Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This article was on the news today. Evidently the press is being prety hard on Fergie.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/24/2327135.aspx

My thoughts on the matter:

That silly spoiled wanna-be princess should try working fast food or shoveling horse manure if she's hard up for cash. Not

all of us feel 'entitled' to a 'measly' $25,000 a year just for getting married (well, I do know a couple of girls that do

but that's another story entirely)... Who does she think she is? The Duchess of York? Oh... wait. She WAS. Now she can work

for a living like everyone else!

I fully agree with the author of this article that the the Queen has held her head up with poise and a sense of duty for a

long legacy of um... well... being the queen. She didn't ask for the job, but I think the payoff is probably better than

the 'difficulties' of being in such a hard-earned position. My how the sarcasm drips.

Fergie on the other hand, needs to sell her rich-person stuff and go learn how to work the fry cooker at a McDonalds. NONE

of the royals earned their position, they aren't 'special' they're just spoiled. At least the Queen is spoiled with

dignity. So when the life of privellige they take for granted is taken away from them, it shouldn't be such a difficult

concept that now they have to live lives of drudgery like everyone else.

Waah waah poor Fergie the press is so hard on her...
What a load of nonsense. She got in the spotlight in the first place. Her own fault for being a greedy little pig. Maybe if

she led a normal life instead of clinging to the archaic system of 'royalty' as a handout then nobody would talk bad about

her? She would be IGNORED LIKE THE REST OF US!

Guitardian wrote:Oh... wait. She WAS. Now she can work for a living like everyone else!

Actually it was hard work. I get the strong impression she is better off out and away from the pressures of Royal life.

Guitardian wrote:
I fully agree with the author of this article that the the Queen has held her head up with poise and a sense of duty for a
long legacy of um... well... being the queen. She didn't ask for the job, but I think the payoff is probably better than
the 'difficulties' of being in such a hard-earned position. My how the sarcasm drips.

It doesnt drip as loudly than your ignorance. Being Queen is a curse, especially now. H.M. has done a very good job and
is largely treated by an ungrateful public with less credit than she deserves. She is keeping the country together.

Guitardian wrote:
NONE of the royals earned their position, they aren't 'special' they're just spoiled.

Quite the opposite. Even Charles has earned it to some extent, and he will make a very poor choice of King. Afterr him it
only goes up. Prince Edward is farly useless but largely eventually gaff free. Prince Andrew is a war veteran who insisted
on not skipping missile decoy duty as a navy helciopter pilot in the Falklands war. Missile decoys take off with a transponder
similar to the signiture of the warship and hope the anti ship missiles are distracted shoot at only them and not the ship.
As for 'spoiled', these are not Paris Hiltons, they do stuff. Or are you assuming that because they still have something in the bank?

Really Guitardian, you have'nt a clue.

How exactly is H.M. holding the country together? I thought that has something to do with workers. I do not object to the royals being royal for royalties sake, I mean we have our Paris Hilton in the states too. The judgement I make here is that Fergie is getting trounced in the media for using her connections to sell Royal scandal stories to pay for her lavish lifestyle. Serves her right if the media trounces her.

Guitardian wrote:How exactly is H.M. holding the country together?

In 1997 there was a small yet powerful earth tremor near Windsor. This aggravated a hitherto unknown faultline which threatened to, literally, slide much of the North East of England into the sea. There was some debate about whether or not we were really all that bothered about this happening, but then we realised we'd have to reprint the maps and then figure out another region to mock. So, this very day, Liz spends anywhere from 8-10 hours a day with, basically, a lot of glue and a massive roll of duct tape. Her public appearances have been taken over by an android facsimile. THis is why no one in publci ever sees the Queen eat, drink or use the toilet.

Guitardian wrote:How exactly is H.M. holding the country together? I thought that has something to do with workers. I do not object to the royals being royal for royalties sake, I mean we have our Paris Hilton in the states too. The judgement I make here is that Fergie is getting trounced in the media for using her connections to sell Royal scandal stories to pay for her lavish lifestyle. Serves her right if the media trounces her.

