The Royal Family

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, Blarmy said:

Point of note: Even if she does have a cluster B personality disorder she doesn’t deserve to be treated badly by anyone, including the press, because of it. 

And of course conversely, someone with cluster B personality disorder shouldn't be taken seriously when she makes allegations like this.

[Scotch]

The one thing that always seems to be forgotten about during this whole mess is Harry. 

 

I'm sure it suits the agenda of some to believe that he's just taking a back seat and letting his gobby Mrs take the reigns and manipulate him but Harry has never seemed completely happy within the royal family, especially it's relationship with the press and it appears to me that he has just as mutch to say regarding it than his wife does. More so, in some respects yet the spotlight stays on Meghan. 

 

During that interview, she was very careful to seperate the royal family with the institution of the monarchy, making sure she was nothing but complimentary about the members of the family itself whilst bashing the "firm". It was Harry who was a lot more personal and who blurred the lines between the two. 

 

Maybe, just maybe, alot of the resentment is rooted in him and not his better half with her being the lightning rod that brought that resentment to the surface. 

 

The fact that the media have concentrated so much of its attention on her despite the fact that he had the far more damning things to say tells you all you need to know about the narrative thats been fed and ate to and by the Brittish public.

[Koke]

Wasn't it Harry who told Meghan about the questions regarding the skin colour of their baby? If so, why are people raging at Meghan? It was Harry who brought to her attention, he made the allegations.

[Scotch]

44 minutes ago, Koke said:

Wasn't it Harry who told Meghan about the questions regarding the skin colour of their baby? If so, why are people raging at Meghan? It was Harry who brought to her attention, he made the allegations.

Exactly. It was also him who outright declared, he will never reveal the details of that conversation so Meghan can't exactly do it. 

[Stevosevic]

56 minutes ago, Koke said:

Wasn't it Harry who told Meghan about the questions regarding the skin colour of their baby? If so, why are people raging at Meghan? It was Harry who brought to her attention, he made the allegations.

Well....

 

He told Meghan that in person and it was Meghan who raised it in the interview. 

 

When Harry was later asked, because Meghan had mentioned it earlier, he refused to say the person.

 

So I guess some would say it was Meghan who decided to make this public, not Harry...

[tom27111]

Would be really interested to see what a body language expert has to say about it all.

 

I'm not aware of anyone doing that yet, which surprises me.

 

 

[Aus Fox]

7 hours ago, Nick said:

Is this a serious comment or an old white man parody spoof account post?

Genuine question: what has someone’s race and age got to do with their opinions?

Clearly there’s a divide her in who people chose to believe and how they feel about both the monarchy as an institution and how Megan and Harry have been treated. 
But we are on a very slippery slope when we use race, age, gender, sexuality as an insult for a person holding an opinion. 

[hejammy]

47 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Well....

 

He told Meghan that in person and it was Meghan who raised it in the interview. 

 

When Harry was later asked, because Meghan had mentioned it earlier, he refused to say the person.

 

So I guess some would say it was Meghan who decided to make this public, not Harry...

But why is this relevant? Whoever made it public is irrelevant as the content both of which have said happened is what is wrong. Why digress into the semantics of who raised the point? 

[Scotch]

1 hour ago, Aus Fox said:

Genuine question: what has someone’s race and age got to do with their opinions?

Clearly there’s a divide her in who people chose to believe and how they feel about both the monarchy as an institution and how Megan and Harry have been treated. 
But we are on a very slippery slope when we use race, age, gender, sexuality as an insult for a person holding an opinion. 

I don't disagree with your views on profiling someone's opinion based on any of those thing but to answer your question...

 

It is not uncommon for old white men in this country to hold particularly outdated opinions on subjects like race, immigration, sexuality and gender. 

Not only that but they are usually excused for said opinion based on being "from a different era"

[Stevosevic]

47 minutes ago, hejammy said:

But why is this relevant? Whoever made it public is irrelevant as the content both of which have said happened is what is wrong. Why digress into the semantics of who raised the point? 

