RoverAndOut

Well that's the banker gone, hit and miss whether my other two go - think I may be scuppered by an opera singer.

So, I don't think I'll be watching it - particularly no need to now all the best bits are in the public domain, but there are a few interesting takeaways aside from the headlines: 1. The couple exchanged vows in the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury in their backyard 3 days before their public wedding. So the taxpayer wasted £32m on a wedding that didn't need to happen. 2. Harry says he had no option but to take up the offers from Netflix and Spotify because the family cut him off financially. Because apparently, what's meant to happen is you step back from royal duties, fly off to live in Hollywood and then the British taxpayer is meant to pay for them to enjoy themselves. At a time when there have been lots of efforts to reduce the number of royals catered for by the public purse, can you imagine the outcry if that had happened? Remember when they first popped over to Canada and the Canadians made it very clear they wouldn't be footing their security bill for any great length of time? 3. Meghan phoned the Queen when Philip went into hospital. Odd thing to do surely - why would her granddaughter-in-law make the call and not her grandson, who as has been discussed before was very close to his grandad? This isn't going to go away. You only have to look at how often the Diana interview with Martin Bashir is trotted out, and she's been dead 20 years. This stuff's dynamite and the papers they so hate will be filled with it tomorrow. I do feel that there's a potential for nuclear war in 5 years or so when the Queen passes. Haz has fallen out with his dad and is at odds with his brother and clearly feels an outsider as the only one of them who won't be King. I don't know how that's going to reconcile itself or how the situation is really going to improve unless he and Meghan split up. But she'll always have her fans now, she's a martyr to the cause now and it's undeniable this is going to do significant damage to the Firm's brand as we enter a critical period in their history.

I wouldn't exactly call 'ticking up' to -14% a ringing endorsement...

1. I'd say the hate isn't directed at Harry and Meghan as such. Certainly not in the first place. She has a pretty messy family history and a family that are all too keen to sell their stories. She's the future daughter-in-law of the King, so the papers lap it up. They love gossip. As has been mentioned in this thread, they also gave glowing coverage of their wedding and the birth of Archie and also favourable coverage of Meghan's attempts at raising the profile of female designers and those from underprivileged backgrounds. Things have turned in the past few months due to the war she's declared on the press. I'm not denying she has a case, and printing the letter she wrote to her father was a dick move, but we saw the same thing with those supporting the Leveson Enquiry - the press are vicious at anyone who attacks them. 2. The Queen remains immensely popular in the UK, particularly in the last 20 years. A lot of hard work has gone in to repairing The Firm's brand post-Diana, and the Golden and Diamond Jubilees, the successful rehabilitation of Camilla and the marriages and babies of the next generation, particular the popularity of Wills and Kate have seemingly ushered in a new respect and patriotism towards the Royal Family, particularly at times when an apolitical unifying figure has been needed following Brexit and Covid. Harry and Meghan attacking the Royal Family and, by extension, the Queen is not a popular move among a great many people in the country. 3. Prince Andrew is clearly a big problem for the Royals for all sorts of reasons. The press have given him a relatively hard time and continue to print stories related to attempts to get him to testify on the record in the States, but they won't perform the same witch hunt on him as they do with certain others. Why not? First, he's an actual royal, blue blood, not married in. Fair to say Diana, Fergie and Meghan got or get more grief than Charles, Andrew and Harry (they also look better in papers). Digging in for dirt and printing rumours about the Queen's son is not a good move if you're aiming to portray yourself as pro-Queen. Second, there's very little new stuff about Andrew and he hasn't been charged with a crime. Until one of those things changes, there's nothing much to say. 4. The Royals have essentially, sensibly, erased Andrew from existence. He hasn't visited Philip, he wasn't mentioned at Christmas and he wasn't even present, as far as the photos are concerned, at his daughter's wedding. I think he was mentioned in passing in the announcement of Eugenie's baby, but only in the phrase 'The Duke and Duchess of York are delighted' or words to that effect. He's been MIA since his car crash interview with Emily Maitlis, which was widely reported as a car crash (a metaphorical one this time). Out of sight, out of mind is clearly the Royals plan for now and the papers are happy to run with that. Until something new appears. EDIT: Or what Ulitzer said more succinctly.

Fun fact: I handed him a spade at one such event. Bit of a bummer when the member of The Firm you've met becomes a persona non grata 15 years later...

According to the latest clip, Oprah wanted to interview her in March 2018 before the wedding but Meghan wasn't allowed to - unlike now. So, she didn't understand what being a royal means. "So, as an adult who lived a really independent life to then go into this construct that is different than I think what people imagine it to be." Only to the American perception of being a Princess, dear. Us in the UK know exactly what it entails. It seems she is truly hell-bent on lifting up the curtain on what life in the Royal Family is really like. Or at least, what her view is. She's talking about being independent and being able to do what she wants - in that case, like @Toast said a little while ago, how on earth can they possibly retain their titles? If they want to be Hollywood celebrities, then off they go, without any royal ties whatsoever (you know, apart from all the familial ones that are going to be incredibly awkward over the next decade: Phil's death, Queen's death, Charles's coronation, William's investiture to name just a few). I suspect sooner or later it will all end in tears and she'll become another failed spouse marrying into the House of Windsor. The bullying reports resurfacing plays into her victimisation narrative, "they're out to get me", rather than Ulitzer's point that the reports were buried to help her and are now being brought out as signs of her true nature. It's an unholy mess, that's likely going to overshadow the Queen's final years and potentially the Royals for the foreseeable, as she becomes the daughter-in-law to the King, and then the sister-in-law to the King (should it last that long). Oh, and here's the BBC story that features the quote I mentioned above: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56293793

Visiting a warzone in the middle of a pandemic. Doesn't sound like he's in too bad health to me...

