If any of you good folks fancy something a bit more cerebral and monarchy related can I recommend my DEFENCE of the British monarchy (always sure to stoke some division, this subject), from a few years back: The Case FOR The British Monarchy vs A British Republic th-cam.com/video/QW2_-AP9zTU/w-d-xo.html
@@DeconvertedMan Yeh, I suppose the briefest of summaries are that the constitutional protections we have in the UK work best when the head of state benefits most from acting in line with the will of the people than from playing party political games. Act against the will of the people and the monarchy would end soon after. On the other hand, establishing stable Republics has been shown to be incredibly difficult. Hence, it seems an unnecessary risk to centuries of unbroken democracy and stability for the UK to lurch tobwhat would have to be an entirely new system of constitutional checks and balances when we have a system that has worked well for us for so long.
"Never complain, never explain" is a wise motto, as the collapse in popularity of the Harkles and corresponding rise of popularity of William and Kate shows. Even the gossip-hungry American media are turning on Meg and Haz, they have over-played a rather weak hand.
Yes, they wanted privacy by hurling around accusations in the media, give constant interviews and even make a fking movies or a series (or w/e it was) about themselves. And apparently he has also written a book... Pretty much everything they do is exactly the opposite of what they should do if what they say they want is true. So either they are lying, or they are stupid beyond belief.
It's not easy to get out of the limelight when you're still profiting from the limelight, your only source of income is directly related to the limelight you're "escaping" from and without the (inherited, undeserved) limelight you would be a boring, poor, unskilled, average person living in a condo in Pittsburgh or a flat in Hackney.
I am basically of the same opinion. He went away to get out of the goldfish bowl, fine, probably a good call. But he decided that all the money that came with it would be rather nice to keep. Now he has shown his true colours, and they are not very pretty. With the constant drip feeding of news from his book he is coming across as a drug addled brat who happens to like gunning down Afghanis. The best William could do is to just ignore him. William can't win this spat, so best to not even try.
To be honest he's fired all his ammunition. The world now appears to be laughing at him. The shock for me was divulging killing 25 Afghanis. He's put his immediate family at risk though living in the US they are pretty safe but for the ideologically possessed his estranged family would also be a target in Britain.
Don't understand why William was ever involved, unless he snubbed Harry for how he treated the Queen. Ultimately, nobody but Harry and Megan and whomever allegedly mistreated them can speak to what really happened between them, but Harry absolutely loses all my sympathy and respect for the way that he has turned his desired "hermit retirement" into a media circus. He was always the royal I liked best until Megan, but now I just want him to fuck off forever.
Yeh I used to have quite a soft spot for him too. I did feel the press were harsh on him when he decided to retire from public duty and I was more on his side than against at that point. If he really needed to he should have stuck with one "my side of the story" interview then moved on, instead of milking the little teat until it is red raw.
For a while you can make money from whining about your family but at some point as people get bored with that he'll need to cultivate some other skills. I'm thinking "Dancing With the Stars" or "I'm a Celebrity, Give Me Some Privacy"
Eventually it will be time to give up on this medieval "royalty" business. Personally, I'd be fine with keeping them around -- as long as they were required to wear a funny sort of hat ON ALL OCCASIONS.
I agree with that. The bit that rankles me is that he is saying all these things knowing full well that William can never give the other side of the story. Whether he has valid points or not, there is something sly about that.
I think the more parsimonious answer to Harry's seemingly contradictory position is that his wife's passive-aggressive manipulation tactics are rubbing off on him. MeMe's entire spiel is to ignore or downplay the very central role she played in driving a wedge into the royal family; pretending that the fallout from her own bad behaviour is the reason she left to begin with. Now Harry, like MeMe, is pretending he just doesn't understand why his family won't talk to him after he has repeatedly badmouthed them and tried to use them for his own ends. One reason narcs make such effective manipulators is that on some level they believe their own lies, or at least believe themselves justified in telling them.
I don't think anyone would criticize William for cutting off Harry. We all see that he's asking for a relationship, while he attacks him, so we all know how disingenuous Harry asking for a relationship is. Maybe I just sympathize because I've got "a harry" in my family. But surely most families have one member like this, that everyone has to cut off? I'm sure any family with such a member would sympathize with William here
I will admit that I am an American so my perspective likely isn't helpful. That being said, I find it difficult to believe that Harry has any legitimate grievance. He chose to leave behind all the duty and responsibilities of being a royal but seems to want all the perks of being a royal. Someone who views the world in that way would see any perceived slight as a legitimate grievance. He was treated with kid gloves by his family in my opinion. He should have been grateful and faded into obscurity.
While I'm sure Noel's presentation is just fine this topic of the royal family scandals is one I can ignore guilt-free. It's not important or dire in any meaningful way.
