|
Post by Stellar on May 15, 2021 9:18:30 GMT 10
Ha ha! Prince Charles is going to cut the Royal Family down to 6 members. Charles and Camilla, Princess Anne, Edward and William and Catherine. He's always planned on doing this when his mother dies. Prince Phillip also approved of reducing the numbers so that it would cost the British taxpayers a lot less to keep all those clamouring hordes of minor royals up to the standard they have become accustomed to and expect as their birthright. This is good news because that means Randy Andy is OUT for good! Plus the two useless daughters. How much they will still be getting is yet to be seen as Andrew is an extremely entitled person who thinks he, Beatrice and Eugenie are indispensable to the firm. As for Harry and Meghan, take away their titles forthwith! They are making mega millions on the back of those titles and that is so wrong on every level - especially as they continue to trash the family at least once a month in the US media - or is that once a fortnight? Whatever, neither of them ever miss a chance to put the boot in. I can't see them ever being forgiven for their betrayal. Especially as they say they left the UK to escape the intrusion of the media in their lives. But hypocritically they are revealing every miserable little detail of their lives in the royal family because it means mega millions from the media they say they despise. And now that Harry is pathetically whining about his "genetic pain" and his miserable life where he suffered greatly with mental health issues, this is just another kick in the guts to the Queen who cannot even bereave in peace. But of course he believes it makes him eminently suitable to host his latest mental health series so of course he's out spruiking his miserable life experiences. This latest betrayal looks like there's no way back now for the Sussexes. I just hope his 16 bathrooms in his mega mansion makes up for it.
|
|
|
Post by pim on May 15, 2021 10:28:29 GMT 10
H's plan seems to be the Kardashian "celebrity" model: a life of obscene luxury in his California gated community with the glitterati as neighbours with regular therapy by TV interview - very generously remunerated of course!
There's a lot in what you say Stellar. The downsizing of the monarchy flagged by Prince Charles was always going to happen. When it happens. Mind you Charles' adult life has been an ongoing Death Watch which, as HM advances into her dotage, is becoming unseemly. She doesn't have to abdicate, just name Charles as Prince Regent and retire as a type of Dowager Queen. Who would begrudge her that!
Regarding Harry, there is a very creative solution which could work firstly to give H a meaningful role, secondly to get him out of the way as far as the Royals in the UK are concerned, and thirdly to take the wind out of the sails of Australian republicans once and for all. There's plenty of precedent for this - in Greece, in Spain, in Belgium and in the Netherlands. These are all constitutional monarchies - or rather have been, in the case of Greece. They function quite well and are good countries to live in. These monarchies were "seeded" in those countries after the Napoleonic Wars so they're relatively recent monarchies compared with the UK. They were seeded from existing royalty in the UK and Scandinavia. The title of King/Queen of Australia already exists. Why not put flesh on those bones and offer H the title of King of Australia? Don't laugh! Do you really think the current model of absentee monarchy will continue to work Down Under? I know you're a monarchist and that you don't want Australia to become a republic. Think Edmund Burke and his theories regarding conservative reform. It's the reform Burke would approve of.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on May 15, 2021 18:04:40 GMT 10
Harry is a pathetic ponce.
No one needs a mentally damaged King as head of Australia.
