| Just asking. 18:07 - Mar 8 with 7713 views | Felstow1978 |
So how does a discreet garden-side chat with Oprah sit alongside calls for privacy and being left alone? Just how much money can the role of Victim make you? |  |
| |  |
| Just asking. on 23:21 - Mar 8 with 1166 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Just asking. on 23:17 - Mar 8 by jeera |
Marshals mullet do clear off you weird creep.
Pinewood has actually upvoted my post and your stirring nonsense isn't required.
Run along and don't start trying to get attention again. You've been on ignore for a year. |
Upvoted because you expressed an honest, alternative opinion without resorting to juvenile name calling. Something a few could learn from. |  |
| |
| Just asking. on 23:23 - Mar 8 with 1161 views | jeera |
| Just asking. on 23:21 - Mar 8 by Pinewoodblue |
Upvoted because you expressed an honest, alternative opinion without resorting to juvenile name calling. Something a few could learn from. |
Well that's because I like you as a rule.
The name-calling for the other guy is because I dislike him and he's one of those who tries to bug others.
Looks for a reaction then makes a scene when he gets one.
You are not him which is why you get treated differently.
*downvote*
Marshalls mullet, go away, go away..........do not stalk other people. It is creepy. [Post edited 8 Mar 2021 23:26]
|  |
| |
| Just asking. on 23:27 - Mar 8 with 1150 views | J2BLUE |
| Just asking. on 22:24 - Mar 8 by Pinewoodblue |
The interesting part isn't the colour of someone's skin it the bit where Megan says she didn't get support but they were prepared to lie to support another member of the family.
{Probably an age* thing but I really don't think discussing what colour an unborn's skin will be in actually racist, insensitive, inappropriate certainly but you could only consider the speaker to be racist if the colour of the skim would impact on how they felt about them.
* seems to me the younger you are the less tolerant you are. |
What context is there for discussing the colour of a baby's skin which isn't racist? The implication is clear, whoever it was speaking was worried the baby would be too dark skinned to be accepted.
I thought the royal family were untouchable. I am now wondering if we are seeing the opening shots in a war between traditionalists who love the royal family and will defend them forever and always versus the young who will begin to question if there is any place in this age of equality (quite rightfully) for an unelected family concerned about such things as being white enough to be part of their family.
Just to be clear i'm not suggesting all the royals are racist or anything else. I've never heard anyone say a bad word about the queen but how much longer will modern society tolerate a royal family?
Interesting times ahead. |  |
| |
| Just asking. on 23:35 - Mar 8 with 1135 views | jeera |
| Just asking. on 23:27 - Mar 8 by J2BLUE |
What context is there for discussing the colour of a baby's skin which isn't racist? The implication is clear, whoever it was speaking was worried the baby would be too dark skinned to be accepted.
I thought the royal family were untouchable. I am now wondering if we are seeing the opening shots in a war between traditionalists who love the royal family and will defend them forever and always versus the young who will begin to question if there is any place in this age of equality (quite rightfully) for an unelected family concerned about such things as being white enough to be part of their family.
Just to be clear i'm not suggesting all the royals are racist or anything else. I've never heard anyone say a bad word about the queen but how much longer will modern society tolerate a royal family?
Interesting times ahead. |
Some of them seem like jolly decent people, they really do.
One or two not so much.
A few others are along for the ride and living bloomin' good lives, and to be honest, born into their position, who can blame them for not protesting against themselves?!
But yes, it's evolving isn't it? Diana was of course a massive change in this monarchy's history but it was only a matter of time.
William isn't like his father and their children will be that little less 'royal' too you'd think.
Harry is just another piece in that natural process.
It'll be diminished at some point, maybe slowly changing face rather than being just cut from our system, but nonetheless. | |
| |
| Just asking. on 23:44 - Mar 8 with 1116 views | J2BLUE |
| Just asking. on 23:35 - Mar 8 by jeera |
Some of them seem like jolly decent people, they really do.
