Celebrities

Amazing how they’re wrong about everything here

I get the idea that they wanted to stop being Royals in order to make money in order to be able to speak out on divisive issues:

Striking a familiar tone with the fully vaccinated crowd in New York, the Duke, dressed in a suit jacket and open necked shirt, said: “Guys, we have what we need to vaccinate the world.

“But the experts told us: here’s what’s getting in the way. They said many countries are ready to produce vaccines back home yet they aren’t allowed to because ultra-wealthy pharmaceutical companies are not sharing the recipes to make them.

“These countries have the means, the abilities and the workers to start manufacturing. All they are waiting for is the vaccine intellectual property to be waived and the vaccine technology to be transferred over.

“And by the way, many of these vaccines were publicly funded. They are your vaccines. You paid for them.”

The Duchess asked people to think about the vaccine doses that have expired and been thrown away.

“That’s like throwing away life vests when those around you are drowning,” she said.

The astonishment is that they wrong about everything when they do speak out.

Take the Duchess there. Getting vaccines into arms is, everywhere, a government thing. Making vaccines is, most places, a private sector thing. If there are vaccines being wasted in the process of getting into arms then that shows that the private sector is making more vaccines than governments can deal with. This is not evidence of a failure of the private sector now, is it?

As to the Duke. No. Every factory that is capable of making these vaccines is making these vaccines. Everyone who can use the intellectual property has access to it. The lack is in manufacturing capacity, nothing else.

The glory of markets

Michaela Coel has accused Netflix of “exploitation” by offering $1 million (£725,000) for her television series, I May Destroy You, but not allowing her to own a percentage of the copyright.

The writer and actress turned down the streaming site and took her drama to the BBC, after which it went on to win two Baftas and receive nine Emmy Award nominations.

Isn’t it wonderful to have a multiplicity of buyers for your product? So that if one offers terms you don’t like then there’s another with which to treat?

Also, who the fuck is Michaela Coel and what in buggery is “I May Destroy You”?

But this is also entirely true about Monty Python

It’s true about pretty much any TV sketch, comedy or entertainment show:

Asked what he thought of Monty Python, Eric Morecambe joked that he liked the opening and the finish. “It’s the bit in the middle I don’t like.”

Ernie Wise added: “At times there’s five or six minutes of utter boredom. And then there’s three minutes of very funny and then another eight minutes of boredom.”

Morecambe, in a towelled robe and holding a large cigar, said: “The way I feel about it is that it’s, what they give you, for want of a better expression, is university comedy. Or college comedy or whatever you want to call it. And that’s what they give you. And I’m afraid a lot of it is very unprofessional. And this irritates me being a professional.

“But what does make me laugh, really makes me laugh. And what doesn’t make me laugh, bores me stiff.”

Anyone who thinks that every moment of every MP TV show was golden wit is an idiot. There are some delightful gems in there, entirely so. Also some entire shite. Which is how the creative process goes of course.

The reason movies are often better – not just MP, but in general – is because they cost much more to make. Meaning that the script gets more of a going over. At least an attempt is made to excise the dross and create the tapestry purely from the gold.

Every family has one

The one who causes quiet sighs of relief when they announces they’ll not be turning up for the wedding/funeral/christening.

Members of the Royal family were “quietly pleased” that the Duchess of Sussex missed Prince Philip’s funeral because they feared she would “create a spectacle” if she attended, a biography claims.

This isn’t because every family has a Meghan, thank the lord. Rather, because by definition any group has someone on the edge of what that group considers to be comfy, cosy and acceptable. That’s what a group means, that there’s some shared whatever. And natural variation will mean that some are more or less in accord with that shared. Thus any such group will have someone testing the outer boundaries. Who those more cosy with the ingroup find too testing and therefore grateful they’re not coming.

Then of course there are ageing bit part actresses which is another matter entirely.

Getting Paris Hilton wrong

Think of Ghislaine Maxwell, always erroneously described as an heiress, as if that explained her incarceration in a New York jail, or the tabloid pages devoted to the misfortunes of the Ecclestone sisters, Paris Hilton, Christina Onassis and, before that, Doris Duke and Barbara Hutton. The only good heiress, it seems, is an unhappy one.

Not that I exactly carry a torch for Paris and yet. Yes, there are trust funds there. Yes, she will inherit. And yet. She’s also gone out and made her own fortune – by playing the role of the heiress.

