I'm a bit flabbergasted by [Deleted User] assertion that posh poms would rather their kids marry a black person with the right job and education than a chav.
My guess is that neither would be considered good marriage material by the posh.
Do other UK shipmates agree with Ryan?
Well, my two oldest cousins (among the last debs to be presented) married "beyond the norm": one a chap from Malaysia of chinese descent and the other a Trinidadian. I was a page at the first wedding and an usher at the second. In both cases the main feeling among the wider family was that both gentlemen brought something much needed to family gatherings, not least far better food and some very interesting (and potent) cocktails.
I don't know if they'd be described as posh but both had veils held in place with a family headpiece that sparkled...
I don't think we've got any "chavs", just a couple of really nice people who weren't fortunate enough to have the same advantages as some of us growing up.
But then maybe my family isn't typical? I don't know.
What I was wondering was, is one's everyday attitude toward black people more affected if one is living in the actual place where the enslavement is taking place, rather than if I'm just sitting back in the motherland collecting in the dividends?
The general lack of black people over time has made things different. Not having the direct civil rights conflicts that America had has made awareness less common. But not having as many people of different colours and the history of oppressing people of different colours mean there was no reason to get rid of racism either.
Take the golliwog mentioned upthread. That would not fly in America as long as it has in the UK. I think in America, there is more awareness of casual racism such as that.
The UK does share the same problem of lower pay, harder to get jobs, higher arrest rates and prison sentences for black people.
That doesn't come from nowhere, those are not coincidences.
Whilst it is easy to handwave away individual incidences, the pattern tells a different story.
And that is what we are witnessing here: a pattern.
Not all white British people are racists, but racism is systemic in the UK. It has to exist somewhere and not just in the National Front and BNP.
And what people are asking on this thread is for us to believe that the tabloids are not racist, which boggles the mind.
The Windsors: Inside the Royal Dynasty
Premieres Sunday, February 16 at 10 p.m. ET/PT
From the producers of "The Kennedys," this new six-part CNN Original Series tells the incredible, dramatic and emotional tale of the British Royal Family known as The Windsors. Using stunning archive and interviews with insiders and experts, the series weaves together the true story of the Windsor dynasty.
I guess the best thing is to NOT refer to their colour at all. If I was having to describe the A & E consultant (Mr R) at our local hospital, I would refer to him as the cheerful chap with the red tie, and the black-rimmed spectacles.
O, they would say, you mean the coloured chap? *sigh*
The fact that he was of Jamaican origin was irrelevant. His glasses, and his bright red tie (when he wasn't wearing scrubs), were obvious distinguishing features, if he needed to be pointed out to someone!
If I was trying to describe someone I, and I suspect most guilt laden liberals, would go to great lengths not to mention skin colour in case I was being racist. However if this chap was the only person in the room with a dark skin that would be the easiest way to describe him. Especially as tomorrow he might wear a different tie.
As for acceptable British usage, I think there was a row about a year ago when an PM called someone a "coloured person" rather than a "person of colour". @Ohher's explanation is useful, but sometimes it feels as though we're splitting hairs. Still, if it helps society be less racist, I suppose they are useful hairs to split.
I'm a bit flabbergasted by [Deleted User] assertion that posh poms would rather their kids marry a black person with the right job and education than a chav.
Viscountess Weymouth is what you might call a black person with the right job and education. Her father is a wealthy Nigerian oil baron. Her husband is the son of the Marquess of Bath. I understand the Viscount's mother was rather outspoken about what he was doing to "400 years of bloodline".
I'd certainly agree with [Deleted User] that a black person with the right background and education would be more acceptable as a dinner guest than a white chav in certain circles. As a son or daughter-in-law? I'd say increasingly yes, and would be completely unsurprised if in a generation or two, the "right sort" came in an entire palette of different skin tones, but still went to the same schools, automatically used the right cutlery, and so on.
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.
The tabloid press did not kill his mother. That was down to her drunk chauffeur.
I'm a bit flabbergasted by [Deleted User] assertion that posh poms would rather their kids marry a black person with the right job and education than a chav.
Viscountess Weymouth is what you might call a black person with the right job and education. Her father is a wealthy Nigerian oil baron. Her husband is the son of the Marquess of Bath. I understand the Viscount's mother was rather outspoken about what he was doing to "400 years of bloodline".
I'd certainly agree with [Deleted User] that a black person with the right background and education would be more acceptable as a dinner guest than a white chav in certain circles. As a son or daughter-in-law? I'd say increasingly yes, and would be completely unsurprised if in a generation or two, the "right sort" came in an entire palette of different skin tones, but still went to the same schools, automatically used the right cutlery, and so on.
Class distinctions will outlast everything else.
Thanks LC and The Organist. I suppose when I think of posh poms, I think of Prince Philip and the Mitford Sisters.
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.
The tabloid press did not kill his mother. That was down to her drunk chauffeur.
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.
The tabloid press did not kill his mother. That was down to her drunk chauffeur.
I'm a bit flabbergasted by [Deleted User] assertion that posh poms would rather their kids marry a black person with the right job and education than a chav.
Viscountess Weymouth is what you might call a black person with the right job and education. Her father is a wealthy Nigerian oil baron. Her husband is the son of the Marquess of Bath. I understand the Viscount's mother was rather outspoken about what he was doing to "400 years of bloodline".
I'd certainly agree with [Deleted User] that a black person with the right background and education would be more acceptable as a dinner guest than a white chav in certain circles. As a son or daughter-in-law? I'd say increasingly yes, and would be completely unsurprised if in a generation or two, the "right sort" came in an entire palette of different skin tones, but still went to the same schools, automatically used the right cutlery, and so on.
Class distinctions will outlast everything else.
Thanks LC and The Organist. I suppose when I think of posh poms, I think of Prince Philip and the Mitford Sisters.
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.
The tabloid press did not kill his mother. That was down to her drunk chauffeur.
Must we reduce everything down to a single cause?
Only when it's appropriate.
Well I don't know that it is appropriate. Because while investigations showed that photographers were not directly involved in the crash, that doesn't mean that being followed by photographers had no impact on the trip whatsoever. Do you seriously believe that knowing you're being followed wouldn't affect your driving in any way? Your choice of route? Your timing?
Your decisions about when and where you need to travel in general, in the knowledge that your life is constantly being scrutinised?
It's not simply about whether the tabloid press literally killed Harry's mother. It's about whether the tabloid press constantly affected the life of Harry's mother. "The fate of Harry's mother" doesn't just encompass the final moments of her life, it's perfectly apt to cover all the circumstances.
Including the fact that some of those following photographers who didn't kill her decided a car crash was the perfect time to take pictures of her in the wreckage.
Focusing solely on the moment of impact as if that's all that matters rather misses the point, I think.
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.
The tabloid press did not kill his mother. That was down to her drunk chauffeur.