Prince Charles has been in contact with WA recently. He knows what is going on down under
|
|
|
Post by caskur on May 15, 2021 18:06:49 GMT 10
Fergie and her daughters better start writing more childrens books.....lol
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on May 15, 2021 20:29:07 GMT 10
H's plan seems to be the Kardashian "celebrity" model: a life of obscene luxury in his California gated community with the glitterati as neighbours with regular therapy by TV interview - very generously remunerated of course! Harry isn't a Kardashian type. He hasn't got the looks or personality. Without his titles he's just another ordinary Joe Blow type - a bit of boofhead actually. And answers to Meghan.There's a lot in what you say Stellar. The downsizing of the monarchy flagged by Prince Charles was always going to happen. When it happens. Mind you Charles' adult life has been an ongoing Death Watch which, as HM advances into her dotage, is becoming unseemly. She doesn't have to abdicate, just name Charles as Prince Regent and retire as a type of Dowager Queen. Who would begrudge her that! I'd be happy with Charles taking over more of Her Maj's duties. Considering her age and what with covid and everything, she's earned a rest. Regarding Harry, there is a very creative solution which could work firstly to give H a meaningful role, secondly to get him out of the way as far as the Royals in the UK are concerned, and thirdly to take the wind out of the sails of Australian republicans once and for all. There's plenty of precedent for this - in Greece, in Spain, in Belgium and in the Netherlands. These are all constitutional monarchies - or rather have been, in the case of Greece. They function quite well and are good countries to live in. These monarchies were "seeded" in those countries after the Napoleonic Wars so they're relatively recent monarchies compared with the UK. They were seeded from existing royalty in the UK and Scandinavia. The title of King/Queen of Australia already exists. Why not put flesh on those bones and offer H the title of King of Australia? Don't laugh! Do you really think the current model of absentee monarchy will continue to work Down Under? I know you're a monarchist and that you don't want Australia to become a republic. Think Edmund Burke and his theories regarding conservative reform. It's the reform Burke would approve of. Actually I'm not a Monarchist. I voted for the Republic in the referendum! I wasn't unhappy to see the Monarchy retained though. But I don't want to see either of those two whining hypocrites down here. Not that they'd come anyway, they like making money too much and living a life of luxury and Hollywood is where it's at. Meghan definitely fell on her feet meeting up with Harry - before she met him she had a personal fortune of around $4 million which is peanuts in Hollywood. Now they're worth about $187 million - all thanks to those titles. And not only did B grade Meghan bag a prince, she got a weak, snivelling little whinger who she has wrapped around her little finger. And while she has him bagging his family and trashing the Monarchy, they're making mega millions. But Hollywood will tire of that and them before too long. The best thing Charles can do is to remove their titles seeing as they hate royalty and the royals so much. And see how they go then.
|
|
|
Post by pim on May 15, 2021 22:11:17 GMT 10
It’s a moot point because the offer will never be made and the creative solution will never be seriously considered. I’m sure you’re right that there would be other Windsors more capable than H. I really don’t want to go there. The reason that the Windsors won’t find a suitable candidate from within their extensive gene pool to “seed” their dynasty in any or all of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms, i.e. those member countries of the Commonwealth where the Queen is Head of State, is because they lack the wit to do so. Take the Bourbon dynasty in France. Do you think they went extinct because they were snuffed out in France? Not on your Nelly! They popped up in Spain where they are currently the Spanish royal family. Which raises the question: what about the Romanovs who’d been the Russian imperial family for centuries until the Revolution? I understand that there are still a few Romanovs floating around. Watch this space. The Putin regime is becoming more and more Bonapartist. Trouble with those sorts of regimes is that they don’t handle the succession very well. Don’t write off a Tsarist restoration after Putin goes. Then there’s the Hapsburgs. They were an ancient monarchy. The old Holy Roman Emperor was always a Hapsburg. It was WW1 that finished them off but they used to be everywhere. At one stage they were also the Spanish royal family. Royal dynasties “seed” themselves in all sorts of places. If the Windsors “seeded” Antipodean monarchies in Australia and NZ there would be loads of precedents to support the idea.
What I’m certain of is that change is on the horizon. When the Queen goes to her Eternal Reward she’ll leave a pair of shoes that nobody would be able to fill and it would be unfair to expect Charles, or anyone for that matter, to step into them. The current model where the British Sovereign is also monarch in sixteen Commonwealth realms appears to be a time-honoured and venerable state of affairs. But it doesn’t go back any further than the Queen. Before 1948 there was no such thing as an Australian citizen. We were British Subjects. Britain wasn’t even considered a foreign country in Australian law until in 1999 the High Court ruled that it was. The modern Commonwealth is so much the Queen’s creation - she created it and nurtured it over the decades. It has been her passion - that it’s difficult to see it surviving for very long after her passing. That raises an important point: given that our membership of the Commonwealth has been of such importance to us - and it has been, as any Australian who benefited from the two year working visa our status as a Commonwealth Realm was worth to young Australians under age 26 could testify - and given its centrality as part of our relationship with the monarchy, what happens to that relationship when the Commonwealth folds?
