Posts by casablanca

    She told Mirror Online: 'It was quite alarming when the captain announced after circling Heathrow for a while, "Ladies and gentlemen we have about five to ten minutes" fuel left so we may need to divert to Gatwick'.


    I'm willing to believe the woman told something to the Mirror on line.


    From there on there are several possibilities:


    1) That she misheard that it was 5-10 minutes


    2) That she made up that it was to 10 minutes


    3) That it might have 5-10 minutes to decide whether to proceed to Gatwick


    4) That the mirror reporter made up that it was "Ladies and gentlemen we have about five to ten minutes" fuel left so we may need to divert to Gatwick" because that's what reporters do these days


    5) As for what this has to do with Harry taking off to Canada to Northolt, we'll never know. Seems a reasonable assumption although it might have been Sir Philip Green on his way to Nice. Or Tania Ecclestone on her way to Elstree. All we can be sure of is that it was someone who Bryanluc or the Mirror isn't keen on


    I think Bryanluc should become a journalist. He meets all the necessary requirements. He's wasted on this Forum except as some kind unwitting court jester

    Except it's not, that's the point I was trying to make.

    Sorry Horizon if I misunderstood you. Does this mean we're in agreement on M&H's best place to be when across the pond?


    When you say "except it's not" I'm not sure what you are defining as "it". I'm saying the reception in the US would be warmer or less critical or less past- colonial self-conscious than in Canada

    1 To control population size, birth restriction will reduce population to a far greater extent than can be offset by increased longevity. Besides which, the increasingly senile groups, as they approach mortality, require much less food and space. So it is trivial to introduce this minor segment imbalance between a greatly reduced number of new babes and marginally-delayed numbers of departing ageists.


    2 All the more reason to abandon attempts to get cross-nation compliance on emissions and instead pursue population control. Tricky when the long term Islam Awakening plan (of Mad & Bad Obsession) is to defeat us infidels by a strategy of sheer numbers of Muslims spawning & sprawling across the globe. All the more reason to close and lock our nations' doors, by which I mean border control. That way they can kill one another on their home soil.


    3 Population control can pre-empt the need for a Soylent Green lifestyle


    4 Answered in a previous email. It has to be mandatory and enforced. A slimline population with strong borders and advanced defense can easily repel or annihilate a horde of substandard masses from third-world-ish countries or regions which can barely govern or care for themselves let alone invade a first world nation.




    Of course, sadly, much of the world is non-cooperative or competitive with one another and tends to be reactive rather than pro-active. So slimline populated countries might just live a little longer than those who are self-destructing. Of course, if the slimline populated countries ever come to recognise they are singing from the same hymnbook they might join forces and clean up the rest of this planet (and I use the term "clean up" in either of its applications!).


    They say nothing lasts forever. That may well also apply to the human race. Good time to be in an older age group!







    .

    War, pestilence, natural disasters or famine. Take your pick. They have always been the great population reducers.

    Only if we don't rush out with medicine, food, water and shelter to save them


    As long as there are reporters, photographers and crazy-mixed-up mean-wellers, we're sunk

    I guess that didn't apply to Germany where a falling birthrate has led to a top heavy elderly population and the need to attract immigrants to balance the equation


    https://www.dw.com/en/study-ge…t-labor-demand/a-47470731

    You need to look for relationships in data. The correlation between fewer births and a declining population is obvious to even a complete imbecile.


    It is also obvious to a complete imbecile that the resulting age profile of a birth-restricted population would become older. Fewer young people. Duuuurrrrh!


    Naturally if you over-apply birth restriction you get that kind of imbalance which might present a shortage in a young workforce or, conversely, if there was unemployment, it could reduce that problem.


    Then again, maybe with the march of Artificial Intelligence (AI). the shortage of young workers might be a blessing in disguise. Especially if it was at the lower end of the class spectrum, more easily replaced by AI.


    Do you understand any of this? Or to put it another way: are you just pretending to be stupid?

    The Canadians might start to think of Harry and Meghan living in their midst as a possible threat to their constitution according to this article:


    https://nypost.com/2020/01/15/…han-markle-arent-welcome/


    Unfortunately, the Canadian paper itself is behind a paywall, so can't read the whole article, but that NY Post article gives a summary and most interesting it is too.

