The Royal Family

[SecretPro]

Royals: "Megan is a nasty bully, we will launch an immediate investigation, we are extremely concerned"

 

Everyone else "Prince Andrew is a peadophile"

 

Royals: "what's that, hmm, oh look at that bird over there!"

[SecretPro]

12 minutes ago, murphy said:

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.

 

 

I love this baseless character assasination when in reality one side has much more form than the other:

 

Diana

Covering up peadophile ring

 

PS. you do realise there is a difference between constant negative press intrusion and working for a living? They didn't want to disapear off the face of the earth, they didn't want to be out of the limelight, that's a myth that was denied by them yesterday in quite clear terms.

Edited 9 March 2021 by SecretPro

[murphy]

10 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

I love this baseless character assasination when in reality one side has much more form than the other:

 

Diana

Covering up peadophile ring

Like I said, it comes down to who you believe and it's hardly 'baseless'.  Apparently Meghan's staff refer to themselves as the Sussex survivors club, but again we'll never know.  You can infer what you want and I'll have my own opinion.  She stirred the hornet's nest and invites us to do exactly that.

 

Edited 9 March 2021 by murphy

[murphy]

19 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

I love this baseless character assasination when in reality one side has much more form than the other:

 

Diana

Covering up peadophile ring

 

PS. you do realise there is a difference between constant negative press intrusion and working for a living? They didn't want to disapear off the face of the earth, they didn't want to be out of the limelight, that's a myth that was denied by them yesterday in quite clear terms.

Three times Harry put out pubic statements asking for the press to respect their privacy.  He referred to them in the interview, so where do they end up?  LA, home of the paparazzi.

 

If they are so aware of the damage of negative publicity why have they gone out of their way to create it in such a spiteful manner and safe in the knowledge that only their side will be heard?

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

16 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

I love this baseless character assasination when in reality one side has much more form than the other:

 

Diana

Covering up peadophile ring

 

PS. you do realise there is a difference between constant negative press intrusion and working for a living? They didn't want to disapear off the face of the earth, they didn't want to be out of the limelight, that's a myth that was denied by them yesterday in quite clear terms.

So any accusation against Megan is inherently baseless, but everything she says is to be taken as gospel truth unburdened by any scrutiny...because what?

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 hour ago, BlueSi13 said:

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?

Since I think a head of state is a necessary function in order to appoint a government then yes. It's also not a divisive argument that such a person at the top of state structure should be renumerated appropriately and so elected to allow for proper accountability. 

 

Your judgement of what is "non-political" is also telling, as if a political act is only voting or saying what you're politics are rather than having interests and acting on them. The Queen clearly has her own interests that she can act upon.

[SecretPro]

1 minute ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

So any accusation against Megan is inherently baseless, but everything she says is to be taken as gospel truth unburdened by any scrutiny...because what?

Is that what I said?

 

An out and out post attributing every single thing she says and does to be nonsense based on 'opinion' because some people spaff over the royal family who have proven history of mismanagement.

 

I'm merely saying there is far to much hatred for a woman who's told her story based on people simply 'not believeing her'. You don't know her, I don't know her, in time we can judge it on evidence as long as the Royals don't brush it under the carpet which is their usual tried and tested approach.

 

People happy to judge Markle based on nothing but opinion and press reports (rather than actual facts) and yet the same people not willing to comprehend that she might be in the right despite there being clear history of royal mismanagement and allowing a man to retain his title after peadophile and sex trafficking allegations without so much as a blinked eyelid, let alone a 'full royal investigation'.

 

Why are so many people triggered by this? Plain weird.

[Jon the Hat]

41 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Royals: "Megan is a nasty bully, we will launch an immediate investigation, we are extremely concerned"

 

Everyone else "Prince Andrew is a peadophile"

 

Royals: "what's that, hmm, oh look at that bird over there!"

If an employee complains they have to investigate, it is the law.  Media accusations / enquiries related to allegations from abroad they will continue to rebuff I am sure, as that is PR.