Must we reduce everything down to a single cause?
Only when it's appropriate.
And you have determined that? Well, that settles it.
I guess the best thing is to NOT refer to their colour at all. If I was having to describe the A & E consultant (Mr R) at our local hospital, I would refer to him as the cheerful chap with the red tie, and the black-rimmed spectacles.
O, they would say, you mean the coloured chap? *sigh*
The fact that he was of Jamaican origin was irrelevant. His glasses, and his bright red tie (when he wasn't wearing scrubs), were obvious distinguishing features, if he needed to be pointed out to someone!
If I was trying to describe someone I, and I suspect most guilt laden liberals, would go to great lengths not to mention skin colour in case I was being racist. However if this chap was the only person in the room with a dark skin that would be the easiest way to describe him. Especially as tomorrow he might wear a different tie.
As for acceptable British usage, I think there was a row about a year ago when an PM called someone a "coloured person" rather than a "person of colour". @Ohher's explanation is useful, but sometimes it feels as though we're splitting hairs. Still, if it helps society be less racist, I suppose they are useful hairs to split.
I rather like being classed as a guilt-laden liberal! Says it all, really...
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.
The tabloid press did not kill his mother. That was down to her drunk chauffeur.
Must we reduce everything down to a single cause?
Only when it's appropriate.
And you have determined that? Well, that settles it.
I guess the best thing is to NOT refer to their colour at all. If I was having to describe the A & E consultant (Mr R) at our local hospital, I would refer to him as the cheerful chap with the red tie, and the black-rimmed spectacles.
O, they would say, you mean the coloured chap? *sigh*
The fact that he was of Jamaican origin was irrelevant. His glasses, and his bright red tie (when he wasn't wearing scrubs), were obvious distinguishing features, if he needed to be pointed out to someone!
If I was trying to describe someone I, and I suspect most guilt laden liberals, would go to great lengths not to mention skin colour in case I was being racist. However if this chap was the only person in the room with a dark skin that would be the easiest way to describe him. Especially as tomorrow he might wear a different tie.
Referring to skin colour is not racist if it is germane. However, worrying about getting it right is a positive thing.
As for acceptable British usage, I think there was a row about a year ago when an PM called someone a "coloured person" rather than a "person of colour". @Ohher's explanation is useful, but sometimes it feels as though we're splitting hairs. Still, if it helps society be less racist, I suppose they are useful hairs to split.
A brief history of the terminology changes. I don't think it is splitting hairs; it is, as you mention, facilitating a more equal exchange.
Terminology matters in the way we see things.
The best way to solve all the terminology issues is to get to the point of equality where colour/"race"/ethnicity/etc no longer matter. We are not there yet, so using the terms people prefer and not using the ones they don't would seem the better route to that goal.
It's not simply about whether the tabloid press literally killed Harry's mother. It's about whether the tabloid press constantly affected the life of Harry's mother.
Quite. And ultimately, that's the fault of everyone that reads the tabloid press, the gossip magazines, and all that nonsense.
We have created a cult of celebrity. Sure - celebrities are hounded by the tabloids and the paparazzi, looking for pictures of them in any kind of personal moment, or looking less than their best, and that's the fault of the people who care about that stuff. But the celebrities are, by and large, also playing the game. The fame and income of the Kardashian family, for example, is largely based on their successfully exploiting the media and creating a mass of adoring fans who want to know every detail of their lives. I don't think you can court that kind of interest and then complain when you are followed by invasive paparazzi with big zoom lenses.
The Windsors: Inside the Royal Dynasty
Premieres Sunday, February 16 at 10 p.m. ET/PT
From the producers of "The Kennedys," this new six-part CNN Original Series tells the incredible, dramatic and emotional tale of the British Royal Family known as The Windsors. Using stunning archive and interviews with insiders and experts, the series weaves together the true story of the Windsor dynasty.
I'd not hold out much hope for it being accurate. The last US produced thing I saw on our royals that claimed to be "factual" was fantastic as a comedy but absolute cr*p on accuracy.
Thanks LC and The Organist. I suppose when I think of posh poms, I think of Prince Philip and the Mitford Sisters.
The 5th Baron Redesdale's family were certainly eccentric and yes, two of them (Diane and Unity) were notable for their fascist sympathies, but the family could never be regarded as typical "posh poms".
As for the DofE, I don't know whether the designation of "pom" ought to be applied to someone who by descent is Danish-Russian/British-German who was schooled in an institution founded and run by an exiled Jew?
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.
The tabloid press did not kill his mother. That was down to her drunk chauffeur.
Must we reduce everything down to a single cause?
Only when it's appropriate.
And you have determined that? Well, that settles it.
No. The cause was determined by a Coroner's Inquest which can be summarised:
excessive vehicle speed
driver without the appropriate (and mandatory) training for the (armoured) limousine
driver's blood alcohol way above the legal limit
prescription drugs in the driver's system that should not have been mixed with any alcohol
failure of the two passengers to comply with law and wear seatbelt
violent collision with the back of the screen between rear and front seats causing significant blunt force trauma
ricochet and speed meaning passengers tossed around like rag dolls causing catastrophic internal injuries
exsanguination caused by tearing/crushing of internal organs
The coroner also noted that although he sustained significant and life-changing injuries, the front seat passenger (who would have been expected to be more seriously injured than those in the back if they had been wearing seatbelts) survived the crash.
In other words, regardless of the paps or anything else, it was a drunk driver that killed Diana and her companion. Saddest thing is that Mohammed Fayed had insisted on that particular driver, over-riding objections from his own security people.
It's not simply about whether the tabloid press literally killed Harry's mother. It's about whether the tabloid press constantly affected the life of Harry's mother.
Quite. And ultimately, that's the fault of everyone that reads the tabloid press, the gossip magazines, and all that nonsense.
We have created a cult of celebrity. Sure - celebrities are hounded by the tabloids and the paparazzi, looking for pictures of them in any kind of personal moment, or looking less than their best, and that's the fault of the people who care about that stuff. But the celebrities are, by and large, also playing the game. The fame and income of the Kardashian family, for example, is largely based on their successfully exploiting the media and creating a mass of adoring fans who want to know every detail of their lives. I don't think you can court that kind of interest and then complain when you are followed by invasive paparazzi with big zoom lenses.
Not all celebrity is the same. Whilst the Kardashians are nothing but an interchange with the media, this is not true of everyone in the public eye. Public attention is part of the implicit contract for anyone in the entertainment/political arenas, but the level of intrusion is not always asked for or justified. IOW, some attention is to be expected, intrusion is not.
And people forced into the public eye are a different story altogether.
Part of the royals explicit duties are interfacing with the press, hence the furore over Harry and Meagan stepping back. But the lengths to which some of the press go are not justified, even though their readers desire it.
And I say this with no particular sympathy to the royals. PR is their job and as MaryLouise noted, they have questionable ties. What they do with their influence is of proper note. What they are wearing is not.
