for his illness?
Because if the news is bad then Harry will have been told and choosing to stay Stateside won't go down well. Because he took on the honorary military role that Philip treasured - Captain General of the Royal Marines - and promptly fled across the pond. Because bemoaning one's lot in public is anathema to Philip.
If you go back and look at British newspapers around the time of the Sussex's engagement and in the run-up to the wedding the coverage was overwhelmingly positive.
The negativity started when they suddenly decided to keep under wraps where the baby was born and they started to put up the "keep out" signs - partly to do with the cost of converting Frogmore Cottage back from 5 flatlets into a single dwelling.
Given that negative press coverage preceded the latter by a year that assertion requires either a belief in time travel and/or a loose grasp on reality.
Things are over determined, but there was a fair amount of casual racism and misogyny in amongst the paper's deciding that they could make bank by turning them into hate figures.
I certainly don't want to get into a cross-border spat with my Northern Cousins. I certainly hope we can eventually open the border again. I miss going up there.
I only bumped this up because I thought the interview was humorous--all the unexpected challenges in what was no doubt a well-planned tour for the Duke and Cordan.
Well, historically, Americans have generally been hostile to the British monarchy, and if you go back far enough, there probably was widespread awareness among the population that the land to the north was under the rule of said monarch.
If you go back and look at British newspapers around the time of the Sussex's engagement and in the run-up to the wedding the coverage was overwhelmingly positive.
The negativity started when they suddenly decided to keep under wraps where the baby was born and they started to put up the "keep out" signs - partly to do with the cost of converting Frogmore Cottage back from 5 flatlets into a single dwelling.
Given that negative press coverage preceded the latter by a year that assertion requires either a belief in time travel and/or a loose grasp on reality.
Things are over determined, but there was a fair amount of casual racism and misogyny in amongst the paper's deciding that they could make bank by turning them into hate figures.
Ah, I've been pondering the tabloid hate for M and H. I get the racism, and Harry leaving the royal prison, but some of may be arbitrary? Some body has to be hated, here's a black piece of trash, yum yum.
If you go back and look at British newspapers around the time of the Sussex's engagement and in the run-up to the wedding the coverage was overwhelmingly positive.
The negativity started when they suddenly decided to keep under wraps where the baby was born and they started to put up the "keep out" signs - partly to do with the cost of converting Frogmore Cottage back from 5 flatlets into a single dwelling.
Given that negative press coverage preceded the latter by a year that assertion requires either a belief in time travel and/or a loose grasp on reality.
Things are over determined, but there was a fair amount of casual racism and misogyny in amongst the paper's deciding that they could make bank by turning them into hate figures.
Ah, I've been pondering the tabloid hate for M and H. I get the racism, and Harry leaving the royal prison, but some of may be arbitrary? Some body has to be hated, here's a black piece of trash, yum yum.
From a purely economic point of view it's not like they can continuously get married and have kids, so they don't have a huge amount of 'positive press stories' to trade with and are never going to close to power, so it's easier to make them into antagonists to turn more pensioner rage into cash.
If you go back and look at British newspapers around the time of the Sussex's engagement and in the run-up to the wedding the coverage was overwhelmingly positive.
The negativity started when they suddenly decided to keep under wraps where the baby was born and they started to put up the "keep out" signs - partly to do with the cost of converting Frogmore Cottage back from 5 flatlets into a single dwelling.
Given that negative press coverage preceded the latter by a year that assertion requires either a belief in time travel and/or a loose grasp on reality.
Things are over determined, but there was a fair amount of casual racism and misogyny in amongst the paper's deciding that they could make bank by turning them into hate figures.
Ah, I've been pondering the tabloid hate for M and H. I get the racism, and Harry leaving the royal prison, but some of may be arbitrary? Some body has to be hated, here's a black piece of trash, yum yum.
From a purely economic point of view it's not like they can continuously get married and have kids, so they don't have a huge amount of 'positive press stories' to trade with and are never going to close to power, so it's easier to make them into antagonists to turn more pensioner rage into cash.
