Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Sly

The Royal Family

By Sly, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

If a person is going to be bold enough to make such a claim then I believe that they have an obligation to name the individual concerned 

1. for the overriding public interest 

2. to absolve innocent others of suspicion  

I can see two reasons why she would put it that way.

 

1.  By not naming names, she wants people to believe it was the royal family as a whole and not one minor conversation by an adviser.

2.  By not naming names, she can encourage this question to drag on and on and increase the damage to the Royal Faimily.

 

One thing is certain - you don't go on TV to say "I have a secret but I'm not telling you what it is" if you don't want the conversation to carry on until you share the secret.

 

The thing that makes it unlikely IMO is that the royal family would love a black baby in the house.  What better way to show anti-racist wokeness than a photo of the Queen playing with a black great-grandchild?  Whatever end of the race scale they might be - whether they genuinely hate black people (for which there is no other evidence) and want a "token" black baby out of the line of succession, or whether they genuinely love black people and want a black person in the family, it would be good news to both camps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kopic

Kopic

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

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.

 

22 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

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.

I'll admit I wasn't paying too much attention but she just seemed to keep interrupting them mid sentence. Harry telling a sad story of how he never got to play much with his dad growing up, whilst he is mid sentence Oprah just goes "so what's archie's favourite word?". Just seemed weird to me and what I was thinking about in my response. Perhaps shit was a bit strong but I wasn't a fan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
David Guiza

David Guiza

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I can see two reasons why she would put it that way.

 

1.  By not naming names, she wants people to believe it was the royal family as a whole and not one minor conversation by an adviser.

2.  By not naming names, she can encourage this question to drag on and on and increase the damage to the Royal Faimily.

 

One thing is certain - you don't go on TV to say "I have a secret but I'm not telling you what it is" if you don't want the conversation to carry on until you share the secret.

 

The thing that makes it unlikely IMO is that the royal family would love a black baby in the house.  What better way to show anti-racist wokeness than a photo of the Queen playing with a black great-grandchild?  Whatever end of the race scale they might be - whether they genuinely hate black people (for which there is no other evidence) and want a "token" black baby out of the line of succession, or whether they genuinely love black people and want a black person in the family, it would be good news to both camps.

 

1. By not naming a specific person or persons they are not calling a specific individual out on national/international media and consequently are not opened up to unnecessary legal implications. Despite what some members of the Telegraph seem to think. 

2. I would imagine the racist and the alleged sexual abuser can do that quite sufficiently without their aid. One could also argue that by not commenting on the countless derogatory, defamatory, and just plain rude articles that have been published about Harry and Meghan the Royals have allowed this to get to this point in the first place. 

 

So far as I am aware they were not paid for the interview and have a right to defend themselves against the countless accusations thrown at them on a daily basis. Such is the world we live in, an interview to perhaps the most well known and likeable hosts on the planet is as good a platform as any. The 'secret' issue could by used for myriad reasons.

 

I don't know where to start with the final paragraph. If you think the best possible way to show that you're not racist is to have a "token" mixed race child in the family then I don't know where to begin.

 

As I stated earlier, I couldn't care less about anybody involved but what I do care about is unwarranted sexism and racism that has been directed their way. I'm not suggesting that you are either of those things, I don't know you from Adam, but what I would say is that even in your post you only refer to her and not him and that is mirrored in the media portrayal also. It's always 'she' never 'he' or 'they'. As though Harry has been lead astray. The same happened with the Beatles decades ago, people could never accept that John Lennon was somewhat of an awful person and chose to lay the blame at the feet of Yoko to the point where any woman who isn't a submissive cardboard cutout is labeled by her name in a derogatory manner. If one is to question whether this country, and beyond, still has a sexism and racism issue then this whole sorry saga is case and point. 

 

I'm sure nobody will come out of this well, and perhaps rightly so. I just hope all parties who have actually done something wrong are held to account but I'm not naïve enough to think that will happen given the past. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

 

1. By not naming a specific person or persons they are not calling a specific individual out on national/international media and consequently are not opened up to unnecessary legal implications. Despite what some members of the Telegraph seem to think. 

2. I would imagine the racist and the alleged sexual abuser can do that quite sufficiently without their aid. One could also argue that by not commenting on the countless derogatory, defamatory, and just plain rude articles that have been published about Harry and Meghan the Royals have allowed this to get to this point in the first place. 

