Jump to content


Photo

Because The British Royal Family


  • Please log in to reply
261 replies to this topic

#161 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,306 posts

Posted 19 January 2020 - 0329 AM

Well look on the bright side, at least they can now get a job on a daytime soap about the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.....


  • 0

#162 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,956 posts

Posted 19 January 2020 - 0408 AM

I have to admit that at this point the frivolous "hard Megxit" thing looks rather apt - they split from the family to orientate more towards America, so they lose all the benefits and get to pay back their dues. I guess that makes Megan Harry's Trump. Good thing this didn't need an act of Parliament, or it would have taken three years. :D


  • 0

#163 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,566 posts

Posted 19 January 2020 - 0938 AM

I have to admit that at this point the frivolous "hard Megxit" thing looks rather apt - they split from the family to orientate more towards America, so they lose all the benefits and get to pay back their dues. I guess that makes Megan Harry's Trump. Good thing this didn't need an act of Parliament, or it would have taken three years. :D

and two general elections.


  • 0

#164 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,617 posts

Posted 19 January 2020 - 1035 AM

I have to admit that at this point the frivolous "hard Megxit" thing looks rather apt - they split from the family to orientate more towards America, so they lose all the benefits and get to pay back their dues. I guess that makes Megan Harry's Trump. Good thing this didn't need an act of Parliament, or it would have taken three years. :D

 

I am again very impressed with QEII, she is one tough lady. I'm sure she's heartbroken at Harry's turn but she dropped the hammer for the good of the monarchy and probably had to tell Charles not to be a nebbish in the negotiations. If Mr. Markle wants to be done with the Royal Family then the queen is going to make sure that's what he gets, good and hard. Don't fuck with Elizabeth even if you're family. Good for her.


  • 0

#165 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,306 posts

Posted 19 January 2020 - 1102 AM

Funnily enough, I suspect Charles was probably not in the mood to make things easy. For one thing he has been leading the charge for a slimmed down monarchy (largely on cost grounds) and this if anything is advantageous to him by reducing expenditure on the others.

 

Yeah, you have to remember, she was able to observe the aftermath of the Edward VIII abdication crisis. She knows how to make it work.


  • 0

#166 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,232 posts

Posted 19 January 2020 - 1154 AM

Leave it to Her Majesty to cut through 3 years of infighting in 2 days.

It is good to be the Queen.
  • 0

#167 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,956 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 0323 AM

Regarding what the press will tell you:

Opinion

There's a reason why the royals are demonised. But you won't read all about it

Alan Rusbridger


Who really knows what is going on with Harry and Meghan? But we can be sure the storytellers, the press, are hardly disinterested observers

Sun 19 Jan 2020 08.30 GMT

To understand the real story of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, it helps to think in three dimensions. On one level, we have a story about a couple who, for perfectly understandable reasons, want a different kind of life: a new start, a fresh role, less scrutiny, more peace of mind. All eminently reasonable and not very remarkable.

But there is, of course, the second level: they're inescapably royal. This is hardly the abdication: the constitutional ramifications of the sixth in line bailing out to a new life in Canada are not earth-shattering. But, whether you are a pope or a prince, there are undoubtedly complications in trying to assert a private identity that is decoupled from your apparent destiny or birthright.

The third level is the storytellers. Almost everything we think we know about this couple is filtered through journalists. It is unusually difficult to judge the reliability of most royal reporting because it is a world almost devoid of open or named sources. So, in order to believe what were being told, we have to take it on trust that there are currently legions of "aides", "palace insiders", "friend" and "senior courtiers" constantly WhatsApping their favourite reporters with the latest gossip. It has been known to happen. Maybe they are, maybe they arent. We just dont know.

But trust in this third dimension is further compromised by the fact that none of the major players filtering this story for our consumption is exactly a disinterested bystander. All three of the major newspaper groups most obsessed with Harry and Meghan are themselves being sued by the couple for assorted breaches of privacy and copyright. There is, to any reasonable eyes, a glaring conflict of interest that, for the most part, goes undeclared.