[SecretPro]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

If an employee complains they have to investigate, it is the law.  Media accusations / enquiries related to allegations from abroad they will continue to rebuff I am sure, as that is PR.

Not just media though is it - the American Legal System want to speak to him...

[BKLFox]

I'd also find it strange that Meghan would receive no support on her mental health from "The Firm", given that Prince William has talked openly about mental health & including it in the football arena to encourage men to talk more, Kate is a patron of Place2Be a charity for improving childrens mental health & has done multiple podcasts on the subject.
Her very own Harry has struggled with his mental well being for over 20yrs & is chairman of the Invictus Games which deals with mental injuries as well as physical.

 

All 3 are also Patrons of HeadsTogether so its hardly like the Royal family have their heads in the sand about mental health.

 

Will also add Prince Charles is a Patron of Combat Stress & that Meghan herself joined the HeadsTogether foundation as a patron once she married.

Edited 9 March 2021 by BKLFox

[String fellow]

1 hour 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 

It's odd how horrible histories all tend to focus on Britain's past. Previous centuries have seen dreadful things happen everywhere, not just where British interests were. Spain's activities in South America under the conquistadors were horrendous. And those who want to remove the monarchy might reflect upon the French, and more recently, the Russian revolutions. Tsar Nicholas II and his family, including all the children, were hacked to death and their remains put down a mine shaft by the Bolsheviks.

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

7 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

I'd also find it strange that Meghan would receive no support on her mental health from "The Firm", given that Prince William has talked openly about mental health & including it in the football arena to encourage men to talk more, Kate is a patron of Place2Be a charity for improving childrens mental health & has done multiple podcasts on the subject.
Her very own Harry has struggled with his mental well being for over 20yrs & is chairman of the Invictus Games which deals with mental injuries as well as physical.

 

All 3 are also Patrons of HeadsTogether so its hardly like the Royal family have their heads in the sand about mental health.

Well for a start Harry said they didn’t tell anyone in the family about her mental health struggles 

[BKLFox]

10 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

Well for a start Harry said they didn’t tell anyone in the family about her mental health struggles 

she herself is a Patron of the HeadsTogether foundation & given his own struggles i would assume Harry would have seeked help for her if no one was listening?

Which professional did she speak to or was it an aid?

Also So she didn't confide in the family but using it as a stick?
 

Edited 9 March 2021 by BKLFox

[Finnaldo]

13 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Since I think a head of state is a necessary function in order to appoint a government then yes. It's also not a divisive argument that such a person at the top of state structure should be renumerated appropriately and so elected to allow for proper accountability. 

 

Your judgement of what is "non-political" is also telling, as if a political act is only voting or saying what you're politics are rather than having interests and acting on them. The Queen clearly has her own interests that she can act upon.

It’s also a lot easier to investigate an elected Head of State should you need to. Prince Andrew mentioned to death on here, and the Royals ‘influencing’ laws around their wealth have been mentioned as well as it’s been touched on in media lately, but as it stands nothing is done of it and it’s swept under the carpet. Ex-President Sarkozy in France has just been jailed and Trump is in hot water of taxes in the States. Elected HoS are much easier to investigate and if necessary, prosecute than an institution that has a vested interest in keeping these things swept under the carpet forever and who the political and judicial framework are extremely hesitant to intervene with. This is especially true in the 21st Century where constitutional safeguards could be implemented with a change to a Republican system.

[Sharpe's Fox]

10 minutes ago, String fellow said:

It's odd how horrible histories all tend to focus on Britain's past. Previous centuries have seen dreadful things happen everywhere, not just where British interests were. Spain's activities in South America under the conquistadors were horrendous. And those who want to remove the monarchy might reflect upon the French, and more recently, the Russian revolutions. Tsar Nicholas II and his family, including all the children, were hacked to death and their remains put down a mine shaft by the Bolsheviks.

