| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview 15:18 - Mar 9 with 6377 views | SaintNick |
From the little I have seen and read it seems to have been a damp squid with Meghan whinging about everything, doesn't seem to have dented the Monarchy much
Personally I loved the bit where she wailed about feeling locked up in a Palace and not wanting to be alive anymore, if we had stuck her in a one bedroom flat in Millbrook she might have had something to moan about |  |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |  |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 11:20 - Mar 10 with 1278 views | Kennington |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 11:01 - Mar 10 by GasGiant |
The most alarming thing in this entire thread is "damp squid". It's squib! All squid are damp. It's as bad as doing something off your own "back". |
Assumed people were using squid as some kind of in-joke. Surely everyone knows the difference between a squid and a squib? |  |
| |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 11:55 - Mar 10 with 1246 views | Chesham_Saint |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 21:02 - Mar 9 by pjt50 |
The estimated additional tourism revenues are £550m p.a. They certainly wouldn't dry up. People would still come to the UK & visit royal palaces even if royals didn't occasionally reside in them.
It's not a question of our current setup or none. There are examples of modern monarchies across Europe that seem to function perfectly well without the class-ridden baggage that comes with ours. |
I have a personal friend who owns a London marketing company. He won an account with a Commonwealth country to promote it as a holiday destination. A tough challenge as they had to identify USPs to make the place as a brand stand out from a very crowded and competitive market.
In discussing this he said that some countries would be easy as they were such distinctive 'brands' - places like France, the UK, USA, Australia. Commenting on the UK (and he's no monarchist) he admitted that our brand was so massively strong (particularly in markets like Japan and China and also republics such as France and Germany) because of our heritage, in particular the Royal Family.
You might not like it, but items like Aston Martin, Barbour, Mappin & Webb, Jaguar etc etc partly sell as consumers love that whole 'Downton Abbey' image. Scrap the Monarchy and that facade will be damaged, possibly irreparably.
As for the Royals doing nothing, loads of people (but I accept, not all) really appreciate a visit and/or patronage from the likes of Princess Anne etc, no matter how silly that might seem to you.
By all means be a republican, but accept that this is a complex issue and there are two sides to every story. |  |
| |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 11:57 - Mar 10 with 1246 views | GasGiant |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 11:20 - Mar 10 by Kennington |
Assumed people were using squid as some kind of in-joke. Surely everyone knows the difference between a squid and a squib? |
Well it's a mute point Ken. | | | |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 12:59 - Mar 10 with 1214 views | PaleRider |
I "literally" got some "ivory" off of our fence recently. [Post edited 10 Mar 2021 13:00]
| | | |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 13:05 - Mar 10 with 1202 views | kentsouthampton |
@ Nick, richer people than her have killed themselves. |  | | |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 13:06 - Mar 10 with 1201 views | Bazza |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 10:36 - Mar 10 by SaintNick |
I see the monarchy as being a tourist attraction, there is an argument against that, yes tourists would still come to England if they weren't there, but the queen seels a lot of merchandise for the economy with her picture on it , that may change with Charles.
But in the main they live in their own little world and most of us don't have to worry about calling her your royal highness we just watch those who want to do it on telly.
Not sure that saying our monarchy is from a long line of criminals and murderers is strictly true, it hasn't been one long dynasty with sons taking over from fathers etc, its a bit more complicated than that, so saying the queen comes from a long line of criminals and murderers is like saying Angela Merkel comes from a long line of war mongering dictators |
I agree your comment about the Royal line of descendants, more of a corkscrew caused by various murders than a direct line. It means there is even less justification for continuing with the Monarchy, particularly after the Queen (who does a creditable job) passes on. | | | |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 13:14 - Mar 10 with 1195 views | barry_sanchez |
I still don't understand if they're so affronted why they want to keep HRH? It is a load of old shit, don't give them any headlines and they'll try to make some which is what happened here, I hope the Palace doesn't dignify such a classless baseless act. |  |
| He who is silent and bows his head dies every time he does so. He who speaks aloud and walks with his head held high dies only once.