Not all celebrity is the same. Whilst the Kardashians are nothing but an interchange with the media, this is not true of everyone in the public eye.
True, but the media doesn't care, and the people don't care. Once enough people permit - even encourage - a particular level of intrusion, that level of intrusion becomes the norm, and the people that don't want it get screwed.
Public attention is part of the implicit contract for anyone in the entertainment/political arenas, but the level of intrusion is not always asked for or justified. IOW, some attention is to be expected, intrusion is not. [..] But the lengths to which some of the press go are not justified, even though their readers desire it.
The thing is, that "implicit contract" is defined by whatever the current media norms are. If the majority of minor celebs are happy to do X in exchange for a photo and a mention in the press, that gets written into the implicit contract you talk about.
At some point, for example, it has apparently become normal to have photographers lying on the floor waiting to take photos of the crotches of young female celebrities as they climb out of the back of cars in a short skirt / dress. Some fraction of those young female celebrities encourage this, and arrange to expose themselves to photographers in order to get the press exposure. Others would prefer photographers to act like actual decent human beings rather than peeping toms, but they don't seem to get a say.
But, of course, photographers only take such photos because the magazines and papers buy them.
PR is their job and as MaryLouise noted, they have questionable ties. What they do with their influence is of proper note. What they are wearing is not.
Whether or not they are wearing questionable ties, the press is always overly concerned about what women are wearing - particularly attractive famous ones. And it seems that the readers want to know, and want to look like the Duchesses. It has been well noted that whenever a picture of the Duchesses of Cambridge or Sussex appears, the clothes that she is wearing sell out within hours. A similar effect exists for things worn by other popular celebs.
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.
The tabloid press did not kill his mother. That was down to her drunk chauffeur.
Must we reduce everything down to a single cause?
Only when it's appropriate.
And you have determined that? Well, that settles it.
No. The cause was determined by a Coroner's Inquest which can be summarised:
excessive vehicle speed
driver without the appropriate (and mandatory) training for the (armoured) limousine
driver's blood alcohol way above the legal limit
prescription drugs in the driver's system that should not have been mixed with any alcohol
failure of the two passengers to comply with law and wear seatbelt
violent collision with the back of the screen between rear and front seats causing significant blunt force trauma
ricochet and speed meaning passengers tossed around like rag dolls causing catastrophic internal injuries
exsanguination caused by tearing/crushing of internal organs
The coroner also noted that although he sustained significant and life-changing injuries, the front seat passenger (who would have been expected to be more seriously injured than those in the back if they had been wearing seatbelts) survived the crash.
In other words, regardless of the paps or anything else, it was a drunk driver that killed Diana and her companion. Saddest thing is that Mohammed Fayed had insisted on that particular driver, over-riding objections from his own security people.
Good post
Not my opinion, not your opinion. The legal verdict.
I guess the best thing is to NOT refer to their colour at all. If I was having to describe the A & E consultant (Mr R) at our local hospital, I would refer to him as the cheerful chap with the red tie, and the black-rimmed spectacles.
O, they would say, you mean the coloured chap? *sigh*
The fact that he was of Jamaican origin was irrelevant. His glasses, and his bright red tie (when he wasn't wearing scrubs), were obvious distinguishing features, if he needed to be pointed out to someone!
If I was trying to describe someone I, and I suspect most guilt laden liberals, would go to great lengths not to mention skin colour in case I was being racist. However if this chap was the only person in the room with a dark skin that would be the easiest way to describe him. Especially as tomorrow he might wear a different tie.
Referring to skin colour is not racist if it is germane. However, worrying about getting it right is a positive thing.
As for acceptable British usage, I think there was a row about a year ago when an PM called someone a "coloured person" rather than a "person of colour". @Ohher's explanation is useful, but sometimes it feels as though we're splitting hairs. Still, if it helps society be less racist, I suppose they are useful hairs to split.
A brief history of the terminology changes. I don't think it is splitting hairs; it is, as you mention, facilitating a more equal exchange.
Terminology matters in the way we see things.
The best way to solve all the terminology issues is to get to the point of equality where colour/"race"/ethnicity/etc no longer matter. We are not there yet, so using the terms people prefer and not using the ones they don't would seem the better route to that goal.
Completely agree with you about using the terms the recipients prefer. But I look forward to the day when we can say, "That white/ brown/ black/ whatever chap," and it will be as unremarkable as commenting on his eye colour.
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.
The tabloid press did not kill his mother. That was down to her drunk chauffeur.
Must we reduce everything down to a single cause?
Only when it's appropriate.
And you have determined that? Well, that settles it.
No. The cause was determined by a Coroner's Inquest which can be summarised:
excessive vehicle speed
driver without the appropriate (and mandatory) training for the (armoured) limousine
driver's blood alcohol way above the legal limit
prescription drugs in the driver's system that should not have been mixed with any alcohol
failure of the two passengers to comply with law and wear seatbelt
violent collision with the back of the screen between rear and front seats causing significant blunt force trauma
ricochet and speed meaning passengers tossed around like rag dolls causing catastrophic internal injuries
exsanguination caused by tearing/crushing of internal organs
The coroner also noted that although he sustained significant and life-changing injuries, the front seat passenger (who would have been expected to be more seriously injured than those in the back if they had been wearing seatbelts) survived the crash.
In other words, regardless of the paps or anything else, it was a drunk driver that killed Diana and her companion. Saddest thing is that Mohammed Fayed had insisted on that particular driver, over-riding objections from his own security people.
Good post
Not my opinion, not your opinion. The legal verdict.
A legal verdict can have a narrow set of constraints and does not reflect all factors contributing to an incident. That the driver bears the legal responsibility and that the decision to not wearing seatbelts contributed to the likelihood of death does not absolve either the paparazzi nor the public from their participation.
I guess the best thing is to NOT refer to their colour at all. If I was having to describe the A & E consultant (Mr R) at our local hospital, I would refer to him as the cheerful chap with the red tie, and the black-rimmed spectacles.
O, they would say, you mean the coloured chap? *sigh*
The fact that he was of Jamaican origin was irrelevant. His glasses, and his bright red tie (when he wasn't wearing scrubs), were obvious distinguishing features, if he needed to be pointed out to someone!
If I was trying to describe someone I, and I suspect most guilt laden liberals, would go to great lengths not to mention skin colour in case I was being racist. However if this chap was the only person in the room with a dark skin that would be the easiest way to describe him. Especially as tomorrow he might wear a different tie.
Referring to skin colour is not racist if it is germane. However, worrying about getting it right is a positive thing.
As for acceptable British usage, I think there was a row about a year ago when an PM called someone a "coloured person" rather than a "person of colour". @Ohher's explanation is useful, but sometimes it feels as though we're splitting hairs. Still, if it helps society be less racist, I suppose they are useful hairs to split.
