Main Edition
US
FR
Do you speak Sussex-ese? (Photo by Max Mumby/Indigo/Getty Images)
Over the past month, a new English dialect has mysteriously sprung into existence: let us call it âSussex-eseâ. It was first spotted in the British press in February, when its creator â who shall remain unnamed for now â wrote: âWe all lose when misinformation sells more than truth, when moral exploitation sells more than decency, and when companies create their business model to profit from peopleâs pain. But, for today, with this comprehensive win on both privacy and copyright, we have all won.â
Typified by its remarkable tendency to sound both sincere and insincere simultaneously, this Sussex-ese appeared again in a separate news story this week. â[We are]Â saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma,â the author wrote. âShe is determined to continue her work building compassion around the world and will keep striving to set an example for doing what is right and doing what is good.â
No doubt you will have guessed by now how Sussex-ese was given its name. Both of the above statements come from the House of Sussex, specifically from the spokesperson for the Duchess of Sussex and/or the Duchess herself. And I suspect that they wonât be the last â by all accounts, Sussex-ese is here to stay.
As tempting as it may be, it is not enough to dismiss the House of Sussexâs latest statements as bland, sub-Obama pabulum. They almost always have a certain twist of their own; a style which suggests that Harry and, more importantly, Meghan are not only surprised, but almost amazed that anybody might think ill of them. Excerpts from the coupleâs upcoming interview with Oprah Winfrey only confirm this.
History is, of course, rife with examples of princes and their spouses expressing their distaste with the lĂšse-majestĂ© of their critics. But whatâs different about Sussex-ese is that it is a creation born not from the Dukeâs blue blood, so much as the coupleâs unquestionably golden intentions. And as a result, a very modern form of deference is demanded: do not criticise me, for I am doing much good in the world.
Take the first quote above. It relates to the Duchessâs recent successful privacy case against the Mail on Sunday, which published excerpts of a private letter sent by Meghan to her estranged father. Now you could be forgiven for thinking that, even if she werenât a former actress, the relationship between the wife of the person sixth in line to the British throne and her father is a matter of public interest. You would, however, be wrong â at least thatâs the implication of the judgeâs decision to halt the trial before witnesses could be called.
But even if you agree with Lord Justice Warby, it is hard to see how âwe all wonâ because of it.  For example, you may not approve of the type of prurient Royal-watcher who wishes to know every detail of the Duchessâs life, but clearly those people donât view the verdict as a âwinâ. More importantly, though, there is something deeply unsavoury about the attempt to extrapolate Meghanâs personal victory into a universal one, particularly since most people will never be in a position remotely analogous to the one in which the Sussexes find themselves.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI do not normally take much interest in royal/celebrity affairs, and would prefer to take no interest whatsoever. But it is impossible not to notice just how self-obsessed and despicable these two have become.
The narcissism is palpable, isn’t it?
“In Brexit, a group of old, white English people voted for the glories of an imagined past while rejecting a global, multicultural future. The main lesson of the interview is that the UK royal family, tied to a crumbling tabloid press, is behaving much the same way.
“How it works: Prince Harry detailed the symbiotic relationship between the royal family and the UK tabloids. Meanwhile, a glowing Meghan and Harry, happily ensconced in Santa Barbara luxury, are doing deals with Netflix and Spotify estimated at $100 million and $25 million respectively.
“The erstwhile royals might still be reliant on media companies â but the media companies they’re reliant on are young, international, and much richer than the tabloids.
“By the numbers: Netflix reaches more than 200 million subscribers; Spotify reaches more than 150 million premium subscribers and has a total user base of some 350 million.
“The Sun, by contrast, Britain’s biggest tabloid, has a circulation of just 1.2 million, while rival the Daily Mirror reaches less than 400,000.
“Driving the news: The foremost avatar of anti-Meghan tabloid sentiment is Piers Morgan, the former editor of the Daily Mirror with a grubby history involving phone tapping, insider trading, and faked photos.
“Morgan resigned from his daytime-TV gig this week after saying on air that he “didn’t believe a word” of Markle’s claims.
“The bottom line: Harry has gone solo, much like his namesake from One Direction. Just like Vogue cover star Styles, he could easily end up eclipsing his increasingly irrelevant former bandmates.”
Felix SalmonâAXIOS
In Brexit, a group of old, white English people voted for the glories of an imagined past while rejecting a global, multicultural future
Delusional and idiotic and of course makes no sense at all except in the mind of a nitwit.
You complete your nonsense with a boy band comparison
Oddly you use speechmarks for your own comments which suggest the literacy of a marble and the iq of a biscuit
Couldn’t have put it better.
Hey mr Strawman, when is your appointment with the wizard?
This weekend Lady Manners (great name) posted pics where Meghan had copied Diana’s costume exactly-the hat used in the picture is one of them. Harry has married a very strange person.
