Gerrmaine Greer’s dire opinions on the forthcoming Royal wedding

I like Germaine Greer, interesting, intelligent, outspoken she has always courted controversy. Dis missing her views as sour grapes is ridiculous. She has lampooned and castigated the establishmet all her life why should she stop now?
As for Why on earth does she think we would heed or need a sad old lady’s opinion
That's a question you might well ask yourself Bridgeit

Indeed Trisher, I totally agree, I think this must apply to all of us seeing as this is an opinions forum.

My late husband was at university with Germaine Greer. She was famous for her strong views even then.

She is pushing 80, so has a right to be an ‘old lady’ now. Sad she is not. She hasn’t mellowed with age, which I rather admire.

As I said earlier I have admired her for years also attended one of her speeches, she was brilliant but what I heard her say today made her sound to me like a sad old(er) woman.It was very vitriolic, but hey let’s not be worried about how awful her comments were about Megan Merkel, who doesn’t deserve it & cant respond to it !!!

We have our opinions on Megan Merkel, some think it’s a marriage made in heaven others think it will not last. I hope they will have a long and happy marriage but I don’t warm to her , at 36 and a woman of the world I find her gazing into his eyes and clutching his hand is rather over doing things, and the engagement pose in the garden was so unatural, hips pressed against him but from waist up leaning back to do the eye gazing, too staged. Sorry Megan fans

It isn't new she has been criticisingRoyalty all her life. From 2003 The Queen is a vulgarian. She could be the most important patron of the arts. Instead she collects glass animals," said the writer and critic Germaine Greer some years ago.
From 2007 Feminist Germaine Greer has caused outrage in Australia for calling the late Princess of Wales, "slow", "devious" and "disturbingly neurotic".
Why should Meghan and Harry escape comment?

Did she say that ?, i agree Diana was devious , I doubt queenie is at all interested in the arts, bet her favourite reading is Horse and Hounds too. She loves horses and dogs, the country life , her idea of a day out wouldn’t be at an art gallery but a stud farm.

I have less than no interest at all in the RF or the RW.
However, the girl's name is Meghan MARKLE, not Merkle or Merkel!
No matter what we all think of them, we should at least endeavour to get her name correct!

Perhaps because it’s time to learn from the past, fickle public like to build people up just to knock them down. Why did GG have to pass any comment. If you don’t like something/ someone don’t get involved.Personaly I’m fairly neutral on the Royal Family , I think they are good for the country, but have no desire to watch every move they make etc etc won’t be buying any wedding memorabilia.But I thought what she said was out of order etc etc

Apologies Mrs Marpel well spotted .

Sorry ,I will try to remember her name rhymes with sparkle ?

Bridgeit
You'll find that's 'Miss Marple'!

I dont need chips for my shoulders,I am and always have been a republican ,I think along with an awful lot of others,that the monarchy should end when Lizzie dies.Now being realistic and knowing that the English have astrange sort of subservient love affair with them I know that wont happen BUT maybe ..just maybe they could be reduced in number over time ..lets face it they've made a fortune off the backs of ordinary folk who are struggling to survive for centuries....they dont need to keep their hands held out for rises year on year .Lets use the peoples taxes FOR the people ...and let the royals use the money accumulated over the years to pay their own way in life .

Reduced in number? Would you prefer the guillotine or compulsory sterilisation? You can't stop them marrying and reproducing (or reproducing without marrying, even)

As has been said again and again, only a very few of them are supported by the taxpayer - and a president wouldn't come free of charge.

May I remind Paddyann, the UK is four countries not two , there is life beyond England and Scotland

I don't wish to offend anyone, but I don't trust her.
But I do hope that it works out for Harry's sake.

Same for me Petra

paddyann "knowing that the English have a strange sort of subservient love affair with them" How do you know that? have you spoken to every English person. You do like to conjure up a picture of the English as a homogenous mass, doffing their caps and generally bowing and scraping to the Royal family. If SOME English people turn up to cheer them on at certain high points in Royal family members' lives, I hardly think that amounts to subservience, or indeed a reflection of the feelings of English per se, just some people who are happy to share in their joy. I'm sure you'd be complaining if "The Scots" were referred to as some sort of supine, idiot mass who all think in exactly the same way

I wish Harry and Meghan well. But I do fear that Meghan will find the role restricting in the long term.

She is used to having her own high profile career and her independence and, after the initial excitement and glamour, I think she might come to resent the restrictions and protocols of her Royal role.

Germaine Greer as usual states her opinion in an outspoken no-nonsense way.

He is not the first of the aristocracy to marry an actress, and if she can play the part of his wife in an extended run, she may well grow into it and become the role. Marriage is a lottery with anyone, however "suitable" they seem. Even if it all eventually hits the rocks, it looks as though he expects to be happy!

paddyann your feelings about the RF are well known and I respect them, however, stating that the English are all subservient is somewhat insulting. If I were to say all Scots wore kilts, played bagpipes, were tight fisted and spent their time drinking whisky and fighting you would, no doubt be vocal in your disapproval. So please, let's stop making assumptions about people just because of what newspaper they read, their political viewpoint or their nationality (isn't that racist by the way?)

Sunseeker, I suspect Paddyann was not implying that ALL the British public had this strange love affair with the RF, more that an important majority do. Being a republican myself, I also think that the RF is obsolete. In my view, Britain should simply stop supporting the institution (as should Spain, where I live) Monarchies really serve no other purpose but to cost a fortune. A president would also come at a price, but nowhere near as much and the president in question would be expected to work for his keep. Aside from being elected, every x many years, not a life long position.

I agree with paddyann. But it's not about chips on a shoulder or about being complacent when we see starving kids on tv. The royals are manifestations of the gross inequalities in our society and somehow we are supposed to love and/or admire them because of an accident of birth! Do we really know what they are like? Any of them? Are they worthy of our respect? Who knows! They may well work hard, but so do millions of others without recognition! No chips on shoulders here ~ just don't see why anyone should agree with such vast amounts of (public) money being spent on them. I'd rather see it spent on the NHS, schools, the homeless, the vulnerable etc etc.
And as for GG ~ I may not always agree with her but I don't see why such views should be censored or why people should resort to insults because someone presents a different point of view, contentious or not!

* Lisalou* paddyann said " knowing that the English have a strange sort of subservient love affair with them" she didn't say some thereby implying she means all English. As I said before I respect her opinions on the RF. The majority of the people I know accept we have a RF, but don't take a huge interest in what they are doing. In my opinion it is the media who make a huge fuss as it fills space in newspapers and on web sites. I have no interest in Meghan's dress or who is going to do her hair and makeup but you will find details about these things in many newspapers.

sunseeker, I agree, "some" should always be key when describing any demographic. I'm like you I don't have a great interest in the RF but neither do I see them as the pernicious force that some make them out to be and as for describing the general public as being "subservient" to them, a complete misuse of the word. Google some regimes around the world that have presidential governments and the true meaning of that word can be understood, not to mention the misappropriation of public funds, which in some instances is staggering, and cannot be offset by any revenue that our benign, non despotic as they are now, RF produce by attracting tourism into our country. In fact that charge of "how much it all costs" could also be levied at the behemoth that is the EU, that largesse doesn't come cheap either

Going back to the panoply that surrounds an event such as a royal wedding there are of course people who turn out for such an occasion and completely revel in that, although it always strikes me when such fans are interviewed there are always a fair sprinkling of overseas visitors expressing delight in being here at such a time. Do they represent the nation as a whole, I doubt it. There is a palpable Scottish vitriol held by a small minority towards the English hence the pejorative "the English have a strange sort of subservience" comment.