The Royal Family

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

No it’s fine, I’m over it now (just about).

 

In a nutshell, I was fvcked over by a woman who has a serious personality disorder. She pretended to be someone she wasn’t, and did a very good job of it. Look up malignant narcissist, in particular the lovebomb/devalue/discard/hoover cycle.

 

Its on the DMT5 and she ticked every box. And I didn’t have a clue until I’d moved in with her...

 

2 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Same here. It turned out that access to my wallet was her only objective. Tbh, anyone can say stuff about feeling suicidal - it's a classic tool used by those wishing to manipulate others. Most actual suicides occur without any prior warning, apart perhaps from signs of depression. I know from personal experience.  

It's truly unfortunate that happened to you both and thanks for saying so. You have my sympathy.

 

10 minutes ago, bmt said:

Sorry that happened to you mate. What I meant with my earlier post is the estimated number of women falling into that category is 1/200 (from a quick google post), and people are often blinded by their personal experience of something which is actually not that likely to happen.

This, however, is important.

 

It's really, really tempting to generalise after having that kind of experience, but it leads nowhere good.

[Blarmy]

13 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

She was already famous before she met him for fvck's sake. You really think she'd make up being suicidal for a bit of cash, knowing that her children will one day find out about everything that was said in the interview in future?

 

I think the worst thing you can accuse her of (if you want to - some people are clearly desperate to accuse her of something) is being too naive about how the Royal Family operates before she got involved with it. From what he was saying, it sounds like Harry was as sick of the institution as she was. Hard to blame him when you see how it treated his mum.

Wrong. I don’t care who’s done what.  It’s a theory.  And yes, some people are more than capable of lying about anything to get what they want, and what they want doesn’t always make sense.  Some people lie pathologically - they even lie for no apparent reason. 

[StanSP]

Funny how people are willing to wait to see what The Royal Family say (2 sides of the story etc) but have also, at the same time, managed to get to the conclusion she is lying. Purely on the basis that she's an actress

 

 

Can't have it both ways. 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Is there a derogatory term for people who don't care about something, but thoroughly enjoy watching both sides go to extreme nature about said thing you don't care about? Because I'm that. 

[Voll Blau]

3 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

Wrong. I don’t care who’s done what.  It’s a theory.  And yes, some people are more than capable of lying about anything to get what they want, and what they want doesn’t always make sense.  Some people lie pathologically - they even lie for no apparent reason. 

If what you're saying is just a theory then how can you know I'm wrong? I get that some people are pathological liars who would do anything for a bit of attention, but it's slightly alarming that people are so willing to dismiss what she's saying about such a grave subject and so readily assume she's in the minority of people in this world who happen to be complete wrong'uns. If people made that assumption about everyone who'd ever revealed past or present suicidal thoughts then we'd be in a fine mess.

[Blarmy]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

It's truly unfortunate that happened to you both and thanks for saying so. You have my sympathy.

 

This, however, is important.

 

It's really, really tempting to generalise after having that kind of experience, but it leads nowhere good.

Thanks. I’m not that guy though - I put my theory forward with no emotion or agenda. Thinking about it, I’d prefer the royal machine being the bad guys here, rather than a young family - particularly after what Harry has been through.

[Blarmy]

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

If what you're saying is just a theory then how can you know I'm wrong? I get that some people are pathological liars who would do anything for a bit of attention, but it's slightly alarming that people are so willing to dismiss what she's saying about such a grave subject and so readily assume she's in the minority of people in this world who happen to be complete wrong'uns. If people made that assumption about everyone who'd ever revealed past or present suicidal thoughts then we'd be in a fine mess.

I’m saying your wrong about me having an agenda.  I don’t, in fact you seem far more emotionally invested in this than me.

[hejammy]

15 hours ago, casablancas said:

I’m engaged to an Indian lass. We are always pondering what colour tone our spawn would be   I don’t find it offensive and I know she doesn’t. 

If you are talking about it yourselves then that's your business, now imagine your uncle comes and says "oh but what colour will the skin be of your child, don't want it to look too much like an Indian do you..."? Then surely you can see how that can be seen as offensive?

