Saturday, June 11, 2011

Royal charm

The Daily Mail (and Mail on Sunday) can be awfully crass, insensitive and downright deceitful. According to Speaker Bercow, it is 'a sexist, racist, bigoted, comic cartoon strip'. But there isn't a newspaper in the whole of the Kingdom that does this, this or this even half as well. This photograph of the Queen and the late Queen Mother is really rather beautiful, so His Grace just thought he would share it.


Blogger Mr Dodo said...

It's still a rubbish newspaper!

12 June 2011 at 01:03  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Yes it is a beautiful picture, Your Grace. Thank you.

12 June 2011 at 01:37  
Anonymous non mouse said...

p.s: Just followed the links - wonderful photography even if they do write like the old women's magazines.

This is really to express appreciation of the Corgi pics, though! I'm so glad HM doesn't dock their tails.

12 June 2011 at 01:50  
Anonymous malvoisin said...

I must admit I do not understand you YG, or some of the posters on here. The Queen has committed treason 5 times by putting her signiture to documents such as the Maarsrticht and Lisbon treaties, which transfers sovereignty from this country to the EU. In this process she has also broken her coronation oath.
You then post a photo of this traitor and her mum and then go all gooey and misty eyed.
Please explain.

12 June 2011 at 10:39  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

I agree with the general thrust of HG's OP here but I am not really surprised, given his propensity to sometimes ape the selective editorial manner of the Mail in many of his offerings of blogfodder, that he feels something of an affinity of the soul with this publication.
The Daily/Sunday Mails suffer from the same pressure most papers do; that is they face ever increasing pressure to make eye catching headlines or indeed dramatic picture-graphics, in order to maintain falling circulation and dwindling advertising revenue in the face of alternative news sources and glossy gossip rags.

Sadly this I feel will lead eventually to the demise of any reliable or at least 'trustworthy' new reporting through the printed word. Why wait several days to see a report when it has already been uploaded to YouTube within minutes of it taking place. We are living as never before, in the of instant gratification in our demand to cram as much as can into our lives so that we may - What? - more time to browse the net or scan the rolling news channels for yet more instant gratification.

The Mail however is always almost exclusively singled out by its detractors; it seems to be the latest whipping boy of the Nu- Leftie so called ‘stand-up’ comedians and latte sipping chattering class; but the same could be said of most tabloids I think. Any way there’s nothing new or original about so called stand -up comedy, Max Miller for instance or even Arthur Askey ( when he even had his legs) both stood up and performed solo.

There would at one time have gone for the Sun or the News of the World (do the even exist any more?) but then they are owned by the puppet media master in chief so they are safe; for now. The Mail sadly has adopted an editorial directive towards combined sensationalism, titillation and hypocritical moral outrage once the preserve and niche of the Daily Sport.

Its only saving grace is that on the surface at least, it is loyal to the old spirit of monarchical deference - of course this could all change when Chazzer ascends the throne

12 June 2011 at 11:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It has become part of the herd mentality of the Left in this country to condemn The Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday, the favourite butt of comedians, the BBC, Guardian readers etc etc. To some extent, this is a reflection of its perceived power as it has a large and loyal following among a middle class, primarily female readership. In the same way, the Left piled into Sarah Palin when she appeared to be a threat, and have now slackened off the criticism as her influence has waned. It is noticeable in my local Marks and Spencer that the Mail is the first paper to sell out. Those who compare the Mail to the Sun or News of the World don't appear to have read it - it's definitely a good few cuts above, though I was sorry to see that yesterday one of its journalists felt it necessary to explain the meaning of the word 'fiat' in parentheses! I regularly read the Mail, disregarding the parts I don't like (and admittedly, there is quite a lot of dross to sift through), but generally finding gems that don't appear in other papers - reports by Peter Hitchens from places like Mongolia and China (for which he won the Orwell Prize a couple of years back), brilliant Saturday essays like this week's on the economic effects of climate change policies, by Nigel Lawson, a lot of sensible, decent writing for women in Femail etc. And it's noticeable that, in the MSN, the Mail often leads the agenda - it catches up with the blogs sooner than the rest, which is not saying much, I suppose!! It is far less anti-Christian in its agenda than the BBC and many other newspapers, is more balanced in its coverage of wars in Libya and the Middle East and espouses traditional family values. I read The Times and occasionally The Guardian, but The Mail is still my favourite.

12 June 2011 at 12:13  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace, whoever chose the Daily Mail clearly knows her market, and is very astute. Some careful positioning going on, pehaps. Reading the DM links and extracts it was obvious that Margaret Rhodes was and still is, a Diana fan. Not a word about the other woman, at least not that this communicant could see, which leads to a possibility. If Margaret Rhodes is exceptionally close to the the Queen, and if the Queen 'approved' the book, are we looking at an informal message from HMQ? The point is clearly made that the Queen always has her Archbishop seated at the right-hand, Your Grace. A gesture that implies deep Christian faith and values. The Queen maybe a keen racing fan like her late mother, but by temperament she is not one of the 'fast set'.

So, does the Queen see Camilla as a sort of house-trained Wallis?

It is certainly a delightful collection of family photographs by any standard.

12 June 2011 at 12:56  
Anonymous Old Blue Eyes said...

I am a Daily Mail reader and if that is John Bercow's opinion of the newspaper then it confirms to me that I have good taste.

12 June 2011 at 13:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bercow took umbrage after the Mail ran that article on his wife.

He should have joined the Labour Party when he had the chance.

And in the face of exposure / criticism , he could do worse than mimic the lifelong example of the two ladies in the photograph - and learn to maintain a dignified silence.

Marcus Foxall

13 June 2011 at 04:59  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

YG, you seem to hint that you accept Speaker Bercow's opinion, and clearly the first poster here, Mr Dodo, does. I don't know much about "speaker Bercow", but I suspect that he's one of many, in the Establishment (eg BBC), who hide everything behind a demonising of the Daily Mail. What matters is the ideas and values behind what is written (not style), which no doubt vary from article to article. Thus, I for one sometimes agree, sometimes do not, with things I read that have come from the Mail. I have even, once - or maybe twice - found myself agreeing with a view that started life in a Guardian article ... but we can all behave less than perfectly, somtimes ...

13 June 2011 at 10:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anything that causes offence to the apalling Bercow has my support.

13 June 2011 at 11:58  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older