# Meghan Markle



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Presently I am obliged to suppress my opinions for fear of offending the lily livered. However, permit me to express myself thusly: I shall pretend that this marriage does not exist.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Shaver said:


> Presently I am obliged to suppress my opinions for fear of offending the lily livered. However, permit me to express myself thusly: I shall pretend that this marriage does not exist.


As a royal watcher, I agree 100%. Sell by date, 5 years maximum. A slow motion train smash. I will be sure to renew my subscription to Tatler to keep up with the blow by blow.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Indeed so, BSR. One would imagine that a man who is arguably the most eligible bachelor might have access to better opportunities. Certainly one would expect that his advisors could be more effective. My own father, a wiser and more reasonable chap than I, impressed upon me from an early age that a wider examination of a female's family, and especially her mother, were crucial in one's choice of partner.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Indeed so, BSR. One would imagine that a man who is arguably the most eligible bachelor might have access to better opportunities. Certainly one would expect that his advisors could be more effective. My own father, a wiser and more reasonable chap than I, impressed upon me from an early age that a wider examination of a female's family, and especially her mother, were crucial in one's choice of partner.


Dear Shaver,
You seem well able to eloquently and succinctly express your opinions in a manner neither to offend the lily-livered, nor evoke official retribution. 
Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> Dear Shaver,
> You seem well able to eloquently and succinctly express your opinions in a manner neither to offend the lily-livered, nor evoke official retribution.
> Regards,
> Gurdon


My dear friend that is very kind of you to say so but I have been rather paltry in that department of late, which demonstrated a lack of respect on my part. Were I to throw a party (unlikely as I am extraordinarily introverted but for the sake of the analogy let's pretend) and one guest annoyed the other revellers I would be disappointed. Andy is our host and I must be more charming in his venue.


----------



## Mr.D (Aug 2, 2015)

I must agree Shaver for a variety of reasons on this subject.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

The always witty Sophia Money-Coutts has reported in the Telegraph that there is a pre-nuptual agreement.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/fear-not-meghan-harry-prenup-wont-kill-romance/

I predict a wee bairn within 18 months to lock in the long term financial prospects.

The House of Windsor appears intent on going the way of the House of Grimaldi.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

LOL. The cynic in me is inclined to agree with the assessments in the preceding posts of members Shaver and Mr. B. Scott Robinson, but the romantic in me wants to believe that Prince Harry has consistently proven himself to be his mother's son, with his rebellious nature, and he will continue to push against the constraints of the monarchy as life goes on. He and hisfuture bride will hang in there just to prove the establishment wrong. Jeez Louise, looking back over what I just typed, it appears both of these thoughts may have come from a cynical side...perhaps I simply have no romantic side? LOL.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

I am surprised a person need to post to tell the world he or she is ignoring something.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Children of broken families are of course more susceptible to find their own marriages going adrift. Nevertheless, it seems premature to write off Harry and Meghan's. There are many Commonwealth nations that still look to our monarch for leadership, even if largely symbolic, and with that in mind it might be no bad thing if the royal family one day became just slightly less emphatically Anglo-Saxon.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

culverwood said:


> I am surprised a person need to post to tell the world he or she is ignoring something.


Whereas your predictable behaviour and motivation leaves no room for surprise whatsoever.

:icon_smile_kisses:


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Just a thought for discussion...

If the royals are going to become a family of American actresses, rugby players, party planners and investment bankers, in essence becoming more like "us", then what is the reason for them to "be" any longer?

Privilege was justified in the past given the "born to rule" bloodline of the aristocracy. If the aristocracy becomes indistinguishable from "the mediocrity", then their houses (domiciles and Lords), lands and money should be taken into trust for the nation and the resources gained put toward improving the train system, or building an actual highway in Norfolk. I get so tired of driving behind tractors on the road from Norwich to Holt.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Just a thought for discussion...
> 
> If the royals are going to become a family of American actresses, rugby players, party planners and investment bankers, in essence becoming more like "us", then what is the reason for them to "be" any longer?
> 
> ...


These ideas would find great favour with Mr Corbyn I suspect. The aristocracy are indeed no different at all from the rest of us, merely born with greater advantages. The royal family also.

Even when their estates and wealth have been confiscated ("put into trust"), however, there will still be no motorway from Norwich to Holt.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Langham said:


> These ideas would find great favour with Mr Corbyn I suspect. The aristocracy are indeed no different at all from the rest of us, merely born with greater advantages. The royal family also.
> 
> Even when their estates and wealth have been confiscated ("put into trust"), however, there will still be no motorway from Norwich to Holt.


No motorway is all well and good. It is an idyllic drive and best left unspoiled. A true conservative looks to maintain the status quo when possible.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mr.D (Aug 2, 2015)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Just a thought for discussion...
> 
> *If the royals are going to become a family of American actresses, rugby players, party planners and investment bankers, in essence becoming more like "us", then what is the reason for them to "be" any longer?*
> 
> ...


Brilliant point!


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> I will be sure to renew my subscription to Tatler to keep up with the blow by blow.


Considering her sordid past, I find your "blow by blow" comment quite apropos.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Just a thought for discussion...
> 
> If the royals are going to become a family of American actresses, rugby players, party planners and investment bankers, in essence becoming more like "us", then what is the reason for them to "be" any longer


Quite so.

Perhaps the next royal could be chosen in an X-Factor type of televised competition?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Quite so.
> 
> Perhaps the next royal could be chosen in an X-Factor type of televised competition?


Have you ever watched The Bachelor, or The Bachelorette?


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Just a thought for discussion...
> 
> If the royals are going to become a family of American actresses, rugby players, party planners and investment bankers, in essence becoming more like "us", then what is the reason for them to "be" any longer?
> 
> ...


The British royal family has long been a tourist attraction - I imagine someone has run the numbers. They actually don't even have that much money, less than $1 billion (and more like $500 million) among the entire family, real estate included.

Jeff Bezos can buy the total holdings of the British royal family 200 times and still have $10 billion left over.

So I say "let them be". They have pretty castles and generate enough minor scandal to remain interesting. It wouldn't surprise me if their media value exceeds their total net worth.*

DH

*(a quick search reveals that 2017 contributions of the British royal family "brand" to tourism were £550 million, far more than it costs to feed and house them. Call them a zoo and let it go!)


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Dhaller said:


> The British royal family has long been a tourist attraction - I imagine someone has run the numbers. They actually don't even have that much money, less than $1 billion (and more like $500 million) among the entire family, real estate included.
> 
> Jeff Bezos can buy the total holdings of the British royal family 200 times and still have $10 billion left over.
> 
> ...


I thought I read somewhere that the queen ranks among the 5 most wealthy women in the world. Is this incorrect then?


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I thought I read somewhere that the queen ranks among the 5 most wealthy women in the world. Is this incorrect then?


She's at a pretty far remove from the wealthiest women: there are 256 women billionaires, and the Queen's net worth is estimated at $425-500 million. I doubt she's in the top thousand.

Taylor Swift is worth $300 million, so she'll probably race past the Queen in a couple of years.

Owning land just isn't the racket it once was.

DH


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> Taylor Swift is worth $300 million, so she'll probably race past the Queen in a couple of years.


But she won't have corgis.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Dhaller said:


> She's at a pretty far remove from the wealthiest women: there are 256 women billionaires, and the Queen's net worth is estimated at $425-500 million. I doubt she's in the top thousand.
> 
> Taylor Swift is worth $300 million, so she'll probably race past the Queen in a couple of years.
> 
> ...


Not that I speak with any particularly authority on the subject beyond some information gained in Uni study and follow on light reading spurred by my particularly acute case of Anglophenia (A Country Life subscription provides my weekly dose of meds!), I believe the property of the Crown is an odd mix of private property and items held "in trust" by the Crown for the nation. These two portfolios are not easily separated or monetized. And if one looks to the wealth of the extended "close" royals, the financial picture expands and becomes more muddied.

The Queen privately owns Balmoral and Sandringham. Many priceless items of art are held "in trust' by the Crown. I have visited Sandringham and it is absolutely massive. It would be worth well north of $100 million alone, the collection housed within not included. There are several millions in Purdy and Holland and Holland shotguns/rifles displayed in one hallway. It was one of the most amazing displays of sporting arms I have ever personally had the pleasure to view.

The Duchy of Cornwall, "belongs" to Prince Charles and is well over 100,000 acres in utilized land holding. The $ of this property alone is estimated to be well in excess of $1 Billion.

So, what is the Queen worth? I suppose if one looks at the Crown as a public corporate body (property, brand value, etc), it could easily be assessed a worth in the single digit billions. As far as the average daily balance of her Coutts account, probably not so much but still eye watering.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> So, what is the Queen worth? I suppose if one looks at the Crown as a public corporate body (property, brand value, etc), it could easily be assessed a worth in the single digit billions.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Well, that's not how comparative individual net worth is estimated; restricting it to privately held wealth (net worth), the royal family (what is that, the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Windsor or somesuch IIRC) has an estimated wealth of $400-500ish million. So if tomorrow the Brits say "sorry! we don't need a Queen!", that's what the Queen has (and mostly it's Balmoral Castle and its 50,000 acres, I believe.)

If we evaluate people on the basis on the value of public trust controlled, that changes all the numbers, of course. I imagine The Pope comes out pretty well in such an arrangement (he would be the world's sole trillionaire).

DH


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Dhaller said:


> Well, that's not how comparative individual net worth is estimated; restricting it to privately held wealth (net worth), the royal family (what is that, the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Windsor or somesuch IIRC) has an estimated wealth of $400-500ish million. So if tomorrow the Brits say "sorry! we don't need a Queen!", that's what the Queen has (and mostly it's Balmoral Castle and its 50,000 acres, I believe.)
> 
> If we evaluate people on the basis on the value of public trust controlled, that changes all the numbers, of course. I imagine The Pope comes out pretty well in such an arrangement (he would be the world's sole trillionaire).
> 
> DH


Good points all.

If the Windsors ever hold a boot sale of the Sandringham arms collection, I will be the first one in line to purchase a bid paddle.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

There is of course a lot of hidden wealth (and also hidden expenditure) related to the royal family that neither Forbes nor anyone else can easily or accurately assess - and it is perhaps inaccurate to say that Jeff Bezos could ever acquire the royal family's holdings, such as real estate, crown jewels, art, and even Purdeys, as, short of a revolution, they are never going to be sold en masse.