Britain was putting Mau Mau Kenyans in concentration camps and ripping off their testicles with pliers in living memory. This was after the Holocaust. Some of these people are still alive.

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

 

[Scotch]

1 hour ago, murphy said:

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.

 

 

Andrews children are not Princesses? You sure about that? 

 

I'm willing to bet that you didn't actually watch the interview.... Am I right? 

Edited 9 March 2021 by Foxy_Bear

[murphy]

57 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Is that what I said?

 

An out and out post attributing every single thing she says and does to be nonsense based on 'opinion' because some people spaff over the royal family who have proven history of mismanagement.

 

I'm merely saying there is far to much hatred for a woman who's told her story based on people simply 'not believeing her'. You don't know her, I don't know her, in time we can judge it on evidence as long as the Royals don't brush it under the carpet which is their usual tried and tested approach.

 

People happy to judge Markle based on nothing but opinion and press reports (rather than actual facts) and yet the same people not willing to comprehend that she might be in the right despite there being clear history of royal mismanagement and allowing a man to retain his title after peadophile and sex trafficking allegations without so much as a blinked eyelid, let alone a 'full royal investigation'.

 

Why are so many people triggered by this? Plain weird.

But don't you get it?  It's all just opinions but she asks for opinions.  She has cast a great big opinion net.  She didn't need to do this interview.  If the pair of them had just sodded off and lived their lives then I wouldn't spend a moment's thought on them but they felt the need to put on this crass spectacle.  There are no facts here.  They have deliberately and very publicly created this monster and invited us to form an opinion.  All totally avoidable and mired in spite.

 

Far from being triggered, or 'spaffing' for that matter,  I can respect your opinion, you can take it on face value if you want, but in the absence of any facts, you should also respect other opinions.

 

 

 

 

[murphy]

4 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Andrews children are not Princesses? You sure about that? 

No.

 

So why are Edwards and Anne's children not princes or princesses?  Or maybe I'm wrong about that too?  

 

tbf I did phrase it as 'it seems to me' and clearly I am no constitutional expert but would be interested to know.

[Scotch]

Just now, murphy said:

No.

 

So why are Edwards and Anne's children not princes or princesses?  Or maybe I'm wrong about that too?  

 

tbf I did phrase it as 'it seems to me' and clearly I am no constitutional expert but would be interested to know.

Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice? No? Nothing? 

[BlueSi13]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

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.

The will did certainly exist.  The Royal Navy set up the West Africa Squadron in 1808 after the first anti-slaving act in 1807.  It represented a 6th of the entire Royal Navy and its sole purpose was to patrol the coast of West Africa and stop the Atlantic slave trade.  

 

Had to look this up (good old Wikipedia) but the fleet captured over 1,600 ships and freed over 150,000 slaves over a 50 year time frame at the cost of many lives.

 

So yes the will was there and Britain paid in both money and blood.

 

Though it's of course acceptable (and fashionable to many) to shit on what we've done as a country in the past but it's only fair to shout out the good things we did. This was certainly one of them.

 

Anyways that's me done about this topic.  Apologies for boring anyone! 

[Scotch]

1 minute ago, murphy said:

No.

 

So why are Edwards and Anne's children not princes or princesses?  Or maybe I'm wrong about that too?  

 

tbf I did phrase it as 'it seems to me' and clearly I am no constitutional expert but would be interested to know.

Any grandchild of a living monarch has the right to the title of prince or princess. So when Charles becomes King Archie by birthright should have that option. I think the problem here is that they were told he would not have...

[murphy]

1 minute ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice? No? Nothing? 

Yes I know, I just acknowledged that.  What do you mean?

[murphy]

.

[murphy]

1 minute ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Any grandchild of a living monarch has the right to the title of prince or princess. So when Charles becomes King Archie by birthright should have that option. I think the problem here is that they were told he would not have...

OK, yes, looking into it, the title would be automatically applied upon Charles' successin but not at birth?  I dunno.