The Royal Family

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, worth_the_wait said:

Whatever happened to keeping your counsel, and quietly building bridges?

 

I’m as bad as everyone else for continuing this. However, can’t help but feel Harry after everything which occurred with his Mum felt that tactic didn’t work. 
 

Particularly whilst his dehydrated Uncle gets off Scot free 

Edited 8 March 2021 by Cardiff_Fox

[Scotch]

8 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Whilst obviously everything being released is shit and full of outdated traditions,  this is a big one. They asked for a private life, and continue to sell their story. 

I think there is a massive difference between choosing a time and place to sit down and reveal selected personal information and having it leaked in newspapers against your will by people who dedicate their life to finding out every personal piece of information about you by any means necessary. 

 

Papers in this country bug the phones of dead children, they are not wrong for wanting away from those kind of organisations, even if they do choose to do TV interviews. 

[Mike Oxlong]

3 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

And I'm sure there would be a dozen other high ranking members of staff/royals who will claim that no such conversation took place... Thats not evidence, that witnesses and there is no way to determine where indeed there or not within one of the most intensely guarded building in the world. 

What we are left with is a bare non-specific allegation that is being used to condemn the family and institution as a whole. That is certainly not evidence, at least not in the sense that can be properly relied on 

[UniFox21]

1 minute ago, Foxy_Bear said:

I think there is a massive difference between choosing a time and place to sit down and reveal selected personal information and having it leaked in newspapers against your will by people who dedicate their life to finding out every personal piece of information about you by any means necessary. 

 

Papers in this country bug the phones of dead children, they are not wrong for wanting away from those kind of organisations, even if they do choose to do TV interviews. 

You're right on both counts. I just don't realistically think they can have it both ways, simply due to how shit the media is both in the UK and US

[yorkie1999]

Every time the royal family come up against a scandal or a story that would seem to bring them down, they come out of it stronger with a higher profile. Exactly the same will happen with this. You don't get to be the most powerful woman on earth without knowing how to manipulate the media. 

[Scotch]

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

You're right on both counts. I just don't realistically think they can have it both ways, simply due to how shit the media is both in the UK and US

To be honest, I don't imagine they do want it both ways but I'm in no doubt that both of them are accustomed to a certain way of life and if they are expected to provide that for themselves (as well as security against the aforementioned press) then things like this make sense financially albeit, being questionably contradictory like you said. 

[Dunge]

Quite aside from the tourism argument - which I do think is relevant and true despite protestations to the contrary - I always like the idea of having the monarch as head of state rather than an elected president. Who really wants President Boris? Or President Jeremy? Or how about President Nigel?
(Farage, not Pearson. I could be persuaded by the latter.)

We elect a prime minister and a party for administrative power, not for ceremonial power. The monarch serves as a reminder to elected officials that they’re here to administrate, not have fealty sworn to them. And I think that’s a good thing, as long as the monarch can’t then become Prime Minister in return.

 

On another note, I agree that Prince Andrew is a far bigger problem to both the institution of the royal family and the Queen herself than anything Harry and Meghan have said. This will probably end up dying down, slipping down the pages and Meghan will probably have a documentary crew following her by the end of the year. But Prince Andrew will still be lingering around like a bad smell, hiding somewhere on the royal estate and sweating at the prospect of further questions being asked. Or not sweating, apparently.

[Shane]

From an interview a year ago: 

 

‘I will not be bullied into playing a game that killed my mum’. Just sounds like Harry wants to protect his wife. Nothing wrong with that 

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

I’m as bad as everyone else for continuing this. However, can’t help but feel Harry after everything which occurred with his Mum felt that tactic didn’t work. 
 

Particularly whilst his dehydrated Uncle gets off Scot free 

 

I'm not sure that sexually abusing the bloke will help the situation. 

[Scotch]

6 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

What we are left with is a bare non-specific allegation that is being used to condemn the family and institution as a whole. That is certainly not evidence, at least not in the sense that can be properly relied on 

It doesn't need evidence. Like you say, its a non specific allegation but you asked why they weren't more specific and what I'm saying is, if they named the culprit it would then likely become a legal matter where evidence would be needed and its not easy to prove something someone said privately, even someone without a high paid legal team at hand. 

[Facecloth]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'm not sure that sexually abusing the bloke will help the situation. 

Finally found something Andrew might be useful for.

[Kopic]

My girlfriend watched this last night, from when Harry joined in. My main takeaway is Oprah seems to be a really shit interviewer. And there was a ridiculous amount of ad breaks. 

[Mike Oxlong]

2 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

It doesn't need evidence. Like you say, its a non specific allegation but you asked why they weren't more specific and what I'm saying is, if they named the culprit it would then likely become a legal matter where evidence would be needed and its not easy to prove something someone said privately, even someone without a high paid legal team at hand. 