Royal warrants alone, displayed by firms such as Fortnum & Mason, Aston Martin (and even Loake), which cost nothing to distribute, bring in £190 m a year, apparently.

This report attempts to estimate their wealth, but much must be speculative:
_*British royal family is worth more than £60bn, finds new report*_


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Langham said:


> There is of course a lot of hidden wealth (and also hidden expenditure) related to the royal family that neither Forbes nor anyone else can easily or accurately assess - and it is perhaps inaccurate to say that Jeff Bezos could ever acquire the royal family's holdings, such as real estate, crown jewels, art, and even Purdeys, as, short of a revolution, they are never going to be sold en masse.
> 
> Royal warrants alone, displayed by firms such as Fortnum & Mason, Aston Martin (and even Loake), which cost nothing to distribute, bring in £190 m a year, apparently.
> 
> ...


I'm always amused by attempts to evaluate brand value; that's how Trump arrived at his claimed $10 billion "worth", by estimating his "brand" as being worth $9 billion and change.

If the family ceased to be "royals", their brand immediately evaporates (as do all the warrants and the like), and they're down to their real estate holdings (the $500 million-ish, still nothing to complain about). Britain has been *much* smarter about handling their royals than have other nations (the crown jewels, for example, are owned by Britain, as is the royal art collection... even the Thames swans are "owned" by Britain, not the actual royal family) - Britain lends stuff like crowns to the Queen, rather than giving it to her. Certainly a hedge against corruption of the office!

The worst decision royalty and aristocracy ever made in general was turning their noses up at industry and finance and sticking with land and cows (well, bad decision for them, good decision for us.)

DH


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> ...Britain has been *much* smarter about handling their royals than have other nations (the crown jewels, for example, are owned by Britain, as is the royal art collection... even the Thames swans are "owned" by Britain, not the actual royal family) - Britain lends stuff like crowns to the Queen, rather than giving it to her. Certainly a hedge against corruption of the office!
> 
> The worst decision royalty and aristocracy ever made in general was turning their noses up at industry and finance and sticking with land and cows (well, bad decision for them, good decision for us.)
> 
> DH


Forbes seemed very sure about ownership of the crown jewels, art collection etc being vested (somehow) in the state rather than the royal family, though other reports have suggested the issue may be less certain.

It's not really a topical issue at the moment and I know little more about it than is reported from time to time, but outlets such as the Guardian are always happy to try to make it into an issue:



> *The convenient fiction of who owns priceless treasure*
> 
> '....As with most crown assets, the ownership status of the Royal Collection and the crown jewels has been muddied by time and different people's interpretations. According to the Royal Collection Trust's latest annual report, the collection is "held by the Queen in right of the crown". The Treasury's long-held viewpoint is that the crown jewels, for example, are "non-surrendered crown property" which are "vested in the sovereign and cannot be alienated." However, the Duke of Edinburgh, in a TV interview in 2000 speaking about the Royal Collection's masterpieces, said that the Queen is, "technically, perfectly at liberty to sell them"._'_


The aristocracy lost enormously after the first world war as land prices crashed. Some families lost all their wealth. Since the 60s, however, land values have improved. No doubt a good investment fund manager could have improved on this performance over the same period, but land now seems a fairly safe long-term bet in the UK. Those families that still have very large land holdings are fairly comfortable.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Langham said:


> The aristocracy lost enormously after the first world war as land prices crashed. Some families lost all their wealth. Since the 60s, however, land values have improved. No doubt a good investment fund manager could have improved on this performance over the same period, but land now seems a fairly safe long-term bet in the UK. Those families that still have very large land holdings are fairly comfortable.


A colleague of mine is a prince of the Bohemian von Scwarzenberg family, and they had nine castles reverted to them from state ownership (arising from the fall of the Communist Bloc) in the 90s, including the massive Orlík Castle in the Czech Republic; it was quite difficult for the family - whose wealth lies mainly in forestry - to absorb them. As he puts it, "lots of things, very little cash". Such is the plight of most landed aristocracy. Their family retreated to Vienna after the Iron Curtain dropped, where they had a significant palace (the Palais im Schwarzenberg), which is now part residence, part luxury hotel. I can highly recommend it, and you are doing good charity for ancient royals if you stay there 

My impression is that many of the British great houses were purchased by agents abroad during the 70s, 80s, and 90s (by Arabs, Rock Stars, Russians, and other undesirables), who presumably can feed these piles and keep them going with wealth exterior to the estates; I may have an inflated view of this, simply based on the volume of British complaint. I imagine the original families are living in simpler houses (with less cow-judging).

DH


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

How much do they own in other countries? Canada, Australia, etc.?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WA said:


> How much do they own in other countries? Canada, Australia, etc.?


https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3

Loosely related, though suggesting an answer to your question. Pretty interesting.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Langham said:


> Forbes seemed very sure about ownership of the crown jewels, art collection etc being vested (somehow) in the state rather than the royal family, though other reports have suggested the issue may be less certain.
> 
> It's not really a topical issue at the moment and I know little more about it than is reported from time to time, but outlets such as the Guardian are always happy to try to make it into an issue:
> 
> The aristocracy lost enormously after the first world war as land prices crashed. Some families lost all their wealth. Since the 60s, however, land values have improved. No doubt a good investment fund manager could have improved on this performance over the same period, but land now seems a fairly safe long-term bet in the UK. Those families that still have very large land holdings are fairly comfortable.


Great topic and from what I read it is rather topical at the moment: Grand houses are one of my areas of study and interest given my prior work in Cultural Heritage.

The quick and dirty history for the uninformed; many grand houses in the UK were demolished after WWII due to neglect and lack of funds. The National Trust recognized this as a problem, stepped in to evaluate properties determining which were of architectural and historical merit and then leveraged taxpayer money for critical repairs given the caveat that the properties were to be opened to the public on a limited basis.

Chatsworth House and Blenheim have been particularly successful in marketing their "product". The trust which administers Blenheim is pushing the envelope, adventuring into land development with a scheme to build 1000 homes near the estate in Woodstock. Of course, NIMBYs are concerned that an influx of 1000 new residents will change the character of the area, but given the massive housing shortage and the ridiculous housing prices in the countryside, many local young people simply can't break into the housing market.

I have been looking to buy a country home in Norfolk or Yorkshire, yet I can't bring myself to spend £250,000 on a crumbling, neglected barn conversion project requiring yet another £400,000 and council permissions to make habitable. (For $300,000 I can buy a lovely apartment in Portugal and get EU residence to boot!). Of course, second home buyers are a significant part of the problem in these areas, hoovering up housing inventory, driving up prices, leaving homes vacant but a few weeks out of the year. Local businesses suffer and streets remain vacant except during the summer holidays.

The shake out with aristocratic properties has pretty much subsided with the survivors actively engaging in trade (!) to keep heads above the deluge of expenses. Of course, if one has a work allergy, there is always the odd Russian oligarch looking to launder a few million Euros whom they could sell out to.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> ...
> 
> My impression is that many of the British great houses were purchased by agents abroad during the 70s, 80s, and 90s (by Arabs, Rock Stars, Russians, and other undesirables), who presumably can feed these piles and keep them going with wealth exterior to the estates; I may have an inflated view of this, simply based on the volume of British complaint. I imagine the original families are living in simpler houses (with less cow-judging).
> 
> DH


Such people bought at a good moment. As BSR relates, _most_ of the "traditional" landed gentry no longer had the incomes to keep up large country houses. There were also punitive systems of taxation and government interference, up until Margaret Thatcher in fact, which weren't very favourable to the accumulation (or even preservation) of wealth. In fact, this had been the case to some extent at least since 1906 and fundamentally since the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. A good few aristocratic families only managed to survive by luring wealthy American heiresses into marriage.



Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Great topic and from what I read it is rather topical at the moment: Grand houses are one of my areas of study and interest given my prior work in Cultural Heritage.
> 
> The quick and dirty history for the uninformed; many grand houses in the UK were demolished after WWII due to neglect and lack of funds. The National Trust recognized this as a problem, stepped in to evaluate properties determining which were of architectural and historical merit and then leveraged taxpayer money for critical repairs given the caveat that the properties were to be opened to the public on a limited basis.
> 
> ...


Largely spot-on but it's worth noting that the National Trust is a charity and is completely independent of government funding. The work they have done in preserving our cultural heritage is quite astonishing.
Also, neither Chatsworth nor Blenheim are NT but are still owned (through family trusts, I believe) and lived in by the Duke of Derbyshire and the Duke of Marlborough. Various other ducal families have managed to retain their estates and some, but not all, remain very wealthy.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

Shaver said:


> Whereas your predictable behaviour and motivation leaves no room for surprise whatsoever.
> 
> :icon_smile_kisses:


Why on earth would anybody be interested in what I am ignoring?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

culverwood said:


> Why on earth would anybody be interested in what I am ignoring?


Did anyone suggest that they would be?

Have one for me, old boy.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Langham said:


> Such people bought at a good moment. As BSR relates, _most_ of the "traditional" landed gentry no longer had the incomes to keep up large country houses. There were also punitive systems of taxation and government interference, up until Margaret Thatcher in fact, which weren't very favourable to the accumulation (or even preservation) of wealth. In fact, this had been the case to some extent at least since 1906 and fundamentally since the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. A good few aristocratic families only managed to survive by luring wealthy American heiresses into marriage.
> 
> Largely spot-on but it's worth noting that the National Trust is a charity and is completely independent of government funding. The work they have done in preserving our cultural heritage is quite astonishing.
> Also, neither Chatsworth nor Blenheim are NT but are still owned (through family trusts, I believe) and lived in by the Duke of Derbyshire and the Duke of Marlborough. Various other ducal families have managed to retain their estates and some, but not all, remain very wealthy.


I have an excellent dissertation at hand that provides some interesting details.

