The Heir, The Spare and the “Baby Brain” -The Prince Harry and Meghan show rumbles on…

[skategal]

No, I'm not defending him being invited, and frankly I don't appreciate you interpreting my comments that way. I'm discussing why I think he might not be as "dangerous" as is being portrayed. I wouldn't invite him to anything simply because he's a bloviating egomaniac, but that's different from not inviting him for fear of him being racist.

He's much more than a TV presenter BTW. He's also a newspaper columnist and the author of several very successful books. He's a very well-connected and very well-known media personality, for better or for worse. That is how he gets invited to these sorts of events in the first place.

So you are explaining why he was invited?

I admit I’m getting rather confused here.

I don’t think anyone said he was particularly dangerous just vile, disgusting and a raging racist.

I don’t know why that isn’t enough to get him excluded from a guest list of an event of this calibre but perhaps I (still?) have too much faith in humanity.

 

[once_upon]

Sigh...here I am again. The whole discussion on security/screening I guess started with me. I think i said Clarkson at the event as a member of the BRF where they would have a list of people attending should be considered unacceptable for a high ranking member of the BRF to be present. Someone implied that BRF couldnt/wouldn't/it would be impoosible for BRF have access to list of invitees..Therefore we cant blame BRF for being present and i said I disagreed. Then someone said screening couldn't/wouldn't happen.

I still disagree that BRF doesn't have access to lists and therefore are innocent of knowledge of vile press being present.

If you want to blame someone bringing BRF security issues go ahead. whatever.

 

[skategal]

Sigh...here I am again. The whole discussion on security/screening I guess started with me. I think i said Clarkson at the event as a member of the BRF where they would have a list of people attending should be considered unacceptable for a high ranking member of the BRF to be present. Someone implied that BRF couldnt/wouldn't/it would be impoosible for BRF have access to list of invitees..Therefore we cant blame BRF for being present and i said I disagreed. Then someone said screening couldn't/wouldn't happen.

I still disagree that BRF doesn't have access to lists and therefore are innocent of knowledge of vile press being present.

If you want to blame someone bringing BRF security issues go ahead. whatever.

There are a couple of us in here largely agreeing with you but it sure is an uphill slog.

 

[MacMadame]

So you are explaining why he was invited?

I think that's why he was invited. Doesn't mean he should be. But there are a lot of people like that who I don't think should be invited to these things but no one asked me, I guess.

However, I would not be the least bit surprised if Clarkson does make rude/catty remarks at these events. But he'll do it only to people who he knows won't be offended and tone them down. So unless the right person overhears, we'll never know about it.

In fact, I fully expect one day he will be overheard by someone who will make a fuss and then he won't be invited to anything. For a while. (We've seen that happen with others.)

I do and don't understand it. I understand it in that I see it happening over and over and see the dynamics. I don't understand it because I don't find these people entertaining or charismatic so why people invite them to things and give them book deals, etc. escapes me. There are plenty of more interesting people to hang with instead.

He showed up at a Car Show and asked the workers at the Hyundai booth if they were serving dog in the meals and then went to BMW and asked them if they were Nazis so I’m not convinced he knows how to act appropriately in public.

A car show is a place he'd be invited to do his Top Gear shtick so he would do this Top Gear shtick. Because apparently, people like it.

 

[millyskate]

In this case, Camila wasn't a prominent guest, right? I mean she didn't give a speech or get/give an award unless I'm missing that being reported. She was just there like every other guest. I can't see the Palace going over the guest list and vetoing people that are nasty in case they happen to talk to her when she's just a guest.

Well yes exactly.

I'm unsure who would want to invite Clarkson to an event these days. People use to find him funny on Top Gear but he was sacked for being abusive towards staff so I'm not quite sure how he still finds work in the public sphere. That said, there's only a finite number of celebrities with too much time on their hands to attend these events and I've seen more than one documentary about event organisers frantically going through their celebrity address books to make up the numbers, so maybe they were desperate.

 

[Winnipeg]

The guy makes his living by being a total XXXXX? Yet it seems to work; go figure

 

[taf2002]

I find him abhorrent but I can't think of anything that Clarkson could say or print that would make a difference to his status with some people. Esp people with like minds. After all we elected a man who bragged about grabbing women by their ****.

 

[airgelaal]

Do not forget that society changes very quickly. If you look at comedies that were popular 20 years ago, many of them seem unacceptable now. Not everyone can keep up with these changes. Especially those who made a career out of it

 

[Judy]

I finished the book a couple of weeks ago? I have moved on. I don’t get the obession.

 

[Andora]

Not everyone can keep up with these changes. Especially those who made a career out of it

That's not really an excuse, and certainly we shouldn't shouldn't slow down progress because grandpa can't stop offending people.