He married his mother obviously
It was perfectly possible to pay no attention whatsoever by just skipping the interminable coverage in the Telegraph. Iâm enjoying this. Iâd abolish the constitutional role of the Windsors et al, come to a deal on money and property and wish them all the best for the future. Love seeing DM and others getting their knickers in a twist as privileged parasitical people and their retainers on all sides behave like the entitled, selfish bullies theyâve always been.
Tony Blair for President!!!
Presidents are elected, so I think we’re safe from that prospect. It’s more likely to be Danny Dyer or Greg Wallace.
I nominate Alex Belfield!
Good at outrage; how’s his activism?
Not trans enough
Not necessarily. Just elected for better or worse not just entitled!
That would have my vote… We can always get tess daly to launch any new ships and rubber stamp any draconian legislation passed to her by Parliament, I’m sure she’d do just as good a job as any royal, she’d be cheaper and she knows when to keep her mouth shut.
Claptrap
Ginge and Whinge….what a ghastly pair they are.
‘Ginge and whinge’, very good.
To paraphrase kanye: I ain’t saying she a golddigger, but she ain’t messing with no broke gingers.
Gingist!
Think Cash and Harry. is my fave.
Posh & Bucks?
It takes a particular kind of detachment from reality to lecture others about their “privilege” when you’re a Prince and Princess.
Not to mention the kind of detachment from reality and abysmal cheek it takes to posit yourself as an empowered woman when most of the time you peddle the narrative that you’re a victim and are only where you are today because of the man you married. Feminism my foot. I almost dropped my coffee when I saw the sit-down with Gloria Steinem where M waffled on about how “all women are linked, not ranked.” While of course rocking the duchess title. What planet is this woman on????
Absolutely. That kind of doublethink must do major damage to one’s logic circuits
of which she has but a few . . . or fewer than a few . . .
I cringed at her waffle on the couch for her engagement speech. She sounded like a graduate trainee joining a long established company fully convinced that she knew better how to manage it than anyone else before her. She’s married a man more famous than her and then he’s quit his job, they’ve both left. It’s not a very interesting story. How much more pathos can they wring out of it?
At the start, I was very open to her. I just felt concerned when I saw that interview because I saw that she hadn’t understood the nature of the monarchy or British sensibilities and was going to get a very nasty, rude awakening. It was no surprise that things turned out as they did and Germaine Greer was spot on with her analysis. But the way Meghan and Harry have behaved in separating themselves and pursuing a new life in the States has been a masterclass in getting rid of every scrap of goodwill they had. They’re an absolute disgrace to the Royal Family and the country.
I was struggling to put together a comment on this subject and on the article â which covers the subject pretty well. Then I read your comment, which summarises just about everything I think on this dismal subject, and expresses it more economically and charitably than I was able to do. Thank you!
Whatever happened to Germaine Greer? I can’t see Meghan putting her MINGE on the cover of a book…
I can, anything for attention.
How about him bemoaning the fact that he’s never been allowed to vote as if it was a personal disenfranchisement! Maybe, given the questions still asked regarding his ancestry he actually should have been entitled an is right to moan about it!
I’m not sure about this but if he’s a tax payer, which I assume he is, surely he should have the right to vote
The titles must go. The queen must be seething them making $gazzilions singularly and solely on the back of being a royal Duke and Duchess. Strip their titles and the wizards of California reveal who they really are: Past tense.
It’s hard to imagine Netflix and Spotify lining up to give millions to a former soldier and an ex actress from a TV show nobody watches. I’m not sure removing the titles now will make any difference though, it’s the prospect of them dishing the dirt on the other royals that’s attracting the attention and cash stateside, not the name Sussex.
I think even without titles they are now international shelebrity…
They’re AMERICAN royalty now, titles or not. I just hope most Americans can see through them.
Chances are they’ll love them, and of course Meghan can do no wrong. Challenge her, and you’re racist. She’s not liked because of her skin colour? It’s beyond pathetic. Someone tell her she’s embraced victimhood.
The USA is welcome to them but this egotistical pair of woke whiners (or saviours of the world as they’ll no doubt want to be labelled soon) will be courted by the media and celebrities, raking in the millions of dollars every time they make an announcement regarding what’s happening in their narcissistic, lavish Californian realm. They’ll rule from there if the Americans allow it to happen. And they will.
The smug two have no self-awareness.
Attacking the monarchy as they have, will not end well. Their titles should be removed.
Without the Sussex title, they would be Prince and Princess Henry (or Harry) of Wales. His title of prince cannot be removed as he was born to it, and since she is his wife, she takes his title (has none in her own right). California would still be impressed, I imagine, and their “victim” status would be enhanced.
I do not think she is entitled to ‘princess’ but I am no expert.
If she adopts his name with Princess she can be Princess Henry (his given name). She cannot be Princess Meghan. As a matter of fact Diana was never Princess Diana, that was the press bending the rules for whatever reason. She was Diana Princess of Wales.
Princess Michael adopts this style with the use of her husband’s name as opposed to being known as the Duchess of Kent.
Actually, they are two different people. The Duchess of Kent (nee Katherine Worsley) is married to Prince Michael’s elder brother, the Duke of Kent, so she is Princess Michael’s sister in law.