One or two not so much.
A few others are along for the ride and living bloomin' good lives, and to be honest, born into their position, who can blame them for not protesting against themselves?!
But yes, it's evolving isn't it? Diana was of course a massive change in this monarchy's history but it was only a matter of time.
William isn't like his father and their children will be that little less 'royal' too you'd think.
Harry is just another piece in that natural process.
It'll be diminished at some point, maybe slowly changing face rather than being just cut from our system, but nonetheless. |
Agree, it's going to be a long slow phase out I reckon.
When Harry and Meghan's wedding was announced we had all sorts of royal analysts telling us this was the evolution of the monarchy and their chance to show they could move with the times. It's sad it has come to this. My republican views have softened quite a lot in the last few years to the point now that I think we might as well keep them for a while longer. Charles as king putting pressure on to fight against climate change might be very useful
Can't help feeling sorry for Harry as well. The idea of being a modern day prince is an awful one. He says he wants to repair the relationship with his dad but also clearly feels strongly that he needs to put their side across by going on Oprah which is likely to have strained their relationship even more.
No wonder he used the word trapped. | |
| |
| Just asking. on 23:52 - Mar 8 with 1098 views | jeera |
| Just asking. on 23:44 - Mar 8 by J2BLUE |
Agree, it's going to be a long slow phase out I reckon.
When Harry and Meghan's wedding was announced we had all sorts of royal analysts telling us this was the evolution of the monarchy and their chance to show they could move with the times. It's sad it has come to this. My republican views have softened quite a lot in the last few years to the point now that I think we might as well keep them for a while longer. Charles as king putting pressure on to fight against climate change might be very useful
Can't help feeling sorry for Harry as well. The idea of being a modern day prince is an awful one. He says he wants to repair the relationship with his dad but also clearly feels strongly that he needs to put their side across by going on Oprah which is likely to have strained their relationship even more.
No wonder he used the word trapped. |
It's like a soap opera huh?
But this bit, "we might as well keep them for a while longer."
There is untold wealth within that family, the money they hold is insane, the property ridiculous.
But even if you put all that aside, the Queen's personal art collection is one of the most valuable that exists isn't it?
This is wealth stacked upon wealth for the sake of the status mate.
I cannot get my head around its purpose, so it's still a no from me.
That people have nothing, often literally, and then there's this family who 'rule'. | |
| |
| Just asking. on 23:53 - Mar 8 with 1091 views | Ryorry |
| Just asking. on 23:27 - Mar 8 by J2BLUE |
What context is there for discussing the colour of a baby's skin which isn't racist? The implication is clear, whoever it was speaking was worried the baby would be too dark skinned to be accepted.
I thought the royal family were untouchable. I am now wondering if we are seeing the opening shots in a war between traditionalists who love the royal family and will defend them forever and always versus the young who will begin to question if there is any place in this age of equality (quite rightfully) for an unelected family concerned about such things as being white enough to be part of their family.
Just to be clear i'm not suggesting all the royals are racist or anything else. I've never heard anyone say a bad word about the queen but how much longer will modern society tolerate a royal family?
Interesting times ahead. |
Have to say that that interview has for the first time in my long life, shoved me over the line into thinking now that the British monarchy should be abolished after Her Maj passes.
Absolutely shocking that not only did the RF not defend Meghan against defamatory accusations & bullying by the gutter press & SM, when they knew the truth & could easily have stood up for her by pointing out that it wasn't Meghan bullying Kate - plus that Kate had actually apologised to Meghan over the incident in question, which had anyway happened several months earlier - but that the RF then actually *refused* to allow Meghan to seek medical help for her mental health problems, at what was clearly a time of crisis & near breakdown for her - all to protect themselves ...
