The royal nonsense.

[Suranis]

Nope.

Ya, your right. It was done with some other explosive. I used to say "dynamited" when I gave tours as it sounded more dramatic.

[neonzx]

Actually based on the the appearances of the time Harry was NOT looking to "escape" his lot pre Meghan

He had a visibly happy relationship with his brother and his sister in law
He was very fulfilled with the work he was doing with Armed forces charities
He was very engaged with the Invictus Games
He was closely engaged and enjoying his work with the Marines and his other Colonel'cies
The Queen and his brother were both leaning on him for greater engagement with the Commonwealth
He had a selection of long time, very loyal and close mouthed male friends he could let his hair down with socially

All things he no longer has..... now when did this start to unravel......?

So you are blaming Meghan ?

Harry always stepped outside the lines. William, his brother, stayed in the lines.

Younger Harry tried to play in the BS "royal" thing -- you can see he never liked it. Yes, he did his military service work and charitable duties -- cause he wanted to -- those things were/are important to him.

So what are you saying? Meghan fucked him up? Why? Cause she is not from the "House" of-whatever -- wrong linage?

[Dave from down under]

Well everyone should be happy...

Harry & Megan - free of the family
Republicans - 2 less royals
Monarchists - the newest American* back in America
The tabloids/TV - milking it for all its worth

* Wallis Simpson reference

[Lani]

Harry did not lose his charity work. He spoke about his military support and the Invictus Games. He said he was told that he would no longer represent the royal family at those functions. That hurt, but he and his wife continue to be involved as private citizens.

[Suranis]

There's more to that, but to explain I would have to transcribe an article in last weeks Private Eye and its too late for that. I'll do it tomorrow.

The gist is that the Queen wanted Harry still involved and offered numerous concessions, but the couple upping their demands with every concession ny the palace., till the Queen reached the end of her tether and cut them off.

Private Eye is no fan of the royals (They call the Queen "Brenda" and Prince Charles "Brian") but their bit of palace gossip was pretty much saying that the Palace really tried to accommodate the Couple but it was like trying to fill a black hole.

[Azastan]

Well everyone should be happy...

Harry & Megan - free of the family
Republicans - 2 less royals
Monarchists - the newest American* back in America
The tabloids/TV - milking it for all its worth

* Wallis Simpson reference

It could be something as simple as the monarchial institutional memory remembering what happened the last time an American divorceé cast her eye upon a prince.

[Lani]

Whatever. None of us know them - any of the cast characters. It reminds me of the various shows of foreign finances or "housewives" around the US. It can be fun to discuss and then move on.

[neonzx]

Whatever. None of us know them - any of the cast characters. It reminds me of the various shows of foreign finances or "housewives" around the US. It can be fun to discuss and then move on.

True, true. Wait, what? You don't believe Harry and Megan came over to Neflix and chill with me at my house?



They are going to be fine.

[Lani]

Whatever. None of us know them - any of the cast characters. It reminds me of the various shows of foreign finances or "housewives" around the US. It can be fun to discuss and then move on.

True, true. Wait, what? You don't believe Harry and Megan came over to Neflix and chill with me at my house?

They told me they never met you.

[neonzx]

Whatever. None of us know them - any of the cast characters. It reminds me of the various shows of foreign finances or "housewives" around the US. It can be fun to discuss and then move on.

True, true. Wait, what? You don't believe Harry and Megan came over to Neflix and chill with me at my house?

They told me they never met you.

For sure. This is how this online stuff works. I'm a "DC attorney" (or a now deceased wealthy businessman)
There is a little fun with mucking with people. Is it wrong? Perhaps. But if they are assholes, I let it roll.

[filly]

Whatever. None of us know them - any of the cast characters. It reminds me of the various shows of foreign finances or "housewives" around the US. It can be fun to discuss and then move on.

I was taken aback that what some people are reading in some publications is taken as gospel. I was taken aback that white men are telling us there isn't a racism problem in the UK. I was taken aback by the slams on Harry's appearance (I thought he looked just fine and very much in line with what young men wear these days). Everyone is entitled to their opinion but when it's forcefully stated as fact, especially here, that's alarming.

And so you are exactly right here, and thanks.

[Maybenaut]

I was taken aback that what some people are reading in some publications is taken as gospel. I was taken aback that white men are telling us there isn't a racism problem in the UK. I was taken aback by the slams on Harry's appearance (I thought he looked just fine and very much in line with what young men wear these days). Everyone is entitled to their opinion but when it's forcefully stated as fact, especially here, that's alarming.

And so you are exactly right here, and thanks.

This. Except for the white men part (I’ve never met Mr. Brolin, so I won’t speculate about race or gender). But I have a difficult time swallowing the idea that institutional racism doesn’t exist in the UK, given its history of colonialism and slave trade.

[Uninformed]

I’m not sure whether racism could be defined as “institutional” in the UK but there are more than enough blatant racial motivated incidents to go around. More importantly you’d be taking a losing position trying to convince the many people subjected to or affected by racism that it isn’t the case.