I lived several years in Santa Barbara, nextdoor to Montecito, and am now in San Francisco. I am not impressed and everyone I know thinks M&H are self-delusional and not very intelligent people. Meghan is a schemer and gets what she wants through manipulation. And Harry? sigh. What a pathetic creature.
Unfortunately you are quite correct … my money’s on them fizzling out; and possibly sooner than we imagine
Picture the scene – the D&D of S, on their much publicised tour of Africa, were in Malawi – one of the very poorest countries in the world. For several days theyâd been meeting people whose stories would make anyone with a scintilla of perspective realise just how lucky they are. Children who’d lost limbs from land-mines, lost relatives from starvation or internecine warfare – and what was their reaction? They decided that was the appropriate moment to announce to the world, via their friendly stooge Tom Bradby, that their life as members of the Royal Family wasn’t easy. It beggared belief. Meghan thought we all needed to know itâs really, really hard being Royal whilst being a new mother – as though the vast retinue of domestic servants doesn’t ease the pressure, even just a little bit – and, as if that wasn’t enough of a burden, poor Meghan complained that no one had thought to ask if she was okay.
The mind boggles. Truly, it takes superhuman levels of self-absorption to spend time with children whoâve lost their limbs and their families to a war and then turn to the camera and whine, “Yeah, but what about meeeee?”
Whilst I have no interest in watching the Oprah interview there is a grim fascination that comes from just how tin-eared the two of them are doubtless going to be. The trouble is there will be plenty in their new target audience â America â who will lap this sanctimony up, and imagine that poor Harry and Me-Again are victims. Incredibly, there seem to be one or two posters here who feel the same.
They’ve lectured us on climate change – castigating people who most likely take one flight a year for their holidays – before they themselves hop into the sybaritic comforts of a private jet, that will take them off for another much-needed break from the pressures of their opulent life. Not to mention that, to ensure their tour of Africa was at the right level of comfort, special cars were shipped out to waft them from one photo-op to the next. Their carbon footprint must be absolutely staggering – but God forbid a newspaper might question the Sussexes’ claim to be “committed environmentalists”. Any criticism is obviously proof of racism.
The suggestion – echoed by some on these very pages – that any criticism aimed at the Duchess of Sussex must be rooted in racism is completely unsupported by any evidence or even common sense. You can’t deny that, during their engagement and for the wedding itself, the coverage was universally positive and everyone seemed perfectly happy with the idea of her bringing a fresh and different outlook to the hide-bound monarchy. The matter of her heritage was seen as a positive.
It was only when the two of them started on this ghastly “celebrity” path, constantly virtue signalling and associating themselves with “woke” totems that the tenor of the coverage changed. Surely, that would be more down to their perceived insincerity and hypocrisy than any evidence of racism towards her?
Just imagine the messages that will pour forth from their Netflix documentaries – Meghan reinventing herself as Feminist role model – though ‘Marry a Prince and give up your day job’ is a somewhat regressive feminist message in 2021, isn’t it? It could hardly be more hypocritical if Harry, as a member of the Royal family, criticised someone for nepotism.
LA is welcome to them. A city built on insincerity and hollow adulation of fame. It’s a shame because Harry seemed as though he was a decent sort. He obviously enjoyed his time in the Army and seemed keen to dedicate himself to the Invictus games, association with Military charities and general royal duties. He enjoyed enormous amounts of good will from the British people and seemed to be growing into his role. Any such good will has since evaporated.
When you live in a gilded cage it is never advisable to complain to those outside that your golden handcuffs chafe.
I think the point to make is that neither of them is very clever.
You got it.His brain must have been empty when he thought portraying a Nazi would be jolly good fun.
Patrick – an excellent observation.
Perhaps someone should remind Harry about the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent in the 1930s. Once they were third and fourth in line to the throne, as Harry has been, now they are largely forgotten. Their time in the public eye and conscience was fleeting, as will be Harry’s,
As Patrick said, he had a useful, productive life and enjoyed enormous good will. Now that has all but gone.
It is very sad to witness such a slow-motion car crash taking place in clear sight. But it seems nothing can be done.
I’m enjoying watching these two self-delusional fools expose themselves to the world. All means of financial support, other than Meghan’s Suits savings, should be stripped from them. Who would clean their bathrooms? How would they pay their bills? They are worthy only of ridicule.
Quite sad to see what Megan has done to a fine person, Harry. Watching William’s pain and the demise of a family is awful. And the entire business covered by the breathless press. The Japanese phrase “Have you no shame” comes to min for both the couple and the media.
Is Hardee Hodges your real name?
No, I don’t think that Harry was ever really a “fine person,” as you put it. He was nice enough in his way, but he always seemed to me to be an especially vulnerable man-child.
The only time Harry was mentioned in our California papers was when he was running through Las Vegas hotel hallways chasing naked women. Ah. Those were the days!
I am grateful to Meghan Markle for giving our country the service Mrs Simpson rendered when she removed Edward VIII from the throne.
