I am a little confused. Upthread there is some indication that the Royal Marines have been of little use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Haven't their units been sent into those countries? American Marines certainly have been sent in. Why not their brothers and sisters in arms across the pond?
Because we're utterly incompetent. We learned how to lose small wars in I & A. In fact we've been losing small wars in Afghanistan for 200 years.
I vividly remember a British squaddie, dug in, slit eyed, tooled up for WWIII, never breaking his thousand yard stare, saying. 'We come out here and kicked something up the arse. It turned round and it bit us.'
I am a little confused. Upthread there is some indication that the Royal Marines have been of little use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Haven't their units been sent into those countries? American Marines certainly have been sent in. Why not their brothers and sisters in arms across the pond?
Because we're utterly incompetent. We learned how to lose small wars in I & A. In fact we've been losing small wars in Afghanistan for 200 years.
I vividly remember a British squaddie, dug in, slit eyed, tooled up for WWIII, never breaking his thousand yard stare, saying. 'We come out here and kicked something up the arse. It turned round and it bit us.'
Yes. We Americans are not good at remembering history.
I am a little confused. Upthread there is some indication that the Royal Marines have been of little use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Haven't their units been sent into those countries? American Marines certainly have been sent in. Why not their brothers and sisters in arms across the pond?
Because we're utterly incompetent. We learned how to lose small wars in I & A. In fact we've been losing small wars in Afghanistan for 200 years.
I vividly remember a British squaddie, dug in, slit eyed, tooled up for WWIII, never breaking his thousand yard stare, saying. 'We come out here and kicked something up the arse. It turned round and it bit us.'
Yes. We Americans are not good at remembering history.
And we Brits are not good at learning from it, despite having ten times as much.
What do Brits think of how Gillian Anderson and the screenwriters portray Thatcher's personality and mannerisms? Did she really talk with that tone of voice in private? And she always sit leaning with her head turned to the side?
As for the Queen, it almost seems as if the writers of the Crown want to make her appear not only have a WWII-era-British-aristocratic-stiff-upper-lip, but to be emotionally stunted (either in her ability to feel emotion or just in her ability to display it) to the degree that she is alarmed by it and thinks she is abnormal in some way. In the series, she thinks she is some kind of freak for being unable to act with tenderness towards her young children, although she does not have any such difficulty with animals, and it seems that this is something to do with her personality (or a psychological or developmental disorder?) rather than with her upbringing or culture. It's not just that royals historically did not do the whole tender mothering thing - she seems incapable of mustering together even the affection that others in her family seem capable of displaying. She loves her family and cares for her country and people, but she seems to think she is some kind of alien when it comes to tenderness. What evidence, if any, is the series using for this? Am I misunderstanding what the series is trying to say?
What do Brits think of how Gillian Anderson and the screenwriters portray Thatcher's personality and mannerisms? Did she really talk with that tone of voice in private?
The Guardian had an article, at least semi-serious, about how Anderson's portrayal was triggering traumatic memories in people who'd lived through the eighties. But it concluded that Thatcher probably didn't talk like that in private. (Disclaimer: have not watched the series.)
What do Brits think of how Gillian Anderson and the screenwriters portray Thatcher's personality and mannerisms? Did she really talk with that tone of voice in private?
I know this is rather missing the point, but (five or six episodes in for me) because we’re now onto times and people that I remember, I’m beginning to find that the production gets either the look or the sound of the characters just right but not both. So the character sounds like the Prince of Wales but doesn’t look like him: Bob Hawke’s appearance ties in with what I remember from the UK but I can’t speak for the voice. But the two which really seem to have problems are Denis and Margaret Thatcher, which seem to be brilliant reproductions of secondary sources. Thus Denis Thatcher appears to be Stephen Boxer playing John Wells playing Denis Thatcher, while Margaret Thatcher is Gillian Anderson playing Steve Nallon playing Margaret Thatcher. And since both John Wells and Steve Nallon did comic portrayals, that’s not entirely helpful while watching a serious drama.
