Are the royals on the rocks?

13468942

Comments

  • What Shipmates told me, long ago, was that "Brenda" is one of the list of many names Elizabeth was given, and some of her subjects refer to her that way. I'm not sure how much disapproval/disrespect is intended, if any.
  • The link indicates that it is a response to a 1969 docco on the Royals. Private Eye, an English satirical magazine, compared it to a soap opera about working class life, like Eastenders or Coronation Street. So they gave the Queen and other Royals working class names, like Brenda and Keith. Those names don't say working class to me, as an Australian, but they might to the Brits. Australian working class names are typically made up names, or ordinary names with weird spelling.

    English and Australian soaps tend to be about ordinary people. We don't so much make shows like Dallas, although they are popular here.

  • This is Private Eye we are talking about here.
    Which people either know about or don't.
    Personally, I enjoy seeing the occasional reference that makes me think "Ah, another 'Eye reader"
  • The Christian names of HM The Queen are Elizabeth Alexandra Mary: Elizabeth for her mother (who was at the time HRH Elizabeth, Duchess of York); Alexandra for her great-grandmother HM Queen Alexandra, widow of King Edward VII; Mary for her grandmother HM Queen Mary, wife of HM King George V.

    When at the death of her father King George VI she was asked what regnal name she would take, she is reported as saying ‘My own name, Elizabeth. What else?’
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    A staunch republican these last 60 or more years, I still agree with Rossweisse. It's neither witty or funny, and is by now staler than a hamburger bun.
  • Galilit wrote: »
    This is Private Eye we are talking about here.
    Which people either know about or don't.
    Personally, I enjoy seeing the occasional reference that makes me think "Ah, another 'Eye reader"
    You don’t have to know anything at all about Private Eye to pick up on that name’s use to mean “I’m a particular brand of scornful republican.”

  • Well you say that, but the royalist tabloid The Sun today leads with a headline that references the queen as “her maj”.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Galilit wrote: »
    This is Private Eye we are talking about here.
    Which people either know about or don't.
    Personally, I enjoy seeing the occasional reference that makes me think "Ah, another 'Eye reader"
    You don’t have to know anything at all about Private Eye to pick up on that name’s use to mean “I’m a particular brand of scornful republican.”

    And this is an example of thinking you can read people's minds.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    I’ve never found the usage of “Brenda” particularly disrespectful. It reflects the fact that she’s been around so long she’s part of everyone’s mental furniture.

    The Queen is quite capable of having a sense of humour about herself. I can’t think of a single other head of state who could have pulled off with jumping out of a helicopter with James Bond in their 80s, for example. (Her Majesty does all her own stunts.)
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Galilit wrote: »
    This is Private Eye we are talking about here.
    Which people either know about or don't.
    Personally, I enjoy seeing the occasional reference that makes me think "Ah, another 'Eye reader"
    You don’t have to know anything at all about Private Eye to pick up on that name’s use to mean “I’m a particular brand of scornful republican.”

    And this is an example of thinking you can read people's minds.

    Yes, I never thought Brenda was particularly scornful, it sounds chummy to me. Ah well, mind-readers are gonna read minds.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited January 2020
    If there is anything consistent about the Queen is that she hates controversy and drama, and sees her role as Head of the Family as promoting stability and concord, even if in some instances, her influence over individual members of the family is less powerful than we think (see the Charles-Diana-Camilla fiasco).

    I watched the recent season of the Crown a few months ago, was this current brou-ha-ha comparable to Margaret's very public infidelity with Roddy?

    From what I remember, the tone was very much middle aged woman who really should know better making her fool of herself with much younger man but what could you expect really given her history. With an added element of how unlike the very dignified behaviour of our dear Queen. But maybe with slightly less venom and a little more respect.

    [ETA: The people writing the stuff back then were often the society columnists / royal reporters - who'd avoid completely putting the boot in as this mean they wouldn't get invited to things - rather than the opinion writers or showbiz reporters].

