The Royals
Comments
-
The reasons for GB's declaration of war on Germany are well understood, and it wasn't specifically "because they were Nazis", obviously. But the country was under the rule of an expansionist fascist regime, which put it on a path to war in the first place.Pross said:Isn't SC's point merely that to the British people at the time the fact that Germany was run by the National Socialists was irrelevant. To the man in the street we were simply at war with Germany (again) and the issue was that they were empire building. The fact that they were facists really didn't matter to Britain, that was an internal matter for the Germans. It is only over time that we were fighting the Nazis became the reasoning for it being a "just" war. No-one really knew at the time about the Holocaust (and as unpopular as it will be to say it I suspect a lot of Brits would have shrugged their shoulders even if they had). If the Germans hadn't built up their military and started invading other countries we would probably have just left them be despite their internal politics.
There is an abundance of stock newsreel footage, print media and first hand accounts from the time which refer to axis powers specifically as 'Nazis' - as opposed to 'Germans' - so none of this should come as a shock. The point is that the Nazis didn't just become a convenient diversion somehow in the 1970s. I've no idea where that notion came from.
0 -
To LA, that reknowned rural quiet spot in the US countryside.rick_chasey said:
It's not about stepping out of the limelight, is it?kingstonian said:What I can’t quite understand about all this furore is how H & M wanted to step out of the limelight and move their life to the US and then they decide to step right back into the spotlight with this interview. Seems an odd approach if you really do want to get your life back.
It's leaving Britain and its press (who Harry feels killed his mother and have given the love of his life a very rough ride - to the point where she successfully sued them). In the meantime, they need to earn a living, so why not get the US on their side?
It's not like Harry knows any different than being in the public eye.0 -
Why does it need to be a quiet spot?shirley_basso said:
To LA, that reknowned rural quiet spot in the US countryside.rick_chasey said:
It's not about stepping out of the limelight, is it?kingstonian said:What I can’t quite understand about all this furore is how H & M wanted to step out of the limelight and move their life to the US and then they decide to step right back into the spotlight with this interview. Seems an odd approach if you really do want to get your life back.
It's leaving Britain and its press (who Harry feels killed his mother and have given the love of his life a very rough ride - to the point where she successfully sued them). In the meantime, they need to earn a living, so why not get the US on their side?
It's not like Harry knows any different than being in the public eye.
TBh until Andrew either helps the investigation like he promised he would or they take his titles away the Royals cannot take the moral high ground on anything.
People don’t like Meghan spilling the dirt as she’s not born into the family but honestly that’s well within her right.2 -
I think it's more to do with her rocking the boat. She seemed quite popular with fans of royalty when it appeared she might be happy to come in and play the perfect royal wife.Ben6899 said:surrey_commuter said:
I have no idea what most people's issue is with Meghan. I would also suggest that the only ones with an opinion strong enough to be an issue are the self selecting group who are "fans" of the royal family.Ben6899 said:Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.
I imagine their issues are fairly split between a series of nots;
not good enough
not English enough
not white enough
It's all three, IMO and #1 derives from #2 and #3. Take a Royals fan who's invested enough to develop a real dislike for any particular member of the family - blood or extended - and you have someone for whom nationality and race could be an issue.
Nonces aside - I'd hope all Royals fans to take issue with Andrew.
Of course the tabloids would come out with the odd story - like the one with her being a bully - Diana, Charles, Camilla, Fergie etc have all had negative press at times that's just our media for you.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Well if she wants privacy and freedom from intrusion, I don't think the global epicentre for paparazzi is the sensible choice.
Harry was making a pretty respectible name for himself with all his post-forces charity work - being in the press for all the 'right' reasons, and now Meghan seems to be undoing it, one bit at a time. As someone said earlier - she does appear to be quite selfish and attention seeking.
That said - the press are being pretty bloody harsh as they tear her to pieces. Even Harry avoids the flack - he just gets called James Hewitts son (clearly untrue) or a wet fish and a walkover (seemingly true).
If Meghan didn't know what she was getting into, then that is Harry's fault for not telling her / making it clear, and her own blind stupidity.0 -
So a question.
Has anyone's opinion on the Royals been changed by recent events? Has anyone taken the side of H&M who didn't dislike the Royals previously, or vice versa?
Thought not.0 -
They don't want out of the limelight. They want to make money as celebrities on their terms and control the media narrative as they go. Unfortunately they fail to understand the likelihood of this panning out. Call it optimism bias if you will.kingstonian said:What I can’t quite understand about all this furore is how H & M wanted to step out of the limelight and move their life to the US and then they decide to step right back into the spotlight with this interview. Seems an odd approach if you really do want to get your life back.
0 -
The Americans are the audience, not the Brits.john80 said:
They don't want out of the limelight. They want to make money as celebrities on their terms and control the media narrative as they go. Unfortunately they fail to understand the likelihood of this panning out. Call it optimism bias if you will.kingstonian said:What I can’t quite understand about all this furore is how H & M wanted to step out of the limelight and move their life to the US and then they decide to step right back into the spotlight with this interview. Seems an odd approach if you really do want to get your life back.