What do Brits think of how Gillian Anderson and the screenwriters portray Thatcher's personality and mannerisms? Did she really talk with that tone of voice in private? And she always sit leaning with her head turned to the side?
As for the Queen, it almost seems as if the writers of the Crown want to make her appear not only have a WWII-era-British-aristocratic-stiff-upper-lip, but to be emotionally stunted (either in her ability to feel emotion or just in her ability to display it) to the degree that she is alarmed by it and thinks she is abnormal in some way.
I've only caught bits and pieces of The Crown. I presumed from what I saw that the main characters are basically caricatures (though very painstakingly done, no doubt); being used as a dramatic device to short-cut people's associations with that particular character. A bit like if you're going to do a film of Dracula he should be wearing his count's sash and cape and pointy teeth on all occasions 'vanting to dreenk y'r blahd!' After all, no-one wants to see a drama of the real thing; a tiny, little, leathery, squeaky creature, who sleeps most of the day and poops upside down. (Roll on next season of 'What we do in the Shadows!')
(off topic) I'm so glad someone else is appreciates 'What we do in the Shadows'. Mrs Rocky can't bear it. I love the idea of 'emotional vampires'. I'm sure Colin Robinson is the role model for some of the more annoying people I've come across.
That Thatcher was not the most caring of mothers might perhaps be an explanation for the wayward behaviour of her son.
I assure you that some sons (and daughters) get to be pretty wayward even with the most attentive and affectionate parents. What perplexes me is that she could have had the baronetcy descend to her daughter instead (I'm not sure which of the twins counts as the first-born, given that they were delivered by caesarean procedure) which would have taken some wind out his monetize-the-name inclinations.
That Thatcher was not the most caring of mothers might perhaps be an explanation for the wayward behaviour of her son.
Speaking as a mother who is fed up with being blamed for every tiny flaw in her offspring, I think Mark Thatcher is well past the age where he should take responsibility for his own behaviour.
That Thatcher was not the most caring of mothers might perhaps be an explanation for the wayward behaviour of her son.
The Crown portrayed her as an utterly doting mother when it came to Mark, whilst being very dismissive of Carol. I have no idea how realistic or unrealistic this was.
Rambling over the topic of the Queen & her offspring while under the shelter of an awning during a socially-distanced outdoor cappucino this morning (thoughts about paradisical Ottawa weather discussion perhaps on another thread), my interlocutor who was raised in a wealthy-house setting in the 1960s pointed out that many of her contemporaries at (name of well-known and breathtakingly expensive NYC girls school omitted) rarely dealt directly with their parents. She told me that there were years when she had to make appointments to see her father or mother outside holiday periods. While she had her peer group and some very helpful teachers to provide her with support and get her through adolescence, there's not much of a peer group for princes, and she wondered if this is why athletics and the military were important for their maturing process.
Paul Valley has a thoughtful piece about all this in the latest Church Times. The scriptwriters, director etc. do not come out of it at all well. I (nearly) started to feel sorry for the Royals. A first time for everything, I suppose.
Speculation is all very well (and enjoyable, I suppose), but none of us will ever really get to know what happens in the inner circles of the Royal Family - or any other prominent family, for that matter.
It's salutary to remember the old adage that it takes two to tango - especially when it comes to who-said-what-about-whom...and when one or more of the parties involved are no longer in the land of the living.
I was thinking about The Harry (formerly known as "Prince") and his lovely spouse, Meghan Markle ...
As a life-long American, the whole "royal family" bit puzzles me (as if I care anyway) ...
But ...
Especially now that The Harry has renounced his royal title ... (or even before that) ... what name appears on his, say, drivers license ... Does he have a proper name, Harry [..............], or did he take his wife's name when they married, becoming Harry Markle ...
I don't think he has given up his title. He has given up his HRH which is a bolt-on extra. Technically he is His Grace rather than HRH - but who gives a damn?