The Queen and the vast majority of the Royal family work incredibly hard not only as ambasadors for the country, but also spend a huge amount of time helping charites, are figureheads for the armed forces, bring in millions of pounds in tourist revenue, and raise moral amongst the populace.

They are born into their roles and have very little choice over how they lead their lives, most of their time is spent on state engagements and when go anywhere they are hounded by the press. For me they are some of the hardest working people in the country.

Yes the Royal family get to travel first class and live in palaces, what would you prefer? That they lived in a flat above Aldi and drove about in a battered Ford Granada. Some how I can't see this encouraging many tourists or doing much for the moral of the country.

Fergie is a money grabbing parasite who should be thrown in a very small dark cell for a very long amount of time so that she can reflect upon her treason.

Guitardian wrote:How exactly is H.M. holding the country together?

H.M. has a lot of authority, at least on paper. One of the 'powers' she does have and the only one she is expected to use is her right to demaned the Prime Minister reports to her and is accountable to her.
The Queen can ask ANY question of the Prime Minister and it cannot be refused or evaded. The answer is privileged, H.M. cannot tell anyone what the Prime Minsiter says, but he is obliged to report weekly
anyway.

The only trouble with that is that Tony Blair refused to do so. Blair thought that because he was elected he was above accountability, but that was his pride speaking. Every Prime Minsters inclusing giants
like Churchill and Thatcher reported as ordered, so did every prior Labour administration. Blair thought he was special because he was Blair. Brown adopted the same bad habits, though he had less balls
than Blair and couldnt face off Her Majesty completely, so he sent emails instead. So he reported in some way.
But thats New Labour for you, and not H.M's fault. New Labour and Blair especially didnt like accountability one little bit.
I dont yet know what Cameron does, I hope he went back to the old system. Accountability is a national safeguard.

Also H.M. is very popular, there is a lot of tension between Scots and English, though far more Scottish anti-English sentiments than the other way around. Being a Scot in any English city is one thing, you
are welcome. Being English is Glasgow is not a good idea. a basic loyalty to the Crown is what is keeping many British subcultures together.

Guitardian wrote:
I thought that has something to do with workers.

Most workers dont understand the monarchy and come up with the same crap you are spouting. I get tired of explaining that the Royals are not Freeloaders at taxpayers expense. We expect them to be grateful
for what they get from the civic list and we forget that the crown estates are far larger earners and go straight to the government.

Guitardian wrote:The judgement I make here is that Fergie is getting trounced in the media for using her connections to sell Royal scandal stories to pay for her lavish lifestyle. Serves her right if the media
trounces her.

Nope that is what the tabloids and papparazzi say, inflated stories and outright lies are their specialty. Like Diana before her, they will have nothing nice to say until she dies. You surf an old headline for Diana
from 1996 or before and you will find the same gak as you are reading now.

Im a staunch Royalist, but im not fond of Fergie, or the hangers on for that matter. Maybe we can keep the immediate family and force the others to sign on like everyone else!

reds8n wrote:

Guitardian wrote:How exactly is H.M. holding the country together?

In 1997 there was a small yet powerful earth tremor near Windsor. This aggravated a hitherto unknown faultline which threatened to, literally, slide much of the North East of England into the sea. There was some debate about whether or not we were really all that bothered about this happening, but then we realised we'd have to reprint the maps and then figure out another region to mock. So, this very day, Liz spends anywhere from 8-10 hours a day with, basically, a lot of glue and a massive roll of duct tape. Her public appearances have been taken over by an android facsimile. THis is why no one in publci ever sees the Queen eat, drink or use the toilet.

She is keeping the country together.

Gawd bless ya marm, an all who sails in ya
Where would we be without her
doffs cap and kowtows

bah you beat me to the duct tape.

