Gaston de Foix Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said: Doesn't everyone already know that all the stories about the royal family come either from the family or the staff [or are made up by the reporters]? How else would you get any information on who said what about the tiaras, jubilee invites, unforms, or whatever? And that the vast majority of 'sources say' would be sanctioned by the palace/royals. Elsewise you're not going to keep your job long if you are leaking things on your own. Harry seems to think this is some kind of relevation, but it is obvious how it works. It's funny, everyone is focussing on the less important part of Harry's statement about the incestuous relationship between the royal family and the British tabloids. Look you can criticize Harry for everything under the sun if you like but you should accept: (1) but for the British pap's hounding of Diana she would probably be alive today (no paps, no high speed car chase, no horrendous accident). Yes, there were other causes for her death (drunk driver, no seatbelt). Doesn't excuse the pap's behavior or the consequences. (2) the treatment of Meg by the British press, particularly the Daily Mail, was disgraceful (see e.g., https://www.theguardian.com/global/2020/jan/18/meghan-gets-more-than-twice-as-many-negative-headlines-as-positive); (3) the Leveson report was essentially binned by Cameron for the most nakedly self-serving and political reasons and there is no effective press regulation in the UK; (4) the Daily Mail has openly continued its vendetta against Harry and Megan even as the litigations continue. Are Harry and Megan themselves media whores even as they bemoan the Royal family? For sure. But the behavior of the British tabloids is despicable. Crixus, Jace, Extat, dog-days and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dog-days Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 I remember more than a decade ago how Johann Hari (a journalist with the Independent now rightfully disgraced, but having a good day) wrote that the main reason the monarchy should be abolished was that it hugely fucks up the people caught up in it, starting on them as children and keeping the mincer going on their emotions for the rest of their lives. I mostly support the monarchy on the depressing principle that anything replacing them would almost certainly be worse, but Hari's argument is one that gives me pause. The Harry and Megan stuff has brought it back. Cas Stark and Gaston de Foix 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 (edited) Why would we even need to replace them? So we can have a purely ceremonial head of state? What do we need one of those for? Other than needlessly spunking bucketloads of taxpayer money down the drain... Edited January 10 by Spockydog BigFatCoward and Zorral 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 19 minutes ago, Spockydog said: Why would we even need to replace them? So we can have a purely ceremonial head of state? What do we need one of those for? Other than needlessly spunking bucketloads of taxpayer money down the drain... Same reason we can't replace religion and God(s). Because!!!!!!!!! What would we do without them? Spockydog, Deadlines? What Deadlines?, LongRider and 2 others 2 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Hmmm... Jace, Extat and Wade1865 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Double hmmm... Wade1865 and Jace, Extat 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wall Flower Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 20 minutes ago, Spockydog said: Double hmmm... Having read the actual quote from the book, I don't think that he was boasting or gloating about the Taliban 'kills'. Unsurprisingly, the press chose to sensationalise and somewhat misrepresent the passage from the book, not to mention actually platforming the views of the Taliban in the process. Speaking of the Taliban, my favourite quote from the Guardian's review of the book is where Harry says that "I didn't care for Rupert Murdoch's politics which were just to the right of the Taliban's." Deadlines? What Deadlines? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 59 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Same reason we can't replace religion and God(s). Because!!!!!!!!! What would we do without them? Come on Ty! Some of them are good people. Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 3 minutes ago, LongRider said: Come on Ty! Some of them are good people. Who? The Gods or their followers? LongRider 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Who? The Gods or their followers? Is that a trick question to my snarky answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: Same reason we can't replace religion and God(s). Because!!!!!!!!! What would we do without them? I will be your god. Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 10 minutes ago, LongRider said: Is that a trick question to my snarky answer? I mean it applies to both groups, does it not? 8 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: I will be your god. Then you just died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said: I will be your god. No, you won't, I don't believe in supernatural, and that includes gods, deities, devils and that sorta thing. Men telling me they are gods makes me laff though. Zorral 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 5 minutes ago, LongRider said: No, you won't, I don't believe in supernatural, and that includes gods, deities, devils and that sorta thing. Men telling me they are gods makes me laff though. I’m sorry it’s been decided Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) 2 hours ago, Spockydog said: Why would we even need to replace them? So we can have a purely ceremonial head of state? What do we need one of those for? Other than needlessly spunking bucketloads of taxpayer money down the drain... The logical step would be strip the monarchy of constitutional responsibilities. Those are virtually all ceremonial anyway, and the vast majority could be dispensed with entirely such as royal assent to legislation and weekly audiences with the PM. Taking away those responsibilities would mean the British monarchy would be akin to the status of Indian rajas after Independence: retaining enormous wealth, status and respect and continuing to reside in palaces and castles. Those who want to recognize them as King or Queen could continue to do so. We would just stop supporting them with taxpayer pounds. I suppose we could even continue to pretend they live in Buckingham Palace so tourists keep coming by the bucketload to see the changing of the guard. The PM can be head of state as well as head of government - it's not like they are excused from attending state dinners for the Chinese President. Edited January 10 by Gaston de Foix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) Double post sorry. Edited January 10 by Gaston de Foix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, Spockydog said: Double hmmm... So, full Radical honesty BBB Jacelyn talking here... The first one is fucking cringe But that second post looks pretty fucking cool ETA: Ain't that just life though? Edited January 10 by BBB Jacelyn Wade1865 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade1865 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Yep, used and abused. Should have read that one book by that one Italian. Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 22 minutes ago, Wade1865 said: Yep, used and abused. Should have read that one book by that one Italian. That, The Prince, ought'to've. Wade1865 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade1865 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 @BBB Jacelyn -- I’m being facetious, of course; but yep, chapter 23 would have been useful. Boggles the mind how someone with his resources, talents, and experiences failed to play The Game, even now. Alternatively, this online source could have also helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.acd2fc79c362673fd25c55ce6452b882.jpg)
Recommended Posts