He may choose not to use his title. That is not altogether unknown among peers in general. For example, if you are an earl working as a bus driver or policeman (both of which have been known) it's a bit OTT to insist on being known as "my lord" or "Lord Whatever".
*T3 -- titles trivia tangent alert* In my student days in Ireland, a friend clerking in a solicitor's office learned that her fellow clerk was an Irish peer as post had been directed there with his title, which he did not use on ideological grounds as well as his own reticence. I fear she used it to tease him during discussions on Marxism with a "would the baron interpret this as a neo-Boulangerist deviation?" and the in-the-know messenger would drop a file on his desk with a Dublin-north-side accent "Tis for your fooking lordship," and so forth. She ended up marrying him, but it was only at the baptism of the first child that her County Roscommon family discovered that their lass was now a Lady.
As far as Harry goes, I believe that the situation is that he will not use the HRH although it's kept in a metaphorical drawer. I had been told by somehow who should know but is apparently in error, that he was now a simple HH but this is not the case and this leaves him to be known as Prince Henry of Wales, Duke of Sussex etc, if one goes by official websites.
Young Archie is on the official succession list as Master Archie Windsor-Mountbatten (number 7) rather than Lord Archie etc (son of a younger son of the Prince of Wales) or by the courtesy title of Lord Dunbarton. O well.
*T3 -- titles trivia tangent alert* In my student days in Ireland, a friend clerking in a solicitor's office learned that her fellow clerk was an Irish peer as post had been directed there with his title, which he did not use on ideological grounds as well as his own reticence. I fear she used it to tease him during discussions on Marxism with a "would the baron interpret this as a neo-Boulangerist deviation?" and the in-the-know messenger would drop a file on his desk with a Dublin-north-side accent "Tis for your fooking lordship," and so forth. She ended up marrying him, but it was only at the baptism of the first child that her County Roscommon family discovered that their lass was now a Lady.
As far as Harry goes, I believe that the situation is that he will not use the HRH although it's kept in a metaphorical drawer. I had been told by somehow who should know but is apparently in error, that he was now a simple HH but this is not the case and this leaves him to be known as Prince Henry of Wales, Duke of Sussex etc, if one goes by official websites.
Young Archie is on the official succession list as Master Archie Windsor-Mountbatten (number 7) rather than Lord Archie etc (son of a younger son of the Prince of Wales) or by the courtesy title of Lord Dunbarton. O well.
Assuming Harry is no longer chauffeured about every where in a Rolls Royce, if he has now a drivers license, what name will it show ... ???
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex agreed, as part of their withdrawal from their royal roles, to not use the style "HRH". They are still, however, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and may use those titles.
In the UK, as long as it's not for fraudulent purposes, a person can use whatever name they like, so Prince Harry can choose to call himself Harry Sussex, Harry Windsor, Harry Mountbatten-Windsor, or even Harry Wales if he's particularly attached to his childhood name.
The US is a bit more precious about people having a "legal name", so for practical purposes, he'll probably need to pick one name and stick to it.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex agreed, as part of their withdrawal from their royal roles, to not use the style "HRH". They are still, however, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and may use those titles.
In the UK, as long as it's not for fraudulent purposes, a person can use whatever name they like, so Prince Harry can choose to call himself Harry Sussex, Harry Windsor, Harry Mountbatten-Windsor, or even Harry Wales if he's particularly attached to his childhood name.
The US is a bit more precious about people having a "legal name", so for practical purposes, he'll probably need to pick one name and stick to it.
Dumbarton or Dun Breatainn (fortress of the Britons and ancient capital of Strathclyde) is a confusing place in which to find oneself as the area around it is called Dunbartonshire and now divided into two.
I think that Harry on his wedding day was given the (revived) Scottish title of Earl of Dumbarton.
Dumbarton Castle is one of the four royal Castles of Scotland.
One way to determine Harry's surname is to do a title search for him when he purchased his home in Santa Barbara County USA, if you really want to take the time.