Some would say it was a bombshell dropped for impact. It was raised by Meghan alone with Oprah when Harry wasn't there. Some would say maybe Harry didn't know it was going to be mentioned. 

 

Not my opinion but some would say that. 

[Carl the Llama]

https://newsthump.com/2021/03/10/buckingham-palace-asks-what-colour-piers-morgan-is-after-discovering-hes-a-massive-baby/

[hejammy]

1 minute ago, Stevosevic said:

Some would say it was a bombshell dropped for impact. It was raised by Meghan alone with Oprah when Harry wasn't there. Some would say maybe Harry didn't know it was going to be mentioned. 

 

Not my opinion but some would say that. 

My point stands, regardless of if it was done for impact or not, the subject still stands of it being wrong. Harry didn't deny it he said it happened. This kinda wreakes of the "black lives matter".... "but what about white lives matter" debate. Where one digresses from the real important point to something less relevant 

[Stevosevic]

20 minutes ago, hejammy said:

My point stands, regardless of if it was done for impact or not, the subject still stands of it being wrong. Harry didn't deny it he said it happened. This kinda wreakes of the "black lives matter".... "but what about white lives matter" debate. Where one digresses from the real important point to something less relevant 

Well it was just a response as to whether people may dislike Meghan and see her as the key driver behind all this.

 

It's shocking of course it is, but could it have been dealt with behind closed doors? Who knows.

[Blarmy]

30 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

I don't disagree with your views on profiling someone's opinion based on any of those thing but to answer your question...

 

It is not uncommon for old white men in this country to hold particularly outdated opinions on subjects like race, immigration, sexuality and gender. 

Not only that but they are usually excused for said opinion based on being "from a different era"

I think that’s a thing for all older people - not just white, male older people. I also think it’s completely understandable.  

[bovril]

1 hour ago, hejammy said:

But why is this relevant? Whoever made it public is irrelevant as the content both of which have said happened is what is wrong. Why digress into the semantics of who raised the point? 

Is it really that wrong though? Especially as we don't know the context. I mean it's not really dressing up as Nazis and calling people "my little P*ki friend" is it. 

[Izzy]

2 hours ago, tom27111 said:

Would be really interested to see what a body language expert has to say about it all.

 

I'm not aware of anyone doing that yet, which surprises me.

 

There's a few of these doing the rounds on YouTube

 

 

[Mike Oxlong]

44 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Some would say it was a bombshell dropped for impact. It was raised by Meghan alone with Oprah when Harry wasn't there. Some would say maybe Harry didn't know it was going to be mentioned. 

 

Not my opinion but some would say that. 

I imagine they both had full editorial control right up until the time the interview was aired 

[Mike Oxlong]

12 minutes ago, Izzy said:

There's a few of these doing the rounds on YouTube

 

 

Thinks there’s still a rift between Harry and Chaz 

 

No shit Sherlock ! 

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Foxy_Bear said:

I don't disagree with your views on profiling someone's opinion based on any of those thing but to answer your question...

 

It is not uncommon for old white men in this country to hold particularly outdated opinions on subjects like race, immigration, sexuality and gender. 

Not only that but they are usually excused for said opinion based on being "from a different era"

Just as in the same way, it is no doubt possible to stereotype the views of young, black females and disparage them as a group simply because of their age, gender, and skin colour.  Presumably.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, SecretPro said:

This.

 

People forget that traditions and heritage doesn't always = good. Some of it positively stinks and needs resigning to the history books for good.

I remember reading once that "tradition is peer pressure from dead people".

 

Not always the case, but often enough IMO.

 

7 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

And of course conversely, someone with cluster B personality disorder shouldn't be taken seriously when she makes allegations like this.

This comes back to the earlier discussion about whether one should presume guilt or innocence, someone being manipulative or someone genuinely seeking help, based on the overall damage done to society by doing one or the other, I think. As there is no evidence that Meghan has a personality disorder of any kind.

