I myself am far too nervous to take this as anything too hopeful, encouraging though it is to read about. This, from Jamelle Bouie in today's NYT, muses on the result.
russell's uncle Charlie doesn't sound the least bit superficial to me. He sounds like someone formed (as most of us are) by his life experiences, for better and worse. We don't know too much about how his particular combination of beliefs came about, which would certainly be interesting and useful in trying to make sense of the world, but the upside of that is that he and his nephew/godson continued to have an affectionate and joyful time with each other for many decades. And, at least in my opinion, affection and joy between good people weigh heavily on the desirable side of the balance in a dark and worrying world.
russell, I've been thinking about this post all day. Given that Charlie died at 90, and you are almost 70, I couldn't help wondering whether, at some stage of your young to later manhood, you ever tried to find out how such an otherwise lovely person conceptualised his political opinions, and expressed what was important to him. Obviously, you wouldn't have wanted to fight with him, or make him (or yourself) feel bad, and maybe you never went there. And maybe you wouldn't want to go into it now either, in which case fair enough. But if you ever did discuss it, delicately or not (in my family we never argued delicately, but argumentation was considered an unavoidable part of life and we never questioned our love for each other), and if you felt like giving an idea of the discussions, that would be very interesting indeed.
Charlie and his wife (and the rest of them) sound like wonderful people. It's so valuable to hear the specifics, and to be reminded (and one needs to be reminded) that people are complicated, and that they contain multitudes. Sometimes, like in that old Dirk Bogarde movie, you have to focus on the singer not the song.
I have to admit I was very curious to know what Usha thinks of this when I saw the video, particularly because when he first rose to prominence as possible VP pick all the stuff about her seemed to show that she was a) bright and b) fairly liberal. It's a mystery.
But yes, his response to that amazingly brave student shows how sneaky and tricksy he is in evading questions, and turning them round to say exactly whatever populist claptrap will play best with his audience, and how well that plays with such audiences. Horrifying is exactly the right word. And, as nous upthread remarks, very reminiscent of Charlie Kirk.
There are two weeks between Andrew's statement, and the Palace's. They must have thought the former would do enough - but subsequent public disquiet about Andrew's lies about the timeline, and (if my reaction is anything to go by) disgust at his sanctimonious claim to be acting as always in the interest of the country, in addition to the release of Giuffre's book, clearly made it necessary to cut him loose.
You can't help wondering how some of the other people who "played" with Epstein are feeling about this. Interestingly, Giuffre's brother and SIL, and the other Epstein victim interviewed on Newsnight, were all very approving of and grateful for the King's behaviour in this. I wonder whether this will to a large extent lance the boil, at least over here and regarding the Royal Fam.
The statement from Buckingham Palace in full: His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew.
Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence.
Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation.
These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him . Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.
FYI The last person to be de-princed was the Duke of Cumberland, who fought for the Kaiser in WW1, so treason, and the last person to have his KG removed (Knight of the Garter) was Emperor Hirohito in WW2.
Well, Andrew is now Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, and is being moved from his huge house on the Windsor estate to a (presumably) smaller house much further from London, on the Sandringham estate. There appears to be no precedent for this, and the interview with Virginia Giuffre's brother and sister-in-law (who are both in tears) is very moving. It's my impression that most people in the UK are perfectly satisfied with this.
I feel pretty much the same as wonkie just upthread. Maybe it's age-related in me, I can hear the clave when it is isolated out, but actually in the music I don't hear it. On the other hand, that doesn't stop me really enjoying the music, and if I didn't feel so under the weather I might even have danced around the room a bit!
Oh my God, the surprise of seeing your own video explanation, russell! I wish you could have seen my smile of pleasure and delight to see you and hear you sounding as cool, knowledgeable and just plain nice as you do in writing! Thank you! And I have just watched, also with great pleasure, the Rumba en Atares guaguanco video too, what a mood enhancer. I'm going to hold off on watching the rest because I'm pretty flu-ridden, and need to go lie down, but I'm on for it tomorrow.
