 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Jan 23 - 08:38 PM I have a photo somewhere of Machiavelli's tomb in Florence... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Jan 23 - 08:34 PM It's probably truer to see Machiavelli as spilling the beans about how corrupt and vicious respected rulers are rather than as recommending that way to his readers.. Essentially "Be warned, this is the way of the world. This is what you have to expect and be ready to deal with if you get involved in politics." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Donuel Date: 13 Jan 23 - 07:52 PM Machiavelli endorses strategic lying in The Prince. Just make sure you don't get caught. P.S. Notice that Machiavelli isn't too concerned with morality and ethics. Yeah, that's kind of groundbreaking when it comes to politics. Chew on This According to Machiavelli, being honest is a surefire way to end up without a kingdom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Jan 23 - 07:36 PM Yep, that was a funny one all right... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Jan 23 - 07:32 PM One thing that's been largely ignored in this stuff about the miseries of being a 'spare" is that between 1830:and 2022 the only times the monarch was someone who'd been first-in-line when they were born was between 1901 and 1910, and a few months in 1936. "Spares" have normally been the ones that inherited the throne. It's interesting to note how primogeniture is a lot more the way of the world than just in the context of royalty and aristocracy. Remember how, when Ed Miliband went up against his big brother Dave it was widely seen as a stab in the back, just not done. Most especially by Dave, who stormed off to sulk in America rather than just buckling down and bing ready to serve loyally in his brother's cabinet, as would have been expected of Ed if the vote had gone the other way, and which is what other defeated candidates mostly do. And that was seen as quite reasonable behaviour on the part of Dave,. And I don't think it'd be reasonable to see that distortion as being a matter of spilling over from monarchical and aristocratic primogeniture and infecting English society. More deeply rooted than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Jan 23 - 06:48 PM The thing is,if you have good reason to assume a story will never get a formal denial or a legal challenge you can get away with what you like. Of course Harry breaks with that, with legal challenges all over the place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Jan 23 - 06:22 PM You may be right, but the tabloids know how to tread the fine line between quarter-truths and getting sued, and they have armies of lawyers to ensure that the line is not crossed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Jan 23 - 05:48 PM The very term 'leaks' rather implies an unplanned accidental and unwanted process.. Yet it's meaning seems to have been shifted so that it means something completely different and planned. God know which is closer to the truth, and how consistently. I think it is more plausible to assume the British tabloids operate largely on the basis of speculation, gossip and just making things up rather than of carefully checked journalistic research. Harry's accusations seem to be based on an assumption that the gutter press is a lot more professional than is often the case, and that when they print something they are passing on stories that they have been given. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Jan 23 - 11:58 AM From the Washington Post: Opinion: Harry’s truth may be too true to protect against regret The piece pivots here: You know how it goes. You discover insights that you want to share with your family, but they’ve not done the necessary work. You might as well try to explain God to an atheist or love to a misanthrope. Despite his best efforts, Harry couldn’t penetrate his family’s proud armor nor displace the family motto: Never complain, never explain. Ultimately, he ran away and began rewriting the fairy tale of his own life. He is talking - and the Royal Family isn't, they're leaking to the press. What they've always done. They'd be leaking even if he wasn't talking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 13 Jan 23 - 10:31 AM Herself: I think he [the ginger whinger] has realised he's on the back of the tiger, and he daren't let go of the tail. Me: Does that mean he's riding it backwards? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Jan 23 - 09:13 AM Yep, he had a ghost writer. As for fiction, Nigel, the books sez that Harry got an XBox for his 13th birthday. Well, XBoxes weren't released until four years after that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Dave the Gnome Date: 13 Jan 23 - 07:58 AM Yes, Nigel, seconded :-) I may pinch that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Jan 23 - 07:21 AM Nice one, Nigel! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Donuel Date: 13 Jan 23 - 06:36 AM Who hasn't had a squabble? Media makes $ calling it a; debacle fiasco failure catastrophe despicable behavior disaster disintegration mess wreck ruin downfall collapse defeat rout overthrow conquest trouncing foul-up screwup fight battle clash conflict encounter confrontation engagement fray contest combat tussle scrimmage fracas affray melee rencounter outrageous wrongdoing outrageous behavior immoral behavior unethical behavior discreditable behavior impropriety misconduct wrongdoing offense racist transgression crime sin skeleton in the castle skeleton in the closet business money chasing affair royal-gate and brouhaha so what, it ain't climate change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Nigel Parsons Date: 13 Jan 23 - 06:27 AM 'Spare' is being touted as the fastest selling non-fiction book. I would query the classification as 'non-fiction'! