 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Harry and Meghan
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Backwoodsman Date: 15 Jan 20 - 01:13 PM “I was alive when George VI was King, and I remember my mother telling me he'd died. How times have changed since those days!” Me too, Sen! I remember very clearly my gran weeping uncontrollably at the news of the king’s death, and bursting into tears every time it was mentioned over the next few days. But I wonder whether things really have changed, are the Royals ‘different’ now, or is it our perception of them that has changed? I have a strong suspicion that they’ve always been the unpleasant bunch they are now but, in days of yore, their shenanigans went unreported and the public had considerably less access to information about them than in these days of t’Interweb etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 15 Jan 20 - 01:33 PM Oh I agree Backwoodsman, I don't think much has changed among the Royals, but our Society has moved on, and many people now don't feel the immense reverence they once did. For example, they are not prepared to accept, excuse or brush over the sort of stuff Prince Andrew has been getting up to. In cinemas or theatres, the National Anthem was played and we all stood up to attention like soldiers. I don't think that happens now. In Norwich a few short years ago, the Queen and Prince Philip were driven down St Augustine's Street, and I watched as many pedestrians didn't even bother to stop or look at her. Young folk weren't particularly smitten with the occasion. (And apparently afterwards, Philip remarked on how the Street had deteriorated and looked shoddy. Arrogant pig!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Jim McLean Date: 15 Jan 20 - 06:07 PM Jim McLean. Tune: (I'm the man, the well fed man...) I'm Harry the Duke of Sussex and my wife's from the USA We're sick of the Royal family and decided not to play Meghan gave up her acting career and I don't have a job But with only ten million pounds or more, we don't know how we'll cope. Yes, with only ten million pounds or more, we don't know how we'll cope. My granny gave us a cottage, we thought was a bit too small Then the tax man gave us two million pounds to paper and paint the hall But we're going to live in Canada, it's cheaper there we're told. But with only ten million pounds or more, how will we keep out the cold? Yes, with only ten million pounds or more, how will we keep out the cold? We'll have to watch the pennies, we'll have to just make do We'll swop the Rolls for a Chevy and a Cadillac or two And we might come back to Blighty for a holiday now and then But with only ten million pounds or more, we won't have much to spend Yes, with only ten million pounds or more, we won't have much to spend Prince Charles has said he'll cut us off from the Royal money tree And Philip the Duke, the Royal Plook, says "all the more for me!" But how will we feed the baby, we don't know what to do With only ten million million pounds or more, unless we get more from you Yes, with only ten million pounds or more, we don't know what to do. (Repeat first verse?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Doug Chadwick Date: 15 Jan 20 - 07:08 PM In cinemas or theatres, the National Anthem was played and we all stood up to attention like soldiers. That's not how I remember it. You only stood still if you got caught at the back of the queue in the rush for the exit and couldn't manage to get out before the national anthem started. The reason for standing still was impressed collective embarrassment at being seen to move rather than true respect. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: robomatic Date: 15 Jan 20 - 07:12 PM Spike Milligan on a member of the royal family |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Jan 20 - 08:50 PM Jack, that was an interesting examination of the treatment of the two duchesses. To rational people outside of the UK it seems there is no competition between the women, it's just how they're presented by the tabloids trying to create a rift. Unless an asteroid hits Will's entire family Harry is happily clear of all of that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Backwoodsman Date: 15 Jan 20 - 11:11 PM SRS, to rational people in the UK it also seems there is no competition between the women. However, the target audiences of the tabloids from which quotations were given in the piece Jack linked to tend not to be composed of ‘rational people’ - those tabloids seek to use confirmation bias to influence readers who already have racist and xenophobic attitudes, to press those buttons, and to whip up ill-feeling towards a woman who represents ‘the other’. Please believe me when I say we’re not all like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 16 Jan 20 - 03:23 AM On a lighter note, I predict a Hollywood movie shortly, with Meghan made-up to look about 6 years younger, and Daniel Craig about 20 years younger - with all hair dyed red. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Jan 20 - 08:17 AM Apparently they can't actually legally live in Canada? Seeking article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Bonzo3legs Date: 16 Jan 20 - 08:17 AM I predict a movie showing corbyn and abbo at it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: punkfolkrocker Date: 16 Jan 20 - 09:07 AM Actually - if Harry and Megan follow the established TV reality celebrity career path, there's probably already a sex tape in the pipeline to kick-start the money rolling in... ... didn't Harry do one before when he was a partying soldier on leave...??