The Royal Family

[tom27111]

Just now, Facecloth said:

Well this has all come from they're treatment hasn't it. From the press and some members of the family has all cumulated in this. It was pretty clear from last night, this is all due to Charles. I'd put money on him being the one who asked about skin colour. They said they wanted to step back in thus country, but go elsewhere and support the family, but was told in no uncertain terms that wasn't going to happen. Then they get  told they won't be offered the titles.

 

We've heard one side of the story, we'll never hear the other.

 

Nobody has come out of this well.

[SecretPro]

27 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Do tell...

 

We've had threads exploring it before but they get shut down pretty quickly 

 

Joey Barton tried to out him on twitter not that long ago too

Edited 9 March 2021 by SecretPro

[Ashley]

I want to watch this now to get my own view on things. 

 

I've seen a quote saying she knew nothing of the royal family when marrying into it? Honestly? 

[Jimothy]

3 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

But it is about being a generation further on. The grandchildren of the monarch born through sons get titles. Charles' children as direct heir to the throne would get them automatically. Andrew's children (Eugenie and Beatrice) get them too as their dad is the Queen's son. Edward's children could have had them but turned them down, and as Anne is a woman her children were not entitled to them.

 

As the first grandchild William is the heir to the throne, and as such his children are also automatically entitled to HRH status. This is the generation where the automatic titles cease for all apart from the direct heir.

 

It wasn't ever going to be a 'joint decision' for Harry's children like with Edward, there was no decision to make, it's the way it has always been. Edward is the monarch's son and Harry is her grandson, it's a different protocol, and always has been. Edwards children were entitled to HRH, Harry's aren't. As to why they are getting pelters for feeling put out, maybe it's because people have taken what they said as gospel, rather than having an understanding of how it actually works? FWIW they were offered the title of Earl for Archie, which they turned down.

 

As for Charles and whether or not he goes through with his 'slimming down', who knows what he will do? Archie may well yet get the title she wants for him at the time that the protocol dictates, which is when Charles becomes King. That remains to be seen when the time actually comes, but for now it's only been talked about within the family, as far as I know nothing has actually been decided yet. 

He will be the grandchild of the Monarch when Charles is king, that's when the title would be offered. If that wasn't the case, why is there a need to change protocol, which is when Tom linked to earlier. 

 

You mention it yourself in the final paragraph saying he might be offered it when Charles becomes king, but you are STILL going on about how he's not entitled now as he's a generation further on. How many times do I need to to say, its not about now, it about in the future when Charles is king. So its nothing to to do with him being a generation further down from the monarch to Beatrice and Eugene, because he will become the the Grandchild of the Monarch in future. 

 

So just so you understand. I get he won't be offered it now as he's the great Grandchild of the Monarch and not directly in line of the throne, I get the princesses were born grandchildren of the monarch and therefore offered titles at birth. But Archie will become the Grandchild of a Monarch and protocol dictates he would usually be offered a title, Charles has said no. This only affects Harry and Meghan and their children. Can you see why they might feel singled out?

[tom27111]

8 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

We've had threads exploring it before but they get shut down pretty quickly 

 

Joey Barton tried to out him on twitter not that long ago too

Worst kept secret in football along with the financial dealings of a former Premier League manager who thinks everyone is a top, top player 

[Jimothy]

8 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

We've heard one side of the story, we'll never hear the other.

 

Nobody has come out of this well.

We won't, but as someone who had a fractured relationship with my Dad and didn't see him for 18 years, it's not a decision you take lightly. In implying this was made up, or embellished you are either saying Harry is so weak he'd allow Meghan to force him to collaborate in this story about his family, implying its his dad, and ruin the relationship that way, or that Harry is the arsehole and would happily destroy his relationship with his Dad, for what gain I have no idea.

[tom27111]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

We won't, but as someone who had a fractured relationship with my Dad and didn't see him for 18 years, it's not a decision you take lightly. In implying this was made up, or embellished you are either saying Harry is so weak he'd allow Meghan to force him to collaborate in this story about his family, implying its his dad, and ruin the relationship that way, or that Harry is the arsehole and would happily destroy his relationship with his Dad, for what gain I have no idea.

 

I see what you're saying mate, but 3 hours with Oprah Winfrey is no way to deal with it, is it?

 

 

[Jimothy]

5 minutes ago, tom27111 said:

 

I see what you're saying mate, but 3 hours with Oprah Winfrey is no way to deal with it, is it?

 

 

There was that much shit written about them, so many Piers Morgans mouthing off daily about how bad they were, don't you think they deserve a say? 