In each case the youngish man has been the silliest of playboys, at once a very self-willed birdbrain and loose canon.
Prince Harry proved this in many years before his marriage. He had gone to Eton, a sort of brilliant junior university whose pupils are introduced to all manner of topics, activities, interests. Yet apart from his period in the Armed Forces where, like his brother, he was a success, all he could think to do with the rest of his time in this world was to go pubbing and clubbing (continuous boozing).
In that capacity for a while he led Prince William astray. But then Prince William had bigger sounder instincts, looked for a real family to belong to and homed in on that, to his advantage and the benefit of us all.
Harry remained the Princess Margaret of his generation.
This does not eliminate the temporary harm he can do with his commitment to vulgarity and hypocrisy. But inasmuch as it happens 6000 miles away – and will there be subject to the law of diminishing returns (both the Sussexes are stupid people) – I feel inclined to echo Winston Churchill’s final verdict on the Duchess of Windsor: ‘One day a grateful Commonwealth will erect her statue’.
There is the additional advantage that âtheirâ antics do take the spotlight off the Prince Andrew/Epstein affair.
Bread and circuses, as always. Only in this case it’s all circus and no bread.
Iâm not so sure about Edward VIII. Although he was a playboy, I read that when he became King and started to travel round the country that he was concerned about the poverty he saw. The politicians didnât like him complaining and so he had to go. Wallace was a perfect cover to get rid of him.
Who, today, can possibly accept that somebody is born special and when royals start marrying commoners they become pointless. It is time this life of inherited privilege was ended.
‘when royals start marrying commoners they become pointless’
How does that square with William and Kate?
Harry became pointless when he walked away from duty. Just like his great uncle.
“I read that when he became King and started to travel round the country that he was concerned about the poverty he saw.”
This is true – in a thoroughly detached and practically meaningless way.
At the very same time he gave Mrs Simpson fantastically expensive jewels every day – any two or three of which would have set up a workless desperately poor town or district in the Depressed Areas of the cruel 1930s Slump.
(People there and then were truly poor. – Men, thin as rakes, wearing shoes patched with newspaper and cardboard, leaning against their door-jambs because almost too weak from little nutrition to stand upright. Children, shoeless, suffering rickets and dying from TB – essentially lack of food. It was terrible in those areas.)
If you have half a billion pounds at your personal disposition and you deplore the poverty you see; but spend not one penny of it alleviating that poverty, what is it but the same-old same-old virtue signalling which so distinguishes today’s ‘meritocracy’ and celebrities and Ruling Caste?
Precisely. The irony of this sanctimonious preaching and look at me victimhood delivered from their ÂŁ11m Californian mansion is incomprehensible and should not be underestimated. It fails to take into account the lives of millions of people across the world who have suffered immeasurably during the pandemic. Extraordinary arrogance.
Yes, what she doesn’t realise is that you don’t become virtuous simply by joining the royal family, you have to actually do something. She thinks her words alone are enough to change things but really they are just self-serving. It is a sign of how out of touch with genuine hardship that they think creating a Netflix program or podcast will change things. She’s a walking PR operation. As with so many who seek positions of power they don’t really care about changing anything, it is enough that *they* are the ones running things.
Bingo. The attitude seems to be, “if I tell everyone I’m a caring and wonderful person who’s saving the world” , that makes it true. Its a modern delusion shared by most people in the public sphere, and people with blue ticks on twitter. It comes crashing down after contact with ordinary people, but ordinary people can be safely ignored, because they don’t count.
Self praise is no praise.
They are the embodiment of social media sickness: put out a tweet or a posting and your work for the world is done. A little echo chamber or bubble where virtue signalling is all that’s needed. Is this how the younger generations think? If yes, I fear for the world when they finally have to look up from their smartphones and take over…
In a nutshell: all hat, no cattle.
As we say in Texas.
Sometimes a point is reached when – like the Earth’s magnetic field – the effect of a message is exactly reversed upon itself.
Think Project Fear, BLM, BBC diversity, National Trust, Layla Moran (yesterday) ….
What is fascinating is that those who continue to push the message are completely unaware what has happened. The Sussexes are in freefall but think they are flying high.
But I thought Layla was non-binary?
Has sex with pans, apparently.
They probably are flying high financially, and will continue to rake it in for a while yet.
Teenage? Sheâs 39!
39 with the brains of a 13 year old. Not a good combination.
Indeed. I mentioned this in a previous post on another article. Our behavior is being dictated to by people with the moral capacity of a narcissistic teenage girl.
A narcissistic, whiney, snivelling teenage girl who quite probably grew up with the disneyesque belief that being a *princess* means a lifetime of whining, entitlement, and complaining about the staff. And complaining about the relatives. About the hooorrible treatment suffered from the relatives / the staff / the subjects. In England of all places, the least whiney culture on the planet. She ought to have had a big culture shock, but i don’t think it even registered on her tiny radar – it flew over her head.