    Thanks for tracking that down.


    Whatever made the Royal Family presume Canada would still be a curtsy-ing colony?


    Far better for H&M to avoid lumbering themselves in Canada when just across the border a more warm and open or less tight-ass reception awaits, where the Boston Tea Party is an almost invisible ancient speck


    With a watchful eye to media malignancy I think H&M should permit themselves to undergo an unedited live TV interview in which they make it clear they are not seeking or intending to "sell Royalty" to America. They are just trying to escape the media magnifying glass in the UK which was planting seeds of divisiveness and hostility based on untruths or fabrications, which we don't wish to elaborate on.

    They already have millions in the bank. What they want is more millions and us footing the bill. Is that really acceptable to you?


    A rich family doesn't get subsides by taxpayers (if you exclude all the many subsides that land owners get) so not comparable to the The Firm. at all.

    You miss the point: Harry & Meghan can make money that not only needn't come from the tax payer but will actually rewards the taxpayer. The financial payback will come from rich Americans who want to rub shoulders with Meghan & Harry because of the connection with the Royal Family.


    Many of the big successful charities use famous or talented people to raise funds and often those (figure-)heads are well remunerated (plus travel expenses) and devote a lot of their time to the cause For example the salary of David Miliband, chief executive of the International Rescue Committee, is practically $1 million per annum (and that excludes expenses).


    Also, bear in mind that in America, donations are tax deductible to a more generous and flexible extent than in the UK. So for the right members of the Royal Family, there's gold in those hills.


    Also bear in mind that when doing an analysis of the correlation between the tax payer's cost of running the Royal Family and the income it generates from charity donations, foreign investment and tourism, it is undoubtedly profitable.


    Look at it another way: a rich semi-couth slob wants to crawl up the social ladder. The government can only extract a limited amount of tax out of him because he's got a good accountant. But he'd give hundreds of thousands to a posh charity, one where he might get invited to a Royal Garden Party or Ascot's Royal Enclosure or eventually get a knighthood. Bear in mind that the British Government already spends a lot on overseas aid and supporting charities (doubtless including excessive or unnecessary amounts allocated unwisely). Thus, Britain's taxpayers come out ahead from stroking the pathetic egos of these wealthy (aspiring/pseudo) socialites.


    Bottom line: The Government's Royal Family should pick up the tab for monetizing Meghan & Harry. It's self-financing and will generate income to the tax payers


    Once you've got over your class bias, and your Trotsky hatred of too-easily-earned privilege, and are willing to think rationally, I suggest you examine the case for taxpayers pissing away at least £100 billion on an investment which won't even begin to pay for itself until 30 years later, by which time the product created by that investment will be outmoded. I refer to HS2.








    .

    Your analogy fails to recognise that the elderly and sick in the lifeboat would die off, the new babies needed to replenish the stock

    I guess you were out of the room when it became known that someone explained to those with single figure IQ's that if the number of births exceeds the number of deaths you get more people on this planet.

    It was a passing comment, and just part of his speech. At this moment in time restricting births in countries other than the third world won't work, as the problem lies at the top end. Sorry, but we are surviving to long, and society thinks it's a good idea. If we managed to reduce the survival age, we could then consider restrictions on births. China had a one child policy, but had to increase it to two because of the age imbalance. Of course, if we managed to reduce the population, we would have to reduce the world's economy. The reality is that the subject is extremely complex, but nothing will happen whilst governments choose to ignore the facts.


    In the meantime I believe we should at least be concentrating on the quality of our society, and paying the underclass to produce endless amounts of brats isn't helping

    Yes, I've just listened to David Attenborough's cosy fireside chat! I suppose a statement of the unmentionably/unthinkably obvious is a step forward. It's almost a bad joke to say "population growth must come to an end" - duur, ya think?.


    United Nations Projections show "stabilization and reduction" (ha!) and they go on to say "but not flattening out until the end of the century" - although perhaps what the UN means by "flattening out" is lying in a horizontal position ready to be buried by the lucky survivors.