    The big difference between now and then is social media. Everyone's a key board warrior with an opinion to voice!
  • Interesting stuff being written about racism, in relation to Meghan. I noticed a DM journo saying she would add exotic DNA to the royals, but no hard core racism. I suppose it's often via innuendo.
  • Interesting stuff being written about racism, in relation to Meghan. I noticed a DM journo saying she would add exotic DNA to the royals, but no hard core racism. I suppose it's often via innuendo.

    There is already some Greco-Danish DNA in there, but I suppose that's OK.
  • Telford wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    cgichard wrote: »
    Since it seems that ceremonial is irksome to Harry, surely his being Governor-General would be a bad idea.

    He shouldn't be given anything.

    You really have it in for the guy. On that basis he must be doing something right. Maybe he's doing a lot of things right.

    I don't understand this post. Please explain.

    If I made it any clearer I think the Hosts would be onto me.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    Interesting stuff being written about racism, in relation to Meghan. I noticed a DM journo saying she would add exotic DNA to the royals, but no hard core racism. I suppose it's often via innuendo.

    There is already some Greco-Danish DNA in there, but I suppose that's OK.

    No Greek in Phil. His family were drafted in and then booted out. I think there's a connection to Victoria in there somewhere.
  • Also, it looks like a madonna/whore split going on. Kate the pure white queen, Meghan the slut. Still, MegHar have Elton John, the great English Queen on their side.
  • Interesting stuff being written about racism, in relation to Meghan. I noticed a DM journo saying she would add exotic DNA to the royals, but no hard core racism. I suppose it's often via innuendo.

    Deliberate~isms expressed via innuendo are just as hard core as glaringly obvious ones because the attitude behind them is the same. The only real difference is that they're easier to deny if challenged.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Interesting stuff being written about racism, in relation to Meghan. I noticed a DM journo saying she would add exotic DNA to the royals, but no hard core racism. I suppose it's often via innuendo.

    There is already some Greco-Danish DNA in there, but I suppose that's OK.

    No Greek in Phil. His family were drafted in and then booted out. I think there's a connection to Victoria in there somewhere.
    Danish, Russian, German and Scottish by descent. His grandfather was elected King of Greece, so his father was a Prince of Greece.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Interesting stuff being written about racism, in relation to Meghan. I noticed a DM journo saying she would add exotic DNA to the royals, but no hard core racism. I suppose it's often via innuendo.

    Deliberate~isms expressed via innuendo are just as hard core as glaringly obvious ones because the attitude behind them is the same. The only real difference is that they're easier to deny if challenged.

    Well right wing journos have an interesting trick of calling for unity, while sabotaging it, (see Brexit). Thus, MegHar are denounced for wrecking the noble family, yet it's the media who often make life unbearable. Well, I am guessing that Meghan hates being told she's wearing the wrong tights, or having letters to her father read by the journos, very similar to Diana. And yes, I know she also courted the media.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Interesting stuff being written about racism, in relation to Meghan. I noticed a DM journo saying she would add exotic DNA to the royals, but no hard core racism. I suppose it's often via innuendo.

    There is already some Greco-Danish DNA in there, but I suppose that's OK.

    No Greek in Phil. His family were drafted in and then booted out. I think there's a connection to Victoria in there somewhere.

    As Greek DNA is pretty diverse anyway (half a millennium of Ottoman rule, Venetian freebooters, Levantine traders, &c), we may as well call him Greek. There is apparently some exotic DNA in the line anyway, courtesy of Queen Charlotte with North African ancestry via the Braganzas, not to mention a faint Berber strain through the Castilian link of the Plantagenets. As the DNA folk will tell you, racial purity is on the non-existent level outside Iceland and parts of rural Japan.
  • It reminds me of people mocking the Royal Family for not being English, but German.