Assuming Harry is no longer chauffeured about every where in a Rolls Royce, if he has now a drivers license, what name will it show ... ???
A bit of an aside, but what would people with their sort of money and living where they do, drive in the US? Here, he'd probably drive an E class coupé while she'd have an SUV, more likely the Porsche rather than the Maserati.
One way to determine Harry's surname is to do a title search for him when he purchased his home in Santa Barbara County USA, if you really want to take the time.
You think their home is owned by them personally, and not by some private holding LLC registered in Delaware?
Why not Harry Battenburg or Harry Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Both are historically accurate but hysterically funny in one person's attempt at rewriting history to save face and retain power.
Why not Harry Battenburg or Harry Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Both are historically accurate but hysterically funny in one person's attempt at rewriting history to save face and retain power.
Good choices! How does Mr H S-C-Gotha retain any power, though, even if he had any in the first place?
One way to determine Harry's surname is to do a title search for him when he purchased his home in Santa Barbara County USA, if you really want to take the time.
You think their home is owned by them personally, and not by some private holding LLC registered in Delaware?
I have no reason not to believe their home isn't registered in their name--unless they are leasing the property. But still, a good way to determine that is do a title review of the property.
One way to determine Harry's surname is to do a title search for him when he purchased his home in Santa Barbara County USA, if you really want to take the time.
You think their home is owned by them personally, and not by some private holding LLC registered in Delaware?
I have no reason not to believe their home isn't registered in their name--unless they are leasing the property. But still, a good way to determine that is do a title review of the property.
(If this question came up for a purported American citizen -- rather than a subject of The Queen -- Donald Trump could just demand to see his Birth Certificate ...)
Comments
Because we're utterly incompetent. We learned how to lose small wars in I & A. In fact we've been losing small wars in Afghanistan for 200 years.
I vividly remember a British squaddie, dug in, slit eyed, tooled up for WWIII, never breaking his thousand yard stare, saying. 'We come out here and kicked something up the arse. It turned round and it bit us.'
Yes. We Americans are not good at remembering history.
And we Brits are not good at learning from it, despite having ten times as much.
As for the Queen, it almost seems as if the writers of the Crown want to make her appear not only have a WWII-era-British-aristocratic-stiff-upper-lip, but to be emotionally stunted (either in her ability to feel emotion or just in her ability to display it) to the degree that she is alarmed by it and thinks she is abnormal in some way. In the series, she thinks she is some kind of freak for being unable to act with tenderness towards her young children, although she does not have any such difficulty with animals, and it seems that this is something to do with her personality (or a psychological or developmental disorder?) rather than with her upbringing or culture. It's not just that royals historically did not do the whole tender mothering thing - she seems incapable of mustering together even the affection that others in her family seem capable of displaying. She loves her family and cares for her country and people, but she seems to think she is some kind of alien when it comes to tenderness. What evidence, if any, is the series using for this? Am I misunderstanding what the series is trying to say?
The trauma was real, and so are the memories.
I know this is rather missing the point, but (five or six episodes in for me) because we’re now onto times and people that I remember, I’m beginning to find that the production gets either the look or the sound of the characters just right but not both. So the character sounds like the Prince of Wales but doesn’t look like him: Bob Hawke’s appearance ties in with what I remember from the UK but I can’t speak for the voice. But the two which really seem to have problems are Denis and Margaret Thatcher, which seem to be brilliant reproductions of secondary sources. Thus Denis Thatcher appears to be Stephen Boxer playing John Wells playing Denis Thatcher, while Margaret Thatcher is Gillian Anderson playing Steve Nallon playing Margaret Thatcher. And since both John Wells and Steve Nallon did comic portrayals, that’s not entirely helpful while watching a serious drama.
I've only caught bits and pieces of The Crown. I presumed from what I saw that the main characters are basically caricatures (though very painstakingly done, no doubt); being used as a dramatic device to short-cut people's associations with that particular character. A bit like if you're going to do a film of Dracula he should be wearing his count's sash and cape and pointy teeth on all occasions 'vanting to dreenk y'r blahd!' After all, no-one wants to see a drama of the real thing; a tiny, little, leathery, squeaky creature, who sleeps most of the day and poops upside down. (Roll on next season of 'What we do in the Shadows!')
