News on Youtube Aug 26 2018

At some point in your childhood, did you wish to magically transform into a princess?

If you had a particularly active imagination, maybe you even thought you'd actually become

one someday.

But growing up as a princess, or any form of royalty, really, is likely a whole lot

better in concept than in reality.

Spoiler alert: It wasn't always great.

In fact, it was downright depressing at times.

When your mother is the Queen of England, the family dynamic is bound to get a little

complicated to say the least.

Here's the real truth behind the Queen and Prince Philip's relationship with their children.

Raised by nannies

Prince Charles was born in 1948, just a year after his parents' wedding and around three

years before his mother became the Queen.

Next came Princess Anne, who was born one year later.

Elizabeth and Philip decided not to have any more children until a decade later.

In 1960, the couple welcomed another son, Prince Andrew, and, in 1964, welcomed another

boy, Prince Edward.

In Jonathan Dimbleby's authorized 1994 biography of Prince Charles, Charles is quoted as saying

that the people who raised him were not his parents, but the nursery staff.

In yet another biography of the prince, author Sally Bedell-Smith reiterated that fact, writing

that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip only saw their children after breakfast and teatime.

So, basically not much at all.

Prince Philip the disciplinarian

Although he may not have spent much time with his parents growing up, Prince Charles still

viewed his father as a disciplinarian.

The unauthorized biography Prince Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable

Life describes the young prince as having been a sensitive child.

Worried his son would become, quote, "weak and vulnerable," Prince Philip attempted to

toughen young Charles up.

Patricia Mountbatten, Charles' godmother, explained in the prince's biography that Philip

was also very concerned with Charles becoming spoiled.

Philip felt some tough love would work to "counteract the spoiling."

Philip is also said to have relied on sarcasm when dealing with not only Charles, but with

daughter Anne as well.

Unlike Charles, Anne reportedly pushed back.

You can't help but feel bad for the little prince.

Lacking in warmth

When Charles would sit with his parents during teatime, it wasn't exactly quality family

time.

Martin Charteris, a former long-term senior adviser to the Queen, is quoted in Prince

Charles' biography as saying,

"Somehow even those contacts were lacking in warmth.

The Queen is not good at showing affection."

When Charles' parents returned after nearly six months away, both the Queen and Philip

proved their standoffishness when it came to their children by not embracing them with

long hugs or kisses.

Instead, they simply shook hands with their then five-year-old son and three-year old

daughter.

When Charles was four years old, however, the Queen did set out to teach her son horseback

riding, but unfortunately for Charles, he said

"The whole idea of taking off scared me stiff."

It's the thought that counts, right?

A "happy unit"

In a BBC interview back in 2002, Princess Anne clapped back at the critics who labeled

the Queen as an "uncaring mother."

Instead of aligning with her brother Charles' beliefs and classifying her mother as lacking

warmth, Anne seems to feel that their mom was indeed a loving parent.

Anne further dubbed the royal family a "happy unit" in which they all got along.

She explained that they "may not have been too demanding" of their mother's time because

they recognized her unique position as, you know, ruler of the country and all.

They may have been just young children, but, according to Anne, they seemed to have a pretty

good idea of what the monarchy entailed, saying,

"I don't believe any of us for a second thought she didn't care for us in exactly the same

way as any other mother did."

Mommy-and-me time

Robert Lacey's biography Monarch: The Life and Reign of Elizabeth The Second quotes the

Queen as saying

"What fun it is to have a baby in the house again!"

...after Edward, was born.

According to Lacey, Queen Elizabeth was able to spend a lot more time with Andrew and Edward

than she'd been able to with both Charles and Anne.

By the mid-1960s, ruling the country may not have exactly been old hat, but the Queen was

surely more comfortable in her role.

Unlike the awkward meals she once shared with her oldest son, Queen Elizabeth spent time

"cycling and chasing" her younger children through Buckingham Palace.

Once a week, Edward and Andrew's nanny was given the night off and Queen Elizabeth would

take over according to Lacey, the Queen even began to refer to the nanny's night off

as her favorite night of the week.