    To which the response is "Er, aren't the English partially descended from the Germans. (via the Angles and Saxons?"
  • Ohher wrote: »
    I have no dogs in this fight, remain somewhat mystified re: Brits' regard for their royals, etc., and I was only 2 when Elizabeth II turned 21 and made her vow to her nation: "I promise to you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service, and to the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."

    I heard this later, on some other grand royal occasion. However one views UK monarchy--a venerable tradition or a parasitic anachronism--the Queen's 72-year-and-counting commitment to her vow strikes me as pretty impressive. If only the British tabloid press, the Queen's children, grandchildren, and the folks they marry also found something to admire in her steadfast commitment.

    Requiring her grandchildren (and anyone who marries them) to put on a show for public amusement and suffer whatever abuse the press sees fit to dish out regardless of their own wishes sounds a lot more like an ancestral curse than a vow.

    There's a particular vanity in the assumption that if your descendants don't live a life exactly like yours they don't really "admire" you.
  • One problem is that they're a dysfunctional family. Of course, most families are in their own way, thank you Tolstoy. But it's odd then to expect loyalty to some particular set of malfunctions, e.g., stoicism.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    We'll all Jock Tamsin's bairns.

    Meanwhile the rip-snorting bias in the coverage of Kate and Meghan show that it's all about creating a plot line of Krystle vs Alexis in a never-ending soap.
  • Firenze wrote: »
    We'll all Jock Tamsin's bairns.

    Meanwhile the rip-snorting bias in the coverage of Kate and Meghan show that it's all about creating a plot line of Krystle vs Alexis in a never-ending soap.

    Incredible. Madonna vs slut.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Meghan is foreign and brown. Anyone who doesn't think that's the reason for all this can PM me for a bridge sale proposal.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    O of course !

    A Horrid, Foreign, Brown Person™ - Not Like Us!

    Why, now that we've got our country back, how on earth did she get past Immigration?
  • Galilit wrote: »
    This is Private Eye we are talking about here.
    Which people either know about or don't.
    Personally, I enjoy seeing the occasional reference that makes me think "Ah, another 'Eye reader"
    You don’t have to know anything at all about Private Eye to pick up on that name’s use to mean “I’m a particular brand of scornful republican.”

    You could be drawing wrong conclusions then. I've always thought the 'Brenda' reference was rather endearing, in a satirical way; and I respect the lady tremendously, far and above her actual constitutional role. And I don't consider myself to be any 'particular brand of scornful republican'! Though I grant you, I'm not particularly attached to royalty either.

    It's true that Private Eye has never pulled its punches in exposing royal ridiculousness. They are equal opportunity critics. I can't think of any institution or political flavour that doesn't come under its scrutiny; well known as the magazine is for its in-depth investigation of usually unreported or at least barely known abuses and corruption. Usually covered by specialist reporters in their field.

    It is one of the more light-hearted conventions of the magazine to deflate the privileged ones with small satires of their names. Just ask Lord Gnome! Perhaps this specific sort of British satire doesn't translate well elsewhere. Many references in the magazine are cliquish and rooted in references many decades old. But at heart there is a very serious reportage going on of the 'anomalies', hypocrisies and abuses of power which signally affect the population, yet somehow don't quite make the Six O'clock news.

    I always think that the personal poking fun business is a bit like the slave standing behind the Roman leader in his chariot, holding the laurel wreath while repeating: Remember, thou art only mortal!
  • Ok, two countries divided by a common language, or by different inferences drawn from the use of language. My point stands though, that you don’t need to be a Private Eye reader to hear the Brenda usage, and pick it up oneself (to mean whatever one has formed the impression it means, which may not match anyone else’s meaning).
  • One problem is that they're a dysfunctional family. Of course, most families are in their own way, thank you Tolstoy. But it's odd then to expect loyalty to some particular set of malfunctions, e.g., stoicism.

    Actually, I think that's pretty common in dysfunctional families.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    sionisais wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    sionisais wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    cgichard wrote: »
    Since it seems that ceremonial is irksome to Harry, surely his being Governor-General would be a bad idea.