He'd be treated the same as any other patient: treatment may be available but chances of success have to be weighed up as well as the prospect of an improvement in the quality of life or expectation a reasonable extension of life may be possible. And from what I've heard over the years about Philip, I doubt a Hail Mary procedure at 99 would be his style. Sounds like it was likely relatively routine re-plumbing. On the 1 O'Clock News, I'm sure they suggested that if he was having a new stent put in, he wouldn't need to be under general anaesthetic, it could be done under local anaesthetic? But I'm not in any way medically trained, so don't quote me on that. I think the sign he's both been given surgery (or something similar) and seems to have come out of it ok (early days accepted) are signs that he's not going just yet. Not to mention (contrary to beliefs in here) the total lack of follow-up visits to Charles's last weekend. I suspect he'll get out this time, but I'm not sure I see him going back into hospital next time - it will be managed at Windsor, whether in 3 months, 6 months, a year or more.

I didn't peruse the WHOLE list, just took my examples from 2004-2005. But yes, I would agree that the Artist Formerly Known as Posh Spice is still vaguely in the public consciousness.

I agree the idea is fine, just a bit perplexed by the arbitrary nature of the 'Still somewhat known' names in bold. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason behind it: I'm familiar with Iyad Allawi (not known) as a key figure after the fall of Saddam, but I've never heard of Joseph Estrada (known - but his thread is 1 page long and hasn't been added to since 2007). Mr T is known but Christian Slater is not? Ted Kennedy's widow is known but Patrick Mower, who's still IN Emmerdale isn't? What am I missing?

More than all those gay people he revelled in dying of AIDS did.

Not sure how that qualifies as "the royals hate the BBC".

It's good to see you draw the line somewhere when it comes to tweets...

Both fairly ill, they were always bringing Greavesie back, and I suspected it was their kind of humour to have his old mate the Saint back too. Evidently not, still another one for me!

Looking forward to your sources on this one...

You can be observed for an infection. Doubt he went in just to be watched 24/7, there was a reason. So he went in with an infection, that was serious enough to warrant monitoring. Either the infection or the treatment of it has led to concerning changes in a pre-existing heart condition, so he has been transferred to Bart's where they can monitor any changes in that (and act quickly if necessary) while continuing to treat the ongoing infection. There's no great mystery here, there's just been more information released as necessary: if the infection had quickly cleared up, and he'd have been out inside a week, then observation was essentially all he was there for. And I agree with @En Passant, I think he'll survive longer than we think, but what do I know.

Well, that was a fun 3 pages to read. Saw this on the 1 O'Clock News. My reading is that this is clearly a secondary issue, as if the original concern was his heart, he would have been taken straight to Barts. Presumably either the infection or the treatment has caused something else to flare up, which now needs attention and they're not taking any chances. Hard to say how he is, but I know that I learned absolutely nothing from the past 3 pages on here. Oh, speaking of which, (and I know @Ulitzer95 has already made this point), this: Is not an update. It simply regurgitates exactly what you'd posted in the previous 20 tweets, pretty much word for word. An update includes new information. But you already know that.

As discussed extensively on the previous two pages...

Suppose that depends on your definition of "not far away now". A year or two ago, 103-105 wasn't impossible, quite a while when you're in your late 90s. Now, 100 looks the high watermark. But bravo on the pedantry.

Perhaps, but given it was always the plan I think the Queen would quite like to pass the title on to Edward in Phil's memory before she goes, and also make sure her baby boy is at the same level as her others before she goes. Still, let's give the D of E a chance to pop off first eh? Oh, and for the record, following today's announcement I still suspect he'll get out this time, but it's undoubtedly a sign that the end is not that far away now.

I don't think so...? If we're talking Andy then it's nothing to do with him. It looks like what will happen is the Dukedom of Edinburgh will pass to Philip's eldest son, Charles, then when Charles becomes King, the title is the King's to hand to whoever he likes. So Edward would "inherit" it but it would be a new creation. Thing is, given it's a decent chance there'll be at least 3-5 years before Charles gets the throne, I wonder if there's another way to expedite the process, such as the Queen withdrawing the title from Charles and giving it to Edward?

Definitely the case that the Dukedom is intended to pass to Edward after his father's death, that's why he was only created Earl of Wessex when he married Sophie, rather than a Duke like his brothers (and, since, nephews). But yes, it needs to go through Charles first.

Just you wait til Her Majesty's reaching the end - it'll crash the forum.

Also: bravo! That is genius.

Sigh...seriously? A shot was obtained of the car but somebody super important who was in said car, like Her Maj, Andrew or Anne, managed to sneak out of and back into the car without anybody at all getting a whiff? If he's on his deathbed, how come he's turning it into a residency? Chuck yesterday, Andy today, Anne tomorrow, Queenie on Tuesday? Can't be in too bad shape to be confident he's going to last. Honestly, we're heading into tin foil territory with the hypothesising...