Friends, my good will tour of Latin America continues. Good news: I've successfully dissuaded Mexico from declaring war on Trumpland. It was touch and go, but you can count on me!
In other news, I wish to register my strong disapproval of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's decision to "step back" from their royal duties. Fie on that! Royalty is duty, and this tragic turn of events can only prove that Ms. Markle was never fit for membership in the royal family to begin with. I don't entirely blame her for that, of course. Royals are, in my opinion, born and bred. Much as we might like to imagine that royals simply sit around and eat bon-bons, the truth is that they have a very hard job. A commoner, 99% of the time, won't be cut out for it. Why Harry chose her, only he would know, but the couple's secession from the royal family, without even consulting the Queen in advance, is outrageous. There's little else to say except that we should be thankful that Harry is the second-born son and not the first!
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-royals/independence-day-uks-queen-agrees-grandson-harry-wife-meghan-can-exit-senior-royal-role-idUSKBN1ZC0KT
I also encourage you to read this excellent article, which puts into perspective how feverishly the mainstream media has been working to seal the deal on impeachment. Clearly, the results have fallen way short of their expectations. We are increasingly seeing, however, a situation in which half the country is permanently mortified by President Trump's unfathomable evil. Simply put, the media exists for no other purpose than to sustain and magnify Trump-hatred. As the article indicates, even the Democrats running for President barely register when what really matters to the gentlemen of the press is "nailing" Trump. This begs the question: even though the coverage of Trump is so negative, can a Democrat really win in 2020, when Trump will dominate the campaign from start to finish? Methinks, in other words, that the media may protest too much: its paranoid, obsessive anti-Trump coverage may, in some ways, only make him stronger.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2020/01/13/tvs-trump-news-three-fourths-impeachment-and-93-negative
Dr. Waddy: Harry probably loves his wife and now shares with her the bond of a child. It may be that, as many faithful husbands do, he considers her wishes paramount and that he MAY have been effected by reported Royal Family misgivings about her.
ReplyDeleteI love the British Royalty and its redeeming history and, very much, the Queen and am fully convinced of their consummate value to Britain's glorious constitutional monarchical polity. But perhaps, due to the near impossibility of his succession to the throne, Harry understandably believes his always public life(including rigorous military service) and his material prosperity to justify a (hopefully) amicable separation from both royalty's privileges and its demands, in order, better in time, to pursue humane ends. He may have reached this conviction from regard for his American wife.
The duty of the Royal Family in Britain: I reverently respect it. Elizabeth II is its living exemplar. But Harry may well be as separated from the Throne as to make the decision of him and his wife to pursue a different path not a huge problem. We may not know what preliminary introduction of this possibility may already have been considered in Royal circles. And we cannot rely on the sensationalistic MSM on both sides of the pond, to inform us.
I hope Harry and his wife have not been ensnared by ultimately murderous leftist causes. That said, I trust they will not be true to the totalitarian misguidance which discredited his ancestors, the pitiable Duke and Duchess of Windsor.
Dr. Waddy: I'll try for the last time tonite:The MSM's blatant prejudice raises the possibility both of the defeat of the Dem candidate and the marginalization of the MSM.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: This computer was giving me a very hard time last night. Yeah, that's an intriguing line of thought - that the MSM could actually contribute to a Trump victory. Could that be a factor in an eventual return of dominant integrity to that profession? Maybe it can't be done and journalism (or that school of journalism embraced by the MSM), in the face of the ever increasing availability of information and opinion from sources outside the MSM, will join eugenics as a discredited discipline.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Jack, the internet is effecting a lot of folks here in the Eastern side of the U.S. No reasons given, but I have been reading this from others as well...its just not your computer.
DeleteAh bah hum bug Jack (wait, did we establish your Anonymous? grin). I read somewhere, that folks who marry into the "royal" family are given booklets and lessons on how to act and what is expected. She knew what was expected. Look, I really could careless. Goodbye, cya don't let the door hit you. I feel bad for the Queen who was not expecting that announcement to go public from them. Cut then off financially--they will come crawling back. I don't think it is fair to continue to have the public pay for whatever. I also feel bad for their young child. What a mess. I am afraid, Jack, they have indeed fell to leftist ideas. I love European history and the royal family has always fascinated me. Tradition is so important and I hope the Queen has a bit of a backbone left to deal with this (and the other side of me is stating "They lost the war! Who cares!" and a gentle reminder from a favorite professor who likes to remind me every so often of that fact). I am looking forward to William and Kate and the future they hold. Times are changing, though.
ReplyDeleteSo, I sit here on Tuesday evening watching the show of Pelosi signing the Articles of Impeachment and I will state here and now, she has sealed his re election. What an embarrassment the 'show' was...she was laughing and carrying on. I agree, Dr. Waddy, the hate of the MSM only emboldens the President.
Linda: Yeah, that was me. You may well be right; we have yet to see if they can stand being cut off from Royal privilege. I've always thought that the wealthy are probably not much happier than those of us with sufficient middle class livings. But take their prosperity away from them; now there is a test, because I think most of the wealthy would suffer from such reduction(for its own material sake only, apart from any political right or wrong which might effect it). In saying this I do not denigrate the wealthy overall; I think most of them have done benefit to society and I certainly include the British royals in that opinion.
ReplyDeletePelosi is a joke. I'd love to see a face to face debate between her and Donald Trump. He'd drive her to tantrums!The Dems must be viewing this proceeding with the fear which attends those who venture to disable explosives. What is to come!?
