The Royal Family

[Genie]

4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

 

Problem I have with this  ( well that's not the correct word as I really don't care about Schofield and Holly )  is that they appear to have been there working , didn't file past the queens coffin or jump any queue 

but social media  got a hold and everyone got outraged and nobody is interested in the truth  .. I'd imagine webuyanycar will drop Schofield quietly some time soon , hes a bit toxic as a brand right about now 

The power of twitter and  stupidity wins again 

 

They were working is the official line being spun by ITV who got them press access… but were they working? They had no crew with them. 

It looks like they abused their positions to get media access and jump the queue.

[tonyh29]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

Quoting viewing figures as some sort of evidence of anything is daft

would you like posters to reply with t-shirt sales figures instead 

in which case the Ramones are bigger than the Pope and the Queen combined    

 

[Panto_Villan]

15 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

The Pope died in 2005 after 20+ years of reign. No/little social media back at the time. Few people had phones. The queen died after 70 years in the time where you wake up to a sound of a tweet. 

I think you are underestimating just how Catholic much of the world is. It's not a quirky old lady on the throne with a Paddington Bear - many catholics actually see the Pope as the direct line to St Peter. He is an actual monarch with actual political and worldwide influence.

The reason the queen was so popular is because she was there for 70 years and because Americans find the whole thing intriguing. 

Anyway, I think that the pope would beat the queen in a fight. 

Yeah, we missed a trick by not skipping Charles really. William or Harry would definitely be better in a cage fight.

You raise an interesting point about internet penetration over the past twenty years, but I don't necessarily think major news travels much faster today than it did back then, because TV was always pretty good at transmitting news. I'm actually trying to find figures about what TV penetration was in 2000 relative to today, because my hunch is that most of the people that have gained internet since 2005 probably already had access to a TV back then. Hard to know without some figures though!

Edited September 20, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[Genie]

1 minute ago, Panto_Villan said:

Yeah, we missed a trick by not skipping Charles really. William or Harry would definitely be better in a cage fight.

You raise an interesting point about internet penetration over the past twenty years, but I don't necessarily think major news travels much faster today than it did back then, because TV was always pretty good at transmitting news. I'm actually trying to find figures about what TV penetration was in 2000 relative to today, because my hunch is that most of the people that have gained internet since 2005 probably already had access to a TV back then. Hard to know without some figures though!

Be careful googling “TV penetration” especially if on a work computer. 

[tonyh29]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

They were working is the official line being spun by ITV who got them press access… but were they working? They had no crew with them. 

It looks like they abused their positions to get media access and jump the queue.

Hmmm 

So ITV say one thing , Twitter says something else and the conclusion is ITV are lying 

time will tell , we've seen how lies have a habit of catching up with people ....  eventually 

[tonyh29]

3 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

You raise an interesting point about internet penetration over the past twenty years, but I don't necessarily think major news travels much faster today than it did back then, because TV was always pretty good at transmitting news. I'm actually trying to find figures about what TV penetration was in 2000 relative to today, because my hunch is that most of the people that have gained internet since 2005 probably already had access to a TV back then. Hard to know without some figures though!

Diana died in 1997 , around 8 years before the Pope  and  various media sources had taken off  ...taking into account that Bicks said you aren't allowed to use TV viewing figures  ,  which one do you think was the more global event  ? 

 

[Jareth]

I once briefly had a meeting with Miss Willoughby and her husband - and I can confirm they are both huge unrepenting words removed. 

[Genie]

4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Hmmm 

So ITV say one thing , Twitter says something else and the conclusion is ITV are lying 

time will tell , we've seen how lies have a habit of catching up with people ....  eventually 

I think it’s all the same story, Holly and Phil got access to the hall without queuing because they had/requested/were given media access. 

There’s no actual evidence I am aware of to suggest they were really working. They had no crew with them. 

So they did jump the queue for no good reason apart from laziness.

Neither has said a word since then either which tells its own story.