Add to that & Meghan's description of her life as virtually a prisoner within the Palace, Harry's comments about himself, his bro & his father living in a gilded cage unable to escape (remember the concepts of "obligation", "duty" and "serving" are drummed into them from babyhood), and I'd say it'd also be essential for the health & welfare of anyone never to be born into such a situation.
My suggestions for alternative heads of state -
Sir David Attenborough (tho he pretty much is royalty anyway)
Marcus Rashford
Anyone else? 🤔 |  |
| |
| Just asking. on 23:57 - Mar 8 with 1093 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Just asking. on 23:27 - Mar 8 by J2BLUE |
What context is there for discussing the colour of a baby's skin which isn't racist? The implication is clear, whoever it was speaking was worried the baby would be too dark skinned to be accepted.
I thought the royal family were untouchable. I am now wondering if we are seeing the opening shots in a war between traditionalists who love the royal family and will defend them forever and always versus the young who will begin to question if there is any place in this age of equality (quite rightfully) for an unelected family concerned about such things as being white enough to be part of their family.
Just to be clear i'm not suggesting all the royals are racist or anything else. I've never heard anyone say a bad word about the queen but how much longer will modern society tolerate a royal family?
Interesting times ahead. |
Guess we will disagree on that but still think it wasn't the most telling comment made.
It really depends in what context the conversation took place, could be idle curiosity. Harry, or Megan, if they heard it directly should have had the sense to express an opinion at the time and let their views be known. Could understand Megan feeling uncomfortable about it as it really was an inappropriate matter to discuss.. I would say it was racist if the colour issue would impact on how the youngster was viewed/ accepted into the family. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Just asking. on 00:05 - Mar 9 with 1074 views | jeera |
| Just asking. on 23:57 - Mar 8 by Pinewoodblue |
Guess we will disagree on that but still think it wasn't the most telling comment made.
It really depends in what context the conversation took place, could be idle curiosity. Harry, or Megan, if they heard it directly should have had the sense to express an opinion at the time and let their views be known. Could understand Megan feeling uncomfortable about it as it really was an inappropriate matter to discuss.. I would say it was racist if the colour issue would impact on how the youngster was viewed/ accepted into the family. |
"I would say it was racist if the colour issue would impact on how the youngster was viewed/ accepted into the family".
And that seems to be the way it was taken.
Either way, it's not an appropriate question to ask a mother to be.
Right, that's it. Against all my previous instincts, my curiosity is piqued.
Edit: It's not on iplayer, it's on ITV Hub! [Post edited 9 Mar 2021 0:07]
| |
| |
| Just asking. on 00:06 - Mar 9 with 1072 views | J2BLUE |
| Just asking. on 23:52 - Mar 8 by jeera |
It's like a soap opera huh?
But this bit, "we might as well keep them for a while longer."
There is untold wealth within that family, the money they hold is insane, the property ridiculous.
But even if you put all that aside, the Queen's personal art collection is one of the most valuable that exists isn't it?
This is wealth stacked upon wealth for the sake of the status mate.
I cannot get my head around its purpose, so it's still a no from me.
That people have nothing, often literally, and then there's this family who 'rule'. |
I do agree. If it was William next in line i'd agree with you but climate change is a massive and immediate issue. Is it worth tolerating another couple of decades of royalty to have someone willing to try and hold the government's feet to the fire? I don't trust the Tories. I think we might be stuck with them for a while.
Charles was an environmentalist before it was cool. For that he has some credit in the bank with me. I do agree though...maybe a trimmed down royal family and slowly abolished? | |
| |
| Just asking. on 00:13 - Mar 9 with 1057 views | jeera |
| Just asking. on 00:06 - Mar 9 by J2BLUE |
I do agree. If it was William next in line i'd agree with you but climate change is a massive and immediate issue. Is it worth tolerating another couple of decades of royalty to have someone willing to try and hold the government's feet to the fire? I don't trust the Tories. I think we might be stuck with them for a while.