    There's a reference to "Sixth Mass Extinction " being on the cards but it turns out to be just the march of civilized mankind reducing the viability and survival of animal-kind. I thought when I saw that reference it was trying to describe a situation and new policy, of survival of the fittest, to include self-destruction and non-intervention in the Middle East and Africa. But that's just me, forever the cockeyed optimist!


    Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted in his book "The Population Bomb" (1968) what we are still barely able and willing to discuss today. His original book title was "Population Resources and Environment" but his publisher changed the title. It certainly sold more copies. Yet here we are today, reduced to the ever-scowling Greta Thunberg and her problem-solving "Eureka!" insight that "something must be done".


    Imagine being in a lifeboat trying to survive when the boat's occupants keep procreating. One can stretch it out by having a gadget that desalinates seawater, another gadget that attracts and reels in an endless supply of fish but one can't make the boat any bigger to accommodate the ever-increasing mouths to feed. Eventually, the unspeakable reality makes its ugly entrance, which is birth control, preferably in tandem with survival of the fittest.


    Of course all of the above melts away into a temporary minor inconvenience if we can travel faster than light to some really comfortable planets. Probably best we don't rely on Branson, Musk, Boeing or Thomas Cook (and FlyBy is only for short haul). Maybe the Chinese will reach the stars first. That would be a load off Mother Earth's mind!

    It's not, the alternative is an electric boiler. The electricity of course is generated by gas. To be fair, I am sure the powers that be have done some homework. What confuses me is the popularity of multi burners throwing out endless amounts of emissions.


    Today David Attenborough stated on the TV that the problem lies with the size of the population, something I have been bleating on about for ages. Anything we do will be pointless if we don't reduce the amount of human beings on the planet.

    You bleating on for ages about population size: me too!


    It's like the elephant in the room


    I bet he didn't offer the solutions:


    Family size upper limit

    Cap on child benefits above that number

    Tax increase to reflect increased cost of public services

    Incentives for birth control

    Aids to Third World Countries based on compulsory vasectomies

    Exceptions or extensions to upper-limit based on wealth/means/IQ


    Or Did David Attenborough think the details would all be sorted out by the tooth fairy?!

    1 A near 50-50 result (55-45) to remain in the UK could reverse next time, especially if the largely English government refuses permission for a new referendum while embroiled in trade negotiations with the EU. But then again, I suspect BJ knows what many Scots are now feeling, that Nicolas Sturgeon has become a boring one-trick pony, and arguably has taken her eye off the ball which was supposed to actually rather than promise to improve Scotland’s services and standard of living. Possibly Nicolas Sturgeon is in a hurry because she fears over the next 12 or so months, Brexit could show a happy ending. With Scotland sharing in that good fortune, the argument for Scottish independence will weaken and Nicolas Sturgeon’s re-electability will be in question. This would be a shame because, in spite of her obsession with Scottish independence and her unfiltered animosity to politicians who have the impudence to disagree with her, she is intelligent and articulate.


    BTW: the Scots were not “shafted” by Brexit. Whether they liked it or not, they voted in the referendum as part of the UK. You know that and they knew that.


    2 It doesn’t matter what some people think of feel. The reality is that the English are right; Scotland is not an equal partner in the union of nations and it is absurd for a region/former kingdom accounting for less than 10% of the UK population and wealth and financial contribution to think otherwise. For goodness sake, we are supposed to be considering facts, not just feelings. As for your caveat “whether or not it is a true perception, it's how many Scots feel” let me just say this: contrary to the opinion of nitwits in public relations, advertising, politics and media, perception is not “the new reality”. Thus, your reference to “true perception” is an oxymoron.


    I am sure everyone with a sense of reality – North & South of the Border - will recognise that Scotland is a territorial possession of the UK. Like the two other kingdoms/nations/regions Scotland is today enjoying a degree of self-rule to acknowledge it’s (past) historical/political self-identity.


    Personally, I think it unwise to call the amalgam of possessions or affiliations the “United Kingdom” because, frankly, the very name “United” begs the question. The truth is that the United Kingdom is really England with some resentful, whingeing or downright hostile hangers-on. Obviously regions or once-upon-a-time kingdoms should enjoy their uniqueness. That’s human nature as well as being what community, localness and regionalism is all about.