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Jan 20 - 12:04 PM It is in an op-ed in the Globe and Mail I am now not finding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 16 Jan 20 - 12:25 PM The Globe and Mail has an article which states that, while liking the Queen and having a monarchy, Canada has never had any resident Royalty. They prefer them 'near to our hearts but far from our hearths'. They purport to speak for the majority of Canadians (but that is by no means certain) Meghan apparently invited herself yesterday to a hostel for homeless women in Canada and made a kind of 'royal visit' out of it. No warning, so no security checks. Photos of her among the less-fortunate, beaming away. I think she may be rather like Diana, virtue-signalling as a sort of hobby. I'm still awaiting the outcome of the Meghan Letter Trial. The Mail on Sunday is now putting forward the ridiculous defence that Meghan used her best handwriting and therefore intended the thing to be published. I agree that copyright belongs to whoever writes anything down, and so in my view the newspaper is guilty of breaching this law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Stilly River Sage Date: 16 Jan 20 - 01:29 PM A lot of pixels go into this sprawling "account." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Donuel Date: 16 Jan 20 - 03:01 PM In the States there are TV ads featuring Harry by corporations and law enforcement for their job recruitment programs. Harry is being photoshopped wearing different uniforms or career enviornments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Jan 20 - 04:30 PM Writing something doesn't give you copyright until you write "(c) you" on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Stilly River Sage Date: 16 Jan 20 - 05:20 PM Not so. Copyright doesn't have to be asserted to be in effect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Jan 20 - 05:48 PM "... didn't Harry do one before when he was a partying soldier on leave...???" Yep, he took a lovely young woman from behind, a standing-up one, complete with Harry's wagging bare bum in view. And he allowed it to be videoed. Like I said, not the sharpest knife in a drawer of very blunt knives... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Mrrzy Date: 16 Jan 20 - 07:03 PM When I was writing, if you didn't assert copyright, you didn't have it. Is that a US/UK thing maybe? Or did laws change? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Jan 20 - 07:39 PM I care not a jot about copyright or a court case. It was a stinking, rotten thing for her dad to do. There's something seriously wrong with him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Stilly River Sage Date: 16 Jan 20 - 08:30 PM Copyright stuff. Basically, you write it, it's yours. You can also REGISTER the copyright. When is my work protected? I haven't followed the case of the purloined letter, but if the newspaper printed it without permission, and copyright resides with the author, then there is a case. The quote also talks about registering in order to sue, but in matters of personal correspondence there are probably features in the law that will come into play. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Jan 20 - 08:51 PM She sent the letter to her father but that does not negate the copyright of the letter, which belongs to her. She has no need to formally register the copyright. The father can send it to the paper if he wants to, but the paper must get permission from the copyright owner if they wish to publish its contents. The only way the paper could avoid having to get permission is if the contents of the letter are such that it would be in the public interest to publish. Public interest does not mean interesting to the public. In my opinion there is no argument that publication would even remotely be in the public interest. I hope that the paper is taken to the cleaners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Stilly River Sage Date: 16 Jan 20 - 08:51 PM In the Philadelphia Inquirer today, this reporter takes issue with Meghan being estranged from her father. Perhaps that editorialist has never had a really dysfunctional person or portion of the family. Sometimes the kindest thing to do is stop the arguing by totally walking away. Sometimes you need to do it to preserve your own sanity, sometimes your own safety. Or to protect the rest of your family. Holding something like this against Meghan when the author actually doesn't probably know all of the details and (frankly) it's none of her damn business, is one of the silliest reasons to dismiss her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 Jan 20 - 12:52 PM I agree with all that. You can, in theory, criticise Meghan without being racist. But I submit that the one single thing that we know for sure about her is that she's black and foreign. We have no special insights as to her character (and you most decidedly won't get such insights from our media). We haven't met her in person and we are not privy to the intimate details