—Giovanni Falcone | | Poll: | What is your favourite poll? |
| |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 14:19 - Mar 10 with 1158 views | SaintNick |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 13:05 - Mar 10 by kentsouthampton |
@ Nick, richer people than her have killed themselves. |
I'm not belittling mental trauma, there is a history of people not being able to handle fame and fortune, but in this case here is a person who craves both and even after getting out of what she says was making her suicidal, she jumps straight back in for more, but this time getting paid for it.
I'm sorry to say in this case I have little sympathy, i feel more for those who are desperate and have nothing, they can't just ring Oprah Winfrey up and get a tv interview, mind you nor could Meghan up to about 5 years ago when she met Harry | |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 17:52 - Mar 10 with 1109 views | Berber |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 09:31 - Mar 10 by dirk_doone |
As for the 'dark skin' line that he fed her, anyone who is in a mixed race marriage can tell you that if, when you are out on your own, you hear a remark which might be interpreted as racist, even from a family member, the last thing you do is go running home and repeat it to your wife unless you want to upset her and make her feel unhappy. If you really feel that the remark was intended in a racist way, you deal with it yourself at the time it is said to you, which is not difficult to do unless you are a coward. [Post edited 10 Mar 2021 9:34]
|
Good post. None of the interview was driven by being on the moral high ground. However, even the skin colour matter being raised by a family member is shocking, given their training to be politically astute, as it should not be a matter worth discussion in our country. |  |
| |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 17:54 - Mar 10 with 1106 views | 1885_SFC |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 17:52 - Mar 10 by Berber |
Good post. None of the interview was driven by being on the moral high ground. However, even the skin colour matter being raised by a family member is shocking, given their training to be politically astute, as it should not be a matter worth discussion in our country. |
I bet all the royals are sweating on who mentioned skin colour.... well, not Prince Andrew - obviously. |  |
| GET THE F*CK OUT OF THIS FOOTBALL CLUB SPORT REPUBLIC |
| |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 17:58 - Mar 10 with 1104 views | Sadoldgit |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 17:52 - Mar 10 by Berber |
Good post. None of the interview was driven by being on the moral high ground. However, even the skin colour matter being raised by a family member is shocking, given their training to be politically astute, as it should not be a matter worth discussion in our country. |
It depends on the context though. I’d be interested in the actual conversation. |  | | |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 08:08 - Mar 11 with 1017 views | Berber |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 10:37 - Mar 10 by Bicester_North |
I’m sure it will all unravel when the Queen dies.
A lot of people have respect for her as a head of state and historical figure but nobody except nutters will for the likes of Charles or William. |
I know that any enthusiasm I have for the queen will not extend to Charles. But you never know, I may suddenly warm to the kind of character that throws hissy fits because their aide didn't bring their favourite teeth cleaning utensils. | |
| |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 13:14 - Mar 11 with 956 views | RednWight |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 13:06 - Mar 10 by Bazza |
I agree your comment about the Royal line of descendants, more of a corkscrew caused by various murders than a direct line. It means there is even less justification for continuing with the Monarchy, particularly after the Queen (who does a creditable job) passes on. |
The whole thing is a farce
Do you know who would have been monarch when Victoria died if the rules of succession where as they are now, that is females equal to males
Kaiser Bill |  |
| |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 17:42 - Mar 11 with 916 views | Sadoldgit |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 08:08 - Mar 11 by Berber |
I know that any enthusiasm I have for the queen will not extend to Charles. But you never know, I may suddenly warm to the kind of character that throws hissy fits because their aide didn't bring their favourite teeth cleaning utensils. |
Ideally they would park Charles and give the monarchy to William when the Queen croaks but sadly that isn’t going to happen. If we are going to keep the monarchy it needs to be slimed down and modernised in order to be relevant in the 21stc. Charles has indicated that he will slim the monarchy down but is an out of touch old fossil. | | | |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 19:11 - Mar 11 with 887 views | JaySaint |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 17:42 - Mar 11 by Sadoldgit |
Ideally they would park Charles and give the monarchy to William when the Queen croaks but sadly that isn’t going to happen. If we are going to keep the monarchy it needs to be slimed down and modernised in order to be relevant in the 21stc. Charles has indicated that he will slim the monarchy down but is an out of touch old fossil. |
When you say "slimmed down"....how?