Charles was an environmentalist before it was cool. For that he has some credit in the bank with me. I do agree though...maybe a trimmed down royal family and slowly abolished? |
I like Charles!
And agree the man should be able to see out his days chatting to butterflies and arranging hedges or whatever it is he does. Seems a smashing guy.
I don't want his head cut off, I just think one mega estate to live on will see him out and he doesn't need 4 of them. There must be rooms he's never even seen in some of these places for goodness sake.
Oh, it's Xmas, we'll go to one our big feck-off houses for that.
Oh it's Wednesday, we traditionally spend Wednesday at *name a million acre pad here*.
No, just all move into your 200 bedroomed palace and stay there.
You'll only bump into each once a month there anyway. You'll be fine.
Wave at a tourist every now and again or something to appease those "Oh they're good for tourism" types and sell some rock or something.
I don't know. [Post edited 9 Mar 2021 0:16]
| |
| |
| Just asking. on 00:16 - Mar 9 with 1040 views | Ryorry |
| Just asking. on 00:06 - Mar 9 by J2BLUE |
I do agree. If it was William next in line i'd agree with you but climate change is a massive and immediate issue. Is it worth tolerating another couple of decades of royalty to have someone willing to try and hold the government's feet to the fire? I don't trust the Tories. I think we might be stuck with them for a while.
Charles was an environmentalist before it was cool. For that he has some credit in the bank with me. I do agree though...maybe a trimmed down royal family and slowly abolished? |
W seem to have swapped positions!
I'd have agreed with that a month ago, but I'd now question how much influence Charles would actually have on the climate issue, particularly in light of the revelations that have come out of H & M's interview with Oprah. He didn't have much respect from the public before - I think it likely he'll have even less now. [Post edited 9 Mar 2021 0:32]
| |
| |
| Just asking. on 00:26 - Mar 9 with 1022 views | J2BLUE |
| Just asking. on 00:13 - Mar 9 by jeera |
I like Charles!
And agree the man should be able to see out his days chatting to butterflies and arranging hedges or whatever it is he does. Seems a smashing guy.
I don't want his head cut off, I just think one mega estate to live on will see him out and he doesn't need 4 of them. There must be rooms he's never even seen in some of these places for goodness sake.
Oh, it's Xmas, we'll go to one our big feck-off houses for that.
Oh it's Wednesday, we traditionally spend Wednesday at *name a million acre pad here*.
No, just all move into your 200 bedroomed palace and stay there.
You'll only bump into each once a month there anyway. You'll be fine.
Wave at a tourist every now and again or something to appease those "Oh they're good for tourism" types and sell some rock or something.
I don't know. [Post edited 9 Mar 2021 0:16]
|
Agree. Perhaps a streamlined royal family with less hangers on, less extravagance and more of a purpose might be more fitting. I've said before that i'm surprised that in a world where everyone is rightfully pushing for equality that they've been left alone to the extent they have.
Could be difficult times ahead for them. | |
| |
| Just asking. on 00:35 - Mar 9 with 1004 views | jeera |
| Just asking. on 00:22 - Mar 9 by J2BLUE |
Ha, yes we do! You Republican kids have no respect 
Good point. He'd still be the king though and have Johnson's ear. It's also likely he will have a population far more willing to listen when he's trying to save the planet rather than the recent negative reasons he's been in the spotlight.
I think he has a part to play, especially within the commonwealth.
I can't say i'd be massively bothered if we got rid of them but I think the term working royal might actually be something worthwhile in the fight to come rather than the queen cutting a few ribbons (no disrespect to her, that's the role they have). |
I think it's important for us to not conflate the role Liz has played with how things are now.
She became Queen at a time the was was still a need for a head monarch.
It is a part she promised to carry out at a young age and it has been a life-long, non-faltering commitment for many, many years and very much more than ribbon-cutting.
She is entitled to be respected for the sacrifices she has made and for her dedication to her country and the Commonwealth over a very long period.