of her relationships with the other royals (who haven't, let's face it, all got squeaky clean reputations as to their dealings with others themselves). As you say, we haven't got special knowledge of her family life, and there are invariably two sides to family stories, and you're not going to get a particularly balanced view as an outsider. All the same considerations apply to Kate Middleton. The one single thing we know for sure about her is that she's white English. Now take a look at the contrast between how our press treats these two women. John's link to the Stuff.nz site is well worth scrutinising. Generally, the white English woman is lionised and glorified. The black foreign woman is demonised and can't put a foot right. If the only thing you know for sure about Meghan is that she's black, the rest being hearsay only, and you excoriate her, you're racist. Unarguable, I'd say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: robomatic Date: 17 Jan 20 - 08:59 PM I think it would be neat if Harry would formally renounce his royal entitlements and (I don't know what Canadian laws or opinions are on the subject) I believe it would be required if he ever sought a U.S. citizenship. This has all been a distraction from the Epstein effect on Prince Andrew, n'est-ce pas? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Dave the Gnome Date: 18 Jan 20 - 10:08 AM Well, that nice DS Hathaway from "Lewis" was on question time and he said it wasn't racist. He should know coz he's a policeman. Incidentaly, when I looked him up, I discovered he is also a singer-songwriter and guitarist. Maybe he posts on here but is it folk music? On a more serious note, why was an actor (Laurence Fox if you didn't know) being asked political questions on QT? He quickly became the tabloids champion and Piers Morgan's pin up boy. Shame really, I thought he was a nice bloke till then. Apart from him being a scouser :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Donuel Date: 18 Jan 20 - 10:49 AM Dave that was such a British post I could not follow. Thats OK, its me not you :^/ robo continues to delve into new possibilities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Dave the Gnome Date: 18 Jan 20 - 10:57 AM I'm just getting my own back Donuel :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Mrrzy Date: 18 Jan 20 - 11:03 AM I find it odd, to this day, that someone as fairskinned as Meghan could be considered or referred to as black, when that part of her ancestry is such a minor element of her actual looks. I mean in the US there is that seriously racist one-drop thing but it's startling to see it from Europeans (meaning geography, not Union). Criticizing an individual for their individual behavior isn't racist/sexist/ classist or whateverist, even if said individual belongs to a race/gender/class or other group. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: meself Date: 18 Jan 20 - 11:17 AM Hey, I know a guy who performed in a folkie duo for a time with Laurence Fox. That makes me special, right? ************ Mrzy: I believe Steve's point is that if the criticism is without any rational basis, then the motivations behind it are suspect. Now, I haven't followed any of this Meghan BS closely enough to have any opinion about her one way or the other, and I can somehow live with that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Jan 20 - 11:26 AM The Daily Mail refers to her as mixed race. It does not refer to Kate Middleton as white. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: punkfolkrocker Date: 18 Jan 20 - 11:51 AM If only Fergie was still around to bring class and nobility to the royal family.. Her and Andy were a perfect fairy tale couple... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Dave the Gnome Date: 18 Jan 20 - 11:58 AM It does, meself! Apologies to him BTW. He isn't Scouser, he's a Tyke! It's another cop (Endeavour) that's a scouser. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 18 Jan 20 - 01:32 PM Ha Dave! I had to look up 'Tyke' and saw that it means a person from Yorkshire! I get very angry when people judge someone on the basis of their appearance, race, origin or religion etc. As I said earlier, I hate generalisations. They are not only despicable but extremely misleading. It happens quite a lot in UK. One hears 'The Welsh' (eg Anne Robinson) 'Pikeys' 'Muslims' 'Old People' etc as if each and every person from that group has exactly the same character, like a set of clones. I am very much 'on guard' about this, as my husband falls into several categories (black, Muslim, immigrant, Norwich City and Man U supporter etc) any one of which could expose him to unpleasant prejudice. I actually think Meghan is stunningly beautiful, but that has no bearing on how she fits in with the Royals. I do wonder if her 'woke' ideas contrast rather strongly with some of the stuck-in-the-fifties Royals. Hopefully the couple will find what they seek in North America, and be free from constraint and formality which they seem to find unbearable. As for Blooming Andrew, well... he's probably sighing with relief that the public are concentrating on Harry & Meghan, and he can 'lie low sayin' nuffink'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Bill D Date: 18 Jan 20 - 02:51 PM "Mixed race"? I never even heard that about her. If it bothers the Windsors, maybe they should be reminded of when they GOT that family name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Bonzo3legs Date: 18 Jan 20 - 03:49 PM A very satisfactory solution all round!