400 houses were demolished in the decade following WWII . This number rose during the 1950s, with approximately 300 country house demolitions during the decade, thirty-eight in 1955 alone. Evelyn Waugh, in the preface to the second edition of Brideshead Revisited, published in 1960, commented on this 'country house blitz'."*

The three primary reasons for loss of grand houses; taxes, lack of funds to complete repairs, and the lack of qualified staffs to run and maintain the houses to the appropriate standard.*

National Trust's Country House Scheme provided broad supervision of houses and their contents and gave advice to owners undertaking general preservation work, as well as the training of new specialized architects and craftsmen. Recognizing the expense of repairs and up keep at country houses, the HBCs would grant aid to owners. In return, it was stipulated that houses would have regular open days if owners wanted to remain eligible for further grants. There was no set number of days required, but rather the HBCs would work with owners to determine what number was best for the house. In its first year, the HBC for England made 87 grants, totalling £265,000, although most individual grants were for less than £10,000. Within the first twenty years of the HBCs, one quarter of the total expenditure went to 230 private country houses.*

*The Conservation of Country House Ruins, by Miriam Cady

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

BSR, you might enjoy this as additional reading:










The National Trust is not concerned solely with the preservation of large country houses, but has taken on all manner of historical buildings, from Birmingham back-to-backs built for the poorest of poor working class families to small townhouses and suburban villas of the type a GP or prosperous tradesman might inhabit.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tod Hackett said:


> ...suffers from that most modern of female afflictions in my opinion - namely a thinly disguised contempt for everything and everyone.
> 
> The boy should have gone to Jamaica and thrown a rock if that is his style - far better looking, pains-in-the-rear in an interesting way, and much better raised.


Is Markle part Jamaican? If so then my opinion of her is marginally improved.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-biggest-landowners-2011-3
> 
> Loosely related, though suggesting an answer to your question. Pretty interesting.


Such claims to land seems somethings amiss in her thinking. She paid no taxes for how long? If you don't pay taxes on your land for a while do you still own the land? She is supposed to be showing an honest example, not stealing from her country men. If the Brits want a thief in their castles and palaces that is their problem. Canada and Australia and other places should say, "You don't own the land anymore!" Honesty needs a voice.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

You could argue that the tax-free years were a remnant of a much more powerful sovereign. 

Regarding Ms. Markle, the House of Grimaldi could have done worse than having an American actress as Her Serene Highness. She’s bound to be less shocking than Princess Margaret or the Duchess of York.

I’m surprised no one has called her Hyacinth, as her family seems to be more awkwardly embarrassing than Daisy and Onslow.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Miket61 said:


> You could argue that the tax-free years were a remnant of a much more powerful sovereign.
> 
> Regarding Ms. Markle, the House of Grimaldi could have done worse than having an American actress as Her Serene Highness. She's bound to be less shocking than Princess Margaret or the Duchess of York.
> 
> I'm surprised no one has called her Hyacinth, as her family seems to be more awkwardly embarrassing than Daisy and Onslow.


I read that Andrew has been bumped down the line of succession to a point where he no longer needs the Queens permission to marry. Could a Fergie series 2 be in production?

The two have been living together for years.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

I think I mentioned that in another discussion. Yes, it’s entirely possible. Prince Phillip doesn’t like Sarah so I think he would have been more strongly opposed.

What I can’t recall was whether the change was made along with allowing women to remain in the line of succession by birth order. Clearly the law was pushed through to precede the birth of William’s first child. Was it also done so that once Charles had three grandchildren Andrew would be free to marry his ex-wife without regard to opposition?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Well, I suppose she can thank her lucky stars that Charles will be her father in law.

King of rage: Henry VIII's bloodthirsty letter demands monk's brutal death

https://www.foxnews.com/science/201...irsty-letter-demands-monk-s-brutal-death.html

Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at https://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

"A jaded, shallow, conceited woman that will make a joke of you [Prince Harry] and the royal family heritage."

Surprisingly, these are not my words but rather those of Thomas Markle Jr, her brother.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Forgive me all for not taking any personal interest in her, but what exactly is her claim to fame? 

Anything in particular or just in the sense of famous for being famous per Muggeridge?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Shaver said:


> "A jaded, shallow, conceited woman that will make a joke of you [Prince Harry] and the royal family heritage."
> 
> Surprisingly, these are not my words but rather those of Thomas Markle Jr, her brother.


Is it only me or do poison pen letters seem far more effective if written on quality stationary?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ry-biggest-mistake-royal-wedding-history.html

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Is it only me or do poison pen letters seem far more effective if written on quality stationary?
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ry-biggest-mistake-royal-wedding-history.html
> 
> ...


I imagine that would depend on the quality of the intended recipient.

Pearls, swine, and so on and so forth.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

I have never felt the spectacle of people slagging off of others they do not know on-line very edifying. No doubt the people doing so get something out of it though.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Forgive me all for not taking any personal interest in her, but what exactly is her claim to fame?


Ms. Markle's main claim to fame is having been an actress on the USA Network show "Suits" for seven years.

Her family... come across as far less royal than Meghan does.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

culverwood said:


> I have never felt the spectacle of people slagging off of others they do not know on-line very edifying. No doubt the people doing so get something out of it though.


Although the 'slagging off of others they do not know on-line' is a practice which you are not shy to indulge in.

No doubt you get something out of it though.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Sparkles seems to have more skeletons in her closet.










And now, her brother is getting in on the act.
*Meghan Markle's brother pens extraordinary open letter warning Prince Harry to call off Royal wedding*

Meghan Markle's estranged half-brother has penned an extraordinary letter warning Prince Harry to call off the Royal wedding.

Thomas Markle Jr, who shares the same father as the royal bride-to-be, says he has not seen his sister since 2011.

The 51-year-old, who shared his letter with In Touch magazine, wrote to Harry: "As more time passes to your royal wedding, it became very clear that this is the biggest mistake in royal wedding history.

"_Meghan Markle is obviously not the right woman for you.
I'm confused why you don't see the real Meghan that the whole world now sees."_


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Well, I doubt whether Harry gives a tinker's damn about what you, I, Shaver, or anyone else thinks about his intended.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Well, I doubt whether Harry gives a tinker's damn about what you, I, Shaver, or anyone else thinks about his intended.


Clearly, otherwise his choice would be wiser.

At any rate he is not likely to be reading this - is he? You dont suppose that culverwood.....?

No.

It couldn't be.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

What no one seems to be mentioning here is how singularly unimpressive the British royal family itself is.

I mean, I'm not necessarily saying they're the "trailer park" of the world's royal families (even though they are), but collectively it would take them some doing to rub even two sparkles of wit together.

(I know a dozen or so princesses and princes from continental European royal families, and maybe as many in Asia, and I doubt a single one suffers from sub-PhD credentials... not that a PhD is the ultimate level of worth, but at least these are folks using their position to better themselves educationally, versus the collection of auto mechanics and such which populate British castles.)

So even if Markle isn't the catch of the day, if nothing else at least she'll provide some needed diversity to that smallish gene pool.

DH


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

We all accumulate skeletons in our respective closets and unwanted baggage as we go about living our lives. Not surprisingly the British Royal Family is not exempt....and certainly Megan Markle is not. Most of us can choose to fall in love with and marry (and on a distressingly regular basis, divorce) whomever we want, without incurring widespread public review and occasional condemnation. The Royals do not enjoy such freedom and as Price Harry's intended, nor does Megan Markle. Alas, the lack of class apparent throughout the population incorporating so many of we commoners is frequently and painfully apparent! Glad I'm not a Royal. I would not want to give up the luxurious anonymity of being a commoner!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

To we folk on AAAC you are Prince Eagle - live up to our expectations!

Although, from that charming shot you posted recently, there is no doubt that your bride was wisely selected.


----------



## Anubis (Nov 16, 2013)

Dhaller said:


> What no one seems to be mentioning here is how singularly unimpressive the British royal family itself is.
> 
> I mean, I'm not necessarily saying they're the "trailer park" of the world's royal families (even though they are), but collectively it would take them some doing to rub even two sparkles of wit together.
> 
> ...


Did Prince Harry kick sand in your face?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> What no one seems to be mentioning here is how singularly unimpressive the British royal family itself is.
> 
> I mean, I'm not necessarily saying they're the "trailer park" of the world's royal families (even though they are), but collectively it would take them some doing to rub even two sparkles of wit together.
> 
> ...


I'm very sorry your invitation seems to have gone astray. Normally, I would advise writing to Tripadvisor.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Langham said:


> I'm very sorry your invitation seems to have gone astray. Normally, I would advise writing to Tripadvisor.


I have a schedule conflict: my daughter has a ballet recital that day.

DH


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Anubis said:


> Did Prince Harry kick sand in your face?


No, no.

I just happened to see some article about the current British line of succession the other day, and it had pictures of the six top-in-line, and it just struck me what a dull-looking, homely group of folks they are.

Why they seem to have a thing against education I don't really understand, but perhaps it descends from some kind of aristocratic distaste for learning, a distaste other royal families overcame at some point.

I mean, Harry isn't even a college graduate. Really, come on, you don't have to actually accomplish *anything* - ever - and you can't bother to at least get an education? What a waste of time and resources!

It's just kind of disgraceful the way they squander their chance to set an actual example.

DH


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Shaver said:


> To we folk on AAAC you are Prince Eagle - live up to our expectations!
> 
> Although, from that charming shot you posted recently, there is no doubt that your bride was wisely selected.


Why thank you, Good Sir, for those kind words. Alas, I must admit that Mrs Eagle is clearly the "better half" of this crew! LOL.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Why do people follow these people? Good question.

The People Magazine crowd follow the royals in the same manner as they do Kim K and Kanye, bling culture.

There are others who follow royals out a nostalgic view of the past clinging to a visceral longing for a time when there was a more orderly...order. Of course this view requires a prescription for a rather powerful pair of rose colored glasses. 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Dhaller said:


> No, no.
> 
> I just happened to see some article about the current British line of succession the other day, and it had pictures of the six top-in-line, and it just struck me what a dull-looking, homely group of folks they are.
> 
> ...


While I am clearly not a Brit and am perhaps speaking out of turn here, I disagree with many of the conclusions reflected above. It strikes me that the Royal's list of official responsibilities and the public expectations and constant scrutiny they endure could prove positively burdensome. As far as accomplishing something with their lives, what about the humanitarian programs each of the family members champions/sponsors or both of the young Princes (William and Harry's) military service?

Prince William flew a number of clearly challenging and arguably hazardous rescue missions as a Rescue Helicopter pilot and Harry, serving 10+ years in the military and two combat tours in Afghanistan flying an assault chopper, came under enemy fire on several occasions. Prince Harry is a driving force behind the Invictus Games, which allows recovering, but grievously wounded combat veterans to more fully participate in the competitive, athletic aspect of their lives. And what about his (Prince Harry's) visits with very sick and dying children in hospitals and in their homes? Frankly, I think Prince Harry has proven himself to be a true hero and humanitarian on several fronts and that he seems to be living an arguably fruitful and meaningful life! :teacha:


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Well said Eagle.

