03.09.2021 08:27 PM

Me versus Lilley – on the Royals!

…who I frankly couldn’t give a rat’s ass about.

21 Comments

  1. dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack says:

    The best leaders are always those who achieve power unexpectedly… who intuitively know that power is fleeting and unnatural. QEII is an excellent example. If her uncle hadn’t abdicated and if Germany had won WWII, no one would have ever heard of her. She gets it. Charles? Well we have our own version of Charles here in Canada and we all see the results.

    One point missed in this piece… The palace didn’t deny anything. They know they have gremlins in the machinery. They know damn well this was all of their own making.

    I actually thought the interview was perfect. Yes MM was dramatic, but that’s who she is. It was a rare moment that absolutely called for drama and she delivered. Expect her to run for the California Senate Seat…. and mop the GD floor with everyone in her way.

    • Steve Teller says:

      You’ve got a couple of things right, but the wrong analysis.

      Correct, the palace didn’t deny anything – because the accusations were so generic that no one could investigate or refute even if they wanted to. Which is just what MM wanted – draw attention to herself, without any real ability for the accused to defend.

      It’s also correct that MM delivered drama, to appeal to the California base, and pave the way for either a political career or more media spotlight. That’s why she did the interview – not because there’s any truth in it, but because she knew it would get her attention. Mission accomplished.

      • dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack says:

        I get why people didn’t like the anonymous accusation. But lets consider the inevitable calculus of that. She says explicitly who said what. They deny it. Obviously no one is going to believe the denial. The denial would bring more scorn than the accusation. Harry is then stuck in a life altering, irrevocable he-said / she said. She left some breathing room for the family to recover which was actually really classy IMO.

        • DSAUPH,
          I used to be more or less on Piers’ wavelength. I thought Meghan was masterfully running the damaged Harry by the nose but when she said that she seriously contemplated suicide, I thought to myself that no one would ever make such a thing up. Boy, did that change my perspective, quite obviously for the better. I wish them well.

          • Steve Teller says:

            Why don’t you think she would make that sort of thing up, if it would further the sympathy for her and endear her more to her target audience?

            People used to say that no one would ever claim rape or sexual abuse falsely, but we now know there have been some (a small number) in which it was false. That isn’t taking away from the vast majority which are true. It simply means that any statement – whether about rape, suicide, or otherwise – should never be above scrutiny.

          • dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack says:

            Replying to Steve Teller below. The reasons I don’t think its made up: Its coming 2nd hand / hearsay, but the in between is agreeing with it. Therefore *two*people are alleging it happened . This is what I don’t get about the “Megan made it up” theory… You also have to be saying Harry made it up. Further, if she were indeed making it up… her story would be stronger and more likely only involve herself.

          • Steve,

            Scrutiny, yes but with a presumption of veracity, unless or until proven otherwise.

  2. Steve Teller says:

    Just remember, Markle is first and foremost an actress. So the believability of her story has to be viewed through that lens.

    Piers Morgan had an absolutely scathing and spot-on analysis of Harry and Meghan’s interview. Worth watching, for sure.

    • dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack says:

      Piers Morgan tells everyone she is a bit of a “cut and run”…. then the guy gets so steamed up about things, he gets up and leaves for good. You can’t make that stuff up. He should be doing little kids birthday parties.

    • Morgan has some kind of a predetermined agenda where The Sussexes are concerned. Everyone can see that there is bias there, probably from the very start.

  3. Peter says:

    For someone like me who was raised in a fervently monarchist household, this is wrenching, but even I can see they’re in trouble bigtime. Too many scandals and feckless young royals under the glare of a voracious press and in the face of a limitless public thirst for “tell-all” publicity. Plus the current mark-of-Cain turmoil over any accusation of racism, no matter how unfair or “drive-by”. The shock is not that someone as insignificant as Markle would attack them so shamelessly, but that the royals are so vulnerable in the face of it. I know palace spokespeople don’t do wit, but I’m really sorry they didn’t combine a robust condemnation of racism and a commitment to combat it on all fronts with an admission that they have a bit of a thing against American divorcées.