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.
Really??
Although "Brenda" is a little out of date these days, in my experience it was always used with a certain degree of informal warmth.
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".
Agreed. They seem to want the fame and privilege of being Royals without the boring stuff of responsibilities and duties. Thankfully, their sojourn on Vancouver Island was brief. America can have 'em.
As far as I could see their main duty appeared to be acting as whipping boys for the British press, whose motivation appeared to be either directly racist or playing up to the racism of their readers.
I'm not surprised they opted to get out of the whole ridiculous business.
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.
Really??
Although "Brenda" is a little out of date these days, in my experience it was always used with a certain degree of informal warmth.
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".
Agreed. They seem to want the fame and privilege of being Royals without the boring stuff of responsibilities and duties. Thankfully, their sojourn on Vancouver Island was brief. America can have 'em.
As far as I could see their main duty appeared to be acting as whipping boys for the British press, whose motivation appeared to be either directly racist or playing up to the racism of their readers.
I'm not surprised they opted to get out of the whole ridiculous business.
Any problems with the media were caused by them.
Yeah. Her by being a brown person and him by marrying one.
I'm not one for sticking up for royals but the vendetta was as obvious as it was nauseating.
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.
Really??
Although "Brenda" is a little out of date these days, in my experience it was always used with a certain degree of informal warmth.
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".
Agreed. They seem to want the fame and privilege of being Royals without the boring stuff of responsibilities and duties. Thankfully, their sojourn on Vancouver Island was brief. America can have 'em.
As far as I could see their main duty appeared to be acting as whipping boys for the British press, whose motivation appeared to be either directly racist or playing up to the racism of their readers.
I'm not surprised they opted to get out of the whole ridiculous business.
Any problems with the media were caused by them.
Yeah. Her by being a brown person and him by marrying one.
I'm not one for sticking up for royals but the vendetta was as obvious as it was nauseating.
Are you able to show us any evidence to demonstrate your statement.
Given that negative press coverage preceded the latter by a year that assertion requires either a belief in time travel and/or a loose grasp on reality.
To be specific, the Guardian's survey, to which you referred, details whether press headlines referring to the Duchess of Sussex were positive, neutral, or negative in tone. That doesn't, in itself, say that the press didn't treat the Duchess fairly.
The Duchess has a father and sister who are both idiots, wouldn't shut up, and seemed determined to say their piece in public. It would be basically impossible to write a positive headline about either person, and given that they wouldn't shut up, there was a continual flow of headlines. By contrast, I'd have said that the press coverage of the Duchess's mother, Mrs Ragland, was largely positive. Given that we're throwing accusations of racism around, it might be relevant that Mrs Ragland is black, whereas the Duchess's father and sister are white.
The Duchess of Cambridge also has an idiot relative (an uncle somewhere on the Mediterranean, as I remember) but other than a couple of brief flurries of public stupidity, he has been successfully kept out of the public eye.
As regards the Duchess herself, to claim bias, it's not sufficient to count the critical articles - you need to show that the Duchess was criticized where others doing the same things were not. My memory is that the Duchess of Cambridge went through a long period of largely critical "Waity Katie" type headlines before the average tone of the press turned positive. It would be foolish to dismiss the idea that the treatment of someone of the Duchess of Sussex's racial background was in part caused by racism, but I didn't see much sign of it being a significant factor in her press treatment. Being a divorced actress, or an American "celebrity" who didn't understand how royalty worked, seemed much more common complaints.
I'm not happy that a person can be held to have responsibilities simply by virtue of having been born in a particular family. Most of us acquire responsibilities by choice. I saw an argument once that the royal family are in the position of slaves, with no choice about their lives. In a very gilded cage, but a cage, nonetheless.
Given that negative press coverage preceded the latter by a year that assertion requires either a belief in time travel and/or a loose grasp on reality.
To be specific, the Guardian's survey, to which you referred, details whether press headlines referring to the Duchess of Sussex were positive, neutral, or negative in tone. That doesn't, in itself, say that the press didn't treat the Duchess fairly.