For some years now - largely unreported - two chancery court judges have been dealing with literally hundreds of cases of phone hacking against MGN Ltd and News Group, the owners, respectively, of the Daily Mirror and the Sun (as well as the defunct News of the World).

The two publishers are, between them, forking out eye-watering sums to avoid any cases going to trial in open court. Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the second part of the Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we can only surmise what is going on.

But there are clues. Mirror Group (now Reach) had by July 2018 set aside more than £70m to settle phone-hacking claims without risking any of them getting to court. The BBC reported last year that the Murdoch titles had paid out an astonishing £400m in damages and calculated that the total bill for the two companies could eventually reach £1bn.

Last October, Prince Harry added his own name to the list of people claiming they had been hacked by both the Sun and the Mirror.

To understand why this is, to put it mildly, a bombshell, you would have needed to be following the patient work of Mr Justice Mann (and before him, Mr Justice Vos) in the anonymous Rolls Building, home to the chancery court, just off Londons Strand.

Publicly available court documents detail the alleged involvement of Rupert Murdoch's son James and the reinstated CEO of News UK, Rebekah Brooks, in suppressing or concealing the true extent of wrongdoing within the Murdoch titles. The Sun's official position is to "not damit" any unlawful activity, while simultaneously shelling out enormous sums so that this position can never be tested.

Over at the Mirror Group, there is a similar shyness about allowing daylight into the activities of past executives. Former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, one of the most vehement critics of the royal couple, does not find time or space to let his readers or viewers know that his name crops up very many times in the generic phone-hacking litigation particulars of claims in front of Mann. Morgan may be entirely innocent, but if you spend your time pouring venom over a claimant in a case that might touch on your own conduct, you'd think there was at least an interest to declare - every single time you do it.

And then there is the further legal action by Meghan against Associated Newspapers claiming assorted breaches of copyright, privacy and data protection. The Mail on Sunday claims "huge and legitimate public interest" in publishing extracts from a private letter from Meghan to her father. We shall see, but meanwhile there's no harm in portraying her as a ruthless hypocrite and gold-digger. If Morgan's on hand with the vitriol, everyone's happy.

So, when reading about Harry and Meghan, it really does pay to keep your wits about you. There is a surface level to the story - not all of it untrue - and there are many anonymous sources of varying degrees of reliability to give colour and context. And, in the background, there are quite a lot of worried newspaper executives and former editors, who have absolutely zero interest in treating the couple kindly or even-handedly.

The metrics are irresistible: this couple sell newspapers and attract eyeballs by the billion. There is little hope that editors are going to dial down their coverage. But there is kindness; and there is fairness; and there is honesty. A little bit of each of those would help the rest of us understand better and trust more.



https://www.theguard...y-meghan-markle

Of course by the same mechanisms of source critique, one should keep in mind that a former Guardian editor-in-chief now holding the chair of the Reuters Institute for Journalism at Oxford, while probably not the greatest royal fan - and I remember the wad a Guardian commentary got its panties into over the final scene of the TV docu about Harry's Afghanistan deployment for evoking the supposedly jingoistic image of young men dashing to their aircraft during the Battle of Britain - is likely gonna have less love for the Murdoch press at any rate.

Edited by BansheeOne, 20 January 2020 - 0330 AM.

  • 0

#168 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,306 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 0329 AM

Leave it to Her Majesty to cut through 3 years of infighting in 2 days.

It is good to be the Queen.

Should have put her in charge of Brexit negotiations I guess....


  • 0

#169 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,306 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 0340 AM

Regarding what the press will tell you:
 

Opinion

There's a reason why the royals are demonised. But you won't read all about it

Alan Rusbridger


Who really knows what is going on with Harry and Meghan? But we can be sure the storytellers, the press, are hardly disinterested observers

Sun 19 Jan 2020 08.30 GMT

To understand the real story of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, it helps to think in three dimensions. On one level, we have a story about a couple who, for perfectly understandable reasons, want a different kind of life: a new start, a fresh role, less scrutiny, more peace of mind. All eminently reasonable and not very remarkable.