Prince Philip's soft side

It's not exactly a secret that Charles and Princess Diana had a relationship that was

fraught with disagreements, infidelity, and essentially everything else that could tear

a marriage apart.

But, Diana seemed to have an ally, and one you might not expect.

In 2007, The Telegraph released a transcript of letters written to and from Philip and

Diana.

The letters were read during the inquest into Diana's tragic death, and cast Philip in a

new, and very caring, light.

Diana fondly referred to her father-in-law as "Pa" and would often end her letters with

"my fondest love."

Philip wrote Diana saying he hoped they could continue their letter-writing as an "opportunity

to exchange views" and reassured her, saying,

"I will always do my utmost to help you and Charles to the best of my ability."

Picking favorites

Who's the Queen's favorite?

Perhaps that's an impossible question to ask, but some have surmised that it's not actually

one of her own children, but rather a daughter-in-law.

According to Express, the monarch's preference is Sophie Rhys-Jones, who married Prince Edward

back in 1999.

Edward is the only one of the Queen's children who has not gone through a divorce, but that

may not be why Rhys-Jones is favored.

Queen Elizabeth and Rhys-Jones share a lot of similar interests and spend a good chunk

of time together, sometimes riding horses and other times simply relaxing with the grandkids.

In 2010, the Queen further proved her love for Rhys-Jones when awarding her with the

Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, which is Queen Elizabeth's highest seal of

approval.

There's no doubt about it, this daughter-in-law is in the Queen's good graces.

For more infomation >> The Truth About Queen Elizabeth's Relationship With Her Kids - Duration: 5:54.

-------------------------------------------

Jose Mourinho insists his relationship with Man Utd chief executive Ed Woodward is fine - Duration: 3:21.

Jose Mourinho insists his relationship with Man Utd chief executive Ed Woodward is fine

Manchester United boss Jose Mourinho insisted his relationship with Ed Woodward remains strong, in what was a succinct eight-minute press conference on Friday.

United endured a frustrating summer in the transfer market as they failed to recruit the centre-half Mourinho had requested.

The United boss also wanted an additional signing - believed to be an attacking midfielder - but had to settle for the three players the club did sign - midfielder Fred, defender Diogo Dalot and goalkeeper Lee Grant.

Mourinho also clashed with Anthony Martial, while Paul Pogba hinted at his frustrations after United's win over Leicester.

The growing unrest at Old Trafford was compounded last weekend when United were defeated 3-2 by Brighton but Mourinho insists there is no tension between himself and Woodward.

"Of course (our relationship is fine)," the United boss said, having turned up 30 minutes early to talk with the media.

"No (problem at all).

After the defeat to Brighton, Pogba admitted United had the wrong attitude and said he was at fault as much as anyone.

Mourinho was asked about those comments but said it was Pogba's place to explain what he meant.

"Paul said that so Paul has to answer that.

If you want an explanation for Paul's words, you must get him and ask him," Mourinho said.

There is good news for United on the injury front as Mourinho confirmed captain Antonio Valencia, Nemanja Matic, Alexis Sanchez and Diogo Dalot have all returned to training.

A final decision on their availability for Monday's visit of Tottenham, live on Sky Sports, will be made on Sunday.

Mourinho said: "Today is still Friday and we will have training on Saturday and Sunday, then the match on Monday.

"The decision will be made on Sunday but yes, they are training with the team and [Diogo] Dalot also is training with the team for the first time this week so in terms of the medical department, they are almost free.

For more infomation >> Jose Mourinho insists his relationship with Man Utd chief executive Ed Woodward is fine - Duration: 3:21.

-------------------------------------------

Robert Irvine Show (8/24/2018)Former guests with anger and relationship issues. - Duration: 37:50.

For more infomation >> Robert Irvine Show (8/24/2018)Former guests with anger and relationship issues. - Duration: 37:50.

-------------------------------------------

Inside you there is the same as inside me - Duration: 5:05.

Program for the promotion of Inclusive Education in the Americas (OAS & Oritel)

My brother Rafa had just been born

and my mother came back from the hospital.

Then, when she came back from the hospital

– she tells a story of a conversation with a neighbor. –

And the neighbor asked her, a little shameless and rude,

she asked: Hey, they say your child is mongoloid. Is he or isn't he?

