UK politics: Veni Vidi Vaccinati

[Heartofice]

25 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

I mean, it's pretty obvious to anyone with eyes that Harry is no Windsor. Charles probably be like, 'To hell with this little ginger bastard.' 

 

I mean if you really want to talk about the royal control of the press, the idea that Harry’s lineage isn’t brought up every single time he speaks really is mind blowing. Obviously all gossip but there’s that bit in the Crown ( or was it real life) where Charles left Diana in hospital to play golf. He was probably very aware of how babies were made and what needs to happen.. and what probably didn’t happen!

[SeanF]

It does occur to me what fun it would be if House Targaryen were the current monarchs of the United Kingdom.  King Rhaegar would be looking on in despair.  Prince Viserys would be very much the Prince Andrew of the dynasty, unable to travel abroad now, for fear of prosecution.  Farrers would obtain a superinjunction preventing anyone reporting on the affair between Prince Jon and Aunt Daenerys, although tumblr and instagram would be full of pictures of him snorting lines of coke off her breasts in Annabels.  Princess Rhaenys would be flashing her goods at the paparazzi, and Prince Aegon would be in and out of rehab, struggling with his addiction to 'ludes.

Most of us really aren't being honest when we complain about the bad behaviour of royalty.  Actually, we love it.

[Maltaran]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

It does occur to me what fun it would be if House Targaryen were the current monarchs of the United Kingdom.  King Rhaegar would be looking on in despair.  Prince Viserys would be very much the Prince Andrew of the dynasty, unable to travel abroad now, for fear of prosecution.  Farrers would obtain a superinjunction preventing anyone reporting on the affair between Prince Jon and Aunt Daenerys, although tumblr and instagram would be full of pictures of him snorting lines of coke off her breasts in Annabels.  Princess Rhaenys would be flashing her goods at the paparazzi, and Prince Aegon would be in and out of rehab, struggling with his addiction to 'ludes.

Most of us really aren't being honest when we complain about the bad behaviour of royalty.  Actually, we love it.

The complaints are because of the public money they get and the position they hold. If they were just another set of Kardashians I wouldn’t care what they got up to.

[Denvek]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

I mean, it's pretty obvious to anyone with eyes that Harry is no Windsor. Charles probably be like, 'To hell with this little ginger bastard.' 

 

I know it's fun to talk about James Hewitt, but it's really just that Harry takes after his mother's side - Diana's brother was also very ginger.

[Derfel Cadarn]

9 minutes ago, Denvek said:

I know it's fun to talk about James Hewitt, but it's really just that Harry takes after his mother's side - Diana's brother was also very ginger.

Harry also looks very like a younger Philip

[DMC]

9 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

Except it's just the 1% fighting each other. That doesn't change anything for the common people, who are still abused, exploited and condemned to poverty by greedy rich entitled assholes. Why should they defend any of them, why should they even care? 

I'm not sure why you're asking why should "they" care.  Widespread fascination with the royals - especially royal drama - simply is, including here in the states.  Not to mention the general fascination with "celebrities" - at least these Kardashians have actual titles and castles!  And this, of course, ranges across the political spectrum.  Add in specific factors that interest in the royals is especially ripe right now considering the popularity of The Crown, the obvious similarities/correlations to the Diana drama which captivated the entire world, and the fact covid has led to a dearth in entertainment content in general over the past year...The amount of attention it's getting - left, center, and right - makes perfect sense.

[Mladen]

4 hours ago, Spockydog said:

I mean, it's pretty obvious to anyone with eyes that Harry is no Windsor. Charles probably be like, 'To hell with this little ginger bastard.' 

He also looks very much like Prince Phillip in his early days... 

 

[Impmk2]

The fuck is commonwealth day? And I say that as a near 40 year old who's lived in Australia and the UK my entire life paying pretty close attention to the news. Certainly not a big thing, at least nowhere I've been. The royal family does enough useless public events you're always going to conflict with something. The timing thing sounds like a complete storm in a teacup to me.

Edit: Oh wikipedia tells me it's a holiday in Gibraltar. And in the Bahamas school kids raise a flag. Very widely celebrated then.

[DanteGabriel]

38 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

The fuck is commonwealth day? And I say that as a near 40 year old who's lived in Australia and the UK my entire life paying pretty close attention to the news. Certainly not a big thing, at least nowhere I've been. The royal family does enough useless public events you're always going to conflict with something. The timing thing sounds like a complete storm in a teacup to me.

Edit: Oh wikipedia tells me it's a holiday in Gibraltar. And in the Bahamas school kids raise a flag. Very widely celebrated then.

Don't you get the day off? I've got Australian and British clients and they were off earlier this week for it.

ETA: Ah, I was mistaken, the Australians had another public holiday that coincides with it.

[BigFatCoward]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/green-party-peer-6pm-curfew-men-disappearance-of-sarah-everard-b923587.html%3famp

I'm very rarely out after 6 anyway, but I'd like the option. 

