The Royal Family

[Scotch]

3 minutes ago, murphy said:

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

From what I've gathered, yes. But I think the problem is that they have been told that when Charles takes the throne, Archie won't get that. 

[Greg2607]

My personal opinion is that I thought they both came across very well. 

 

it appeared sincere on the surface.

 

is it the WHOLE truth? probably not.  Is it their perspective of what they believe the truth to be? yeah absolutely. 

 

We all view the world through our own lenses and the "truth" is never absolute. 

 

 

 

[Corky]

8 hours ago, Unabomber said:

So Piers Morgan is happy to go on rants slagging people off yet as soon as someone even questions him he storms off like a mardy teenager. He is truly pathetic, the guy didn’t even have a go at him just pointed out what Piers himself has been doing. I’m starting to think it might just all be an act and he isn’t a real person but an actor who has been tasked to portray a massive weapon. 

Will never get old

 

[RowlattsFox]

At least the writers of the Crown have some good material for years to come.

 

Their motive appears to be revenge rather than raising issues within the royal family. Would the interview happened had they not been 'financially cut off'. Who knows. 

 

The mental struggles are understandable, but it's a bit weird that you'd go to HR and what did Harry do to help with this? Or are we assuming he was unaware? 

 

I feel for Archie who is going to grow up into a fued which is unnecessary. It will probably be the queen's death that brings them back together in some form. 

 

Either way, if the media didn't overplay it all, noone would really give a shit. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

50 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

My personal opinion is that I thought they both came across very well. 

it appeared sincere on the surface.

is it the WHOLE truth? probably not.  Is it their perspective of what they believe the truth to be? yeah absolutely. 

We all view the world through our own lenses and the "truth" is never absolute. 

This is the best take I've seen on the whole shebang 

[Jattdogg]

FWIW and what's most important here is given the chance,    I would shag either kate or megan or both at the same time if they insisted.  These are sacrifices that i am willing to make for the betterment  of the monarchy.

 

Yes the kids might have a bit of beige in them from me but hey dont we all love a friday night curry?

 

Kate, Megan....if you're reading please give me a call.

 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Jattdogg 

 

Ps! If any ladies (or gents) feel the same about harry and william then sacrifices can be made by you.

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

Get in there before f@#ing Paul Dacre takes over:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56334082

[Jimothy]

3 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Get in there before f@#ing Paul Dacre takes over:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56334082

Hope they throw the book at him. Normally roll my eyes at people who complain about TV, but his comments and behaviour have been disgusting, and he needs reigning in. He's got a weird obsession with Meghan and it goes beyond this news story. 

[Corky]

10 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Get in there before f@#ing Paul Dacre takes over:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56334082

Piers Morgone

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, Greg2607 said:

My personal opinion is that I thought they both came across very well. 

 

it appeared sincere on the surface.

 

is it the WHOLE truth? probably not.  Is it their perspective of what they believe the truth to be? yeah absolutely. 

 

We all view the world through our own lenses and the "truth" is never absolute. 

 

 

 

It might have seemed sincere but did they really have to do that on a TV show? Really no need for it unless you have ulterior motives. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

12 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Get in there before f@#ing Paul Dacre takes over:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56334082

Lovely stuff.

 

How he's gotten away with some of the stuff he's done or been a part of over the years is beyond me.

[RowlattsFox]

So Piers has gone one step too far this time. If he's quit rather than sacked, then it looks like a final "you need me more than I need you" sort of way. 

 

I'll whisper it quietly, but I don't always disagree with some of his points, but he is a bellend. He'll be on a new show in no time.

[Unabomber]

He had to be sacked/leave before he was after how he has been acting these last few days. Hopefully he doesn’t get any tv work again but I’d be surprised. 

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, RowlattsFox said:

It will probably be the queen's death that brings them back together in some form. 

 

Either way, if the media didn't overplay it all, no one would really give a shit

More likely that when HRH pegs it, the "firm" will break even further apart. As populist as they are among Brits and, maybe even more so Americans, the "firm is now rapidly becoming outdated as the world moves on. The Commonwealth is largely going to go the same way as the USSR over time, IMO.

 

The media is a business focused on selling it's media. It will leech (No offence to @uptheleaguefox) onto anything that will bring in sales and because people do "give a shit" out of morbid fascination and the desire to know the so-called secrets of those considered to be famous or a "star". 

[Bellend Sebastian]

3 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

So Piers has gone one step too far this time. If he's quit rather than sacked, then it looks like a final "you need me more than I need you" sort of way. 