    But the day those subdivisions want to break away from their present national oneness is the day they should either (a) emigrate or (b) buy a big freehold plot of land from some country that needs more money and doesn’t need quite as much land (Dominican Republic, Cuba, or (c) go into a more equal partnership with some country that needs additional blood or money (Patagonia? Catalonia? Denmark’s Greenland? Canada?) or (d) look for a new parent country or continent, eg the EU (good luck with that one!).


    When Scotland was an independent kingdom and chose to go to bed with England’s kingdom, the die was cast. The partnership was bound to be pro rata to population and wealth. It took a 200-300 years for Scotland to discover oil in its own backyard and gnash its teeth over relinquishment of independence. If hindsight tells them going to bed with England was a bad idea, wait ‘til they try it with the EU - it won't take 200-300 years to say "oops!"


    3 If that viewpoint (stay in the UK because that’s the best way of being in the EU) represents the majority of Scotland I do wish they’d just do it. England needs that kind of Scottish partnership like a hole in the head. It never was a balanced mutual admiration. The English have liked the Scots as a race whereas the Scots have liked the English mostly for reasons bound up in materialism, social aspiration and, back then, global power and influence.


    4 You may well be right. That does in itself suggest that Scotland just tolerates England as a means to an end, to be adopted by a new parent, the EU. Thus it may be argued that Scotland doesn’t seek independence as a biological nation, it just seeks a new parent. Hardly my idea of “Scotland The Brave!”


    5 WTF do you think Theresa May was doing other than “come to some arrangement with the EU”? Such an arrangement might just as well have been attempted by the Downing Street cat. We now have BJ seeking a proper trade and political arrangement with the EU and, if he succeeds, it will be in spite of rather than because of Nicola Sturgeon and SNP MP’s. Furthermore, it will certainly be in spite of the efforts of the EU negotiation team to treat the UK as a competitor to crush rather than be in partnership with (and regrettably sometimes I can see why the EU feels that way – but I think if anyone stands a chance of making the UK more civilised and pleasant to deal with it is BJ).


    6 Are you seriously suggesting the Scots are so stupid as to read such a red line into an idiotic slogan that amounted to a truism?


    7 You need to understand that there are things you need to understand. I fear you have now reached the point where you are whingeing rather than making a considered point


    8 I should have read your posted comments from the bottom up. Then I would have realised right at the outset not to take you seriously. Your opinions are based on bogus fact or laughable hypotheses.


    9 As long as there are people like yourself supporting Scottish independence the alliance between Scotland and England will remain intact. All the average Scot (ie not you) needs is to be exposed to your thinking alongside the steady decline in 45% who support independence and the 42% who support another referendum will steadily decline. In the final analysis, the Scots want to be on the winning side. Meanwhile the government negotiates for the UK, while Scotland (but not you) has enough sense to suspend their decision for the next 12 or so months

    .

    i refer you to my post when I mention the Andrew and Fergie brand, for brand it is. Do you really think he could maintain his lifestyle on a retired naval officers pension and a hand out from mummy

    They rely on who they are, ie brand Windsor or royal for the patronage and gifts of very wealthy "friends". Do you for instance think that he actually bought the Bentley he drives?

    So what?


    It is not yet illegal to be enjoy the trappings of being born or married into a rich family. Nor is it illegal as to whether you put that lucky benefit to good purpose or become a selfish wastrel. Nor is it illegal to be a pigheaded spectator exercising a biased speculation because of a left wing chip on their shoulder.

    Andrew has always been terrible, flogging himself to the Arabs, but this is different. Harry and Meghan have created one massive merchandising machine using a royal brand, not behind the scenes stuff. It will devalue the monarchy as a result and I doubt the queen will tolerate it for long, assuming she even agrees to it in the first place.


    When Fergie did her "thing" on American tv, she wasn't royal by then, that's the big difference between that situation and now.