There is ample evidence of the royal family's suitability to rule, insofar as their largely symbolic status requires them to do this, which is something that is not generally learned while studying for a PhD. They have all spent time in the armed forces and I would prefer that to having a family of egg-heads in charge.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Apparently her father WILL be walking her down the aisle, despite her brothers very well written letter..........


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Langham said:


> Well said Eagle.
> 
> There is ample evidence of the royal family's suitability to rule, insofar as their largely symbolic status requires them to do this, which is something that is not generally learned while studying for a PhD. They have all spent time in the armed forces and I would prefer that to having a family of egg-heads in charge.


My understanding is that Harry requested that he serve with front line soldiers, despite Buckingham Palace's concern that a Royal serving so would make for a juicy target.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

This was a concern raised by the MoD, but it was indeed a legitimate concern. He served in effect incognito for two tours in Afghanistan.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

I concur with the comments above.

I have a high degree of respect for the young royals and their pre-official duty professions. Despite some expected adolescent stumbles, they have comported themselves rather well having lived their lives exposed to the public eye and in the shadow of their venerated mother. Their's must be an impossible standard to uphold and I do not envy them.

Thus far, the "House of Windsor TNG" is a success, clearly overshadowing their parents, aunts and uncles.

But sartorially, Prince Michael of Kent remains my style icon. He is how a king should look!










Cheers,

BSR


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

He is perhaps the closest thing to a royal style icon since his great uncle....


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...wn-cannabis-blow-crown-off.html#ixzz5Ehi6yCmR


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Odradek said:


> View attachment 21671
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...wn-cannabis-blow-crown-off.html#ixzz5Ehi6yCmR


"It's classy, like my aunt". Best slogan in years.

Or he could rip off Lyle's Golden Syrup...."Out of the strong came forth sweetness".

The Daily Mail is going to have a field day digging up all Meghan's proletarian American relatives. Fish in a barrel for the DM.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
I am reminded of that classic verse from The Good Book, John8:7, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!" I wonder how many of those so called journalists actually even read The Bible? :icon_scratch:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Only to attack believers it seems to often. 

Yeah. Jesus came to fulfill the law (Old Testament) (to do this he was actually living in the Old Testament times until His death). What does the Old Testament law say about judging fornication? That the two are to be judged in each other's presence? When they brought her to Jesus where was the man? To break the law in judging is sin. Hence, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!". Talked to people who thought He was creating a new way, when all He was doing was living the Old Testament law that He created. They presented a trick question and He beat them with His answer.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Indeed - a trick question was posed by the Pharisees, one answer defied Moses and the other defied Rome. Jesus' cunning solution of a response is not the simple exhortation to refrain from judgement that it may appear.

This said, some scholars contend that the _pericope adulterae _was not authored by John, is an interpolation to his gospel, and does not represent an event from the life of Christ anyway.

Which is all well and good for, although I indulge in the occasional casting of stones, I am hardly without sin. Although, if I so desired, I could be absolved by engaging with the Sacrament.

It's a win/win situation.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Odradek said:


> View attachment 21671
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...wn-cannabis-blow-crown-off.html#ixzz5Ehi6yCmR


Egads! There always seems to be an 'idiot relative' or two all too ready to rear their ugly head and take advantage of a situation! It is almost a certainty that Megan Markle's nephew is but one of many who might pop up. There ought to be a law prohibiting such Tom foolery! :angry:


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Shaver said:


> Indeed - a trick question was posed by the Pharisees, one answer defied Moses and the other defied Rome. Jesus' cunning solution of a response is not the simple exhortation to refrain from judgement that it may appear.
> 
> This said, some scholars contend that the _pericope adulterae _was not authored by John, is an interpolation to his gospel, and does not represent an event from the life of Christ anyway.
> 
> ...


I have long suspected that Tyndale and Coverdale lost the plot somewhere in their English translations. Like most writers, they were probably working under a tight publishers deadline and had to dig deep to find inspiration.

The King James is the only version on my bookshelf. I was perusing First Corinthians this weekend and musing about the voyages of Paul. I followed the Pauline path during my visit to Ephesus where I also visited the last abode of Mary. Interesting that the cult of Mary sprung up almost a millennia after the Crucifixion. Chartres is also worth a stop if one is inclined to Marian pursuits.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

I usually don't pay the British royals any mind at all, but poor Ms. Markle: you can't pick your family. She is drop-dead gorgeous though.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Which is all well and good for, although I indulge in the occasional casting of stones, I am hardly without sin. Although, if I so desired, I could be absolved by engaging with the Sacrament.
> 
> It's a win/win situation.


That is a lot of faith in the Roman Catholic church. Have you never asked God about what He says? God has spoken to individuals from the beginning. Your not excluded.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WA said:


> That is a lot of faith in the Roman Catholic church. Have you never asked God about what He says? God has spoken to individuals from the beginning. Your not excluded.


It's 'you are' or 'you're'.

I speak to God.

He rarely speaks to me.

I would worry if He had nothing better to do than annoy me.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

If I were a grammar teacher everyone would easily get straight A's. Of course, decades ago, my grammar was far better. Didn't pursue work that required writing....


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

I thought we gave up on trying to improve WA’s grammar about 3,560 posts ago.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

FLMike said:


> I thought we gave up on trying to improve WA's grammar about 3,560 posts ago.


God told me to do it.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

He is annoying you, huh? 

Some years ago I read a grammar book, but that is long enough that what improvements came from it they are disappearing. Well, another mangled sentence.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Shaver said:


> God told me to do it.


In my Baptist tradition, we say "I was led by the Holy Spirit to do it". We find it to be a convenient method for side stepping the perception that one is having a tete a tete with the Almighty.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> In my Baptist tradition, we say "I was led by the Holy Spirit to do it". We find it to be a convenient method for side stepping the perception that one is having a tete a tete with the Almighty.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


That is as maybe, but, the sinew (corpus callosum) that connects the hemispheres of my brain is slender gristle - the ideas that emerge from my subconscious realm are as divine instruction.

Probably.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WA said:


> He is annoying you, huh?
> 
> Some years ago I read a grammar book, but that is long enough that what improvements came from it they are disappearing. Well, another mangled sentence.


Occasionally He annoys me. He is responsible for my myriad gifts - which I have valiantly wasted. This said, if we are but the sensory organs with which He explores Creation then my reportage is first rate.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

WA said:


> He is annoying you, huh?
> 
> Some years ago I read a grammar book, but that is long enough that what improvements came from it they are disappearing. Well, another mangled sentence.


LOL. Our oldest daughter is a high school English teacher. Whether I'm verbalizing, writing or just pounding on a keyboard, she regularly finds cause to correct my grammar...I think it's payback for all those Saturday morning "Standby Inspections" of their respective bedrooms I imposed on them as they were growing up!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

While The Royals have a proven weakness for American divorcees, it could have been worse. At least her parents didn't name her Sparkle.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tod Hackett said:


> Is that you Julian Jaynes?


I am really rather impressed Tod. I suspect that few other men on this forum would have been able to identify the source of that particular notion.

As an aside - where have you been this last 7 years?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Might as well strike while the iron is hot....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...arrassed-apologise-paparazzi-photo-storm.html

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Classy family, aren't they?

Now, whether one subscribes to nature or nurture - or indeed a combination of the two - she represents damaged goods whichever way one cares to look at it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

As seems typical, the younger Prince Harry and the younger Miss Markle both sowed their wild oats and made their respective share(s) of mistakes. Ideally they have each learned from said mistakes and have matured into responsible adults. Looking at each of their humanitarian pursuits, and the poise they present in public these days, it appears that both have grown up! 

I suspect many of us would be shocked by the skeletons to be found in virtually every family's closet(s)!


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Perhaps what the pot called the kettle is wholly inappropriate here.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

jts287 said:


> She is drop-dead gorgeous though.


She certainly is...and made all the more beautiful by the way she gracefully handles the racism and insults thrown her way.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

smmrfld said:


> She certainly is...and made all the more beautiful by the way she gracefully handles the racism and insults thrown her way.


I will admit that I do not follow the Royal happenings. That being said, I have not seen anything in the press about racism directed towards her.

Has that been an issue in the U.K. or elsewhere?


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^ Perhaps what the pot called the kettle is wholly inappropriate here.


I think I get your joke.....a reference to the fact that that she's part black?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

FLMike said:


> I think I get your joke.....a reference to the fact that that she's part black?


Actually I began writing a response to Eagle's post and realized the saying, and analogy, might not be appreciated as I intended.

No, it was not intended to be a joke or to be funny.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

FLMike said:


> I think I get your joke.....a reference to the fact that that she's part black?


Not too subtle, was it?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

smmrfld said:


> Not too subtle, was


I disagree, it was subtle enough that it took me until I had almost finished the post before I realized it might be taken wrong.

I think I have clarified in post #101. Seriously, I have not seen one news story addressing her ethnic background in a negative way. Have you?


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

127.72 MHz said:


> I disagree, it was subtle enough that it took me until I had almost finished the post before I realized it might be taken wrong.
> 
> I think I have clarified in post #101. Seriously, I have not seen one news story addressing her ethnic background in a negative way. Have you?


"News story"??? This is 2018. And are you not aware that you could have easily deleted your post at any time if you felt it would be misinterpreted?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

smmrfld said:


> "News story"??? This is 2018. And are you not aware that you could have easily deleted your post at any time if you felt it would be misinterpreted?


It did occur to me but since it was purely innocent why should I? Even in 2018!


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

smmrfld said:


> "News story"??? This is 2018. And are you not aware that you could have easily deleted your post at any time if you felt it would be misinterpreted?


News story; I have reported my own post with the following comment,

I am reporting myself for this post. The context is following Eagle's post. My post was simply an effort to make light hearted fun of how careful one must be for fear of being labeled a bigot. I did not remove the post because it looks as though I intended it to be racially biased. Please read the post and act as you see fit.

Rest easy. If a moderator wants to remove the post they are welcome to with my blessing. I have explained the context, if that is not to your liking, so be it.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The "sharp-eared observers" ever delude themselves that they hear the 'dog-whistle' - a claim so beloved by those folk who will go to almost any length to suppress opinions that they do not share.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Shaver said:


> The "sharp-eared observers" ever delude themselves that they hear the 'dog-whistle' - a claim so beloved by those folk who will go to almost any length to suppress opinions that they do not share.


Dog lovers of the world unite!

Hemingway referred to his recurrent depression and resulting writers block as "The Black Dog".