And then my mother said:

Well, if you say so, then he must be. If you say so, then he must be.

To me he isn't, to me he is my child.

I stand by those words

and I go back to get the full sense they have.

A sense that perhaps is not entirely conscious

but that is completely inserted in that language.

My mother is saying: if you say so, then he must be.

He must not be if you do not say it, of course.

Because disability is not a biological issue.

It is not something physical.

But it is a social and cultural issue.

So 'if you say so, then he must be'

means that the way you conceive of disability,

the meaning you construct for disability.

And you are turning her son (in this case),

she was turning him into something that was a syndrome.

Then my mother responded with much wisdom,

with natural wisdom:

Not for me. For me he is my son.

There is a great hope in reworking our ways of thinking, feeling and acting

listening deeply ...

My weakness is mothers. But mothers, fathers, siblings, families ...

they have built their knowledge about their relative

from love. From a direct relationship with the person.

And what we are doing as professionals is implanting

a previously made model, which is generic

and we implant it in the person:

If a person has Down syndrome, then he or she acts in this way.

If a person has cerebral palsy, then we know how he or she behaves.

In families you learn from knowledge,

because the other is from prejudice.

Families from the direct knowledge of the person.

If the professionals really listened to what those relatives tell us

we could build a very different pedagogical knowledge.

These relatives could tell us other ways of thinking about that reality

that surely would guide institutions in a very different way.

Reality is a social construction.

The reality of disability is also.

When we are talking, when we are communicating with each other

we are building that reality.

And in institutions, reality is built.

There is a whole professional knowledge built

that comes from medical knowledge

and that has been implemented in schools.

That medical knowledge has a meaning, obviously, in medicine.

But when transplanting it to the pedagogical terrain,

everything that was medical and biological

It has served as an argument for segregation and exclusion.

What we have done has been to say that if he does not learn, it is a problem of that person.

But the studies that have been developed from other areas of knowledge

They have shown that it is not like that.

That the disability is not inside a body,

but it is at least between two bodies.

It's in the relationship between two people, at least.

It's hard to see differences, I mean imbalances, between two people

when we have understood that one person has the same humanity as another.

But within how we have been riding this idea of ​​disability

is an ideology, that we have embedded all

through which we think that within that person there is not a person at all.

We stole part of that humanity

because he has no vision, or because he has deafness,

or because his head does not work like mine.

That allows us, from a position of power,

to say that there is not the same thing inside here.

When we are able to think that there is the same thing inside here

the relationships change.

And when changing relationships what changes is disability,

which is a form of relationship.

For more infomation >> Inside you there is the same as inside me - Duration: 5:05.

-------------------------------------------

Why are Rocks So Important to Christianity? Or, Seeing Relationship Through Rocks - Duration: 12:59.

In this video, we're going to address the question, "Why have stones, rocks, and

mountains become such an important part of the Christian heritage and traditions?"

Now, this question was sent in by Abbie, off of our Facebook page.

Abbie, thank you very much for taking the time to do so.

Now, in short, I don't find rocks, mountains, or stones to be very important to the Christian

faith.

They're mentioned throughout the Bible, but they always have something else going on and

that's what we're going to talk about right now.

Here we go.

My name is Charles Yerkes and I am with simplenotshallow.com.

Where we help you keep it Simple Not Shallow.

Now, in her question, Abbie did mention a few examples that

she was curious about. For instance, Balaam and the donkey going up on the mountain to

meet the king and curse Israel.

Jesus having to be taken upon a mountainside by Satan in order to be tempted.

Moses getting the Ten Commandments on a mountainside.

Jesus later becoming called the foundation, the cornerstone.

And one that she didn't ask, that I also found very very intriguing, is David

referring to God as his rock.

What's up with all these rock motifs?

Well, you know, as I looked through these things through a relational lens of God being

a relational God; and doing some research.

I found that there's a couple basic things that the rocks or stones or mountains tend

to be.

And, as I go through and I reference different passages here answering this, please note,

that I'll list all the scripture I use in the description box below.

That way, if I'm on a role and I forget to mention a particular passage, chapter and

verse, it's listed for you so you can check all this out yourself.