    Your reference to a "Royal Brand" is just a derogatory way of describing the Royal Family or the Monarchy or British Sovereignty. "Brand" was usually a product (eg Cadbury, Nike, Ford, Marlboro) that has become one of those moronic shorthand descriptions of any entity that captures people's awareness and generates perceived thoughts, feelings, attributes and even - God Forbid if it's Royalty - a personality. Forum Box could become a "brand". You, Horizon, could become a "brand". In theory!


    The Royal Firm/Buck Inc wouldn't exist in these post-Thatcher times if it wasn't a cash cow. So, in your parlance, it has long been a "brand" and it makes a lot of money .... or as they say in the FT, it provides a good ROI, or as you would describe it more charmingly, "a money-making machine".


    That said, which do you think is the better "brand image" for Britain's most famous historical and current-day "family" that symbolises a stable sovereign nation?


    (a) Outdated tradition, pomp & circumstance


    (b) something more natural, sincere, less fake, less encased in aspic, more communicative, a persona that acknowledges that Britain, with all its more positive features is, for better or worse, in the 21st century?


    Yes, of course, something in between! But increased in which direction - towards (a) or (b)?


    In the meantime, until you decide on such thoughts - and because you're a keen researcher - I'd be fascinated to know any details that support your discovery that "Harry and Meghan have created one massive merchandising machine using a royal brand". I'm asking here about what they have done as opposed of what you or the media speculate they might or plan to do.

    A basic silly mistake spoils the rest of your argument

    Di, the daughter of an Earl a "commonerQ

    Ooops!


    I admit, in her early years, she had a demure reticent quality that I should have recognised as more than an average commoner. If she soon broke free of the more stagnant Royal class conventions, that was surely entirely due to Charles's soulless sordid and distinctly unclassy behaviour.


    Like you, I too admire Harry for standing up the outdated Royal conventions and I would further suggest that Meghan wouldn't have married him if he resembled a typical Royal stiff, which his brother seems increasingly to resemble.


    I suspect Canada was suggested as a halfway house or compromise between manacle maniacal monarchical Britain and the U$A. Big mistake! A typical neither-nor British compromise, worsened by the arrogant outdated presumption that Canada is just itching to give the Royal Couple a colonial curtsy.


    On balance, Harry & Meghan will do better in bringing the UK Royal family into the 21st century, with a more international dimension, by developing an Anglo-American modus operandi.


    If a newly slimmed down Royal Family and its Government masters see this as more of a hazard than opportunity, well, more fool them.


    One way or another Harry & Meghan will find a way to live financially comfortably and happily ever after.

    China wants us to have Huawei G5 or it won't trade all that much with us

    America doesn't want us to have Huawei G5 or it won't trade all that much with us

    British government wants Huawei G5 to operate in Britain but security is divided on whether it is secure


    https://www.ft.com/content/1d7…43-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4



    Is there anyone on this forum who cares and knows what is the right thing to do?

    My questions below might help in providing a running start on the issues and quandaries

    1. Is there a security-safe alternative to Huawei 5G that delivers near enough the same communication opportunities?
    2. Is there a method of finding out if Huawei 5G in the UK is capable of breaking through our present security barriers or red lines and, if so, can't we rectify that?
    3. Because, if we can't, what the hell are we doing even thinking of letting Huawei operate on a 5G basis in the UK?
    4. If we let Huawei 5G into the UK would we at least be able to detect if Huawei has broken through our security barriers and, if so, would be able to pull the plug? If the answer is No and No, then are we nuts?
    5. Why do Britain's technical security experts in the government and private sectors disagree within and across those 2 sectors? Or to put it another way, how can this country even think about proceeding if they can't reach a reasonable level of agreement on whether it's safe to do so?
    6. Does America have 5G and, if so, how are they able to maintain confident security? And why can't we have some of that?! If America doesn't have 5G, how can they be the world's biggest power without it and why are we in Britain so desperately intent on having 5G?
    7. Aren't we buying enough from China already without them getting mean and sulky about reciprocal trade just because we don't want to risk our security by dealing with a Chinese hi-tec enterprise that is obliged to follow their Government's policy? Can we see that this is a slippery slope that will get steeper? Isn't G5 just the spearhead of a whole new UK policy?
    8. Isn't China in effect saying is that if we don't spend enough money buying stuff from them, they won't spend enough money buying stuff from us? Can we cope with that?
    9. Can we face the tough choice that is now upon us, that Britain either decides whether to let China become commercially and operationally dominant in this (prospective) “banana republic” hiding under a hollow sovereignty and a pseudo/Disney World monarchy or we rediscover and revive our former true selves? Compared with the China that looms on our horizon, the EU's barely concealed European 4th Reich oriented ambitions seems benign by comparison.