I was with you until the part about England being the least whiney culture on the planet. Having spent plenty of time overseas in quite different countries, Brits seem to be the biggest whingers in the world (when actually living in one of the best countries in the world). Maybe it’s the media portrayal and the stoking of grievances by many political parties that creates that impression.
There has always been the “whinging POM” in Australia: “How do you know when a 747 has arrived from Heathrow in to Sydney? The plane is still whining when they have turned to engines off…”
If you want to hear world class whinging, spend some time with an aussie watching his country lose at any sport.
The better we have it the more we whine because we expect better. During the second world war we had people like Douglas Bader and the Spitfire pilots etc. who were very brave and didn’t seem to whine. I think we have become more feminised now with full grown men going around in skirts etc. We have to hope we shall never have a world war again.
ï»żWell, they are about to secede – or not, we’ll see.
Made me to wonder if that‘s really the cause of Scotland becoming the Sweden of the Union? Will never look at a kilt the same way again…
ï»żDon’t go to Scotland and say that!
I sincerely hope you are not making a link between feminisation and increased whinging.
Letâs hope not! Nothing so repulsive than men becoming more like women (itâs okay for women to wear trousers becomes itâs less embarrassing to aspire toward masculinity).
Imagine men wearing lace or pastel silk trousers or heels or powered wigs.
Oh wait – that already happened and the world didnât come tumbling down.
Or did Beau Brummell save us all with his fashionably minimalist and somber toilette?
Good one! Our kids live in Sydney and I need only mention cricket to set off the whingeing….
More in the past than now. There were a lot more of them in the past and with less knowledge about Australia. And compared to Britain today, Australia is a paradise.
Your soooo right Deb G. And when they do the job they wanted to do (a home from home), and were paid to do, and can’t be laid off, and will get a pension, they get literally applauded by the general public – and of course applaud themselves just to keep the game in play – for hurriedly trying to save people’s lives, which is what the NHS between form filling, waddling diabetically along corridors and vying to be interviewed by Channel Four TV News.
Keep pouring the poison, brainless specimen.
I assumed it was a tongue-in-cheek comment.
You might be right, Deb – i’m a foreigner and i still have this “Brits don’t whine” stereotype in my head, largely formed by literature. I agree though it’s not quite the case anymore, esp. since New Labour decided to abolish the stiff upper lip.
I grew up watching films featuring brave cowboys and thought Americans were great. I have been greatly disillusioned since as a lot of them certainly know how to whine with due respect to those who don’t. I think it is all this rights thing. I know my rights and me me me talk.
Southerners, maybe.
No not southerners. A lot of countries in the west have their proportion of whiners and also their share of brave people as well. With regard to the developing world they have less whiners because they are not allowed to whine because of the many dictators there are and lack of free speech although they may whine privately and have more reason to. Once they get here they do whine after a while when they are told what rights they have from the PC class.
After a very short while, and if the whine isn’t catered for promptly enough, they burn down the accommodation.
Iâve also lived in many countries, and I donât find the English to be whiney, no more or less than any other nations anyway. The English are cynical, which I think could be confused with complaining but on the whole I donât think weâre any better or worse than anybody else
Utter rubbish, you make such a sweeping statement and probably havenât been further than youâre own front door.
Okaaay..but if England is “the least whiney culture on the planet” (perhaps you meant to say in the WEST), whence cometh the expression “whingeing Poms” in the colonies?
An Australian expression therefore of no consequence.
She is American and therefore more likely to be culturally immature; she has some ‘black’ ancestry and therefore excels in self-righteous victimhood; she has had some tinseltown fame and desires more; she is graceless and silly with no respect for the feelings of anyone but herself, and Harry as long as he is useful, maybe; and she is a blight on the Royal Family and by extension, so is he.
Time to cut the ties which do not bind.
This reductive storyline is the logical conclusion. I can only imagine the intimate dryness that would prompt such schadenfreude.
The other conclusion is that an attractive prince to the future king willfully committed himself to a Black American woman and wants to protect her from his motherâs fate.
To fantastical to entertain!
And you are the one talking about “internalised misogyny”, eh, Gallego?
Wash your mouth out.
I donât what youâre referring to. Youâll have to spell it out for me.
Yes, from Carrie Symonds to Meghan Markle to Kamala Harris to Ursula von der Leyen. And that’s just the females.
You forgot the Queen of them all, greta. She at least has the excuse of being an actual teenager
So now we’re giving abuse to teenagers as well? At least it’s equal opportunities hate…
I am sure you would not have made that comment had greta been championing a right wing cause, say replacement.
Replacement of what?
I would criticise anyone as ill informed as she is whichever side they were promoting.
Whenever Greta appears I replace her with the mute button.
Stupid, you miss an intelligent young person. The opposite of those who write comments here. Are you adults?
Oh come on – the laugh alone was worth an upvote.
No use expecting a sense of humour, Johnny, you’re on Unherd!
Not really. It’s not big or clever to mock kids.
Blah..no ones off limits…take it or leave it. World’s a tough place.
Grow up – if you put yourself out there and lecture adults about how awful we are then you can expect some back
Some of the “adults” commenting here could do with a lecture from their mothers, judging by the childish level of insults.
