Are the royals on the rocks?

13638404142

Comments

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 19
    Just so - but not out of malice aforethought. However, sadly, it is what it is.

    She must be quite sorrowful about the whole business, what with Diana, and now Meghan - not to mention the egregious Andrew, and his unfortunate choice of friends...
  • I get tired of people saying the queen does her best. So did the hangman.
  • Which now, in our case, we have not got...
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Diana's problem was that she made herself exciting in that initial tell-all interview. Anne used to be exciting. Her divorce was exciting, and her kidnapping. But she shut up shop. Diana welcomed in the world.

    Have you considered that Anne's public persona might be just as well-crafted as that of the People's Princess?

    Yes, I recall a different version of this, as I came from a tough area, I was loud, clever, and was recommended to construct a different persona, quiet, not working class, well-spoken, blah blah. And I did it for decades, until it made me ill. If somebody wants to conform, fair enough, but if somebody doesn't, fair enough. But in England, you get punished, especially if female, see Caroline Flack.

    Playing footsie with the press over your private life is entirely optional. So is just getting on with your job and letting that speak for you - the Anne approach.

    False dichotomy.

    Disagree .... living by the sword etc.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Diana's problem was that she made herself exciting in that initial tell-all interview. Anne used to be exciting. Her divorce was exciting, and her kidnapping. But she shut up shop. Diana welcomed in the world.

    Have you considered that Anne's public persona might be just as well-crafted as that of the People's Princess?

    Yes, I recall a different version of this, as I came from a tough area, I was loud, clever, and was recommended to construct a different persona, quiet, not working class, well-spoken, blah blah. And I did it for decades, until it made me ill. If somebody wants to conform, fair enough, but if somebody doesn't, fair enough. But in England, you get punished, especially if female, see Caroline Flack.

    Playing footsie with the press over your private life is entirely optional. So is just getting on with your job and letting that speak for you - the Anne approach.

    False dichotomy.

    Disagree .... living by the sword etc.

    This is victim blaming. You're essentially saying that people have to handle their bullies, and it's their fault if they suffer.

    We know - we all know - that this kind of appeasement doesn't work, even when it appears to. The psychological toll of 'walking on eggshells' so you don't set off your abuser is enormous, and often fatal, and honestly, that thinking can just get in the bin.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    I think a lot of people just don't get how disproportionate the prejudice is to women of colour in media and social media - much worse than white women get and for much more trivial and unbelievable reasons. Talk about what women of colour who are being demonised should 'just do' to be left alone or treated fairly is like white people lecturing Black people in the US how not to get shot by racist police. It's victim blaming and very tone-deaf.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Diana's problem was that she made herself exciting in that initial tell-all interview. Anne used to be exciting. Her divorce was exciting, and her kidnapping. But she shut up shop. Diana welcomed in the world.

    Have you considered that Anne's public persona might be just as well-crafted as that of the People's Princess?

    Yes, I recall a different version of this, as I came from a tough area, I was loud, clever, and was recommended to construct a different persona, quiet, not working class, well-spoken, blah blah. And I did it for decades, until it made me ill. If somebody wants to conform, fair enough, but if somebody doesn't, fair enough. But in England, you get punished, especially if female, see Caroline Flack.

    Playing footsie with the press over your private life is entirely optional. So is just getting on with your job and letting that speak for you - the Anne approach.

    False dichotomy.

    Disagree .... living by the sword etc.

    This is victim blaming. You're essentially saying that people have to handle their bullies, and it's their fault if they suffer.

    We know - we all know - that this kind of appeasement doesn't work, even when it appears to. The psychological toll of 'walking on eggshells' so you don't set off your abuser is enormous, and often fatal, and honestly, that thinking can just get in the bin.

    No, the bullies need slapping down.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Why does it work for Anne and not Fergie or Diana?

    Riding, that's the prime answer.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »

    But I think we should remove the Royal family after the Queen has died. She has done her best with the lot she was given.

    Totally agree with your first sentence - and I'd say that given another referendum, this time straightforward, a large majority here would show agreement also.