And that's not to even call all the extended family leeches; it's not all been like that.
But plenty have, and it's nearing the time to close this particular chapter of this country's past in my opinion. Not something she should have to witness though.
Bit of dignity left hopefully for her final days and then change. | |
| |
| Just asking. on 00:46 - Mar 9 with 998 views | Ryorry |
| Just asking. on 00:22 - Mar 9 by J2BLUE |
Ha, yes we do! You Republican kids have no respect
Good point. He'd still be the king though and have Johnson's ear. It's also likely he will have a population far more willing to listen when he's trying to save the planet rather than the recent negative reasons he's been in the spotlight.
I think he has a part to play, especially within the commonwealth.
I can't say i'd be massively bothered if we got rid of them but I think the term working royal might actually be something worthwhile in the fight to come rather than the queen cutting a few ribbons (no disrespect to her, that's the role they have). |
Aaargh, I'm rather hoping Johnson will be long gone by the time Charles ascends the throne! (if he does get to ascend it).
Had a further bit of a think since my previous post, and given that the next 20 years are likely to be critical, and possibly traumatic, with the potential for considerable change & upheaval due to climate change, this perhaps isn't the best time for yet another massive & unsettling change in the structure of our lives, in the shape of turning ourselves from a monarchy into a republic. I've always thought that one of the best attributes of a constitutional monarchy, at least in the last couple of centuries, is stability.
Have edited my previous post as I'd got the tense wrong in first para (was previously "I agreed"). | |
| |
| Just asking. on 06:38 - Mar 9 with 937 views | Swailsey |
Oh good. |  |
| Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA |
| |
| Just asking. on 07:21 - Mar 9 with 918 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Just asking. on 00:35 - Mar 9 by jeera |
I think it's important for us to not conflate the role Liz has played with how things are now.
She became Queen at a time the was was still a need for a head monarch.
It is a part she promised to carry out at a young age and it has been a life-long, non-faltering commitment for many, many years and very much more than ribbon-cutting.
She is entitled to be respected for the sacrifices she has made and for her dedication to her country and the Commonwealth over a very long period.
And that's not to even call all the extended family leeches; it's not all been like that.
But plenty have, and it's nearing the time to close this particular chapter of this country's past in my opinion. Not something she should have to witness though.
Bit of dignity left hopefully for her final days and then change. |
"She is entitled to be respected for the sacrifices she has made and for her dedication to her country and the Commonwealth over a very long period."
I do take issue when people talk about these so called sacrifices. She waves and opens things, and lives in absolute luxury for that. She isn't trapped, she could abdicate if she didn't want the responsibility.
Trying not to offend you here Jeera, but I tend to think people who talk of the Queen's sacrifices have been brainwashed by the narrative they put out. A lot of people in this country - I'm talking millions - would give their right arm to live in the comfort and splendour she endures. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Just asking. on 08:06 - Mar 9 with 884 views | noggin |
| Just asking. on 23:52 - Mar 8 by jeera |
It's like a soap opera huh?
But this bit, "we might as well keep them for a while longer."
There is untold wealth within that family, the money they hold is insane, the property ridiculous.
But even if you put all that aside, the Queen's personal art collection is one of the most valuable that exists isn't it?
This is wealth stacked upon wealth for the sake of the status mate.
I cannot get my head around its purpose, so it's still a no from me.
That people have nothing, often literally, and then there's this family who 'rule'. |
Yep, walk the streets just a mile from Buck House and there are people sleeping in shop doorways. That is sick. |  |
| |
| Just asking. on 08:46 - Mar 9 with 844 views | itfcjoe |
| Just asking. on 22:39 - Mar 8 by jeera |
I like you Piners but you're way off the mark with that one.
I think you have missed the context completely.
I am not prepared to get into an argument online over some stupidly rich people I have never met, but your last line is all over the place.