Then there’s the issue of Charles declared intention to downsize the monarchy. A sensible idea and probably long overdue. But do you really think the downsizing will limit itself to a cull of the Civil List - i.e. Royal hangers-on who directly, and indirectly too, benefit from taxpayer largesse? I’d say that will only be the beginning. Next will come the Big One for the British: whose monarchy it it? Is it really “their” monarchy if they have to share it with 16 other countries? What if the next great act of downsizing is that Charles, his heirs and successors, will be King of the United Kingdom only, and of nowhere else? No more imperial grandstanding, the British monarchy becomes the downsized monarchy of a foggy island off the coast of Europe, a bit like the bicycle riding monarchies of the Benelux and Scandinavian countries. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the other “realms across the seas” will have to make their own arrangements.
Since we in Australia have shown ourselves incapable of having a mature and informed national conversation about constitutional matters such as a republic, I believe that’s the way a republic will happen. The British gave us Federation, they’ll give us the republic too.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on May 16, 2021 0:44:49 GMT 10
I vote to remove Harry of his title of Duke.
I also wished the press would stop reporting the pair.
The press are no more than mere pimps.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on May 16, 2021 0:51:02 GMT 10
Edward can easily fill her shoes...
William also can fill her shoes.
Edward especially because he is blameless and is in a perfect position to be Head of the Church of England.
We'll see what happens. Edward would have to be made a duke first to ascend to the throne and before anyone bleats about "in line" to the throne, it does not have to go that way at all.
|
|
|
Post by ponto on May 16, 2021 7:34:08 GMT 10
99% of Australians don't give a shit about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and 99% 0f Australians really care about about the waste of space fucking royals.
|
|
|
Post by pim on May 16, 2021 7:54:33 GMT 10
Here’s why none of the above will never happen:
Firstly on the monarchist side, the Australian monarchists are such hidebound clueless reactionaries they are bereft of any capacity for creative or lateral thinking and for them the only possible model of a constitutional monarchy is the current creaking “absentee” monarchy which, admittedly, has had a long innings and before Her Current Maj had seen the country through two world wars. But back then there was no such thing as as an Australian citizen. We were British Subjects and our passports said so ... until 1948 when the Australian Parliament enacted a law that created an Australian citizenship. Even then we were still British Subjects. My parents became naturalised Australian citizens in 1956 which meant that we kids also automatically became Australian citizens and our status back then was “Australian citizen and British Subject”. The “British Subject” thing was dropped for all Australians by the British - except for those who were born in Britain or whose parents were born in Britain. I think that might have been during the Heath Government in the UK. So the “absentee monarchy” thing worked while we were British and could just land in the UK and ... well ... be British! Back in the day when ships brought migrants to Australia they didn’t sail back empty to Britain. The passengers on the return journey to England tended to be Australians going to England. When they disembarked in the UK they didn’t need work permits or visas. They were British. Same with British migrants here. They got off the boat in Sydney and they had the lot - including voting rights. It was win win on both sides and worked a treat until Enoch Powell let the bats out of hell with his “rivers of blood” speech about all those “darkies” from the Empire claiming British citizenship. The British put the clamps on “Britishness” to try to stem the flow into Britain and we kinda got lumped in with the Paki’s and the Jamaicans. It was nice while it lasted and if I’d been an adult Australian back then I’d have loved the deal. Apparently that’s how Australians like Clive James, Germaine Greer and, even though we don’t mention his name these days, Rolf Harris went to the UK. Now that I have brought him up, notice how Harris didn’t get deported from the UK back to Australia after he’d finished his jail sentence? That’s because he’d originally gone to Britain under the old arrangements where to be Australian was also to be British.