    Not sure about the second. Just what does "done her best" mean?
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Why does it work for Anne and not Fergie or Diana?

    Riding, that's the prime answer.

    Was one of Anne's brood an Olympian? I have a vague recollection of that.
    Louise wrote: »
    I think a lot of people just don't get how disproportionate the prejudice is to women of colour in media and social media - much worse than white women get and for much more trivial and unbelievable reasons. Talk about what women of colour who are being demonised should 'just do' to be left alone or treated fairly is like white people lecturing Black people in the US how not to get shot by racist police. It's victim blaming and very tone-deaf.

    I think you are taking American experiences and attitudes and superimposing them upon a unique family setting in Britain. I can't go further than that, but it strikes me as something to watch out for. The US is not Britain is not Canada is not Australia, but Australia is New Zealand ( :trollface: ) We are all very similar, but we are not the same. And the Royals are their own unique breed.

    Certainly Meghan is the victim of racial and sexual discrimination in the British press. She has been vilified, false and exaggerated reports about her relationship with Kate have been circulated and that's just the stuff that I hear about, who has no interest in the Royals as people. The British yellow press don't just make stuff up sometimes. They make it up on a daily basis. They don't just pick on the Royals, they pick on everyone in the public eye. If the victim responds, they report that and needle for another response.

    When Shippies talk of their own experiences of bullying, and having to adopt a persona to deal with that they are I assume talking about bullying at school or in the workplace, somewhere where they live out part of their lives. Adopting a defensive persona for a substantial part if not all of your daily life has in many the severe consequences @quetzalcoatl describes in brief. You have to work on undoing the damage to find your self.

    But bullying by the press is an entirely different beast. It can be dealt with using the law, and using the age old stonewalling tactic of silence until the Press chase the next squirrel. But responding in anything other than the bland Press statement gives them a sniff of blood, and they will be off after you again. You don't have to change your way of being in your daily life at all. Anne's public persona is not her private persona. Diana's public persona was not her private persona. There is no internal struggle between the protective persona you have to adopt in the workplace and your true self.

    Not responding to media generated scandal is not a reflection of your personhood. Its not even passive. It is part, for those in the public eye, of a well-crafted media strategy by (hopefully) expert advisers.

    This is entirely different from the credible allegations of racism inside the Royal Family made by the Sussex's. That is racism that needs to be confronted and dealt with. It is a crippling cancer that can blow families apart. But you don't do that by making it public.

    I mentioned way back in this thread that if the Oprah interview is a one-off tell all, I have no real problem with it, save for the specific allegation of a specific racist comment by "someone". That was a shot, calculated to damage.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Simon Toad - Anne herself was an Olympian. She also acted very bravely when there was an attempt to kidnap her. Those 2 factors would have helped her image enormously.

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    edited March 20
    Gee D wrote: »
    Simon Toad - Anne herself was an Olympian. She also acted very bravely when there was an attempt to kidnap her. Those 2 factors would have helped her image enormously.

    Also telling reporters to "naff off" early and just not engaging with them at all has helped.
    Yes and being an Olympic gold medal winner and earning the reputation as the hardest working Royal has given her credibility.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Simon Toad - Anne herself was an Olympian. She also acted very bravely when there was an attempt to kidnap her. Those 2 factors would have helped her image enormously.

    Also telling reporters to "naff off" early and just not engaging with them at all has helped.
    Yes and being an Olympic gold medal winner and earning the reputation as the hardest working Royal has given her credibility.

    I think one should be careful about stating this sort of received wisdom as fact. Surely this impression of Anne is as much informed by the attitude of the press as anything else. It is convenient for the press to play divide and rule, casting some family members in a positive light and others not. It need not have anything much to do with the actions of either.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Simon Toad - Anne herself was an Olympian. She also acted very bravely when there was an attempt to kidnap her. Those 2 factors would have helped her image enormously.

    Also telling reporters to "naff off" early and just not engaging with them at all has helped.
    Yes and being an Olympic gold medal winner and earning the reputation as the hardest working Royal has given her credibility.