A brief history of the terminology changes. I don't think it is splitting hairs; it is, as you mention, facilitating a more equal exchange.
Terminology matters in the way we see things.
The best way to solve all the terminology issues is to get to the point of equality where colour/"race"/ethnicity/etc no longer matter. We are not there yet, so using the terms people prefer and not using the ones they don't would seem the better route to that goal.
Completely agree with you about using the terms the recipients prefer. But I look forward to the day when we can say, "That white/ brown/ black/ whatever chap," and it will be as unremarkable as commenting on his eye colour.
I look forward to that as well. But I am increasingly doubtful it will happen in my lifetime.
Idly chatting with the sales clerk yesterday as his colleague went to find my rebuilt oven control panel, he expressed his opinion that the arrival of Prince Harry would not be a problem for Canada. I suppose not, I replied, but of curiosity asked him why he thought so. It is, he assured me, because the Queen's reptilian genes had been negated by Diana's. O, I responded, wondering what the precise joke might be. No joke, he said, for he had recently seen a youtube of Vladimir Putin retailing how he had once seen the Queen emerge from her reptilian form (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PENdXoV3T_w).
On my eventual return (8.7km) Google reliably informed me that this belief was indeed out there. However, I now have the clerk's assurance that Harry is not endangering Canada, and will be able to rest tonight.
I guess the best thing is to NOT refer to their colour at all. If I was having to describe the A & E consultant (Mr R) at our local hospital, I would refer to him as the cheerful chap with the red tie, and the black-rimmed spectacles.
O, they would say, you mean the coloured chap? *sigh*
The fact that he was of Jamaican origin was irrelevant. His glasses, and his bright red tie (when he wasn't wearing scrubs), were obvious distinguishing features, if he needed to be pointed out to someone!
If I was trying to describe someone I, and I suspect most guilt laden liberals, would go to great lengths not to mention skin colour in case I was being racist. However if this chap was the only person in the room with a dark skin that would be the easiest way to describe him. Especially as tomorrow he might wear a different tie.
Referring to skin colour is not racist if it is germane. However, worrying about getting it right is a positive thing.
As for acceptable British usage, I think there was a row about a year ago when an PM called someone a "coloured person" rather than a "person of colour". @Ohher's explanation is useful, but sometimes it feels as though we're splitting hairs. Still, if it helps society be less racist, I suppose they are useful hairs to split.
A brief history of the terminology changes. I don't think it is splitting hairs; it is, as you mention, facilitating a more equal exchange.
Terminology matters in the way we see things.
The best way to solve all the terminology issues is to get to the point of equality where colour/"race"/ethnicity/etc no longer matter. We are not there yet, so using the terms people prefer and not using the ones they don't would seem the better route to that goal.
Completely agree with you about using the terms the recipients prefer. But I look forward to the day when we can say, "That white/ brown/ black/ whatever chap," and it will be as unremarkable as commenting on his eye colour.
I had a similar issue yesterday: I've been seeing the hospital ophthalmologists as my right eye did something funny in the summer (now all cleared up and I've been discharged). The doctor I saw yesterday wasn't the (lovely and very efficient) one I've seen previously and when he asked me about what had happened previously I was racking my brains trying to get her name right so I didn't end up saying the 'the Romanian lady', especially in the context of the impending end of the month. (I googled her so I've seen her rather impressive CV.)
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.
The tabloid press did not kill his mother. That was down to her drunk chauffeur.
Must we reduce everything down to a single cause?
Only when it's appropriate.
And you have determined that? Well, that settles it.
No. The cause was determined by a Coroner's Inquest which can be summarised:
excessive vehicle speed
driver without the appropriate (and mandatory) training for the (armoured) limousine
driver's blood alcohol way above the legal limit
prescription drugs in the driver's system that should not have been mixed with any alcohol
failure of the two passengers to comply with law and wear seatbelt
violent collision with the back of the screen between rear and front seats causing significant blunt force trauma
ricochet and speed meaning passengers tossed around like rag dolls causing catastrophic internal injuries
exsanguination caused by tearing/crushing of internal organs
The coroner also noted that although he sustained significant and life-changing injuries, the front seat passenger (who would have been expected to be more seriously injured than those in the back if they had been wearing seatbelts) survived the crash.
In other words, regardless of the paps or anything else, it was a drunk driver that killed Diana and her companion. Saddest thing is that Mohammed Fayed had insisted on that particular driver, over-riding objections from his own security people.
Good post
Not my opinion, not your opinion. The legal verdict.
The verdict of the jury at the inquest was as follows
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Would the jury foreman please rise? Madam Foreman, in the matter of the death of Mr Emad El-Din Mohamed Abdel Moneim Al Fayed, have you reached a verdict on which a majority of the nine of you have agreed?
THE JURY FOREMAN: We have.
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you give us the verdict and indicate the number of jurors assenting to the verdict?
THE JURY FOREMAN: The verdict is unlawful killing, grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes.
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Thank you. Could you now read the rest of the narrative on the inquisition, indicating as appropriate the --
LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: How many agreed and how many dissented?
THE JURY FOREMAN: Nine, sir. The deceased is Emad El-Din Mohamed Abdel Moneim Al Fayed. The injury causing death: multiple injuries, including severe impact injury to the chest and the transaction of the aorta. Dodi Al Fayed died in the Alma Underpass in Paris at around 12.22 am on 31st August 1997 as a result of a motor crash. The crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes, the speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol. There are nine of those who agree on those conclusions.
In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not wearing a seat-belt, the fact that the Mercedes struck the pillar in the Alma Tunnel rather than colliding with something else, and we are unanimous on those, sir.
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Is that the conclusion of your narrative verdict?
THE JURY FOREMAN: It is.
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: In the matter of Diana, Princess of Wales, have you reached a verdict on which at least nine of you have agreed?
THE JURY FOREMAN: We have.
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you give us the verdict, indicating the number of jurors that have dissented to that?
THE JURY FOREMAN: The verdict is unlawful killing, grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes, and that is nine of us, sir.
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you please read the rest of the narrative of your inquisition, indicating, where appropriate, the number of jurors who have assented to the verdict?
THE JURY FOREMAN: The deceased is Diana, Princess of Wales. The cause of death is chest injury, laceration within the left pulmonary vein and the immediate adjacent portion of the left atrium of the heart. Diana, Princess of Wales, died La Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital in Paris at around 4 am on 31st August 1997 as a result of a motor crash which occurred in the Alma Underpass in Paris on 31st August 1997 at around 12.22 am. The crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes, the speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol. Nine of us are agreed on those points, sir. In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not wearing a seat-belt, the fact that the Mercedes struck the pillar in the Alma Tunnel, rather than colliding with something else, and we are unanimously agreed on that.