In our time we’ve had the Queen, Elisabeth 2, and she has to represent World’s Best Practice in constitutional monarchy. During her reign she’s visited Australia no fewer than 16 times. She’s been everywhere, even to Dubbo ferchrissakes! and sent her son Charles to do part of his schooling here. If anyone could make the “absentee monarchy” model work, she could - and did. When she dies we will not see her like again. She has poured an energy and a commitment into her role that has gone way beyond the call of duty. And that won’t be repeated. In so doing she has kept the “absentee monarchy” going long past its use by date. When she goes there will be changes. Big ones. I’m pessimistic about the capacity of the Australian monarchists to be up to the task of coping with it. I mean could you really imagine that awful pompous absurd David Flint leading a discussion about reforming the monarchy in Australia? The problem with Australian conservatives is the same as the problem with conservatives everywhere: they’ve been captured by revanchist reactionaries among their ranks and are incapable of necessary sensible conservative reform. They used to be much better at it. The last major conservative reform that we’ll benefit from forever was the move to decimal currency from the old pounds shillings and pence, which was followed less than 10 years later by the move to metric weights and measures. These were major sensible useful reforms - by conservative Coalition governments. And they work. So conservatives are capable of major changes in the right direction. Read Edmund Burke, considered the “father” of modern conservatism who lived in Britain during the time of the American Revolution and the French Revolution. His commentary on each of those events is fascinating. He approved of the American Revolution and said that the King, George 3, had it coming to him. That was almost treasonable back then so it was a risky thing to say. By contrast Burke was appalled at the French Revolution. It was all about taxes according to Burke. The American Revolution started as a legitimate taxpayer revolt by His Majesty’s loyal subjects which was mishandled by His Majesty’s government. The fact that it became a Revolution was the fault of His Majesty’s government. The French Revolution by contrast was a revolt against lawful authority. Burke was all in favour of necessary changes to the status quo if it improved the status quo. He liked constitutional monarchy and representative government. If he were alive today he’d look at the “absentee monarchy” model and suggest changes that Flint would be unable to cope with, let alone get his head around. So in Australia the “absentee monarchy” model will go creaking on with its supporters saying “nothing to see here, everything’s fine” until it collapses.
The Australian republicans are no better. They failed utterly to make their case to the Australian people in the 1999 referendum and allowed themselves to be snookered into a “perfect is the enemy of the good” shit fight among themselves over the republican model: should the head of state in an Australian republic be popularly elected or should s/he be appointed by Parliament in a joint sitting. Personally I’ve always supported the parliamentary appointment model and opposed the popular election model - and the spectacle of the Trump presidency has only confirmed me in that view. I’m not going to advance arguments as to the relative merits. It’s a debate that with our puerile tabloid media culture and our appalling politics the country is incapable of having. Suffice it to say that republicans who’ve thought through what it means constitutionally to change from a monarchy to a republic tend to favour the parliamentary appointment model. It’s a minority view, I admit, but it’s the most informed view. Most people, when asked whether they want “politicians” to appoint a president or whether they want to be able to vote for one respond as you would expect to that sort of push-polling and say they want to vote for a president. And at the same time say that they don’t want the President to be a politician. Yeah right. You elect someone to public office and guess what you’ve elected a politician. There is scope for a public education campaign in parliamentary appointment that no Australian government has ever had the guts to try. And that’s for a state parliament to appoint a state governor in the same way that it’s suggested that the federal parliament could appoint a national president. You hold a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament during which a consensus candidate is proposed to the parliament. This person is nominated to the position of state governor by the state premier and the nomination is seconded by the leader of the opposition. Consensus! Remember? The vote for this candidate is carried by a two thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament in a joint sitting. It’s a template that could be trialled at the state parliament level and if it was shown to work it would be a powerful model to adopt in the appointment of an Australian president. It’s the debate Australian republicans should be pushing. But they won’t because they lack the wit to do so.