    I think one should be careful about stating this sort of received wisdom as fact. Surely this impression of Anne is as much informed by the attitude of the press as anything else. It is convenient for the press to play divide and rule, casting some family members in a positive light and others not. It need not have anything much to do with the actions of either.

    I think her Olympic gold and her record for the most engagements are facts.
    "Naff off" seems real enough too, even though the actual language used was rather more salty
    https://express.co.uk/news/royal/1362814/princess-anne-news-the-crown-netflix-royal-family-queen-elizabeth-ii-spt#:~:text=He%20told%20the%202002%20Channel,to%20cover%20up%20another%20word.%E2%80%9D
    NB both of these pre-date the arrival of of Meghan.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Simon Toad - Anne herself was an Olympian. She also acted very bravely when there was an attempt to kidnap her. Those 2 factors would have helped her image enormously.

    Also telling reporters to "naff off" early and just not engaging with them at all has helped.
    Yes and being an Olympic gold medal winner and earning the reputation as the hardest working Royal has given her credibility.

    I think one should be careful about stating this sort of received wisdom as fact. Surely this impression of Anne is as much informed by the attitude of the press as anything else. It is convenient for the press to play divide and rule, casting some family members in a positive light and others not. It need not have anything much to do with the actions of either.

    I think her Olympic gold and her record for the most engagements are facts.
    "Naff off" seems real enough too, even though the actual language used was rather more salty
    https://express.co.uk/news/royal/1362814/princess-anne-news-the-crown-netflix-royal-family-queen-elizabeth-ii-spt#:~:text=He%20told%20the%202002%20Channel,to%20cover%20up%20another%20word.%E2%80%9D
    NB both of these pre-date the arrival of of Meghan.

    I'm talking about the narrative built on those facts - Anne's coverage could have been about incivility and the position of a "sport" almost solely the preserve of the wealthy upper classes in the Olympic as a sign of Anne being out of touch or the most engagements record as self-publicising. The framing of facts colours opinion as much or more than the facts themselves.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    It was European rather than Olympic medals she won, and she was also on the Olympic team.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited March 20
    When I was digging around for current Royal coverage over the last few weeks, I found this Express story from 27/2/21 which is discussing Princess Anne's relationship with Zara Tindall as interpreted by a body language expert, so a totally made up story, speculation about the second child Zara Tindall is expecting, from yesterday, also from the Express and how a boy will help Princess Anne feel less put down by the rules of succession, also total invention, and various pieces on her attendance at Cheltenham, mostly in the local paper, but including this piece from Hello from 13 March, so no, not immune. I very fast realised why I just don't read the stories covering the Royals looking at these stories.

    There was a news story yesterday that was only given limited coverage in the UK from Twitter reports, here from the Guardian which along with the Independent and BBC are known to have covered the story while the Sun, Express, Mail and Telegraph did not. The title is Sun investigator says he illegally obtained information about Meghan Markle and is part of a murkier story:
    Byline Investigates, which tracked down Hanks, is run by Graham Johnson, a freelance journalist who was himself convicted for phone hacking but now works to expose other examples of historical wrongdoing in the media. Byline said it paid Hanks to obtain the archive reports on Meghan which form the basis of its story.
  • AIUI the information obtained was, much to the chagrin of the paper, exactly what they could have found for free on MM's bio in the Suits website and in the public domain courtesy of the woman herself. Still, if you only reckon to pay $250 what do you expect?
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    The litigation against the press being carried on by the Sussexes mean that it is now open war. If I dare quote French here, is is a case of
    'Cet animal est tres mechant;
    Quand on l'attaque, il se defend.'
    (This animal is very wicked; when somone attacks it, it fights back).
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    The litigation against the press being carried on by the Sussexes mean that it is now open war. If I dare quote French here, is is a case of
    'Cet animal est tres mechant;
    Quand on l'attaque, il se defend.'
    (This animal is very wicked; when somone attacks it, it fights back).

    Poking an angry bear.
  • Again, no, because that frames it as 'people are stupid for poking the angry bear'.

    That particular section of the press are not angry bears. They're vicious psychopaths who make money from misery. They should be stopped, not appeased.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Again, no, because that frames it as 'people are stupid for poking the angry bear'.

