 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Harry and Meghan
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 13 Jan 20 - 04:43 PM I haven't seen anything about this here, so thought I'd start a thread to see what people are making of the situation. There are so many differing opinions all over the Internet and on TV. Personally, I feel that the couple should be allowed to choose their own path through life, but the question of funding is rather a moot point. Also paying for Security, which will be needed wherever they go. I do pity the poor Queen at this stage of her life having to deal with such an unprecedented decision. Anyone have any views about it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Mrrzy Date: 13 Jan 20 - 04:50 PM Pity, mostly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Donuel Date: 13 Jan 20 - 04:58 PM I hear they will winter in Canada and summer in Saudi Arabia. ;^/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: robomatic Date: 13 Jan 20 - 05:01 PM I was just about to start a similar thread using the name I've heard it called on the BBC: "Megxit" Comes now this royal kerfuffle about the young prince and his young bride and their baby. Sounds like they want to make a living on their own, although I dont think I'll see Harry belcoming a Walmart greeter or pump jockey. The subtext I'm getting from reading between the lines is they expect to make a comfortable living suing tabloids. There are worse ways to make a Pound or a Dollar. Maybe they've been transfering their savings to Euros and they expect the European currency to rise. I read this great little book some time ago about a Frenchman who exchanged his title for a regular name and became American. Ted Morgan, the former Sanche de Gramont also at Goodreads: On Becoming American |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Mossback Date: 13 Jan 20 - 05:24 PM Who in their right mind gives two sh**s?? This is like following the non-exploits of the several worthless Kardashians. Now the Cardassians would be a different story entirely, and much more worthy of attention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 13 Jan 20 - 05:39 PM What I find distasteful is the number of people writing to newspapers and posting online commenting about the couple's characters and the tone of their relationship. Some are saying that Meghan is 'controlling' or 'too obsessed with being a celebrity' etc. This is ridiculous, as they've never even met either Harry or Meghan. It's impossible to know what they're really like. I also think that the fact the young lady is American and of mixed race is completely irrelevant. Xenophobia and racism seem to be rearing their ugly heads somewhat. What with Brexit, Trump and his aggression, the poor Australians and those terrible fires, climate change etc one is left hoping for some nice cheerful news. Maybe in the Spring there'll be something to smile about... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Donuel Date: 13 Jan 20 - 05:50 PM Who on Earth hasn't had problems with inlaws and/or inherited business dynasties? Common problems but with 'celebrites' is an olde gossip subject. Harry doesn't seem as ideological as the Frenchman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Rapparee Date: 13 Jan 20 - 06:29 PM He had two tours in Afghanistan as a helicopter gunship pilot/co-pilot. While there he was personally targeted by the Taliban. He's been in the spotlight since he was born. His marriage and his wife have been extensively followed and criticized. Why wouldn't he want "step back"? I hope he changes his name to "Smith" or something and goes to live in Nunavut. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Jan 20 - 06:44 PM I don't give a rat's arse about the Queen, Charlie and his paedophile-loving brother and all the other parasites, including that useless 98-year-old racist thicko. You know me. But I'll surprise you here. I have mucho sympathy for this couple and I think that Harry, though not the sharpest knife in a drawer full of very blunt knives indeed, has seen the danger that ruined his mother (who I also had no time for, but she WAS his mum for chrissake...). Taking a step back is a good move and yes he needs to "protect his family" (with all the crypto-misogyny that that term invokes...). On the money front, no, don't make 'em pay stuff back. And we have bigged them up and exposed them so much that I think we should pay for their security. But no more civil list dough. If Charlie decides to give them dough out of his vast fortune, then that's what rich guys do with their kids. I know that BigEars didn't exactly earn his fortune and that, like all squires, landlords, earls and the rest, he makes his money by doing nothing and making the peasantry do the hard graft. But that isn't unique. If he has money that this country misguidedly regards to be legally his, i.e., not taxed anywhere near enough, then he has the right to do what he likes with it. That's as far as it goes with me. I find it ironic, and not a little amusing, that Harry's near-ruin has been brought about by precisely the same gutter press that ruined Corbyn and which dumped us in the brexit disaster. In order, I'd control the press first, insisting that papers wishing calling themselves newspapers actually reported NEWS, with the royal parasites coming a distant second. