Her family has certainly been a trial to her. The latest spot of bother involves her grandson Harry's spouse, the former Meghan Markle, a particularly unsavory sort of American, who suffers from ominous levels of narcissism and virtue signaling. Rod Little of the Spectator tries gamely to get us to take her back.
Um...no, by the way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
But they have Prince Charles. In that company she seems down to earth and refreshing, I admire her stamina and think she's an asset overall.
Sorry, my friend, but Prince Charles makes me think more kindly of the Stuarts.
Yes I mean Charles is a total twit, Meghan just seems so normal among them, and keeping sane among the royal family is a rare skill. I think she's just what they needed.
Oh, I see. I misunderstood. Yes, come to think of it, by comparison she does seem less objectionable than Charles (who sometimes almost seems like a Monty Python creation).
Yeah, I could picture Charles competing in Upperclass Twit of the Year.
Oh, and in the unlikely case there's someone who hasn't seen this Python classic here it is.
Meghan may *seem* normal when compared to the other royals, but that's not very flattering when you consider where the bar really lies. ER2 is the only one who *is* normal.
I couldn't take her bra off!
Megan Markle may be a burr in the side of the Brits, but her antics since marrying Harry have become a massive embarrassment to us, so we don't want her back, in Hollywood or anywhere else on these shores. I don't think she's a breath of fresh air at all. Diana was that, and look what happened to her. Megan Markle is the bull in the china shop. Divorce is certainly not unknown among the royals, and I predict Harry and Megan won't last ten years. Of course, I could be wrong about that. After all, Edward VIII was Wallis Simpson's footstool until his death.
'There are other gifts you have given us which, frankly, I would much rather had been FedExed to the other side of the world as the consequence of some human error or computer glitch.'
As self-appointed representative for The Other Side Of The World, I'm pointing at New Zealand.
Park her there. It's just big enough for one more terminally narcissistic virtue-signalling female.
Ok gonna completely disagree here. Diana was a neurotic narcissistic weirdo - I have sources, apart from it was obvious anyway. "The only reason 'they' chose Diana was she was the only known virgin" of the London elite - this from someone who mixed in those circles, I heard back in the mid 1980s. My daughter also interned in London for some suicidal weirdo whose sister married into the Q's family, and committed suicide. Diana was the death by eating disorder narcissistic type. She was doomed anyway, I could see it in her face, surprised the US was taken in by the hype.
There's some Henry James thing here I think.
I think Rod Liddle is a jerk and the London elites are showing every day how they live in a bubble. If she can survive those cannibals she deserves a medal, and I'd ignore anything she said in just trying to survive that snake pit. Imagine they stole her personal letters and published them, shameless.
My 30 something daughter's going thru some stuff right now, and her guy's a Brit incidentally. I'm encouraging her to get involved in whatever, even SJW wouldn't bother me - no one takes these things seriously except politicians. Which the Royals aren't, they're just figureheads whose job is to be an image of public dignity, and can barely maintain that now. She has done that job plus popping out an heir very well. These days even having a child is so rare among the 'edjercated', what to speak of caring for it herself. Henry VIII would be totes proud I say. :-)
Sure others may still disagree about Diana, everyone's a complex picture, it's hard to be sure of anything about complex humans.
"...surprised the US was taken in by the hype."
Bruce, we don't have a formal aristocracy, and many people use celebrities (athletes and entertainers) as a substitute, plus the so-called "elite" who get there either by becoming wealthy, inheriting wealth, or sucking up to the so-called "elite". Examples of each abound.
However, substitutes are never the same as the real thing -- think tofu versus steak. So people gravitate towards aristocrats from the old countries, regardless of their (very obvious) issues.
Not to mention the influence of the media -- Diana's stunt of walking through what was claimed to be a live mine field comes to mind. I'm pretty sure it wasn't live -- there might have been a mine field near by, but there was NO WAY an experienced combat engineer would let a civilian tramp through uncleared terrain. At most, the ground had been cleared in the past, and no incidents had been reported in the years since. But no de-mining operation is 100% successful, especially when the original mine placements were not recorded (as is often the case under the Warsaw Pact doctrine, or when placed by insurgents).
She had one job as potential head of state: to play the role in public of a happy wife and mother, and she volunteered for the job, unlike those born to it.
Instead she made it a public martyr act for attention, emotional blackmail. It was all about her, not her country who she was suppsoed to be serving. (19 years old? Plenty of men that age went to war to die under 'allegiance to the Queen', why should we care about her neurotic 'suffering'?)
Meghan isn't even British yet she plays the public role well. And she's strong minded, determined, cheerful and independent - the opposite of Harry's mother which may be what attracts him. Not a trace of suicidal neurotic women he's used to in Meghan.
I wonder how much the Diana act prepared the way for Hillary and the double standard? It's a job, supposed to be about competence, but the media make it all about women's feelings and the gullible swallow the bait.
Post a Comment