[quote=Orlanth

Guitardian wrote:
I thought that has something to do with workers.

Most workers dont understand the monarchy and come up with the same crap you are spouting. .

I understand that the hole Cash-for-access scheme is only the tip of the iceberg.

Despite living for free at on of Andrews residences Fergie has spunked about £4m (weightwatcher and book money) in the last decade on top of her divorce settlement and has now come up with this scheme! Full marks for sneakyness but what a witch, talk about stabbing him in the back.

I heard on radio 2 yesterday [Whiticker the former Mirror royal commentator] that she had been dipping in her daughters trust funds! By all accounts she was a liability when she was married but had staff to kirb her excesses. As he rightly pointed out a hundred years ago they would have banged her up in an asylum, I'm not entirely sure that this isn't the right treatment. She is off with the fairies!

Guitardian wrote:

You don't perchance go foxhunting do you?

It is not 'crap' I'm spouting. I respect the Queen, I respect Prince Andrew for his sense of duty. I realize that they fulfill a role in British nationalism (hey I have a British passport too, this isn't some dumb Yankee who'se never been there). The paparazzi being used as a tool bribe just so she can keep all her nice lifestyle is as condemnable a scandal as such things like Martha Stewart's tax evasion, Blogojavich's auctioning of a Senate seat, Paris Hilton's "get-out-of-jail-free" card, Leona Helmsly, etc... (American "royalty" scandals).

I would never condemn my Queen, but the last time I was in England I was far more interested in going back to stonehenge and visiting Leeds castle in Kent than I was in seeing the 'changing of the guard' at Buckingham, or the 'crown jewels' exhibit at the tower. English tourism doesn't just come from the fact that they have a royal family, it comes from the fact that there's lots of neat places to see.

Some of them (Liz and Andrew for instance) do a fine job of holding up English idealism, but other ones... like this incident of pawning off royal scandals so she can still pretend to be a princess kind of lifestyle... how can you insult me for thinking that is just plainly wretched? If I was King over there I would go Anne Boleyn on her before she opened her fat ugly mouth, just for making the threat... but oh yeah I'm just a serf my opinion doesn't matter because I don't have the right parents.

Funnily enough I dont defend the the former Duchess of York, but I wont denegrate her either. I wish we could ignore her and let her get on with her life instead, but we know that wont happen.

My principle point was that you assumed in your OP that they were all freeloaders except the Queen herself, and I wasnt even sure you were not being sarcastic regarding her.
As a rule I defend the royals, and ignore the odd mistake they make. They are human after all. They are all under terrible pressure all the time, some crack under the strain 'Fergie' is one of those who did. She has to play the game because the press wont excuse her from the table and never will. But she hasnt any cards anymore, so she is in a trap. I have and lose sympathy for her in rotation.

Thanks for clarifying Orlanth. I was not being sarcastic about the Queen herself, just the position in general. What do you guys think about the fact that when things like this happen (like Diana's unfortunate death, Charles' oddities, lil' nazi outfit prince) they all kind of stay off the radar until the public forgets about it for the next scandal.

Oh they jump all over making Prince William's service out east a big deal, but the moment it is revealed that he was extremely high priority protected/defended/kept-out-of-harms-way (despite his alleged wishes otherwise) suddenly all those news footages disappeared. Prince Harry is evidenty a heart throb until his exploits at a haloween party are unveiled all of a sudden he's out of the news. Etc.

The same thing happened here with our own 'royalty' in the states. Michael Jackson dies... that's all we hear about for MONTHS. He even makes the news by being DEAD! same happened to that slut chick who married a rich old dude and did a playboy spread. They block the news with scandals, while meanwhile... Kennedy, a huge civil rights advocate and keystone of liberal ideals in america dies... 1 day it gets mentioned in the news... and suddenly the next festering parasite is sent out to distract people from who/what's important. We spent more time in the 90s worrying about Bill Clintons dick than we spent worrying about African revolutions, accidental air strikes on the wrong building (1 day in the news before quashed by a blowjob) I believe Fergie to be one of those parasites too and she deserves NO SYMPATHY and I think she should spend some time on an assembly line with the rest of us serfs.

