M & H-as-I-call-him 16

[yolofish]

Well here we are, another thread for those who wish to discuss. We are not nasty, but we do call account on what is going on, and and what taxpayers pay for.

peridito

LaM The thread title popped up well before the CITW ref isn't that what I said ?.

My fault - not explaining

You didn't object until well after the "He's not the Messiah etc" and also after the CITW reference.

Hard to know what you were referring to and "CITW" was the obvious reference.

You could just go and read the thread back to check, I suppose.

SunsetBoulevard3

Exactly the definition I was thinking of.

LaM you may well be right ,I don't think we'll be thanked for discussing it further {smile}

going back to philanthropy - surely one can be a philanthropist while also making a profit ?

wouldn't you have to make a profit to be a philanthropist on any scale larger than a monk or similar .

Personally I think that Terry Jones's family and friends might appreciate the use of his quote as a thread title, because it is meant humorously and he loved to make people laugh. It's topical and it honours the wit of the original source.

Peridito you quoted me and said that we didn't know how much H gets from PC but we do, it's a matter of public record. We don't know the exact split between him and PW but it is somewhere between £2m and £2.5m.

Perdito

How do you know that H&M are not making any donations and that they are making a profit ? What are they making a profit from ?

We don't know they're making a profit, of course.

Probably they're doing something else to be "self-funding". Like living off Haich's inheritance.

God knows, I would!

But I might do something free for charity (like I do now). Would that be the action of a "proper" philanthropist?

Not just like those pesky improper "philanthropists" who are defined by the use of the English language and will insist on giving large sums of money to good causes?

It’s not philanthropy if you’re doing it to get something back.

That’s a trade, a deal. It’s work.

You can’t work as a philanthropist.

This is where they’ve gone wrong.

The causes they’ve chosen to highlight are worthy. Excellent. As philanthropists they would speak, travel, give talks, attend dinners etc to talk about these causes, lend their celebrity etc FOR FREE.

Even the RF don’t do this because they’re disgustingly well remunerated (and all the rest of it) for all their ribbon cutting. But the waters are so muddied, it’s gone on so long that people don’t see them in that light any more.

On the Oscars, if MM - a supporting actress on a little known legal drama shown on one of the lesser cable channels in the USA - attends, it would be an affront to the artists who are there on merit. I’ve no doubt the likes of Reese Witherspooon would passively put her in her place. WOC at the Oscars on merit would support her as a WOC, but I’m not sure that’s what MM wants to be known for/as. The only way she could show her face would be in her sole capacity as “wife of”. And what does Harry have to bring to that particular party? What relevance does he have to the Oscars show? W&K go to the BAFTAs as representatives of, in a country which still has royal patronages.

This is why they’re not going. They’re not honored to have been asked; they’re flattered to have been asked. She would have gone in a flash (“that’s why we’re really here. The Pitch”); but it doesn’t fit with their stated aims in life.

Perdito

LaM you may well be right ,I don't think we'll be thanked for discussing it further {smile}

No doubt I'd say that if I was proved wrong too. {smile}

7salmons Well put!

LaMarschallin See, I was thinking the 'corpse' was the story, the corpse of the truth. Vultures are scavengers who don't do the work themselves but pick apart the scraps left by others, like the DM or these shite gossip sites!

Vultures are doing it out of necessity and are quite helpful, which is where this metaphor breaks down, as all do.

The picking apart here, over 16 threads has just built up a sense of outrage and strange list of rules for how they must live their life. Then certain posters can use this to judge and vent about. And of course, it all feeds back into the media cycle to produce more 'stories' to picked apart.

Speaking for myself, I'm interested in hearing all sides of an argument if cogently put. There are angles I won't have considered and I'm always receptive to them.

Snippy comments about the thread being nasty, vultures and vampires etc, aren't helpful and add nothing to the discussion. People say things that cause me to catch my breath too but I don't see it as my place to admonish them for it.

So once again, can we PLEASE focus on the subject and not each other?

And 7salmons, once again you have hit the nail on the head.

Bit just picking up the vultures analogy, in Brazil, where there are hundreds, they are viewed positively as sanitisers who clear away rotting material. So there's that.

Yes 7 salmon exactly.
They wouldn’t be doing that talk at all if they weren’t making megabucks. The cheque will be going right into their account. Or hers most likely.
I agree with everything salmon said.

I actually knew Terry Jones. I worked with him.

Tbh I’m surprised that posters who are offended by this thread are Monty Python fans...
And I’m sure using Life of Brian to laugh at Prince Harry is in the right spirit.
Oh well 🤷🏻‍♀️

Well don’t leave us hanging, Tumnus
Do you think he’d had laughed at last night’s jokes?

So once again, can we PLEASE focus on the subject and not each other?

Good point, Mischief.

And, rocking, we see different corpses*, probably each equally valid in our own views/interpretations.

*Shades of "The Sixth Sense"

So, basically: no MM Oscar dress to envy?

Tummus you can't stop there! Any snippets you feel you can (respectfully) share?

Regarding the vultures in Brazil, as I said they are helpful which is where this metaphor breaks down

These threads are feeding into the cycle and making it worse, even if we disagree about the nature of the metaphor.

And the humour is definitely not Pythonesque!

HMQ is now looking to Bea and Eug to step up in the absence of H&M. I think they'll do a cracking job and it will be interesting to see how they combine royal and paid work.

Ironically this could at last be the recognition PA has always wanted for his 'blood princess' daughters. Funny how things work out.

And the humour is definitely not Pythonesque!

Oh but it is!

I’m chuffed Beatrice and Eugenie are being considered for Royal roles.
Despite the very well documented shortcomings of their parents, they appear to be nice young women.

Wow I step away for 14 hours or so and this thread has exploded. I’ve tried to read back through and catch up. A lot made me laugh
Some very witty comments.

A few random thoughts:

I can’t think of David Furnish anymore without thinking of him furnished in baked beans

I forgot to say earlier LaMa that I love how the acronym Haitch works out so neatly. Satisfying.

How about for the next title and out of respect for Terry Jones, we do our own adapted version of “He’s not the messiah ...”

Haitch’s not the majesty he’s a very naughty boy”

Not brilliant perhaps but you get the gist.

Yes, it is.

And even if it isn't, that's what Monty Python was about - moving the boundaries of what humour is, as they did with Life of Brian.

rockingchaircandle

Regarding the vultures in Brazil, as I said they are helpful which is where this metaphor breaks down

Does it break down there, though?

If the vultures want to get to the bare bones of the truth?

If the "bare bones" are that H&M want to be paid for having a royal connection but not wanting to live within the constraints of that, that's one truth.

If the "bare bones" are that they have something valid to contribute, beyond Haich being royal, that's another.

Who do they want to be helpful to?