So the whole topic is at a dead end in this country. I’m quite pessimistic about how it’s going to pan out. Change will happen. The Queen is on her last legs and we are coming to the end of her reign. Once she goes things are not going to stay the same. Take the Queen out of the equation and things that have always looked like they are set in concrete will start to look very flimsy. We can acknowledge that change is coming and move proactively to manage it for our benefit, or we can be fearful and reactionary. I fear it’ll be the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on May 16, 2021 8:44:25 GMT 10
Edward can easily fill her shoes... William also can fill her shoes. Edward especially because he is blameless and is in a perfect position to be Head of the Church of England. We'll see what happens. Edward would have to be made a duke first to ascend to the throne and before anyone bleats about "in line" to the throne, it does not have to go that way at all. Oh no, not Edward! Although I like Sophie. But Edward has been an abject failure at every single venture he's undertaken. That's why I always laugh at him decked out in all his medals on every royal occasion. He failed in the military and didn't even finish his course. And as for his forays into the world of acting and stage productions ... OMG the less said the better. He virtually went bankrupt and dragged a lot of people down with him. He's basically just another royal hanger-on but apparently Charles feels he should be included in the pared down version of the monarchy he envisages for the future. I think that any success he might have had recently is all down to Sophie. Like all the Windsor men, they're weak. And I hope Wills and Kate don't have any more kids! It's time the royals started to personally pare down their own families in light of a world population that has become unsustainable. They should lead by example.
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on May 16, 2021 8:57:45 GMT 10
We will eventually become a republic. The way immigration is going, we seem to be getting nothing but Indians, Chinese and mussos coming into the country! We Australians of British heritage are an endangered species. We will eventually be outnumbered.
That will be a sad day. And I hope the Abos are taking notice because when that happens there will be zilch sympathy for their wretched BLM woke rubbish. The Indians and Chinese especially will expect them to get off their backsides and start working instead of getting sit-down money and endlessly whinging about how hardly they have been done by.
So I guess that's something.
|
|
|
Post by ponto on May 16, 2021 9:01:27 GMT 10
Indeed stop breeding kids for a business that is for people with low bullshit detectors.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on May 16, 2021 11:29:44 GMT 10
99% of Australians don't give a shit about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and 99% 0f Australians really care about about the waste of space fucking royals. Aren't you an immigrant to Australia? Where do you come from?
|
|
|
Post by pim on May 16, 2021 12:40:25 GMT 10
I think that under the current royal dynasty (300+ years old - begins with the Hanoverians and George 1 in 1714) the British model of constitutional monarchy has peaked twice, and both times under a woman. The first was under Queen Victoria. They didn't call her "Gloriana" for nothing. Look at us Down Under. Australia was settled largely under her reign. Queensland is called "Queensland" because Victoria beat them to it with the name! South Australia was established in the last year of the reign of William 4 so the main street is called after him: King William Street and the state capital is named after his wife. But Adelaide and South Australia got going seriously during the reign of Queen Victoria and the main central square - which in my view should be named after Queen Adelaide is instead named after Queen Victoria: Queen Victoria Square. It's dominated by a large imposing statue of the lady. Poor Queen Adelaide gets a much more modest statue tucked away in the corner of the front foyer of the Adelaide Town Hall. Nobody knows she's there. I'm sure that if SA had been founded a year later than it was it would also have been in the running to be called Victoria. So the state of Victoria had to be quick to get the name we know it by. Basically Queen Victoria invented the monarchy we know today. She oriented it towards the middle class and embodied the middle class virtues of home, hearth and family. On the flip side her reign coincided with the rise of the British Empire so the combination of both "family values" and global power made her reign shine. There was a lot said and written about the way she related to Parliament and one of the most memorable was by a guy called Lord Bagehot (pronounced "badge it") who said that the value of a constitutional monarchy in which the Sovereign reigns but does not rule lies not in what the Sovereign can do, but what she prevents others from doing. In other words it's a bulwark and a safeguard against tyranny. That's been true for a long time but in the past 24 months cracks have started to appear in that comfortable facade. In both the UK and in Australia the Executive Government (i.e. the prime minister) successfully prorogued parliament. In other words the PM told the parliament "you're finished here and I'm sending you all home until I need you to come back." That's what's called tyranny. They had a civil war over the right of the king to close parliament in the 1600s and the king lost.