But there is, of course, the second level: they're inescapably royal. This is hardly the abdication: the constitutional ramifications of the sixth in line bailing out to a new life in Canada are not earth-shattering. But, whether you are a pope or a prince, there are undoubtedly complications in trying to assert a private identity that is decoupled from your apparent destiny or birthright.

The third level is the storytellers. Almost everything we think we know about this couple is filtered through journalists. It is unusually difficult to judge the reliability of most royal reporting because it is a world almost devoid of open or named sources. So, in order to believe what were being told, we have to take it on trust that there are currently legions of "aides", "palace insiders", "friend" and "senior courtiers" constantly WhatsApping their favourite reporters with the latest gossip. It has been known to happen. Maybe they are, maybe they arent. We just dont know.

But trust in this third dimension is further compromised by the fact that none of the major players filtering this story for our consumption is exactly a disinterested bystander. All three of the major newspaper groups most obsessed with Harry and Meghan are themselves being sued by the couple for assorted breaches of privacy and copyright. There is, to any reasonable eyes, a glaring conflict of interest that, for the most part, goes undeclared.

For some years now - largely unreported - two chancery court judges have been dealing with literally hundreds of cases of phone hacking against MGN Ltd and News Group, the owners, respectively, of the Daily Mirror and the Sun (as well as the defunct News of the World).

The two publishers are, between them, forking out eye-watering sums to avoid any cases going to trial in open court. Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the second part of the Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we can only surmise what is going on.

But there are clues. Mirror Group (now Reach) had by July 2018 set aside more than £70m to settle phone-hacking claims without risking any of them getting to court. The BBC reported last year that the Murdoch titles had paid out an astonishing £400m in damages and calculated that the total bill for the two companies could eventually reach £1bn.

Last October, Prince Harry added his own name to the list of people claiming they had been hacked by both the Sun and the Mirror.

To understand why this is, to put it mildly, a bombshell, you would have needed to be following the patient work of Mr Justice Mann (and before him, Mr Justice Vos) in the anonymous Rolls Building, home to the chancery court, just off Londons Strand.

Publicly available court documents detail the alleged involvement of Rupert Murdoch's son James and the reinstated CEO of News UK, Rebekah Brooks, in suppressing or concealing the true extent of wrongdoing within the Murdoch titles. The Sun's official position is to "not damit" any unlawful activity, while simultaneously shelling out enormous sums so that this position can never be tested.

Over at the Mirror Group, there is a similar shyness about allowing daylight into the activities of past executives. Former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan, one of the most vehement critics of the royal couple, does not find time or space to let his readers or viewers know that his name crops up very many times in the generic phone-hacking litigation particulars of claims in front of Mann. Morgan may be entirely innocent, but if you spend your time pouring venom over a claimant in a case that might touch on your own conduct, you'd think there was at least an interest to declare - every single time you do it.

And then there is the further legal action by Meghan against Associated Newspapers claiming assorted breaches of copyright, privacy and data protection. The Mail on Sunday claims "huge and legitimate public interest" in publishing extracts from a private letter from Meghan to her father. We shall see, but meanwhile there's no harm in portraying her as a ruthless hypocrite and gold-digger. If Morgan's on hand with the vitriol, everyone's happy.

So, when reading about Harry and Meghan, it really does pay to keep your wits about you. There is a surface level to the story - not all of it untrue - and there are many anonymous sources of varying degrees of reliability to give colour and context. And, in the background, there are quite a lot of worried newspaper executives and former editors, who have absolutely zero interest in treating the couple kindly or even-handedly.

