In what we can only assume will turn out to be the most dispiriting thing to happen to him during his 23-year-prison sentence to date, former Hollywood mega-producer and current convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein will no longer be able to insist his fellow inmates refer to him by his proper title, Harvey Weinstein, Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. That’s per Entertainment Weekly, which reports that The Crown’s Queen Elizabeth II has formally stripped Weinstein of his title, which he was granted in 2004 in recognition of his contributions to the British film industry. (Which we can only assume is a fancy way of saying “co-produced Shakespeare In Love.”)
The official notice of the cancellation states that “The Queen has directed that the appointment of Harvey Weinstein to be an Honorary Commander of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, dated January 19 2004, shall be cancelled and annulled and that his name shall be erased from the Register of the said Order.” And while it definitely feels like it took a second for Weinstein, convicted back in February, in what may very well be the last satisfying thing to have happened in America for the foreseeable future, to have this particular honor removed—he lost his honorary doctorate and his knighthood in the French Legion Of Honour back in 2017, when the massive allegations against him were first dragged out into the light—it’s still pretty obviously a good thing that he no longer has (even honorary) power in a mostly imaginary organization. Even if it does presumably drop his social standing among his fellow felons.
57 Comments
I’m trying to imagine the emotions I’d go through if the Queen of England decided to publicly humiliate me.Besides being aroused, I mean.
“Who’s a dirty commoner?”
I am…
That’s Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to you.
You forgot the colon. It’s actually Elizabeth II : by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Queeny Boogaloo
The Queen doesn’t poop, so it’s not like she needs the colon.
You should read chapter 15 in Paul Theroux’s My Other Life. It’s supposedly fiction but it’s a mild takedown of the the royalty yet kinda touching in a way.
oh, you mean Brenda.
Oh, you know her?
Go on…
The Queen then gave the Commander of the Most Excellent Order to Bill & Ted.
Aw shit . . . that’s wrong, isn’t it?
Why did you post a picture of Beavis and Butt-head?
Nah dude, that’s Kelso and Fez.
(Reads post-1997 reference)GET OUT!
What a rare misstep for the British Empire to honor a terrible man.
It’s not for doing what he did. It’s for getting caught.
I mean, both are kinda required?
I think he’s referring to the Queen’s (/palace’s) silence on Prince Andrew. Her son who was pals with Epstein, has had very serious allegations against him and conducted an absolute car crash tv interview proclaiming his innocence.
While Andrew seems like he’s probably a creep, she is his mom. I can understand not disowning your son when he’s credibly accused of something horrible; we’re built to love our kids. Even the ones raised by nannies and boarding schools.Though, yes, the fact that she’s also his boss and they’re all absurdly privileged distorts the situation.
I understand this potentially charitable reading of why it’s happening, but it doesn’t really mitigate the horror. “Don’t worry, your formal head of state is only shielding the pedophiles she’s personally related to” isn’t all that comforting to the general public and is less than meaningless to the victims, even assuming it’s true.
It easily seems like a good enough reason why that person shouldn’t be in charge anymore. But it’s 2020 and our leaders are apparently held to no standards whatsoever, so here we are.
It easily seems like a good enough reason why that person shouldn’t be
in charge anymore. But it’s 2020 and our leaders are apparently held to
no standards whatsoever, so here we are.
I don’t think 2020 is relevant here – royals aren’t held to any less standards than they ever have been, even back when kings and queens actually had any power. But it sounds like you think someone should overthrow her like it’s the middle ages? It’s not an elected position.
“It’s not an elected position.”Exactly. So let’s abolish the position.
I’m curious as to what you think that will accomplish?
1. As a UK taxpayer, it’s a waste of my money to give lots of money to a family who are already obscenely rich.2. As someone who wants a more equal society, the idea of state supported deference to people whose sole qualification is being born to other random rich people is insane. They serve no function bar symbolic and the symbolism frankly sucks.