Look at the fuss harry not getting a penny and the news that his kid will not be given a title, has made?
It seems that the direct line to the thrown is about it, rightly or wrongly. | |
| |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 19:30 - Mar 11 with 879 views | Bazza |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 19:11 - Mar 11 by JaySaint |
When you say "slimmed down"....how?
Look at the fuss harry not getting a penny and the news that his kid will not be given a title, has made?
It seems that the direct line to the thrown is about it, rightly or wrongly. |
Actually when Charlie becomes king all his children and grandchildren will become princes or princesses, unless the Queen changes the rules beforehand as she has done previously. She can make up new rules if she desires. What nonsense!
So perhaps we better practice our bows and curtseys.........no chance in my case. | | | |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 21:50 - Mar 11 with 838 views | kernow |
Bring back the guillotine. | | | |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 09:05 - Mar 12 with 742 views | GasGiant |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 19:30 - Mar 11 by Bazza |
Actually when Charlie becomes king all his children and grandchildren will become princes or princesses, unless the Queen changes the rules beforehand as she has done previously. She can make up new rules if she desires. What nonsense!
So perhaps we better practice our bows and curtseys.........no chance in my case. |
The Queen does not change the "rules" herself - She is the figurehead so nominally everything is done by her - every act of parliament and every law. THe reality is that constitutional tweaks are done by a small team of constitutional lawyers, all of them law lords or QCs on the advice of privy councillors and other trusted figures. THe idea that the Queen personally "changes" the rules on her own whim is absurd. She can choose how she manages relationships within her own family and that is about it. | | | |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 09:18 - Mar 12 with 738 views | GasGiant |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 17:52 - Mar 10 by Berber |
Good post. None of the interview was driven by being on the moral high ground. However, even the skin colour matter being raised by a family member is shocking, given their training to be politically astute, as it should not be a matter worth discussion in our country. |
Is it now wrong to even notice or mention the colour of someone's skin, as though to even point it out is an insult? Why is anyone making an assumption that to mention someone's skin colour is now "racist?" If Black Lives matter then how is anyone supposed to acknowledge this without making a judgement on skin colour? It is a ludicrous paradox, and yet I see people everywhere desperately playing hopscotch to try to stay onside of these non existent rules that change on a daily basis. Your idea of a discussion in this matter is not to question the legitimacy of this nonsense but to cast around to find some witless scapegoat and pronounce them guilty of this week's rules and then dragging them off to be hanged by the media. Tell me I'm wrong. I would never have even known Meghan was apparently "black" unless someone told me, because to my eyes she is about as "black" as I am, but if I agree she is black then I am I being racist by commenting on it? Women have always commented at weddings on whether so and so's children will be blonde or dark haired, blue or brown eyed etc. and now we have a happy situation of mixed marriages where other physical characterstics can be speculated on quite innoecently and without any hint of hatred. That is not "racist" that is normal idle speculation. What the hell is the matter with people now? This is insane. | | | |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 10:38 - Mar 12 with 716 views | grumpy |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 09:18 - Mar 12 by GasGiant |
Is it now wrong to even notice or mention the colour of someone's skin, as though to even point it out is an insult? Why is anyone making an assumption that to mention someone's skin colour is now "racist?" If Black Lives matter then how is anyone supposed to acknowledge this without making a judgement on skin colour? It is a ludicrous paradox, and yet I see people everywhere desperately playing hopscotch to try to stay onside of these non existent rules that change on a daily basis. Your idea of a discussion in this matter is not to question the legitimacy of this nonsense but to cast around to find some witless scapegoat and pronounce them guilty of this week's rules and then dragging them off to be hanged by the media. Tell me I'm wrong. I would never have even known Meghan was apparently "black" unless someone told me, because to my eyes she is about as "black" as I am, but if I agree she is black then I am I being racist by commenting on it? Women have always commented at weddings on whether so and so's children will be blonde or dark haired, blue or brown eyed etc. and now we have a happy situation of mixed marriages where other physical characterstics can be speculated on quite innoecently and without any hint of hatred. That is not "racist" that is normal idle speculation. What the hell is the matter with people now? This is insane. |
I agree.