And when did it become OK for a crowd that complains about “virtue signalling” to pile on in an exercise of what seems awfully like “hate signalling”? How is that better?
Pray! Donât slander children by comparing them lol.
Greta is demanding that tens of millions of teengers, though not herself obviously, by thrown back into poverty in the name of the pseudo-religion of climatism.
Being young is no excuse for offering up millions of people’s futures as a blood sacrifice to your own, special god.
I donât agree. Youth really is a time to be stupid and take dumb risks.. Where it went off the rails was when the journalists took little Greta seriously. That same profession is where the two, formerly royal, airheads get all their support.
Most youth seem to always go though a rebellion stage. When I was young it was teddy boys, then skinheads, then punks. You name it. Thankfully most of them mature by the time they are thirty. What is frightening is that a certain left wing party wants to give the vote to younger and younger people.
Thatâs there only hope now the red wall is blue! I just hope they donât put Jeremy Corbyn on kids tv.
My thoughts exactly. I blush when I think of the opinions I held as a teenager and well into my twenties. Fortunately, although the adults in my life listened, they argued against my more outlandish views and gave me food for thought. Unfortunately, today, teenagers such as Greta are treated like modern day Sibyls by adults who should know better or are just too frightened to speak out.
Is that what used to be called the Global Warming Deception?
Paul Iâve got to say thatâs a good line but you know the expression….if the cap fits……
I think teenagers are allowed to whine as they’re growing up. For the rest there;s no excuse
Donât put Greta or Harris in the same category as MM or Ursula
Why not?
And autistic, apparently.
ASPERGERS…no empathy nor compassion.
Little wonder what then drives someone without empathy or compassion to passionately protest to save the planet and our collective future.
People with Aspergers donât lack empathy or compassion. A simple Google search refuted this.
10% of the population lack empathy. That group overlays the autism group in part. The rest of the autistic population do not lack empathy but they may possibly show it in a slightly different way.
I blame the parents!
Strange that you chose to single out “the females”. A touch of misogyny perhaps?
Not really. It’s just that the starting point for the discussion was M M. Among current male adolescent leaders/politicians I would include Macron, Trudeau, Salvini (to some extent), Drakeford, Trump (to some extent). Newsom, Cuomo, de Blasio, and I’m sure there are many others.
I think Drakeford is on the way out. I had a call from the Labour Party yesterday – for Covid reasons they are canvassing for the election by telephone this year. The first question was, “How do you rate Drakeford’s handling of the Covid 19 pandemic?” You can imagine that the average answer will be about 2/10. Why ask that question at the start of the canvassing?
Sorry, who even is this Drakeford? I’ve never heard of him / her.
I assume you mean it. The leader of the Welsh Assembly.
Oh yeah…right.
Yes, the Drakeford who wanted to pause the vaccinations in Wales because they would soon run out, leaving the vaccinators with nothing to do…..forget the unvaccinated who might die in the meantime.
In London, all we get is the BBC “Love-in-we’re-all-Comrades-now-especially-the-dreadful-SALFORD-people” and NICOLA STURGEON v Alex Salmond who both, quite franckly, needs horse-whipping.
I’d horsewhip them myself but I don’t have a horse! (Thank you Groucho – I’ll get my coat!)
Exactly…Ich habe keine ahnung wo er ist??
no, don’t include Trump with that lot,
Trump was instinctively opposed to so much of the empty nonsense that macron, trudeau, newsom, cuomo, de blasio, stand fot.
I agree. But all too often he was unable to adjust his behaviour and demeanour to match the substance of his beliefs, policies, and achievements.
Yes, really. During basic military training, women are referred to as âfemales.â Noticeably, they donât refer to the men as âmales.â
Itâs a way to break women down by referring to their sex (reproductive capabilities) as opposed to the gender which is a social construct. The Air Force, at least, has removed this practice because itâs misogynistic.
But nice try.
Good to have you on line because it is another angle, different from the super-male contributors to UnHerd
Oh gawd pass the sick bucket – this platform gets more like Facebook every time I join
Thatâs because they are all deserting Facebook and need some mature conversation!
I’m always mistaken for a male online. I always take it as a compliment. Nobody ever would mistake me for a male offline – if they did i would be quite outraged, then looked for a mirror to check if i somehow turned into an ogre overnight.
You’ll find that a large amount of those “super-male contributors” you speak of are actually females on any site’s comment sections.
I must stop using irony. I am obviously not good at it.
Woops, sorry! Had an aspie moment. Which means you’re actually very good at irony, the best irony being not instantly recognisable.
Given you an upvote and tried to give myself a due downvote but the system won’t allow the latter.
If Iâd venture a theory: itâs the aggressive stance that presumes your gender as a man.
Sexist expectations means people find it challenging to accept that women can be as aggressive as men.
Well, some groups of women over others, which in part explains the armchair speculation and barrage of insults toward Megan like she personally ruined Xmas morning or wrote you a bad check.