But, I found basically to two or three different uses for stones, rocks, and mountains in the

Bible.

The first is they are simply the location at which something happened.

There was a lot of mountains and rocks around.

For instance, Balaam, he went with the king, the king wanted him to curse Israel, so they

had to survey the Israeli camp. So they had to get up high in order to do so.

So the mountain was simply a location.

The same with Jesus being tempted by Satan.

Satan wanted to show him all the lands that he was tempting him with. So he had to get

him up high where he could look at them all and view what the temptations were.

Just a location.

The same with Moses and Mount Sinai. It was just a location that God chose in order to

give him the Ten Commandments and the laws and the codes of living.

Now, what informs this decision of mine and how I see that, are two things; one in Exodus,

God is talking to Moses.

And he simply tells Moses very directly, "I chose this mountain, I'm coming down on this

mountain in a thick dense fog, and I'm gonna let the people hear the rumblings and our

communications.

To build their trust in you."

His choice of the mountain and how he was going to approach Moses was very relational.

It was for the relationship between Moses and the people.

He wanted their trust to always be in Moses, that Moses was bringing them what God wanted.

Now, at this point, in a couple chapters earlier, we're told that six hun dred thousand men, not counting

women and children, left Egypt, a lot of people.

So, it would make sense that if you want all the people to see this and get trusting Moses,

you have to do it where everybody can see.

Now, if you are the six hundred thousand or so, way in the back, you're not gonna see

somebody that is at eye level way up front.

So, in order for this to happen, God had to choose a

mountain so that the people way in the back could look up at the mountain and see it.

He chose a big thick fog as a presence over the top of the mountain.

Covering the mountain so the people could witness God coming down a meeting with Moses.

And then all the rumblings and then communications.

So, it was just a location that allowed all the people of Israel to witness this; to build

trust.

You know another thing that indicates to me that it was simply a location, with no meaning

whatsoever, just the location that happened to be chosen, is that after this point, Mount

Sinai is never mentioned in the Bible again, in terms of, being important for worshiping

God.

Never does it have to deal with the worshipping of God in any way after this.

In fact, while it is mentioned several more times in the Bible, every time that it is

mentioned it's always mentioned in conjunction with the covenant being given with God. Being

the place that God gave Israel the law, that's it.

It commemorates the place the time when the law was given.

It is the law, the Covenant that is important not the meeting place.

So, it's just a meeting place.

A second purpose that I see that the rocks being used

are as illustrations.

Illustrations of who God is.

For instance, David calling God his rock.

Now, what God, David was meaning when he calls God this rock.

He was referring to a craggy rocky cliff face on which was a mountain fortress.

It was the idea, that this mountain fortress

was not even approachable, much less breach able, by the enemy.

It was up and away, completely safe.

He was calling God his ultimate safety his ultimate protection.

Now, so the rock itself, the craggy cliff face, is not important as a cliff face or

as a rocky fortress.

It is only important in describing the strength and the security that God

provides to David.

Now here is something very super fascinating, so, even as David is not actually calling

God a mountain fortress, an actual physical rocky cliff mountain fortress, what if

the protections he's assigning to God are also more than merely physical.

Now here's where this gets very relational.

See, I find in Psalms 23, you know this is where David is talking

about walking through the valley of the shadow of death fearing no evil.

See, he's walking through the valley, he's not been kept away from it, he's not been

taken around it or over it.

He's not in some cosmic safe space; he's right in the middle of the valley where all the

evil is flying at him.

And yet, he says I will fear no evil because you God are with me.

He doesn't fear because he knows who is walking beside him.

He knows that the one walking beside him has his

back; something very profoundly relational.

Now, Jesus also opens us up a little bit in the book of John.

Where he says to his disciples he's talking to his disciples, he says, fellas, in this world

you're gonna have troubles.

But cheer up, I've overcome the world.

Do you hear what he's saying?

He's saying fellas, in this world, yeah you're gonna take a beating.

It's coming. But be of good cheer.

Take heart, we will overcome it together.

Wow, how much trust do you have to have in order to know a beatings coming but not having

your world rocked by it?

See what I did there?