Obviously an American like me is an ignorant person peering in from the outside, but Mrs. & Mr. Markle don’t seem like they’re good people. _NOTHING_ to do with Meghan’s ethnicity. I didn’t even know that she was black before I formed my opinion. And I hate, and can’t believe, that I have to put a disclaimer about race, but nowadays it’s necessary. It _is_ possible to disagree or dislike somebody and it have _nothing_ to do with race or gender. Anyway, it seems to me that Mrs. & Mr. Markle wanted to have the best of both worlds and be traveling celebrities while remaining royal. They seem to me to be all about money and fame, whereas the heir kid seems to be a decent bloke. The royal family means nothing to me as an American, but I find it interesting because they’re a part of history. No way I’d bow to King Chucky. But I won’t say anything bad about him. He doesn’t seem like a bad guy. His mum was an amazing woman though. How she became queen. She worked with Churchill. She did a lot of good things throughout her life. (Can’t stand those people that bad mouthed her because they hate the empire’s past, even though they understand nothing of history). Back to the Markle’s, I don’t believe them when they tell certain stories. I can’t stand their bitching and moaning about life being so hard when they will never understand real hardship that people have to deal with. I don’t think that they expected the queen to separate them from the royal thing. I think that they’re bitter about that, especially Meghan. Now it seems to me that they’re trying to climb back into the window by suddenly “caring” about relationships with her brother-in-law and father-in-law.
Before watching my take on the situation is this: I am sure that the truth of the claims made by Harry lie somewhere in the middle, and that naturally the omission of facts that make him look bad is in the mix too. I am less confident with Meghan, hearing some of the claims she has made - like the notion that people in South Africa danced in the street because she married Harry, which screams of delusional thinking - in believing her side of things. Yet, even with this I think Harry seems to miss the point somewhat: he may have very valid criticisms of his family, but airing them in public in such a damaging way is not what good families do. It's Jeremy Kyle tier stuff, and the fact he now wants to make his living off of doing this is distasteful and he MUST know this, surely? The only thing I do agree with them with is the press has been overly harsh, but again - it's not like it's treating them any different than it would anyone else. They have handled press relations about as bad as you could expect, and while it is known Harry has a dislike for the press because of his mum you would think he would of had the foresight to realise these are not battles that can be won. Even if you have your day in court over some petty matter, they won't stop reporting.
As always a well thought out and reasoned video. Do you think the Royals are likely to persist an a British institution or do you think we we ever move past a point of having a Royal family. Surely the time for rule-by-birthright should come to an end? What are your thoughts?
I am actually all for keeping the monarchy. I totally concede the philosophical point and would not advocate any new nation state starting with a hereditary head of state, obviously, but I am a firm advocate of not messing up systems that have functioned well over long periods. For a much much fuller answer I made a pretty in depth defence of the monarchy a few years ago. watch?v=QW2_-AP9zTU
His opinion is probably the least important opinion in the world, except for his wife who’s opinion is even less important. … she’s a traitor to the stars, and stripes for marrying the guy she should’ve lost her American citizenship. Just trying conjure up an 1823 perspective. I won’t finish this video just to be clear I have principals Henry on the other hand not so much. Yes this comment is total virtue signaling, but I stand behind it.
Is it possible for you to not talk about the royal family? Do you think a time might come when you feel able to ignore them? It is possible they can live without us. But, can you live without them?
@@noelplum99 It's possible that Bridie(?) means the plural "you" rather than the singular "you" (ye as opposed to thee) and refers to us Brits rather than Noel Plum.
@@markpostgate2551 Could be, yeh, though I think most sovereign states has some kind of passing interest in their heads of state. It does get a bit OTT for my tastes though, i will admit, and I say that as a monarchist myself (monarchist not a royalist).
If any of you good folks fancy something a bit more cerebral and monarchy related can I recommend my DEFENCE of the British monarchy (always sure to stoke some division, this subject), from a few years back:
The Case FOR The British Monarchy vs A British Republic
th-cam.com/video/QW2_-AP9zTU/w-d-xo.html
I was just about to ask if you are for or against it. Can you summarize the argument? :)
@@DeconvertedMan Yeh, I suppose the briefest of summaries are that the constitutional protections we have in the UK work best when the head of state benefits most from acting in line with the will of the people than from playing party political games. Act against the will of the people and the monarchy would end soon after.
On the other hand, establishing stable Republics has been shown to be incredibly difficult. Hence, it seems an unnecessary risk to centuries of unbroken democracy and stability for the UK to lurch tobwhat would have to be an entirely new system of constitutional checks and balances when we have a system that has worked well for us for so long.
@@noelplum99 okay. :D
"Never complain, never explain" is a wise motto, as the collapse in popularity of the Harkles and corresponding rise of popularity of William and Kate shows. Even the gossip-hungry American media are turning on Meg and Haz, they have over-played a rather weak hand.