The second high point in the British monarchy has been under the current Queen. I won't go over her reign again. But it's nearly over. After the peak comes the trough. Victoria was succeeded by her son Edward 7 about whom rumours persist that he was Jack the Ripper when he was Prince of Wales. His was a relatively short reign of about 10 years followed by George 5, the Queen's grandfather. He did OK but his successor, Edward 8, almost brought down the monarchy. We know the rest. The Queen's father George 6 provided the foundations of duty and service during WW2 that his daughter the Queen built on and made into an art form. But if after the peak comes the trough it's clear that "the trough" will be Charles. There's no escaping it I'm afraid. He's correct to be talking about downsizing The Firm but if by that all he means is getting rid of a few hangers-on then I'm afraid he'll have barely scratched the surface. There's so much to downsize! The Big One of course is "Whose Monarchy is it?" Britain only? Or Britain plus the 16 Commonwealth Realms? And then there's the Commonwealth itself ...
Malcolm Turnbull, speaking as the nation's top republican, said that a lot of Australians who basically support the idea of a republic nevertheless admire and respect the Queen and would prefer to wait for her reign to be over before turning their attention to a republic. Intellectually I think that sucks but I take his point. He calls them "Elisabethan republicans". We'll see if he's right and we won't have too long to wait. I suspect Charles will be King of Australia but not a good one. I was being flippant about Harry but not about "seeding" a branch of the Windsors Down Under. It's not going to happen for all the reasons I've already said, but it could work - if the local monarchists had the wit to think of it. Which they haven't. I'm actually pessimistic about our constitutional future. I agree with Stellar that a republic will happen, but it'll happen in the worst way possible. The current model of constitutional monarchy in Australia is unsustainable. The Queen could carry it off but her successors won't have her capabilities, her commitment or her energy. It'll collapse sooner or later and we'll become a republic reactively rather than proactively. When Edmund Burke talked about "conservative reform" he meant a reform - drastic if necessary - that preserves the basic pillars of society and makes society work better. If he were alive today he'd look at the Australian situation and say "Nope! Unsustainable! If you want to keep the republicans from taking over you'll have to get the British monarchy to set up a branch office here with an Australian monarch!" Problem with Australian conservatives is they've lost the instinct for Burkean conservative reform. Menzies understood it and Howard could discourse quite intelligently on Burkean conservatism - in fact he describes himself as a "Burkean Conservative". But Australian conservatives have been captured by reactionary boofheads and rednecks. They've lost the plot where "conservative reform" is concerned. The future isn't encouraging.
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on Jun 7, 2021 11:04:17 GMT 10
I see Harry and Meghan now have a daughter ... Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor. Gag! After all the heartbreak the Sussexes have caused the royals and especially the Queen at a very distressing time in her life with her husband of 72 years so ill and dying. After all the accusations of racism, bullying, neglect and suffering ... do they really think this naming of their daughter is going to make everything right again?
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Jun 7, 2021 13:38:47 GMT 10
I see Harry and Meghan now have a daughter ... Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor. Gag! After all the heartbreak the Sussexes have caused the royals and especially the Queen at a very distressing time in her life with her husband of 72 years so ill and dying. After all the accusations of racism, bullying, neglect and suffering ... do they really think this naming of their daughter is going to make everything right again? Omg Nutmeg has gone too far this time. Naming her sprog using the Queen's family nickname of the Queen herself is beyond a sick joke. Maybe it will be shortened to Lili in time. Nutmeg is already using the shortened version on social media. I can't wait to see what Lady Colin Campbell says about the matter. The expressions on her face will be classic. lmao.
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on Jun 8, 2021 10:12:49 GMT 10
It's totally cringeworthy. And they have usurped this name in a disgusting and nefarious attempt to curry favour ... but I think mostly they're playing to their US audience who will fall over themselves in lavish praise of the couple and their wonderful gesture to the Queen.