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: keberoxu Date: 13 Jan 20 - 06:45 PM Harry also had a mother who was both beloved and controversial, and who remains so long after her premature passing. Why not Vancouver, though? The married couple, and Vancouver, are already acquainted with each other, and I didn't hear anything negative about their visit there. That way they are not far from California, where I believe Meghan's mother is located; and they are still within the U. K. Vancouver is a happening place, no small amount of television shows are from studios there. The Queen's official pronouncement, stating that she would have preferred that they stay as they were, gave me something to think about. I'm not surprised at accounts of discomfort or discord within the family ranks, although the two brother princes surely respect each other. The royal family has never lacked for internal conflict. I recall when William and Harry, still enrolled in school, had to break the news to their father that their uncle Edward intended to make and distribute some sort of film footage about them -- "incandescent" was the word used to describe Prince Charles's understandable expression of temper. Although change is so uncomfortable for certain people, or groups of people, concerned, I think time and distance could actually be healing here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Backwoodsman Date: 14 Jan 20 - 03:12 AM ”The married couple, and Vancouver, are already acquainted with each other, and I didn't hear anything negative about their visit there. That way they are not far from California, where I believe Meghan's mother is located; and they are still within the U. K.” No they aren’t - Canada is not a part of the UK. Shoulda paid more attention in your geography class. Perhaps you meant ‘The Commonwealth’? That is a very different thing. On the topic of the thread, I echo completely everything Steve said. The Royals are a big part of the modern-day version of ‘bread and circuses’ - the mind-control system maintained by the elite establishment to keep the hoi-polloi distracted, while they run things for their own benefit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Dave Hanson Date: 14 Jan 20 - 03:22 AM Lets face it, this useless pair will never get an honest job or be able to support themselves and their offspring, they know full well that Queenie will support all of them them for the rest of their lives. Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 14 Jan 20 - 03:43 AM I used to be so fascinated by and delighted with Royalty. (I remember watching the Coronation in 1953 on a tiny TV set in a neighbour's house) But I'm afraid I now regard them all as a gigantic anachronism, and after the Queen passes on, I'd like to see the end of it. I've actually 'met' Prince Philip (he was Chancellor of Edinburgh University) and found him extremely arrogant and dismissive. My father met and consulted with Princess Margaret about a telephone system in Kensington Palace, and she was absolutely horrible. If Meghan has come across this sort of snobbish, cold and rude attitude within the Family, she may understandably have decided she couldn't accept it. And her husband is being loyal to his wife in agreeing to create a distance for her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Bonzo3legs Date: 14 Jan 20 - 04:33 AM How nice of the leftwaffe to spout their predictable spite and hate!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Backwoodsman Date: 14 Jan 20 - 04:38 AM ”How nice of the leftwaffe to spout their predictable spite and hate!!!!!!!” I rest my case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 Jan 20 - 04:49 AM I have often said that the royal family should be run like a Disney franchise. Leave them where they are for those that want to visit and get involved but make it self funding. Disney would make it far more profitable:-) As for the couple in question, I don't see anything wrong with them going their own way and becoming self sufficient. I echo the sentiment about the press entirely. Bonzo. Senafou doesn't like the royals much. Are you saying she is left wing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meg From: Donuel Date: 14 Jan 20 - 06:18 AM The Royal family is like having a vestigal organ like an appendix. Having one doesn't make you better but when they get infected you could die unless its removed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Backwoodsman Date: 14 Jan 20 - 07:13 AM Dunno about Disney, Dave, my wife and I have long regarded the Royals as a kind of long-running soap-opera - a sort of ‘Eastenders’ but with a cast who can speak proper English. Perhaps ‘Azza ‘n’ Meghan could make a few bob by getting one of the BBC’s competitors to put on a rival soap - let’s call it ‘West-Enders’ - with the central theme being a story about a dysfunctional family, living on benefits despite having a stash of cash in the lock-up dahn the arches. ‘Azza could play the grandson who’s not quite as accepted as he should be because The Fammerlee suspect his mum was ‘playing away from home’ and he’s the product. Meghan could be the foreign incomer, mistrusted by ‘Azza’s family because “She dahn’t look and talk like us!”, who persuades ‘Azza that he could do like many of the other 60-odd-million British people, get a bloody job and get off benefits (at least in part). I know it sounds a bit far fetched, but it could be a go-er, don’cha fink? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 14 Jan 20 - 07:30 AM Hee hee Donuel and Backwoodsman! Really funny! I don't watch Eastenders particularly, but could Her Maj be a sort of Dot Cotton character? And I reckon we do need a Royalectomy operation now. PS I don't think Bonzo meant me, as he knows I lean more to the 'Other Side'. (By the way Bonzo, I hope lovely Dreamy is doing well?) Regarding little Archie Harrison, I can well see how the couple do NOT want their boy to grow up in the stultifying, overly formal atmosphere of the Royal family. I think that's why they chose his name, so unlike the traditional historical names of all the others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Bonzo3legs Date: 14 Jan 20 - 08:10 AM Of course I wasn't referring to you Senoufou. Yes Dreamy is back to normal now that New Year fireworks have stopped!