Why bring up 'colour 'when you are not prepared to disclose in what context it was said?
Why did Harry feel it necessary to tell Megan who was apparently in a depressed state to start with?
I have no problem with Harry and Megan moving to the States but to keep going on about privacy and then go and have an interview that obviously millions will tune in for makes no sense.
The timing is awful with the Pandemic,thousands of people have lost loved ones.
Britain is not a racist country, it has a very small number who are but on the whole we get on with each other very well.
I fear that the more we go on about' colour ' the more likely your going to get right wing fanactics and we dont want that. |  | | |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 11:22 - Mar 12 with 700 views | DorsetIan |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 09:18 - Mar 12 by GasGiant |
Is it now wrong to even notice or mention the colour of someone's skin, as though to even point it out is an insult? Why is anyone making an assumption that to mention someone's skin colour is now "racist?" If Black Lives matter then how is anyone supposed to acknowledge this without making a judgement on skin colour? It is a ludicrous paradox, and yet I see people everywhere desperately playing hopscotch to try to stay onside of these non existent rules that change on a daily basis. Your idea of a discussion in this matter is not to question the legitimacy of this nonsense but to cast around to find some witless scapegoat and pronounce them guilty of this week's rules and then dragging them off to be hanged by the media. Tell me I'm wrong. I would never have even known Meghan was apparently "black" unless someone told me, because to my eyes she is about as "black" as I am, but if I agree she is black then I am I being racist by commenting on it? Women have always commented at weddings on whether so and so's children will be blonde or dark haired, blue or brown eyed etc. and now we have a happy situation of mixed marriages where other physical characterstics can be speculated on quite innoecently and without any hint of hatred. That is not "racist" that is normal idle speculation. What the hell is the matter with people now? This is insane. |
The real problem is that discussion of this on both sides has become extremely polarised. And just as it is clearly not always racist to comment on someone's skin colour, it is also not always 'woke' or a denial of free speech to question things said about skin colour.
There is an equal paradox too in the argument says: 'the only issue with race now is that everyone keeps going on about it', as this also shuts down the discussion.
There is a positive side to this though (and the views on this forum bear this out) and that is that most people are clearly not racist and do not believe that 'race' or the colour of someone's skin determines their worth. And we should perhaps focus on that, and allow a sensible debate around the different views on what should or shouldn't be said, within that context. | |
| |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 15:11 - Mar 12 with 646 views | Ron11 |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 09:18 - Mar 12 by GasGiant |
Is it now wrong to even notice or mention the colour of someone's skin, as though to even point it out is an insult? Why is anyone making an assumption that to mention someone's skin colour is now "racist?" If Black Lives matter then how is anyone supposed to acknowledge this without making a judgement on skin colour? It is a ludicrous paradox, and yet I see people everywhere desperately playing hopscotch to try to stay onside of these non existent rules that change on a daily basis. Your idea of a discussion in this matter is not to question the legitimacy of this nonsense but to cast around to find some witless scapegoat and pronounce them guilty of this week's rules and then dragging them off to be hanged by the media. Tell me I'm wrong. I would never have even known Meghan was apparently "black" unless someone told me, because to my eyes she is about as "black" as I am, but if I agree she is black then I am I being racist by commenting on it? Women have always commented at weddings on whether so and so's children will be blonde or dark haired, blue or brown eyed etc. and now we have a happy situation of mixed marriages where other physical characterstics can be speculated on quite innoecently and without any hint of hatred. That is not "racist" that is normal idle speculation. What the hell is the matter with people now? This is insane. |
I totally agree it's insane.
And now the insanity includes an MP demanding that all men should not be allowed outside after 6pm...it's terrible that that poor girl was murdered by one evil bastard but to tar all men with the same brush is also madness personified.
It's like suggesting (which does actually happen) that all white people are racist.
It's all going to end in tears. | | | |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 15:22 - Mar 12 with 637 views | kentsouthampton |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 15:11 - Mar 12 by Ron11 |
I totally agree it's insane.