[BlueSi13]

3 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

What a dumb argument. Italy, Ireland and Germany all have elected head of states with limited constitutional powers available to them and they are so low key I bet you don't even know their names.

So your grand idea would be to replace one very expensive but non-political head of state with another very expensive but elected (political) head of state?

 

 

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Gammons getting gammony about the mention of gammon. 

Would you describe yourself as a 'gammon'? Just wondered. 

 

[Babylon]

7 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Would you describe yourself as a 'gammon'? Just wondered. 

 

Hang on I'll check....

 

Obese (No)

Red faced (No)

Unhealthy love for the Queen that only presents itself when a black person says something against her (No)

Says snowflake a lot (No)

Admires Nigel Farage (No)

Thinks Trump "says it like it is" (No). 

 

I'm afraid not. 

 

Edited 9 March 2021 by Babylon

[Spudulike]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

Hang on I'll check....

 

Obese (No)

Red faced (No)

Unhealthy love for the Queen that only presents itself when a black person says something against her (No)

Says snowflake a lot (No)

Admires Nigel Farage (No)

Thinks Trump "says it like it is" (No). 

 

I'm afraid not. 

 

That's both of us then  Marvellous. 

[MustardTiger]

All hail the coming of the anti-gammon. 

[BlueSi13]

2 hours ago, David Guiza said:

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. 

 

 

Considering that the crown is by it's very definition, non-political, how do you suppose they do this?

 

The slave trade is a mark on all of human history and continues to be present in many corners of the planet.  But if the monarch was to propose we offer some sort of reparations to make amends for our involvement in the slave trade, do we demand reparations from the Turkish for their slave raids along the coasts of the British Isles for over 300 years?

 

Let's not forget that the British Empire was also the first to fully outlaw slavery in 1833, using 40%(!) of its budget to buy the freedom for all slaves within the Empire. In fact that was such a large sum of borrowed money the UK only finished paying it off in 2015.  In other words our taxes from just a few years ago went toward paying off the loan to abolish slavery.  

 

Either way we are going wildly off track now 

[Sly]

 

[BlueSi13]

[Voll Blau]

18 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

I’m saying your wrong about me having an agenda.  I don’t, in fact you seem far more emotionally invested in this than me.

I never said you had an agenda, but it's clear that some people do. It wasn't meant as a direct refence to you personally, so sorry if that's how you interpreted it.

 

I'm not emotionally invested in this. I just find it laughable that people think we should assume she was lying about being suicidal. There's absolutely no grounds for making that assumption,

 

 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Considering that the crown is by it's very definition, non-political, how do you suppose they do this?

 

The slave trade is a mark on all of human history and continues to be present in many corners of the planet.  But if the monarch was to propose we offer some sort of reparations to make amends for our involvement in the slave trade, do we demand reparations from the Turkish for their slave raids along the coasts of the British Isles for over 300 years?

 

Let's not forget that the British Empire was also the first to fully outlaw slavery in 1833, using 40%(!) of its budget to buy the freedom for all slaves within the Empire. In fact that was such a large sum of borrowed money the UK only finished paying it off in 2015.  In other words our taxes from just a few years ago went toward paying off the loan to abolish slavery.  

 

Either way we are going wildly off track now 

Perhaps I shouldn't continue off-piste, but I've wondered for a while about this particular thing.

 

How moral, exactly, is it to give monetary compensation to those who owned human beings and profited from their chattel and suffering and (in many cases) death?

[BlueSi13]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps I shouldn't continue off-piste, but I've wondered for a while about this particular thing.

 

How moral, exactly, is it to give monetary compensation to those who owned human beings and profited from their chattel and suffering and (in many cases) death?

Of course the alternative would have been to not pay them which would probably have led to those in captivity being shipped off to somewhere where it remained legal or something a lot worse.

[Blarmy]

10 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I never said you had an agenda, but it's clear that some people do. It wasn't meant as a direct refence to you personally, so sorry if that's how you interpreted it.