Also, I like Mary Poppins take on fox hunting.

Guitardian wrote:Thanks for clarifying Orlanth. I was not being sarcastic about the Queen herself, just the position in general. What do you guys think about the fact that when things like this happen (like Diana's unfortunate death, Charles' oddities, lil' nazi outfit prince) they all kind of stay off the radar until the public forgets about it for the next scandal.

Wel, to answer the seond half of your comment. If you look at the News of the World have to say, that is the tabloid that set up the sting.

News of the World are saying 'Fegi' is bringing the House of Windsor into disrepute. Up to a point that is true, but only up to a point, after all the Royal family have plausible deniability. However the tabloid insists in saying that she is bringing her ex husband into disrepute and therefore by extension the queen. to be fair to the News of the World, the editor interviewed was careful to say that he respects Prince Andrew his work and his integrity, and I dont think this is an empty platitude but an honest assessment. However the people bringing the Royal family into disrepute are he New of the World, after all they knew it would do and nevertheless set up the sting and published the story.
'Fergie' might deserve what she gets, but any knock on effects can only be attributed to the exploiting of the story by the media concerned. Had they been genuinely sympathetic to the Royal family they could have buried the story, not carried out a sting to begin with or at the very minimum exposed it to the Royals first and later reported Prince Andrew cleaning up the mess openly instead. That at least would both leak the story and put the family itself in a more positive light. Which is very fair because this scandal is not their fault.

Guitardian wrote:
Oh they jump all over making Prince William's service out east a big deal, but the moment it is revealed that he was extremely high priority protected/defended/kept-out-of-harms-way (despite his alleged wishes otherwise) suddenly all those news footages disappeared.

William cannot be risked. Yes he serves in the armed forces but will never see action. He is the second most important Royal after H.M. and who everyone hopes to be the next monarch. William is a godsend to the Monarchy as he has his mothers charm and his paternal grandmothers skill and adherence to duty. He is also smart and clean, all they need do is make sure they have carefully chosen bride for him.

Guitardian wrote:
....lil' nazi outfit prince.....Prince Harry is evidenty a heart throb until his exploits at a haloween party are unveiled all of a sudden he's out of the news. Etc.

I defend Prince Harry in this and all things. He is a soldier and he is NOT mollycoddled. While news of his tours is kept highly classified in case he is targeted he still went out and did the standard job with the trops like any other army Lt. A lot of what he says and gets stick for is stuff any army officer says, he deals with squaddies day in day out, and mixes with them as well as with his brother officers. He has a soldiers outlook and a soldiers humour and within barracks likely has a soldiers mouth. I have no evidence for this but we know he is not a PC prude so likely there are things he says his squaddies hear, would make scandals but don't because they are loyal to him.

I suspect both your comments are about the same single 'incident'. I don't know a lot about that, but I do know it was a fancy dress party with an African theme. Harry went as Africa Korps and (the armband would not have been authentic) his older brother was fully blacked up and dressed in a grass skirt. Anyway no-one there was offended by the costumes but some teenage guest took a picture to sell to the press. I imagine he or she will be regretting that betrayal for a long time.
Also look who complained, mostly Jewish groups, and of course the British tabloids. Actually this put some backs up. Mel Brooks can do Springtime for Hitler as often as he likes, but we can no longer be seen to lampoon Nazi iconography. The root behind that is that Jews are Hitlers victims and have unique access to the iconography. This neatly forgets that the reason Nazi paraphernalia has not been banned in the UK is because we too can make that claim, and with a stringer justification all told being the first and longest opponents of the Third Reich, and of our own choosing rather from being attacked. The Israeli Prime Minister was asked to give judgement, while Harry as a British army officer shares common ground the Israelis claim and should, and in the past could, use the iconography without labeling for the same reasons Spielberg and Mel Brooks can.
It might have been unwise, but I challenge anyone to call Prince Harry a racist without first pointing the same finger at others who mock the me symbol, which of course they wont do with good reason.