Personally, I agree with all that. Harry says he wants a family, but it seems to me that he doesn't understand the concept.
Yes, they wanted privacy by hurling around accusations in the media, give constant interviews and even make a fking movies or a series (or w/e it was) about themselves. And apparently he has also written a book...
Pretty much everything they do is exactly the opposite of what they should do if what they say they want is true. So either they are lying, or they are stupid beyond belief.
Lying or stupid? Why not both?
@@AlexBarbu people love drama and fiction and enjoy watching a train wreck.
It's not easy to get out of the limelight when you're still profiting from the limelight, your only source of income is directly related to the limelight you're "escaping" from and without the (inherited, undeserved) limelight you would be a boring, poor, unskilled, average person living in a condo in Pittsburgh or a flat in Hackney.
I am basically of the same opinion. He went away to get out of the goldfish bowl, fine, probably a good call. But he decided that all the money that came with it would be rather nice to keep. Now he has shown his true colours, and they are not very pretty. With the constant drip feeding of news from his book he is coming across as a drug addled brat who happens to like gunning down Afghanis.
The best William could do is to just ignore him. William can't win this spat, so best to not even try.
To be honest he's fired all his ammunition. The world now appears to be laughing at him. The shock for me was divulging killing 25 Afghanis. He's put his immediate family at risk though living in the US they are pretty safe but for the ideologically possessed his estranged family would also be a target in Britain.
In 1066 William defeated Harold on the battlefield at Hastings.
In 2019 William defeated Harry on the Nott Cott kitchen at Kensington.
I really enjoy your sense of humour, I missed this the most during your sabbatical!
I usually only listen to TH-cam videos but this is probably the only video that I felt you need 3d glasses to completely enjoy...BIF BIF BIF!
I loved that too 🥊BIFF!
He wants his privacy.........and hundreds of millions of dollars
I feel fortunate to know nothing about any of these people. Other than that they're (unfortunately) not fictional characters.
Always the voice of reason Noel, spot on.
At least we're not living in one of the many centuries where the heir's younger brother caused a civil war to become heir
Don't understand why William was ever involved, unless he snubbed Harry for how he treated the Queen. Ultimately, nobody but Harry and Megan and whomever allegedly mistreated them can speak to what really happened between them, but Harry absolutely loses all my sympathy and respect for the way that he has turned his desired "hermit retirement" into a media circus. He was always the royal I liked best until Megan, but now I just want him to fuck off forever.
Yeh I used to have quite a soft spot for him too. I did feel the press were harsh on him when he decided to retire from public duty and I was more on his side than against at that point.
If he really needed to he should have stuck with one "my side of the story" interview then moved on, instead of milking the little teat until it is red raw.
@@noelplum99 Spot on Jim.
I love all the sarcasm
I think the words "on my terms" are missing from "have a relationship".
It's a four book deal. God help us all.
🤑 omg
Biff Biff Biff!🥊🥊🥊
For a while you can make money from whining about your family but at some point as people get bored with that he'll need to cultivate some other skills.
I'm thinking "Dancing With the Stars" or "I'm a Celebrity, Give Me Some Privacy"
Eventually it will be time to give up on this medieval "royalty" business. Personally, I'd be fine with keeping them around -- as long as they were required to wear a funny sort of hat ON ALL OCCASIONS.
I agree with that. The bit that rankles me is that he is saying all these things knowing full well that William can never give the other side of the story.
Whether he has valid points or not, there is something sly about that.
Didn't he say that William actually punched him?
I thinknhe said he grabbed him by the collar and pushed him over.
All that bleating on about the firm not paying for his security yet he advertises the fact that he killed 25 Taliban , equating it to playing chess.
I think the more parsimonious answer to Harry's seemingly contradictory position is that his wife's passive-aggressive manipulation tactics are rubbing off on him. MeMe's entire spiel is to ignore or downplay the very central role she played in driving a wedge into the royal family; pretending that the fallout from her own bad behaviour is the reason she left to begin with.
Now Harry, like MeMe, is pretending he just doesn't understand why his family won't talk to him after he has repeatedly badmouthed them and tried to use them for his own ends.
One reason narcs make such effective manipulators is that on some level they believe their own lies, or at least believe themselves justified in telling them.
I don't think anyone would criticize William for cutting off Harry.
We all see that he's asking for a relationship, while he attacks him, so we all know how disingenuous Harry asking for a relationship is.
Maybe I just sympathize because I've got "a harry" in my family. But surely most families have one member like this, that everyone has to cut off? I'm sure any family with such a member would sympathize with William here
I always appreciate your point of view. Great video. Noice.