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Hemingway referred to his recurrent depression and resulting writers block as "The Black Dog".


Hey, hey mama said the way you move.......


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Or something about squeezing one’s lemon. 

Edit: edited per member request.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

FLMike said:


> I think I get your joke.....a reference to the fact that that she's part black?





127.72 MHz said:


> Actually I began writing a response to Eagle's post and realized the saying, and analogy, might not be appreciated as I intended.
> 
> No, it was not intended to be a joke or to be funny.





smmrfld said:


> Not too subtle, was it?


I think at times members take their "political correctness" campaign(s) a bit too far to still be considered reasonable. There was clearly no offense intended in this series of posts, but we seem to have a couple of members intent on applying interpretations that allow them to claim or infer that such exists. Let's just stop it!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> I think at times members take their "political correctness" campaign(s) a bit too far to still be considered reasonable. There was clearly no offense intended in this series of posts, but we seem to have a couple of members intent on applying interpretations that allow them to claim or infer that such exists. Let's just stop it!


:beer:


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Prepare for Ms. Markle's family to be the front and center attraction on every B-list celeb UK reality show for the next 5 years. 



Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I’m glad to know we’re not alone in our fondness of the culture of trashy celebrities.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

The drama continues! 
Will he? won't he?
Do we care?


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

derum said:


> The drama continues!
> Will he? won't he?
> Do we care?


He won't, but not for the reasons you may think. He gave an interview to TMZ to correct the initial reports that he and his daughter had a falling out over his having had pictures taken by a photographer in an effort to present a more favorable image. He is in fact having heart surgery this week.

He blamed the stress of the fallout from his son's letter to Prince Harry.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Oh, the "I have scheduled heart surgery" trick. 

I have used it to avoid a few less than appetizing dinner invitations. 

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> So even if Markle isn't the catch of the day, if nothing else at least she'll provide some needed diversity to that smallish gene pool.
> 
> DH


The British royal family is in serious need of some new genes. Many too many cousins have been married throughout the European royal families. Besides, a little new blood will allow some of the royals to better represent the actual population of the UK, which has become fairly diverse through immigration.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> The British royal family is in serious need of some new genes. Many too many cousins have been married throughout the European royal families. Besides, a little new blood will allow some of the royals to better represent the actual population of the UK, which has become fairly diverse through immigration.


This was not intended to be insulting, just an observation from an outsider who doesn't understand why there is still a royal family and Queen, Dukes, Viscounts, etc...


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ Your post was not insulting in the least. That being said you can rest assured that someone, somewhere, in our politically sensitive world will manage to find some subjective "Meaning" that indicates a hidden hostility in your comment. (You may not even be aware of the ugliness in your soul against your fellow man!)


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^ Your post was not insulting in the least. That being said you can rest assured that someone, somewhere, in our politically sensitive world will manage to find some subjective "Meaning" that indicates a hidden hostility in your comment. (You may not even be aware of the ugliness in your soul against your fellow man!)


In my day, a lack of kindness (Now termed ugliness.) was pervasive and unapologetic and universal. Hostility was never limited to any specific ethnicity or nationality, but generally universal, and pursued with pride and vigor! irate:

Having just returned from the roads, I'm pleased to see behavior is little changed, except perhaps for the worse, but is now sadly accompanied by a heaping dose of hypocrisy.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

MichaelS said:


> This was not intended to be insulting, just an observation from an outsider who doesn't understand why there is still a royal family and Queen, Dukes, Viscounts, etc...


I can only speak for myself, but my view is that the country and constitution are generally enriched by having a monarchy, as opposed to the alternatives. Our present Queen has ruled for 65 years and remains generally well thought of. I wonder if an elected president could have managed that? No one cares greatly one way or another about the aristocracy - they retain some social cachet but no longer have any political power. Some are wealthy, some quite poor. The landscape, both social and topographical, of the British countryside, as well as much of our architecture, remain largely shaped by their efforts and investment over the centuries.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> This was not intended to be insulting, just an observation from an outsider who doesn't understand why there is still a royal family and Queen, Dukes, Viscounts, etc...


It's been demonstrated that the royals are a net economic good for the UK, ie. they have tourism value (adding to the UK "brand" and so forth), in large measure because they're so visible.

As for the rest of the UK's aristocracy, I suppose they provide a kind of ecology or infrastructure for the royals to "swim" in, so they have value by association.

Imagine the UK without its "Britishness" (almost wholly conferred by its royals) - just a grey hinterland to the otherwise richer experience of continental Europe (which, really, has better *everything* - food, accommodation, overall beauty, etc). The calls to end the system from within the UK itself is tantamount to shooting oneself in the head.

(The Commonwealth itself, on the other hand, has reason to dismiss the royal trappings are superfluous.)

DH


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I’m an American so I say this as someone completely removed from any fascination with the royals beyond their wardrobe, but, speaking of “British-ness” one must admit the British royals aren’t a perpetual boy band, like Menudo or the Vienna Boys Choir. 

One doesn’t just bring in new members in an attempt to better reflect British society. When has this ever been the case with Royal families? 

The Romanovs after the first few generations didn’t even speak Russian anymore. And isn’t the House of Windsor basically German? When have royal families been a reflection of the society at large. That’s what parliament and the elected body politic is for. 

One can dilute the bloodline until being a royal means nothing. It simply means you were lucky enough, or good enough in bed, to catch the attention of someone already having gains admission by similar means.

Perhaps I’m wrong.

Edit: numerous type-o’s


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^


Dhaller said:


> It's been demonstrated that the royals are a net economic good for the UK, ie. they have tourism value (adding to the UK "brand" and so forth), in large measure because they're so visible.
> 
> As for the rest of the UK's aristocracy, I suppose they provide a kind of ecology or infrastructure for the royals to "swim" in, so they have value by association.
> 
> ...


Dhaller, I can only say that I find some of your postings betray, simultaneously, a marked aversion or perhaps hostility to the UK (which is something you should feel perfectly free to express), combined with a somewhat distorted projection or understanding of the country. To a Brit, your conception of "Britishness" betrays the preconceptions, I think, of an armchair tourist who forms his opinions on the basis of what he reads on Tripadvisor. I'm just slightly curious as to what really colours your perception of the country so strongly?


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

King George I was German. Beyond that they pretty much spoke English.

Stephen Fry wrote an interesting pro-monarchy piece. Whether you’re Labour or Tory or something at a far end of the political spectrum, the monarchy is a constant and a source of national pride.

Americans have been known to say “he’s not my president” when the opposing party is in office. We don’t have a figurehead that represents all Americans.


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

Let's see how popular the monarchy becomes when King Chuck takes over.

I think the 'not my president' phenomenon is newish- George W, perhaps? Maybe Reagan?

I can't think of an American analog to source of national pride- except maybe Beyonce? LeBron? Captain America?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Miket61 said:


> King George I was German. Beyond that they pretty much spoke English.
> 
> ...


It's true they now generally speak English, but the German strain goes slightly deeper, and is more recent, than George I. Victoria's consort, for instance, Albert, was of course German, and I understand that the first language of present Queen's consort, the Duke of Edinburgh, was German (he was born in Greece - the Greek royal family, like various others, is basically German). They only changed their name to Windsor (from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) during the First War at a point when anti-German sentiment had become especially strong.

I used to have an office in Victoria that overlooked all of Buckingham Palace. I could see all the comings and goings, if I cared to, and it's clear from a cursory inspection of any London street map that Buckingham Palace would make a very easily identifiable target to have bombed during the last war. The Germans could have, and indeed there was some sort of botched attempt to do so, but I prefer to think that they would never have bombed their own countrymen.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Langham said:


> ^
> 
> Dhaller, I can only say that I find some of your postings betray, simultaneously, a marked aversion or perhaps hostility to the UK (which is something you should feel perfectly free to express), combined with a somewhat distorted projection or understanding of the country. To a Brit, your conception of "Britishness" betrays the preconceptions, I think, of an armchair tourist who forms his opinions on the basis of what he reads on Tripadvisor. I'm just slightly curious as to what really colours your perception of the country so strongly?


Well, I'm being a bit tongue in cheek (it IS the Interchange, after all); I have great affection for the UK, though it falls well short of being an Anglophile. I will say the most civilized values arise from Britain and its history (and I am very happy that the Anglophone world as a whole embodies them). I love studying its history as well, since it's sort of "packaged" in a way unique to island nations (Japanese history is similarly enjoyable) - indeed, my favorite monarch EVER is Alfred the Great (granted, that's stretching back a bit), someone I've never felt has gotten enough attention from biographers.

My concept of "Britishness" derives largely from the pomp of court, perhaps - I imagine George III listening to Handel on the Thames, for example, and even though it's just a bunch of Germans, it seems (to me) archetypically "British". So, I admit, for me it's pretty rolled up in red and gold.

Obviously Britain is a vital, modern economy, major banking center and so on, but, eh, so are a lot of other places. To be fair, I'd have to nod towards the literature (PD James mentioned to me once over dinner that the Brits are the world's most demanding readers, and that kept British writers sharp), the world's finest even by dint of Shakespeare alone.

Still, absence of royals would be a category-shifting loss for the UK, IMHO.

DH


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Dhaller said:


> Well, I'm being a bit tongue in cheek (it IS the Interchange, after all); I have great affection for the UK, though it falls well short of being an Anglophile. I will say the most civilized values arise from Britain and its history (and I am very happy that the Anglophone world as a whole embodies them). I love studying its history as well, since it's sort of "packaged" in a way unique to island nations (Japanese history is similarly enjoyable) - indeed, my favorite monarch EVER is Alfred the Great (granted, that's stretching back a bit), someone I've never felt has gotten enough attention from biographers.
> 
> My concept of "Britishness" derives largely from the pomp of court, perhaps - I imagine George III listening to Handel on the Thames, for example, and even though it's just a bunch of Germans, it seems (to me) archetypically "British". So, I admit, for me it's pretty rolled up in red and gold.
> 
> ...