I'd think those who made a career out of it would do well to lose said career. Clarkson lost parts of his, but he remains employed enough. That shouldn't keep happening. And yet....

 

[MacMadame]

Do not forget that society changes very quickly. If you look at comedies that were popular 20 years ago, many of them seem unacceptable now. Not everyone can keep up with these changes. Especially those who made a career out of it

I can think of people this applies to but I'm not sure Clarkson is one of them. He seems to be in the class of grifters making bank by outraging a certain segment of the population. I.E., in the same bucket as Tucker Carlson and Jordan Petterson. But maybe I'm giving him too much credit and he really believes in what he says and does.

 

[airgelaal]

That's not really an excuse, and certainly we shouldn't shouldn't slow down progress because grandpa can't stop offending people.

I'd think those who made a career out of it would do well to lose said career. Clarkson lost parts of his, but he remains employed enough. That shouldn't keep happening. And yet....

I do not justify anyone, but only write my observations. I work with film and program archives. I watch these programs and remember that I have seen them before and they seemed interesting and funny to me. Now I don't think so. Should I consider myself a terrible person? Some things are difficult for me to explain to my parents. They sincerely do not understand what is wrong with this, they were brought up in a different world.
I practically do not know who Clarkson is, but I know a lot of people who are constantly confused about what can be said and what can't be said. Not because they think badly of someone or want to offend someone, but they still get into trouble. I just don't want some particular cases to be generalized

 

[skategal]

I can think of people this applies to but I'm not sure Clarkson is one of them. He seems to be in the class of grifters making bank by outraging a certain segment of the population. I.E., in the same bucket as Tucker Carlson and Jordan Petterson. But maybe I'm giving him too much credit and he really believes in what he says and does.

I think it makes it even worse if he supposedly knows better but chooses to say horrible things to make money.

Someone who is genuinely ignorant can be educated and sometimes they will change their ways.

There is no hope for the other kind.

 

[Andora]

I do not justify anyone, but only write my observations. I work with film and program archives. I watch these programs and remember that I have seen them before and they seemed interesting and funny to me. Now I don't think so. Should I consider myself a terrible person?

This is disingenuous. I also work with film and program archives. I've had to work on extremely dated (and, yes, offensive) programming on a molecular level for what I do. I've worked on said programming to prepare it for modern streaming platforms, so I'm actively part of making it more accessible and watchable for countless viewers. I'm not a terrible person, anymore than you are. Nor is anyone who watches old movies - unless they watch said movies and can't recognize that the world has changed and we no longer exist in that reality.

But that's also not what I said at all. Neither you nor I are bloviating like Clarkson is. We're not actively creating new and offensive work. THat particular gentleman, like many old and ignorant arseholes, lives for it.

Some things are difficult for me to explain to my parents. They sincerely do not understand what is wrong with this, they were brought up in a different world.
I practically do not know who Clarkson is, but I know a lot of people who are constantly confused about what can be said and what can't be said. Not because they think badly of someone or want to offend someone, but they still get into trouble. I just don't want some particular cases to be generalized

Okay, but it doesn't matter if it's difficult to explain new things to older generations. You're more correct that they do not understand - but even then, I'd suggest that's a choice. I don't understand how my nephew thinks "YouTuber" is a future profession he should strive for, among other things in our evolving world. It's up to me to not get stuck in an ignorant mindset of "this is how it used to be and things shouldn't change because I don't understand it." Or I'll get left behind as well.

If people are afraid to speak because they'll get in trouble, that's their problem to navigate and grow from. If they mean no harm, it's an easy apology and move forward with better knowledge.

Clarkson is not in that situation. Did you even read the previously shared link with a rundown of the trouble he's caused? If the cited article is true, he assaulted someone he works with because he couldn't have the steak he wanted on location. I don't think this is the person you want to compare to your parents/defend even accidentally.

 

[Winnipeg]

Finished the book. I found it very boring and would not recommend it. There is nothing in there that has not already been made public so I fail to see the big deal.

A lot of hoopla over nothing IMHO - waste of money.

 

[taf2002]

Finished the book. I found it very boring and would not recommend it. There is nothing in there that has not already been made public so I fail to see the big deal.

A lot of hoopla over nothing IMHO - waste of money.

I'm still reading but so far I think it shows both Harry & Charles in a better light. William not so much. He was ok when Harry wasn't as newsworthy as him but after marriage when H&M got more attention than him his petty side came out. Which was ridiculous because H&M were a novelty & the attention would have evened out later esp after Charles became king & William was elevated to Prince of Wales. (I didn't form this idea of William by reading the book. I've thought this for a long time.)

