Jump to content

Harry and Meghan. - This is NOT the Andrew Tate Thread.


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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." 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Gaston de Foix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...