It's understandable for you to view the UK in such terms but they seem to be those, essentially of a well-read tourist interested in sights, royalty, a bit of pageantry. For those actually living here, other aspects of life are much more important and personally I dislike the manipulation of things for the benefit of tourists. The objectification of national culture according to what sells to tourists leads quickly to what one finds in Venice, Amsterdam, Rome, Dubrovnik and many other places. They have largely become museums rather than cities to be lived in - mere sights to be consumed via the selfie sticks of the next shipload of tourists from Taiwan or wherever. It's been amply written about elsewhere so I won't go on, but it's becoming a pet peeve of mine.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Langham said:


> It's understandable for you to view the UK in such terms but they seem to be those, essentially of a well-read tourist interested in sights, royalty, a bit of pageantry. For those actually living here, other aspects of life are much more important and personally I dislike the manipulation of things for the benefit of tourists. The objectification of national culture according to what sells to tourists leads quickly to what one finds in Venice, Amsterdam, Rome, Dubrovnik and many other places. They have largely become museums rather than cities to be lived in - mere sights to be consumed via the selfie sticks of the next shipload of tourists from Taiwan or wherever. It's been amply written about elsewhere so I won't go on, but it's becoming a pet peeve of mine.


You provide a good overview of the main reason I avoid London at all costs and head directly into the countryside when in the UK. Edinburgh is the exception, a lovely city with the Royal Mile the only plague ridden area which I avoid.

I am a most avid Anglophile, so much so that I sent my daughter to Public School in Norfolk of all places (!), however, I must strongly agree with SG_67 that I don't see that having the royals become more like "us" has any value. But I am, as Kenneth Clarke described himself, a self proclaimed "stick in the mud".






Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Gresham's? A sound choice.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Langham said:


> ^ Gresham's? A sound choice.


Spot on. My daughter transitioned into an "Old Greshamian" last June.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

According to the Yahoo News feed this morning, Prince Charles will be walking Meghan down the aisle on Saturday! "How do you spell" acceptance into the fold/Family?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> According to the Yahoo News feed this morning, Prince Charles will be walking Meghan down the aisle on Saturday! "How do you spell" acceptance into the fold/Family?


In all fairness, Meghan's family has been swept up in a storm since the announcement. At this point it seems best that HRH Charles should walk her down the isle.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Just finished watching about 15 minutes of US morning news coverage “Live from Windsor”. I lost about 15 points from my IQ.

Obviously the most important parts of this wedding are fascinators and shoes!

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Just finished watching about 15 minutes of US morning news coverage "Live from Windsor". I lost about 15 points from my IQ.


Exactly...


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

A brief article comparing the wealth of the British monarchy with various others, all much richer. The wealthiest monarch in the world, apparently, is the Thai king, followed by various Middle Eastern rulers. King Hassan of Morocco is surprisingly wealthy too.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/18/pictures-worlds-richest-royals/


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Just finished watching about 15 minutes of US morning news coverage "Live from Windsor". I lost about 15 points from my IQ.
> 
> Obviously the most important parts of this wedding are fascinators and shoes!
> 
> ...


I just learned today about fascinators.

Apparently Prince Michael of Kent and his wife aren't invited. Too bad. I would have liked to have seen what he was wearing. I may just tune in to see the state of dress of the male guests.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

I’m a big Kate Middleton fan. Just had to get that off my chest.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Just finished watching about 15 minutes of US morning news coverage "Live from Windsor". I lost about 15 points from my IQ.
> 
> Obviously the most important parts of this wedding are fascinators and shoes!
> 
> ...


To the sort of "newsteams" who are assigned to the coverage, this event is the same as covering Kardassians on the "red carpet"

They're probably surprised that they can't stop the guests and ask "Who are you wearing?"


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

FLMike said:


> I'm a big Kate Middleton fan. Just had to get that off my chest.


I haven't seen her chest in a while. Apparently, she doesn't sunbathe as much as she once did.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> I just learned today about fascinators.
> 
> Apparently Prince Michael of Kent and his wife aren't invited. Too bad. I would have liked to have seen what he was wearing. I may just tune in to see the state of dress of the male guests.


I suspect with the exception of Sir Elton, it will be all uniforms and morning suits.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

I wonder if Prince Philip will say something amusing or outrageous. He cannot have many more entertaining quips left in him as he's creeping toward the century mark.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Cassadine said:


> I wonder if Prince Philip will say something amusing or outrageous. He cannot have many more entertaining quips left in him as he's creeping toward the century mark.


Prince Phillip is, allegedly, capable of authorising the assassination of unruly in-laws - Candle in the Wind 2018 coming soon to a record store near you!


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

So much sparkle in the Markle debacle.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

She looked absolutely beautiful.


----------



## Mr.D (Aug 2, 2015)

Shaver said:


> Prince Phillip is, allegedly, capable of authorising the assassination of unruly in-laws - Candle in the Wind 2018 coming soon to a record store near you!


Lol!


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

smmrfld said:


> She looked absolutely beautiful.


Especially considering she just gave birth less than a month ago.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

FLMike said:


> Especially considering she just gave birth less than a month ago.


Why would that matter? Did she give birth through her face?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

smmrfld said:


> She looked absolutely beautiful.


<chuckles softly>

Bless you.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Why would that matter? Did she give birth through her face?


Sometimes it takes women a little time to lose the "baby weight" and get back into tippy top shape. Of course, I was trying to be funny (unsuccessfully) and was referring to my favorite princess, Kate, rather than her new sis-in-law, who's not really my type.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

FLMike said:


> Sometimes it takes women a little time to lose the "baby weight" and get back into tippy top shape. Of course, I was trying to be funny (unsuccessfully) and was referring to my favorite princess, Kate.


Oh, I'm sorry, had I realised that you were crypto fat shaming then I would have joined in.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Oh, I'm sorry, had I realised that you were crypto fat shaming then I would have joined in.


No need to apologize, I've been looking for an opportunity to say tippy top shape ever since Easter.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

FLMike said:


> No need to apologize, I've been looking for an opportunity to say tippy top shape ever since Easter.


Tippy top sounds slightly effeminate. I would recommend 'tip-top'.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

FLMike said:


> Sometimes it takes women a little time to lose the "baby weight" and get back into tippy top shape. Of course, I was trying to be funny (unsuccessfully) and was referring to my favorite princess, Kate, rather than her new sis-in-law, who's not really my type.


BTW - I would counsel against describing Markle as not your type. Doubtless one of our members will roll up and accuse you of being a Grand Wizard.


----------



## Clintotron (Mar 24, 2015)

She’s my type for sure. One’s pigmentation, ethnic background, and/or regional influence has never affected my attraction to a girl/lady/woman. I’ve had relationships with most of the popular demographics in my whereabouts over the years. I once courted a STUNNING young lady who referred to herself as a “mutt” (and with a butt, I might add). In my immaturity, I didn’t protest her harsh self-judgement—I was too caught up in other aspects.
Duchess Meghan, while not a top choice of mine for a member of the royal family, is a sight to behold and I’d gladly spend time with her. My wife may even allow that, as she is a big fan of Suits. Haha!
Good day, gentlemen!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

Whew, I'll refrain from joining the present discussion you folks are having. From a stylistic perspective, Givenchy is looking mighty good today, although Mrs. Princess could make Walmart's house brand stylish.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Tippy top sounds slightly effeminate. I would recommend 'tip-top'.


I agree. It sounds especially goofy when being said by the POTUS.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

FLMike said:


> I agree. It sounds especially goofy when being said by the POTUS.


Trumpy- pumpy?

Four more years!


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Meghan is definitely not my type. It has nothing to do with her ethnicity. Something about her demeanor just annoys me.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

drlivingston said:


> Meghan is definitely not my type. It has nothing to do with her ethnicity. Something about her demeanor just annoys me.


Women who have <comment redacted> earn that demeanour.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

A couple of observations from the ceremony:

1) these events are little more than a gathering of celebs playing dress up and make believe. 

2) David and Victoria Beckham are now professional royal wedding guests.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tod Hackett said:


> Women who have <comment redacted> _and didn't enjoy it_ earn that demeanour.
> 
> There, fixed it for you...


Oh, I dunno. I observe that some types seem capable of enjoying anything that brings them attention.


----------



## ran23 (Dec 11, 2014)

Abigal Spencer sure took the camera time.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Regardless of your views of Markle, let us celebrate a rare non-Kardashian event.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I am presently catching the *ahem* _highlights_ of the wedding on BBC news. It reminds me of the Special Olympics.

At any rate I have now heard the noun 'diversity' bandied about so frequently and with such little regard for its meaning that I despair. Pity your old Uncle Shaver.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I don't suppose that I could encourage the moderator who removed my, seemingly innocuous, comment to contact me? 

I am determined to remain within the rules, and the spirit thereof, that this forum requires but I will not learn unless I am able to appreciate my error.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Shaver said:


> BTW - I would counsel against describing Markle as not your type. Doubtless one of our members will roll up and accuse you of being a Grand Wizard.


Suggesting that all of the derisive and mocking criticism of Meghan Markle is motivated by ignorant bigotry would be utterly absurd. Suggesting that none of the derisive and mocking criticism of Meghan Markle is motivated by ignorant bigotry would be at least equally absurd.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

RogerP said:


> Suggesting that all of the derisive and mocking criticism of Meghan Markle is motivated by ignorant bigotry would be utterly absurd. Suggesting that none of the derisive and mocking criticism of Meghan Markle is motivated by ignorant bigotry would be at least equally absurd.


With the greatest respect to you Roger, one of my favourite members here, and a man who I am proud to announce that I admire, it is possible to express a negative opinion that is without consideration for a person's heritage. That is not absurd, indeed in an era of equality it is necessarily required.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

nvm


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

RogerP said:


> Suggesting that all of the derisive and mocking criticism of Meghan Markle is motivated by ignorant bigotry would be utterly absurd. Suggesting that none of the derisive and mocking criticism of Meghan Markle is motivated by ignorant bigotry would be at least equally absurd.


I hope you weren't equating my saying that she's not my type with derisive and mocking criticism. I've only ever defended Meghan. I happen to quite like the girl. My wife and I have been big Suits fans for years. I think she's a decent actress and certainly very pretty. However, as Princesses go, Kate is my girl.


----------



## Mr.D (Aug 2, 2015)

drlivingston said:


> Regardless of your views of Markle, let us celebrate a rare non-Kardashian event.


How did they ever not get an invite?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> With the greatest respect to you Roger, one of my favourite members here, and a man who I am proud to announce that I admire, it is possible to express a negative opinion that is without consideration for a person's heritage. That is not absurd, indeed in an era of equality it is necessarily required.


Shaver - As one who admires both you and Roger, I am at a loss in discerning the basis of your disagreement with Roger's post.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

I watched some of the televised coverage. Six hours of coverage, so the conversation by necessity was overloaded with the shallow and vapid.