Edited September 20, 2022 by Genie

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

would you like posters to reply with t-shirt sales figures instead 

in which case the Ramones are bigger than the Pope and the Queen combined    

 

Nah, obscures the sales of Pope on a Rope

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Diana died in 1997 , around 8 years before the Pope  and  various media sources had taken off  ...taking into account that Bicks said you aren't allowed to use TV viewing figures  ,  which one do you think was the more global event  ? 

 

I don't forbid anything  But TV viewing figures are nothing more than wild estimates. You get more accurate figures from the Met Police over attendance at large political rallies

[Mic09]

8 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Yeah, we missed a trick by not skipping Charles really. William or Harry would definitely be better in a cage fight.

You raise an interesting point about internet penetration over the past twenty years, but I don't necessarily think major news travels much faster today than it did back then, because TV was always pretty good at transmitting news. I'm actually trying to find figures about what TV penetration was in 2000 relative to today, because my hunch is that most of the people that have gained internet since 2005 probably already had access to a TV back then. Hard to know without some figures though!

It's the effect the news have on people - if I told you the pope died, you might say ok, whatever. People would have turned the TV on at 7pm and found out the news. If I pushed the pope's death on you 24/7 for almost 2 weeks you might be more engaged in that information, have Heathrow cancel peoples flights, football cancelling, tesco closing, you might think about the event differently.

The pope is a bigger deal than the British Monarch, at the very least based on the number of 'subjects' they rule over. 

But the monarchy is more 'tweetable'. Diana, Andrew doing his thing, Margareth doing her thing, Phillip throwing jokes around. Now we have Meghan and Harry to carry on the circus. 

There is much less melodrama about the Vatican. Not as cool as doing an interview with Oprah. 

[The Fun Factory]

1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said:

This is one of the interesting things about the "abolish the monarchy" debate - what would the Windsors be left with if they abolished the monarchy?

They were rich and powerful before they ascended the throne - I mean, you don't get to be king / queen unless you're already one of the top dogs. There's plenty of other rich aristocratic families with hereditary wealth floating around, so nobody seriously expects the royals to be left with nothing if we abolished the institution (well, outside VillaTalk). I imagine the arrangement probably would be that the Crown Estate (worth about £15bn) becomes formal property of the UK government while the privately held assets (duchy of lancaster / cornwall worth ~£1.5bn) remain the property of the Windsors. 

So I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that the royals are simply in it for the money. They were rich and privileged before they became royals and they'd be rich and privileged as billionaire private individuals if the country voted to get rid of them.

If you gave me the choice of being the King or just being a plain old billionaire, I'd definitely choose being a standard billionaire. To be honest I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even pick being King over my own life right now. The appeal of being a billionaire to me is the fact I could live a life of freedom, with minimal obligations - which is the exact opposite of being a royal.

Callenberg Castle (ancestral home of the Sax-Coxburg's)?

[tonyh29]

 

39 minutes ago, Genie said:

I think it’s all the same story, Holly and Phil got access to the hall without queuing because they had/requested/were given media access. 

There’s no actual evidence I am aware of to suggest they were really working. They had no crew with them. 

So they did jump the queue for no good reason apart from laziness.

Neither has said a word since then either which tells its own story.

Ok , which one spurned your advances , Holly or Phil  

they were seen interviewing people in the queue , no idea if any of this has been aired though ( I don't watch daytime tv) 

 

This might clear things up (or not ) 

 A parliamentary source told the BBC the pair had been given media accreditation to cover the Queen's lying-in-state as journalists.

Accredited journalists and photographers are then allowed to take photographs and gather reporting material from specific positions in the hall for a set time period, under the guidance from the media centre.

During that time slot, they are escorted to the reporting position, which is on a raised platform on a scaffold at the back of the hall.

In order to get to that area, they stay on the edges of the hall and move quickly round the side of members of the public who are filing past the coffin.

In contrast, members of the public walk along a carpeted area on either side of the coffin and are given time to pause and pay their respects.

Looking at the footage of the presenters this appears to be what happened on Friday - with the two of them seen wearing lilac and grey lanyards with press passes attached to them.