 

Seeing as presumption of guilt is more damaging overall IMO for reasons that have been given earlier in this thread, I have my own side on the matter.

 

2 hours ago, Blarmy said:

I think that’s a thing for all older people - not just white, male older people. I also think it’s completely understandable.  

Understandable, yes. But acceptable?

 

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Just as in the same way, it is no doubt possible to stereotype the views of young, black females and disparage them as a group simply because of their age, gender, and skin colour.  Presumably.

Guess it depends on which viewpoints they hold (and act on, that's the important part and it's bolded for emphasis) that might be considered problematic. Perhaps some elaboration is in order?

Edited 11 March 2021 by leicsmac

[MPH]

6 hours ago, Koke said:

Wasn't it Harry who told Meghan about the questions regarding the skin colour of their baby? If so, why are people raging at Meghan? It was Harry who brought to her attention, he made the allegations.

 

and yet he’s also the one who has had to publicly apologize for making racist comments  in the past. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-harry/prince-harry-apologizes-over-paki-remark-idUSTRE5092E720090111

 

 

 

 

[Guest worth_the_wait]

On the wider subject of why we still have a Royal Family, in this modern age ...
 
I think that the question is often asked the wrong way round.  Some people say "why should we have a Royal Family?" and then irrelevant things like tourism are mentioned in its defence.
 
But surely the question that should be asked is "what benefits would the Country get from its abolition".   If you want to change something that has been around for a long time, you have to come up with a strong justification with what's going to get better.
 
One of the biggest arguments would probably be that it would be better to have an elected Head of State, rather than one that is inherited via birthright.  But surely this is a big double-edged sword.
 
People who want to be elected (for anything) tend to be self-serving publicists who are doing it for their own benefit.  To get to the top of any position of "power" (for want of a better word), you have to sell yourself, exaggerate, tell half-truths, put down other people, etc etc.   The list is endless.   And if it's anything political, then it's very grubby and nasty as well.
 
And if it was going to be an elected President, would it be of the political type? (eg USA, France) or a non-political type? (eg Republic of Ireland).
 
Either of these options open the door to a even worse situation than we have at present.
 
We could have a political Head of State such as President Boris Johnson, Tony Blair or maybe even Nick Clegg.   Which would almost certainly mean that half the Country hated them, and would be of no use as a respected unifying force.    Would we really want something like that?
 
Or we could have a totally non-political Head of State, who we just dig up from somewhere.   But who would that be?  The winner of Bake Off?  Some bloke off X Factor?  Some bird off Strictly Come Dancing?  Alan Sugar?  Bob Geldof?  Billy Connolly?  Rita Ora?    If you were very, very lucky you might get someone that most people thought was ok.   More likely, we'd get some hideous self-serving wannabe who would be a total embarrassment.   Which again I'd ask, is that really want you'd want?
 
Which comes back to the Constitutional Monarchy.   
 
They don't have to get elected, so they don't need to keep on climbing the grubby, greasy pole of popularity.  
They go out of their way to remain politically neutral, so don't attract hatred from people with strong political opinions.
They generally get on with their jobs of representing the Country, helping 100's of charities and cheering people up in hospital.  
 
Obviously, there has been odd serious mistake and no one would pretend everything has been perfect ... but when it comes to representing the Country and being Head of State, The Queen has done a pretty good job over nearly 70 years.

 

The point I'm getting to is this ...
 
I can't say we have the best system in this Country, but I think it's the least worst.   And in these divided, polarised times, with hatred filling the airwaves and internet ... I think "least worst" is a pretty good recommendation for not getting rid of it.

 

[Blarmy]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I remember reading once that "tradition is peer pressure from dead people".

 

Not always the case, but often enough IMO.

 

This comes back to the earlier discussion about whether one should presume guilt or innocence, someone being manipulative or someone genuinely seeking help, based on the overall damage done to society by doing one or the other, I think. As there is no evidence that Meghan has a personality disorder of any kind.