I will admit that I am an American so my perspective likely isn't helpful. That being said, I find it difficult to believe that Harry has any legitimate grievance. He chose to leave behind all the duty and responsibilities of being a royal but seems to want all the perks of being a royal. Someone who views the world in that way would see any perceived slight as a legitimate grievance. He was treated with kid gloves by his family in my opinion. He should have been grateful and faded into obscurity.
While I'm sure Noel's presentation is just fine this topic of the royal family scandals is one I can ignore guilt-free. It's not important or dire in any meaningful way.
Great video, but the like is for saying "Biff!" Not enough 'biffs' around these days.
Biff biff biff 👊
I don't know anything about all this but it was interesting nevertheless
Obviously an American like me is an ignorant person peering in from the outside, but Mrs. & Mr. Markle don’t seem like they’re good people. _NOTHING_ to do with Meghan’s ethnicity. I didn’t even know that she was black before I formed my opinion. And I hate, and can’t believe, that I have to put a disclaimer about race, but nowadays it’s necessary. It _is_ possible to disagree or dislike somebody and it have _nothing_ to do with race or gender. Anyway, it seems to me that Mrs. & Mr. Markle wanted to have the best of both worlds and be traveling celebrities while remaining royal. They seem to me to be all about money and fame, whereas the heir kid seems to be a decent bloke. The royal family means nothing to me as an American, but I find it interesting because they’re a part of history. No way I’d bow to King Chucky. But I won’t say anything bad about him. He doesn’t seem like a bad guy. His mum was an amazing woman though. How she became queen. She worked with Churchill. She did a lot of good things throughout her life. (Can’t stand those people that bad mouthed her because they hate the empire’s past, even though they understand nothing of history).
Back to the Markle’s, I don’t believe them when they tell certain stories. I can’t stand their bitching and moaning about life being so hard when they will never understand real hardship that people have to deal with. I don’t think that they expected the queen to separate them from the royal thing. I think that they’re bitter about that, especially Meghan. Now it seems to me that they’re trying to climb back into the window by suddenly “caring” about relationships with her brother-in-law and father-in-law.
Before watching my take on the situation is this:
I am sure that the truth of the claims made by Harry lie somewhere in the middle, and that naturally the omission of facts that make him look bad is in the mix too. I am less confident with Meghan, hearing some of the claims she has made - like the notion that people in South Africa danced in the street because she married Harry, which screams of delusional thinking - in believing her side of things.
Yet, even with this I think Harry seems to miss the point somewhat: he may have very valid criticisms of his family, but airing them in public in such a damaging way is not what good families do. It's Jeremy Kyle tier stuff, and the fact he now wants to make his living off of doing this is distasteful and he MUST know this, surely?
The only thing I do agree with them with is the press has been overly harsh, but again - it's not like it's treating them any different than it would anyone else. They have handled press relations about as bad as you could expect, and while it is known Harry has a dislike for the press because of his mum you would think he would of had the foresight to realise these are not battles that can be won. Even if you have your day in court over some petty matter, they won't stop reporting.
I don't want to know what a Harry Windsor is. Sounds like it would get you demonetized.
You should see a recent video released by Nate the Lawyer. It's only 11:50 on this topic, it would strengthen your resolve.
As always a well thought out and reasoned video. Do you think the Royals are likely to persist an a British institution or do you think we we ever move past a point of having a Royal family. Surely the time for rule-by-birthright should come to an end? What are your thoughts?
I am actually all for keeping the monarchy. I totally concede the philosophical point and would not advocate any new nation state starting with a hereditary head of state, obviously, but I am a firm advocate of not messing up systems that have functioned well over long periods.
For a much much fuller answer I made a pretty in depth defence of the monarchy a few years ago.
watch?v=QW2_-AP9zTU
His opinion is probably the least important opinion in the world, except for his wife who’s opinion is even less important. … she’s a traitor to the stars, and stripes for marrying the guy she should’ve lost her American citizenship. Just trying conjure up an 1823 perspective. I won’t finish this video just to be clear I have principals Henry on the other hand not so much. Yes this comment is total virtue signaling, but I stand behind it.
Is it possible for you to not talk about the royal family? Do you think a time might come when you feel able to ignore them? It is possible they can live without us. But, can you live without them?
Come on pal, two monarchy related videos in 14 years on this platform is hardly excessive, is it?
@@noelplum99 that kind of nonstop royal gossip would offend anyone!
@@noelplum99
It's possible that Bridie(?) means the plural "you" rather than the singular "you" (ye as opposed to thee) and refers to us Brits rather than Noel Plum.
@@markpostgate2551 Could be, yeh, though I think most sovereign states has some kind of passing interest in their heads of state. It does get a bit OTT for my tastes though, i will admit, and I say that as a monarchist myself (monarchist not a royalist).
@@markpostgate2551 It is indeed.