I don’t know the current position but a few years back it was definitely true that her own, made, money was greater than what she’d inherited. At some point – those trust funds – it won’t be true. At least I assume so.

Hilton has, in fact, played a blinder. Taking this image desired, of the unhappy heiress, and using it to become rich. Comparative advantage…..

Ghastly Americanisms

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex believe that the Queen failed to take “full ownership” of the race allegations made in their Oprah Winfrey interview, according to the authors of an unauthorised biography.

A friend of the couple told Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, the authors of Finding Freedom, that the Queen’s lack of action had prevented them from moving forward.

The source also suggested that the Queen’s assertion that “recollections may vary” about their claims had not gone down well.

To “take ownership” is to say “Yep, happened, sorry about that, my fault, won’t happen again”.

As that’s not what Brenda is going to do over vague allegations that someone wondered what colour a quadroon was going to be then that’s not what she’s going to do, is it?

Bollocks

Meghan and Prince Harry discussed moving to New Zealand in 2018, governor general says
Patsy Reddy says couple said they could ‘imagine living in a place like this’ during their visit

Or perhaps a very short conversation indeed.

Anyone really see her living that far from Hollywood?

Erm

Public urged not to turn new Diana memorial statue into a shrine

Isn’t this rather the point?

OK, praying for the intercession of the Princess of Our Hearts might be a little de trop – although I can see some trying it, even some claims of miracles – but the aim and purpose of a statue is so that folks have that focal point of worship remembrance, isn’t it?

Actually, there’s a fun campaign. Do the Anglicans still canonise? If they do, how does one organise the attempt, the claim?

Step by step with the plan

The Duchess of Sussex has revealed that she hid references to Diana, Princess of Wales in her new children’s book.

The Bench, which was inspired by Prince Harry’s relationship with the couple’s two-year-old son Archie, includes illustrations of Princess Diana’s favourite flower, forget-me-nots.

As sales flag again then there will be another revelation of summat or other. And then again and……it’s all just so planned, isn’t it?

Presumably the last page has Phil renting a white Fiat Uno……

I wonder which one Melanie?

Of course, it’s possible that the Sussexes believed they were paying the Queen the highest compliment in choosing this name. But it’s hard not to conclude that at least one of them was doing something similar to what my old editor had done — unconsciously and almost reflexively using their baby’s name as a form of manipulative power-play.

I’m finding it very hard to work out which one that could be……

Presentational determinism

Or perhaps lookism.

Now, really, think on it. No doubt a lovely lad and loves his football and a pint. And yet if, sight unseen, you were asked to draw a picture of the youngest Mastermind winner ever you’d come up with……..

Well, yes. But which determines which? The brains the looks or…..

Umm, Willy?

It was a Monday evening in early 2004 when a group of Europhiles and Europhobes gathered for a Buckingham Palace dinner at the Duke of Edinburgh’s invitation. We were there to discuss the proposed treaty for a European constitution, just written and whose ratification across Europe was about to begin. I had been one of 12 European “thinkers” who had made joint recommendations on what European values should be in its preamble, hence my presence. What followed was one of the most surreal evenings of my life, brought to mind by the three German princes the Duke of Edinburgh insisted should attend yesterday’s funeral.

I’m Willy the Hutton I am, I am. See how the mighty seek my views.

Three of the Europhobe contingent then joined him, banging the table and shouting “No to Europe” with such force that the red-jacketed butlers stood back from serving – even the duke looked nonplussed.

Do even the Royals have multiple butlers? Serving at table, in red?

Waiters possibly, footmen even, but butlers?

Or does Willy not know the difference despite his being so sought in the corridors of power? Or perhaps it’s me?

Doesn’t work this way

The Queen married a man with more royal blood than her own – a circumstance unlikely to be repeated in royal history

OK, arguable – her Poppa was actually King after all – but take it as true.

The Queen and Prince Philip were both born of royal blood – but none of their children or grandchildren married royals

That’s why it’s more likely in the future. Or, at least, more possible.

The more the British royal family marry commoners then the more likely it is that if one of them does marry into the prince/princess circuit then that incomer will have more royal blood…….

Err, yes?

It was claimed that Meghan, 39, had expressed frustration that despite the litany of damaging revelations made before a television audience of millions, no member of the Royal Family had yet contacted her to discuss them.

Why would they? You’ve left, they don’t care, and?