The metrics are irresistible: this couple sell newspapers and attract eyeballs by the billion. There is little hope that editors are going to dial down their coverage. But there is kindness; and there is fairness; and there is honesty. A little bit of each of those would help the rest of us understand better and trust more.



https://www.theguard...y-meghan-markle

Of course by the same mechanisms of source critique, one should keep in mind that a former Guardian editor-in-chief now holding the chair of the Reuters Institute for Journalism at Oxford, while probably not the greatest royal fan - and I remember the wad a Guardian commentary got its panties into over the final scene of the TV docu about Harry's Afghanistan deployment for evoking the supposedly jingoistic image of young men dashing to their aircraft during the Battle of Britain - is likely gonna have less love for the Murdoch press at any rate.

 

Yes, this is all well understood over here. If you want to kick this anthill over further, you would do well to look at some of the testimony given from the Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry on Press ethics, the conclusions of which, no surprise, were all ignored by David Cameron, who happened to be friends with one Rebekah Brooks. Which im sure is a complete coincidence.

 

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/

I get the impression none of this made an impact abroad. if it was, nobody in the US would be celebrating a media magnate whose journo's hacked the phone of teenage murder victim Milly Dowler. Or maybe they would.

https://en.wikipedia...of_Milly_Dowler

 

Its the only reason why ive given Megan any kind of benefit of the doubt, there are certain parts of the press you absolutely do not trust even when they tell you the sky is blue.  Of course, just because they are lying bastards, doesnt mean the criticisms of her have no validity. I guess they will be proven or disproven by what they get up to in Canada.


  • 0

#170 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,232 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 0652 AM

It has not made an impact in the US for the most part, at least not from what I have seen or read.

On the other hand, Meghan's faults have not made much of an impact either, as the mainstream press has just not covered them.
  • 0

#171 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,171 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 0714 AM

Funnily enough, I suspect Charles was probably not in the mood to make things easy. For one thing he has been leading the charge for a slimmed down monarchy (largely on cost grounds) and this if anything is advantageous to him by reducing expenditure on the others.

 

Yeah, you have to remember, she was able to observe the aftermath of the Edward VIII abdication crisis. She knows how to make it work.

 

Wut? Her Majesty was 10 at the time, doubt she has a huge recollection of the crisis...


  • 0

#172 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,171 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 0717 AM

"the constitutional ramifications of the sixth in line bailing out to a new life in Canada are not earth-shattering." 

 

Small wonder, do you carry 5 spare wheels on your car? 


  • 0

#173 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,306 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 0738 AM

 

Funnily enough, I suspect Charles was probably not in the mood to make things easy. For one thing he has been leading the charge for a slimmed down monarchy (largely on cost grounds) and this if anything is advantageous to him by reducing expenditure on the others.

 

Yeah, you have to remember, she was able to observe the aftermath of the Edward VIII abdication crisis. She knows how to make it work.

 

Wut? Her Majesty was 10 at the time, doubt she has a huge recollection of the crisis...

 

I did say the aftermath. :) She was able to observe her father as King carrying the role, for which it was a great burden. He hadn't been raised to be the heir, he had a stutter, and I suspect, was shy. The Queen mother believed that Edward abdicating shortened the life of her husband, and I suspect she was completely right. It wore him out. She never had time for Edward for Wallis Simpson after that.

 

So for the Queen, duty probably has a stronger meaning than for other people in the Royal Family whom have been born to a lead role. She absolutely wasnt.

 

 

"the constitutional ramifications of the sixth in line bailing out to a new life in Canada are not earth-shattering." 

 

Small wonder, do you carry 5 spare wheels on your car? 

It is and it isnt. The Royal Family will putter on absolutely without concern these two have gone. Unfortunately, these two were very useful in spreading a wider message to the Commonwealth. its the first mixed race couple in history in the British Royal Family. The last visit they spent in Africa, the locals were going absolutely ballistic over it.

 

If Britain is hoping to player a wider role in the world post Brexit, it lost one of its best calling cards.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 20 January 2020 - 0739 AM.