 

For a couple of years the narrative has been they basically told the family they wanted out and were painted as the bad guys. They finally go on TV to dispell that lie, tell the world that what you've been told about us on a daily basis is wrong it all started because his dad's being a twat, and people don't react by going "Oh sorry guys, seems we got you all wrong." They double down and moan about them trying to dispell the lies about them. Seems some only want to hear about them when they are being trashed.

Edited 9 March 2021 by Facecloth

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

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! 

Sorry to keep this rolling, but this does deserve a response. Last word:

 

If the will really was there and the powers that be at the time really thought slavery was that immoral and criminal, then the UK would have, as well as using the Navy, seized the slaves involved and released them without compensating the ones that owned them. That they didn't, and instead chose to take on a debt that has only just been paid off ensuring that those who profited directly from the suffering and death of human chattel *continued* to do so, shows that they didn't really want to rock the boat to the degree that they could have.

 

Of course it was a good thing that the UK took initiative and decided to enforce ending the slave trade. But yes, we should look at the good and the bad. And if one really loves a country, one should be prepared to point out where the flaws have been too IMO.

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Ashley said:

I want to watch this now to get my own view on things. 

 

I've seen a quote saying she knew nothing of the royal family when marrying into it? Honestly? 

She thought she was marrying Ralf Little. Easy mistake to make. 

[murphy]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

To be fair I couldn't give a shit about their titles. Makes no difference to me.

 

I'm more concerned and appalled at how they get treated so disgustingly with so much contempt by the public/media. That's what has to change, for me. 

 

Everyone's always encouraged to speak up, speak out, talk about mental health and their own feelings. Someone (be it Meghan or not) does that and they get accused of lying, shot down and told 'she knew what she was getting in to'. It's a weak cop-out to say that to someone who expresses they experienced suicidal thoughts. I sincerely hope those people directing such criticism at them never experience such a low to feel that way, and if they do, I hope they never get accused of having made it up and having to deal with that on top of everything else...

Meghan was welcomed with open arms by the public and media in the beginning,  The tide only turned after allegations about her behaviour from within her own household.  I think that the fact she was of mixed race was only seen as a positive for obvious reasons with our increasingly diverse population.  

 

The Sussexes have a vested interest in appearing as the victims in this whole saga and Meghan has  played it to a tee.  Mental health, suicide and racism, you can't challenge that and she knows it.  What help did she seek that was denied?  She doesn't say.  What where the falsehoods perpetuated against her?  She doesn't say.  Who mentioned the colour of Archie's skin?  She doesn't say and leaves it hanging over the whole family and in a breath casts the monarchy as racist.  It was just as series of vague allegations gently coaxed by her willing accomplice and stage managed to within an inch of it's life.  If you are mentally vulnerable do you really put yourself in the line of fire in the most public way possible and invite all this speculation?

 

I saw it as a careful PR exercise, even with the ex-batt chickens - "I just like to rescue things..."  pauses to polish halo...  Or The Little Mermaid "Its all about meeeee".

 

As someone who takes pains to highlight the injustice of media attacks I find it incredibly crass for her to then use the media to make such unnecessary attacks of her own.

 

Recollections may vary,

 

 

[dsr-burnley]

53 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Sorry to keep this rolling, but this does deserve a response. Last word:

 

If the will really was there and the powers that be at the time really thought slavery was that immoral and criminal, then the UK would have, as well as using the Navy, seized the slaves involved and released them without compensating the ones that owned them. That they didn't, and instead chose to take on a debt that has only just been paid off ensuring that those who profited directly from the suffering and death of human chattel *continued* to do so, shows that they didn't really want to rock the boat to the degree that they could have.

 

Of course it was a good thing that the UK took initiative and decided to enforce ending the slave trade. But yes, we should look at the good and the bad. And if one really loves a country, one should be prepared to point out where the flaws have been too IMO.

Yes, Britain in the early 1800's did not have the modern attitude we have today.  They pragmatically decided that while the whole world (including many men of influence in the Empire) was in favour of the slave trade, it was necessary to compensate the slave owners.  They were not perfect, merely the best of a bad bunch.

 

But the Spanish and Dutch and German and Belgian and French empires were all in favour of the slave trade.  All of North and South America was in favour of slavery and the slave trade.  China, Arabia, India, Asia in general, they were in favour of slavery and the slave trade.  and crucially Africa - almost all of Africa was in favour of slavery and the slave trade.  Obviously no-one wanted to be a slave, but people in power throughout the world had no pbjection in principle to slavery, and few objections in practice.