 

I'll whisper it quietly, but I don't always disagree with some of his points, but he is a bellend. He'll be on a new show in no time.

Seems like everyone can monetize being one except me

[SecretPro]

11 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

It might have seemed sincere but did they really have to do that on a TV show? Really no need for it unless you have ulterior motives. 

I think maybe the motive was that they were sick and tired of taking shit, from the press, from the firm, from the family, from the likes of Piers Morgan and decided well, we are free to say what we want now so let's ave it. I don't see any real reason why they should stay quiet. If you took non-stop shit for three years to the point it made you suicidal and affected every aspect of your life would you really be fine not having your say? 

[Greg2607]

30 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

It might have seemed sincere but did they really have to do that on a TV show? Really no need for it unless you have ulterior motives. 

Well of course.  They wanted to address the narrative that's been built about them as they didn't feel it was a true representation. 

 

 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

I've only ever been banned by a social media platform once and it was a 24 hour ban on twitter for saying, but more blunlty, you know you loathe piers Morgan when you find yourself cheering for Jeremy Clarkson. 

[winteriscoming]

I watched about 40 mins of the interview and didn’t believe a word Meghan said. 
The whole interview seemed staged. Even the reaction from Oprah about 1 of the royals asking the skin colour of Archie seemed extremely false. 
Just my opinion. 

[Jimothy]

I was sorry to learn Piers Morgan has left GMB. I’ve left him a message of sympathy on my own voicemail.

[Scotch]

38 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

It might have seemed sincere but did they really have to do that on a TV show? Really no need for it unless you have ulterior motives. 

They've not exactly had very good past experiences with the media so doing an interview with a friend who they trust not to blindside them makes perfect sense to me. 

[urban.spaceman]

Not commented on this yet because yesterday the whole internet was utterly toxic on the issue.

 

The British Press are a ****ing disgrace. We've known this for decades but still haven't been able to do anything about it. Their relentless negative and derogatory coverage of not only the Royals but vulnerable people and minority groups continues to be utterly disgusting. This needed to be stopped 20 years ago.

 

But the whole interview just feels really, really unsavoury to me. Making very vague claims on the biggest platform, without the right of reply, or context, about your own family just seems utterly devoid of class. It's also a bit tone deaf to be claiming you're a victim, during a global pandemic when millions of people have lost their lives, loved ones, jobs and freedom, from the lawn of your rented mansion in LA. 

 

They're also playing on people's ignorances about royal protocol and history. 

 

For me, while their claims are concerning, I'm not impressed with their behaviour. 

[tom27111]

11 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

They've not exactly had very good past experiences with the media so doing an interview with a friend who they trust not to blindside them makes perfect sense to me. 

Not sure that Oprah could really be classed as a friend.

 

Met them once before she was invited to their wedding, which seems a bit odd to me.

 

But then again, so does being estranged from the most of your family.

 

I'm sure she's lovely though 

[Lambert09]

[Jimothy]

7 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Not commented on this yet because yesterday the whole internet was utterly toxic on the issue.

 

The British Press are a ****ing disgrace. We've known this for decades but still haven't been able to do anything about it. Their relentless negative and derogatory coverage of not only the Royals but vulnerable people and minority groups continues to be utterly disgusting. This needed to be stopped 20 years ago.

 

But the whole interview just feels really, really unsavoury to me. Making very vague claims on the biggest platform, without the right of reply, or context, about your own family just seems utterly devoid of class. It's also a bit tone deaf to be claiming you're a victim, during a global pandemic when millions of people have lost their lives, loved ones, jobs and freedom, from the lawn of your rented mansion in LA. 

 

They're also playing on people's ignorances about royal protocol and history. 

 

For me, while their claims are concerning, I'm not impressed with their behaviour. 

I wasn't their rented house, or Oprah for starters, it was someone Oprah knew who offered the use.

 

You say about right to reply, this was there reply after years and years of negative press coverage where they had no reply. The family will have a chance to respond, in fact they have. In the interview they were nothing but complimentary about the Queen, and Harry spoke about how things were getting better with his Dad. I think whoever they were talking about having asked the question about the baby will know they've done wrong now, I'm assuming it's Charles it seems a lot of this stuff centres around him, and thats why they wouldn't go further about into it, but also why they weren't concerned about bringing it up as it won't cause any more damage.

 

I don't think they've played on people ignorance of protocol. As pointed out above the title thing wasn't about Archie getting one now, it was about that option being removed when Charles becomes king.