 

I'm not emotionally invested in this. I just find it laughable that people think we should assume she was lying about being suicidal. There's absolutely no grounds for making that assumption,

 

 

No worries. I can assure you I am not assuming she is lying, I don’t do that about anything, even things I care about. But I’m also not going to assume she isn’t lying, that would be a mugs game.

 

Fact is, we will never know anyway. 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Of course the alternative would have been to not pay them which would probably have led to those in captivity being shipped off to somewhere where it remained legal or something a lot worse.

Another alternative that existed would be to seize and to free them without compensation - it's not like the manpower didn't exist to do it, but evidently the will did not.

 

But yes, this is encroaching on off-topic.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Is there a derogatory term for people who don't care about something, but thoroughly enjoy watching both sides go to extreme nature about said thing you don't care about? Because I'm that. 

 

Michael Jackson-like popcorn gobbler? 

[David Guiza]

27 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Considering that the crown is by it's very definition, non-political, how do you suppose they do this?

 

The slave trade is a mark on all of human history and continues to be present in many corners of the planet.  But if the monarch was to propose we offer some sort of reparations to make amends for our involvement in the slave trade, do we demand reparations from the Turkish for their slave raids along the coasts of the British Isles for over 300 years?

 

Let's not forget that the British Empire was also the first to fully outlaw slavery in 1833, using 40%(!) of its budget to buy the freedom for all slaves within the Empire. In fact that was such a large sum of borrowed money the UK only finished paying it off in 2015.  In other words our taxes from just a few years ago went toward paying off the loan to abolish slavery.  

 

Either way we are going wildly off track now 

Sitting on hoards of wealth gathered in such a way goes beyond being apolitical, it's just a human decency thing. I do however completely agree; ultimately there is no way in which to make amends for such atrocities, but it's still far from ideal that they are propped up on such dirty money. As we both say though, it's completely off track. 

 

I would also argue that your choice, or perhaps borrowed choice, of wording of 'budget to buy freedom for all slaves' is a sticky point too. The budget was to compensate the slave owners at such a grossly enormous sum that it was only recently paid off. Two sides of the same coin, but one makes it far more favourable than the other. Ironically, the last thing I did before total lockdown was watch a play about it called The Whip which wasn't as masochistic as it sounds . 

 

Anyway, that's enough of this thread for me. When folk like Emily Hewertson are being cited, successfully, as the middle ground you know it's gone too far. 

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Is there a derogatory term for people who don't care about something, but thoroughly enjoy watching both sides go to extreme nature about said thing you don't care about? Because I'm that. 

 

16 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Michael Jackson-like popcorn gobbler? 

Nah, it has to refer to skin colour or some other physical attribute. I think that's how it works. 

[murphy]

My take on the Meghan debacle fwiw:

 

We will never know the true story and the monarchy or the 'institution' as she sneeringly refers to it, will never to stoop to an Oprah style hatchet job.  

 

We do know that Meghan is being investigated for bullying and that several members of her staff quit, allegedly for her over-bearing nightmare behaviour.  She is estranged from her own father and half-sister and this reputation for being difficult follows her around.

 

Then there are the inconsistencies.  Archie being 'denied' a title for example although Meghan didn't care about the status and grandeur, oh no.  It seems to me that the titles of prince and princess follow the lineage through the heirs.  For instance, Charles' sons are princes, Andrew's, Anne's and Edward's children are not.  William as the next heir will have titled children but Harry will not.  This is normal and keeping with the tradition isn't it?  

 

Further inconsistencies, Meghan never read the press but was devastated by it.  The Sussexes could no longer abide the spotlight and intrusion so they retired to sleepy LA.  Of course they did!  They so despise the intrusion into their private lives that they have signed deals with netflix and spotify to do exactly that.  Not to mention the Oprah interview itself which was a classless hatchet job that needn't have happened.

 

I suppose it comes down to who you believe.  I just don't buy it and my gut tells me that we are witnessing a narcissist and manipulator at work.

 

 

Edited 9 March 2021 by murphy