I'm fascinated at how many people, in spite of my previous post, continue to insist that "the fate of Harry's mother" consists solely and entirely of the proximate legal cause of the moment of impact between a car she was a passenger in and a concrete pillar.
As if Harry's attitude to the press, which was actually the germane point, would be solely and entirely determined by those couple of seconds.
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.
The tabloid press did not kill his mother. That was down to her drunk chauffeur.
Must we reduce everything down to a single cause?
Only when it's appropriate.
And you have determined that? Well, that settles it.
No. The cause was determined by a Coroner's Inquest which can be summarised:
excessive vehicle speed
driver without the appropriate (and mandatory) training for the (armoured) limousine
driver's blood alcohol way above the legal limit
prescription drugs in the driver's system that should not have been mixed with any alcohol
failure of the two passengers to comply with law and wear seatbelt
violent collision with the back of the screen between rear and front seats causing significant blunt force trauma
ricochet and speed meaning passengers tossed around like rag dolls causing catastrophic internal injuries
exsanguination caused by tearing/crushing of internal organs
The coroner also noted that although he sustained significant and life-changing injuries, the front seat passenger (who would have been expected to be more seriously injured than those in the back if they had been wearing seatbelts) survived the crash.
In other words, regardless of the paps or anything else, it was a drunk driver that killed Diana and her companion. Saddest thing is that Mohammed Fayed had insisted on that particular driver, over-riding objections from his own security people.
Good post
Not my opinion, not your opinion. The legal verdict.
The verdict of the jury at the inquest was as follows
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Would the jury foreman please rise? Madam Foreman, in the matter of the death of Mr Emad El-Din Mohamed Abdel Moneim Al Fayed, have you reached a verdict on which a majority of the nine of you have agreed?
THE JURY FOREMAN: We have.
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you give us the verdict and indicate the number of jurors assenting to the verdict?
THE JURY FOREMAN: The verdict is unlawful killing, grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes.
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Thank you. Could you now read the rest of the narrative on the inquisition, indicating as appropriate the --
LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: How many agreed and how many dissented?
THE JURY FOREMAN: Nine, sir. The deceased is Emad El-Din Mohamed Abdel Moneim Al Fayed. The injury causing death: multiple injuries, including severe impact injury to the chest and the transaction of the aorta. Dodi Al Fayed died in the Alma Underpass in Paris at around 12.22 am on 31st August 1997 as a result of a motor crash. The crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes, the speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol. There are nine of those who agree on those conclusions.
In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not wearing a seat-belt, the fact that the Mercedes struck the pillar in the Alma Tunnel rather than colliding with something else, and we are unanimous on those, sir.
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Is that the conclusion of your narrative verdict?
THE JURY FOREMAN: It is.
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: In the matter of Diana, Princess of Wales, have you reached a verdict on which at least nine of you have agreed?
THE JURY FOREMAN: We have.
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you give us the verdict, indicating the number of jurors that have dissented to that?
THE JURY FOREMAN: The verdict is unlawful killing, grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes, and that is nine of us, sir.
SECRETARY TO THE INQUEST: Could you please read the rest of the narrative of your inquisition, indicating, where appropriate, the number of jurors who have assented to the verdict?
THE JURY FOREMAN: The deceased is Diana, Princess of Wales. The cause of death is chest injury, laceration within the left pulmonary vein and the immediate adjacent portion of the left atrium of the heart. Diana, Princess of Wales, died La Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital in Paris at around 4 am on 31st August 1997 as a result of a motor crash which occurred in the Alma Underpass in Paris on 31st August 1997 at around 12.22 am. The crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes, the speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol. Nine of us are agreed on those points, sir. In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or contributed to by the fact that the deceased was not wearing a seat-belt, the fact that the Mercedes struck the pillar in the Alma Tunnel, rather than colliding with something else, and we are unanimously agreed on that.
The only reason that vehicle following Diana's car were speeding was because her car was speeding. I assume that her car was speeding just to avoid a few more photos.
I'm fascinated at how many people, in spite of my previous post, continue to insist that "the fate of Harry's mother" consists solely and entirely of the proximate legal cause of the moment of impact between a car she was a passenger in and a concrete pillar.
As if Harry's attitude to the press, which was actually the germane point, would be solely and entirely determined by those couple of seconds.
I think few of us living our fairly quiet, fairly anonymous lives are capable of appreciating what it's like to "achieve" (if that's the word) fame or notoriety. Some of us do in fact get the proverbial 15 minutes of same. This happened to me (decades ago).
I become caught up in a movement. Long story short: I became the public face of this movement by virtue of telling, at a major public movement event, a dramatic (though true) personal experience related to the movement.
Next morning my toddler and I were awakened about 6:15 a.m. by the phone. A stranger's voice demanded to know if I was Ohher; upon my affirmative response, she began rattling questions at me. Startled, I excused myself, hung up, dressed, and drove with my kid to the nearest store to find my image and words (quoted sometimes accurately, sometimes not) spread all over my state's newspapers. Later, at work, I watched television coverage of the public event and my address to the crowd. Not having anticipated any such reaction, I was unprepared for the fallout.
Reporters pursued me; after a couple of the male ones made passes at me, I stopped agreeing to meet with reporters. One offered me a substantial sum of money if I would agree to "party" on camera (!) in an adult film! On a couple of mornings, as my daughter and I made our hasty way out of our trailer to our car to get her to daycare and me to work, we were accosted by photographers taking multiple shots of us. I recall one in particular that got published in a small-town rag and got me put under investigation for child abuse: my hand was drawn back, reaching for the restraint just behind me that secured my little one's car seat. My face was caught as one of many flashes went off, causing me to grimace. In the photo, it looked for all the world as if I were hauling off in rage to strike my child.
The child abuse investigation, which nearly wrecked my life--despite eventually being declared unfounded--went on for months; it too involved unannounced visits.
The phone calls at all hours stopped when I changed my number and went off the directory (an expense I could ill afford at the time). The newspaper coverage died away when I quit responding to requests for interviews. The whole episode as horrible; while undergoing it, I thought it might go on forever and could see no way out. In reality, it was probably less than a month or six weeks all told.
The royals do not have the option I had, of simply not feeding the beast. The beast lies in wait to feed on them simply because they exist. Imagine Diana's life (and I am no fan): followed constantly, everywhere; photographed constantly, intruding constantly on private moments, whether tender correctional; people yelling appalling things at her in an effort to snatch some awkward, offputting grimace. Strangers yelling at her kids, relentlessly hounding her and them, harassing them all, with no escape possible, ever.
As I said above, what a life. I am profoundly grateful not to be famous.
I'm fascinated at how many people, in spite of my previous post, continue to insist that "the fate of Harry's mother" consists solely and entirely of the proximate legal cause of the moment of impact between a car she was a passenger in and a concrete pillar.
As if Harry's attitude to the press, which was actually the germane point, would be solely and entirely determined by those couple of seconds.