On the Robert Palmer piece I searched for lj, I definitely did as thorough a search as I could. But on the other hand, I also definitely have limited ability in these kinds of things (as I have proved to myself many times), so somebody else with an NYT sub (or more advanced google-fu) might do better. I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
ps You can see every page of the Book of Kells in high res in TCD's Digital Collection - i can't remember where I learnt this years ago, but it might well have been here!
I love the book of Kells! Did you see the Long Room? It's the platonic ideal...I'm down with a very grim flu, so nothing interesting to report I'm afraid.
All of that said, from this side of the pond the UK royals seem to have this weird dichotomony between the ones who are actually king or queen (or in line to be), and who seem to take the responsibilities of their office seriously, and the rest of the family, who end up having too much money and privilege and not enough to do so they end up behaving badly.
Well, not always by a long shot. Princess Anne is an absolute workhorse, carries out more duties than any of the others and is much admired by the majority of the public. She also refused to let her two children be given titles. And Edward the VIII was the opposite in every way. In the current generation of the King's sibs, Prince Edward (now Duke of Edinburgh) and his wife appear to have come rather dutifully good. It's a weird old system, for sure. But even republicans of my acquaintance, looking at e.g. Trump, have started shuddering at the idea of an elected head of state.
wj, I seem to have mastered the italics and bold thing: you put your text in as normal, then highlight whichever text you want to alter, and then press the relevant button along the bottom. And then you exit the text and it lasts.
Andrew is a very stupid, arrogant, entitled creep. It's perfectly possible he didn't know that Virginia Giuffre was trafficked, he would have assumed that a beautiful young girl wanted to sleep with a handsome prince (he was handsome, I regret to confirm), and if he even knew she was 17 that was above the age of consent here. But his general behaviour, in this issue as in everything else except his military service in the Falklands war, reveals his appalling character, and the most recent revelations that he lied in that BBC interview by claiming he had cut ties with Epstein in 2010, when an email from him to E in 2011 has since come out (dated after the famous photo became public) saying "“Don’t worry about me! It would seem we are in this together and will have to rise above it. Keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon.”
You can imagine how the words I have bolded have landed here. As far as the royals in general are concerned, I think things are in flux. Feeling against Harry and Meghan is somewhat stronger here than in the US, but William and Catherine are regarded pretty favourably, and since William in particular has let it be known that he is implacably against Andrew, won't have him at his coronation, and intends to modernise the monarchy when he is King, I don't see any likelihood of any really significant change any time soon.
God, what a fascinating story. I'd never heard it before - the most they might have said in school (high school) was that Charles V was "a bit erratic". Wonderful illuminations too, if that is what they are.
I think both cleek's and russell's suggestions are necessary, but I also think the Dems have fallen seriously behind in taking the message to the people in other ways. It's a bit like their previous approach to continuing to observe obsolete norms. Talking to various constituencies on the platforms that they use is absolutely necessary. Fox, for example, is almost certainly not where Trump gained his serious advantage with young men in 2024.
I was thinking the other day about that weird time when all of a sudden a subset of the national culture was into CB radio, complete with radios, handles, etc. Making excuses to contact each other just so they could say, “Ten four, good buddy!”
I had a most serious crush on Kris Kristofferson, long before Convoy, (and put up with unacceptable behaviour from one of my tutors at law school - e.g. looking at my chest rather than my face while talking to me - because of his resemblance to KK) but I do wonder if that film also did something to make the whole scene attractive to women, and to men because it was attractive to women. Of course, it was presumably a big thing already for the movie to get made...
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Still I Rise”
I myself am far too nervous to take this as anything too hopeful, encouraging though it is to read about. This, from Jamelle Bouie in today's NYT, muses on the result.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/05/opinion/trump-mamdani-spanberger-sherrill-democrats.html?unlocked_article_code=1.y08.9mv4.Mfkw0tFLN_aL&smid=url-share
On “People and poliltics”
russell's uncle Charlie doesn't sound the least bit superficial to me. He sounds like someone formed (as most of us are) by his life experiences, for better and worse. We don't know too much about how his particular combination of beliefs came about, which would certainly be interesting and useful in trying to make sense of the world, but the upside of that is that he and his nephew/godson continued to have an affectionate and joyful time with each other for many decades. And, at least in my opinion, affection and joy between good people weigh heavily on the desirable side of the balance in a dark and worrying world.