 

[MacMadame]

Finished the book. I found it very boring and would not recommend it. There is nothing in there that has not already been made public so I fail to see the big deal.

There were things in the book that weren't known before. Just because they were reported on in the news after the book was released doesn't mean the book didn't reveal them first.

 

[Winnipeg]

Ok, fair enough but I still think it is a boring book.

 

[MacMadame]

Ok, fair enough but I still think it is a boring book.

Speaking of boring, I have heard lots about the contents of the book including how different people appear to others. But what about the writing? What do people think about that?

 

[Habs]

Speaking of boring, I have heard lots about the contents of the book including how different people appear to others. But what about the writing? What do people think about that?

I thought the writing was great. It's the same ghostwriter who wrote Andre Agassi's Open, which is amazing.

 

[Baby Yoda On Skates]

I'm listening to the audio and the writing style is a little choppy at times, but Harry has a soothing voice. At times, it's a little boring, but the chapters are short enough that the boring recollections are over pretty fast.

 

[skategal]

I thought the writing was great. It's the same ghostwriter who wrote Andre Agassi's Open, which is amazing.

This 100%.

The only part I found slightly less interesting was when he was a helicopter pilot in the war in Afghanistan.

Everything else was excellent.

I even teared up a bit at the end with the description of Lilibet’s birth.

Not coincidentally, André Agassi’s biography is my favourite biography of all time.

 

[Habs]

Not coincidentally, André Agassi’s biography is my favourite biography of all time.

Mine too! I recommend it to people all the time, even people who don't like tennis. It's such a great book.

 

[airgelaal]

If people are afraid to speak because they'll get in trouble, that's their problem to navigate and grow from. If they mean no harm, it's an easy apology and move forward with better knowledge.

It is not so easy for public figures. Or for the media.
People immediately begin to blame and do not believe in mistakes.

 

[antmanb]

It is not so easy for public figures. Or for the media.
People immediately begin to blame and do not believe in mistakes.

When tone deaf people issue "I'm sorry you were offended" apologies the public take them for the complete lack of apology they are. I really can't believe the hill you're willing to die on is defending Jeremy Clarkson.

 

[Andora]

It is not so easy for public figures. Or for the media.
People immediately begin to blame and do not believe in mistakes.

I'm sorry we have to keep disagreeing so vehemently on this, as I don't think we're on opposite pages in other areas. But I really think this response is a cop out.

And maybe it's a Europe vs. Canada thing? There are some Europeans I work with that give me no end of shit for apologizing too much - which is fair because I do apologize too much. But I can't imagine how it's better for famous people to NOT apologize. The optics alone make them look like an asshole for refusing to acknowledge their mistakes and course correct. So what if "people" don't believe in mistakes? They shouldn't do the right thing anyways? No wonder "people" might not be forgiving. Not to mention most famous people give absolutely piss-poor apologies, usually written by their PR, with a general tone of "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my righteous words."

Of course there are plenty of famous people who have done and said buffonish things, but manage to avoid drastic career pitfalls. Jeremy Clarkson has been that type of cockroach previously. But for every Harvey Weinstein that's jailed for crimes, there's multiple Kevin Spacey's who are only temporarily given the cold shoulder before returning to work, and even receiving a lifetime achievement award from the National Museum of Cinema.

The public figures are the problem, but we aren't any better at holding them accountable, really.

 

[airgelaal]

When tone deaf people issue "I'm sorry you were offended" apologies the public take them for the complete lack of apology they are. I really can't believe the hill you're willing to die on is defending Jeremy Clarkson.

Oh gods. I already said that I hardly know who he is.
I am surprised by the desire to see insult in everything. It is also surprising when people see a certain context. Skin color, nationality, gender, age, etc. People can no longer be loved or disliked simply for who they are.

 

[Tesla]

Oh gods. I already said that I hardly know who he is.
I am surprised by the desire to see insult in everything. It is also surprising when people see a certain context. Skin color, nationality, gender, age, etc. People can no longer be loved or disliked simply for who they are.

Did you see his comments? They were despicable.

 

[airgelaal]

Did you see his comments? They were despicable.

Did I write somewhere that I liked it? I just tried to explain why people like him are still invited.
In addition, the line between freedom of speech and censorship is very thin. For example, I also don't like cartoons from Charlie Hebdo. Their cartoon based on Harry's book, in my opinion, was disgusting. But do I think this should be banned? I do not know, but I suspect that this is a sure path to censorship

 

[Winnipeg]

As an aside, if Harry and William do not like the constant pap attention, why would they be jealous when the paps pay too much attention to the other couple? In other words, if more attention is on Harry and Meagan, one would think that William and Kate would like the break??

They all say they do not like the attention but yet they do not like the opposite either (seemingly).