 

So far as I am aware they were not paid for the interview and have a right to defend themselves against the countless accusations thrown at them on a daily basis. Such is the world we live in, an interview to perhaps the most well known and likeable hosts on the planet is as good a platform as any. The 'secret' issue could by used for myriad reasons.

 

I don't know where to start with the final paragraph. If you think the best possible way to show that you're not racist is to have a "token" mixed race child in the family then I don't know where to begin.

 

As I stated earlier, I couldn't care less about anybody involved but what I do care about is unwarranted sexism and racism that has been directed their way. I'm not suggesting that you are either of those things, I don't know you from Adam, but what I would say is that even in your post you only refer to her and not him and that is mirrored in the media portrayal also. It's always 'she' never 'he' or 'they'. As though Harry has been lead astray. The same happened with the Beatles decades ago, people could never accept that John Lennon was somewhat of an awful person and chose to lay the blame at the feet of Yoko to the point where any woman who isn't a submissive cardboard cutout is labeled by her name in a derogatory manner. If one is to question whether this country, and beyond, still has a sexism and racism issue then this whole sorry saga is case and point. 

 

I'm sure nobody will come out of this well, and perhaps rightly so. I just hope all parties who have actually done something wrong are held to account but I'm not naïve enough to think that will happen given the past. 

Bolded for emphasis.

 

Unfortunately the UK is far from alone in that regard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sly

Sly

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

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. 

Surely that’s the First Lady?!? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blarmy

Blarmy

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

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. 

I think becoming Queen is more of a “who you know” thing.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finnaldo

Finnaldo

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Houdini Logic said:

Weird uncles, racist grandfathers, the odd eccentric, the odd liberal and a few old conservatives... tbh it sounds like just about any family you'd marry into


Escaping a clan of inbreds housing sex criminals was the plot of The Hills Have Eyes was it not?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dunge said:

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.

That's about the size of it, yeah.

 

William is going to have his work cut out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
foxile5

foxile5

Posted
Posted

This is the zenith in capitalism meeting imperialism. 

 

Great entertainment. Mehrkle egging on her situation for coin. The royal family being the royal family. 

 

What did EITHER entity expect from the union. She was clearly in it for status and coin, which she's now reaping, and they're clearly an antiquated institution in which unsavoury views run deep. Quelle ****ing surprise. 

 

A plague on both their houses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scotch

Scotch

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

This is the zenith in capitalism meeting imperialism. 

 

Great entertainment. Mehrkle egging on her situation for coin. The royal family being the royal family. 

 

What did EITHER entity expect from the union. She was clearly in it for status and coin, which she's now reaping, and they're clearly an antiquated institution in which unsavoury views run deep. Quelle ****ing surprise. 

 

A plague on both their houses. 

...but surely there is far more money and status having a royal title and remaining part of it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
foxile5

foxile5

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

...but surely there is far more money and status having a royal title and remaining part of it? 

Having the cake and eating it, I suppose. 

 

She's still got a title and is raking it in right now.

 

Absolute horror show for two parties of clowns. I'm revelling in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sly

Sly

Posted
  • Author
Posted
38 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The first lady can't start a war with another country and you can bet if the queen summoned the first lady for tea, she'd be expected to attend, but not the other way round.

She really only has power in the UK / commonwealth though? Surely Merkel has more power? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, David Guiza said:

I don't know where to start with the final paragraph. If you think the best possible way to show that you're not racist is to have a "token" mixed race child in the family then I don't know where to begin.

You could start by reading it.  This is it:

 

"The thing that makes it unlikely IMO is that the royal family would love a black baby in the house.  What better way to show anti-racist wokeness than a photo of the Queen playing with a black great-grandchild?  Whatever end of the race scale they might be - whether they genuinely hate black people (for which there is no other evidence) and want a "token" black baby out of the line of succession, or whether they genuinely love black people and want a black person in the family, it would be good news to both camps."

 

What that means is that if the royal family really didn't like black people then having a black child in the family but outside the line of succession would be good PR, and iff the royal family really does like black people then having a black baby in the family would be a wonderful blessing..  Where you have gone wrong is in reading "IMO the royal family would love" as being my own personal views.  I am not a member of the royal family and when I suggest that they may be either delighted or disappointed by something, it doesn't mean that I would be delighted and disappointed by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...