    He shouldn't be given anything.

    You really have it in for the guy. On that basis he must be doing something right. Maybe he's doing a lot of things right.

    I don't understand this post. Please explain.

    If I made it any clearer I think the Hosts would be onto me.
    I have still got no idea what you were on about
  • Twangist wrote: »
    I recall both (Chartres and Curry) wedding sermons as being good.
    An article on the Guardian website today described Curry as an evangelical bishop, which struck me as pretty ironic.

    Bishop Curry was very animated but they were both very good. They both had the ability to say in about 10 minutes what some preachers would struggle to say in over an hour. They knew they had a captive audience and made the most of their opportunity.
  • CBC news has possibly Victoria BC as their part time home. With Canadians interviewed generally that they should be allowed their privacy. One wonders about Canadian response to the atrocious "journalists" who may show up. I can see a typical response to defend the privacy. Someone may know the differences in harassment laws from country to country. Community standards are different.
  • Perhaps, when paparazzi ask around for M&H, locals will say "yeah, sure, right down at the end of that road" that goes right off a dock?
    ;)

    (Presuming paparazzi can swim, their car floats, etc. Not a serious suggestion.)
  • It's very easy to get lost in the winding streets of Victoria and neighbouring towns, and the parking restrictions were written up by the spawn of Attila the Hun and Elsa She-Wolf of the SS, so journalists will be challenged to: a) find the place, and b) hang about. Canadians tend to leave well-known folk alone (unless they're hockey stars, in which case they must sign pictures and pose for selfies) as they go about their business. A Toronto friend holds the prize for sitting beside Sean Connery in Toronto-Vancouver flight, without speaking to him until they had landed, saying "Aren't you on television?" to which he replied, "Sometimes, but not as much these days. The commercials are where you make the money."
  • A the A--

    Good re the Victoria bit; and ROTFL re your friend and Connery.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    I have no dogs in this fight, remain somewhat mystified re: Brits' regard for their royals, etc., and I was only 2 when Elizabeth II turned 21 and made her vow to her nation: "I promise to you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service, and to the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."

    I heard this later, on some other grand royal occasion. However one views UK monarchy--a venerable tradition or a parasitic anachronism--the Queen's 72-year-and-counting commitment to her vow strikes me as pretty impressive. If only the British tabloid press, the Queen's children, grandchildren, and the folks they marry also found something to admire in her steadfast commitment.

    Requiring her grandchildren (and anyone who marries them) to put on a show for public amusement and suffer whatever abuse the press sees fit to dish out regardless of their own wishes sounds a lot more like an ancestral curse than a vow.

    There's a particular vanity in the assumption that if your descendants don't live a life exactly like yours they don't really "admire" you.

    You know, "Requiring her children [etc.] . . . to suffer . . . abuse" from a press also tagged in my remark seems the teensiest bit of a stretch from "finding something to admire." That the lot of those "to the royals born" lot lead lives rendered profoundly abnormal by an accident of birth, by their insulation, wealth, fame, intense and often negative attention, etc. is a situation not entirely of their making. Many of these unasked-for and unearned circumstances both seem and are extremely advantageous privileges which any of us might envy. Those who marry in . . . well, it now appears not all fully grasp what they're signing up for.

    Along with these unearned privileges come other considerations, however: intense and often nasty (and possibly wildly inaccurate and in Markle's case, outright racist) scrutiny of every minute detail of appearance, dress, grooming, utterances, gestures, glances . . . gaah. All as unearned as the titles, wealth, and other appurtenances. What a life.

    The notion that Meghan & Harry can duck intrusive media attention by withdrawing from "senior" royal duties strikes me as naive. I don't envy their situation. The pair and their sprog(s) are still who they are and English-language (at least) press are still going to hound them.