    The Queen is too widely respected and revered for much to happen while she lives, but not even the most rabid royalist would draw his sword to save King Chuck and Queen Camilla. Too bad, but he’s done a lot to undermine the institution, despite all his causes and trusts. I’m betting there are a lot of loyal monarchists who secretly dream he might abdicate in favour of William and Kate.

    Funnily enough, the country that may have the hardest time abolishing the monarchy may be Canada. There would be no shortage of voices repeating the tiresome republican shibboleths about how irrational it is (who ever claimed it wasn’t?) or how it’s time to “grow up”, but to get the feds, all the provinces, aboriginal interests and assorted other voices to agree on a replacement would be quite the challenge. Just try to imagine who would replace HM. Long live Queen Julie? C-mon, we can’t even get to first base on a reform of the the electoral ballot. My current pain is somewhat soothed by visions of the schadenfreude I would savour seeing all my republican friends rend their garments as they watch everyone in the rest of the anglosphere replace the royals while we are left as the last monarchy standing.

    • Peter,

      In this country, we have trouble selecting the appropriate male, female or transgender bathrooms so as usual, someone else will have to do our dirty work for us — that means out it goes in the UK within months of Her Majesty The Queen’s death. Let them all get proper jobs or rest on the British legislation apparently inspired by HMTQ to reduce her taxes. That whopper has likely killed it for sure. And as Desmond might say: “You won’t see me crying.”

      • Peter says:

        Even if the UK were to abolish the monarchy (a much more divisive and difficult step than you imply), we’d have to do so too for it to effect us. HM is Queen of Canada in her own right. When Edward VIII abdicated, the British Parliament had to pass a statute to alter the succession. We did too. If we hadn’t, the lines would have split and we’ might have a different monarch.

        • Peter says:

          Trying to imagine how it would unfold, I have to wonder how the aboriginal peoples would respond and what the price would be for their cooperation, assuming we agree we would need it. They may not be as emotionally attached to royalty as they were a few decades ago, but they are VERY attached to the treaties with the Crown, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, etc., and for good legal reason. I can’t see them just casually giving this a quick nod.

          As to the provinces, we’d need the consent of all of them. Surely at minimum there would be at least one province objecting to giving the feds exclusive authority to appoint a president or Grand Poobah or whatever, especially with our recent precedent of a PM appointing someone he met at a party because he though he or she was cool.

          Welcome to Canada. Be careful what you wish for, Ronald.

          • Peter,

            IMHO, it depends. Sure, the treaties are with the Crown but how many of them have been respected to the letter? I wonder. As for the RP of 1763, I’m no expert but what effect would the Indian Act have on it? If I say so myself, interesting question. And First Nations can’t even agree among themselves in 2021 to scrap the IA. So, as you’ve said a pandora’s box ahead for sure, in so many ways. Personally, I favour a direct election of even a ceremonial president but that’s just me.

          • Peter,

            Some people are best left in outer space.

        • Peter,

          True, all of the pre-Commonwealth realms had to, if I recall correctly? What was it they called it? The Imperial Family, if I’m not mistaken. And before that, the Dominions?

  4. Gilbert says:

    Meghan is from a broken home. It’s sad, but the reality is that both she and her husband have problems with their respective families. I sense Harry didn’t do enough to prepare Meghan for royal life.

    • Gilbert,
      She’s an American fish out of water. Don’t see how any amount of preparation would have made it work. At least Kate is British, that’s half the battle right there.

    • dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack says:

      I think the biggest problem was that she had a life full of serious experiences and a real career of her own making. She wasn’t prepared to be used as a prop 24/7. They couldn’t figure out how to handle a very complicated new toy which arrived without monosyllabic instructions. In the end she wasn’t able to lower herself to their childish expectations and they weren’t able to rise to the level of modern adults.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*