No, I don't suggest Prince Harry's attitude towards the press and paparazzi is only the result of his mother's last minutes. However, I think it possible that he either doesn't know about his mother's use of the press when it suited her, or that he fails to take it into account. Yes, the pursuit of the Princess and Mr Fayed in their last moments was terrible, and the reckless driving of M Paul in reaction to it was madness, but in the days before that the Princess had not only been more than happy to pose for photographers and be snapped canoodling with Mr Fayed but had taunted reporters with cryptic remarks about what she'd do next. And long before that she regularly used to tip off reporters about her movements when it suited her but then complain about them "intruding" on her life.
Prince Harry must understand that as a senior royal the press are going to want to report on his activities, and his brother could tell him that posing for a couple of pictures is likely to work better than trying to enforce a ban.
I'm not trying to excuse the worst excesses of the gutter press and paparazzi but antagonising them is never going to end well.
Like Ohher I have (thanks to a family thing,nothing to do with me personally) experienced having reporters on the doorstep, following me, blocking my car, trying to get pictures, etc for a period of months. It wasn't pleasant or fair, but a fixed expression after a brief smile usually made them take the hint and back off.
So Harry is exaggerating, when he expresses a fear of history repeating itself, and Meghan being hounded? Silly boy. He just has to tell Meghan to pull her socks up, and take it on the chin. After all, that's what royals do.
. . . I think it possible that he either doesn't know about his mother's use of the press when it suited her, or that . . . in the days before that the Princess had not only been more than happy to pose for photographers and be snapped canoodling with Mr Fayed but had taunted reporters with cryptic remarks about what she'd do next. And long before that she regularly used to tip off reporters about her movements when it suited her but then complain about them "intruding" on her life.
Again, I am no fan of the late Princess, but this seems a bit harsh. What sort of constructive relationship can one develop with a relentless, ever-hungry horde of bullies from whom there is literally no escape possible?
Prince Harry must understand that as a senior royal the press are going to want to report on his activities, and his brother could tell him that posing for a couple of pictures is likely to work better than trying to enforce a ban.
But this discussion began with the nastily racist remarks directed not at Harry or William, but at Meghan, and then continued on to the searing scrutiny of virtually every breath Diana drew. I hope you're not suggesting that these individuals, whether or not we admire them, should be expected to graciously stiff-upper-lip their way through their entire lives, dogged every moment by these ghouls, especially when the accompanying write-ups are so vicious?
And who has suggested a ban? It's precisely the fact that not only is a ban impossible, there's not even a way to curb . . .
Like Ohher I have (thanks to a family thing,nothing to do with me personally) experienced having reporters on the doorstep, following me, blocking my car, trying to get pictures, etc for a period of months. It wasn't pleasant or fair, but a fixed expression after a brief smile usually made them take the hint and back off.
You know, TheOrganist, I suspect this "solution" might grate against even your stalwart constitution after a decade or two.
It's absurd that anyone should attempt to second guess Harry's experiences, with his mother and his wife. Also absurd is the recommendation for a stiff upper lip. I have no idea what Harry experienced with Diana, or what his current experiences are, or what Meghan's are. I can hear his comments about history repeating itself, so obviously something isn't working properly.
@Ohher You're right, it would grate to stiff upper lip it for long. I only had to do it for 3 years and it was dreadful.
The solution would seem to be a total withdrawal from public life. Sure, the press will still camp out to get what they can but if all they see is a couple going about the daily grind eventually they'll take the hint and go away.
I don't think being a half-in half-out semi-detached royal is going to work, at least not for the first few years; if the couple make just a few appearances the rarity of them is likely to make press interest even more intense.
While I completely agree that the death of Diana had many causes, that go back before the specific moment, the legal verdict does say: "The crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of driving of the Mercedes, the speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles". The following vehicles were those of the paparazzi, were they not?
Bertie insisted that the King of Hawai'i took precedence over Wilhelm. Wilhelm objected to this, to which Bertie replied, "He's either a king or a garden n****r, and if the latter, what is he doing here."
Idly chatting with the sales clerk yesterday as his colleague went to find my rebuilt oven control panel, he expressed his opinion that the arrival of Prince Harry would not be a problem for Canada. I suppose not, I replied, but of curiosity asked him why he thought so. It is, he assured me, because the Queen's reptilian genes had been negated by Diana's. O, I responded, wondering what the precise joke might be. No joke, he said, for he had recently seen a youtube of Vladimir Putin retailing how he had once seen the Queen emerge from her reptilian form (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PENdXoV3T_w).
On my eventual return (8.7km) Google reliably informed me that this belief was indeed out there. However, I now have the clerk's assurance that Harry is not endangering Canada, and will be able to rest tonight.
But if Harry's endangered, then he cannot be imported into Canada.
Idly chatting with the sales clerk yesterday as his colleague went to find my rebuilt oven control panel, he expressed his opinion that the arrival of Prince Harry would not be a problem for Canada. I suppose not, I replied, but of curiosity asked him why he thought so. It is, he assured me, because the Queen's reptilian genes had been negated by Diana's. O, I responded, wondering what the precise joke might be. No joke, he said, for he had recently seen a youtube of Vladimir Putin retailing how he had once seen the Queen emerge from her reptilian form (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PENdXoV3T_w).
On my eventual return (8.7km) Google reliably informed me that this belief was indeed out there. However, I now have the clerk's assurance that Harry is not endangering Canada, and will be able to rest tonight.
But if Harry's endangered, then he cannot be imported into Canada.
Should he be endangered on account of his non-reptilian nature in a reptilian state (we still don't know all of the ramifications of Brexit), then he can always come here as a refugee under the Convention on account of his race (section 1(a)2).
The thing I remember about Diana's death was the public's demand for a royal funeral. Initially, the queen resisted but eventually gave permission for a "unique" funeral--not exactly a royal funeral but (at least in the eyes of this American) close enough.
This seems to show that the monarchy can bend to public demands. What would have happened to the Windsors if the queen did not compromise then?
I do wonder if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spark a renewed interest in the royals in Canada.
The CBC has among opinions they've aired that they must immigrate in the queue like anyone else if they wish to live here. No special treatment. And pay their own expenses for security if they need it. Sounds reasonable.
Renewed interest? Maybe for some. For others of us, that we need to disconnect completely from such nonsense.
Idly chatting with the sales clerk yesterday as his colleague went to find my rebuilt oven control panel, he expressed his opinion that the arrival of Prince Harry would not be a problem for Canada. I suppose not, I replied, but of curiosity asked him why he thought so. It is, he assured me, because the Queen's reptilian genes had been negated by Diana's. O, I responded, wondering what the precise joke might be. No joke, he said, for he had recently seen a youtube of Vladimir Putin retailing how he had once seen the Queen emerge from her reptilian form (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PENdXoV3T_w).