I assure you that some sons (and daughters) get to be pretty wayward even with the most attentive and affectionate parents. What perplexes me is that she could have had the baronetcy descend to her daughter instead (I'm not sure which of the twins counts as the first-born, given that they were delivered by caesarean procedure) which would have taken some wind out his monetize-the-name inclinations.
Speaking as a mother who is fed up with being blamed for every tiny flaw in her offspring, I think Mark Thatcher is well past the age where he should take responsibility for his own behaviour.
The Crown portrayed her as an utterly doting mother when it came to Mark, whilst being very dismissive of Carol. I have no idea how realistic or unrealistic this was.
It's salutary to remember the old adage that it takes two to tango - especially when it comes to who-said-what-about-whom...and when one or more of the parties involved are no longer in the land of the living.
As a life-long American, the whole "royal family" bit puzzles me (as if I care anyway) ...
But ...
Especially now that The Harry has renounced his royal title ... (or even before that) ... what name appears on his, say, drivers license ... Does he have a proper name, Harry [..............], or did he take his wife's name when they married, becoming Harry Markle ...
Or is he now just "Harry" ... ???
Ardent Royalists will be along soon to (a) correct me, and (b) fling me into durance vile in the Tower.
Ah ...
Thanks for clearing up the matter ...
(Huh ... On this side of The Big Pond, "Windsor" is generally understood as a brand of Canadian whiskey ...)
He may choose not to use his title. That is not altogether unknown among peers in general. For example, if you are an earl working as a bus driver or policeman (both of which have been known) it's a bit OTT to insist on being known as "my lord" or "Lord Whatever".
As far as Harry goes, I believe that the situation is that he will not use the HRH although it's kept in a metaphorical drawer. I had been told by somehow who should know but is apparently in error, that he was now a simple HH but this is not the case and this leaves him to be known as Prince Henry of Wales, Duke of Sussex etc, if one goes by official websites.
Young Archie is on the official succession list as Master Archie Windsor-Mountbatten (number 7) rather than Lord Archie etc (son of a younger son of the Prince of Wales) or by the courtesy title of Lord Dunbarton. O well.
Assuming Harry is no longer chauffeured about every where in a Rolls Royce, if he has now a drivers license, what name will it show ... ???
In the UK, as long as it's not for fraudulent purposes, a person can use whatever name they like, so Prince Harry can choose to call himself Harry Sussex, Harry Windsor, Harry Mountbatten-Windsor, or even Harry Wales if he's particularly attached to his childhood name.
The US is a bit more precious about people having a "legal name", so for practical purposes, he'll probably need to pick one name and stick to it.
May I suggest a name:
Harry Dianaandcharlesson
I think that Harry on his wedding day was given the (revived) Scottish title of Earl of Dumbarton.
Dumbarton Castle is one of the four royal Castles of Scotland.
I'll get me coat.
A bit of an aside, but what would people with their sort of money and living where they do, drive in the US? Here, he'd probably drive an E class coupé while she'd have an SUV, more likely the Porsche rather than the Maserati.
You think their home is owned by them personally, and not by some private holding LLC registered in Delaware?
TL:DR: The default surname is Montbatten-Windsor.
*i.e. it agrees with what I think the position is.
Good choices! How does Mr H S-C-Gotha retain any power, though, even if he had any in the first place?
(*Battenburg* always makes me think of CAKE.)
Still reminds me of CAKE, though.
O yes. A Truly Vile Concoction. Not like the Royal Family at all...
I have no reason not to believe their home isn't registered in their name--unless they are leasing the property. But still, a good way to determine that is do a title review of the property.
(If this question came up for a purported American citizen -- rather than a subject of The Queen -- Donald Trump could just demand to see his Birth Certificate ...)