World rocked by it… yeah.

Anyway, also I have this opened up a little bit by Paul in 2 Corinthians.

You know, Paul here is talking about how, when viewed through eternity, our life

in the eternal, after we're dead and gone, after this current life is over, that all these

light and momentary troubles we're facing are not going to be more than a faint memory, if that.

What we're going to have then far outweighs what we're going through now.

Now, what's interesting is what these little light and momentary problems of his were?

You know we get upset if we run out of food in the refrigerator or if the AC

goes off for a little bit.

But what Paul's talking about is: he was imprisoned, he was flogged severely, he met death time

and time and time again, he was whipped with a punishment called forty minus one lashes,

which is a whipping that literally takes the skin off

your back, he was beaten, and that happened five times, he was beaten with rods three

times, he was shipwrecked, he was stoned, a third use of rocks by the way not weed,

and he and he was left adrift at sea one time for a night and a day floating on the sea.

Now these are all light and momentary.

So it seems that God was protecting him, not from these physical harms not from these physical

dangers, but through them.

A very profound difference.

It seems as if David's rock is really more interested in who you are and protecting you

at that level rather than mere physical protection; which he may provide as well.

But he's more interested in the who and with establishing the relationship that allows

you to take the beating and not worry about it, to take the beating and know that it's

going to be worth it.

Because there's something more coming, very profoundly relational.

Which you know also ties very well into Jesus being the cornerstone.

You see, when Bible mentions Jesus being the cornerstone.

It's not making so much out of the rock.

The rock and the foundation, in itself, is not important to Christianity.

But, it's what those are representing, in terms of Jesus.

See, when we think of a house we know that with a foundation that is strong, the house is going

to stand up for a long time. But, if the foundation starts to crumble and becomes

weak, the walls start to crack, the doors don't open, windows will not open and sometimes

a glass will break.

So, at one point, the whole house will fall down

if the foundation is not fixed.

And so, what they're doing is, they're saying that Jesus is the foundation of a relationship

with God.

You know, as Jesus is the only one who makes that

relationship possible, he is the one and true only foundation upon which the healthy vibrant

vital relationship can be built.

Everything else is a weak relationship.

If you don't build it on Jesus, you're trying to build it on rules, regulations, traditions,

and in other words you're trying to build it on mere religion.

And you're also going to crack and eventually that's gonna leave you with a house collapsing

in on itself.

Because there's nothing there to truly support a relationship. And you'll be left without a home, with no relationship,

nothing really to believe in.

So, once again, the stone itself isn't important.

It's what the stone is illustrating.

What the concrete object is helping you understand about the abstract and relational object, Jesus

Christ.

So, Abbie, I hope that answered your question or at least gave your mind somewhere to

travel as it thinks about it.

Now, if you also have a question that you would like me to address or a topic just to

chat about please tell me.

Like Abby did on my Facebook page or you can leave

it on Twitter, Instagram, or down in the comments section below; novel idea.

And I'll get to it as soon as I can.

And, if you like this video, please click the like and the subscribe button.

And, once you click that subscribe button make sure to tag that little gray Bell icon

that pops up and tell YouTube that you want to be notified each time a new chat is posted.

Thank you.

And until next time click like, click subscribe, and I'll see you then.

For more infomation >> Why are Rocks So Important to Christianity? Or, Seeing Relationship Through Rocks - Duration: 12:59.

-------------------------------------------

Released Files Reveal Long, Intimate Relationship Between Fired Superintendent & Assistant (KNWA) - Duration: 2:30.

For more infomation >> Released Files Reveal Long, Intimate Relationship Between Fired Superintendent & Assistant (KNWA) - Duration: 2:30.

-------------------------------------------

Sarah Ferguson: How William and Kate's relationship sparked 'great regret' for duchess - Duration: 4:37.

