The Royal Family

[yorkie1999]

[KievFox]

[Houdini Logic]

This is a really good opportunity for the Royal family to take the higher ground and display some progressive thinking.

 

Any response should be from William - someone who will be around for a while and could lead the Royal family into a new era - and it should actually accept that sometimes they get things wrong, in some areas change/modernisation needs to happen, show some compassion whilst at the same time reenforcing the positive things that a Royal family do and can bring. 

It could actually bring some respect, understanding and relatability with a younger audience, which the Royal family is in desperate need of.

In a selfish way it would also completely put out the fire which could potentially rage on with Meghan and Harry - it's almost impossible to argue with someone who concedes and shows empathy.

 

This is a PR open goal but I have the sad feeling they're going to do a Diana Ross

[foxile5]

3 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

This is a really good opportunity for the Royal family to take the higher ground and display some progressive thinking.

 

Any response should be from William - someone who will be around for a while and could lead the Royal family into a new era - and it should actually accept that sometimes they get things wrong, in some areas change/modernisation needs to happen, show some compassion whilst at the same time reenforcing the positive things that a Royal family do and can bring. 

It could actually bring some respect, understanding and relatability with a younger audience, which the Royal family is in desperate need of.

In a selfish way it would also completely put out the fire which could potentially rage on with Meghan and Harry - it's almost impossible to argue with someone who concedes and shows empathy.

 

This is a PR open goal but I have the sad feeling they're going to do a Diana Ross

"After carefully consideration we've decided to knock the centuries of racism on the head - just as we did with our paedophilia issues." 

 

Not a great look for that shower. De-monarchise.

[BlueSi13]

[Paninistickers]

40 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

That was my assumption, too. If Harry reportedly made a point of telling Oprah that it wasn't the Queen or Philip who commented on skin colour, surely he'd have also mentioned his father if it wasn't him?

 

Though Oprah used an odd form of words - "it was not [the Queen or Philip] who were part of those conversations". So, there could have been multiple people and occasions involved (and William wasn't ruled out either)?

 

I do wonder whether, if the comment was made by someone in the family, it might have been made as black humour [no pun intended], but has been sincerely misunderstood or insincerely misused as a serious racist slur?

Remembering certain comments that Charles has made ("whatever love means" etc.), it wouldn't surprise me if he'd made such a comment as risqué black humour - and would surprise me slightly if he'd been pig ignorant enough to mean it seriously.

 

Anyway, I only find all this mildly interesting as a curious spectacle, so won't get into it too much. I'm closer to @ozleicester's priority list. 

I kinda thought the same. And inhale no real time for the royal family. Indifferent  at best.

 

Maybe it depends on our own personality whether we read good or bad intentions? 

 

I think, that a deep, but clumsy,  thinker like charles might well muse in private (what he thought was a private family convo) what skin tone the baby might be and what repercussions that might have, positive repercussions even. 

 

I can quite picture a caricature Charles umming and arring and hand pulling and face gurning and ring twiddling over the PR aspects of a mixed race family member

[BlueSi13]

Just now, foxile5 said:

"After carefully consideration we've decided to knock the centuries of racism on the head - just as we did with our paedophilia issues." 

 

Not a great look for that shower. De-monarchise.

Evidence?  Or is your evidence the fact that they were, prior to Meghan, a wholly white family?  Has every white family in that case indulged in "centuries of racism"? 

 

As for the paedophilia charge, Prince Andrew was accused (not arrested or charged) of sleeping with a 17 year old.  Which, although if proven true, would be a very dodgy thing to do at his age.  Would not make him a paedophile, nor even a criminal in British law.

[surrifox]

54 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

That was my assumption, too. If Harry reportedly made a point of telling Oprah that it wasn't the Queen or Philip who commented on skin colour, surely he'd have also mentioned his father if it wasn't him?

 

Though Oprah used an odd form of words - "it was not [the Queen or Philip] who were part of those conversations". So, there could have been multiple people and occasions involved (and William wasn't ruled out either)?

 

I do wonder whether, if the comment was made by someone in the family, it might have been made as black humour [no pun intended], but has been sincerely misunderstood or insincerely misused as a serious racist slur?

Remembering certain comments that Charles has made ("whatever love means" etc.), it wouldn't surprise me if he'd made such a comment as risqué black humour - and would surprise me slightly if he'd been pig ignorant enough to mean it seriously.

 

Anyway, I only find all this mildly interesting as a curious spectacle, so won't get into it too much. I'm closer to @ozleicester's priority list. 

The revelation that Charles has blocked his number/ declined his calls was a big point in the interview . After the loss of his mum that is surely unforgivable ( if true) 

[RonnieTodger]

The whole thing makes me extremely uncomfortable, no matter which "side" you're on. 

