(no subject)
Mar. 10th, 2023 10:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatIt's funny how human beings generalize about things, neatly putting each other into categories - which no one quite fits inside of.
New gal at work the other day, Jess, was generalizing right and left as was I, now that I think about it.
Me: BYT is A type personality.
Jess: What's that mean?
Me (trying to figure out how to define it): Anal?
Jess: Anal?
Me: Detail oriented, needs to control everything, nit-picky, perfectionist.
Jess: What's her nationality? Is she Hispanic -
Me: No, Persian.
Jess: Because I've noticed that Hispanics are like that -
Me: Not in my experience, they aren't. Seem to run the gamut. But no, BYT is Persian.
Jess: Middle Eastern?
Me: No, more Iran, Iraq, further north, not Middle Eastern, Persia. Totally different.
Jess looks confused.
Jess: When was she born?
Me: She acts like a Leo, but she wasn't born in August. I think sometime in May or June. Kind of Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde personality type.
Jess: Probably Gemini.
Me: Okay.
Sigh.
The educational system in this country is horrific. I want to go smack some teachers upside the head. But, we were both generalizing in our own way.
I think it's a flaw in human thinking personally. And a bad habit I can't seem to shake.
***
Finished The Crown S5 - and ....by the end of it, I felt sorry for Charles, and disliked Elizabeth, who is stuck in her ways. Her insistence that no one get divorced or marry a divorcee, and only marry who she chose for them - and power and control over that - ruined several lives. It was an abuse of power that made everyone including Elizabeth miserable. And it was dictated partly by religious edict and partly by ego.
She finally stopped pushing it - after Diana died. Megan was a divorcee, and she permitted Harry to marry Megan. She finally had learned from her mistakes. All her children were divorced. Both Ann and Charles finally remarried a person they loved.
Oh, The Crown clarifies the origin of Harry's use of Wales as a last name.
It's his father's designation and last name - Prince of Wales. So Charles is considered Wales, as was Diana, and their children. They were the Waleses. Now, I think Harry goes by a different last name.
But this final episode - Charles is so progressive. He wants to change the Royal Family, allow for divorce, allow people to choose who they marry, have them privately financed, don't have the royal family dependent on the government or funded by the public. Basically he wanted to break the toxic relationship between the public/government and the royals, and have the royals be self-sufficient and their own entity - doing charitable work and not just figureheads that Britain paraded out like trophies for events and charities. But able to actually make changes, and have some sense of freedom.
In the fifth season of the Crown, Charles is rather likable. Diana not so much, well unless you are into Bimbos - she came across like a bimbo, frivolous and kind of stupid. I find her unlikable. In Harry's book, she's far more likable (there's more focus on her charitable works and less on her affairs and moping), and Charles is also likable, but Harry does get across how he is bit full of himself and into image - which to be fair to Charles, was drilled into him at any early age.
The final episode ends on a somber note. And emphasizes the theme of the fifth season - which is that in putting the "Crown" above all else, Elizabeth somewhere along the line lost her family. They are estranged from each other. The love and familial connections rather forced. She's lonely at the top. Power, of which she has very little and quite by design, has only reinforced the bars of her gilded cage. And her devotion to a church few follow or care for, has done little to endear her to her family members or the public at large. Elizabeth's failures fill the final reel, silently moving past her, as she looks aghast out at sea striding across her favorite ship that is being decommissioned beneath her feet.
One can't help but wonder if Britain would have been better off, let alone the Royal Family, if Elizabeth had abdicated the throne at the age of 80 and allowed her son to become King? As opposed to waiting until her death to do so?
It's easy to judge the dead, or to judge someone from afar. Easier still through the haze of a fictionalized biopic on their life and family, with little input from either. I find myself wondering if it is fair to do so? Yet we all appear to. I don't really know what is going on behind those gates and walls, all I have are tell-all memoirs from various family members who...well, have their own agendas. Or books, movies, and television shows from others along the way. I can't help but wonder if this is how Shakespeare's histories of the Royals were viewed back in the day? Fictionalized accounts of actual people? Or what we moderns might call Real Person Fanfiction? For that's all this is - at the end of the day. Fanfic.
It's not real.
But, that said - it is worth viewing, because whether it's real or fantasy, it provides insight into the moral and ethical quandry of whether we should worship at the feet of anyone. Or continue the fairy tale fantasy of the prince, and princess and the monarchy? Is this not toxic in of itself?
And are similar types of worship toxic - say of the US Presidency, or the Celebrities? Whether they be sports figures or movie stars? As if we own them or deserve to know them, and be able to approach them at any time - at our own whim simply because they happen to have a career or role that requires them to become famous or be constantly in the public eye?
The Crown asks a lot of these questions. Whether it makes sense to continue with a Monarchy? What is the human price of doing so? And what is the toll?
And those questions, are I think, worth posing. It doesn't necessarily provide answers - leaving that for its audience to ponder.
New gal at work the other day, Jess, was generalizing right and left as was I, now that I think about it.
Me: BYT is A type personality.
Jess: What's that mean?
Me (trying to figure out how to define it): Anal?
Jess: Anal?
Me: Detail oriented, needs to control everything, nit-picky, perfectionist.
Jess: What's her nationality? Is she Hispanic -
Me: No, Persian.