  • 0

#174 Stargrunt6

Stargrunt6

    Empire Apologist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,052 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 1159 AM

I'm still trying to work out why I care.  I don't care much but it's like a sore tooth I can't leave it alone.  I regularly read the Daily Mail online (I know I know) and have always scrolled past the the section of stories related to the royals, but this one just keeps grabbing my attention.  I think it's the spectacle of a family whose rule has survived wars, plagues, financial meltdowns and natural disasters getting blown apart by Kardashian/Paltrow wannabe influencer.  


It could be genetic. AncestryDNA said I was like 3% Senegalese and I absolutely love music centered on rhythm.
  • 0

#175 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,878 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 1219 PM

 

I'm still trying to work out why I care.  I don't care much but it's like a sore tooth I can't leave it alone.  I regularly read the Daily Mail online (I know I know) and have always scrolled past the the section of stories related to the royals, but this one just keeps grabbing my attention.  I think it's the spectacle of a family whose rule has survived wars, plagues, financial meltdowns and natural disasters getting blown apart by Kardashian/Paltrow wannabe influencer.  


It could be genetic. AncestryDNA said I was like 3% Senegalese and I absolutely love music centered on rhythm.

 

 

maxresdefault.jpg


  • 0

#176 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,566 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 1224 PM

 

I'm still trying to work out why I care.  I don't care much but it's like a sore tooth I can't leave it alone.  I regularly read the Daily Mail online (I know I know) and have always scrolled past the the section of stories related to the royals, but this one just keeps grabbing my attention.  I think it's the spectacle of a family whose rule has survived wars, plagues, financial meltdowns and natural disasters getting blown apart by Kardashian/Paltrow wannabe influencer.  


It could be genetic. AncestryDNA said I was like 3% Senegalese and I absolutely love music centered on rhythm.

 

Can't be that, anyone who has seen me at spin class knows that I have less rhythm than Navon Johnson.


  • 0

#177 Stargrunt6

Stargrunt6

    Empire Apologist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,052 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 1233 PM

:D Well I was thinking you were more of the colonizer concerned about royal affairs.


LOL Ivanhoe, dude ask anyone here who has met me I'm about 50% of tank net's melanin content.
  • 0

#178 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,878 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 1324 PM

:D Well I was thinking you were more of the colonizer concerned about royal affairs.


LOL Ivanhoe, dude ask anyone here who has met me I'm about 50% of tank net's melanin content.

 

I know, thus irony.

 

Though some of us notional anglos have some rather complex family trees. One of my grandparents had some ? marks in the family tree; she hid her ancestry for decades. I'm going to assume she was ashamed of her Swedish side. :D

 

I used to work with a guy who was possibly the whitest American I've ever worked with. He made Icelanders look ethnic. Turns out his mom was half-black, half-Hispanic.


  • 0

#179 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,219 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 1445 PM


Funnily enough, I suspect Charles was probably not in the mood to make things easy. For one thing he has been leading the charge for a slimmed down monarchy (largely on cost grounds) and this if anything is advantageous to him by reducing expenditure on the others.
 
Yeah, you have to remember, she was able to observe the aftermath of the Edward VIII abdication crisis. She knows how to make it work.

 
Wut? Her Majesty was 10 at the time, doubt she has a huge recollection of the crisis...

Ten is old enough to be aware and recall what's happening in a sensitive family matter, and the aftermath lasted decades.
  • 0

#180 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 22 January 2020 - 0707 AM


Funnily enough, I suspect Charles was probably not in the mood to make things easy. For one thing he has been leading the charge for a slimmed down monarchy (largely on cost grounds) and this if anything is advantageous to him by reducing expenditure on the others.
 
Yeah, you have to remember, she was able to observe the aftermath of the Edward VIII abdication crisis. She knows how to make it work.

 
Wut? Her Majesty was 10 at the time, doubt she has a huge recollection of the crisis...
That she grew up with a father who had been thrust into the role, and which likely shortened his life may well have had a significant impact on her view of the time.
  • 0