On my eventual return (8.7km) Google reliably informed me that this belief was indeed out there. However, I now have the clerk's assurance that Harry is not endangering Canada, and will be able to rest tonight.
But if Harry's endangered, then he cannot be imported into Canada.
Comments
Well, my two oldest cousins (among the last debs to be presented) married "beyond the norm": one a chap from Malaysia of chinese descent and the other a Trinidadian. I was a page at the first wedding and an usher at the second. In both cases the main feeling among the wider family was that both gentlemen brought something much needed to family gatherings, not least far better food and some very interesting (and potent) cocktails.
I don't know if they'd be described as posh but both had veils held in place with a family headpiece that sparkled...
I don't think we've got any "chavs", just a couple of really nice people who weren't fortunate enough to have the same advantages as some of us growing up.
But then maybe my family isn't typical? I don't know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lknev5EO12Y
Take the golliwog mentioned upthread. That would not fly in America as long as it has in the UK. I think in America, there is more awareness of casual racism such as that.
The UK does share the same problem of lower pay, harder to get jobs, higher arrest rates and prison sentences for black people.
That doesn't come from nowhere, those are not coincidences.
Whilst it is easy to handwave away individual incidences, the pattern tells a different story.
And that is what we are witnessing here: a pattern.
Not all white British people are racists, but racism is systemic in the UK. It has to exist somewhere and not just in the National Front and BNP.
And what people are asking on this thread is for us to believe that the tabloids are not racist, which boggles the mind.
If I was trying to describe someone I, and I suspect most guilt laden liberals, would go to great lengths not to mention skin colour in case I was being racist. However if this chap was the only person in the room with a dark skin that would be the easiest way to describe him. Especially as tomorrow he might wear a different tie.
As for acceptable British usage, I think there was a row about a year ago when an PM called someone a "coloured person" rather than a "person of colour". @Ohher's explanation is useful, but sometimes it feels as though we're splitting hairs. Still, if it helps society be less racist, I suppose they are useful hairs to split.
Viscountess Weymouth is what you might call a black person with the right job and education. Her father is a wealthy Nigerian oil baron. Her husband is the son of the Marquess of Bath. I understand the Viscount's mother was rather outspoken about what he was doing to "400 years of bloodline".
I'd certainly agree with [Deleted User] that a black person with the right background and education would be more acceptable as a dinner guest than a white chav in certain circles. As a son or daughter-in-law? I'd say increasingly yes, and would be completely unsurprised if in a generation or two, the "right sort" came in an entire palette of different skin tones, but still went to the same schools, automatically used the right cutlery, and so on.
Class distinctions will outlast everything else.
The tabloid press did not kill his mother. That was down to her drunk chauffeur.
Thanks LC and The Organist. I suppose when I think of posh poms, I think of Prince Philip and the Mitford Sisters.
Must we reduce everything down to a single cause?
Only when it's appropriate.
and Douglas bloody Jardine...
Well I don't know that it is appropriate. Because while investigations showed that photographers were not directly involved in the crash, that doesn't mean that being followed by photographers had no impact on the trip whatsoever. Do you seriously believe that knowing you're being followed wouldn't affect your driving in any way? Your choice of route? Your timing?
Your decisions about when and where you need to travel in general, in the knowledge that your life is constantly being scrutinised?
It's not simply about whether the tabloid press literally killed Harry's mother. It's about whether the tabloid press constantly affected the life of Harry's mother. "The fate of Harry's mother" doesn't just encompass the final moments of her life, it's perfectly apt to cover all the circumstances.
Including the fact that some of those following photographers who didn't kill her decided a car crash was the perfect time to take pictures of her in the wreckage.
Focusing solely on the moment of impact as if that's all that matters rather misses the point, I think.
re Diana's "accident".
And you have determined that? Well, that settles it.
I rather like being classed as a guilt-laden liberal! Says it all, really...
No offence taken whatsoever, BTW.
Agreed.
A brief history of the terminology changes. I don't think it is splitting hairs; it is, as you mention, facilitating a more equal exchange.
Terminology matters in the way we see things.
The best way to solve all the terminology issues is to get to the point of equality where colour/"race"/ethnicity/etc no longer matter. We are not there yet, so using the terms people prefer and not using the ones they don't would seem the better route to that goal.
Quite. And ultimately, that's the fault of everyone that reads the tabloid press, the gossip magazines, and all that nonsense.
We have created a cult of celebrity. Sure - celebrities are hounded by the tabloids and the paparazzi, looking for pictures of them in any kind of personal moment, or looking less than their best, and that's the fault of the people who care about that stuff. But the celebrities are, by and large, also playing the game. The fame and income of the Kardashian family, for example, is largely based on their successfully exploiting the media and creating a mass of adoring fans who want to know every detail of their lives. I don't think you can court that kind of interest and then complain when you are followed by invasive paparazzi with big zoom lenses.
I'd not hold out much hope for it being accurate. The last US produced thing I saw on our royals that claimed to be "factual" was fantastic as a comedy but absolute cr*p on accuracy.
Wasn't it the brainchild of that Evil Prince Philip?
Scope for plenty of fantasising, but not much in the way of comedy.
The 5th Baron Redesdale's family were certainly eccentric and yes, two of them (Diane and Unity) were notable for their fascist sympathies, but the family could never be regarded as typical "posh poms".
As for the DofE, I don't know whether the designation of "pom" ought to be applied to someone who by descent is Danish-Russian/British-German who was schooled in an institution founded and run by an exiled Jew?
No. The cause was determined by a Coroner's Inquest which can be summarised:
The coroner also noted that although he sustained significant and life-changing injuries, the front seat passenger (who would have been expected to be more seriously injured than those in the back if they had been wearing seatbelts) survived the crash.
In other words, regardless of the paps or anything else, it was a drunk driver that killed Diana and her companion. Saddest thing is that Mohammed Fayed had insisted on that particular driver, over-riding objections from his own security people.
And people forced into the public eye are a different story altogether.
Part of the royals explicit duties are interfacing with the press, hence the furore over Harry and Meagan stepping back. But the lengths to which some of the press go are not justified, even though their readers desire it.
And I say this with no particular sympathy to the royals. PR is their job and as MaryLouise noted, they have questionable ties. What they do with their influence is of proper note. What they are wearing is not.
True, but the media doesn't care, and the people don't care. Once enough people permit - even encourage - a particular level of intrusion, that level of intrusion becomes the norm, and the people that don't want it get screwed.
The thing is, that "implicit contract" is defined by whatever the current media norms are. If the majority of minor celebs are happy to do X in exchange for a photo and a mention in the press, that gets written into the implicit contract you talk about.
At some point, for example, it has apparently become normal to have photographers lying on the floor waiting to take photos of the crotches of young female celebrities as they climb out of the back of cars in a short skirt / dress. Some fraction of those young female celebrities encourage this, and arrange to expose themselves to photographers in order to get the press exposure. Others would prefer photographers to act like actual decent human beings rather than peeping toms, but they don't seem to get a say.