0 -
Yes, this is what people seem to be missing. They aren't in the USA to appeal to British fans of the royal family.rick_chasey said:
The Americans are the audience, not the Brits.john80 said:
They don't want out of the limelight. They want to make money as celebrities on their terms and control the media narrative as they go. Unfortunately they fail to understand the likelihood of this panning out. Call it optimism bias if you will.kingstonian said:What I can’t quite understand about all this furore is how H & M wanted to step out of the limelight and move their life to the US and then they decide to step right back into the spotlight with this interview. Seems an odd approach if you really do want to get your life back.
If the British media turn against them like they seem to be, this is not a problem.0 -
0
-
Meh. I the UK she's married to a high profile royal. In LA she's an ex supporting actress in a not particularly popular TV show.shirley_basso said:Well if she wants privacy and freedom from intrusion, I don't think the global epicentre for paparazzi is the sensible choice.
Harry was making a pretty respectible name for himself with all his post-forces charity work - being in the press for all the 'right' reasons, and now Meghan seems to be undoing it, one bit at a time. As someone said earlier - she does appear to be quite selfish and attention seeking.
That said - the press are being pretty bloody harsh as they tear her to pieces. Even Harry avoids the flack - he just gets called James Hewitts son (clearly untrue) or a wet fish and a walkover (seemingly true).
If Meghan didn't know what she was getting into, then that is Harry's fault for not telling her / making it clear, and her own blind stupidity.
Plus the weather is a hell of a lot better.0 -
Jezyboy said:
Meh. I the UK she's married to a high profile royal. In LA she's an ex supporting actress in a not particularly popular TV show.
Plus the weather is a hell of a lot better.
They don't have weather, tbf.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
If she's the one who said "this is fucking crazy, why do you all put up with it?", fair play to her.
It's not like Harry's ever going to be king.1 -
Im a fan of the royal family but non of those issues are mine. You're perpetuating your loser, chip on shoulder mentality.surrey_commuter said:
I have no idea what most people's issue is with Meghan. I would also suggest that the only ones with an opinion strong enough to be an issue are the self selecting group who are "fans" of the royal family.Ben6899 said:Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.
I imagine their issues are fairly split between a series of nots;
not good enough
not English enough
not white enough
and in so doing demonstrating your own propensity for discriminatory thought. You racist0 -
david37 said:
Im a fan of the royal family but non of those issues are mine. You're perpetuating your loser, chip on shoulder mentality.surrey_commuter said:
I have no idea what most people's issue is with Meghan. I would also suggest that the only ones with an opinion strong enough to be an issue are the self selecting group who are "fans" of the royal family.Ben6899 said:Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.
I imagine their issues are fairly split between a series of nots;
not good enough
not English enough
not white enough
and in so doing demonstrating your own propensity for discriminatory thought. You racist
I think that was a no-ball, David.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
Sure, but my reading of SC's point (and my view) is it was the expansionist part that was the main reason rather than the facist part. Had they stayed a facist party within their own land they would have been left to it. Equally, had they been an expansionist communist / socialist / centre right etc. state then we would probably have still ended up at war with them. Yes, you regulalry see old newsreels of them being called Nazi Germany but I've just understood that to be descriptive to differentiate it from its previous Weimar Republic name.imposter2.0 said:
The reasons for GB's declaration of war on Germany are well understood, and it wasn't specifically "because they were Nazis", obviously. But the country was under the rule of an expansionist fascist regime, which put it on a path to war in the first place.Pross said:Isn't SC's point merely that to the British people at the time the fact that Germany was run by the National Socialists was irrelevant. To the man in the street we were simply at war with Germany (again) and the issue was that they were empire building. The fact that they were facists really didn't matter to Britain, that was an internal matter for the Germans. It is only over time that we were fighting the Nazis became the reasoning for it being a "just" war. No-one really knew at the time about the Holocaust (and as unpopular as it will be to say it I suspect a lot of Brits would have shrugged their shoulders even if they had). If the Germans hadn't built up their military and started invading other countries we would probably have just left them be despite their internal politics.
There is an abundance of stock newsreel footage, print media and first hand accounts from the time which refer to axis powers specifically as 'Nazis' - as opposed to 'Germans' - so none of this should come as a shock. The point is that the Nazis didn't just become a convenient diversion somehow in the 1970s. I've no idea where that notion came from.1 -
I don't think that was ever up for debate, was it? As I said before, GB didn't declare war on Germany simply because they were 'nazis', or 'fascists'. SC seemed to imply that Naziism was created as a cover to justify the war after the fact, which is the point that I found rather absurd, given that the Nazis never made any real secret of their fascist intent. They had flags and everything. Hitler even wrote a book about it.Pross said:Sure, but my reading of SC's point (and my view) is it was the expansionist part that was the main reason rather than the facist part.
SC might have meant something different, but if he did, he hasn't been able to articulate it yet.
0 -
I think the Nazis were the issue for the Government, but they can't sell that to the British people. You can't declare war on a single political party.