Guitardian wrote:
The same thing happened here with our own 'royalty' in the states. Michael Jackson dies...

Well if the US considers such people as royalty then it is they not the celebs that need mocking. Celebs are celebs, royals are royals, and that goes internationally too. I would not support such disrespect to a foreign monarch either, but celebs are there to be mocked. Especially those you chose to mention. The best reaction I ever saw to Michael Jackson came from Jarvis Cocker, and Paris Hilton is her own worst enemy.

Guitardian wrote:
I believe Fergie to be one of those parasites too and she deserves NO SYMPATHY and I think she should spend some time on an assembly line with the rest of us serfs.

Things are going to be even more difficult for her now. The divorce settlement was very paltry for someone of her station, half of Prince Andrews Royal Navy salary. Which was legally fair and sent a message: if Andrew was an ordinary man of his armed forces rank this is what you would be getting, so she is a commoner again. Though it was rumoured she was getting supplementary voluntary support from the Royal family, it was on promise of good behaviour.

The Royal family had to work bloody hard for their position a few hundred years ago.

Fergie's a waste of space however. Much of the 'royal' culture is as well, but for the most part they do a brilliant job of providing figureheads for the country, and most of them earn their place.

Princess Anne is (pardon the the pun) an absolute trooper. The Queen herself served in the WAAC during the Second World War. Blah blah blah.

Anyway, do they cost you any money?

sA

(sorry I don't know the quote thing so well.. but... quote Orlanth here

Well if the US considers such people as royalty then it is they not the celebs that need mocking. Celebs are celebs, royals are royals, and that goes internationally too. I would not support such disrespect to a foreign monarch either, but celebs are there to be mocked. Especially those you chose to mention. The best reaction I ever saw to Michael Jackson came from Jarvis Cocker, and Paris Hilton is her own worst enemy.



----
While I agree to all of the above, I don't think you can insult the American standard of our own, non-family-lineage 'royalty' when it really amounts to the same thing; You are important because you have a rich famous family and lots of non-earned inheritance money. If it were me or you, we would probably act a lot more responsibly with our birthright. But then again, if we were raised in privellige like Paris or Diana, we probably wouldn't think like that. Still, I love England, I think H.M. is a cool lady, but with the birth of international media, paparrazzi etc, the difference between our 'celebs' and yours grows narrow.

@Smiling... do they cost me money? That depends on how far up the Macro-economics ladder you want to climb. There is only so much money floating around. Some people are born with it and hoard it while others produce it.

What do the Black Eyed Peas have to do with British Royalty?

Guitardian wrote:(sorry I don't know the quote thing so well.. but... quote Orlanth here

Press the yellow QUOTE button to the top right of the post. Type below all the text that turns up in the text window. Edit the quote down too if you like, but dont touch anything in [square brackets].

Orlanth wrote:

Guitardian wrote:(sorry I don't know the quote thing so well.. but... quote Orlanth here

Press the yellow QUOTE button to the top right of the post. Type below all the text that turns up in the text window. Edit the quote down too if you like, but dont touch anything in [square brackets].

Thanks for the tutorial!

Orlanth wrote: don't touch anything in the square brackets.

just testin if it worked... and yeah.. one of the fergies is kinda hot, at least according to our last poster's pic. Maybe they should trade roles. The Royals need some kind of sex symbol in order to be legit in modern culture. Princess Di would have been a great candidate but she had too much class for that kind of photo shoot... Oh well... I guess that's why they're the upper class. English tabloids get frumpy Fergie while americans get hot diva Fergie. I doubt if there's any correlation but I suspect her choice of name was specifically to make a reference to the 80s upjumped princess idea, kind of as a pop-culture joke... not so dissimilar to her own lifestyle.