The Duchess has a father and sister who are both idiots, wouldn't shut up, and seemed determined to say their piece in public. It would be basically impossible to write a positive headline about either person, and given that they wouldn't shut up, there was a continual flow of headlines. By contrast, I'd have said that the press coverage of the Duchess's mother, Mrs Ragland, was largely positive. Given that we're throwing accusations of racism around, it might be relevant that Mrs Ragland is black, whereas the Duchess's father and sister are white.
The Duchess of Cambridge also has an idiot relative (an uncle somewhere on the Mediterranean, as I remember) but other than a couple of brief flurries of public stupidity, he has been successfully kept out of the public eye.
As regards the Duchess herself, to claim bias, it's not sufficient to count the critical articles - you need to show that the Duchess was criticized where others doing the same things were not. My memory is that the Duchess of Cambridge went through a long period of largely critical "Waity Katie" type headlines before the average tone of the press turned positive. It would be foolish to dismiss the idea that the treatment of someone of the Duchess of Sussex's racial background was in part caused by racism, but I didn't see much sign of it being a significant factor in her press treatment. Being a divorced actress, or an American "celebrity" who didn't understand how royalty worked, seemed much more common complaints.
Press racism wasn't overt; the editors of these rags are not stupid, whatever else they are, but your last paragraph can be summarised as "her face didn't fit". Given the endemic racism in a significant proportion of the tabloid readership it would be naive to imagine that that face being brown didn't make the job of pushing that narrative easier.
I'm not happy that a person can be held to have responsibilities simply by virtue of having been born in a particular family. Most of us acquire responsibilities by choice. I saw an argument once that the royal family are in the position of slaves, with no choice about their lives. In a very gilded cage, but a cage, nonetheless.
The whole thing is preposterous as I and @ExclamationMark have consistently pointed out. Adding the hurdle of Maintaining Press Approval to a feudal relic has created this bizarre phenomenon where on the one hand Elderly Woman Gets Out Of Car is an event where its considered perfectly reasonable to dragoon crowds of kids to wave little flags to celebrate it, yet at the same time if Elderly Woman doesn't come to Get Out Of Car some nebulous "duty" has been failed.
And don't get me started on men with dead bears on their heads barking at each other and making a simple shift change into an Event.
The whole thing has about as much point as a lorryload of leadless pencils.
ISTM that there was a flurry of positive coverage of Kate around the time that Meghan came on the scene. Lots of references to Kate's "English rose" complexion. It wasn't hard to conclude that, although Meghan wasn't mentioned, there was a racist agenda at play.
I saw the Queen on television tonight participating in a zoom call with the Governor of South Australia and some other bastard. I'm really feeling all R.G. Menzies about the Queen at the moment. I mean, she is just great. There she is on the computer talking to the Governor, happy and smiling. What a woman.
Former PM Robert Menzies was famously blown away by the young Queen, quipping something to the effect of "I did but see her passing by, but I shall love her till I die."
Former PM Robert Menzies was famously blown away by the young Queen, quipping something to the effect of "I did but see her passing by, but I shall love her till I die."
Of course, Menzies had a real physical love as well, but not with HM.
I recall reading that historically only the monarch and maybe the Prince of Wales were considered to have public duties by virtue of their birth, and it was the present Queen who decided to make it a business for the whole family. Therefore, the Duke of Sussex is merely reverting to the position that would historically have been expected from one at his distance from the throne.
Actually it was George V and Queen Mary who put in place the idea of a working Royal Family. After WWI the dukes of York, Gloucester and Kent, and the Princess Royal were expected to carry out a lot of engagements, particularly visiting hospitals and convalescent homes for badly wounded/ permanently disabled ex-servicemen and unveiling local war memorials, etc.
It was made much easier for those "down the line" because they were brought up with the idea of doing the royal duty bit but were at the same time drilled that it was the heir who was the important person.