[Mr brolin]

I was taken aback that what some people are reading in some publications is taken as gospel. I was taken aback that white men are telling us there isn't a racism problem in the UK. I was taken aback by the slams on Harry's appearance (I thought he looked just fine and very much in line with what young men wear these days). Everyone is entitled to their opinion but when it's forcefully stated as fact, especially here, that's alarming.

And so you are exactly right here, and thanks.

This. Except for the white men part (I’ve never met Mr. Brolin, so I won’t speculate about race or gender). But I have a difficult time swallowing the idea that institutional racism doesn’t exist in the UK, given its history of colonialism and slave trade.

If you read what was written, I made no claims that there is no racism in the UK

First off, the UK is NOT the USA when it comes to race.

Does the UK have racist elements.......yes, as does every country I have been to. If you want polite, invisible, Iron cast, inflexible racism, try Japan

Does the UK have the the institutional, endemic legal baggage of racism of the US.....No

The UK, for its flaws never had the slave owning mentality of the South, never wrote a Constitution that explicitly valued the worth of a slave as 3/5ths of a free person, never had Jim Crow laws, does not gerrymander electoral districts based on race and politics of race, never legislated against miscegenation etc.

Was there and are there cultural prejudices...yes although considerably less as times progress, no more boarding houses with signs saying "No Irish, No Blacks, No dogs"....

My point is that there is a substantive difference between the legislated, cultural, constitutional and historical racism in the US from the position in the UK.

In the UK there has never been any, never mind widespread, laws against miscegenation unlike the US
In the UK there have not been Jim Crow laws specifically intended to disenfranchise and punish people of color
(There is a a whole dissertation I am sure available on whether the passage of non racially motivated laws were used in a racist manner, Stop and search or "sus" comes immediately to mind)
In the UK there has never been a section in any written (or unwritten) constitution dealing with the partial worth of slaves
In the UK the boundaries of legislative districts (to elect MP's) have certainly not, since the Reform Act of 1832, been gerrymandered along any lines never mind the frequently profoundly racist lines that occurs in certain states in the US

So, in summary,

Is there racism in the UK ....YES

Is it different in form, background and historical animus to the US....YES

Does "colonialism" and "slave trading" (I assume you refer to the Triangle Trade gutted by the Slave Trade Act of 1807, as opposed to slavery within the UK) bear any relevance to this discussion.....NO

[sterngard friegen]

The UK, for all its flaws, has a strict caste system that would make the rich during the British Raj jealous. It's birthright, accent, class and money, in that order, but 99% the first two.

[MsDaisy]

Does the UK have racist elements.......yes, as does every country I have been to. If you want polite, invisible, Iron cast, inflexible racism, try Japan

I lived in Japan for 3 years and for the most part the Japanese people were wonderful and welcoming, but there were some…

I remember waiting to get on to a train with a 9-month stomach poking out. When the train pulled up it was nearly empty and the doors opened. There was an elderly Japanese lady sitting alone facing me as I stepped into the train. She sat up straight and gave me a look of hate I’d never seen before. I actually looked around to see if she was giving that face to someone else, but there was no one else there. Then she stood up pushed past me and got off the train then turned around and stood there to wait for another one. Evidently she was NOT going to ride with a dirty gaijin!

[Maybenaut]

Does "colonialism" and "slave trading" (I assume you refer to the Triangle Trade gutted by the Slave Trade Act of 1807, as opposed to slavery within the UK) bear any relevance to this discussion.....NO

I respectfully disagree. Colonialism and slavery were official policy, until they weren’t. I believe it takes many generations to ameliorate the effects of discriminatory policy.

[Gregg]

Whatever. None of us know them - any of the cast characters. It reminds me of the various shows of foreign finances or "housewives" around the US. It can be fun to discuss and then move on.

Truth!

Any famous person is not someone we know. The biggest Beatles fan EVER doesn't know anything about Sir Paul McCartney that a publicist somewhere has told. Well, him, maybe a little, but that's because he's been incredibly famous for near 60 years and its hard to keep all the secrets, but face it, he has this happy go lucky, nice as they come, accessible rich and famous guy and as far as I know, he probably is. But I'm basing that on gut feeling and its possible he's a terrible human being and if so, I'd probably never know.

The Royals, more so. I'm not sure I like any of the Royal people, aside from The Queen who has given her life to a job she never wanted and as far as I know has never complained about being in a bubble and not being allowed to say anything about it. I do like "The Monachry" as an institution, because I think the symbol it provides is better for the UK than what some other countries use (like, umm, cross burning) to fulfill the same function.

As for The Duchess of Sussex, I think she's a bit needy and despite it making me a terrible human being I do think she should have expected what she got and maybe gotten a PR person. If she was denied mental health care, that's monstrous, but how hard could it be to see someone in a country with social medicine when your husband comes from incredible wealth. His great grandfather got speech therapy while King and managed to keep it from being an issue. I dunno, we don't know them, and they sure as hell don't know us.