I think its because her last name is Ferguson.

I'm sorry, normally I don't care being 'Merican and all but this quote:

Orlanth wrote:Being Queen is a curse,

made me chuckle. Cursed with being one of the wealthiest people in the world. I'm so sad.

Granted, being the ruling Monarch of England was probably alot cooler before that Cromwell bastard!

Previously the monarchy have, of necessity, had to maintain a degree of seperation from the rest of the populace. This has changed with the current royal family who have tried with various degrees of success, to be seen as 'ordinary people'.
But there is a problem with this position, because they have title and priviliges that are founded on birthright and historical precedence of being perceived as superior to the rest of us.

The Windsors have increasingly used the media to open up to the public. The net result is a blurring of distictions between royalty and celebrity.

They are unelected heads of state who wish to play on their celebrity status. That makes them fair game too. In any case the royal family has long been subject to mockery. We have a very healthy tradition of satire in this country.
Long may that continue.

robertsjf wrote:I'm sorry, normally I don't care being 'Merican and all but this quote:

Orlanth wrote:Being Queen is a curse,

made me chuckle. Cursed with being one of the wealthiest people in the world. I'm so sad.

Granted, being the ruling Monarch of England was probably alot cooler before that Cromwell bastard!

Have enormous power that cannot be wielded.

Pretend to get on and like people your government wants you to pretend like. Playing host to vermin like Ceaucescu and Mugabe.

Get the huge income from your estates taken away and replaced by as smaller fraction as a handout for which you are expected to be grateful. I cant see any other billionaire stomaching that. Hey Branson we will take away your empire give you three million a year expect you to entertain our cronies with it and be grateful you get that.

Put up with ignorant people thinking its all gravy train and easy money.

Tabloids.

Papparazzi.

Hangers on one cannot dismiss.

Security concerns.

Treasonous politicians that one cannot send to the tower.

Except the Queen. She rocks hard.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote: They are unelected heads of state who wish to play on their celebrity status.

Unelected doesn't mean less worthy, they grew up into the role. I trust Her Majesty to have th best interest of th nation at heart above ANY elected poltician. Royals are there by accident of birth, so were hereditaries. Eelected polticians are there because they win the rat race. Who wins the rat race, the man or the rat?

also the Royals would rather not have celebrity status, their actual figurehead role doesnt actually require it.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
That makes them fair game too.

Easy game, not fair game, unlike a politician or celeb the Royals have no right or means of reply.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
In any case the royal family has long been subject to mockery. We have a very healthy tradition of satire in this country.
Long may that continue.

Satire is a valued break on power, the Royals do not have true power. Also satire has been devalued as it has been increasingly partisan. Comedians today ignore their responsibilities under fools license but still demand the privileges.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Previously the monarchy have, of necessity, had to maintain a degree of seperation from the rest of the populace. This has changed with the current royal family who have tried with various degrees of success, to be seen as 'ordinary people'.

Don't you mean... Common People?




I agree that the idea of being in the Royal Family isn't as great as some would think. The paparazzi in the UK is just brutal.

Watching that clip affected my Shatner's Bassoon.

Oh please... anyone defending the royals at all, saying how 'hard' their job must be, etc... That's misplaced national pride and you know you would switch jobs with them in a second if offered the opportunity. Don't tell me you think your job is easier than theirs... Well maybe if you program windows update computer software or run a corporation that sells banks or something, but aside from that...

Orlanth wrote:Put up with ignorant people thinking its all gravy train and easy money.

I never said it was easy. But if it's so horrible, why not quit? If the job was so bad how does England keep the throne occupied? Evidently, it's not all bad. You want to tell me that it's really hard work. OK, I believe it. Seems pretty rewarding, too.

And as far as having to pretend to like people that I actually don't: please, I have to do that at my job all the time and it pays less than monarchy.

Trust me.

I think that's any job, not just yours robertsjf