The Duke of Sussex is sixth in line for the throne. King George VI was fourth when he was born. Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent was fifth. It’s highly unlikely that anything he and his wife do will have a direct and long-lasting effect on the monarchy.

So we talk about hats.

While he quoted MLK, the American bishop who gave the sermon should not be described as merely “the preacher.” He’s the head of the Episcopal church in the United States, which recognizes the Archbishop of Canterbury as the head of the Anglican Communion but not the Queen as head of the church. 

Her Majesty has three looks - a polite smile, a smile that suggests she’s thought of a dirty joke, and what’s known as Resting B*tch Face. Her perceived lack of enthusiasm during the sermon is no indication of what she thought of it.

My sartorial question is the front of the tunics on the princes - did Dege & Skinner put ruffles on the front?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Miket61 said:


> ...
> 
> My sartorial question is the front of the tunics on the princes - did Dege & Skinner put ruffles on the front?


No. Prince Harry's tunic was the No. 1 dress tunic of the Blues and Royals. His was made by Dege & Skinner. There is some information here on the braiding you mention.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Shaver - As one who admires both you and Roger, I am at a loss in discerning the basis of your disagreement with Roger's post.


I edited my previous post as I did not initially grasp what @RogerP was saying. Uncomfortable truths are still truths...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Shaver - As one who admires both you and Roger, I am at a loss in discerning the basis of your disagreement with Roger's post.


Thank you Mike - you are one of the most decent men on this forum and your opinion is highly valued by me and I suspect many others.

Roger may be correct but I have experienced nothing which supports that position.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver, thank you. Please understand I am not trying to suggest that Roger’s assertions are right and you assertion is wrong. Instead, it seems to me that your assertion is logically compatible with his second assertion and is in substantial agreement with his first. In other words I wonder if perhaps you initially misread him ala the esteemed drlivingston.


----------



## Mr.D (Aug 2, 2015)

Some here may not like the idea that she could be a possible opportunist or prospector.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Shaver, thank you. Please understand I am not trying to suggest that Roger's assertions are right and you assertion is wrong. Instead, it seems to me that your assertion is logically compatible with his second assertion and is in substantial agreement with his first. In other words I wonder if perhaps you initially misread him ala the esteemed drlivingston.


I have read Roger's post several times and, please forgive me, but, am I missing some important nuance?

The suggestion seems to me that some critics of Markle are motivated by reasons other than her behaviour.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Mr.D said:


> Some here may not like the idea that she could be a possible opportunist or prospector.


She's a successful actress with several entrepreneurial projects. He's a Prince of the United Kingdom. There's no doubt that by any social standard she "married up."

But I don't think it's fair to suggest she had improper motives for marrying Harry.

Funny that we don't look at the story of Cinderella as being a "possible opportunist or prospector" even though she had nothing going for her but a minor noble birth.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> I have read Roger's post several times and, please forgive me, but, am I missing some important nuance?
> 
> The suggestion seems to me that some critics of Markle are motivated by reasons other than her behaviour.


Yes, some. Given many thousands of critics any assertion to the contrary is implausible. At the same time he makes it abundantly clear that many criticize for behavioral reasons alone. The two assertions are entirely compatible and almost certainly true, as is your assertion that it is entirely possible to criticize based on behavior alone.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Langham said:


> No. Prince Harry's tunic was the No. 1 dress tunic of the Blues and Royals. His was made by Dege & Skinner. There is some information here on the braiding you mention.


Thank you. Still can't find a decent picture that shows the braiding on the front.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, some. Given many thousands of critics any assertion to the contrary is implausible. At the same time he makes it abundantly clear that many criticize for behavioral reasons alone. The two assertions are entirely compatible and almost certainly true, as is your assertion that it is entirely possible to criticize based on behavior alone.


Might I enquire - what reason, apart from her character, might engender distaste?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Might I enquire - what reason, apart from her character, might engender distaste?[/QUOTE





Shaver said:


> Might I enquire - what reason, apart from her character, might engender distaste?


Of course. Bigotry for one, nationality for another.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Miket61 said:


> She's a successful actress with several entrepreneurial projects. He's a Prince of the United Kingdom. There's no doubt that by any social standard she "married up."
> 
> But I don't think it's fair to suggest she had improper motives for marrying Harry.
> 
> Funny that we don't look at the story of Cinderella as being a "possible opportunist or prospector" even though she had nothing going for her but a minor noble birth.


Indeed, and one can make a reasonable case that the percentage of eligible women - worldwide - who, if having accepted a marital proposal from this particular gent, would have then "married up" is exactly 100.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Of course. Bigotry for one, nationality for another.


Bigotry? Nationality? She is disliked for her opinion and her passport?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Bigotry? Nationality? So, despite her multitudinous failings, we are to believe that she is disliked for her opinion and her passport?


Shaver - opinions vary, but sadly the answer is yes for some, though hopefully few.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Shaver said:


> I have read Roger's post several times and, please forgive me, but, am I missing some important nuance?
> 
> The suggestion seems to me that *some critics of Markle are motivated by reasons other than her behaviour*.


That is why I had to re-read @RogerP s post and edit my response post. Being completely self-centered, I originally thought that Roger was calling me out for my dislike of Meghan. Instead, he was making a well-worded statement about the situation as a whole.
Racism is alive and well in the South. Yes, there are MANY people who are against the royal marriage based solely on the ethnicity of Ms. Markle.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Shaver - opinions vary, but sadly the answer is yes for some, though hopefully few.


I would be keen to see any evidence which supports this position.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

drlivingston said:


> That is why I had to re-read @RogerP s post and edit my response post. Being completely self-centered, I originally thought that Roger was calling me out for my dislike of Meghan. Instead, he was making a well-worded statement about the situation as a whole.
> Racism is alive and well in the South. Yes, there are MANY people who are against the royal marriage based solely on the ethnicity of Ms. Markle.


I will, generously, disregard the undue capitalisation. 

Again - evidence?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

drlivingston said:


> That is why I had to re-read @RogerP s post and edit my response post. Being completely self-centered, I originally thought that Roger was calling me out for my dislike of Meghan. Instead, he was making a well-worded statement about the situation as a whole.
> Racism is alive and well in the South. Yes, there are MANY people who are against the royal marriage based solely on the ethnicity of Ms. Markle.


I have lived in the South, and I have lived in the North. It is an amusing conceit of the latter that racism is more predominant in the former.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> I would be keen to see any evidence which supports this position.


Are you seriously suggesting that no living person dislikes Ms. Markle just because of her race or thinks she is ill-suited to her new position because of her heritage? You are far too worldly to be so naive. That is not to say that it is fair or accurate to assume those who dislike her generally do so based on such base motivations.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I have lived in the South, and I have lived in the North. It is an amusing conceit of the latter that racism is more predominant in the former.


I, too, have spent much time in both regions. While it's certainly true that the South does not have a monopoly in the bigotry market, I can only report on my own experiences and observations.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that no living person dislikes Ms. Markle just because of her race or thinks she is ill-suited to her new position because of her heritage? You are far too worldly to be so naive. That is not to say that it is fair or accurate to assume those who dislike her do so generally based on such base motivations.


I see.

No evidence then?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> No evidence then?


No.
Now will you kindly reciprocate by answering my question with a simple yes or no?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> No.
> Now will you kindly reciprocate by answering my question with a simple yes or no?


As you fail to evidence your allegation then I choose not to kindly reciprocate.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Miket61 said:


> Thank you. Still can't find a decent picture that shows the braiding on the front.


There - the braiding on the sleeves can also be appreciated here.

The formal uniform of various British army regiments, cavalry in particular, has always been quite ornate.

Edit - I don't think this was the coat he wore to the wedding, but the details are quite similar.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

I, for one, am glad this ridiculous event is over.

Marriage based on chivalric romantic love vs the ancient tradition of arranged royal marriage. Neither is a particularly sound foundation in my view. The statistical proof against the former is rather overwhelming. The latter is too small a sample size to be of statistical value.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## jtbing (Jun 6, 2017)

The level of poison contained within the unwarranted assaults on the new Duchess's character by some who would consider themselves "gentlemen" is quite disheartening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I, for one, would like someone to point out to me remarks contained within this thread that suggest some racial animus toward the bride. 

The generality of racism existing does not suffice. All things exist in general. I want specifics. Otherwise I suggest a cessation of such race bating.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> I, for one, would like someone to point out to me remarks contained within this thread that suggest some racial animus toward the bride.
> 
> The generality of racism existing does not suffice. All things exist in general. I want specifics. Otherwise I suggest a cessation of such race bating.


Why? Has anyone suggested the existence of either such remarks or such animus from thread commenters?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mike Petrik said:


> Why? Has anyone suggested the existence of either such remarks or such animus from thread commenters?


This thread skirted around the issue of race. Though I'm not sure why. So for those who initiated the comments on racism, I'd like to know why they felt the need to.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> As you fail to evidence your allegation then I choose not to kindly reciprocate.


But of course. A truthful response would have exposed the fact that you have been insisting on evidence to support a claim you already knew to be true, and you are too much of a gentleman to lie.


----------



## jtbing (Jun 6, 2017)

SG_67 said:


> This thread skirted around the issue of race. Though I'm not sure why. So for those who initiated the comments on racism, I'd like to know why they felt the need to.


I wouldn't accuse anyone of racism based on his comments here, although that certainly was suggested to my mind by Shaver's initial post--in which he implied that he couldn't reveal his true opinions.

I'm more concerned with the attacks on her character.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
People, not uncommonly, read far more into postings than was originally intended or perhaps were drawn in by the the rhetorical chum spread upon the water by those fishing for discontented respondents. The choice is yours to make. There are times I question whether I have been somehow transported to Neverland and am playing in the midst of Peter Pan and his never aging little buddies! :teacha:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The novel Peter Pan resonated strongly with me as a little boy. Indeed I vividly recall my first, but not my last, reading - from cover to cover in one sitting.

Nana had no doubt of what was the best thing to do with this shadow. She hung it out at the window, meaning "He is sure to come back for it; let us put it where he can get it easily without disturbing the children."

I accept a proportion of responsibility as the OP and now take my leave of this thread with no hard feelings held towards any of those members who contributed.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I, for one, would like someone to point out to me remarks contained within this thread that suggest some racial animus toward the bride.


