Category Archives: Royalty

Likely the Only Post Here About Prince Harry’s Book “Spare” – by Gwynne Dyer

[NOTE: I have no strong opinions about Harry & his book & the surrounding soap opera. I wish him & Meghan and their kids a happily ever after, which I expect to ignore. If they shake up the UK monarchy along the way, so much the better. But as usual, I find the reactions of renegade independent Canadian journalist Gwynne Dyer informative & intriguing.]

A Shocking Disclosure
By Gwynne Dyer — 8 January 2023


Where do you look when somebody says: “In the age of Apaches and laptops, everything I did in the course of two combat tours was recorded, time-stamped. I could always say precisely how many enemy combatants I’d killed. And I felt it vital never to shy away from that number.

“So, my number: Twenty-five. It wasn’t a number that gave me any satisfaction. But neither was it a number that made me feel ashamed.” Continue reading Likely the Only Post Here About Prince Harry’s Book “Spare” – by Gwynne Dyer

Heads Up: Willian Penn Followup Coming Soon

Was William Penn Punished Enough? (Partial List)

Jailed:

  •  Cork Ireland, Sept. 1668, for attending meeting.
  •  Tower of London, Nov or Dec-1668 – 8 months; accused (but not tried) of blasphemy, wrote No Cross, No Crown.
  •  Again in August 1670, for preaching, tried with Quaker William Mead in Mead-Bushell case: established the right of juries to reach their own verdict free of judicial pressure.

Continue reading Heads Up: Willian Penn Followup Coming Soon

Foie Gras: Begone! And Aroint thee! from the Royal menu!

King Charles: Foie gras banned at royal residences

BBC — November 18, 2022

Sean Coughlan, Royal Correspondent

There will be no foie gras served in royal residences, a letter from Buckingham Palace to animal rights campaigners has confirmed.

King Charles is understood to have been a longstanding opponent of the food, made from the liver of a duck or goose, that campaigners say is cruel.

The King’s household wrote to the Peta campaign group that foie gras was not bought or served in royal residences.

There have been protests about force-feeding used to produce foie gras. Continue reading Foie Gras: Begone! And Aroint thee! from the Royal menu!

Oh — NOW I Remembet Why We Had A Revolution: Royals Demand Censorship of videos from Queen’s Funeral

[NOTE: Sure, I know that UK’s royals refer to their family as “The Firm,” with reason as it’s worth multibillions; and that’s okay for the Brits; different strokes, etc. Also, I get that this Firm is mainly an image and brand-management operation. And that any brand/image operation this big and this self-important pays meticulous, not to say fanatical attention to detail.

But their efforts to apply this  crowned corporate control-freakery to viral video moments is a bit over the top. After all, they just received two weeks of nonstop planet-wide free publicity, which would have cost any ad agency hundreds of millions. And if that fortnight marathon of 99.999% favorable coverage includes a few minor bloopers that went viral — for pete’s sake, how about we now see a bit of stiff upper lipping about them? And  just suck it up about our ex-colonial stubbornness about our beleaguered free press.]

Newsweek: Queen’s Funeral Footage in Censorship Dispute Over Viral Video Blooper Bits

James Crawford Smith, 9/27/2022

A dispute between British broadcasters and Buckingham Palace has broken out over unedited footage from the ceremonial events marking the death of Queen Elizabeth II, according to recent reports.

The Guardian reports that broadcasters and the palace are locked in a battle over the record of the historic events, after outlets were told they could compile only an hour-long edited version of the ceremonies which were spread over many days, for future use.

Britain’s primary broadcasters would be restricted to “up to 12 minutes of footage from the hour-long Westminster Abbey funeral service, 12 minutes from the Windsor castle committal service and only a few minutes from each of the various vigils that took place,” according to the newspaper.

The royal household would vet the final versions, considering “whether to veto any proposed inclusions.” The alleged deadline for submissions was Monday, Oct. 2.

This power of veto provokes discussion around censorship, as some candid moments from the recordings could be considered to reflect unflatteringly on members of the royal family.

All major events from the time of the queen’s death at the age of 96 on September 8, to her committal service at Windsor Castle on September 19, were broadcast on television in Britain and streamed live around the world through various channels.

The bulk of footage likely falling under potential restriction would be that which was filmed at St James’s Palace or inside Westminster Abbey, and St. George’s Chapel, Windsor.

To film inside the latter religious spaces, express permission would be needed from the palace as they are considered “royal peculiars,” meaning they fall outside of church jurisdiction and answer only to the monarch—in this case, King Charles III.

It is possible, therefore, that permission to film the ceremonies inside these spaces was granted on the condition that footage is re-broadcast upon approval from the palace.

Similar arrangements are expected to have been applied to the recording of the wedding ceremony of Prince William to Kate Middleton at Westminster Abbey in 2011. An edited version of the ceremony was made available to purchase through the BBC afterward and is available to stream on the royal family’s YouTube channel.

Though the exact reasoning behind the decision remains unknown, a number of clips taken from broadcasts of events following the queen’s death opened the royals up to criticism.

Two instances that were recorded and widely shared showed the new King Charles expressing frustration over pens, in the days following the queen’s death.