 

And that's what the UK stopped.  And yes, it's possible to say that putting a stop to Africans selling other Africans into American slavery was not enough, they didn't put a stop to it in the right way - but they did put a stop to it.  Give them that much credit.  They were by far the best anti-slavery campaigners in the world.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Yes, Britain in the early 1800's did not have the modern attitude we have today.  They pragmatically decided that while the whole world (including many men of influence in the Empire) was in favour of the slave trade, it was necessary to compensate the slave owners.  They were not perfect, merely the best of a bad bunch.

 

But the Spanish and Dutch and German and Belgian and French empires were all in favour of the slave trade.  All of North and South America was in favour of slavery and the slave trade.  China, Arabia, India, Asia in general, they were in favour of slavery and the slave trade.  and crucially Africa - almost all of Africa was in favour of slavery and the slave trade.  Obviously no-one wanted to be a slave, but people in power throughout the world had no pbjection in principle to slavery, and few objections in practice.

 

And that's what the UK stopped.  And yes, it's possible to say that putting a stop to Africans selling other Africans into American slavery was not enough, they didn't put a stop to it in the right way - but they did put a stop to it.  Give them that much credit.  They were by far the best anti-slavery campaigners in the world.

On that we agree.

 

A decision based on pragmatism rather than morality and yes, the best of a very bad bunch.

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

41 minutes ago, murphy said:

Meghan was welcomed with open arms by the public and media in the beginning,  The tide only turned after allegations about her behaviour from within her own household.  I think that the fact she was of mixed race was only seen as a positive for obvious reasons with our increasingly diverse population.  

 

The Sussexes have a vested interest in appearing as the victims in this whole saga and Meghan has  played it to a tee.  Mental health, suicide and racism, you can't challenge that and she knows it.  What help did she seek that was denied?  She doesn't say.  What where the falsehoods perpetuated against her?  She doesn't say.  Who mentioned the colour of Archie's skin?  She doesn't say and leaves it hanging over the whole family and in a breath casts the monarchy as racist.  It was just as series of vague allegations gently coaxed by her willing accomplice and stage managed to within an inch of it's life.  If you are mentally vulnerable do you really put yourself in the line of fire in the most public way possible and invite all this speculation?

 

I saw it as a careful PR exercise, even with the ex-batt chickens - "I just like to rescue things..."  pauses to polish halo...  Or The Little Mermaid "Its all about meeeee".

 

As someone who takes pains to highlight the injustice of media attacks I find it incredibly crass for her to then use the media to make such unnecessary attacks of her own.

 

Recollections may vary,

 

 

Could not have said it better myself - great post.

[Guest TamworthFoxes]

I believed every single word Meghan said.

Mind you I believe every single thing anybody ever tells me.

I am more mad that the African prince never returns my emails after I sent him £1,900 to free up his 5 million fortune.

And shockingly 86% of all people in prison in this country are innocent. Shame on our British justice system.

[Scotch]

8 hours ago, tom27111 said:

 

Yeah, you're right.

 

But if they don't want to be part of the family, publicly, why would they want titles for their children?

 

They seem to want to pick and choose what privileges they can have.

 

Finances, security, titles...

 

It doesn't work like that.

 

As I said earlier, we'll never know the full truth. The sooner this blows over, the better.

When have they EVER said that they don't want to be part of the family (publicly or otherwise)? That's not what they've said.

 

What they HAVE said is that they don't want to be full time working royals, which is nothing new. There has always been and still are members of the family that take a less than hands on approach the Harry and Meghan have always maintained that they would still be there in a more part time capacity. 

 

I feel they have been very clear about that and it's getting to the point were folk MUST be deliberately missing the point. It was the Monarchy itself that decided to remove them completely, not them. 

Edited 10 March 2021 by Foxy_Bear

[Nalis]

We'll never know the full truth from either side but calling out Meghan's comments on taking her own life doesnt warrant any value and I dont really understand it.

 

Is she lying? The public will never know

 

Is the benefit of calling Meghan a liar massively outweighed by the harm caused should she not be lying? Most definitely.

[Lionator]

Regardless of Meghan, hearing a prominent famous person say 'I don't believe she was suicidal' hits home for somebody who has felt suicidal myself and had people telling me I am putting it on. He's always had terrible takes when it comes to mental health, I'm glad it's that which has done for him here.

[leicsmac]

43 minutes ago, Nalis said:

We'll never know the full truth from either side but calling out Meghan's comments on taking her own life doesnt warrant any value and I dont really understand it.