    That particular section of the press are not angry bears. They're vicious psychopaths who make money from misery. They should be stopped, not appeased.

    Even at the cost of having to leave your own country.
    Not much of a victory there.
  • To which I totally agree. However Johnson's appointment of Dacre to lead Ofcom means that the Government is not making the slightest attempt to rein in the gutter press, more declaring open season for them to do their worst.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Again, no, because that frames it as 'people are stupid for poking the angry bear'.

    That particular section of the press are not angry bears. They're vicious psychopaths who make money from misery. They should be stopped, not appeased.

    Even at the cost of having to leave your own country.
    Not much of a victory there.

    That depends on how heavily you weigh your principles. I suspect thinking that your mother may have been alive if not for the press may tilt them a certain way.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Again, no, because that frames it as 'people are stupid for poking the angry bear'.

    That particular section of the press are not angry bears. They're vicious psychopaths who make money from misery. They should be stopped, not appeased.

    Even at the cost of having to leave your own country.
    Not much of a victory there.

    Again, you're framing it as people being stupid for standing up to an out-of-control press. Please stop doing that. The press lying about them is the problem, not that they're objecting to being lied about.
  • But they object even when the press tells the truth, or wishes to know if the Duchess has had her baby. If you want the press to take you seriously don't tell easily checkable lies, such as "the Duchess has gone into labour" when she'd already done so, made the trip into hospital, and gone back home.
  • Again, if the press gets to choose when it tells the truth and when it lies, then the problem is not with the people, but with the press. If people lie, then you can argue it's for the press to point that out. But the question here is whether people get to point out the press's lies.

    I think they should. Do you?
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    posted by Simon Toad I think you are taking American experiences and attitudes and superimposing them upon a unique family setting in Britain

    Actually I was specifically thinking about the British situation (I live here and am from here) and an incident that happened the very day I posted to a British woman of colour who was set upon by media and social media in the UK which was a good example of the kind of thing I was talking about.

    So I'll reiterate that a lot of people really do not get how bad it is for women of colour where the British media are concerned and that leads to a lot of patronising and condescending emissions as to what women faced with this virulent intersection of racism and sexism should 'just do'.

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Again, if the press gets to choose when it tells the truth and when it lies, then the problem is not with the people, but with the press. If people lie, then you can argue it's for the press to point that out. But the question here is whether people get to point out the press's lies.

    I think they should. Do you?

    It's like an abusive marriage. Some people seem to be accepting the abuse by the tabloids as a natural phenomenon, which you have to placate. In fact, the abused side here (M and H), are actually being blamed for pointing it out. This reminds me of women who are told to put up with a violent husband.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Louise wrote: »
    posted by Simon Toad I think you are taking American experiences and attitudes and superimposing them upon a unique family setting in Britain

    Actually I was specifically thinking about the British situation (I live here and am from here) and an incident that happened the very day I posted to a British woman of colour who was set upon by media and social media in the UK which was a good example of the kind of thing I was talking about.

    So I'll reiterate that a lot of people really do not get how bad it is for women of colour where the British media are concerned and that leads to a lot of patronising and condescending emissions as to what women faced with this virulent intersection of racism and sexism should 'just do'.

    I apologise for my mistake @Louise That sort of stacks-on-the-mill response happens here too - the story of Yassmin Abdel-Magied being one of the more egregious examples.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Again, if the press gets to choose when it tells the truth and when it lies, then the problem is not with the people, but with the press. If people lie, then you can argue it's for the press to point that out. But the question here is whether people get to point out the press's lies.

    I think they should. Do you?

    I take it that your Press regulation is in the hands of the Press, like it is here? The Australian Press Council is armed with a feather duster and a kitten teaser toy.

    You're right. Regulation is required. Meaty sanctions are required, sanctions that can jail owners (fantasy I know). Defamation proceedings are too costly and slow.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited March 21
    Speaking as a person who's been at the center of a public shitshow IRL--

    There's only one thing you can do really, which is to outlast the bastards. Whether you do it by shutting up completely (which is a valid choice) or by going to public war in the court of public opinion (which is a valid choice also), at the end of the day you have to outlast them. Get on with your own life, whatever it may be. Build mental barricades against the shit (probably with the help of professionals, if you can get it).

