Hard lines to Andy Murray for losing out at the semi-final stage again, although the first set offered a glimpse of what could have been possible. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting slightly sick of London media people saying "of course he's never going to win Wimbledon, we went through this every year with Tim Henman". Firstly, that's disrespectful to the consummate professional Henman, whose achievements were light-years ahead of any other English or British player for decades. Secondly, it's monumentally silly to still be framing Murray as "just another Henman" in the year that he reached his third Grand Slam final - Henman never reached any.
The main consolation of the result yesterday is that if Murray does ever make the ultimate breakthrough, I'd actually quite like it to happen away from Wimbledon and everything that goes with it - the "come on, Tim" brigade, and the onlooking "as long as he wins, I'm British for the day" aristocracy (of both the literal and sporting varieties). Why should one of the greatest Scottish sporting triumphs of all-time be entirely reduced to the tedious billing "first Briton to win Wimbledon since Fred Perry"? No, let's see it happen in New York this September, or Melbourne next January - the surfaces there suit Murray's game better anyway.
Aye
ReplyDeleteAye, indeed.
ReplyDeleteDrivel from the MSM, aside, and O/T; what is the craic re the funding of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's (aka "Windsors") being pocket-monied out of the Crown Estates rather than (?) the Civil List?
Are the elites smelling the whiff of "constitutional" change in the air and making prudent arrangements?
PS Luck to Murray down the road and far away from the strawberries, Pimms, and cream, Little Englander set.
That's bizarre about the Crown Estate, David - I hadn't heard about it until you mentioned it. It certainly puts the knee-jerk rejection of the calls to devolve the Crown Estate revenues in a different perspective.
ReplyDelete"We're all in this together" says Osborne - except for the Royal Family, naturally.
David, James.
ReplyDeleteApparently Charles has been trying to get this to happen for well over 30 years. He has sent never ending hand-written letters to a succession of prime ministers and chancellors, not to mention their shadows, with an eye to laying his hands on what could be vastly more money that they have now.
Gideon was only in the job a matter of months when, in small letters, at the bottom of some document, the government's agreement to his requests was announced.
They are of the same set, probably the first government since the early 60s, when Chick would have been but a bairn, to be aristocratic in its make-up. I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find that Charlie will make Osborne an Earl and maybe Cameron can look forward to an Dukedom.
Of course the Duchy of Cornwall which funds Charles' lavish lifestyle, and the Duchy of Lancaster, which funds his mother's much simpler one, are a part of the Crown Estates which were never seceded to the government.
Cornwall grew by around £3/4 million last year... in the depths of a recession. Clearly a vast amount of wealth is headed to the Windsors in the future.
It will, however, make the argument that Scotland should be entitled to income from its share of Crown Estate, that much more difficult to refute.
So Gideon may just have played into our hands...