 

Is she lying? The public will never know

 

Is the benefit of calling Meghan a liar massively outweighed by the harm caused should she not be lying? Most definitely.

I wish this logic was more understood.

[Jon the Hat]

12 hours ago, Christoph said:

Most people are saying he's going to GB News which is supposed to be some new news channel in the vein of Fox News. Sounds about right for a cretin like him.

GB News will be absolutely the antithesis of Fox News.  For a start we have laws requiring balance in media, and then there is Andrew Neil.  Have you ever listened to Andrew Neil?  He will brook absolutely no bullshit.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Foxy_Bear said:

When have they EVER said that they don't want to be part of the family (publicly or otherwise)? That's not what they've said.

 

What they HAVE said is that they don't want to be full time working royals, which is nothing new. There has always been and still are members of the family that take a less than hands on approach the Harry and Meghan have always maintained that they would still be there in a more part time capacity. 

 

I feel they have been very clear about that and it's getting to the point were folk MUST be deliberately missing the point. It was the Monarchy itself that decided to remove them completely, not them. 

That was something which came out of the interview I think, that clear statement that they never wanted to step down, that this was forced upon them and misreported.  Unfortunately now they have gone full commercial "to pay for their security" it was never going to be possible to come back in.  The reports about security being withdrawn while they were in Canada was pretty appalling I thought, and really forced their hand.  I can believe all of that though.

[Jon the Hat]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I wish this logic was more understood.

On one side Harry might get hurt - well he is a grown man, on the other side, many people feeling suicidal might not say anything to anyone.  Shame on Piers Morgan.

[Blarmy]

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

We'll never know the full truth from either side but calling out Meghan's comments on taking her own life doesnt warrant any value and I dont really understand it.

 

Is she lying? The public will never know

 

Is the benefit of calling Meghan a liar massively outweighed by the harm caused should she not be lying? Most definitely.

No, I don’t agree here. There cannot ever be freebie manipulative tactics in any walk of life. Should it be handled sensitively and with consideration? Of course it should. Should an attempt be made to take everyone’s perspective into account, and attempt to reach an acceptable outcome for all? Always.

 

But you can’t ever just leave something alone that needs dealing with because someone dropped that they felt suicidal. You’re not protecting potentially innocent parties if you do that.

 

I’m not even talking about this Meghan thing necessarily.  I think it’s up to them to sort out with the Royals. As I said before I believe Harry may get hurt, but to be honest I’ve got bigger fish to fry.

 

I’ve seen someone repeatedly fake and threaten suicide (not my ex lol) and it was pure manipulation, to garner attention. All that happened was that other people got hurt, including this persons children. She was playing everyone. I had sympathy - hurt people hurt - but even though I largely kept out of it I advised others to factor in the possibility that they were being played. You don’t even have to say this to the person threatening suicide, but you must factor it in when making decisions that affect other people.

 

I started off by saying I don’t agree with you, but I actually do regarding everyone else other than those directly involved. Everyone should keep out of it, but of course they won’t.  
 

Everyone loves to have an opinion. 

[Voll Blau]

10 hours ago, Ashley said:

I want to watch this now to get my own view on things. 

 

I've seen a quote saying she knew nothing of the royal family when marrying into it? Honestly? 

I interpreted what she said there as not understanding the institution she was marrying into, rather than not knowing anything about who they are. As I said, she came off as pretty naive on that point.

 

 

1 hour ago, Nalis said:

We'll never know the full truth from either side but calling out Meghan's comments on taking her own life doesnt warrant any value and I dont really understand it.

 

Is she lying? The public will never know

 

Is the benefit of calling Meghan a liar massively outweighed by the harm caused should she not be lying? Most definitely.

It's mad, isn't it? People feeling at liberty to talk about suicidal thoughts literally saves lives. How many people will now keep their thoughts to themselves as a result of idiots like Morgan and their inability to see the harm their grandstanding causes? 

[CosbehFox]

59 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

GB News will be absolutely the antithesis of Fox News.  For a start we have laws requiring balance in media, and then there is Andrew Neil.  Have you ever listened to Andrew Neil?  He will brook absolutely no bullshit.

OT, the other staff they've hired suggests that whilst not quite on the scale of Fox News, it's going to be certainly hinting at it. Tom Harwood, Dan Wootton and multiple Brexit Party/Reform UK representatives. Given Andrew Neil's publishing history having him positioned as an arbitrator of balance is quite something. Had to tone that down with his BBC role.