The Royal Family

[David Guiza]

49 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Evidence?  Or is your evidence the fact that they were, prior to Meghan, a wholly white family?  Has every white family in that case indulged in "centuries of racism"? 

 

As for the paedophilia charge, Prince Andrew was accused (not arrested or charged) of sleeping with a 17 year old.  Which, although if proven true, would be a very dodgy thing to do at his age.  Would not make him a paedophile, nor even a criminal in British law.

If one wants to take the route of divulging into the centuries of racism, it's not too difficult to see where it began and continued. The Royals still hold a significant sum of wealth acquired from the British slave trade, which was established to a large degree by Elizabeth I. This then grew and continued for centuries through Charles II and beyond, and yet The Crown have never offered reparatory justice for this. Prince Charles, so as I can tell, is the only Royal to have spoken out about the embarrassment and abhorrent nature of their past. Now, sure, I appreciate that one cannot be held to account for something their ancestors did hundreds of years ago (one could even debate as to whether they are even ancestors), but, inheriting a fortune that was at least in part built on one of the most disgusting acts of human existence and choosing to avoid that issue is at best a little 'dodgy' I would say. That's a whole different mess altogether though. 

 

As for the second part of your post, engaging with sexual activity with somebody below the age of 18, but above the age of 16, when you are in your 40s/50s etc is still a legally questionable territory as consent and grooming are understandably complex areas. Again, that's another mess for another day. 

 

At least on the plus side, this is incredibly tame compared to previous Royal dramas. To paraphrase Jeremy Usbourne, it's not quite murdering your nephews or changing the religion of the entire British Isles to marry somebody else. 

 

 

[tom27111]

22 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Wait.... I'm confused. Andrew's daughters ARE princess's.... Eugenie and Beatrice.... Also, isn't there a princess Alexandra who is some sort of far removed cousin? 

 

Also, you've just said that the parents chose for the children not to have a title but also that Meghan is moaning because she wanted a prince baby.... Isn't that a contradiction?

 

...Or did I pick all of that up wrong? 

 

All grandchildren of a living monarch are entitled to be a Prince or Princess, if they or their parents choose to.

 

Upon Charles taking the throne, Archie will be given the option to have the title of Prince. 

 

This explains it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56325934

Edited 9 March 2021 by tom27111

[Scotch]

1 minute ago, tom27111 said:

 

All grandchildren of a living monarch are entitled to be a Prince or Princess, if they or their parents choose to.

 

Upon Charles taking the throne, Archie will be given the option to have the title of Prince. 

Okay, that makes far more sense. 

[Spudulike]

54 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Millionaires and a billionaire having a tiff... who cares. The amount of gammons absolutely raging about it is utterly bizarre.

 

39 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Some massive gammons on this thread. Eye opening.

'Gammons'?

 

Do people really say that anymore?   

 

[Stevosevic]

So did Piers not come back?

 

The show continued to the end without him?

[Babylon]

4 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

 

'Gammons'?

 

Do people really say that anymore?   

 

No idea.... I’ve not left the house in a year so I’m not sure what the latest description of a red faced buffoon, screaming about patriotism is, or getting “triggered” (also probably last year) by women and brown people.

[dsr-burnley]

31 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Wait.... I'm confused. Andrew's daughters ARE princess's.... Eugenie and Beatrice.... Also, isn't there a princess Alexandra who is some sort of far removed cousin? 

 

Also, you've just said that the parents chose for the children not to have a title but also that Meghan is moaning because she wanted a prince baby.... Isn't that a contradiction?

 

...Or did I pick all of that up wrong? 

Sorry, you're right.  I had forgotten about them.  But I think one of them has just had a baby, haven't they?  And that one won't be a prince or princess?

 

Princess Alexandra got her princess-ship from being the daughter of a son of George V.

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

10 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

 

'Gammons'?

 

Do people really say that anymore?   

 

Very gammony post ngl.

[dsr-burnley]

44 minutes ago, Fightforever said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

 

The fact no one has heard of this tells you how much power and bias she has going for her.

On at least 1,052 separate occasions it has been announced in Parliament that the Queen has vetted a bill.  If no MP or peer or journalist or broadcaster has drawn attention to it, it's because nobody thinks it interesting, not because the Queen has the power to keep it under wraps.

[Blarmy]

It’s just theory, and to be honest I don’t care either way (I’m interested in it but am not rooting for either party) but what I am seeing here has a lot of parallels with an experience I went through recently.

 

Theres a certain type of person who will do anything to get what they want. Actors have a high percentage of their populace who are this type of person. It’s the kind of thing that’s laughed off until you’ve experienced it, and sounds great fetched, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s another element to this. 

 

The relationship got going quickly. Now there are family problems, resulting in Harry being isolated from them.  She has issues with her father.  He may well have codependency issues due to what happened with his mother.  They appear to be a team, fighting an adversary, but she is clearly wearing the trousers. 

 

Harry may get hurt here. 

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

It’s just theory, and to be honest I don’t care either way (I’m interested in it but am not rooting for either party) but what I am seeing here has a lot of parallels with an experience I went through recently.

 

Theres a certain type of person who will do anything to get what they want. Actors have a high percentage of their populace who are this type of person. It’s the kind of thing that’s laughed off until you’ve experienced it, and sounds great fetched, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s another element to this. 