 

Those for & against Meghan, speculating about their private lives is plain weird. It's everything I hate about the monarchy.

 

Clearly most of them revel in their fame, but there is a freakish level of intrigue in it. The obsession with a family that doesn't give a shit about them is just so bizarre.

[foxile5]

11 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Evidence?  Or is your evidence the fact that they were, prior to Meghan, a wholly white family?  Has every white family in that case indulged in "centuries of racism"? 

 

As for the paedophilia charge, Prince Andrew was accused (not arrested or charged) of sleeping with a 17 year old.  Which, although if proven true, would be a very dodgy thing to do at his age.  Would not make him a paedophile, nor even a criminal in British law.

You're not getting a knighthood.

 

I mean there's certainly first hand evidence of racism in the news literally this second. But there's also the involvement in slaving and the rampant imperialism that kinda serves as evidence, isn't there? Or is it only racist if you're DOING the genocide, and not ordering it.

 

And imagine being so pathetically craven to a family who don't give a shit about you that you defend one of it's members for consorting with a PROVEN PAEDOPHILE. 

 

I think you need to have a think about your priorities if you're leaping to the defence of a man who tried to lie about buying a young lady to sleep with - " I can't sweat since the war" - and is a known friend of a man running a paedophile ring. Literally a proven criminal. Royal or not, I know my moral compass doesn't allow for that kind of apology and I think it's disgusting you feel the need to defend people associated with paedophilia. Horrible, disgusting.

[Sharpe's Fox]

32 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

What a dumb argument. Italy, Ireland and Germany all have elected head of states with limited constitutional powers available to them and they are so low key I bet you don't even know their names.

[foxile5]

7 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

You're not getting a knighthood.

 

I mean there's certainly first hand evidence of racism in the news literally this second. But there's also the involvement in slaving and the rampant imperialism that kinda serves as evidence, isn't there? Or is it only racist if you're DOING the genocide, and not ordering it.

 

And imagine being so pathetically craven to a family who don't give a shit about you that you defend one of it's members for consorting with a PROVEN PAEDOPHILE. 

 

I think you need to have a think about your priorities if you're leaping to the defence of a man who tried to lie about buying a young lady to sleep with - " I can't sweat since the war" - and is a known friend of a man running a paedophile ring. Literally a proven criminal. Royal or not, I know my moral compass doesn't allow for that kind of apology and I think it's disgusting you feel the need to defend people associated with paedophilia. Horrible, disgusting.

And just as a further to the 'he was only accused' line you're using to defend Andrew over his lying about screwing a child.

 

He was 'only accused' because he refused to go and face the accusations in America. That's not a proof of innocence. That's avoiding consequence. For, y'know, having sex with a child and consorting with someone found guilty of sex trafficking children. That's who you're sticking up for.

 

Disgusting. 

[Babylon]

Millionaires and a billionaire having a tiff... who cares. The amount of gammons absolutely raging about it is utterly bizarre.

[Jon the Hat]

30 minutes ago, surrifox said:

The revelation that Charles has blocked his number/ declined his calls was a big point in the interview . After the loss of his mum that is surely unforgivable ( if true) 

Father is upset son quits the family business and buggers off to another country isn't important news.

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Millionaires and a billionaire having a tiff... who cares. The amount of gammons absolutely raging about it is utterly bizarre.

It is a bit weird why people get so upset.  It was a very frank interview about some very personal family issues.  I don't think it will help them overall.

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Foxy_Bear said:

I mean, it certainly COULD have been taken the wrong way. Absolutely no doubt about that. Then add in the fact that Archie was the first of the great grand children NOT to have been given a title and its easy to see why they started to build the race picture in their head. 

 

...Or in fact there was some sort of racial undertones to it. Probably not so much racism but rather concerns over keeping up with appearances and traditions. We will never know.  

 

I would say though that you would expect Harry to understand his Dads humour...

As Alf Bentley pointed out, Arcjie is the fifth of the great-grandchildren not to be given a title, and like the first four, it is because that's what the parents chose.  What Meghan was whingeing about what that he wasn't made a prince.  Since George V's time, titles of prince and princess are only given to the children of the monarch or an heir apparent or presumptive.  Elizabeth and Margaret were princesses because they were daughters of the king, but while Elizabeth's children (because she was heir presumptive) were princes and princesses, Margaret's weren't.  Similarly, Charles' children were princes, Andrew's, Edward's, and Anne's (although she rejected titles for them full stop) were not.  And similarly again, Williams; children are princes and princesses, Harry's ar enot.  That was Meghan's objection - she wanted a prince baby.

