euphemisms in our time

         In 1992 when the secret love affair between Sarah Ferguson, wife of Prince Andrew, and an American man named John Bryan slipped into the popular media and tabloids, one news story said that Sarah was "cavorting topless in the south of France."

There's a phrase.

        "John Bryan was described as Fergie's financal advisor," stated one commentator.  With a droll hint of a smile playing about his lips, he added, "Now, I've heard some euphemisms in my time, but - financial advisor, that was a new one."

Dickie Arbiter, journalist and commentator on the British Royal Family, says the photographs from the south of France sojourn and the public reaction effectively pushed Andrew and Sarah to divorce.  

        He went on:  "I don't think anybody was particularly sorry when she went, but she didn't go quietly, and she hasn't been quiet ever since!" - with a slight twitch as his face wants to smile.

        This is typical of the idiosyncratic relationship these "royal experts" or "royal commentators" seem to have with the royal family and the public.  The audience perceives the commenter to be criticizing, even shaming, the person they're talking about (Sarah, in this case) and yet there's an attitude of bemusement at the actions, and lingering affection for the perpetrator of said actions.

        "...She didn't' go quietly, and she hasn't been quiet ever since!"

In one podcast, a participant stated that "Fergie" (Sarah's nickname) is his favorite royal, and he will "stand by that."

        It's like, they pretend to be shocked or scandalized, but really they are mightily entertained, and helping to provide these reports for the "entertainment" of the public - the "subjects" of the Queen.

---------------------------------------------------------

And a "cherry-on-top" of the Andrew-Sarah story is, that after their 1996 divorce was finalized, they continued to live together!  

        They had two daughters to bring up, and Sarah has said "we're a happy divorced couple."

royal commentator Dickie Arbiter

Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson    (1986)

-30-

19th Nervous Breakdown

 People in England talk about, and read about, their Royal Family quite a lot.

Not all the people, of course.

But it is a phenomenon.

There's a lot of talkin' about the Royal Family, and its members.

Talking, and writing.  Articles, and books.  On and on and on.

The podcasts, the podcasts, the videos, Oh My!

        TIna Brown wrote, in her biography of Diana, that most English people have dreamed about Queen Elizabeth II sometime during their lives.

        (Some people might think that to be a little weird.)

The Royal Family is an ancient institution, meant to give continuity, and thereby stability, to the nation by providing "a focal point" for the population.  The people can have the members of the Royal Family as a focal point, a symbol of an "ideal family" that is meant to be relatable for most people.

        Great Britain's royal family is - an idea.

        Its members are supposed to be dignified, and steadfast, and never get divorced.

Being human, and never supposed to have any scandals, there are, of course, scandals.  Or - maybe you could say ... surprises.

In the documentary about 1992, the "Annus horribilis," they talk about when news broke that Sarah, the Duchess of York, wife of Prince Andrew, had been seeing an American man named Steve Wyatt.

        I remember that.  And I wasn't even particularly looking for news about Sarah - my only slight interest in her would have been because she was "Diana-adjacent"... But I remember that name - Steve Wyatt, an oil millionaire from Texas.  And then months later it was in the magazines that Sarah was now going out with another American, John Bryan.

        All this dating around while she was married....  (Her husband was often away from home with the Navy.)

Discussing the Steve Wyatt relationship, author Andrew Morton said Wyatt referred to the Duchess as "mah woman."

        It's hilarious to hear him say this, because he has a typical upper-middle-class English accent, but when he says "mah woman" he tries to do what he thinks is a Texas accent, but it is overlaid by the English... it's like when you listen to Mick Jagger sing, and you ask yourself, "Is he singing with a Southern accent or an English accent?"

(answer:  Yes.)

   

Andrew Morton, author of Diana, Her True Story

-30-

heckled

England's King Charles was heckled by a guy in a crowd near a Cathedral he was visiting, in late October of this year.

        "How long have you known about Andrew and Epstein?" the heckler called out.  "Have you asked the police to cover up for Andrew, Charles?"