And now the insanity includes an MP demanding that all men should not be allowed outside after 6pm...it's terrible that that poor girl was murdered by one evil bastard but to tar all men with the same brush is also madness personified.
It's like suggesting (which does actually happen) that all white people are racist.
It's all going to end in tears. |
It shouldn't detract from the fact it's men doing this, not women, not girls, men, it's men making them feel unsafe, it's men killing them, it's men raping them. It's men that have the problem, until men take their heads out of their own arses and realise it's a problem of men's making people will make barking mad solutions. | | | |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 15:29 - Mar 12 with 634 views | Berber |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 09:18 - Mar 12 by GasGiant |
Is it now wrong to even notice or mention the colour of someone's skin, as though to even point it out is an insult? Why is anyone making an assumption that to mention someone's skin colour is now "racist?" If Black Lives matter then how is anyone supposed to acknowledge this without making a judgement on skin colour? It is a ludicrous paradox, and yet I see people everywhere desperately playing hopscotch to try to stay onside of these non existent rules that change on a daily basis. Your idea of a discussion in this matter is not to question the legitimacy of this nonsense but to cast around to find some witless scapegoat and pronounce them guilty of this week's rules and then dragging them off to be hanged by the media. Tell me I'm wrong. I would never have even known Meghan was apparently "black" unless someone told me, because to my eyes she is about as "black" as I am, but if I agree she is black then I am I being racist by commenting on it? Women have always commented at weddings on whether so and so's children will be blonde or dark haired, blue or brown eyed etc. and now we have a happy situation of mixed marriages where other physical characterstics can be speculated on quite innoecently and without any hint of hatred. That is not "racist" that is normal idle speculation. What the hell is the matter with people now? This is insane. |
I think you have taken a different interpretation. This seems to be a family member asking after the likely extent of colour ie darker vs lighter for an unyet born child. It was unlikely to be a general discussion about relative beauty, or stating that they hope the baby wouldn't be stuck with the fathers ginger burn skin for example. Frankly, the skin colour of any unborn child is completely irrelevant and one of the people in that discussion felt that it was racist.
You make some good points, especially regarding mixed marriages, but take a specific case and assume I am implying a general rule concerning racism. Your opinion that these events and the reaction is nonsense is yours, and I would suggest that "making a judgement" on skin colour is inherently racist, but that is my opinion, and I am questioning the legitimacy of exactly that. A discussion about relative skin colours, features etc need not be racist. In that you are correct, but when a white, privileged male feels that a discussion about his unborn child is racist, I think that he is the best judge of that. So yes, in my opinion you are wrong, because you have judged the situation contra to what we DO know, (little though it is) without having any alternative to base your judgement, though I acknowledge that there may well be more to come. | |
| |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 16:44 - Mar 12 with 611 views | GasGiant |
| Prince Harry & Meghan Interview on 15:29 - Mar 12 by Berber |
I think you have taken a different interpretation. This seems to be a family member asking after the likely extent of colour ie darker vs lighter for an unyet born child. It was unlikely to be a general discussion about relative beauty, or stating that they hope the baby wouldn't be stuck with the fathers ginger burn skin for example. Frankly, the skin colour of any unborn child is completely irrelevant and one of the people in that discussion felt that it was racist.
You make some good points, especially regarding mixed marriages, but take a specific case and assume I am implying a general rule concerning racism. Your opinion that these events and the reaction is nonsense is yours, and I would suggest that "making a judgement" on skin colour is inherently racist, but that is my opinion, and I am questioning the legitimacy of exactly that. A discussion about relative skin colours, features etc need not be racist. In that you are correct, but when a white, privileged male feels that a discussion about his unborn child is racist, I think that he is the best judge of that. So yes, in my opinion you are wrong, because you have judged the situation contra to what we DO know, (little though it is) without having any alternative to base your judgement, though I acknowledge that there may well be more to come. |
Measured sensible reponse. I don't mind being told I'm wrong when the reasoning and argument is laid out and logical. All in all this has been a good thread and a credit to TUI. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