    Whatever made Britain think Meghan and Harry would opt for the gilded cage of 20th century British Royalty one fifth into the 21st century?


    In referring to “sources”, either the Times is fabricating news or it is collaborating with spiteful snipers. Either way, it is unwittingly killing the already iffy image of the Royal family by reinforcing the gutsy wise decision of Meghan and Harry to move away from this malignant nation.


    Clearly Meghan seriously underestimated the full consequence of marrying into British Royalty, in particular, finding that she had joined a public relations empire rather than just a sparklingly illustrious family. Meghan can surely be forgiven for not fully appreciating how her life would be placed under a grubby magnifying glass (aka the British media), where endless gossip, innuendo, spite and unsupportable or fabricated truths from so-called "sources" would trigger an unceasing massive percentage of British citizens to let loose their malicious glee in the distress this causes, presumably as a justified sour-grape retribution against a perceived life of barely-earned enormous privilege.


    It all seemed so bright and hopeful at the wedding. Granted, she was a commoner, just like Kate and Di, and her marrying into the Royal family raised hopeful expectations of yet-another "breath of fresh air" (a euphemism for injecting some extra IQ, personality and modernity to top up these deficits from so much inbreeding). But world-famous British hypocrisy ensured that this breath of fresh air should be mostly an image fantasy and underpinned by the reality of the same old conformity to Royal Family strictures, known as “teamwork”.


    Sin of sins, Meghan turned out to be her own person, uttering some well-meaning viewpoints (but not political). For feral Britain, egged on by the media, this rapidly translated into a perception of an impostor "on the make" (“who does she think she is?”). From that lowly point it was an easy downslide to take a closer look at the family tree and speculate upon a complexion that suggests more than just a high quality suntan lotion. Surprise, surprise, racism raised its ugly head and, more surprise surprise, the media fanned those flames by the brilliant expedient of never missing an opportunity to espouse how terrible it is that some people hold racist views. In an attempt to bring Britain’s Royal master race of gentiles back on track, Goebbels couldn’t have done it better.


    The inevitable result is that Meghan has discovered that Britain is a hybrid, mongrel or feral nation and, to cap it all, she doesn’t make even that grade. She probably already held those suspicions but she took a more optimistic view through romance-tinted glasses. I'm pretty sure Harry shares her ambivalence. She could of course have been a Kate Me-too, projecting country life glamour, signing in for a crash course in no-prisoners-taken girls’ hockey and keeping her worldly metropolitan mouth shut. I mean “who does she think she is?”


    My feeling is that the couple and their child should, for their own sake, spend a considerable, even major chunk of their lives at arm's length from "Not-So-Great-After-All Britain”. To expedite that, there might be two options for Meghan and Harry them to consider:


    a) use their faded/second-class/demoted Royal credentials to make as much money as possible, before the gloss fades. That should ensure they can live comfortably and happily ever after. I have no doubt that Meghan’s former career plus her “smarts” will ensure she will more than earn her keep.


    or


    b) win the unstinting ungrudging financial and political support of the Royal Establishment and HM Government to promote the internationalism of British Royalty. It sure needs it. Sanity might just prevail. By injecting more substance into the same old froth of pomp & circumstance, the deeper lasting meaning of Royalty in the United Kingdom in the 21st century ought surely to rise above anything which Disneyland could cheaply and easily concoct


    If sanity doesn’t prevail, if the lunatics have taken over the asylum (ie the courtiers and advisers hold sway), then option (b) might not be Meghan & Harry's choice to make. If that proves to be the case I would not be at all surprised if Meghan & Harry's well-considered response to the Establishment's advisers and courtiers would be to tell them to be fruitful, go forth and multiply (although not in so many words). After all, as the saying goes: you can choose your friends but you can't choose your relatives. And Meghan already knows that on her side of the pond. Which makes it extra ironic

    I like Long-Bailey. She is loyal to Corbyn but can change when Corbyn has gone.