"
russell, I've been thinking about this post all day. Given that Charlie died at 90, and you are almost 70, I couldn't help wondering whether, at some stage of your young to later manhood, you ever tried to find out how such an otherwise lovely person conceptualised his political opinions, and expressed what was important to him. Obviously, you wouldn't have wanted to fight with him, or make him (or yourself) feel bad, and maybe you never went there. And maybe you wouldn't want to go into it now either, in which case fair enough. But if you ever did discuss it, delicately or not (in my family we never argued delicately, but argumentation was considered an unavoidable part of life and we never questioned our love for each other), and if you felt like giving an idea of the discussions, that would be very interesting indeed.
"
The Eddie aspect is even more moving, if that's even the right word. No wonder you miss them.
"
Charlie and his wife (and the rest of them) sound like wonderful people. It's so valuable to hear the specifics, and to be reminded (and one needs to be reminded) that people are complicated, and that they contain multitudes. Sometimes, like in that old Dirk Bogarde movie, you have to focus on the singer not the song.
On “Horrifying stuff”
I have to admit I was very curious to know what Usha thinks of this when I saw the video, particularly because when he first rose to prominence as possible VP pick all the stuff about her seemed to show that she was a) bright and b) fairly liberal. It's a mystery.
But yes, his response to that amazingly brave student shows how sneaky and tricksy he is in evading questions, and turning them round to say exactly whatever populist claptrap will play best with his audience, and how well that plays with such audiences. Horrifying is exactly the right word. And, as nous upthread remarks, very reminiscent of Charlie Kirk.
On “Monarchy in the UK”
There are two weeks between Andrew's statement, and the Palace's. They must have thought the former would do enough - but subsequent public disquiet about Andrew's lies about the timeline, and (if my reaction is anything to go by) disgust at his sanctimonious claim to be acting as always in the interest of the country, in addition to the release of Giuffre's book, clearly made it necessary to cut him loose.
"
You can't help wondering how some of the other people who "played" with Epstein are feeling about this. Interestingly, Giuffre's brother and SIL, and the other Epstein victim interviewed on Newsnight, were all very approving of and grateful for the King's behaviour in this. I wonder whether this will to a large extent lance the boil, at least over here and regarding the Royal Fam.
"
The statement from Buckingham Palace in full:
His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew.
Prince Andrew will now be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.
His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence.
Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation.
These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him
.
Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.
"
lj: yes, but have you seen Buckingham Palace's statement today? A very different tone....
"
FYI The last person to be de-princed was the Duke of Cumberland, who fought for the Kaiser in WW1, so treason, and the last person to have his KG removed (Knight of the Garter) was Emperor Hirohito in WW2.
"
Well, Andrew is now Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, and is being moved from his huge house on the Windsor estate to a (presumably) smaller house much further from London, on the Sandringham estate. There appears to be no precedent for this, and the interview with Virginia Giuffre's brother and sister-in-law (who are both in tears) is very moving. It's my impression that most people in the UK are perfectly satisfied with this.
On “Weekend music thread #03 Rhumba and the clave”
I feel pretty much the same as wonkie just upthread. Maybe it's age-related in me, I can hear the clave when it is isolated out, but actually in the music I don't hear it. On the other hand, that doesn't stop me really enjoying the music, and if I didn't feel so under the weather I might even have danced around the room a bit!
"
Oh my God, the surprise of seeing your own video explanation, russell! I wish you could have seen my smile of pleasure and delight to see you and hear you sounding as cool, knowledgeable and just plain nice as you do in writing! Thank you! And I have just watched, also with great pleasure, the Rumba en Atares guaguanco video too, what a mood enhancer. I'm going to hold off on watching the rest because I'm pretty flu-ridden, and need to go lie down, but I'm on for it tomorrow.