 

Seeing as presumption of guilt is more damaging overall IMO for reasons that have been given earlier in this thread, I have my own side on the matter.

 

Understandable, yes. But acceptable?

 

Guess it depends on which viewpoints they hold (and act on, that's the important part and it's bolded for emphasis) that might be considered problematic. Perhaps some elaboration is in order?

Yes, in my opinion it is acceptable that old people do not keep up with every social change taking place. I’m sure the vast majority of them don’t hold on to outdated views out of malice. They have failing bodies, failing minds, friends and family dying all around them and the knowledge that they are not going to be alive themselves much longer. It’s hardly surprising that they don’t prioritise the feelings of minority groups.

[Dunge]

37 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

On the wider subject of why we still have a Royal Family, in this modern age ...
 
I think that the question is often asked the wrong way round.  Some people say "why should we have a Royal Family?" and then irrelevant things like tourism are mentioned in its defence.
 
But surely the question that should be asked is "what benefits would the Country get from its abolition".   If you want to change something that has been around for a long time, you have to come up with a strong justification with what's going to get better.
 
One of the biggest arguments would probably be that it would be better to have an elected Head of State, rather than one that is inherited via birthright.  But surely this is a big double-edged sword.
 
People who want to be elected (for anything) tend to be self-serving publicists who are doing it for their own benefit.  To get to the top of any position of "power" (for want of a better word), you have to sell yourself, exaggerate, tell half-truths, put down other people, etc etc.   The list is endless.   And if it's anything political, then it's very grubby and nasty as well.
 
And if it was going to be an elected President, would it be of the political type? (eg USA, France) or a non-political type? (eg Republic of Ireland).
 
Either of these options open the door to a even worse situation than we have at present.
 
We could have a political Head of State such as President Boris Johnson, Tony Blair or maybe even Nick Clegg.   Which would almost certainly mean that half the Country hated them, and would be of no use as a respected unifying force.    Would we really want something like that?
 
Or we could have a totally non-political Head of State, who we just dig up from somewhere.   But who would that be?  The winner of Bake Off?  Some bloke off X Factor?  Some bird off Strictly Come Dancing?  Alan Sugar?  Bob Geldof?  Billy Connolly?  Rita Ora?    If you were very, very lucky you might get someone that most people thought was ok.   More likely, we'd get some hideous self-serving wannabe who would be a total embarrassment.   Which again I'd ask, is that really want you'd want?
 
Which comes back to the Constitutional Monarchy.   
 
They don't have to get elected, so they don't need to keep on climbing the grubby, greasy pole of popularity.  
They go out of their way to remain politically neutral, so don't attract hatred from people with strong political opinions.
They generally get on with their jobs of representing the Country, helping 100's of charities and cheering people up in hospital.  
 
Obviously, there has been odd serious mistake and no one would pretend everything has been perfect ... but when it comes to representing the Country and being Head of State, The Queen has done a pretty good job over nearly 70 years.

 

The point I'm getting to is this ...
 
I can't say we have the best system in this Country, but I think it's the least worst.   And in these divided, polarised times, with hatred filling the airwaves and internet ... I think "least worst" is a pretty good recommendation for not getting rid of it.

 

In addition, there’s the simple argument that a lot of people want the monarchy.
 

It seems everything has to be justified logically or technically at great effort these days.

[dsr-burnley]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Guess it depends on which viewpoints they hold (and act on, that's the important part and it's bolded for emphasis) that might be considered problematic. Perhaps some elaboration is in order?

Then you guess wrong IMO.  I do not believe it is fair or reasonable to dismiss someone's views simply because of their age or skin colour or sex.  But if it is, it is fair for all ages, all skin colours, all sexes.  Allowing the principle that anyone's views should be dismissed simply because of their race is a very dubious practice.  As is any principle that says white people are different from black people.

 

As for the idea of stereotyping - the idea that old white men tend to have one set of views, young black women have another set of views, and if you don't agree with those views then they can be ignored - isn't that what the anti-racism campaign has been working against for decades?