Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,851
Reply with quote  #31 
Apparently the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, has weighed in on the issue:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7881127/Priti-Patel-dismisses-claims-Meghan-faced-racist-press-coverage.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ito=1490&ns_campaign=1490
Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
As someone with academic experience, I wouldn't be so sure that academic sources, in the humanities and social sciences at least, don't mirror at least someone's preconceptions. I'm also wondering what you are referring to? Are you saying that a lot of academic research has been done into Meghan Markle's experience? There's next to nothing in my library. 


With respect, perhaps your academic library experience is not very recent or the library you went to cannot afford many specialized databases?  My personal pantheon is top-heavy with career research librarians at Ivy and other large US universities whose institutions annually spend hundreds of thousands on database licensing subscriptions. Such folks can introduce you to a whole new level of information science. But they are harder to find and usually only available by appointment, no longer sitting at "the Reference Desk,” but out-and-about on the campus, in classrooms, faculty offices, and labs, teaching information literacy, research skills and other things.

__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,851
Reply with quote  #33 
I was in the library of the institution I work yesterday, as I needed some resources for the course I'm redesigning for next semester. It has most of the important databases.

With all due respect, I don't think you fully understand academic publications. You don't go to them for current affairs information, and I wouldn't think of discussing Meghan and Harry with the research librarians. At best there may be a few articles with subjects like examining Meghan's treatment through the lens of various pseudo-Marxist doctrines, but I doubt even that at this stage. I also wonder in what sense such outlets lack preconceptions. Of course, it would hard to find out, as most such stuff is unreadable.
Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #34 
Our signals are crossing somehow. Info about current events including Megan Markle's treatment by the British tabloid press can be found by searching a newspaper database. Reports in major respectable papers *about* tabloid treatment of Meghan are indexed, but the purveyors of such trash are likely not publications that would themselves be indexed for for purposes of research. I have on many occasions personally helped university students research current events (normally of a bit broader nature) in databases.

https://www.proquest.com/libraries/academic/news-newspapers/

https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/lexisnexis-library-express.page


Delingpole World?  Spiked?  Daily Mail? Really?
If you've been out of university for more than a decade, please consider an information literacy class or research skill development training and banish the slog through internet dreck brought to you by Google.

__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,851
Reply with quote  #35 
I'm quite capable of looking in databases for articles from The Guardian or whenever you feel is an authority on such things, but I highly doubt you would get much better results than just a Google search or going to the publications themselves and searching. In fact, through that search I came across one of the main pieces on the issue, published by the NYT.

I don't deny that there are newspapers and media sources of better and worse quality: the BBC is usually better than the Sun, for example. But the idea, seemingly implied in your comments here and elsewhere, that we just accept what left-liberal "respectable" publications say, as if they weren't often nearly as biased as any others, is ludicrous and may land you, I don't know, actually acting as if Snopes were some impartial arbiter of what are acceptable publications. I strongly suggest that you rethink your seeming desire to dismiss publications you disagree with unheard. The truth is almost all publications are biased to varying degrees. What's needed is an ability to take information from each side, compare and analyze it, and come to an informed and critical conclusion. Taking as gospel everything that's proclaimed by the NYT or CNN and dismissing anything but mainstream left-liberal sources unheard is not how to do that. The Delingpole and the Spiked articles are mostly analysis of the NYT's piece by a British born black academic on Markle's treatment in Britain. You can disagree with them, but they seem to make a mature analysis and evaluation of her claims. If you do disagree, how about actually reading and responding, instead of acting like an adolescent on Facebook. I note that, for a start, you make no distinction between reporting and analysis, news and opinion. 

I didn't link to the Daily Mail. I presume you are referring to Peter Hitchens's article. He writes for the Sunday Mail, which is a distinct publication. I think even many of his detractors would recognise that Hitchens is one of the most serious and interesting commentators in Britain today. He once won an Orwell Prize for his foreign reporting, for heck's sake. Indeed, after Sir Roger Scruton's recent death, a Canadian friend of mine, who's currently completing a Ph.D on Husserl (so can hardly be called an intellectual lightweight), lamented that after Scruton and Hitchens, traditional conservatism will not have an articulate voice in modern Britain. Although I certainly don't always agree with Hitchens, I don't think it's quite wrong to mention him in the same breath as Scruton as a cultural commentator on modern Britain.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,851
Reply with quote  #36 
If you actually want a news rating organisation that make a real attempt at impartiality then you'd do much better using something like Newsguard, even though it still leans left a bit:

https://www.newsguardtech.com/

As I said, it still leans left a little, so if it gives a conservative or non-left-liberal publication approval, that's saying something. Newsguard gives the DailyMail a green tick, just as it gives the Guardian. It does the same for Spiked. It doesn't like The Dailywire, though, giving it a proceed with cautious warning, though it gives the Daily Caller, FoxNews, and Breitbart a green tick. 