Some of the other people there started yelling at the guy.  They were just there to see the king....

        Heckling is sort of an unofficial form of "lobbying," you could say.  Noisy lobbying.  The guy was requesting answers, and clarification - transparency.

There's an interview on You Tube with Melinda Gates (ex-wife of Bill Gates) where she says the fact that her then-husband had gone to meetings with Jeffrey Epstein was one contributing factor in their divorce.

She says, "I wanted to see who this man [Epstein] was.  And - I regretted it from the second I stepped in the door.  He was abhorrent, he was evil personified.  I had nightmares about it, afterwards."

        A pretty strong statement.

-30-

...so many royal experts...

 Listening to a conversation about Britain's royals in a You Tube video, I heard the same commentator, Tom Bower, call scoldingly for Meghan Markle to forgive her father, and later declare triumphantly that Prince William "will never forgive!" his brother Harry.

Okay.  

Must sprinkle that forgiveness sparingly.

(No pun intended with the word "spare" since Harry's own memoir was titled Spare.)

Robert Jobson, biographer and commentator on the British Royal Family

-30-

the princess is not the issue

 

        I was typing thoughts on here yesterday, and then later it occurred to me that I hadn't made it clear and concise - I was too wound up....

What I was trying to express was:  

        When a person or a group questions something, it seems wrong, to me, if government representatives respond by complaining about the people doing the questioning, instead of addressing the issue.

~  In 1968, protests against America's involvement in the Vietnam War:  Nixon complains about the protesters.

        No, he should have talked about our involvement in the war and made a case for the government policy he favors.

~  In 1997, Princess Diana highlights the land-mines issue: members of Parliament respond by bitching about the Princess.

        No, they should have talked about why they think land mines are necessary and maybe outline plans for protecting civilians from injury - like, a civilian safety strategy or something.

These people, they don't talk about the subject that's being brought up, they just try to smear the person, or group, that brought it up.

That's not an answer, and it's not a defense of their policy, or position.

This behavior seems dishonest, and immature, and arrogant.

        ...And not productive or helpful.

-30-

Nixon Now; Nixon then; now and then......

 September 27th and 28th of this year, I was thinking about some of the things presidential candidate Richard Nixon said back in the day, and it seemed to me that instead of addressing the issue, he was just complaining about the protesters.

Like - "Stop saying things!  Only I can say things!"

It was kind of similar to the situation when Princess Diana campaigned against land mines in 1997, the last year of her life before the car wreck, and the Tories (conservatives) in the British Parliament said, "She's a loose cannon, and working for the Labour Party!"

They're just hoping listeners will say, "Oh, well, if she's on the side of the Labour Party then she must be evil, and land mines that maim and kill little kids in the countries where they are planted are -- what?  --  very very good and must be protected??!!  Hello?!

'Oh!  Labour Party!  Liberals!  AAaaaauuuugggghhhh!'

They're just trying to get the public to hate somebody.

        Meanwhile, I don't think the so-called "Labour Party" was saying anything at all about the lethal land mines (which they probably should have); only Diana was taking up that issue and highlighting it. 

------------------------------------------------------------

You know, saying, "Someone who thinks differently from me is completely illegitimate because I say so" is not a strong argument for your position on the actual issue. ...

-30-

something shiny...for children to pick up...?

 

In the 2007 film Charlie Wilson's War, there's a scene where Democratic Congressman Charlie Wilson is conversing with Gust Avrokatos, CIA agent, and he says, of his recent trip to the Middle East, "I saw two kids, had their hands blown off, when they tried to pick up somethin' shiny..."

Gust says, "Sometimes the kids think those bombs are toys."

Wilson:  "For children to pick up."

Gust:  "Yeah."

... they're talking about land mines, which Princess Diana, in the last year of her life, campaigned against.

And the "conservative" people in the British Parliament complained about her, said she was "a loose cannon" and working for the "Labour Party."

How they could stand up for land mines vs. Princess Diana trying to get rid of them, is beyond me.

-30-