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Donuel Date: 14 Jan 20 - 08:16 AM Archibald will probably take after his uncle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: punkfolkrocker Date: 14 Jan 20 - 12:53 PM Archibaldness runs in the family... A hereditary condition caused by too many generations wearing heavy crowns... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Jan 20 - 02:01 PM Not since the abdication of Edward the VIII has something quite like this happened, but Harry is sixth in line, he isn't abdicating the same kind of duties. When you look at the rules involved, all of the personal appearances and such, the royals do have real jobs, just not the kind that results in a paycheck. Charles settling an annual income on Harry might help the transition, but from what I can see he has grown up to be a responsible young man and will find something to do when he's off of the royal tether. And the times that he is back for family duties will be all the more precious to everyone. As Meghan said in that interview while in South Africa, she knew it would be hard, but she thought it would be fair, and it hasn't been. Stepping away from that tabloid cesspool is a rational thing to do. I remember over the years seeing the Duke and Duchess of Windsor appear regularly on the Merv Griffin show late at night, and I didn't know their story at the time. They will always be a novelty, but they can be contributing, productive adults at the same time. When you get a chance to look into the model farms and such that Charles and others have been involved with, you can see that there is intent to contribute, even though it isn't often appreciated. My two cents worth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 14 Jan 20 - 02:09 PM Jesus criticised monarchism - my poem, from WalkaboutsVerse, AFTER PSALM 118:9 AND MATTHEW 4:8-10: As it happens, Elizabeth Windsor is quite a good public speaker but, according to monarchism, would have the job even if she was useless; and no problem with people earning a living for public speaking but being payed millions per year?! Monarchism also tends to make people accept the revolting inequality that capitalism produces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: leeneia Date: 14 Jan 20 - 05:27 PM My theory is that Harry wants to move to a place where there is no prejudice against red hair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: keberoxu Date: 14 Jan 20 - 05:38 PM I remember the account that a young Lady Diana -- still at that point a fiancee, I believe -- had a brief, private conversation with Princess Grace of Monaco, who concluded the conversation with the observation: "Don't worry -- it WILL get worse." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Jan 20 - 05:46 PM All of these posts from WAV of old inane poems - circular thinking, illustrated. I do miss Amos. Good point from Grace about its getting worse. The estates and income offer diminishing returns to royalty, especially when the leech-portion of the media latch on. Trying to get out there and do the right thing isn't rewarded very often (and sneers are sure to follow even this vague observation). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 14 Jan 20 - 05:59 PM "Inane" (SRS)...Harry is going to resurrect the Granma, gather his army mates and, via coup d'état, form a Republic of England! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Jan 20 - 08:15 PM Well I'm amazed to say that I actually agree with this sentiment from WAV: "Monarchism also tends to make people accept the revolting inequality that capitalism produces." On the other hand, I've heard a lot in the last few days about how unfair it is that Harry can use the royal name to promote himself, that he doesn't exactly have to finance himself from scratch, etc... E I'm a socialist, but I'm a socialist who has had to accept that I have to breathe the polluted air of capitalism. I even benefit from it (please don't ask: that's already an admission enough). As such, I know that thousands of young people get a leg up from wealthy parents. Bejaysus, Cameron and Johnson had clans rich enough to buy them ultra-privileged places at a "top" public school with automatic progression to Bullingdon-Oxford (I won't say "an education" because, by their actions, they've both proven themselves to be thoroughly uneducated). So I don't see the royals as any different, and if I wanted to single them out above all others for exploiting privilege I'd be well out of order. I absolutely get what this couple are saying. They want to escape the grip of a terrible family, and there's no need for us to expect them to give up all their wealth in return. We don't do it for the thousands of others, after all. It's capitalism, just like my favourite team, Liverpool FC (the greatest team in the history of football, as I've no need to tell any of you) is thoroughly grounded in capitalism. So I'd better shut up about those bloody useless royals, hadn't I... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: punkfolkrocker Date: 14 Jan 20 - 08:29 PM If it wasn't for the royals we wouldn't have netflix's "the crown".. which keeps my mrs glued to the telly for hours while I can be in another room playing with my music gear, without any fear of interruptive nagging... Apart from that, I include royalty in with religion and other baffling anachronisms the 21st century would be far better off without... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Jan 20 - 08:38 PM Well we definitely would. But it isn't happening any time soon. Who knows, this couple might just break apart the royal hegemony once and for all. And come on, anything that might piss Prince BigEars off (in case of confusion, he's the one who was shagging Camilla on the royal train in a siding the evening before his wedding to Diana) can't be a bad thing...Baby steps... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 14 Jan 20 - 08:54 PM Who can blame the young couple for wanting to spend more time in Canada? After years of beans on toast for breakfast wouldn't YOU prefer to live where you can have Tim Horton's doughnuts instead? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: JennieG Date: 15 Jan 20 - 12:17 AM Best one today, BWL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Allan Conn Date: 15 Jan 20 - 03:18 AM The comparisons with the abdication crisis in the 1930s (which is sometimes suggested in the media) is surely way over the top? That was the case of the Head of State abdicating, or being forced to abdicate, thus involved the constitution of the country itself. Let's face it Harry is only 6th in line so there is no crisis for the country. This is more an internal issue for the Royal Family itself (ie the firm losing some of its major players) and a massive celeb story. Take away the current celeb factor and it isn't even that unprecedented a story for the past few months. We have the brother of the person who is second in line for the throne voluntary stepping back from royal duties for family reasons! Just a few weeks ago we had the brother of the person who is first in line for the throne being forced to step back from royal duties because of his connections to a sex abuse story! What is the potentially more damaging story to the Royal Family??? In fact I imagine that the fact that Andrew has now been knocked off the tabloids by his nephew might in some ways be a bit of a relief for the firm. As to the coverage! Way over the top. One national paper had the first 16 pages covering the story! Yes it is a media story but the media is itself going to excess in the pushing of it. I don't personally come across the same level of interest among people at large where I am. It's been barely mentioned, if at all, when I've been in the pub or at the club. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 15 Jan 20 - 03:44 AM I agree Allan about the excessive coverage. I'm getting very tired of page after page in the newspapers and also on TV News programmes. It isn't after all of any serious import to the country. Whether this couple stay or go will have little effect on us. (Which means perhaps that I need not have started this thread!) I think it's the financial implications which concern most people. They shouldn't be funded by the State to do nothing at all. As for Andrew, I do think he should be questioned by the Police if there is any possibility he has sexually abused young women who were coerced/trafficked by his pervy mate. I also agree to some extent with Steve (hee hee!). The Monarchy is a relic of the days when forelock-tugging 'plebs' were enchanted with them and thereby accepted their lot as disadvantaged underlings. 'They' represented the Rich, and 'we' agreed to remain very much less well-off, admirably kept in our place. This is why I feel the Royals are now an anachronism, and we need to move on from those times. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Dave the Gnome Date: 15 Jan 20 - 04:05 AM So, Bonzo, it's ok for a Tory to criticise the royals but if anyone else does the same it becomes a "Leftwaffe" issue? You have some strange and hypocritical bedfellows, Eliza. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Doug Chadwick Date: 15 Jan 20 - 05:06 AM Steve, As someone who has expressed their distaste, elsewhere, of being addressed other than by your preferred name, should you not extend the same courtesy and find something more adult than "Prince BigEars"? Childish insults add nothing to your argument. DC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 15 Jan 20 - 05:22 AM Oh I like Bonzo. We've had some lovely conversations about his rescued greyhound. If one takes a group of people of a similar political persuasion, there will inevitably be all types of personalities and characters among them. Not all Labour folk are x, y or z. Not all Tories are x,y or z either. I do hate generalisations, and I enjoy the diversity in human beings. So if I have some odd bedfellows, I quite enjoy their company! I see that Meghan is now prosecuting the Mail on Sunday for publishing her letter to her father. And he is going to give evidence against his daughter in the case. Very difficult situation indeed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Jan 20 - 05:49 AM Goes back a long way, that one, as it 'appens, Doug, and I'll bet that he doesn't insist that his peasantry in the Duchy call him Charles... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Dave the Gnome Date: 15 Jan 20 - 06:29 AM I do hate generalisations So do I, Eliza. How do you feel about someone using the term "leftwaffe" or "leftard" to dehumanise anyone on the left of the political spectrum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: banjoman Date: 15 Jan 20 - 06:39 AM We should bear in mind, That from statements over the years from senior royals, they consider themselves to be a separate race, destined to rule over us lower beings. I have no sympathy for any of them and cant wait for the monarchy to be finally abolished. Any talk of the work they do, and the income they produce for this country should be offset by how much they actually cost us. Canada is welcome to the whole lot so far as I am concerned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Backwoodsman Date: 15 Jan 20 - 07:24 AM Wonder who the replacements will be...?