Jess: Because I've noticed that Hispanics are like that -
Me: Not in my experience, they aren't. Seem to run the gamut. But no, BYT is Persian.
Jess: Middle Eastern?
Me: No, more Iran, Iraq, further north, not Middle Eastern, Persia. Totally different.
Jess looks confused.
Jess: When was she born?
Me: She acts like a Leo, but she wasn't born in August. I think sometime in May or June. Kind of Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde personality type.
Jess: Probably Gemini.
Me: Okay.
Sigh.
The educational system in this country is horrific. I want to go smack some teachers upside the head. But, we were both generalizing in our own way.
I think it's a flaw in human thinking personally. And a bad habit I can't seem to shake.
***
Finished The Crown S5 - and ....by the end of it, I felt sorry for Charles, and disliked Elizabeth, who is stuck in her ways. Her insistence that no one get divorced or marry a divorcee, and only marry who she chose for them - and power and control over that - ruined several lives. It was an abuse of power that made everyone including Elizabeth miserable. And it was dictated partly by religious edict and partly by ego.
She finally stopped pushing it - after Diana died. Megan was a divorcee, and she permitted Harry to marry Megan. She finally had learned from her mistakes. All her children were divorced. Both Ann and Charles finally remarried a person they loved.
Oh, The Crown clarifies the origin of Harry's use of Wales as a last name.
It's his father's designation and last name - Prince of Wales. So Charles is considered Wales, as was Diana, and their children. They were the Waleses. Now, I think Harry goes by a different last name.
But this final episode - Charles is so progressive. He wants to change the Royal Family, allow for divorce, allow people to choose who they marry, have them privately financed, don't have the royal family dependent on the government or funded by the public. Basically he wanted to break the toxic relationship between the public/government and the royals, and have the royals be self-sufficient and their own entity - doing charitable work and not just figureheads that Britain paraded out like trophies for events and charities. But able to actually make changes, and have some sense of freedom.
In the fifth season of the Crown, Charles is rather likable. Diana not so much, well unless you are into Bimbos - she came across like a bimbo, frivolous and kind of stupid. I find her unlikable. In Harry's book, she's far more likable (there's more focus on her charitable works and less on her affairs and moping), and Charles is also likable, but Harry does get across how he is bit full of himself and into image - which to be fair to Charles, was drilled into him at any early age.
The final episode ends on a somber note. And emphasizes the theme of the fifth season - which is that in putting the "Crown" above all else, Elizabeth somewhere along the line lost her family. They are estranged from each other. The love and familial connections rather forced. She's lonely at the top. Power, of which she has very little and quite by design, has only reinforced the bars of her gilded cage. And her devotion to a church few follow or care for, has done little to endear her to her family members or the public at large. Elizabeth's failures fill the final reel, silently moving past her, as she looks aghast out at sea striding across her favorite ship that is being decommissioned beneath her feet.
One can't help but wonder if Britain would have been better off, let alone the Royal Family, if Elizabeth had abdicated the throne at the age of 80 and allowed her son to become King? As opposed to waiting until her death to do so?
It's easy to judge the dead, or to judge someone from afar. Easier still through the haze of a fictionalized biopic on their life and family, with little input from either. I find myself wondering if it is fair to do so? Yet we all appear to. I don't really know what is going on behind those gates and walls, all I have are tell-all memoirs from various family members who...well, have their own agendas. Or books, movies, and television shows from others along the way. I can't help but wonder if this is how Shakespeare's histories of the Royals were viewed back in the day? Fictionalized accounts of actual people? Or what we moderns might call Real Person Fanfiction? For that's all this is - at the end of the day. Fanfic.
It's not real.
But, that said - it is worth viewing, because whether it's real or fantasy, it provides insight into the moral and ethical quandry of whether we should worship at the feet of anyone. Or continue the fairy tale fantasy of the prince, and princess and the monarchy? Is this not toxic in of itself?
And are similar types of worship toxic - say of the US Presidency, or the Celebrities? Whether they be sports figures or movie stars? As if we own them or deserve to know them, and be able to approach them at any time - at our own whim simply because they happen to have a career or role that requires them to become famous or be constantly in the public eye?
The Crown asks a lot of these questions. Whether it makes sense to continue with a Monarchy? What is the human price of doing so? And what is the toll?
And those questions, are I think, worth posing. It doesn't necessarily provide answers - leaving that for its audience to ponder.
no subject
Date: 2023-03-13 02:33 am (UTC)If your handlers aren't doing what you want and are creating issues with your family, you fire them. Unless, of course, your public image is your biggest concern.
I think - from what I read, their main concern was their public image. Harry makes a point, repeatedly, that his father, Camilla, William and Kate cared mainly about how they were viewed by the public and the press. And were constantly vying for the front page. And incensed if Megan or Harry pushed them off of it. And went out of their way to make themselves look good.
And Kate and William are portrayed as entitled and that they only care about their image. Charles, also is shown to care - although partly because he's going to become King - and Elizabeth kept threatening to skip over him and give it to William. I think part of the problem was Elizabeth playing footsie with the Crown. It should never have been in doubt that it went directly to Charles. She created a lot of this friction with her distrust of her son and the conservative Brits difficulties with Charles' progressive views. It's all an echo of the fights Charles and Diana had in the press, and Margaret had with her family via the press.
no subject
Date: 2023-03-13 02:06 pm (UTC)