Try these on for size:

"The boy should have gone to Jamaica and thrown a rock if that is his style" (post 38)

and

"If a man is going to go for that Caribbean Creole sort of look look in a gal, I'd suggest keeping it real, mon, by going straight to the source and skipping the whole Compton thing..." (post 40)

Granted, neither *explicitly* refers to race, but it doesn't take a latter-day Alan Turing to decode these comments.

DH


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Dhaller said:


> Try these on for size:
> 
> "The boy should have gone to Jamaica and thrown a rock if that is his style" (post 38)
> 
> ...


Perhaps comments that would make me cringe a bit but I fail to find the racism within.

This whole affair is overblown and really little more than a soap opera. My only point is that somehow the notion of racism is conveniently slipped in by some.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Score:

1 - Reckless extrapolation, presumption, speculation, conjecture, political correctness run amok.

0 - Common sense, and critical thought.

Pathetic, what some have turned this thread into,....


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

If Ms. Marker ever finds herself craving a ruddy faced greying, middle aged Anglo-German and she doesn't want to wait for Harry to get long in the tooth...she wont need to look me up in Debretts!

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tod Hackett said:


> I guess that means that I won't be forced to denounce myself before the Central Committee?
> 
> Remind me never to hang out at the hotel bar past nine with you fellows...


No need to explain yourself to me or anyone else.

The denizens (some) of AAAC can be a sensitive crowd.

Some are drawn to then allure of outrage chic as moths to a flame.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

Tod Hackett said:


> To remark upon someones selectively quoted comments to a third party without the decency to "ping" them is quite rude indeed.
> 
> So...
> 
> ...


Ha! You left out Bolshi trolls.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

Tod Hackett said:


> ...If a man is going to go for that Caribbean Creole sort of look look in a gal, I'd suggest keeping it real, mon, by going straight to the source and skipping the whole Compton thing...


So I don't profess to be 'woke' and I'm certainly not in the business of crying racism, but that's a pretty bad post.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

jts287 said:


> So I don't profess to be 'woke' and I'm certainly not in the business of crying racism, but that's a pretty bad post.


It implies that all women with African ancestry or appearance are effectively interchangeable and equally undesirable.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Miket61 said:


> It implies that all women with African ancestry or appearance are effectively interchangeable and equally undesirable.


I disagree. There is not one aspect of the post that implies all women of African ancestry are interchangeable or undesirable. Noticing an individual's race, regardless of what race that may be, is not inherently racist.

From the post in question I could vision a fellow who has an inherent attraction to women of African ancestry. And, if so, that in and of itself can be construed as racist. Most ANYTHING in the context of a conversation that mentions race can be construed as racist.

My opinion is that you may have gulped down too much "Politically correct Kool Aid."


----------



## jts287 (Apr 19, 2018)

When I'm quoted, I see an indicator around the 'alerts' link on the top right of my phone screen. 
Past that, perhaps it's the impudence/ignorance of youth (relative), but I have no idea what you're talking about.
Regardless, the Compton post is a bad look, and you should own that, or don't. We're all just anonymous people opining about whatever here.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

jts287 said:


> When I'm quoted, I see an indicator around the 'alerts' link on the top right of my phone screen.
> Past that, perhaps it's the impudence/ignorance of youth (relative), but I have no idea what you're talking about.
> Regardless, the Compton post is a bad look, and you should own that, or don't. We're all just anonymous people opining about whatever here.


Yet Some are more anonymous than others.

Some wish to bait Mr. Shaver into being rewarded with the sobriquet "suspended". While on his best behaviour, we are left with fits of pique from the goaders.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

I do think it was inappropriate to quote someone in a way that didn’t alert them.

That said, suggesting that someone goes to a place where many women share part of the lady’s ancestry and suggest he throw a rock to find a different suitable mate not only implies but states that this is all he cares about or is looking for.

I’m curious why, when several people have said your comment was racist, rather than apologizing that your statement was misinterpreted, you attack the people who said it.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> I disagree. There is not one aspect of the post that implies all women of African ancestry are interchangeable or undesirable. Noticing an individual's race, regardless of what race that may be, is not inherently racist.
> 
> From the post in question I could vision a fellow who has an inherent attraction to women of African ancestry. And, if so, that in and of itself can be construed as racist. Most ANYTHING in the context of a conversation that mentions race can be construed as racist.
> 
> My opinion is that you may have gulped down too much "Politically correct Kool Aid."


Your premise is that Harry was attracted to Meghan because of her race. Which is in itself racist.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Tod Hackett said:


> Talking about a man behind his back? Nice.
> 
> Putting words into his mouth? Better yet.
> 
> ...


Replying to your post again so you may see it clearly. Which, at your proudly mentioned advanced age, might be difficult.

I'm in Atlanta. I've seen racism. I know people who have experienced racism. I know people who have had crosses burned on their lawn by the Klan. I don't need you to tell me what racism is or isn't.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Miket61 said:


> Your premise is that Harry was attracted to Meghan because of her race. Which is in itself racist.


I said nothing whatsoever about the Prince. You are a race baiter, and that is racist!

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Race Baiter

Further, you have no standing to define who is racist and your experiences do not make your opinion remarkable.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

IBTL


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> I said nothing whatsoever about the Prince. You are a race baiter, and that is racist!
> 
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Race Baiter


You're talking in circles. You said if that was his main reason for attraction to his now wife, it's racist.

I don't disagree, if it were true. I do think some mixed race couples have an element to their attraction that's based on racial biases. I don't think that's the case here.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Miket61 said:


> You're talking in circles. You said if that was his main reason for attraction to his now wife, it's racist.
> 
> I don't disagree, if it were true. I do think some mixed race couples have an element to their attraction that's based on racial biases. I don't think that's the case here.


No no, YOU are talking in circles. Your opinions are no more valuable than millions of others,.....You are one in a crowd. You are unremarkable.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> No no, YOU are talking in circles. Your opinions are no more valuable than millions of others,.....You are one in a crowd. You are unremarkable.


I'll wait for the package to come in the mail showing that your opinion matters more than mine.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

One in a crowd you are no more or less valuable than anyone else's opinion. 

You are a race baiter.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> One in a crowd you are no more or less valuable than anyone else's opinion.
> 
> You are a race baiter.


And you haven't demonstrated why my opinion is less valid than yours.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

This conversation really should be ended. To suggest that Harry had his choice of every eligible woman is misogynistic- not all women are compelled to have him. To suggest that the only appealing thing he found about Ms. Markle was her race makes assumptions that are not in evidence. To suggest that he could have replaced Ms.Markle with any other woman based solely on the race of the other women is racist.


----------



## Mr.D (Aug 2, 2015)

Miket61 said:
"Her Majesty has three looks - a polite smile, a smile that suggests she's thought of a dirty joke, and what's known as *Resting B*tch Face*."

Love the way you put that.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

What I don't like is people putting together the good old days with the bad old days. And from one part of the country words and phrases can have different meanings and false accusations start flying because people are so glued to there own area and can't think outside that box. Some stuff I've written in the past was removed, and it had nothing to do with racism. People are not even allowed to learn how to think different, and get away from racism. An opened mind and learning is banned.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

So, is wearing navy blue pants a problem?


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

drlivingston said:


> So, is wearing navy blue pants a problem?


Please point me towards a shade, a hue, at least two would be preferred, of blue that will work with my medium blue, burgundy, forest over yellowish tan gun club check jacket.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> "One can dilute the bloodline until being a royal means nothing. It simply means you were lucky enough, or good enough in bed, to catch the attention of someone already having gains admission by similar means.
> 
> Perhaps I'm wrong."
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "diluting the bloodline". Royalty was not ordained by any god. Royalty has never really had any meaning. Throughout history, people became "royal" by virtue of being lucky, being good at war, marrying the right person, etc.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

I would argue that women have been the greatest benefactors from marrying up throughout history with one or two notable recent exceptions, for example Albert and Phillip.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Clintotron (Mar 24, 2015)

127.72 MHz said:


> Please point me towards a shade, a hue, at least two would be preferred, of blue that will work with my medium blue, burgundy, forest over yellowish tan gun club check jacket.


Is there a photo of the jacket? Too much drama to sift through, above.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson (Jan 16, 2017)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6276715/Harry-Meghan-announce-expecting-child-together.html

Right out of the handbook....seal the deal ASAP.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6276715/Harry-Meghan-announce-expecting-child-together.html
> 
> Right out of the handbook....seal the deal ASAP.
> 
> ...


I wonder how she feels to know that her sole function in life is now to be a production facility for potential heirs and to keep the dynasty afloat.

I read somewhere that technically, the sovereign has custody of the children of her progeny.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Given their respective ages, it seems almost imperative that the Prince and Duchess would start tying immediately to get pregnant. It would appear that they have succeeded. Their seems to be nothing wrong with that! :icon_scratch:


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Given their respective ages, it seems almost imperative that the Prince and Duchess would start tying immediately to get pregnant. It would appear that they have succeeded. Their seems to be nothing wrong with that! :icon_scratch:


But Eagle, as obviously correct as your sentiment is, it doesn't fit the narrative unfortunately.


----------



## Clintotron (Mar 24, 2015)

I’ll be glad to take a shift in the old baby factory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Clintotron said:


> I'll be glad to take a shift in the old baby factory.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Now that's the spirit!


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Clintotron said:


> I'll be glad to take a shift in the old baby factory.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Camilla! you're up!


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

So you call your xxxxx Camilla!


----------



## Mr.D (Aug 2, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> I read somewhere that technically, the sovereign has custody of the children of her progeny.


I never heard that - it probably is not in the mainstream media, but sounds likely as a royal prerogative.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Mr.D said:


> I never heard that - it probably is not in the mainstream media, but sounds likely as a royal prerogative.


It's probably something that exists as a formality only.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> I wonder how she feels to know that her sole function in life is now to be a production facility for potential heirs and to keep the dynasty afloat.
> 
> I read somewhere that technically, the sovereign has custody of the children of her progeny.


LOL. Typical of so many families, GrandMa rules! Why should the Queen 'Great Grandmother' be any different? :icon_scratch:


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Mr.D said:


> I never heard that - it probably is not in the mainstream media, but sounds likely as a royal prerogative.


This. It is a Royal prerogative, not an act of Parliament, so not legally binding.
The story behind this is that in 1717, a major disagreement that King George I had with his son over how he was raising his children led to him being granted authority over his grandchildren. Judges ruled in the king's favor, stating that the "king's right of supervision extended to his grandchildren and this right of right belongs to His Majesty, King of the Realm, even during their father's lifetime."


----------