[DaveSumm]

4 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/green-party-peer-6pm-curfew-men-disappearance-of-sarah-everard-b923587.html%3famp

I'm very rarely out after 6 anyway, but I'd like the option. 

So ... she’s calling for all men ... forever ... to not be allowed out after 6? I have that right?

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/green-party-peer-6pm-curfew-men-disappearance-of-sarah-everard-b923587.html%3famp

I'm very rarely out after 6 anyway, but I'd like the option. 

Nobody is out after 6pm.. or before 6pm these days.

[Raja]

2 hours ago, Leap said:

Also just now questioning whether the holiday most of our colleagues based in India were taking this week is legit or not...

Nah, the holiday has nothing to do with 'commonwealth day'. It's Shivaratri this time of year.

I hope we don't celebrate commonwealth day in India; as an Indian, the idea of doing that is nauseating.

[The Anti-Targ]

11 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I feel we have been over the rest of the points in your post enough and neither of us is going to change the others mind clearly. 

However to the above, from an HR point of view you really shouldn't be naming people who make allegations against someone so much more powerful than them. Especially since in this case the individuals in question would have the worlds press all over them for weeks. Already stressed people shouldnt be subjected to that, on that we should agree?  

Harry and Megham havent named the racist or the person who allegedly told her to suck it up, why should the palace name the victims?

Public accusations intended to assassinate someone's character really should have names attached to them. After all, it is a cornerstone of justice that an accused person can confront their accuser. If you are handling it in house under an HR protocol then yes, confidentiality is important. But this is clearly not following an HR protocol. The Palace should not out anyone, if there was an HR process being followed at the time, it's not their place. But by the same token the Palace should not be making publicly unprovable claims. The palace could say to the individuals that they will back them up if they wish to come forward and have their me too moment. If the individuals concerned, don't feel like it's worth coming forward, then perhaps they were happy with the resolution, or it was not nearly as big of a deal as some ill defined statement is trying to make out. The thing is we don't have enough objective information to be able to judge how severe any of Markle's behaviour has been, but we are being helped to assume that it is equally egregious as the claims she is making so as to both sides this whole thing.

[Spockydog]

According to the leaker, nobody from the palace machinery spoke to Harry or Meghan about these allegations. So, either it's a completely fabricated crock of corgi shit, or this type of behaviour is so commonplace in the royal households it didn't even warrant the most cursory of investigations.

  

[DMC]

It's a fairly obvious false equivalence to compare Harry/Meghan not naming the "racist" or who told her not to seek help with the unnamed sources accusing Meghan of bullying.  In the former, the couple are going out of their way not to accuse anyone specifically, whereas in the latter anonymous sources are directly accusing Meghan.

[Cas Stark]

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's a fairly obvious false equivalence to compare Harry/Meghan not naming the "racist" or who told her not to seek help with the unnamed sources accusing Meghan of bullying.  In the former, the couple are going out of their way not to accuse anyone specifically, whereas in the latter anonymous sources are directly accusing Meghan.

Thereby sparking an international 'who was it' game, with only his grandparents exonerated as potential suspects.  A cynical person might conclude that the way this accusation was made public was calculated to maximize damage to the family.    

We're also talking about two different things.  One is conversation(s) among family members, the others are workplace issues, both whether or not Harry and Meghan abused their staff and whether a formal cry for mental health assistance was ignored.   

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

A cynical person might conclude that the way this accusation was made public was calculated to maximize damage to the family.

That person would be wrong.  Specifying who it was - unless it was, like, one of his uncles/aunt/cousins or something - would definitely cause more damage to the family.

12 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

We're also talking about two different things.  One is conversation(s) among family members, the others are workplace issues

Right, which is why it's a false equivalence.  Even the two "workplace" issues are false equivalences because in one the accuser is specified but not the accused and the other is vice versa.

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

That person would be wrong.  Specifying who it was - unless it was, like, one of his uncles/aunt/cousins or something - would definitely cause more damage to the family.

 

But we don't have any idea what was said.  We don't even know when it was said.  She says while she was pregnant he said at the start of their relationship.  We don't know if it was a bad joke, if it was some old fashioned concern about an interracial marriage, or something totally OTT like , gee, I hope the children won't be too black.  We don't know if it was one conversation or more than one.  We don't know if this person was ever confronted that their statement(s) were hurtful/racist.  For two people whose brand is about kindness and compassion, this is an odd way to go about family healing. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

But we don't have any idea what was said.  We don't even know when it was said.  She says while she was pregnant he said at the start of their relationship.  We don't know if it was a bad joke, if it was some old fashioned concern about an interracial marriage, or something totally OTT like , gee, I hope the children won't be too black.  We don't know if it was one conversation or more than one.  We don't know if this person was ever confronted that their statement(s) were hurtful/racist.

None of this has anything to do with your original point - which was simply how much damage specifying the person would do vs. not.  Further, it's a huge ass assumption to think them going into further detail on all of what you just discussed would cause less damage.  Distinct possibility it'd cause much more.