It's a reasonable tool, but I wouldn't even take it as some sort of cast-iron authority on what is acceptable or not.*

I tell you what, in discussions with you,** I will run my sources by Newsguard, as a sop to tender consciences. So no Dailywire, but the rest are fine.***

* At least several of the reasons it gives against the Dailywire, if one looks, are very much open to debate. One could also find analogous examples for just about all the reasons for most of the sites it gives green ticks to. That it gives BuzzFeed a green tick and not the Dailywire is one indication it isn't entirely down the centre.
** I mean in directly responding to you. I feel no such compunction in other situations.
*** I make an exception on Israel. Shapiro actually knows something about it, unlike much of the Western press.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,851
Reply with quote  #37 
This is a source that some are saying gives some insight into the events:

https://www.nowtolove.com.au/royals/british-royal-family/meghan-markle-feud-53096

It's not one I personally know, and teh article sometimes does report information from tabloid sources, but it gives a long description of goings-on that I personally had not followed. Certainly the tabloid media has been rabid and sensationalist, for whatever reason, as is often the case. But there's one thing that jumped out at me in that article that might true. It's that Meghan may well have found it hard to adjust to the tight constraints of royal life. She's got background to the Kate. I don't mean racially. I mean that the Duchess of Sussex was already famous in her own right, before the marriage, and a Hollywood celebrity no less. She was also older when she first met Harry than Kate had been when she met William. The Duchess of Sussex may have had trouble adjusting to the protocol and restrictions in royal life, which are quite different to a Hollywood celebrity's. Of course, this would no doubt have mattered less, and been far easier to sort out, outside the fever swamp of tabloid hysteria.

Another thing that comes across is service the royals put in. Some people roll their eyes at such claims, and suggest they'd happily do it for the lifestyle of the royal family. But that article demonstrates that real and meaningful sacrifices are made by the royal family, and we should all be grateful to them.
Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #38 
A Canadian friend has alerted me to this editorial.
__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #39 
Most Canadians are opposed to paying for Harry and Meghan:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/17/prince-harry-meghan-canada-british-columbia

The Kingdom of Canada being opposed to paying for Harry and Meghan, while the government of the Republic of Montenegro pays a salary to the head of the Petrovic-Njegosh dynasty, which is equal to the salary of the President of Montenegro, is very amusing. 
Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
 The Kingdom of Canada being opposed to paying for Harry and Meghan, while the government of the Republic of Montenegro pays a salary to the head of the Petrovic-Njegosh dynasty, which is equal to the salary of the President of Montenegro, is very amusing.  


When you put it like that, it certainly is most ironic indeed. And I love that Montenegro, my favorite small country, comes out smelling like a rose in your comparison.

According to this report, just after the Great War, Canada rejected a British-style class system for Canada.

“though Canada borrowed from Britain, it isn’t Britain, and never was. And this country long ago took steps to make that unmistakably clear...  Canada never had a class system with hereditary aristocrats like Britain, and Canada definitively broke with the idea of aristocracy when the Nickle Resolution of 1919 asked the British government to stop conferring titles on Canadians. What’s more, with the Statute of Westminster of 1931, Canada’s relationship to Britain was spelled out as one of equal, independent nations.”

It appears from the piece that Harry and Meghan might be welcome, but government financial support for the Sussexes and their continued possession of royal titles are the sticky issues surrounding their prospects.  A few Canadian friends have assured me there is nothing very specific in Canada's constitution or its laws that would bar titled members of the Queen's family from residing in Canada. They say it is all about resistance to shelling out any money for them; the rest is just the usual 'making mountains out of mole hills.'


__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #41 
18 January 2020 statement from Buckingham Palace.
__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,851
Reply with quote  #42 
But isn't almost all the money for security? That doesn't seem like it's really the Sussexes' fault.

Also, isn't there a difference between royalty and nobility? Canada is still ruled by Her Majesty, so it seems strange to be worried about the titles of her immediate family.
Pallavicini

Registered:
Posts: 58
Reply with quote  #43 
The settlement makes no sense to me at all.  Guessing it was crafted such that the door seems to remain open for an older Harry to move back to the UK, say, in (?) years, and perhaps resume his old duties. The worry about having resident royals in Canada seems like a red herring.


__________________
“We're all born naked, and the rest is drag.”  - RuPaul
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #44 
I have to admit, that Canada and Australia establishing separate Windsor monarchies are unlikely to happen, because most Canadians are opposed to paying for the security of Harry and Meghan. I support Canada and Australia remaining Windsor monarchies, but Canada and Australia becoming republics after the death of Queen Elizabeth is sadly inevitable, because of the desire for a resident for president. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,851
Reply with quote  #45 
Inevitable is too strong. Hardly anything is inevitable, especially in human affairs. However, I do fear it likely enough that the monarchy in Australia will be endangered in the foreseeable future.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.