I’ll point out at the start I see no point in having a Royal Family, but you seem to not understand your position at all.1. The Royal family costs £67m a year, which is literally nothing in the scheme of things, it’s a totally insignificant amount of money within the national budget, get rid of that and that’ll just get swallowed into something else and make zero difference – someone will probably buy bombs with it.2. Nothing would change here – the Royal Family own massive parts of the country, get rid of the titles all you want, they still own and operate that land, they will still be millionaires hundreds of times over, and able to take more money out of the Crown Estate, you’ll make them richer and less accountable as they’ll no longer be public figures.
Oh, and not to mention the adverse effect you’d have on tourism in the country, and the jobs that would be lost within the industry because of it.Hate them all you want but people come here because of them, you only need to look at the sheer number of stories on these blogs alone about them to see how nuts Americans are about this shit, they actively bring money into the country because tourists eat that shit up.We can then move onto the global effect such a thing would have on developing nations within the Commonwealth, which would be disastrous for a lot of them who are slowly being nudged in a way a leader like Boris would never be able to do, since they simply wouldn’t recognise his authority. You hit the nail on the head though: the point of them is symbolic and sadly that level of pageantry makes us more money than it costs us.
The 67million figure is heavily massaged, but please do keep up the unnecessary condescension. 67million covers direct costs and doesn’t cover a fraction of the actual costs of the royals. So shit like extra police services for Royal visits aren’t included, or revenue from Duchy of Lancaster, various tax allowances, special spending on yachts, etc. Personally I’d also confiscate a bunch of the incredibly valuable assets they were given by the state. Obviously the ins and outs of how to separate their personal assets from government owned ones would be carried out by someone with more expertise than me.The tourism argument is speculative. Its not like tourists actually see the Queen, they go to Buckingham Palace. If the royals weren’t there there’d be better tours and access to their various properties. France seems to do alright with tourists despite being a Republic.Mout importantly, we’d live in a country where schools, media and politicians wouldn’t preach that we are somehow inferior and subservient to some random rich people.That is, if I understand my position.
What’s the actual cost, I’m going off published figures, your source would be an interesting read. Personally I’d also confiscate a bunch of the incredibly valuable assets they were given by the state. Obviously the ins and outs of how to separate their personal assets from government owned ones would be carried out by someone with more expertise than me.That’s against the law, it simply can’t be done, and if you want to make that possible, then you make it possible for people to just confiscate what you have.There are no government assets, they own their land and their homes and their property. Mout [sic] importantly, we’d live in a country where schools, media and politicians wouldn’t preach that we are somehow inferior and subservient to some random rich people.No one ever told me in school the Royal Family were better than me, if you have people in your life saying that to you, it’s very, very strange.If it seems like I’m being condescending it’s because people who want rid of them simply don’t understand it saves us nothing and gives them more power.
“That’s against the law, it simply can’t be done, and if you want to make that possible, then you make it possible for people to just confiscate what you have”What nonsense. The royals have special legal status. So the abolition of the monarchy would be legislated. As part of that legislation we would have to split their assets. And a lot of their assets such as the Dutchy of Cornwall are in a slightly ambiguous ownership no man’s land. They don’t own it outright, AFAIK, they are granted usage of it by the government with quite tight controls. I would transfer it to public ownership (possibly minus a chunk to appease royalists).I don’t think that would mean the government would be able to confiscate anything they want from the public.“No one ever told me in school the Royal Family were better than me, if you have people in your life saying that to you, it’s very, very strange.”Thats pretty disingenuous. You dont think it’s very heavily implied in school and most parts of British life that the Royals are more important than everyone else?“If it seems like I’m being condescending it’s because people who want rid of them simply don’t understand it saves us nothing and gives them more power.”Or they disagree with your sums, and care more about the message having royals sends than your hypothetical lost tourists.If you don’t want to come across as condescending then maybe stop assuming anyone who is anti monarchy “simply” isn’t as well informed as you are.Anoway, I’m going to bow out now. Have a good one.