Great if it becomes a legal matter 

 

I’d like to know what the specific allegation is and to have that determined on an assessment of credibility following the testing of evidence - that’s how the system works

 

I doubt if that would happen though - too much for all to lose - private settlement even if proceedings were issued 

 

If you’re going to have the balls to make the allegation then have the balls to do it properly

 

Not much more I can say so I’m going to depart this game of ping-pong 

[Scotch]

7 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Great if it becomes a legal matter 

 

I’d like to know what the specific allegation is and to have that determined on an assessment of credibility following the testing of evidence - that’s how the system works

 

I doubt if that would happen though - too much for all to lose - private settlement even if proceedings were issued 

 

If you’re going to have the balls to make the allegation then have the balls to do it properly

 

Not much more I can say so I’m going to depart this game of ping-pong 

Mate, you asked a question, I provided a valid potential answer. That's kind of how forums work.... 

[Mike Oxlong]

Just now, Foxy_Bear said:

Mate, you asked a question, I provided a valid potential answer. That's kind of how forums work.... 

I know, and I replied - that’s how forums work  

[Scotch]

6 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I know, and I replied - that’s how forums work  

Before throwing a strop and declaring your exit from the conversation, aye? 

[UniFox21]

1 minute ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Before throwing a strop and declaring your exit from the conversation, aye? 

Similar to Meghan when the royal family life wasn't what she dreamt of

 

 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

25 minutes ago, Kopic said:

Oprah seems to be a really shit interviewer. And there was a ridiculous amount of ad breaks. 

I thought Oprah handled it magnificently, she got the balance right.

Wasn't afraid to ask difficult questions but did it in a gentle way rather than Paxman-esque.

[Mike Oxlong]

5 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Before throwing a strop and declaring your exit from the conversation, aye? 

Look,  people don’t want us to be clogging up this thread with more crap

I’m not sure where the strop was. I said I didn’t want to go back and forth on the basis that we had both expressed our views. 

You now seem to be seeing something that wasn’t there. 

[Scotch]

7 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Similar to Meghan when the royal family life wasn't what she dreamt of

 

 

I don't know how to respond to that. You're acting like I'm her dad or something??!! I really don't have any feeling on her either way (unlike you evidently). I simply offering an explanation on the behaviour of another human being. 

 

We scots don't share the same unexplainable obsession that southerners do. No different from any other high class toff who were born into money in my eyes. I just find it fascinating how an entire country lead by the morally corrupt media have turned on this girl for no real reason.

Edited 8 March 2021 by Foxy_Bear

[Scotch]

3 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Look,  people don’t want us to be clogging up this thread with more crap

I’m not sure where the strop was. I said I didn’t want to go back and forth on the basis that we had both expressed our views. 

You now seem to be seeing something that wasn’t there. 

I don't see how having a discussion about a topic on a thread specifically created FOR that topic is "clogging up the thread". Again, this is what a forum is. 

 

If you where done with our discussion then all you have to do is stop responding. By making a sweeping declaration after your last point about not saying anything further, what you are essentially saying is "this is my last point, I won't be responding anymore but I don't want you to think its because I have nothing else to add". 

[leicsmac]

I've long thought that when HRH does end up passing on that there will be a succession or other crisis of some sort for the Royal Family, because she's the one that commands by far the greatest affection from the public and holds the institution together.

 

This and recent events have made me even more sure of it.

[Mike Oxlong]

2 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

I don't see how having a discussion about a topic on a thread specifically created FOR that topic is "clogging up the thread". Again, this is what a forum is. 

 

If you where done with our discussion then all you have to do is stop responding. By making a sweeping declaration after your last point about not saying anything further, what you are essentially saying is "this is my last point, I won't be responding anymore but I don't want you to think its because I have nothing else to add". 

[dsr-burnley]

48 minutes ago, Kopic said:

My girlfriend watched this last night, from when Harry joined in. My main takeaway is Oprah seems to be a really [deleted]interviewer. And there was a ridiculous amount of ad breaks. 

It wasn't an interview in the sense of the nterviewer trying to get the interviewee to answer questions.  It was a set piece where Oprah already knew the answers, or least knew what questions the interviewee wanted to answer so she was pushing at an open door.

[Dunge]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I've long thought that when HRH does end up passing on that there will be a succession or other crisis of some sort for the Royal Family, because she's the one that commands by far the greatest affection from the public and holds the institution together.

 

This and recent events have made me even more sure of it.

It’s hard to imagine Charles becoming a strong or popular king, even if he’s been proven somewhat ahead of his time on environmental issues. He doesn’t have the people skills to cover his lack of gravitas. William is the monarchy’s best hope, which puts massive pressure on his shoulders.