You could say that the rot set in with two particularly foolish mothers (the late Queen Mother and Princess of Wales) not dinning it into their "spares" that their first job was to support the heir and the second to keep their nose clean. You might also think our own monarch didn't do too brilliantly either, but she at least had the excuse of being busy queening while her children were small.
You could say that the rot set in with two particularly foolish mothers (the late Queen Mother and Princess of Wales) not dinning it into their "spares" that their first job was to support the heir and the second to keep their nose clean. You might also think our own monarch didn't do too brilliantly either, but she at least had the excuse of being busy queening while her children were small.
The late beloved Queen Mother foolish?
I'd always thought she'd been more-or-less deified, and was certainly way, way above any criticism...at least, in the opinion of certain *newspapers*.
What would really cook Harry's goose would be to fail to turn up for his grandfather's funeral, whenever that happens. Perhaps not quite so much for Meghan, as se has Archie to look after. But it wouldn't help, though is might be embarrassing.
Under present circumstances (if HRH were to die soon...not that I wish it on him, you understand), would Harry actually be allowed into the country without having to quarantine?
IOW, attending Grandpapa's funeral may simply not be possible.
But that means that Harry, being someone with far more financial resources available than most of us, should already have made plans to return to the UK, so that he can do any necessary quarantining now.
When I knew my mother was dying, I had to make a very tough decision. Either return to the UK immediately to see her before she died (but miss the funeral) or only return for the funeral. I couldn't afford to take indefinite leave and be in the UK waiting for my mother to die. It wasn't an easy choice and I had a number of discussions with my siblings about what I should do.
The point is - to have stayed away completely was unthinkable. To be blunt, I doubt that Prince Philip will leave hospital. Without knowing any details, it seems quite possible that he may only have a few days left (although I hope I am wrong). If I were Harry, I would be busting a gut to get back as quickly as possible. I suspect that most Brits would feel the same way. Failure to get back before his grandfather 's death would be seen generally as a grave insult. Failure to attend the funeral is unimaginable - he would probably be regarded with the same derision as Edward VIII.
You might also think our own monarch didn't do too brilliantly either, but she at least had the excuse of being busy queening while her children were small.
You could say that the rot set in with two particularly foolish mothers (the late Queen Mother and Princess of Wales) not dinning it into their "spares" that their first job was to support the heir and the second to keep their nose clean. You might also think our own monarch didn't do too brilliantly either, but she at least had the excuse of being busy queening while her children were small.
The late beloved Queen Mother foolish?
I'd always thought she'd been more-or-less deified, and was certainly way, way above any criticism...at least, in the opinion of certain *newspapers*.
Still, you make an interesting point.
Very foolish. Not least when it comes to gambling overdrafts at Coutts (written off, I understand) and the consumption of industrial quantities of alcohol. To say nothing of her attitude towards the "lower classes."
Oh and don't give me that rubbish about the Blitz: the King and Queen spent most of the time at Windsor not in the thick of it in London.
But that means that Harry, being someone with far more financial resources available than most of us, should already have made plans to return to the UK, so that he can do any necessary quarantining now.
When I knew my mother was dying, I had to make a very tough decision. Either return to the UK immediately to see her before she died (but miss the funeral) or only return for the funeral. I couldn't afford to take indefinite leave and be in the UK waiting for my mother to die. It wasn't an easy choice and I had a number of discussions with my siblings about what I should do.
The point is - to have stayed away completely was unthinkable. To be blunt, I doubt that Prince Philip will leave hospital. Without knowing any details, it seems quite possible that he may only have a few days left (although I hope I am wrong). If I were Harry, I would be busting a gut to get back as quickly as possible. I suspect that most Brits would feel the same way. Failure to get back before his grandfather 's death would be seen generally as a grave insult. Failure to attend the funeral is unimaginable - he would probably be regarded with the same derision as Edward VIII.
I suspect that he hasn't even considered the possible difficulty
Don't deceive yourselves. Were Britain, by some mischance, to become a republic, and were the ex-Princess Royal to be proposed as a non-political President, she would most probably be elected. But she seems to be far too sensible to accept the post.