And another publicity coup for them.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Jun 8, 2021 15:26:25 GMT 10
Americans can't Stand Nutmeg. There is a black American woman youtuber that sees right though Nutmeg's conniving and deceptions.
I'll post the link when I hop on my other computer.
|
|
|
Post by matte on Jun 8, 2021 23:00:42 GMT 10
Alan Jones has put it bluntly and accurately. How dare they use this intimate name. Harry says he asked permission from the Queen. But as if she would say no, even if she didn't want it used.
She knows that Harry has become Americanised, including the trait of being completely selfish:
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on Jun 9, 2021 10:28:12 GMT 10
LMAO ... trying to cash in on her duchess status won't hack it ... you still need to come up with the goods! Meghan Markle’s children’s book is already heading for the bargain bins as sales flopped and it was panned by critics. The Bench failed to make Amazon’s top 200 bestsellers list on its first day yesterday and limped in at a modest No60 in the children’s books chart. Its weak sales came despite $5.50 being knocked off the $24 cover price on the website. Within hours of its release, copies had “buy one get one half price” stickers slapped on them in WH Smith in Newcastle, The Sun reports.
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on Jun 9, 2021 11:14:10 GMT 10
BEL MOONEY: The trouble with Meghan Markle's book? It isn't for children - it's for Prince Harry
By BEL MOONEY FOR THE DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED: 07:01 AEST, 9 June 2021 | UPDATED: 07:03 AEST, 9 June 2021 Many people believe they have a book within them, and (worse) usually imagine that a children's book is the easy-peasy option. After all, you don't have to write many words do you? Bash 'em out, get some illustrations done and – bingo! Instant karma. Immediate lived experience as a thriving children's author on a world stage of compassion – and you're quids in. Of course, real writers know the truth is very, very different. Only those with zero knowledge of the art of writing for children think they can knock off a picture book and thus add to their dazzling truth as a human being, a 'mother, wife, feminist and activist'. Or whatever. So only those with zero knowledge of how increasingly hard it is nowadays for truly talented authors to get published will be able to read Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex's contribution without weeping – either with mirth or despair. The Bench is written in a sort of tum-ti-tum verse and comes in at only 37 lines long. Here's an example: 'He'll run and he'll fall/ And he'll take it in stride'.........That just about sums up the skill-level involved here. The Bench is not for children at all, but for husband Harry. Throughout these pages the rather bossy narrator is telling Dad (aka My Love) what to do (You'll tell him 'I love you') – and watches with 'tears of joy' from the window as he obeys her instructions. And that is really the full extent of the story. But never mind, I expect the children of the world will be thrilled to see 'Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex' on the title page. Better than an ordinary old writer, eh? Bel Mooney is the author of more than 30 children's books, translated into ten languages. www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9665783/BEL-MOONEY-trouble-Meghan-Markles-book-isnt-children-Prince-Harry.html
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Jun 9, 2021 16:23:55 GMT 10
Lady C was positively scathing of the Sucksesses.
Her vid on the subject went for 50 minutes. haha.
They've become the world's number 1 duffusses.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Jun 9, 2021 19:53:11 GMT 10
What some of the black community REALLY think of Nutmeg...lol
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on Jun 9, 2021 21:29:11 GMT 10
Lady C was positively scathing of the Sucksesses. Her vid on the subject went for 50 minutes. haha. They've become the world's number 1 duffusses. For a couple who have consistently said they just want to be ordinary citizens, they sure go out of their way to flaunt their royal status. And to use that status to make as much money as they can before everyone wakes up to their money-grubbing ways. And for a couple who have consistently decried their victimisation by the media, they sure go out of their way to get their noggins on as many shows as possible blethering away about their shocking treatment by the royal family and the resultant mental health issues that caused. Fortunately now a majority of people are seeing them for what they actually are - a pair of spoilt, whinging brats who haven't got a clue what suffering really is.
|
|