    1 "Can" does not equal shall


    2 "Being loyal to Corbyn but can change when he's gone" is a weird definition of loyalty. Or did you mean by "gone", actually dead? (Can there ever be a better example for Dorothy Parker since the departure of Calvin Coolidge?). In any case, it's not loyalty, it's that Corbyn and his louts are her only backers.

    Meghan wears black to make a statement against chauvinism. They all do in that American fraternity and have been for a while. She posts monochrome photos of her family to train the people to be colour blind. She married Harry to change the world and although the gullible tits elsewhere are delighted she has come to Canada, the Brits have turned against her. They are smart. They are sticking with their Queen. The Queen should have instantly stripped both of them of their titles. Harry would then have to live as he has constantly says he wants to, as an ordinary human, or he divorces the little gold digger and returns to the Palace, cap in hand.

    1 Monochrome


    2 Gold digger


    3 Brits are smart


    I'll assume 1 is information, 2 is uninformed opinion and 3 is a typing error

    I'm not a mind reader, so I don't know what's gone wrong for Meghan. I can only speculate. Let's face it, England has a lot of institutions which perform useful functions but have a top layer of unnecessary Tradition, Pride, Pomp & Circumstance. It can all seem so OTT, engendering ridicule or embarrassment among non-participants and especially young people most of whom are at least a bit left-of-centre.


    I suspect Meghan perceived Harry as being able to operate within the Royal Establishment with sufficient degrees of freedom, accepted as an independent yet well-behaved spirit. For Meghan, such a lifestyle must have seemed to offer the best of both worlds. It's not as if she was "on-the-make". It just looked like it could be a lovable life with a lovable guy.


    After all, why would Meghan seem more "on-the-make" than Diana or Kate, neither of whom were "to the manner born", indeed, not being so was part of their appeal.


    But I look at Meghan in Royal line-ups and she looks as if she doesn't belong (eg that familiar rigor-mortis grin, black cocktail dresses on a sunny day outdoors). I'm not sure if Meghan is trying to dissociate with what in her mind is a dated caricature of English Royalty (an American to the rescue!) or is trying to stand out from the Royal Crowd (showbiz instincts from her previous life) or whether she just doesn't know any better (it's an American trait to feel when abroad that they don't need to know any better). Maybe in time she could find that casual effortless daytime or outdoorsy smartness.


    Sadly the media generally and social media especially have killed any desire or hope by Meghan to be accepted in Britain. She and Harry haven't announced that they are leaving Britain, just that they want to be less in the spotlight solely in this country which is already in two minds about her and therefore maybe a percentage of geographical absence might make the public heart grow fonder. And if not, so be it.


    I think the Royal Establishment should support that plan with enthusiasm (after all, Charles' "slimmed down Royalty" concept can surely take various forms). If the Royal family disown it or express disdain or disapproval, Meghan and Harry will know they made the right decision and that will only reinforce the impression that the Royal Establishment has got closer to its final use-by date

    Good for you


    Apart from Judge Bryan ("where there's smoke") Luc there is a conspicuous non-response to your rhetorical question

    I disagree with part of your comment. I do think they 'are on the make'. The whole proposed 'business' is based on the word 'Sussex', a title that was bestowed upon them so they are going to use their titles for their own benefit. They still want taxpayer funding to continue to pay for their 'protection'. If they are so 'woke' then why are they expecting taxpayer money at all? It comes from people not so privileged as themselves. As the saying goes .... they want their cake and eat it too.


    If they renounce their titles and all taxpayer funding, then fair enough and I would wish them well, but I doubt they will.

