Jump to content

Steph J

Member
  • Content count

    220
  • Joined

Community Likes

3,395 Excellent

About Steph J

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

591 profile views
  1. Ah, I stand corrected about the "of York" designation. I didn't mean to suggest that there would be anything "official" prohibiting Duke of York from being reassigned during Beatrice & Eugenie's lifetime; I just meant that, out of respect for their feelings, William (assuming that he's King when Andrew passes away) might choose to give Louis a different title. That being said, there's seems to be a scarcity of available titles judging from the limited number that were discussed as being in the running when Harry was getting married, with a number of them being ruled out because of the bad rep associated with the last holder. Although you would think that "Duke of York" would be one of those things the Royals are so superstitious about that it becomes verboten, given the number of times it's merged with the Crown and the reasons why it did - three times because the holder's older brother predeceased their father (Henry VIII, Charles I, George V), once because the older brother abdicated the throne (George VI), once because the older brother didn't produce any legitimate offspring (James II), and once because the holder usurped the throne (Edward IV). I think there's a chance that Harry would opt for the route chosen by Edward & Sophie by having his kids not be Prince/Princess. Harry is said to dislike formality, plus he's seen first hand how difficult it is for his York cousins to have the Princess designation without having an official role as a Royal (which is likely to be the reality for Harry's kids when they grow up, even though William and Harry have a better relationship than Charles and Andrew). He might prefer that his kid(s) be able to fly a little more under the radar, the way that Peter and Zara have.
  2. Harry's not going to be Duke of York. Given the age difference between Charles and Andrew, it seems unlikely that the former is going to outlive the latter, and even laying that aside, granting Princes double dukedoms hasn't been the practice since Queen Victoria's reign (the last one was the Duke of Clarence and Avondale for Prince Albert Victor in 1890 and even then he was heir to the heir while his brother, who would become George V, only received one Dukedom, which happened to be York). William will be an exception to that rule, because he'll already be the Duke of Cambridge once he becomes the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cornwall, but that's only because the Dukedom of Cornwall is reserved for the heir to the throne. I wouldn't be surprised if, after Andrew passes away, the Duke of York title is left on the shelf for a generation, if only out of respect for the feelings of Beatrice and Eugenie, who will still be Princess of York after their father dies, which may make things somewhat awkward if someone else is made Duke of York during their lifetimes.
  3. THIS. The man lied repeatedly under oath. Some of them were statements so easy to disprove that it makes you wonder if he just lies automatically as a reflex (such as having no connection to Yale, when he was actually a legacy kid, or that he was unaware of Deborah Ramirez's allegations until after the article in The New Yorker, even though the text messages he sent to former classmates prove that he knew about the allegations before they were published, or what the drinking age was in Maryland). Some of them are weird lies designed to distance him from the sexual connotations of his own words from the past and which rely on people being willing to believe that there's some ambiguity to slang terms like "devil's triangle" such that they might have multiple meanings. Some are lies that you can't necessarily "disprove" like the meaning of "Renate Alumnus," but I think we all understand what those boys were implying and, judging by the fact that she withdrew her support once she heard about it, so did Renate Dolphin. When you repeatedly show yourself to be a liar, you forfeit the benefit of the doubt. Kavanaugh had everything to gain by lying. Ford had nothing to gain by lying.
  4. I don't really have an answer to your question, largely because I don't think there there is any one universal thing that an accused could do that would, in any definitive way, cast an accusation into doubt. Every case of a person being accused is going to be different - some might be similar to others, but each has its own unique context. In terms of the famous/powerful people who have been accused, I think what complicates the question of "what if he/she is innocent?" is the fact that so often there are multiple accusers. I've tried to think of someone who was accused by only one person and I literally cannot come up with a name; everyone that I can think of has had multiple people speak up against them. In cases like that, I always think of occam's razor: what's more likely, that the person being accused by multiple people is an abuser, or that those multiple accusers came together to form a cabal and randomly selected the accused as their victim?
  5. Not that it alters your overall point, but in fairness to Diana she was only 19 when she got engaged so she didn't really have much of an opportunity to "support herself" (although, as you point out, she wouldn't have been expected to because of her circumstances anyway). As for Eugenie, I feel a bit bad for her that she's getting all this negative press about her wedding. I've seen a lot of people ripping on her about wanting a big to do on the same scale as the Sussexes, but I suspect that a lot of that is actually her parents' doing and, in particular, Prince Andrew's since he seems pretty obsessed with "proving" that he and his kids are as important as Charles and his kids.
  6. After the "Kyle is jealous of Pete" sketch I thought that maybe Daryl missing his name in the credits was part of the joke because the sketch starts with Kyle saying that he feels like he's become invisible. I thought the show was okay. In general I think Adam Driver is actually really funny (although not necessarily in a way that translates to sketch comedy), but only a couple of the sketches tonight played to his comedic strengths. The oil baron sketch killed me, though. Instant classic. As for Kanye... can we just be done with Kanye? I watched the second performance, but I only made it about 30 seconds into the first one before I had to change the channel and turned the show off when he started his third. I've read a few reviews of the show this morning and I'm surprised that no one is making more of Pete's joke about switching out Arianna Grande's birth control. That's a pretty messed up joke to make in the current climate, but I guess everyone is too busy talking about Kanye.
  7. It blows my mind that people actually defend Polanski and treat him like he's a victim of that situation. He gave champagne and quaaludes to a 13 year old then raped her then fled the country to avoid the consequences, yet he's been venerated like he was somehow railroaded by an unjust system and cruelly exiled from the US and people bend over backwards to find excuses to support him. Chinatown being a masterpiece doesn't change the fact that he's a rapist. Surviving the Holocaust doesn't change the fact that he's a rapist. His wife having been murdered doesn't change the fact that he's a rapist. I'm not sure I've ever looked at the people who signed that petition in his favor the same way (and, oh, look at that, the signatories include Woody Allen and Asia Argento).
  8. I know it doesn't literally say "talk to me or else," but isn't that what "This DOESN'T need to be public, we would prefer to keep this private" means?
  9. How are those two tweets anything less than a threat? "Talk to me or else"? I know it would never happen because it would only create more drama and press, but I wish Samantha could be charged with harassment because that's what this is. Failing that, I hope that Harry and Meghan move into a place with a drawbridge and a moat.
  10. Fahrenheit 11/9 (2018)