 The Duchess of York opened up about her "mistakes" in a candid interview where she told how bride-to-be Kate reminded her of herself when she tied to the knot to Prince Andrew on July 23, 1986, in Westminster Abbey

 She told how she shared the "same experiences" as Duchess Kate when both women married an heir to the throne, in a recently unearthed clip

 Sarah wasn't invited to Kate and Prince William's Westminster Abbey nuptials, but revealed how she felt in the moment she watched Kate walk down the aisle

 Speaking to Elizabeth Saab on US TV show, The Daily, she said: "I was that bride and at 25-years-old I went down the aisle of Westminster Abbey

  "It caused me to have great soul searching on regret, on all the things, you look at

" Sarah Ferguson paved the way for her exit from the royals in 1992 when pictures emerged of the redhead receiving a toe-sucking from oil tycoon John Bryan, who was described as her financial advisor

 In 1992 the Duke and Duchess of York finally announced their separation after spending a lot of time part while Prince Andrew was on royal duties, and later divorced in 1996

 The scandalous divorce came after photographs emerged of Fergie with her toes in the mouth of Texan financial advisor Mr Bryan, while wearing a bikini and lounging in the sun

   Andrew and Sarah were still married at the time, with the photographs also showing the two kissing and canoodling in their swimwear

 But the pair, who have two daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, still remain firm friends and even share a residence

 Sarah has not been an official member of the Royal Family in 20 years. Looking back on the turbulent years that followed her divorce from the father of her two children, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, Sarah admitted she had made "mistakes"

  Speaking in 2011, she said: "I reflect on the past, reflect on what it is like to make thunderous mistakes, or huge lapses of judgment

" But the mother-of-two says it was her two daughters and the support of her ex-husband that helped her see the light in the end of the tunnel

 The said: "Had I not had this great faith, and great heart, this great belief for life, and the passion for humour and joy and my great children and my ex-husband, I certainly wouldn't be here, there's no question about it

" Quizzed over whether she would go back and do things differently if she could, Sarah reflected on herself as a young bride

  She added: "If I being me now could go back to that young girl when I was 24, I would say to her, you know what, I will stick with you, I will stay with you, I'm with you…

you don't need to run around trying to get everyone to love you. I love you i.e. yourself, myself

 "You've got me, listen to me, I will guide you. "Listen to your instincts Sarah and be aware of your behaviour and be aware of how lucky you are

 "You've got the world, you've got the best looking looking prince, you've got the world at your feet

Don't blow it."

For more infomation >> Sarah Ferguson: How William and Kate's relationship sparked 'great regret' for duchess - Duration: 4:37.

-------------------------------------------

Trump takes fresh swipe at Theresa May and 'special relationship' with UK - Duration: 2:53.

</form>  Donald Trump appeared to take a swipe at Theresa May last night by claiming the US had 'no greater friend than Australia

'  The US President delivered a slap-down of the so-called 'special relationship' between the Britain and America in a tweet late on Friday night

 Trump congratulated Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison after he succeeded Malcolm Turnbull as the leader of the country's Liberal Party on Friday

 He wrote: "Congratulations to new Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. There are no greater friends than the United States and Australia!"  Scott Morrison said the pair had enjoyed a 'great discussion' following a phone call on Friday morning and revealed how ties between the countries dates back decades

 He wrote: "Had a great discussion with Donald Trump this morning. We affirmed the strength of the relationship between the US and Australia

I shared the story of Leslie "Bull" Allen, an ANZAC hero who is a symbol of our 100 years of mateship

"  Donald Trump's love for the UK appears to have soured following his acrimonious state visit to the UK earlier this year

 Thousands of protesters descended on central London in July for a huge show of opposition to his visit

  A large Trump Baby balloon was hoisted above Parliament Square depicting Trump as an angry infant wearing a nappy

 The controversial commander-in-chief also sparked fury by posing in Winston Churchill's chair during a visit to Chequers

 Labour's Ruth Smeeth said about the incident: "Churchill embodied the best of British spirit when we were fighting and defeating racists and fascists during World War Two

 "Given Trump's appalling actions and rhetoric, he doesn't even deserve to look at a statue of Churchill let alone sit in his seat

"  Despite his complicated relationship with Britain, Trump still appears to greatly revere Britain's former wartime leader

 Trump moved a bust of the former prime minister back into the Oval Office after he was inaugurated in 2017

 He also hosted a screening of film 'Darkest Hour' which shows Churchill's early days as prime minister leading Britain through World War II at the White House last year