Meghan and Harry are about the only Royals I have time for these days.

I will be glad when the circus leaves town and we can get back to the real world.

I do wonder what dirty deeds are being quietly buried while this farrago of excessive emotion is drowning out any sensible reporting.

Quote from: Ithoriel on 12 September 2022, 08:05:47 PMMeghan and Harry are about the only Royals I have time for these days.

I know very little about Megahn other than she is obviously held to a much higher standard than other royals, former or otherwise. There is more hatred aimed at her than Andrew who was a willing associate of a convicted sex trafficker and Charles who utilised Jimmy Savile as a marriage counselor. Simply weird.

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 12 September 2022, 08:24:05 PMand Charles who utilised Jimmy Savile as a marriage counselor. Simply weird.

Now I think you are being selective and cruel.
Many, many people (in fact the majority I would suggest) were simply unaware of what Savile was up to.

Meghan's 'crime' appears to be that she attempted to change the Royal Institution(s) and to try and mould them into her way of doing things and then got upset when those Institutions wouldn't change. Certain of the UK Press - some red-tops and some established 'Daily's' also didn't take lightly to being lectured by her, about how they were depicting her, so she dragged Harry off in a litigious 'huff' to California and started issuing libel writs and giving one-sided contentious interviews to the TV, that she knew full well that 'The Firm' would not counter.
Whether she has a point (or not) about feeling she was discriminated against I cannot say and I doubt that we'll ever know the truth.

Personally, I think there is no excuse for Andrew, despite the TV interview that showed him to not only to be dim but also very gullible.

But over all of this there was always the Queen ... and she appears to have remained above all this sordid stuff ... even when attacked directly. She was a great public servant who has worked tirelessly for the good of the UK and the Commonwealth since she took office. Let us hope that Charles III can build on that legacy.
 

As you say some people were aware of Savile and his proclivities, it was certainly common knowledge within the BBC from at least the eighties. With that in mind, it is a surprise that the security services who guard the monarchy weren't aware and didn't warn Charles there was something seriously wrong. There is also a similar sort of dynamic with his association with Peter Ball ( you can google him if you wish).

I suspect in truth Charles is simply naive in the extreme and stands by his friends and that is the kindest explanation a reasonable person could offer.

I am also not entirely sure it is fair to say the Queen remained above all the sordid stuff as she, perhaps understandably, felt obliged  to contribute to paying  12 million to settle the sex abuse case involving Virginia Giuffre

If you mean she wasn't willing to live like it was the 1950's I agree John. But she and Harry seemed to throw themselves into Royal visits and Royal patronage with enthusiasm .... until everything she did was wrong and everything Kate did was brilliant .... even when they were the same things. I can say from experience that if you are continually told that you can't do right for doing wrong you soon learn doing wrong is a faster route to the same end.

However, you are entitled to your opinion of her as I am to mine and this is very far from wargaming so I shall try to keep my thoughts on all this to myself and concentrate on 2mm Romans, if my nose ever stops running.

Or perhaps "Prince Harry's Own Light Horse" or "Meghan's Mechanised Militia" for AVBCWII?

QuoteI have no agenda here at all.  What exactly do you mean?  It is patently obvious that she didn't take to the responsibilities of Royal life and all which that entailed.  Only a deaf and blind, or terminally dull, person would think otherwise.

Well, speaking as a terminally dull person that is one of the funniest things I have ever read.


Not sure it isn't  a mutant  variant of the 'no true Scotsman " logical fallacy

Quote from: Ithoriel on 12 September 2022, 09:51:41 PMIf you mean she wasn't willing to live like it was the 1950's

No, she wasn't willing to live like it is in the 2020s.   This is the 'Non-Wargaming Discussion' part of The Forum but you are right about opinions, we are both entitled to them.
 

Quote from: Big Insect on 12 September 2022, 08:42:58 PMNow I think you are being selective and cruel.

I agree entirely, with your entire post.

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 12 September 2022, 09:53:19 PMWell, speaking as a terminally dull person that is one of the funniest things I have ever read.

How is it funny?  Perhaps you could elaborate.  You still haven't explained what you think my agenda is.  In order to have an agenda, I would want to have something done.  What do you think it is?

Hey Peeps!
Thing about Meghan... and Diana... and maybe Fergie is that THEY KNEW what they were 'Buying Into'.
And tried to change it to THEIR wishes. Too much 'SELF' and not 'Duty'.
I rate 'Kate' much better.

2022 is not 1950s... but, HMQ provided the 'link' to older values. IMHO... those 'older values' are what is needed from a 'Royal'. Present society has very little / none.

Just read of some Scumbag setting  Dog alight. Now, some things do not change. There were Scum, Paedo's, etc. in 1940s. BUT 'Stability' is what holds things together, somewehat.

There is a modern attitude that 'Change' is Good'. Read Orwell! I know from work that 'Change is 'exciting'? LOL! Bo***x! People NEED 'stability'.

Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 13 September 2022, 03:40:26 AMThing about Meghan... and Diana... and maybe Fergie is that THEY KNEW what they were 'Buying Into'.
And tried to change it to THEIR wishes. Too much 'SELF' and not 'Duty'.
I rate 'Kate' much better.

Just to ask a direct question. Why are you critical of Meghan, Diana and maybe Fergie for too much Self and not Duty but not Andrew who put whatever services he was getting from Epstein before the good of the monarchy and the state whose largesse he was a recipient of?

And of course everybody forgets that Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot in the Falklands War. As for Ginge and Whinge...

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 13 September 2022, 04:40:07 AMJust to ask a direct question. Why are you critical of Meghan, Diana and maybe Fergie for too much Self and not Duty but not Andrew who put whatever services he was getting from Epstein before the good of the monarchy and the state whose largesse he was a recipient of?

To be Honest, I do not know about Meghan.
I have not paid all that much attention to her but thought that she had a 'shifty' look when she appeared.
I was wrong about Diana... thought She was perfect... and then she was NOT. Fergie was going to be a disaster from start.
I would give Meghan 'benefit of the doubt'... becoming under media scrutiny must he awkward. But.
Much adverse comment in media... which should be ignored! But,  Mother and several female friends / relatives did not take to her either... and they, usually 'forgiving'... especially to a female. I usually am, also.
She...or, rather her Legal Team (!) seem fond of litigation... maybe 'the American Way' of things... but should recognise that that 'looks' bad to Brits. The 'Old' Royals preferred to keep things quiet as 'the Monarchy' was all important.
'Discrimination' card...well! If that was true, she would not be there.
Retreating to USA and becoming a 'Media Celeb' on talk shows do not help.
I just have not taken to her.

Andrew was ok... but seems to have become rather foolish in later life... though I am very dubious about allegations... he should have known better. And as for 'interview'! Almost as 'cringeworthy' as Diana interview... but She 'played it'...Andrew just appeared dim!

I'm starting to think I'm seeing Hello! magazine lately, not Pendraken!

Quote from: Ben Waterhouse on 13 September 2022, 10:00:21 AMAnd of course everybody forgets that Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot in the Falklands War. As for Ginge and Whinge...

And don't forget too that The Queen had her portrait painted by Rolf Harris, later  convicted for sex-offences    flamingpig0 forgot to mention that.