Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Athena

Tabloids: Gossip, Innuendo, and Déclassé

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, qtpye said:

The truth of the matter is Charles has been problematic and the whole monarchy would be saved if he would gracefully bow out. He has been problematic way before this series came out and should just happily retire with the woman he can not live without and be free to do his horrible fox hunting all day (which he finds romantic).

Being the King of England is a privilege not a right.

William and Kate are avid hunters. So is Harry.

NINTCHDBPICT000458882894-e1546213673354.

ee8ecb5216e972d16ee9410787c2be13.jpg

NINTCHDBPICT000458882891-e1546213088579.

Edited by Growsonwalls

Share this post


Link to post

14 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

William and Kate are avid hunters. So is Harry.

NINTCHDBPICT000458882894-e1546213673354.

ee8ecb5216e972d16ee9410787c2be13.jpg

NINTCHDBPICT000458882891-e1546213088579.

It seems being into blood sport goes hand in hand with being a Royal.

If people hunt to help animal populations or to put food on the table it is a different matter and usually not the case with Britain's upper classes. It seems hunting and particularly fox hunting is a privilege that most of the peerage and royal classes will not give up.

It helps the argument that this is an out of date archaic institution that has no place in the modern world.

  • Like 6
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think fox hunting is the issue.  The royals and their friends seem to actually eat the duck, pheasant, and venison they hunt.  It's not my thing, but I'm certainly not opposed to that.  In many ways it's much kinder to the animals than slaughterhouses and factory farms where the animals suffer their entire lives, not just at the moment of death.  My family were hunters (for food, not sport) and I live in an area now where that is still common.  

Fox hunting though?  I have no sympathy for that, or for trophy hunting.

What I'm very curious about is this uproar against The Crown all of a sudden.  I mean things like this have been around for a long time.  Maybe it is just drumming it all up again, after Charles mistakenly believed he'd escaped "all of that?"

 

Edited by Umbelina
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think it also has to do with Harry and Meghan's deal with Netflix for a production company. All of a sudden Harry is a traitor for inking a deal with the company that is making a fictional and not always flattering portrait of his relatives. 

But ... William is also an avid fox hunter. There are photos of him doing that as well.1995-prince-charles-prince-william-and-t

Hunting just wasn't Diana's thing at all. And unlike Kate I think she was of a social class where you had the right to not be into those things. Kate basically had to say goodbye to whatever her interests were before meeting William. That's why you see her with hunting rifles.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I think it also has to do with Harry and Meghan's deal with Netflix for a production company. All of a sudden Harry is a traitor for inking a deal with the company that is making a fictional and not always flattering portrait of his relatives. 

They love attacking Harry and especially Meghan, but nah.  I think this seemingly concerted attack on The Crown is all about...well, the CROWN, and making sure there will be a King Charles and Queen Camilla.

They've been busy burying all of it under every rug in every castle or fortress they own, but now it's back, full force, and contrary to these stories doing something to help Charles?  I think they are boomeranging back to hurt him more.  "Ok, so it's all a lie, hmmm, think I'd do some research of my own."  Then?  WHAM!  All of it floods back in.

I think that's why I think Charles and his hundreds of courtiers are behind it.  He's never had a good read on the public, he is just so out of touch.  Had this supposed "outrage" not happened?  I think many would have just enjoyed it for the show it is, and not felt compelled to go learn more about it all.  When they do?  There are quite provable and/or believable sex, lies, and videotapes everywhere.

If anything?  Demanding a "fiction" label be put on a web tv show by the "health department" is beyond absurd.  Sounds like just the kind of thing he would do.  (By the way, quite a few reports say that indeed, Camilla does watch this show.)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Umbelina said:

PETERPIRATE nailed it, so I bow to his comment.  

Indeed.  Honestly, does a single person left in the UK and it's "commonwealth" seriously believe that GOD chooses the monarch, or that the monarch has a direct link to God?  Will they honestly believe that when God chooses Charles (of all the people in the commonwealth) as his anointed King and CEO of His church?

Thanks.  I'm actually not taking sides on this particular issue.  I don't have a dog in that fight, since I don't live inside the commonwealth.

5 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

Well Tina Brown was considered a great royal writer and here's an old article about Diana's complex relationship with the press and BRF:

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/books/review/Weber-t.html?searchResultPosition=13

Honestly I think a lot of the press were bowled over by Diana's looks and outward charm. Even her most ardent defenders (like her butler Paul Burrell) admitted that in private she was a difficult, complex person. 

Unique, complex, extraordinary, and irreplaceable. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Hunting is fine, it helps control wildlife, hunters typically eat what they shoot (or make sure it's eaten).  Fox hunting is something different.  That's essentially animal torture for sport.  Trap the poor fox and then let it go so you can hunt it.  That's far different than deer hunting (some of the bird hunting isn't much better but at least those birds aren't trapped before they hunt them).

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, meatball77 said:

Hunting is fine, it helps control wildlife, hunters typically eat what they shoot (or make sure it's eaten).  Fox hunting is something different.  That's essentially animal torture for sport.  Trap the poor fox and then let it go so you can hunt it.  That's far different than deer hunting (some of the bird hunting isn't much better but at least those birds aren't trapped before they hunt them).

Exactly.

I remember listening to horror stories about rich English fox hunters in Ireland was back in the day, trampling over precious crops, and "kitchen gardens" of the Irish peasants who depended on those crops.

Fox hunting is disgusting.  

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Exactly.

I remember listening to horror stories about rich English fox hunters in Ireland was back in the day, trampling over precious crops, and "kitchen gardens" of the Irish peasants who depended on those crops.

Fox hunting is disgusting.  

It is, but the whole entire BRF does it. William is an avid fox hunter. So if you're going to brand Charles with that angle, you also have to take the entire BRF to task for this. They all love it.

ETA: there are exceptions. Sophie doesn't hunt. But she was older when she met Edward, and i think is one of those women who has a solid self-image and doesn't need to adopt her husband's hobbies. Kate certainly fox hunts.

Here is Harry trophy hunting:

3324A96C00000578-3538017-A_photo_emerged

Edited by Growsonwalls
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, meatball77 said:

hunters typically eat what they shoot

I just read that Charles doesn't eat meat. So it's hypocritical to hunt.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

So I mentioned this in an episode thread but I hope the fifth season will explore more how Elizabeth's attitude of treating her children like cordial acquaintances actually hurt the crown. Would Charles and Andrew have made better decisions if their mum had been around to guide them towards better decisions? Maybe not but I tend to think they would have.

Also for all of Elizabeth's admirable duty towards her country (and I believe it's genuine), she failed in one of her most important duties: making sure her heirs would be ready for the crown at a moment's notice. It just so happens she has lived to a ripe old age and appears to be in good health. But she knows better than anyone how fragile life is as her father and sister all had early, preventable deaths. Is Charles really ready to be king? Not sure. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

If Charles isn't ready now, he never will be. How much can he change at 72 years old (and closer to 80 when/if he ascends the throne).

Edited by emmawoodhouse
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size