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by tonyh29

[mottaloo]

42 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I once briefly had a meeting with Miss Willoughby and her husband - and I can confirm they are both huge unrepenting words removed. 

Ooooh....do tell 

[Genie]

21 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

 

Ok , which one spurned your advances , Holly or Phil  

they were seen interviewing people in the queue , no idea if any of this has been aired though ( I don't watch daytime tv) 

 

This might clear things up (or not ) 

 

 

It looks like they touched upon it in todays episode. They are going with “we had special permission” not to queue.

Quote

Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield have broken their silence over the criticism they've faced since visiting the Queen's Lying-in-State at Westminster Hall. The This Morning hosts have faced backlash after they were spotted walking past queuing mourners and paying their respects in a different line to the public - which even led to a petition to have the pair axed.

ITV has since been forced to release a statement clarifying they were there in a professional capacity with "press accreditation", insisting: "They did not file past The Queen's coffin", adding: "Any allegations of improper behaviour are categorically untrue."

Holly and Phillip appeared on Tuesday's This Morning after the show took a break so ITVcould cover the Queen's funeral on September 19. They started the episode by addressing the backlash in a VT of the Queen's funeral and Lying-in-State, Holly said: "We were given special permission", adding: "Please know that we would never jump a queue!"

ITV viewers were however not happy with the statement and took to Twitter to vent their anger. Rob Jeffries posted: “We didn’t jump the queue but appreciate how it looked.” Is this year’s “It wasn’t a party but we appreciate how it looked.”

Dave Mackay added: “No Holly you were not given special f****** permission you skipped the queue because you two think you are so important.”

Dave then tweeted again: “Holly, you two are not journalists, you are **** TV presenters, also I didn’t hear a f****** apology?” Emmet said: “Hahaha they’re actually using this as an excuse and trying to justify it.”

Carl Johnson: “We didn’t jump the queue cos we didn’t walk on the carpet....ahh well you should have said.” Paul added: “Quick adverts so we can see if we got away with it.”

It still looks to me like they used a “press accreditation” loophole to get in without queueing. There’s little evidence they were working.

Link

[villa4europe]

How many non instantly recognisable queue jumpers do you think there were? 

Heads of states, politicians, various delegates from around the world

And nobody cares... The whole thing is bullshit, Beckhams wait time increases by an hour every day while them pair didn't bother, people must have seriously good lives if that's one of their main concerns

The silliness isn't going to stop

[Genie]

1 minute ago, villa4europe said:

How many non instantly recognisable queue jumpers do you think there were? 

Heads of states, politicians, various delegates from around the world

And nobody cares... The whole thing is bullshit, Beckhams wait time increases by an hour every day while them pair didn't bother, people must have seriously good lives if that's one of their main concerns

The silliness isn't going to stop

I don’t think it’s anyones main concern of their life.

Just calling out a pair of chancers who tried to take the piss.

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said:

Yeah, we missed a trick by not skipping Charles really. William or Harry would definitely be better in a cage fight.

You raise an interesting point about internet penetration over the past twenty years, but I don't necessarily think major news travels much faster today than it did back then, because TV was always pretty good at transmitting news. I'm actually trying to find figures about what TV penetration was in 2000 relative to today, because my hunch is that most of the people that have gained internet since 2005 probably already had access to a TV back then. Hard to know without some figures though!

What? It travels insanely faster, if something major happens now you know about it within minutes where ever you are in the world. 

[Stevo985]

7 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

What? It travels insanely faster, if something major happens now you know about it within minutes where ever you are in the world. 

Yep

I didn't find out about 9/11 for hours. Couple of rumours went round school but I was basically unaware of what happened for a few hours until i got home.

If that was today I reckon I'd know within a minute

[fightoffyour]

14 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Yep

I didn't find out about 9/11 for hours. Couple of rumours went round school but I was basically unaware of what happened for a few hours until i got home.

If that was today I reckon I'd know within a minute

And certainly quicker than Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan found out.