Mathilde looks fine but I prefer the full out bling of the Dutch Inauguration from this past spring. She wearing 655 diamonds on her head (plus 33 sapphires). My inner magpie was so pleased.

Well in the UK the royalty is basically the center of their entire tourism industry

This theory of yours is simply not historically factual.

What the fuck are you babbling on about? Her opinions are "hopelessly individual and therefore irrelevant?"

If you're talking about the article that was linked to, there was not tremendous thought behind it, or at least if there was, it was not evidenced by the words the writer chose to put down. To the contrary, it's quite obvious that, because of her distaste for certain members of her family who happened to be Holocaust…

Not to distract from the important discussion taking place, but I'd really like a shirt that says "THEY SAID IT ON TWITTER. YOU FOOLS." Thank you. The end.

Fucking hell what the hell are you saying do you not realise how anti-semetic you are being.

I agree with your statement. Comparing anything in pop culture with genocide and then saying that it "justifies your skepticism about survival stories from said genocide" is crass. It makes the author "Crassy McCrasserson from Crasstown Crassania"

I do understand her skepticism to a point. I remember watching a…

That's the article I had in mind when I commented! It's one thing to acknowledge that past experiences may have led one to feel prejudiced towards a group, but another thing entirely to use those experiences as a blind justification for hating an entire group of people. At least the bloke in AC admitted that his…

Yes, that is my point. I don't have much of a stake in destroying someone's reputation, but she's a writer and she expects people to read it. She's getting the sort of prosecution writers typically get when something inflammatory is written.

No. It is not acceptable when you are a (presumably) paid writer to apply your issues with one or a handful of individuals to a social group as a whole. This article, and your defence of it, is basically saying that because one person has wronged you in the past, it is okay to be naturally suspicious and hateful of…

"My father’s parents were Holocaust survivors, and in grade school I received the de rigueur exposure to the horror—visiting geriatric men and women with numbers tattooed on their arms, completing assigned reading like The Diary of Anne Frank and Night. But the more information I received, the less sympathy the…

No one can make her grow, but we CAN force her ass the fuck out of here. Which I'm pretty sure is what's being attempted.

With her article. But go on, keep defending her. You look stupid doing so and my track record indicates that I like nothing more than that.

You know what else is an emotionally charged subject. Telling people who survived the Holocaust to fuck off. How people are defending her bullshit is beyond me.

Anna Breslaw also referred to Roman Polanski as having a "patchy sexual history" - you know, Polanski, the fucking convicted rapist of a child.

What did you do that you’re not talking about? I had the gut instinct that these were villains masquerading as victims who, solely by virtue of surviving (very likely by any means necessary), felt that they had earned the right to be heroes, their basic, animal self-interest dressed up with glorified phrases like…

I don't really see why Holocaust survivors just got wrapped up in it willy nilly. I know how it ties back to her dad, but the tie is not a great enough one to make it the whole thrust of an analysis. This probably is partly the child of too much anecdotal information in commentary these days, but I'm a writer and we…

That is not the point Breslaw argues in the article. If it was her intention to present the argument you suggest, she went far past it and straight to the premise that survivors are automatically bad, untrustworthy people, either from some supposed corruption they all experience or because they were awful people from…

For reals? For reals.