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Stilly River Sage Date: 18 Jan 20 - 03:59 PM Harry and Meghan Give Up Royal Titles, Forgo State Funding The agreement represents one of the most dramatic ruptures within the British royal family since King Edward VIII abdicated the throne in 1936 to marry an American woman, Wallis Simpson. From the New York Times. WINDSOR, England — Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, will stop using their primary royal titles, give up state funding and repay at least $3 million in taxpayer money used to refurbish their official residence at Windsor Castle under an agreement announced by Buckingham Palace on Saturday. Excerpts from the article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: meself Date: 18 Jan 20 - 06:55 PM A DIVORCED American woman, which is more to the point (Wallis Simpson, I'm talking about), as I understand it. Btw: I don't suppose the name Frogmore Cottage is up for grabs now, is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Gallus Moll Date: 18 Jan 20 - 07:59 PM I wonder if the post Brexit rules for residency or even being able to enter the country will apply to Meghan? An awful lot of people who have lived, worked and paid tases here for many years have been chucked out already.....married couples split up if one of them is 'foreign'-----?! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Dave the Gnome Date: 19 Jan 20 - 02:52 AM I get very angry when people judge someone on the basis of their appearance, race, origin or religion So do I Eliza. The two things I can't stand are racial prejudice and Belgians... On a more serious note, I do hope you wasn't accusing me of any such thing. You really need to speak to you friend Bonzo about that with his references to socialists being the "Leftwaffe", derogatory remarks about Muslims and his comment that Rebecca Long-Bailey sounds like someone's cleaner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 19 Jan 20 - 04:04 AM No no Dave, I was referring to the gutter Press and online stuff, where people are making awful generalisations and condemning the poor woman for being x, y or z. That's a good point Gallus Moll. The repercussions of Meghan not being 'British born and bred' could include having to obtain a Visa in order to re-enter the country. My husband wasn't allowed to set foot here until a Marriage Visa had been obtained, and as soon as he had Settlement, which takes yet more applications/time etc once resident in UK, he took UK Nationality and has a UK Passport, so I'm assuming he's safe now. He kept his Ivorian nationality too of course. (foot in both camps!) On this basis he can come and go, visiting his mum in Africa and coming back here easily, with no problems at the airport, using his two passports. But Meghan couldn't do this unless she did the same thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Dave the Gnome Date: 19 Jan 20 - 05:21 AM Thanks Eliza. I don't think that the USA allow dual nationality so she would have to remain a US citizen or become a naturalised British citizen. As far as I know she couldn't be both. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 19 Jan 20 - 05:44 AM Oooh that's interesting Dave. Then as a non-royal she'd definitely need a Visa to enter UK, with a time-limit on it. My only concern now for the pair is the question of security, and who pays for it. They'd need a large team of trained protection officers, as kidnapping (particularly of the child) and robbery etc are distinct possibilities, sadly. I thought the Queen's statement (publicised on the TV News) was very charitable and understanding. It's obvious she wants to avoid a huge rift, and to reassure them both she understands their wants and needs. Of course, this would have been composed by her team of advisors/speech writers, but it sounds sincere to me. Ah well, onward and upward! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Jan 20 - 06:11 AM We should agree to foot the bill for their security. After that, I suggest forgettin' em. Oh, hang on, I've got to spend about ten angst-ridden hours first fretting about whether they should still be bloody HRHs or not... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Donuel Date: 19 Jan 20 - 06:32 AM My fiance' was told she could hold on to her Guatamalin passport and American passport but should she ever vote in a US election she would lose her 'foreign' citizenship. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Jan 20 - 07:11 AM We could always just let the lovely couple worry about it. This is getting awfully tabloidiferous... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 19 Jan 20 - 08:40 AM Hahahaa Steve, what a lovely adjective! Worthy of Ken Dodd! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Backwoodsman Date: 19 Jan 20 - 08:46 AM Ken Dodd was considerably more entertaining! And he robbed the taxpayers too... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 19 Jan 20 - 09:39 AM That's true Backwoodsman. But I did rather like his tickling stick... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Backwoodsman Date: 19 Jan 20 - 10:47 AM :-) :-) |