    Some people feel the need to get out there and be seen to be fighting--whether that's for ideological and moral reasons, or whyever. That's okay, but you really need to count the cost and make sure it's something you can pay, emotionally speaking.

    Others (like us) decided to fucking endure the cross, and the most we did was to issue quiet denials. We let our lives speak for us. It was hell. And there are still those who smear us.

    I don't think one way or the other is the correct way. Both can go wrong, and both can go right. You do the best you can, as the individuals you are, hopefully drawing on the wisdom of people who know you well and also know how human groups behave.

    But in the end, it's time. Time, and finding something that will help you endure until enough time passes. Waiting for God's justice, or that long arc of history, however you conceive of it. And living, in the meantime.

    Outlive the bastards.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I apologise for my mistake @Louise That sort of stacks-on-the-mill response happens here too - the story of Yassmin Abdel-Magied being one of the more egregious examples.

    Thanks - that's very nice of you!
  • I take Lamb Chopped's point about keeping quiet or fighting back. I think there is a mood today in the UK, that people are fed up with being abused. You can see this in relation to women's protests against violence and harassment. Why should women suffer in silence? I think the storm over M and H is similar, in fact, Meghan has faced misogyny and racism. People, well some people, are sick of it. Of course, others say its her fault.
  • @Lamb Chopped I too have had the experience of doorstepping journalists and photographers IRL and agree that Time is the way to win through, but it only works if you don't feed the beast. IMHO going to law is not only going to promote more of the same but will prolong the agony; there is no guarantee of success and failure will prompt not just a regurgitation of the original but with a bucketful of justification added. Plus going to law is hugely expensive and you can expect your whole life, plus family, friends, colleagues, etc to be put under intense pressure and a microscope.
  • It's like an abusive marriage. Some people seem to be accepting the abuse by the tabloids as a natural phenomenon, which you have to placate. In fact, the abused side here (M and H), are actually being blamed for pointing it out. This reminds me of women who are told to put up with a violent husband.

    Here's the thing, though. The treatment of the Duchess of Sussex by the media wasn't actually illegal. Nasty? Sure. Motivated in part by race? Probably. But it's not illegal, and it's quite difficult to stand in the rather privileged position that the brother and sister-in-law of the future King occupy, and say "the nasty men are picking on us".

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    ... it's quite difficult to stand in the rather privileged position that the brother and sister-in-law of the future King occupy, and say "the nasty men are picking on us".

    A whole lot of Black women believe Meghan Markle, though, and recognize the racism she experienced, despite her privilege, because it's the same kind of shit they face.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    It's like an abusive marriage. Some people seem to be accepting the abuse by the tabloids as a natural phenomenon, which you have to placate. In fact, the abused side here (M and H), are actually being blamed for pointing it out. This reminds me of women who are told to put up with a violent husband.

    Here's the thing, though. The treatment of the Duchess of Sussex by the media wasn't actually illegal. Nasty? Sure. Motivated in part by race? Probably. But it's not illegal, and it's quite difficult to stand in the rather privileged position that the brother and sister-in-law of the future King occupy, and say "the nasty men are picking on us".

    Not to mention the nasty women.

    Bullshit to privilege: Obama & his wife copped it too.

  • MMMMMM Shipmate
    I think it’s also worth remembering - and I am going by my memory here - that the Sussexes were enormously popular at first. My recollection is that the rot started to set in at about the time they started lecturing on climate change while taking umpteen flights.

    MMM
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    edited March 21
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Again, no, because that frames it as 'people are stupid for poking the angry bear'.

    That particular section of the press are not angry bears. They're vicious psychopaths who make money from misery. They should be stopped, not appeased.

    Even at the cost of having to leave your own country.
    Not much of a victory there.

    Again, you're framing it as people being stupid for standing up to an out-of-control press. Please stop doing that. The press lying about them is the problem, not that they're objecting to being lied about.