Comments
I think that's exactly why Private Eye coined the whole Brenda thing (i.e. to get some pomposity off a few chests).
Well, historically, Americans have generally been hostile to the British monarchy, and if you go back far enough, there probably was widespread awareness among the population that the land to the north was under the rule of said monarch.
So with that as the historical background, framing current Canadian support for the Crown as "spiting" Americans has a certain humourous resonance, even if very few Americans today feel literally spited.
I prefer to think of HMQ as *Betty*, or sometimes *Useless Betty*, which gets the feelings of frustration off my chest (as does the use of the word *Brexshit*).
Humble apologies to anyone who might be offended, especially the poster who coined the phrase The Perfect Monarch to describe our head of state.
Well we all have our views and opinions on the triteness, suitability or otherwise of any play on names of public figures. If that's how we wish to refer to them - and it's legal - then that's how it is.
FWIW, of your four vocabulary clues, only one works more than occasionally. No canadian would use biscuit for cookie, or boot for car trunk. A few might use elastic, but most would use rubber band -- actually most would say elastic band. Serviette and napkin are both commonly used with napkin probably more common.
Really??
Although "Brenda" is a little out of date these days, in my experience it was always used with a certain degree of informal warmth.
Agreed. They seem to want the fame and privilege of being Royals without the boring stuff of responsibilities and duties. Thankfully, their sojourn on Vancouver Island was brief. America can have 'em.
What I did was point out how one’s choices might be interpreted by others.
As far as I could see their main duty appeared to be acting as whipping boys for the British press, whose motivation appeared to be either directly racist or playing up to the racism of their readers.
I'm not surprised they opted to get out of the whole ridiculous business.
Yes.
Good for them, even if it does prove difficult to re-invent themselves, as it were.
The negativity started when they suddenly decided to keep under wraps where the baby was born and they started to put up the "keep out" signs - partly to do with the cost of converting Frogmore Cottage back from 5 flatlets into a single dwelling.
At the moment the Sussexes had better pray that the latest news on Prince Philip isn't a precursor to his demise: if it is public opinion towards them will be brutal.
Why will it be brutal?
HRH is a very old, frail, man - are you saying that the Sussexes might somehow be regarded as at least partially responsible for his illness?
Take your pick.
Given that negative press coverage preceded the latter by a year that assertion requires either a belief in time travel and/or a loose grasp on reality.
Things are over determined, but there was a fair amount of casual racism and misogyny in amongst the paper's deciding that they could make bank by turning them into hate figures.
I only bumped this up because I thought the interview was humorous--all the unexpected challenges in what was no doubt a well-planned tour for the Duke and Cordan.
Pssst...we got over that long ago.
Ah, I've been pondering the tabloid hate for M and H. I get the racism, and Harry leaving the royal prison, but some of may be arbitrary? Some body has to be hated, here's a black piece of trash, yum yum.
From a purely economic point of view it's not like they can continuously get married and have kids, so they don't have a huge amount of 'positive press stories' to trade with and are never going to close to power, so it's easier to make them into antagonists to turn more pensioner rage into cash.
I thought you were going to say Brexiter rage.
Any problems with the media were caused by them.
Do you feel that way about all people who have problems with the media?
Yeah. Her by being a brown person and him by marrying one.
I'm not one for sticking up for royals but the vendetta was as obvious as it was nauseating.
No I just don't understand how life in their massive Californian is so unbelievable tough (according to him).
Are you able to show us any evidence to demonstrate your statement.
To be specific, the Guardian's survey, to which you referred, details whether press headlines referring to the Duchess of Sussex were positive, neutral, or negative in tone. That doesn't, in itself, say that the press didn't treat the Duchess fairly.
The Duchess has a father and sister who are both idiots, wouldn't shut up, and seemed determined to say their piece in public. It would be basically impossible to write a positive headline about either person, and given that they wouldn't shut up, there was a continual flow of headlines. By contrast, I'd have said that the press coverage of the Duchess's mother, Mrs Ragland, was largely positive. Given that we're throwing accusations of racism around, it might be relevant that Mrs Ragland is black, whereas the Duchess's father and sister are white.