On the Robert Palmer piece I searched for lj, I definitely did as thorough a search as I could. But on the other hand, I also definitely have limited ability in these kinds of things (as I have proved to myself many times), so somebody else with an NYT sub (or more advanced google-fu) might do better. I wouldn't be a bit surprised.
On “Something Different”
ps You can see every page of the Book of Kells in high res in TCD's Digital Collection - i can't remember where I learnt this years ago, but it might well have been here!
"
I love the book of Kells! Did you see the Long Room? It's the platonic ideal...I'm down with a very grim flu, so nothing interesting to report I'm afraid.
On “Monarchy in the UK”
All of that said, from this side of the pond the UK royals seem to have this weird dichotomony between the ones who are actually king or queen (or in line to be), and who seem to take the responsibilities of their office seriously, and the rest of the family, who end up having too much money and privilege and not enough to do so they end up behaving badly.
Well, not always by a long shot. Princess Anne is an absolute workhorse, carries out more duties than any of the others and is much admired by the majority of the public. She also refused to let her two children be given titles. And Edward the VIII was the opposite in every way. In the current generation of the King's sibs, Prince Edward (now Duke of Edinburgh) and his wife appear to have come rather dutifully good. It's a weird old system, for sure. But even republicans of my acquaintance, looking at e.g. Trump, have started shuddering at the idea of an elected head of state.
"
Also, I really miss the preview button too!
"
wj, I seem to have mastered the italics and bold thing: you put your text in as normal, then highlight whichever text you want to alter, and then press the relevant button along the bottom. And then you exit the text and it lasts.
"
Andrew is a very stupid, arrogant, entitled creep. It's perfectly possible he didn't know that Virginia Giuffre was trafficked, he would have assumed that a beautiful young girl wanted to sleep with a handsome prince (he was handsome, I regret to confirm), and if he even knew she was 17 that was above the age of consent here. But his general behaviour, in this issue as in everything else except his military service in the Falklands war, reveals his appalling character, and the most recent revelations that he lied in that BBC interview by claiming he had cut ties with Epstein in 2010, when an email from him to E in 2011 has since come out (dated after the famous photo became public) saying "“Don’t worry about me! It would seem we are in this together and will have to rise above it. Keep in close touch and we’ll play some more soon.”
You can imagine how the words I have bolded have landed here. As far as the royals in general are concerned, I think things are in flux. Feeling against Harry and Meghan is somewhat stronger here than in the US, but William and Catherine are regarded pretty favourably, and since William in particular has let it be known that he is implacably against Andrew, won't have him at his coronation, and intends to modernise the monarchy when he is King, I don't see any likelihood of any really significant change any time soon.
On “Bal des Ardents”
Good heavens, Pro Bono, I very much hope that is not a description of your own state of mind!
"
God, what a fascinating story. I'd never heard it before - the most they might have said in school (high school) was that Charles V was "a bit erratic". Wonderful illuminations too, if that is what they are.
On “Politics thread”
I think both cleek's and russell's suggestions are necessary, but I also think the Dems have fallen seriously behind in taking the message to the people in other ways. It's a bit like their previous approach to continuing to observe obsolete norms. Talking to various constituencies on the platforms that they use is absolutely necessary. Fox, for example, is almost certainly not where Trump gained his serious advantage with young men in 2024.
"
lj, thanks for lengthening the Recent Posts list, and also for sorting out my link!
On “The South shall writhe again”
I was thinking the other day about that weird time when all of a sudden a subset of the national culture was into CB radio, complete with radios, handles, etc. Making excuses to contact each other just so they could say, “Ten four, good buddy!”
I had a most serious crush on Kris Kristofferson, long before Convoy, (and put up with unacceptable behaviour from one of my tutors at law school - e.g. looking at my chest rather than my face while talking to me - because of his resemblance to KK) but I do wonder if that film also did something to make the whole scene attractive to women, and to men because it was attractive to women. Of course, it was presumably a big thing already for the movie to get made...
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.