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Jan 20 - 07:30 AM What they bring to the country is always grossly exaggerated. For example, according to the Daily Torygraph in 2017, there were no royal spots in the top twenty tourist attractions, unless you include the Tower and the Royal Museums at Greenwich, both of which would no doubt survive the abolition of the monarchy for hundreds of years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 15 Jan 20 - 08:35 AM I always smile at the idea of the Royals attracting millions of tourists. I used annually to take groups of pupils on week-long trips to France, including a day visiting Paris. The Palace of Versailles was always heaving, and after queuing for ages, one couldn't see much except the ceilings due to the press of the crowds. The French haven't had a monarchy since the end of the eighteenth century... I've just been catching up on the Meghan's-letter-to-her-father fiasco, and find it all very distasteful. I imagine the Queen is squirming at such a private matter being thrashed out in such a public fashion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Stilly River Sage Date: 15 Jan 20 - 10:25 AM This is why I feel the Royals are now an anachronism, and we need to move on from those times. and What they bring to the country is always grossly exaggerated. From across the pond that royal life looks like a very pampered zoo that the inhabitants live in, with a whole bunch of rules that no one else has to worry about. Working without getting paid? Having to go through all of the pomp and circumstance stuff? The calendar of stuff they have to pay attention to? Grin and bear it. Steve, I think you underestimate the attraction that Family has for the rest of the world, and it does contribute hugely to what people choose to do when they travel there. Cultural artifacts are a big part of attracting visitors to a place, even if they don't send their entire time consuming the royal tourist hype once they arrive. That Meghan's letter thing is someone in her family trying to hit it big $-wise by finding and releasing it, isn't it? Everyone has some of "those" relatives who are bottom feeders (look at the US - we got a whole passel of them right there in the White House!) And your media ate it up. Escaping that fishbowl and that media sounds like a completely rational thing to do. I also agree - the name calling isn't necessary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Jack Campin Date: 15 Jan 20 - 10:29 AM This New Zealand perspective is pretty telling. Stuff.co.nz editorial |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Jan 20 - 11:48 AM "Steve, I think you underestimate the attraction that Family has for the rest of the world." That doesn't mean it's good. Public hangings at Tyburn were pretty popular too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: punkfolkrocker Date: 15 Jan 20 - 11:55 AM If we must still have a Queen, Barbara Windsor would have been a much better choice... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: peteglasgow Date: 15 Jan 20 - 12:20 PM you beat me too it, S, talking about versailles. a massive queue to see some quite spectacular artwork while we wandered around the extensive and lovely gardens. personally, i'd like to see the royal palaces opened up with all the extensive art they own on display for all of us to see. i'm sure they could manage to get by without much public support and there will always be some people who would like to keep up with the royal gossip. it would be good to get a bit more reality and they do seem to be a rather tired and fractious outfit these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 15 Jan 20 - 01:03 PM My husband and I (I sound like the Queen already!) went on a coach trip to London to visit Buckingham Palace, which is open to tourists while Her Maj is away. But it wasn't the attraction of the present royal family which caused us to go on the journey, it was the sense of history. The State Rooms are magnificent, and one appreciates the Georgians and Victorians embellishing it over the centuries. If all the royals decamped to Barbados tomorrow, there would still be vast numbers of visitors wanting to see all the historical buildings of London, plus Sandringham, Holyrood etc. The Tower is one of the most popular attractions, and I'm fairly sure it's the beheadings and incarcerations which tourists find fascinating, not our present Queen. 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! |
|