The first incident was filmed as part of the coverage of the king’s accession council at St. James’s Palace. In the throne room of the palace, Charles signed official documents initiating his reign in the presence of assembled privy councilors.

A small desk was provided for this purpose on which was placed a tray of pens and a large silver inkstand. As Charles took his seat to sign his documents he gestured frustratedly to an aide to remove the pens, only for Prince William to need one moments later.

“Manners cost nothing!” posted one Twitter user in response to the incident after a clip shared online had been viewed more than 19 million times in 24 hours. Another added: “Took him more effort to wave his hand a dozen times than to move it himself.”

A second pen-related outburst was filmed as the king signed the visitors’ book at Hillsborough Castle in Northern Ireland. After a fountain pen leaked ink over his hands, the monarch was recorded saying: “Oh God, I hate this pen!”

“Can’t bear this bloody thing!” he said while walking away, before adding: “[It’s] what they do every stinking time.”

Another clip shows Queen Camilla appearing to check her nails during a ceremony at Westminster Hall and Mike Tindall checking his watch during a vigil at the lying-in-state.

Other viral moments which may be considered too personal, showed emotional displays of members of the royal family, particularly at the queen’s state funeral.

Whether footage of Prince Edward, Sophie, Countess of Wessex, King Charles and Meghan Markle, all shedding tears during the day-long events, is considered in the public interest to be re-broadcast could be debated by the palace.

So far there has been no comment from Buckingham Palace relating to The Guardian’s claims. As of September 27, news footage from a number of the ceremonies commemorating the queen’s life remains available to stream online from various outlets including the BBC and Sky News.

Representatives for the BBC and Sky News declined to comment when contacted by Newsweek.

This power of veto provokes discussion around censorship, as some candid moments from the recordings could be considered to reflect unflatteringly on members of the royal family.

The current status of the dispute is unknown. Newsweek reached out to Buckingham Palace for comment.

Other viral moments which may be considered too personal, showed emotional displays of members of the royal family, particularly at the queen’s state funeral.

So far there has been no comment from Buckingham Palace relating to The Guardian’s claims. As of September 27, news footage from a number of the ceremonies commemorating the queen’s life remains available to stream online from various outlets including the BBC and Sky News.

Representatives for the BBC and Sky News declined to comment when contacted by Newsweek.

I So Thought I was Done With This, But I’m Such a Sucker . . . . .

The Guardian

Friends, actually: the truth about the couple who hit it off queueing to see the Queen’s coffin

Zoe and Jack met in the 5-mile line for the Queen’s lying in state, then spent 13 hours bonding over crisps and chat. Before long, their so-called ‘love affair’ had gone viral …

We would have been very amused .. . .

19 September 2022

Name: Queue romance.

Age: Newly sprung, but short-lived.

Appearance: Like love, but also like a journey.

Isn’t love already a journey of sorts? Yes, but this was an actual 13-hour journey. On foot.

Where to? To pay one’s respects to the late Queen Elizabeth II.

And did people find love in the queue then? Is that what’s going on here? Well, that’s what everyone wanted to believe. There was one couple, Jack and Zoe, who met in line to see the Queen’s lying in state at 10.30pm on Friday, when the growing queue was already edging over the 5-mile mark.

And they hit it off? By the time they were interviewed by Channel 4 the next day, they had been together in the queue all night.

It’s not as if they had a choice. Maybe not, but as they bonded over “crisps and chat”, there was clearly a spark. Zoe called their chance meeting “a blessing in disguise”.

Any awkward moments? Apparently not. “I thought I was going to be exhausted but it’s just gone so quickly in the queue,” said Zoe.

Which left the British public rooting for them? Absolutely. As you can imagine, the news clip of the smitten couple became a bit of a viral hit.

With people making jokes about the romcom possibilities offered by this unlikely meeting? Exactly: “Queue, Actually”, “Four Queues and a Funeral”, etc.

That doesn’t really work, because there was only one queue. How about “14-Hour Queue and a Funeral”?

It’s better, except earlier you made it clear the queue was only 13 hours. This is Richard Curtis’s job, not mine.

So will Jack and Zoe meet again? They already have! The pair went to watch the Queen’s state funeral in Hyde Park together.

That’s quite a weird second date. Ah, but here is where the romance ends. It turns out that they both have long-term partners and met up just as friends.

Gutted! I know, right? “Jack is a great guy, we get on brilliantly, but we both have long-term partners – in fact, I am getting married next year. Not only that, but there’s also a 10-year age gap between Jack and I!” Zoe told the Daily Mail.

Devastating. As a nation we needed this. “It is nice to think we may have cheered people up during a period of mourning, but I am sorry for anyone who hoped that we might get together to say that it is purely platonic between us,” added Jack.

Well, hopefully another couple who met in the record-shattering queue to view a long-serving British monarch’s coffin will come forward? We’ll have to wait and see.

Do say: “And I will walk 5.1 miles, and I will walk 5.1 more …”

Don’t say: “She went to the loo and never came back, but I’ll search the kingdom until I find the girl who fits this wristband.”