[bmt]

57 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

This is a really good opportunity for the Royal family to take the higher ground and display some progressive thinking.

 

Any response should be from William - someone who will be around for a while and could lead the Royal family into a new era - and it should actually accept that sometimes they get things wrong, in some areas change/modernisation needs to happen, show some compassion whilst at the same time reenforcing the positive things that a Royal family do and can bring. 

It could actually bring some respect, understanding and relatability with a younger audience, which the Royal family is in desperate need of.

In a selfish way it would also completely put out the fire which could potentially rage on with Meghan and Harry - it's almost impossible to argue with someone who concedes and shows empathy.

 

This is a PR open goal but I have the sad feeling they're going to do a Diana Ross

Absolutely. Already can see in the press that "William is beyond livid" and apparently more to come out about Meghan though, so wouldn't count on that happening.

[SecretPro]

15 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Millionaires and a billionaire having a tiff... who cares. The amount of gammons absolutely raging about it is utterly bizarre.

Some massive gammons on this thread. Eye opening.

[Bamboo]

This is great reading in so many ways. Side note, 

 

I watched the Morning Show on Apple TV recently and I imagine Piers Morgan has done the same, he’s single-handedly transformed GMB into some sort of Americanised pantomime. Imagine Doris from Lancashire watching him storm off set like that, she would literally fart herself into orbit with outrage, fair play as his continued bashing of Markle certainly has people watching/talking, say what you want about Morgan, he’s fantastic at his job. 

[RonnieTodger]

1 minute ago, Bamboo said:

This is great reading in so many ways. Side note, 

 

I watched the Morning Show on Apple TV recently and I imagine Piers Morgan has done the same, he’s single-handedly transformed GMB into some sort of Americanised pantomime. Imagine Doris from Lancashire watching him storm off set like that, she would literally fart herself into orbit with outrage, fair play as his continued bashing of Markle certainly has people watching/talking, say what you want about Morgan, he’s fantastic at his job. 

I thought exactly the same

[Fightforever]

5 hours ago, Sly said:

First I’ve heard of this 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

 

The fact no one has heard of this tells you how much power and bias she has going for her.

Edited 9 March 2021 by Fightforever

[ClaphamFox]

My other half pressured me into watching this even though she knew I had absolutely zero interest in it. Her argument was that because she can't see any friends owing to the lockdown, I needed to step in and watch it so that she could talk to somebody about it. Afterwards she asked me what I thought and then got really annoyed when I still struggled to feign interest. Why? I never ask her to watch football games with me and share her views on tactics, VAR, etc. Why are we compelled to have an opinion on this ridiculous gaudy soap opera? 

 

[Koke]

Piers Morgan is a coward. Spends years thrashing someone else to the extreme. Gets a bit of a push back from his,co-worker and he walks out like the pampered idiot that he is. 

[Scotch]

23 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

As Alf Bentley pointed out, Arcjie is the fifth of the great-grandchildren not to be given a title, and like the first four, it is because that's what the parents chose.  What Meghan was whingeing about what that he wasn't made a prince.  Since George V's time, titles of prince and princess are only given to the children of the monarch or an heir apparent or presumptive.  Elizabeth and Margaret were princesses because they were daughters of the king, but while Elizabeth's children (because she was heir presumptive) were princes and princesses, Margaret's weren't.  Similarly, Charles' children were princes, Andrew's, Edward's, and Anne's (although she rejected titles for them full stop) were not.  And similarly again, Williams; children are princes and princesses, Harry's ar enot.  That was Meghan's objection - she wanted a prince baby.

Wait.... I'm confused. Andrew's daughters ARE princess's.... Eugenie and Beatrice.... Also, isn't there a princess Alexandra who is some sort of far removed cousin? 

 

Also, you've just said that the parents chose for the children not to have a title but also that Meghan is moaning because she wanted a prince baby.... Isn't that a contradiction?

 

...Or did I pick all of that up wrong? 

[Facecloth]

5 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

My other half pressured me into watching this even though she knew I had absolutely zero interest in it. Her argument was that because she can't see any friends owing to the lockdown, I needed to step in and watch it so that she could talk to somebody about it. Afterwards she asked me what I thought and then got really annoyed when I still struggled to feign interest. Why? I never ask her to watch football games with me and share her views on tactics, VAR, etc. Why are we compelled to have an opinion on this ridiculous gaudy soap opera? 

 

Does she not have a mobile phone? Can she not text or call friends if she wants to discuss it. I live alone alone the only people I'm seeing are my mum and her partner as that my social bubble. They don't watch football, so I text my friends, have zoom catch ups etc.