    I don't think it makes votes for Trump look sympathetic. It's deeply, deeply critical of the Democratic party, but it leaves no doubt that Moore thinks Trump is a fascist who capitalized on racism, misogyny, greed, and hate. It's sympathetic to people who didn't vote at all, but it's not sympathetic to Trump's platform or the people who embraced it. If anything, I think that Moore's intended audience is people who see both parties as corrupt and the system as rigged and as a result don't think there's any point to voting, because what he does throughout the film is make the point that grassroots organizing by people who are outside the system can work. I think his intention is to convince non-voters that the system can be changed if people organize and fight for change and vote for those grassroots politicians who haven't become compromised by special interest groups.
  11. Fahrenheit 11/9 (2018)

    Anyone else see this? I was reluctant, because I'm pretty "Trumped out" in general, but it turned out that, despite the heavy Trump focus of the film's advertising, it's not really a movie about Trump. I thought it was pretty good, heavy handed in certain places but that's to be expected from Michael Moore. Overall I kind of wish that he'd just made the entire film about the Flint water crisis because I thought that those sections were the strongest ones in the film, but the sections dealing with the West Virginia teachers strike and the Parkland kids were really good, too.
  12. Not according to Raisman's mom (tried to embed the tweet itself, but technology has defeated me; her tweet is towards the bottom of the post). Given the horrific scope of abuse in USA gymnastics, not to mention the plethora of adults involved in the organization who did fucking nothing about children being abused, I think their best bet is to burn it to the ground and start over from scratch. There may be some people in the organization who have clean hands, but they seem to be in the minority.
  13. Well, it's not like Prince Philip isn't known for holding on to grudges (see Ferguson, Sarah).
  14. What's strange to me about Louise being Windsor instead of Mountbatten-Windsor is that it's often said that Edward is Philip's favorite son and that the two are actually quite close (it's Edward who has taken over many of Prince Philip's former duties, including those to do with the Duke of Edinburgh Awards). I was always under the impression that the two being close is why Edward is keen on taking over the title Duke of Edinburgh after Prince Philip passes.
  15. So after all the whining Prince Philip allegedly did about being able to pass his name (which, ironically, is a surname that he adopted from his mother's side of the family) to his children/grandchildren, everyone is like "Eh, too long"? Hilarious.