He/the president would bury her, grin.
DeleteI agree, most of them/the royals have benefited society in some way or the other...I am afraid though, this new generation has left a lot to be desired. I do like William and Kate--time will tell.
So the World Wide Web is on the fritz, is it? Oh dear! How will the people of Earth hear from WaddyIsRight, the lodestar of universal wisdom??? Yikes! I may have to resort to telegrams...
ReplyDeleteJack, it's true -- Harry is incidental enough to the royal family that his complete disappearance from it would do no great harm. The whole enterprise is threatened, though, when one member turns his back on the life of duty that royalty implies. Our age doesn't prize duty -- it prizes ego fulfillment. That's one of several hundred reasons why the monarchy in Britain is arguably obsolescent. The Queen will keep on keeping on...but do future generations have the self-control and the strength of character required? That remains to be seen. Like Linda, I feel myself torn in two directions. I love the monarchy and its traditions, but the modern gloss that society insists on can be downright stomach-turning. Jack, you asked if the royals have been captured by the Left. To a point, how could they not be? They have to wallow in political correctness just like every other public figure these days...or else! I give the Queen credit for doggedly mentioning Jesus Christ in her Christmas message, though. That takes courage nowadays!
I wish I had seen Pelosi's article-transmission show. She's certainly appointed some winners to "manage" the case! Do we know yet who will be representing Trump?
Oh yes--we know who will be representing the president; Kenneth Starr, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Ray, Pam Bondi. If I were the Dems, they might want to get ahead a head start in the race. They are going to need it. {{grin}}
ReplyDeleteHA on the the World Wide Web is on the fritz, whatever the issue(s)--it is nerve racking to say the least.
Dr. Waddy; What a terrible indictment of the reflexive iconoclasm of the left that the Queen's citation of Christ in a Christmas message of all things can understandably be seen as an act of courage. How very devoted the left is to annihilating traditional Western culture; absolutely nothing sacred is to spared; not marriage, not the almost never necessary evil of killing the unborn,of the disenfranchisement of parents, of complete rejection of the evolution of democracy which so graces our culture, in favor of Platonic tyranny thoroughly discredited by the wickedness it generated in the 20th century. We stand in existential hazard of all we value and revere; our opponents are reflexively hostile and murderous to all that hold so BECAUSE we hold it so.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: The British has survived less than dutiful monarchs and probably plenty of profligates in the Royal family (eg. Albert Edward, the future Edward VII, an unrepentant, virtually public voluptuary;"the Merry Monarch" Charles II, Richard I, whose only interest was combat, John (nonetheless, perhaps somewhat undeserving of his infamy) and of course Edward VIII. Most of the time exemplary monarchs have risen to redeem the institution ( eg. Edward I, Edward III, and after a time, the glorious Tudors and surely, noble Elizabeth II.I have a gut feeling that William V will be a good King, having grown up in this time of cynicism and perhaps understanding it better than we of an older generation (his father will not reign for long and is probably possessed of a desire to be rid of the hurly burly of younger life; I'm his age and can understand that). Harry's apostasy, in my opinion, may not be a decisive moment.
ReplyDeleteLinda, Trump has assembled quite the legal dream team -- especially compared to the likes of Schiff and Nadler. Trump's attorneys ought to have an easy job of it too. After all, the Dems have presented no evidence to substantiate their central accusation: an intention to "interfere" in the 2020 election.
ReplyDeleteJack: you're right that the rejection of Christ at Christmas tells us all we need to know about the state of Western Civilization. The Queen survives in her capacity as Christian sovereign only by adhering to an almost super-human blandness. So, for that matter, does the Church of England. A more spineless, self-deprecating form of Christianity it would be hard to imagine. I should know -- I'm Episcopalian!
You're right that many abysmal monarchs past have been counterbalanced by exemplars of royal dutifulness. As any modern royal will tell you, though, in the past people BELIEVED in monarchy implicitly. Now they merely tolerate it so long as it costs them little and never imposes its views. Modern monarchy truly is fragile, which is why the Queen frets so whenever a figure like Margaret, Diana, or Harry comes along. Believe me, I wish it were otherwise! Anti-royal troublemakers ought to be locked up in the Tower to teach them some manners...but alas those days are done.
Dr. Waddy: I have gotten the impression that the Church of England has been loathe to question the dictates of political correctness. A shame that. The United Methodist church is expected to split over irreconcilable differences generated by militant and often contemptuous proponents of change which is considered to be fundamentally unacceptable by traditionalists in the Church. Good for the conservatives; they set a good example of unconquerable constancy reminding one of the heroic Saint John Paul II.
ReplyDeleteI see your point about the fragility of the British monarchy. I would simply banish disdainful anti Royals to any country less fortunate than Britain and when they repent, welcome them back with a free tour of Windsor Castle, Hampton Court and Westminster Abbey. That should seal the deal.
Jack, it's interesting what's become of the Methodist Church. I agree that the conservatives are right to want to purify their church of radicals. At the same time, schisms are rarely a good sign for a religion's long-term viability...
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Well, but a resolute display of constancy on the part of the conservative Methodists is to celebrated, I think. I think what they have said is: " Since you persist in a conviction utterly unsupportable by us, we DEPART, and our convictions allow us no other action."" Do as you will, as will we!". This to be lauded; schism has sometimes been unavoidable and it is in this case attributable to the presumptuous attack by far too dismissive radicals on proven values.
ReplyDelete