But, of course, photographers only take such photos because the magazines and papers buy them.
Whether or not they are wearing questionable ties, the press is always overly concerned about what women are wearing - particularly attractive famous ones. And it seems that the readers want to know, and want to look like the Duchesses. It has been well noted that whenever a picture of the Duchesses of Cambridge or Sussex appears, the clothes that she is wearing sell out within hours. A similar effect exists for things worn by other popular celebs.
Good post
Not my opinion, not your opinion. The legal verdict.
Completely agree with you about using the terms the recipients prefer. But I look forward to the day when we can say, "That white/ brown/ black/ whatever chap," and it will be as unremarkable as commenting on his eye colour.
On my eventual return (8.7km) Google reliably informed me that this belief was indeed out there. However, I now have the clerk's assurance that Harry is not endangering Canada, and will be able to rest tonight.
I had a similar issue yesterday: I've been seeing the hospital ophthalmologists as my right eye did something funny in the summer (now all cleared up and I've been discharged). The doctor I saw yesterday wasn't the (lovely and very efficient) one I've seen previously and when he asked me about what had happened previously I was racking my brains trying to get her name right so I didn't end up saying the 'the Romanian lady', especially in the context of the impending end of the month. (I googled her so I've seen her rather impressive CV.)
As if Harry's attitude to the press, which was actually the germane point, would be solely and entirely determined by those couple of seconds.
The only reason that vehicle following Diana's car were speeding was because her car was speeding. I assume that her car was speeding just to avoid a few more photos.
I think few of us living our fairly quiet, fairly anonymous lives are capable of appreciating what it's like to "achieve" (if that's the word) fame or notoriety. Some of us do in fact get the proverbial 15 minutes of same. This happened to me (decades ago).
I become caught up in a movement. Long story short: I became the public face of this movement by virtue of telling, at a major public movement event, a dramatic (though true) personal experience related to the movement.
Next morning my toddler and I were awakened about 6:15 a.m. by the phone. A stranger's voice demanded to know if I was Ohher; upon my affirmative response, she began rattling questions at me. Startled, I excused myself, hung up, dressed, and drove with my kid to the nearest store to find my image and words (quoted sometimes accurately, sometimes not) spread all over my state's newspapers. Later, at work, I watched television coverage of the public event and my address to the crowd. Not having anticipated any such reaction, I was unprepared for the fallout.
Reporters pursued me; after a couple of the male ones made passes at me, I stopped agreeing to meet with reporters. One offered me a substantial sum of money if I would agree to "party" on camera (!) in an adult film! On a couple of mornings, as my daughter and I made our hasty way out of our trailer to our car to get her to daycare and me to work, we were accosted by photographers taking multiple shots of us. I recall one in particular that got published in a small-town rag and got me put under investigation for child abuse: my hand was drawn back, reaching for the restraint just behind me that secured my little one's car seat. My face was caught as one of many flashes went off, causing me to grimace. In the photo, it looked for all the world as if I were hauling off in rage to strike my child.
The child abuse investigation, which nearly wrecked my life--despite eventually being declared unfounded--went on for months; it too involved unannounced visits.
The phone calls at all hours stopped when I changed my number and went off the directory (an expense I could ill afford at the time). The newspaper coverage died away when I quit responding to requests for interviews. The whole episode as horrible; while undergoing it, I thought it might go on forever and could see no way out. In reality, it was probably less than a month or six weeks all told.
The royals do not have the option I had, of simply not feeding the beast. The beast lies in wait to feed on them simply because they exist. Imagine Diana's life (and I am no fan): followed constantly, everywhere; photographed constantly, intruding constantly on private moments, whether tender correctional; people yelling appalling things at her in an effort to snatch some awkward, offputting grimace. Strangers yelling at her kids, relentlessly hounding her and them, harassing them all, with no escape possible, ever.
As I said above, what a life. I am profoundly grateful not to be famous.
No, I don't suggest Prince Harry's attitude towards the press and paparazzi is only the result of his mother's last minutes. However, I think it possible that he either doesn't know about his mother's use of the press when it suited her, or that he fails to take it into account. Yes, the pursuit of the Princess and Mr Fayed in their last moments was terrible, and the reckless driving of M Paul in reaction to it was madness, but in the days before that the Princess had not only been more than happy to pose for photographers and be snapped canoodling with Mr Fayed but had taunted reporters with cryptic remarks about what she'd do next. And long before that she regularly used to tip off reporters about her movements when it suited her but then complain about them "intruding" on her life.
Prince Harry must understand that as a senior royal the press are going to want to report on his activities, and his brother could tell him that posing for a couple of pictures is likely to work better than trying to enforce a ban.
I'm not trying to excuse the worst excesses of the gutter press and paparazzi but antagonising them is never going to end well.
Like Ohher I have (thanks to a family thing,nothing to do with me personally) experienced having reporters on the doorstep, following me, blocking my car, trying to get pictures, etc for a period of months. It wasn't pleasant or fair, but a fixed expression after a brief smile usually made them take the hint and back off.
Again, I am no fan of the late Princess, but this seems a bit harsh. What sort of constructive relationship can one develop with a relentless, ever-hungry horde of bullies from whom there is literally no escape possible?
But this discussion began with the nastily racist remarks directed not at Harry or William, but at Meghan, and then continued on to the searing scrutiny of virtually every breath Diana drew. I hope you're not suggesting that these individuals, whether or not we admire them, should be expected to graciously stiff-upper-lip their way through their entire lives, dogged every moment by these ghouls, especially when the accompanying write-ups are so vicious?
And who has suggested a ban? It's precisely the fact that not only is a ban impossible, there's not even a way to curb . . .
You know, TheOrganist, I suspect this "solution" might grate against even your stalwart constitution after a decade or two.
The solution would seem to be a total withdrawal from public life. Sure, the press will still camp out to get what they can but if all they see is a couple going about the daily grind eventually they'll take the hint and go away.
I don't think being a half-in half-out semi-detached royal is going to work, at least not for the first few years; if the couple make just a few appearances the rarity of them is likely to make press interest even more intense.
Apologies for not relying on wiki. That said, my point stands.
But if Harry's endangered, then he cannot be imported into Canada.
Should he be endangered on account of his non-reptilian nature in a reptilian state (we still don't know all of the ramifications of Brexit), then he can always come here as a refugee under the Convention on account of his race (section 1(a)2).
This seems to show that the monarchy can bend to public demands. What would have happened to the Windsors if the queen did not compromise then?
I do wonder if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spark a renewed interest in the royals in Canada.
Renewed interest? Maybe for some. For others of us, that we need to disconnect completely from such nonsense.
Are you suggesting he's an invasive species?