By the way, I am a huge Beatles fan and do think Paul is a decent guy. He's just easy to use to make my point and he deserves better.

[Lani]

Prince Harry remembers Diana’s death in book for children who have lost parents to covid
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... story.html

Prince Harry has a message for children grieving the loss of their parents during a deadly year: “I know how you feel.”

In an emotional introduction for a new British children’s book about a child whose mother, an essential worker, dies of covid-19, Harry opens up about his own grief and experience losing his mother at 12 years old.

“When I was a young boy I lost my mum. At the time, I didn’t want to believe it or accept it, and it left a huge hole inside of me,” Harry wrote, according to excerpts from “Hospital by the Hill” published in the Times of London. “I know how you feel, and I want to assure you that over time that hole will be filled with so much love and support.”

The book will be made free in Britain for children whose parents died as essential workers in the pandemic.

“We all cope with loss in a different way, but when a parent goes to heaven, I was told their spirit, their love and the memories of them do not,” Harry wrote. “. . . I find this to be true.”

[keith]

The split between Union and League was at least partially class driven with the move by League players to be professional and paid with Union players "amateur" and unpaid with the great schism running from 1895 until the core of pay being finally killed off in Union in 1995.

To be more informative, Rugby, as administered by "The Rugby Union" was always strictly amateur, even while the teams themselves were getting quite wealthy from paying admissions. This meant that working class players had to also earn a wage, could not train like the middle class players, and often missed work due to match commitments. If injured the players had to fund their own medical care, and if they could not work, they and their families starved.

It was this 'broken time' issue (missing work due to match commitments or injury) that was the straw that broke the camels back. The working class clubs from the north broke off, formed the "Northern Rugby Football Union", told the "Rugby Union" to go fly a kite, and allowed compensation payments for 'broken time' and out of pocket expenses. The Northern Union changed its name to "Northern Union Rugby League" in 1922. Over time, the two forms of the game evolved apart until they are really two different games (but with similar skill sets). Players do sometimes cross over (between contracts of course).

New Zealand learned of the new league by accident, but noticed that the big crowds might be lucrative and arranged a international test in 1907, but for various reasons, it never took off. To this day Union is dominant over League in New Zealand.

Australia learned of the new league when New Zealand was on its way to England for the test. Rugby Union in Australia had always been chafing at the payments issue and the League caught on very quickly and soon passed Union in popularity. It is not an exaggeration to say that what was the class divide in English Rugby became the religious divide in Australia. The 'working class' in Australia was basically Catholic and the middle/upper class was basically Protestant.

In the early 1990's Rupert Murdoch bought Rugby League (world wide!) and re-engineered the competition (the "Super League"), adding teams, and dumping teams, solely for their TV viewership worth. The "Melbourne Storm" was added to the NRL in Australia even though Melbourne had never really had any interest in Rugby in any form, and "South Sydney Rabbitohs" were dumped despite being one of the original founding members. The Storm has come to dominate the league in Australia yet it still barely gets a mention in the local media. South Sydney eventually won its spot back into the competition and is part owned by Russel Crowe.

Also in the 1990's, after reorganizing Rubgy League, Murdoch moved on Rugby Union and finally turned it professional in 1995. Union hasn't 'been killed off', but the competition is very different now. In the top tier, teams from South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand compete in "Super Rugby", and there is the "Six Nations' competition in Europe. Internationally, New Zealand has been in a class by itself for many years, with Australia and England and South Africa in a tier below.

I don't know the state of local competitions, but I believe it is quite strong. Even in Victoria which is NOT a hotbed of rugby by any means, there are dozens of local clubs. One of my best friends was a star at one club and missed out on selection for the State team because he was actually British and had played for teams there.

[Foggy]

FB_IMG_1626652211126.jpg

[Dave from down under]

[chancery]

That's pretty funny.

But the Vatican? Everything about the wooden trim (there's probably a technical term for that object on the left that northland10 would know) and the vestments screams Anglican cathedral to me.

Edit: On closer inspection it might be a display case of some kind. It looks too wide for a lectern, too low for a rood screen, and not right for choir stalls.

[Gregg]

It's St George's chapel, Windsor. Look at the floor.

[much ado]

Chancery is right; it's Anglican.

I discovered that St. Paul's Cathedral also has a black and white checkerboard floor. I spent forever trying to find that spot in St. Paul's; not there. The Queen's magenta outfit was the key.

It's actually Westminster Abbey. Here is the original photo, which was photoshopped to center the Queen in a square.



From the article: https://www.eastlothiancourier.com/news ... y-gallery/

The "bishop" is actually The Very Rev Dr John Hall, the Dean of Westminster.

From Google street view, this is the spot in Westminster Abbey...

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4994427 ... 576!8i4288

Case solved.