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Jan 23 - 05:56 AM The court of public opinion doesn't gain extra legitimacy just because you call it a court, unfortunately. The court of public opinion resulted in the elections of Thatcher, Reagan, Dubya, Trump and Boris, lest we forget, and, for much of the thirties, supported Hitler. Unlike what a real court does, or should do, good judgement is often clouded by loyalty, tribalism, partial information and prejudice (into which mix we could throw racism and misogyny, etc.). I am terribly uninterested in the doings of the royals (though I'd be terribly interested in moves to get rid of them), though one can't ignore the baleful effect they have, by dint of their place at the top of the pyramid, on class and privilege. But our current discussion of paparazzi piqued me to investigate the death of Diana a bit further, and the fact of the matter (and you can look up the facts, both in the French and English reports we've mentioned) is that blaming the paparazzi (however vicious we think they are, and I definitely go along with that) in any way for the crash is unjustified. As for the criticism of the press, well I hate the Mail and Express and Sun as much as the next sane person, but, for me, it's a laugh-out-loud moment for me when I hear of Harry's whingeing about how they've damaged him and Meghan. The royals, along with the majority of other celebrities, revel in being in the public eye, and the mass media is (are?) their main vehicle for keeping them there, and they use it shamelessly. When things turn on them, they can hardly complain unless the depredations of the tabloids step over to the wrong side of what's actually legal. As for those paparazzi on motor bikes, they were worms, bumholes and parasites. But find the facts surrounding that incident and the only sensible conclusion is that Diana and co were killed by a very drunk driver who was breaking the rules of the road. I'm very lucky in that I hate both the royals and the paparazzi in equal measure (roughly). That means I have a better chance of being dispassionate about all this than many a royals' aficionado. As the founder of the Guardian, CP Scott, said, comment is free but facts are sacred... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Donuel Date: 13 Jan 23 - 05:39 AM I daresay ALL authors chase money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Senoufou Date: 13 Jan 23 - 02:15 AM '...the ginger whinger' hahahaha, love that Dave! Some of the intimate details about family life revealed by the ginger whinger are the sort of things all brothers do. William asking Harry to 'pull his finger' then farting. Or waking him up by farting in his face. Many young boys pull these sort of pranks on their brothers/friends. But is it appropriate for anyone in a privileged position to speak about these in public life when fully grown-up? There is a huge discrepancy between 'wanting to retreat from public life and keep away from the Press' and publishing a book telling all, then sending tweets or whatever about such things. Hypocrisy, and in my view simply money-chasing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Dave the Gnome Date: 12 Jan 23 - 11:55 PM Of course the paparazzi are awful Stilly and it is not just the UK. Diana's death was in France and the very term is Italian. What I do find amazing is that the ginger whinger is cynically making a fortune by using the very press that he tells us he is trying to avoid! If he wants the quiet life, why go so public with his gripes and moans. I am far from a royalist and will be happy if his story knocks them off the pedestal that some see them on. But his hypocrisy is manifest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Stilly River Sage Date: 12 Jan 23 - 10:46 PM Thanks, Bill D. The court of public opinion sees a connection between being hounded by the paparazzi and both the death of Diana and the departure of Harry and Meghan. I started reading Spare and one of my first thoughts was that they had found a good storyteller/ghost-writer to work with him on the story. I don't expect he's the writer, but he told the writer the stories. (She is a writer, but not to this extent). People can defend their opinions by saying that the courts didn't find wrongdoing as far as the press; if this had happened only once, perhaps. But there are decades worth of examples of the press in the UK behaving badly (and I'm reminded of the fictional account in Notting Hill when Anna tells William how awful the British press are at picking up something and trashing her reputation.) Art imitates life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Donuel Date: 12 Jan 23 - 05:42 PM I have no opinion on him but I am on the sympathetic side. An emotionally distant father is not unique. A Queen grandma is unique. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jan 23 - 05:31 PM "The speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles..." Well the French enquiry (held shortly after the accident and ten years before the UK inquest, by the way) found that the paparazzi motor bikes were left well behind by the sudden acceleration of the Mercedes before it entered the tunnel, and that there was the strong probability that none of them were even in sight of the car as it crashed. It's hard to see how they could have had much to do with the actual crash. Just me searching for a bit of neutrality here... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: The Sandman Date: 12 Jan 23 - 03:55 PM its not over till the fat man has fulminated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Dave the Gnome Date: 12 Jan 23 - 01:59 PM Dick. An inquest is not a court of law. The coroner is not there to give an innocent or guilty verdict but did conclude with an unlawful killing verdict. This could result in a criminal prosecution but British courts do not have the jurisdiction to try events in France and the coroner was not able to compel French paparazzi photographers to appear before the inquest. An earlier French investigation of the crash cleared the paparazzi photographers of responsibilty for the deaths. From the report in the Guardian - The jury forewoman told the coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker that the deaths had been caused by "grossly negligent driving". She added from a prepared text: "The crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of the driving of the Mercedes, the speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol, and there are nine of us who agree on those conclusions. In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or contributed to by the fact that the deceased [were] not wearing seatbelt(s), the fact that the Mercedes struck the pillar in the Alma Tunnel rather than colliding with something else, and we are unanimous on that, sir." I must also point out that the driver was no mere chauffeur but the acting head of security at the Hotel, owned by Dodi Fayad's father. It was in Fayed's interets to try and move the blame for his son's death away from his own employee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Jan 23 - 01:58 PM Thomas Macauley said it well back in Queen Victoria's time: "We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality." John Crace's Digested Read of Prince Harry's self-obsessed ghosted ramblings is well worth leaving a look at. Cruel but accurate.. Cuts to the quick. Stephen Hawking's record as the most bought and least read publishing phenomenon is at risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Bill D Date: 12 Jan 23 - 01:47 PM Papparazi are everywhere when the Royals are about. Everyone knows they are 'almost' impossible to avoid. It's an albatross around the royal neck. Driving recklessly to avoid them at any time is foolish, and drinking too much before driving is also foolish. I suppose Paul had drunk too much to analyze his own abilities, and I will always wonder why no one else who was near had realized he should not drive. The papparazi were a factor only in that they are always a factor. Too bad we can't know what was said in the car as they sped along. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: The Sandman Date: 12 Jan 23 - 01:29 PM yes, but why were they not wearing seat belts and why if the driver was intoxicated, did they not change drivers, why,, because they were trying to get away from paparazzi,it is not just legalities that the jury was considering but casue and effects the jury came to their conclusions, presumably taking all this in to consideration. thank god you are not a judge |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Dave the Gnome Date: 12 Jan 23 - 01:13 PM Yes Dick. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions. The driver drove the car at high speeds while he was pissed. The only reason he was not prosecuted is because he was dead. There was nothing for the paparazzi to be prosecuted for. Had the driver survived he would have been convicted of a criminal offence whether the paparazzi had been involved or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: The Sandman Date: 12 Jan 23 - 11:56 AM i did not claim that , and apologies if my punctuation made it look like that my reference to above the law, was people who do not wear seat belts, Diana and some of the the other car passengers, paparazzi did not break the law, but their actions and their presence following diana and co, influenced decisions that were subsequently made by diana and co for example if paparazzi had not been there, would the car passengers been in such a hurry to leave?,might they have noticed the car drivers intoxication and waited for another chauffeur etc. this is imo why the jury came to their decision, do you understand what i am saying? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jan 23 - 10:57 AM To be clear, the paparazzi (which I've been misspelling until now!) were not charged with any motoring offence, as there was no appropriate offence to charge them with, so your claim that they were "above the law" doesn't really stand up. Their activities that night may have been thoroughly despicable but were not held to be against the law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: The Sandman Date: 12 Jan 23 - 10:23 AM my point Gnome is that everyone has to take responsibilty for their actions that includes Gnomes[ who steal] Diana, Papparazi, People that think they are above the law and do not wear seat belts and intoxicated drivers they are all at fault[ in this situation] to some extent. that is what the jury decided too if you go in to Morrisons and break the law, it is your fault , that is why we have juries who are not influenced by knowing the person concerned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Dave the Gnome Date: 12 Jan 23 - 09:37 AM I'm going to use that as my defence when I go before the beak "If Morrisons had not been there the situation might have been different, I might have never gone into the store and lifted the Scotch etc" :-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jan 23 - 08:39 AM John Crace's Digested Read in today's Guardian is worth reading if you have a few Spare minutes (see what I did there?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jan 23 - 08:34 AM Good for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: The Sandman Date: 12 Jan 23 - 08:31 AM if you do not understand the jurys decision, that is your own fault, if you cannot see that if the paprazi had not been there the situation might have been different,the driver might have been driving more slowly etc you still seem to be ignoring the fact that they were not wearing seat belts[ a common failing with the royal family], if you choose not to wear a seat belt you are contributing to the possibilities of an accident being fatal. if the driver was obviously pissed, you either get another driver, or wear a seat belt , or stand outside and refuse to get in the car but if you are being pursued by papparazi, the situation is different,a Diana and co might take a risk to get away from the paparazi, do you not understand that?. perhaps the driver was not obviously pissed,it seems to me that Diana had to take some responsibilty for her actions, and the papparazi too and the driver |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jan 23 - 07:11 AM Beware of being manipulated by the media when trying to come to conclusions as to who did or said what to whom and beware of partial or one-sided trickles of information. All I know is the royal family have history in dealing badly with people in their circles they don't like, there have been several reported incidents of racist remarks made by people in royal circles (as to the colour of prospective babies, going slitty-eyed and "no, where are you really from", etc.) and there have been fast-and-loose dealings (to put it euphemistically) in many of their personal relationships. Not to speak of Andrew, of course. Had they been a run-of-the-mill extended family just down your street, you'd definitely have been thinking of them as a dysfunctional family and the gossip-mongers would be having a field day. So Meghan gets it in the neck for upsetting the applecart or rocking the boat. Well I am not privy to the intimate details of all these goings-on and I've never met Harry and Meghan, but I do think I'm picking up little whiffs of misogyny and racism in what's reported or commented about Meghan. She's just one young lady who got herself tangled up in a big bunch of hard-bitten and ruthless operators. "The firm", right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Stanron Date: 12 Jan 23 - 06:06 AM As for the differing points of view towards the Suffolks on opposing sides of the Atlantic, one should not be surprised. From the American point of view, He meets an American celebrity and marries her and they go and live in California and make lots of money. What's not to like? As for the UK, he marries an American actress and they both leave the UK to live over there. And then they make loads of money from saying how bad it was in the UK. what's not to hate. As for the race issue, I remember seeing Megan in Suites, which had aired on Freeview TV some years earlier. It had never occurred to me that she was black, or had black heritage. It was the shaking the boat and rejection of the UK that I disliked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Jan 23 - 05:52 AM From wiki: "Some media claimed that the erratic behaviour of the paparazzi chasing the car, as reported by the BBC, had contributed to the crash. In 1999, a French investigation found that Paul lost control of the vehicle at high speed while intoxicated by alcohol and under the effects of prescription drugs, and concluded that he was solely responsible for the crash. He was the deputy head of security at the Hôtel Ritz Paris and had earlier goaded paparazzi waiting for Diana and Fayed outside the hotel. Anti-depressants and traces of an anti-psychotic in his blood might have worsened Paul's inebriation. In 2008, the jury at the British inquest Operation Paget returned a verdict of unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by Paul and the following paparazzi vehicles." The French investigation took 18 months and concluded that the driver of the car was solely responsible for the crash. At the time of the crash, the paparazzi motor bikes were a considerable distance behind the car and were moving more slowly than it. No paparazzi were charged with any offence. Henri Paul was three and a half times over the French drink-drive limit, had also taken drugs that could have made things worse and was driving at over twice the tunnel's speed limit. No-one in the car was wearing a seat belt. These are the facts, and I don't understand the implication by the British inquest jury that the paparazzi were somehow jointly to blame for the accident. In my mind, had Henri Paul been sober he might just have exercised better judgement and kept going at a reasonable speed and ignored the motor bikes, which, after all, had no ability to stop or obstruct him in that tunnel. I hate paparazzi and I understand that several of them behaved disgracefully when they eventually arrived at the scene. However, justice is not well served by our allowing the justifiable detestation of such people to cloud our judgement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: The Sandman Date: 12 Jan 23 - 05:43 AM no. i was thinking of an irish style president Salary Michael D. Higgins. President - Ireland. Born: 1941 Ireland. Annual: €249,014.00; Monthly: €20,751.17; Weekly: €4,788.73; Daily: €957.75. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Backwoodsman Date: 12 Jan 23 - 05:25 AM I’d very happily go with a President based on the Irish model - a figurehead for state occasions, with no political role. But a US-style President? Fuggeddit! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: The Sandman Date: 12 Jan 23 - 04:34 AM I agree with you, a President would be a much cheaper option |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Backwoodsman Date: 12 Jan 23 - 03:08 AM I have not the slightest interest in the antics of a dysfunctional family of over-privileged, scrounging misfits. I agree with Sen, it’s time this anachronism was dismantled and for us to be free of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: The Sandman Date: 12 Jan 23 - 03:02 AM thanks, but none of that alters the fact that the jury found 3 causes of death. The causes of death were three fold, furthermore Diana could have found another chauffeur, under the circumstances of escaping paparazzi, she decided to either not use another driver or not notice the driver was intoxicated. to say the cause of her death was because the driver was pissed is an over simplification |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Senoufou Date: 12 Jan 23 - 02:57 AM I have every respect for the Sussex's 'point of view', and I'm sure both have undergone some very difficult times. Losing ones mother at the age of twelve and having to walk behind her coffin in a cortege under full scrutiny by the press, for example, must have taken its toll on Harry's mental health. I also do not doubt that there were some dubious, racist misgivings about Meghan's heritage by certain members of the Royal Family. However, I do feel there has been too much coverage over Harry's book and interviews etc. - page after page in the newspapers and online. And I'm sure money is at the root of it. I actually feel that the Monarchy has had its day and should be dismantled as an anachronism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Dave the Gnome Date: 12 Jan 23 - 02:53 AM Yes we do, Dick. From BBC news - "The Paris public prosecutors' office said in a statement: "The blood analysis revealed that the alcohol level was illegal." Analysis indicated that Mr Paul had 175 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, compared with the legal limit of 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres. The level equates to his having drunk more than a bottle of wine. Under French law, blood-alcohol levels of between 50 and 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres are regarded as a misdemeanour; levels over 80 are a crime. Levels vary throughout Europe. In the UK, there is a single limit of 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: The Sandman Date: 12 Jan 23 - 02:21 AM no Steve they do not , the facts were a jury in 2008 returned a verdict of "unlawful killing" by driver Henri Paul and the paparazzi pursuing the car.[4] The jury's verdict also stated: "In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or contributed to by the fact that the deceased were not wearing a seat belt and by the fact that the Mercedes struck the pillar in the Alma Tunnel rather than colliding with something else".[5] Steve, the jury gave 3 causes, furthermore we do not know how drunk or intoxicated the driver was |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Charmion Date: 11 Jan 23 - 10:33 PM The cause of Princess Diana’s death is less important than Harry’s apparent inability to find something constructive to do with his life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Jan 23 - 08:39 PM I'm not at all clear how I was being rude, Maggie. The fact is, whether you like it or not, a drunk driver crashed the car she was in. Dunno about you, but as a sober driver I would have made a very different decision as to how I would have handled the paparazzi in the rear view mirror. I mean, I'd love to blame the press for her death. The facts dictate otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Stilly River Sage Date: 11 Jan 23 - 08:17 PM No. And your rude rejoinder to get up the nose of anyone you disagree with is not appreciated. Logic is part of this, and while the courts probably couldn't act against the journalists, common sense says they are at the heart of that problem. It was, as the saying goes, a series of unfortunate events that put her in a drunk driver's car when fleeing the paparazzi. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Jan 23 - 07:13 PM Drunk driver, judgement compromised. He was the one who was responsible for the accident. Suck it up, eh? |