 

The relationship got going quickly. Now there are family problems, resulting in Harry being isolated from them.  She has issues with her father.  He may well have codependency issues due to what happened with his mother.  They appear to be a team, fighting an adversary, but she is clearly wearing the trousers. 

 

Harry may get hurt here. 

It's not impossible.  If Meghan is that person, then eventually a messy divorce will be the next item on the list for her victimhood.  I don't think we can say she is though based on the facts presented.

[surrifox]

2 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

On at least 1,052 separate occasions it has been announced in Parliament that the Queen has vetted a bill.  If no MP or peer or journalist or broadcaster has drawn attention to it, it's because nobody thinks it interesting, not because the Queen has the power to keep it under wraps.

Exactly . It’s a closely guarded conspiracy of the rich and powerful known only to a privileged few and the handful of millions who understand how a constitutional monarchy ( the system under which the they country they live in is governed) operates 

[Fightforever]

8 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

On at least 1,052 separate occasions it has been announced in Parliament that the Queen has vetted a bill.  If no MP or peer or journalist or broadcaster has drawn attention to it, it's because nobody thinks it interesting, not because the Queen has the power to keep it under wraps.

Yeah, it could just be that trashing the monarchy wouldn't be popular with the public.

[Blarmy]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

It's not impossible.  If Meghan is that person, then eventually a messy divorce will be the next item on the list for her victimhood.  I don't think we can say she is though based on the facts presented.

No we can’t, I’m just seeing a lot of similarities to a known relationship type, one I unfortunately know way too much about. 

[bmt]

26 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

All grandchildren of a living monarch are entitled to be a Prince or Princess, if they or their parents choose to.

 

Upon Charles taking the throne, Archie will be given the option to have the title of Prince. 

 

This explains it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56325934

Isn't this what Meghan was saying has been taken away? As in they were told the protocol wasn't to be extended to them. She was quite clear in the interview.

[bmt]

9 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

It’s just theory, and to be honest I don’t care either way (I’m interested in it but am not rooting for either party) but what I am seeing here has a lot of parallels with an experience I went through recently.

 

Theres a certain type of person who will do anything to get what they want. Actors have a high percentage of their populace who are this type of person. It’s the kind of thing that’s laughed off until you’ve experienced it, and sounds great fetched, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s another element to this. 

 

The relationship got going quickly. Now there are family problems, resulting in Harry being isolated from them.  She has issues with her father.  He may well have codependency issues due to what happened with his mother.  They appear to be a team, fighting an adversary, but she is clearly wearing the trousers. 

 

Harry may get hurt here. 

No offence but this is completely baseless and feeds into a narrative started by the British media.

 

Having one experience of something isn't a good basis for an argument which is dependent on statements like "have a high percentage of their populace who".

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

No we can’t, I’m just seeing a lot of similarities to a known relationship type, one I unfortunately know way too much about. 

If it isn't too much for you to talk about, would it be ok to elaborate here?

 

Feel free to say you don't want to clarify further, though.

[dsr-burnley]

1 minute ago, Fightforever said:

Yeah, it could just be that trashing the monarchy wouldn't be popular with the public.

You think the reason the Guardian has never raised it is because they don't want to trash the monarchy?  That's why the SNP have never raised it?  The Morning Star?  Channel 4?  

 

The Guardian is entitled to make a fuss about the idea that the Queen has the right to review bills.  But to claim that it is a secretive process is laughable.  It's as secret as the Eurovision Song Contest, to quote a line I once read in a book.  They announce what they are doing before every single bill that this applies to, and put it in Hansard, and allow the TV cameras to record it and broadcast it, and nobody is the slightest bit bothered.

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

27 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

 

'Gammons'?

 

Do people really say that anymore?   

 

 

Yep, remember mental health matters, we must #bekind
Just not to white guys with rosacea!

[Babylon]

Gammons getting gammony about the mention of gammon. 

[String fellow]

22 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

It’s just theory, and to be honest I don’t care either way (I’m interested in it but am not rooting for either party) but what I am seeing here has a lot of parallels with an experience I went through recently.

 

Theres a certain type of person who will do anything to get what they want. Actors have a high percentage of their populace who are this type of person. It’s the kind of thing that’s laughed off until you’ve experienced it, and sounds great fetched, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s another element to this. 

 

The relationship got going quickly. Now there are family problems, resulting in Harry being isolated from them.  She has issues with her father.  He may well have codependency issues due to what happened with his mother.  They appear to be a team, fighting an adversary, but she is clearly wearing the trousers. 

 

Harry may get hurt here. 

All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. That is according to Shakespeare in As You Like It. Could it perhaps be that Meghan is currently playing the victim role as she laughs all the way to the bank? Let's not forget that nobody forced her into marrying into the Windsors. And Harry, if he loves his father as we were informed, would he really criticise him so publicly?

Edited 9 March 2021 by String fellow

[Nalis]

Would gammons be classed a minority group? If so we've gone full circle people.

[SecretPro]

4 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Would gammons be classed a minority group? If so we've gone full circle people.

I think Gammons are the Majority in the UK sadly.

[Wymsey]

Hope Buckingham Palace don't 'decline to comment' after being pressed to give their side of the story..

[FOXYTALK]

12 million watched it. So we are all gammons 😂