    I do understand that.
    Stupid is not a word I would use. Ill-advised would be closer to my viewpoint.
  • I could be wrong, but I think some of the tabloid press were at it from the start, but in a low key way.
  • Here's a Daily Mail compare-and-contrast between Kate and Meghan from the early days of their marriage.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6379623/Meghan-Markle-Kate-Middleton-Remembrance-Sunday-make-looks.html

    I'm not an expert on make-up, but I can see no difference whatsoever between the two women, other the make-up favoured by the darker-skinned one is described as "Hollywood" and "suitable for a turn on the red carpet" whereas the lighter-skinned one is described as "sophisticated"

  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    {Cross-Pond.}

    TheOrganist--
    @Lamb Chopped I too have had the experience of doorstepping journalists and photographers IRL and agree that Time is the way to win through, but it only works if you don't feed the beast. IMHO going to law is not only going to promote more of the same but will prolong the agony; there is no guarantee of success and failure will prompt not just a regurgitation of the original but with a bucketful of justification added. Plus going to law is hugely expensive and you can expect your whole life, plus family, friends, colleagues, etc to be put under intense pressure and a microscope.

    Respectfully:

    --And if those bad outcomes are already happening?

    --If the "intense pressure and a microscope" are already happening?

    --If the beast isn't waiting for you to feed it, but is relentlessly coming after you, in a "hound of hell" sort of way?

    --If some people close to you keep their word not to blab to the press, but others (M's father and half-sister) go out of their way to trash you to the press and draw attention to themselves?

    --If you're suicidal? If the people around you daily should be helping you cope and help you get the help you urgently need--and don't? And tell you it just wouldn't look good?

    --If you saw this crap happening to your mom, up close and personal? And if (at the very least) the press sparked the situation that caused her death? And you'd gone not only through that trauma, but had to publicly walk in procession behind your mom's coffin, with hordes of people watching in person or on TV?

    --What if that trauma stayed with you, and caused you ongoing trouble?

    --And the worst parts of your childhood were relentlessly playing out again?

    --And you just couldn't go through that again?

    --What if your child, your wife, and yourself were all in danger? Every moment?


    IMHO: ISTM that changing your life circumstances isn't necessarily a bad way to handle it. It's one way among other possibilities.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Press coverage has been pretty grim. This Buzzfeed story gives twenty examples which are hard to explain apart from racism.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Sojourner--
    Sojourner wrote: »

    Not to mention the nasty women.

    Bullshit to privilege: Obama & his wife copped it too.

    I don't quite get what you're saying about the Obamas. Would you explain, please?

    Thx.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited March 21
    There's no such thing as any Black person having a degree of privilege which stops rabid media/social media campaigns in majority white countries. (Remember birtherism against President Obama...) The only thing I've seen that might conceivably have some protective effects is being so extremely right wing that the Murdoch press et al. embrace you as one of their own and a useful fig-leaf for their normal racist habits. Even then that's no guarantee of them not turning on you.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Sojourner--
    Sojourner wrote: »

    Not to mention the nasty women.

    Bullshit to privilege: Obama & his wife copped it too.

    I don't quite get what you're saying about the Obamas. Would you explain, please

    Thx.

    I recall him copping some flak on line and by his political opponents for his colour during his first election campaign.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Louise just referred to same just ahead of me & did it rather better
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Sojourner--

    Ok, I'm still confused. IME (in the US) to "cop" means to admit/confess to something. E.g. "cop a plea" means to confess to a lesser crime, in exchange for an easier sentence.

    But it looks like maybe you just mean that Barack mentioned there's been some problems?
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    No GK I don’t. Obama is a well educated successful black man ( and his wife a well educated successful woman).

    Despite that he was on the receiving end of racist abuse.


    To “cop” in Ozspeak= to be on the receiving end of something unpleasant ( abuse, punishment) such as “he/she copped a hiding” or “ You’ll cop it when your father gets home”

    OTOH to “cop it sweet”= accept abuse/ nastiness and not retaliate

    Here endeth the lesson











Sign In or Register to comment.