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 :-) :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Stilly River Sage Date: 19 Jan 20 - 10:59 AM The only reason my Canadian cousin gave up his dual US citizenship was because when he was 18 and the Vietnam-era draft was still in place he could be arrested for not having registered with the US Selective Service if he crossed the border. My aunt was a US citizen and I think all of the kids were born here; her husband had Turkish citizenship and they had to leave the US and return every year to do with visa stuff. They eventually settled in Alberta to avoid those hassles. There are many instances of dual citizenship if you look around. The US has learned a lot about the cost of security details since 2017 when Trump was sworn in. His golfing trip count is up to 243 at a cost of $122,000,000 to the nation. General Accounting Office report information. He travels with a large family entourage, does nothing to be inconspicuous, and is probably drawing those funds in a way that enriches him (the Secret Service has to pay the market rate for the rooms they use in his resorts, his hotels, etc.) I suspect Meghan and Harry, who have a better sense of proportion, would cost a lot less. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: The Sandman Date: 19 Jan 20 - 01:07 PM I am not interested, roll on the day that england is a republic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Mossback Date: 19 Jan 20 - 01:26 PM Stilly, you beat me to it. Sandman, roll on the day that the U.S. is a democracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Dave the Gnome Date: 19 Jan 20 - 01:56 PM I can't remember the exact figures but wasn't the security cost of H&M's wedding less than that of the visit of the Orange one? Or did I dream that? Hey, just realised. Maybe the couple could buy into the already market placed H&M clothing chain?:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Donuel Date: 19 Jan 20 - 04:03 PM Speaking of tabloidiferouslyness...the German papers have a schaudenfreude take on Harry and Meagan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Stilly River Sage Date: 19 Jan 20 - 06:10 PM Do you have any links, Don? I'd love to see some of that schadenfreude. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: keberoxu Date: 19 Jan 20 - 06:56 PM Talking of schadenfreude: I'm not going to sit and listen to it, but Der Spiegel has at its webpages, besides the stories in print, an audiofile that is just under an hour (a broadcast thing?) , in German, about the whole deal. The title is "Die Sippe der Verfluchten" which Google translates as "The Clan of the Cursed." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: OldPossum Date: 20 Jan 20 - 01:37 AM Good opinion piece in the Guardian: There's a reason why the royals are demonised. But you won't read all about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 Jan 20 - 02:44 AM Very good piece. Something I have said for years, the press need to be more accountable. Not just on trivialities like this but on the lies that affect people's lives like elections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: punkfolkrocker Date: 20 Jan 20 - 11:50 AM Any tabloids interviewed the corgis yet for their opinions on all this nonsense... Maybe one of the fat short arsed mutts is the mysterious palace insider so often quoted by the cretin culture press...??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Iains Date: 20 Jan 20 - 12:14 PM I doubt Harry wished to be born into a goldfish bowl, he had no choice. Whatever debt people may feel that he owes to society, due to his "high birth", is more than cancelled by his exemplary military duties. If he wishes to make his own way in the world good luck to him, but his escape from the goldfish bowl will be denied. I hope I am wrong, but I suspect that in time he will regret his choices. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: punkfolkrocker Date: 20 Jan 20 - 12:21 PM H & M could take the most praiseworthy option of entering voluntary witness protection.. New identities, a false beard and wig, a new life far from the voyeuristic eyes of the world... DISAPPEAR... What about that secret island resort where Elvis and michael Jackson are hiding out with all those other 'deceased' celebrities...??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 Jan 20 - 01:36 PM Harry may look ok in a wig but I'm not sure about meghan's false beard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: keberoxu Date: 23 Jan 20 - 02:34 PM Their two pet dogs appear charming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: leeneia Date: 24 Jan 20 - 12:28 AM Considering how many children Albert and Victoria had, there must be many royals who have slipped out of sight. Think about Harry's life story - father betrayed the mother, mother died young, grandparents are so old, they might as well be great-grandparents. Maybe he wants a healthier, more normal way of life for little Archie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Dave Hanson Date: 24 Jan 20 - 02:42 AM I think he just wants to have his cake and eat it, all the wealth and privelege of his rank and none of the work. Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: The Sandman Date: 24 Jan 20 - 03:45 AM I doubt Harry wished to be born into a goldfish bowl, he had no choice. the people thqat are born in high rise tower blocks where people piss in the lifts have no choice either, but they do not generally have wealthy relatives and friends |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: Senoufou Date: 24 Jan 20 - 04:19 AM Did anyone see the Thomas Markle interview on TV? I didn't watch it, but read the synopsis later. I'm not sure what to make of Meghan's relationship with him. She didn't appear to be too worried when he had a heart attack just before the wedding. I know she was probably frantically stressed and busy at the time, but still... I do feel he shouldn't be bleating in front of the cameras about private stuff though. I bet the Queen cringed when she heard about it. Meghan's mother appears to be more dignified and reserved. But we actually know none of these people, and they could be saints or monsters behind the scenes! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan From: The Sandman Date: 24 Jan 20 - 04:25 AM no senoufou i do not have a television, i think andrew is a monster i have a low oinion of prince philpip |