The Duchess of Cambridge also has an idiot relative (an uncle somewhere on the Mediterranean, as I remember) but other than a couple of brief flurries of public stupidity, he has been successfully kept out of the public eye.
As regards the Duchess herself, to claim bias, it's not sufficient to count the critical articles - you need to show that the Duchess was criticized where others doing the same things were not. My memory is that the Duchess of Cambridge went through a long period of largely critical "Waity Katie" type headlines before the average tone of the press turned positive. It would be foolish to dismiss the idea that the treatment of someone of the Duchess of Sussex's racial background was in part caused by racism, but I didn't see much sign of it being a significant factor in her press treatment. Being a divorced actress, or an American "celebrity" who didn't understand how royalty worked, seemed much more common complaints.
Press racism wasn't overt; the editors of these rags are not stupid, whatever else they are, but your last paragraph can be summarised as "her face didn't fit". Given the endemic racism in a significant proportion of the tabloid readership it would be naive to imagine that that face being brown didn't make the job of pushing that narrative easier.
The whole thing is preposterous as I and @ExclamationMark have consistently pointed out. Adding the hurdle of Maintaining Press Approval to a feudal relic has created this bizarre phenomenon where on the one hand Elderly Woman Gets Out Of Car is an event where its considered perfectly reasonable to dragoon crowds of kids to wave little flags to celebrate it, yet at the same time if Elderly Woman doesn't come to Get Out Of Car some nebulous "duty" has been failed.
And don't get me started on men with dead bears on their heads barking at each other and making a simple shift change into an Event.
The whole thing has about as much point as a lorryload of leadless pencils.
Former PM Robert Menzies was famously blown away by the young Queen, quipping something to the effect of "I did but see her passing by, but I shall love her till I die."
Of course, Menzies had a real physical love as well, but not with HM.
It was made much easier for those "down the line" because they were brought up with the idea of doing the royal duty bit but were at the same time drilled that it was the heir who was the important person.
You could say that the rot set in with two particularly foolish mothers (the late Queen Mother and Princess of Wales) not dinning it into their "spares" that their first job was to support the heir and the second to keep their nose clean. You might also think our own monarch didn't do too brilliantly either, but she at least had the excuse of being busy queening while her children were small.
The late beloved Queen Mother foolish?
I'd always thought she'd been more-or-less deified, and was certainly way, way above any criticism...at least, in the opinion of certain *newspapers*.
Still, you make an interesting point.
IOW, attending Grandpapa's funeral may simply not be possible.
When I knew my mother was dying, I had to make a very tough decision. Either return to the UK immediately to see her before she died (but miss the funeral) or only return for the funeral. I couldn't afford to take indefinite leave and be in the UK waiting for my mother to die. It wasn't an easy choice and I had a number of discussions with my siblings about what I should do.
The point is - to have stayed away completely was unthinkable. To be blunt, I doubt that Prince Philip will leave hospital. Without knowing any details, it seems quite possible that he may only have a few days left (although I hope I am wrong). If I were Harry, I would be busting a gut to get back as quickly as possible. I suspect that most Brits would feel the same way. Failure to get back before his grandfather 's death would be seen generally as a grave insult. Failure to attend the funeral is unimaginable - he would probably be regarded with the same derision as Edward VIII.
Very foolish. Not least when it comes to gambling overdrafts at Coutts (written off, I understand) and the consumption of industrial quantities of alcohol. To say nothing of her attitude towards the "lower classes."
Oh and don't give me that rubbish about the Blitz: the King and Queen spent most of the time at Windsor not in the thick of it in London.
IIRC, her gambling and GIN-drinking were mercilessly lampooned in the original series of Spitting Images...
Yes I remember that.
I suspect that he hasn't even considered the possible difficulty
Who, on here, is interested in that ?
You're the one doing it.
How on earth am I supposed to be able to get inside his head ?