    If you've got it, flaunt it. But that doesn't mean you're "on the make". If you've got a good degree and you're looking for clients where that degree is relevant, you'd be nuts not to include it on your website or on your business card. But that doesn't mean you're "on the make". If you want to open a nightclub or exclusive bar for rich snobby people and you're a prince, I think that should be in the name of the club or somehow brought to target prospects' attention through PR. But that doesn't mean you're "on the make". If you've got a knighthood or OBE - which might be quite undeserved - but could be a business-getting clincher, then you'd use it if you think it will work, But that doesn't mean you're "on the make".

    Overall I think you're throwing away the bathwater with the baby. I can see how tempted you must have been to vote Labour


    Specifically .....


    1 The Queen MUST have known the couple were unhappy and must have known why. Therefore I can only assume her response gave cold comfort. Which sounds in character. Stoicism and authoritarianism do have their upper limits.


    2 Who's to blame? The spouse with the thumb or the spouse under it? I don't think Megan is Lady Macbeth but I do think Harry is more of a wimp than Hamlet


    3 Buckingham Palace is a Royal Breeding Machine. A fertile woman who is accepted knows this comes with the territory. To interpret that as entrapment exposes your bias as absurd but no laughing matter.


    4 The reason why what Harry says sounds like "words out of Megan's mouth" says more about how spineless or subservient Harry is rather than how formidable - and with a mind of her own - Megan is.


    5 They are already well padded financially so I don't think they are "on the make". Megan can make a good living, probably even better than before. Harry can do something uselessly renumerative like a typical Royal (PR, leisure travel consultant, ambassador, etc) but at least he could be self-financing (Prince Charles's Duchy empire had to get bailed out by Waitrose). You don't think "they are prepared to go 100% out". Truth is, you don't know. But just because Megan joined Royalty and not a kibbutz doesn't mean her ambition was to make an easy dollar. You need to talk to someone - this is eating you up


    6 You propose to "let the queen die thinking all is fine ...... and after that the royal family should be abolished". So you think the Queen is now mentally retarded and believes everything is AOK? How patronising! Do you work in the NHS?! And you think Royalty should then be abolished because of too many duds high up the pecking order? Can't you think constructively? If you want to abolish Royalty because ... well, because you want to abolish it .... just say so, don't contrive a rationale for such a viewpoint other than what it most probably is, which is a class or marxist or Corbyn thing.


    7 You "say some may argue they bring in tourism and IMO not enough income from that to balance out what he royals take" and you moan about the wasted spend on "nonsense like the trooping the colour and other ceremonies". The truth is that your opinion is worthless because the return on investment remains well in the black and that is true even when excluding qualitative immeasurables.


    8 You moan about how the Royal Establishment do "do f-all" to earn their privilege status". You mean like 90% of 650 MP's, like local planning departments, like those who have drawn up plans for HS2, like .... the list is endless and size wise, the Royals are small change compared to the rest of Not-So-Great Britain's so-called initiatives. All the Royalty crap that I agree is rather noddy land costs a tiny fraction of what it costs to run Disneyworld and, as I said, it actually pays for itself.


    9 You complain that "If only the queen exercised some power instead of hiding behind past history". Any suggestions on how she could do that? Personally I think she's a disappointment on that score for not even trying. It's all a load of symbolic crap which most Brits sneer at while lapping it up (eg 'don't you dare interfere with our symbolic historic long-established clowns')


    10 You maintain that any charity work the royals do is a con. You'll be telling me next that the Royals personally pocket the contributions. Are you planning to try and conquer all this absurd bile or are you really serious? I thought your avatar picture was just a joke, not a personal portrait!!


    11 As for your off-topic thought that the tax payer should no longer pay for 24/7 security for ex PM's because of so-called "criminals like Blair", are you suggesting tarring them all with the same brush? Or that they each undergo a means test? Why not extend that thought to their salary and pension? I have always felt a bit self-conscious, ambivalent, even guilty about being pro-Tory but after reading your posting that shows what lies under the stone if Labour got in, I feel a whole better! For that much thanks

    If they're buggering off to Canada can we have a refund of the £2m+ that was spent on tarting up Frogmore Cottage?


    Thought not.

    Q1 Was Frogmore paid for out of the public purse or from the Queen's own coffers?


    Q2 If public purse, who owns it? Did Harry and Megan stay there as a grace & favour privilege or on along very long lease or own it freehold?