In order to mobilise the country for war, you had to make the whole of Germany, and everyone in it, the enemy. You can't let the public think that there are innocent people who are going to suffer and be killed as collateral damage.0 -
On the subject of Mr and Mrs Markle, she said that Archie was denied the title of Prince because of his colour and as a consequence would not get police protection . Archie is not entitled to the title until the Queen dies and Charles has long said that he intends to streamline the monarchy following his acceding the throne. Neither is police protection dependent on the title.
She said that they were wed 3 days before the televised event. H reckons just the happy couple and the Archbishop. Either this is bollox as there were no witnesses, or they duped the British public who paid for it and the world's TV and newspapers who paid a fortune to cover it.
As the claims get scrutinised and the easiest to check get discredited, it surely throws doubt on the rest, whatever their veracity.1 -
What, keeping your 'nads in your wife's handbag? 😲rick_chasey said:
I’d take Harry’s gig without the dead mother bitPross said:Just as a counter view, how many on here would swap their lives for the cushy, life of privilege and luxury the Royals apparently have? To be in a position where, from the day you are born people are watching you; where you are told where to go and what to do, who you can marry, where anyone coming into your life is subject to security vetting and public scrutiny. You get criticised for having an opinion and will probably get accused as being a hypocrite or having someone say "what do you know about real life?". You couldn't pay me enough to do it.
Just think of them as high level civil servants / diplomats / ambassadors and the palaces as posh offices with living quarters. Sure, they are guaranteed the job by birth but arguably so are many top civil servants or diplomats with nepotism being so ride.2 -
As someone said...if you tackle racism you can expect the racists to get angry.0
-
For literally hundreds of years the British policy was to maintain the balance of power in continental Europe, our involvement in WW2 was no different and certainly had nothing to do with the rise of fascism in Germany.elbowloh said:I think the Nazis were the issue for the Government, but they can't sell that to the British people. You can't declare war on a single political party.
In order to mobilise the country for war, you had to make the whole of Germany, and everyone in it, the enemy. You can't let the public think that there are innocent people who are going to suffer and be killed as collateral damage.
I am happy to listen to counter evidence but we did not declare war on Spain or Russia.0 -
I’m quick to call racism and I don’t doubt the royals are not the most tolerant of that stuff but honestly the main thrust of the treatment is because she’s a woman and not because she’s an ethnic minority.verylonglegs said:As someone said...if you tackle racism you can expect the racists to get angry.
If she was white and behaved the same way she’d get similar treatment, even if the content was different.
Sure there wouldn’t be the dog whistle headlines but the premise of the hatred would be the same.
1 -
How anybody could marry in to a family containing Phil the Greek and not expect issues in regard to the colour of ones skin.0
-
You think he doesn’t want this but is going along with it?ballysmate said:
What, keeping your 'nads in your wife's handbag? 😲rick_chasey said:
I’d take Harry’s gig without the dead mother bitPross said:Just as a counter view, how many on here would swap their lives for the cushy, life of privilege and luxury the Royals apparently have? To be in a position where, from the day you are born people are watching you; where you are told where to go and what to do, who you can marry, where anyone coming into your life is subject to security vetting and public scrutiny. You get criticised for having an opinion and will probably get accused as being a hypocrite or having someone say "what do you know about real life?". You couldn't pay me enough to do it.
Just think of them as high level civil servants / diplomats / ambassadors and the palaces as posh offices with living quarters. Sure, they are guaranteed the job by birth but arguably so are many top civil servants or diplomats with nepotism being so ride.0 -
They didn't invade Polandsurrey_commuter said:
For literally hundreds of years the British policy was to maintain the balance of power in continental Europe, our involvement in WW2 was no different and certainly had nothing to do with the rise of fascism in Germany.elbowloh said:I think the Nazis were the issue for the Government, but they can't sell that to the British people. You can't declare war on a single political party.
In order to mobilise the country for war, you had to make the whole of Germany, and everyone in it, the enemy. You can't let the public think that there are innocent people who are going to suffer and be killed as collateral damage.
I am happy to listen to counter evidence but we did not declare war on Spain or Russia.0 -
I think she has knocked some sense into him and force him to come out from behind granny’s skirts.rick_chasey said:
You think he doesn’t want this but is going along with it?ballysmate said:
What, keeping your 'nads in your wife's handbag? 😲rick_chasey said:
I’d take Harry’s gig without the dead mother bitPross said:Just as a counter view, how many on here would swap their lives for the cushy, life of privilege and luxury the Royals apparently have? To be in a position where, from the day you are born people are watching you; where you are told where to go and what to do, who you can marry, where anyone coming into your life is subject to security vetting and public scrutiny. You get criticised for having an opinion and will probably get accused as being a hypocrite or having someone say "what do you know about real life?". You couldn't pay me enough to do it.
Just think of them as high level civil servants / diplomats / ambassadors and the palaces as posh offices with living quarters. Sure, they are guaranteed the job by birth but arguably so are many top civil servants or diplomats with nepotism being so ride.
I suspect he is too wet and thick to make any decision other than type of biscuit for the butler to bring.0 -
I don't think anyone here said it did..surrey_commuter said:
For literally hundreds of years the British policy was to maintain the balance of power in continental Europe, our involvement in WW2 was no different and certainly had nothing to do with the rise of fascism in Germany.
0