    Meanwhile, "Brenda" has tried to keep a vow made deep in the last century in the aftermath of the most profound upheaval her world had at that point known. Not being (so far as we know) psychic, can she be blamed for not foreseeing precisely how our world would change in the 70+ years since? Should she have foreseen the difficulties succeeding generations of her family might face in honoring a vow they had no hand in crafting?

    As an American, I freely confess to little understanding of royalty. As a human being, though, I have some admiration for anyone who makes, at age 21, a pretty daunting commitment and does her best, over 72 years, to keep it.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Man who saw his mother's life go to hell before she died young doesn't want his wife to go through similar.

    Large amounts of press and social media find this shocking and unfathomable.

    It's not the royals who are on the rocks. It's a society that doesn't understand the people filling their mindless entertainment of gossip columns are flesh and blood human beings.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Man who saw his mother's life go to hell before she died young doesn't want his wife to go through similar.

    Large amounts of press and social media find this shocking and unfathomable.

    And who also have behaved despicably towards his wife since before he married her, for no ostensible reason than the color of her skin and the nation of her birth.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Man who saw his mother's life go to hell before she died young doesn't want his wife to go through similar.

    Large amounts of press and social media find this shocking and unfathomable.

    And who also have behaved despicably towards his wife since before he married her, for no ostensible reason than the color of her skin and the nation of her birth.

    Pretty much. Although I think being an actress might also have contributed a little too. How dare she be independently famous and popular in such a way... plus that also means she's already fair media game. Positively asked for it.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited January 2020
    Point taken. Also, acting is working, and working for a living is just not done by royals and nobles. It's so ... common.
  • The Canadian media, especially when compared to the UK and the US media, is very, very limited in terms of its financial resources. They would not waste their time hassling Meghan and Harry for no good reason. They just don't have the money.

  • CBC news has possibly Victoria BC as their part time home. With Canadians interviewed generally that they should be allowed their privacy. One wonders about Canadian response to the atrocious "journalists" who may show up. I can see a typical response to defend the privacy. Someone may know the differences in harassment laws from country to country. Community standards are different.

    Hm. Victoria has a reputation for a sort of kitschy, tourist-oriented anglophilia. If things get tough, maybe Harry can earn some extra coin hosting sing-along night at the local fake-British pub.
  • I see the Mail on Sunday is defending its right to publish Meghan's letter to her father on grounds of public interest, and Meghan "did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy". Does anyone wonder why they want out? Of course, her father gave them the letter.
  • Not sure the above post is kosher, as it is part of an ongoing legal case. Should be deleted?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    While people do need to take care, simply reporting what is already in the public domain shouldn’t be a problem. I can’t see that you’ve posted anything that is not already on the BBC news website.
  • stetson wrote: »
    CBC news has possibly Victoria BC as their part time home. With Canadians interviewed generally that they should be allowed their privacy. One wonders about Canadian response to the atrocious "journalists" who may show up. I can see a typical response to defend the privacy. Someone may know the differences in harassment laws from country to country. Community standards are different.

    Hm. Victoria has a reputation for a sort of kitschy, tourist-oriented anglophilia. If things get tough, maybe Harry can earn some extra coin hosting sing-along night at the local fake-British pub.

    I lived in Victoria for about five years, and while Victoria does still have its British flavor, that definitely has waned a bit, the Britishness comes from its senior population, the young people who attend the University and live and work are about as jaded as young people anywhere in Canada when it comes to their institutions.

  • Meghan spotted in Caprica City: Duchess of Sussex visits women's centre in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. The DTES is knows as "Canada`s poorest postal code".

  • Well, jolly good luck to them both.

    Maybe, once they're settled in Canada, some of the lustre might return to Markle the Sparkle's eyes?
  • Why would anyone doubt that they want to get away from the vicious tabloid press, considering the fate of Harry's mother? Whether they also find the royals claustrophobic, dunno. I put some distance between me and my family when I was 18.
Sign In or Register to comment.