But perhaps Megan is all you say she is and it just takes one to know one?
Side note: Women who internalize misogyny tend to be proud for being on par with âthe guys.â Itâs very Thatcher-esque.
Are you usually on Facebook….
.you seem so sad and angry?
Did you vote for Thatcher?
You mean “women who disagree with people who also happen to be women”?
I said what I said. And I meant what I said.
Haha, that got you stumped.
..
Mind your language chaps there are ladies present.
As a lady i strongly approve of the general tone of the language here.
“Itâs a way to break women down by referring to their sex (reproductive capabilities) as opposed to the gender which is a social construct.”
Ridiculous, they don’t need to refer to the males as ‘males’: it would be superfluous: they have already made the distinction/split they mean to make by calling the females ‘females’ so everyone knows who needs to do what.
Basic military training:
Women âFix your hat, female!â
Men: âFix your hat, trainee!â
Men are referred to by rank. Women by sex. Not by everyone or all the time but itâs definitely a thing whereas the opposite is not.
Iâm ex-Air Force. Nobody will refer to you as a âfemaleâ when speaking to you after basic. You will be referred to by your last name or your rank.
The military is the most hypermasculine institution, so itâs unsurprising that women experience sexual assault and harassment disproportionately higher than in the general population.
It follows then that different levels of misogyny exists subtly – and overtly – within systemics.
Calling women âfemalesâ while not doing the same for men is one example.
Really ? so the military never say male and female soldiers
Basic military training:
Women âFix your hat, female!â
Men: âFix your hat, trainee!â
Men are referred to by rank. Women by sex. Not by everyone or all the time but itâs definitely a thing whereas the opposite is not.
Iâm ex-Air Force. Nobody will refer to you as a âfemaleâ when speaking to you after basic. You will be referred to by your last name or your rank.
Are you really, truly, that upset and resentful?
Is this where you advise me to go back to Facebook or Twitter or where I came from or whatever zinger people default to when they want to deflect from the point?
That’s a very antisemitic thing to say.
Gain reading comprehension skills or stop being deliberately obtuse.
Are you an aspie, a bame, or a member of the hard left? Those groups lack even the most basic concept of humour.
Looks like I got it right !
But gender is not a social construct, honey.
Gender is what a German table and a French chair have.
Legs!!! I always knew that legs are nothing but grammatical constructs… esp. when i get legless and my grammar is slurred.
And neutral is what a girl is in German!
Sidenote because Iâm a linguistics nerd: itâs interesting how if a noun is deemed masculine, it becomes a cultural signifier for strength. The opposite its gender is feminine.
So âbridgeâ has a strong or delicate/weak connotation, depending on the language. Gendering nouns shapes how people describe the world differently.
One can argue English is more egalitarian than other languages but gender is in the subtext because we detest being direct.
Oh my god Linnette you need to get back on Facebook or twitter!
I deleted my Facebook years ago. I donât have a Twitter account.
Iâm afraid youâre stuck with me. Do you need a cold compress or smelling salts?
No thatâs ok we donât mind you staying with the grown ups!
And that’s probably why all sorts of machinery is referred to in the feminine case in English. Tractors, tanks, gunboats, big badabumm fast cars, submarines, stuff like that. They all have the ‘she‘ pronoun.
LOL
Because it promotes the ideology as women as objects to be steered /driven/ or otherwise commanded.
Because you really tried, if you want a Zoom link to the college course my friend teaches on sociolinguistics, let me know.
Sociolinguistics ROFLMAO!!
I’m very tempted, because her other course on heptagendered menstrual dancing in subsaharan suburban slums went totally viral on Guido, we were laughing our ar$es off for the whole December.
However, i most regretfully decline your kind offer. Work & stuff, y’see. So little time, so much to do…
Another ridiculous subject.
Eh !!!
Gender is a social construct and itâs not entirely.
Iâll pass on reciprocating with âsweetieâ, âsugarplumâ, or some other know-your-place aggression zinger.
Neither one of us are experts on sex and gender. Both of us can bring whatever research that supports our position to the table but thatâs deflecting from the original articleâs premise.
There you go again, calling people “zinger”. There’s a giant swastika-shaped chip on your shoulder, pet, you may want to do something about it.
Stop being lazy.
zing·er
/ËziNGÉr/
Learn to pronounce
nounINFORMALâąNORTH AMERICAN
a striking or amusing remark.
“open a speech with a zinger”
an outstanding person or thing.
“a zinger of a shot”
Definitions from Oxford Languag
ROFL.
Have you just typed all that out.
Well done. Look, here’s a sticker. It’s MrSmiley!!
Not entirely what??
No, gender is not a ‘social construct’. In certain senses it can be a grammatical construct.
You come across as devastatingly ignorant. And agitated too.
Yawn
Intelligent response
Oh lLinnette….get a grip…. Iâm a woman, whereâs your sense of humour?
Youâre right. Let me get a grip and a sense of humor
because you, one single alleged woman, disagrees with me.
I checked my bills and as I suspected – I donât owe you anything. Bad-dum tsh.