Right, so abolish it and take away the land they legally own? That’s fucking stupid.Literally the dumbest thing I’ve read today. Thats [sic] pretty disingenuous. You dont [sic]think it’s very heavily implied in school and most parts of British life that the Royals are more important than everyone else?No, not at all, you’re being disingenuous at best, purposefully lying is more likely though, specifically to push an agenda – I’d say you went to a shit school though judging by your inferiority complex. Or they disagree with your sums, and care more about the message having royals sends than your hypothetical lost tourists.I gave you the published figure, you refuted it (twice now), and failed to provide anything to back your sums up with, why? If you don’t want to come across as condescending then maybe stop assuming anyone who is anti monarchy “simply” isn’t as well informed as you are.You’re not well informed, at all. You don’t have figures to back up your claims, you don’t understand how property law works, you don’t understand the ramification it would have on the land they own, or the industry that’s built up around it – the fact you also missed the bit where I said we should get rid of them furthers how uninformed you are.It’s far, far easier to simply go: “you’re private citizens now” and be done with it.But your method is to punish them because some fuckwit at school said they were better than you, which is fucking stupid.
He might be a child abuser, but at least he’s not an American woman of colour intruding on this otherwise perfect family. Imagine the horror. Thank god our media are on the case.
Yes, to be clear I’m not saying that her handling of the situation is a good thing (not that I think you think that I think it’s a good thing. I think). I just think it’s understandably human to not want to believe your son is a pedophile.I guess in normal Mom Boss scenarios the Mom Boss would recuse herself and there be some independent investigation by an accounting firm and, one hopes, the police. Royals tend to prefer to be above such petty things as laws and recusing themselves. I’m Swedish and we have sovereign immunity where the King and anyone serving as Regent is simply immune to criminal prosecution no matter what they do. My understanding is that the UK has even stronger immunity laws where the monarch cannot be arrested period, nor can anyone in her presence or staying in a royal residence.One of many reasons monarchy is crap, no matter how nice and dutiful the occasional monarch may be.
The thing is, while the UK monarchy retains certain privileges and some largely ceremonial powers on paper, what’s really propping it up at this point is tradition, the goodwill of hardcore fans, and a more general apathy. If they wanted to, Parliament could end it with or without public consent after the queen’s death. If there were enough of an outcry, they could probably end it today. This is the country that got a king to abdicate for proposing to a divorced lady, after all.
And that would be it; no more connected pedophiles on crown lands because no more crown lands. But if similar scandals couldn’t bring down the Papacy or the American presidency, why would the monarchy be any different?
Perhaps I can get you and my mom in the same room together. Haven’t spoken more than twice with her since 2004 because of her religion. Her choice, not mine.
kinda
Must be nice living in a universe where pre-crime is a thing.No, wait, that sounds horrible.
pre-crime? it’s three years overdue
Ahh, to be young, and feel fascism’s keen lure.
Damn! That shit looks great on a resume. And he really needed it as a counterweight to all that rape.Also, is anyone seeing ads for BYU TV in AVClub articles? We don’t seem like the target audience for wholesome content. Spanfeller must be really begging for that ad money.
I was surprised to learn that BYU TV is a bona fide national TV network with a variety of stuff, not just a local or specialty thing.
This’ll distract the commoners from Prince Andrew!
‘Oo?!
Prince Andrew has already been excised from the family. She’s now just trying to bury all existence of him and quite right too. Imagine the shame of finding out your son (and possible heir) dines out at Pizza Express!
Pizza Express? I HAVE NO SON!
What took so long?
mostly imaginary organizationI don’t understand what this means.
Shriners.
Its a good thing this is the worst thing done by someone in the royal family. It would be awfully embarrassing if one was a nazi or associated with a pedophile…..
Does he have to give back that magic sword the strange woman in the pond gave him?
I thought there was something about waving the magic sword at a plant? Am I in the right legend???
Safe to say Weinstain definitely shouldn’t be giving anything sword-like or otherwise to any women ever again.
What’d she just hear about it?
She knew for a while, she just didnt understand what he did was bad…
She should be careful…once Harvey gets the word out about this, she’ll never work in Hollywood again!
> The Crown’s Queen Elizabeth III’d’ve gone with “The Naked Gun’s Queen Elizabeth II”, but this is OK too.I believe she also knighted Rocketman’s Sir Elton John.