How was that?
You will find that many more than “one single alleged” woman disagrees with you. You represent an infinitesimally small but hilariously defective minority opinion.
And what’s up with the “alleged”?
Because itâs the internet and people are anonymous.
She was the only person at the time in this comment section who disagreed with me.
Nowhere did I assert that she is the only person in the world who disagreed with me. With 7 billion people on the planet, thatâd be a bizarre claim.
I think youâll find there are millions of women disagree with you
Really?
Boris in some senses
Trudeau never left the classroom
Never learned anything there either.
Out of interest which category would you place our beloved Scottish FM?
Cranky.
Gargoyle.
Justin Trudeau is HOT. His Derriere was even more popular than Pippa Middletons!
I thought the conversation was about females. A kind of ‘little princess’ psychology beingh discussed. Shocking isn’t it, that we might single out women!! Ooh, the outrage!
I don’t feel I have to go round constantly proving that I’m not a misogynist, not a racist, etc. Funny that isn’t it.
Sadly that day has passed. As men, we are inately and irredeemably mysogonists. As non BAME we are inately and irredeemably racist. The language of Woke does not see any way we can avoid or mitigate these sins. No discussion is possible because no common framework exists. It is a Differend not a Difference.
The first step to recovery is admittance.
Good luck!
Don’t be silly. Plenty of white men are neither racist nor misogynist. Whether you yourself are is entirely up to you and the choices you make.
Whoosh.
His admirably sarcastic point (I believe) was that white men are routinely being labelled as “irredeemably racist and misogynist”, and that he isn’t guilty of that.
I’m sceptical of the general claim (none but a minority of hyper-feminist cranks make such accusations). And I sometimes find that those who rapidly deflect to claims that all men (or white people) are routinely labelled as misogynist (or racist) are the ones who themselves have been called out for just such speech. Not accusing Peter of that, mind! I’m sure he’s a perfectly decent sort.
The fact that you don’t have to do these things is the whole point. Not really funny because the modern way has left you behind.
That will be the modern ‘woke’ way of the identity politics pushers, I presume; the uber racists who deplore racism, the uber sexists who deplore sexism etc. etc ad nauseam.
“the modern way has left you behind”
Classic ageist comment of course. Don’t trouble yourself over it. I forgive you.
Or you, rather. The silly seventies have passed quite some while ago. We’re all altright these days. Do keep up.
More than a touch
Get off your woke high horse – this is about MM who happens to be An unpleasant female person
I’m a female, Paul. If there was a touch of misogyny in there, i’d have detected it. There wasn’t.
Unless of course you’re singling me out to accuse me of committing misogyny.
good lumping together, let us all add a few more attention-seeking virtue-signalers
I would add \AOC (as she hates to be known) to that list. Watch her performance re the Capitol Hill event to see a devastatingly accurate impression of an hysterical 18 year old from a 34 year old.
Ouch. Misogyny doesn’t strengthen your case.
So pointing out the fact there are some despicable individuals out there who happen to be female is misogyny- and youâve just commented about whiners- dear me
Women can be as aggressive as men.
Well not quite.
Women lack the powerholding positions in state affairs and the commercial C-Suite. Also the financial resources and time (caregiving tends to soak up disposable time for dastardly deeds) to truly rival men on the continuum of horror and aggression.
But weâre getting there! đ
What country do you live in, Uganda, Pakistan, or? Genuinely curious.
I agree. I am a woman and canât stand the âme tooâ brigade! I have never understood the need to be better than a man, especially in this day of the social media morons who demand equality….isnât that conflict of interest? As for Megan Markle it was obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense, what exactly her ambitions were. As lovely as Harry is or was, I donât think she would have crossed the road for him if he had been an âasdaâ worker! Apologies to all Asda workers.
I presume you might be referring to the Swedish teenage parrot who has even been proposed for a Nobel Prize, after all, she has been granted an audience with the President of the United States, Obama the 3rd. or was it the other way around????
A little bit. But more how news media, social media, and the education and entertainment industry have conformed themselves to those types of silly sensibilities.
So we have misogynistic ageism and a non-clinical psychiatric diagnosis.
You are referencing âpeopleâ for both Harry and Meghan yet chose to label two people explicitly as ânarcissistic teenage girls.â
Girls are always more morally depraved than a teenage boy, I suppose. Nothing more hysterical and untrustworthy than a teenage girl.
Do you have the ability to critique without employing tired labels and their biased tropes?
My understanding of Meghan’s character has come from reading comments and analysis from several women commentators, all of whom agree that she is a manipulative narcissist. If it is misogynistic to describe her as this, then there are a good number of women who are also misogynists.
When it comes down to pure wickedness, vindictiveness, manipulation, jealousy and narcissism – females top the league hands down over men, who are largely too blind to see through them. I speak as an elderly white female who has encountered many such women over the years. Hence why most women if asked would prefer a male boss.
How do you know what anyone would think unless they were asked?
Brava! We own an SME that employs older women and gay men. It is a perfect mix!