You don't fecking well ask someone what colour skin their unborn baby is going to be, but in this case the underlying context is clearly going to be taken the way it was, in that it would be a 'Royal' child, so the inquisitiveness wasn't likely to be innocent was it.
"Less tolerant" ffs. Less boorish generally you'd hope. |
When I watched it yesterday it seemed that this is where Meghan and Harry diverged slightly from each other....
Meghan suggested that when pregnant someone asked Harry what colour the baby will be.
Harry then much more defensive about it "I'd never share that convo", but then spoke about how it was more when they first got together it was raised as a sort of "what if you have children" type of comment. That was the point of the interview he looked most uncomfortable with.
It was also interesting how many of the screenshots of bad press where from US media like The Enquirer, and The Globe especially - having recently watched the Framing Britney documentary their press seems worse than ours.
The Royal Family have a motto of never complain, never explain, and generally sit in dignified silence. It felt that this approach was at odds with what was required with regards to some of the media Meghan was getting, and that their should have been more support for her. That seems the wedge that drove this crack in the relationship that has since cratered.
I can totally understand why they want out as clearly struggle with that view, but think it could have been handled much better from all sides and will now start to get ugly which does no one any favours - especially in a year when the Queen has been so important with her minimal but timely interjections on the covid pandemic.
Feels like a generational difference between Charles and Harry being played out publicly, Harry has always held Diana on a huge pedestal, more so than William seems to have done - think one of the GMB presenters was good on that this morning with regards to how siblings react differently - I have friends where their parents split up when young.....older brother barely speaks to the Mum, younger brother still idolises her.......feels an element of that and who is to say who is right, when reality is they both are |  |
| |
| Just asking. on 08:47 - Mar 9 with 837 views | itfcjoe |
| Just asking. on 22:44 - Mar 8 by Ryorry |
They weren't paid for the interview.
If you'd been actually watching the programme instead of making things up/trolling, you'd know that the primary reason the couple need to make money, apart from for the usual living costs, is to provide themselves with security from the death threats, race hate etc etc drummed up by racists, other trolls, the gutter press etc., since the RF decided to withdraw security from Archie & the family (*before* they decided to leave) - because Archie wouldn't have the title 'Prince' - because he'd be the wrong colour when he was born ...
Jeeez. |
Archie didn't have the title Prince withdrawn, he is the Great Grandson of the monarch so not entitled to it as per 1917 rules. He would only have Prince bestowed upon him when Charles became King | |
| |
| Just asking. on 09:13 - Mar 9 with 792 views | Ryorry |
| Just asking. on 08:47 - Mar 9 by itfcjoe |
Archie didn't have the title Prince withdrawn, he is the Great Grandson of the monarch so not entitled to it as per 1917 rules. He would only have Prince bestowed upon him when Charles became King |
*All* other offspring, however far from the main trunk of succession they might be, are given the title of 'Prince' or 'Princess' as courtesy or honoury titles - eg Beatruce & Eugene. But not Archie - the *only* exception so far. Can't think why ... | |
| |
| Just asking. on 09:17 - Mar 9 with 787 views | itfcjoe |
| Just asking. on 09:13 - Mar 9 by Ryorry |
*All* other offspring, however far from the main trunk of succession they might be, are given the title of 'Prince' or 'Princess' as courtesy or honoury titles - eg Beatruce & Eugene. But not Archie - the *only* exception so far. Can't think why ... |
Beatrice and Eugenie are Grandchildren of the Monarch
Archie is a Great Grandchild of the Monarch
Here's ITV royal correspondant
| |
| |
| Just asking. on 09:24 - Mar 9 with 763 views | bluejacko |
| Just asking. on 09:13 - Mar 9 by Ryorry |
*All* other offspring, however far from the main trunk of succession they might be, are given the title of 'Prince' or 'Princess' as courtesy or honoury titles - eg Beatruce & Eugene. But not Archie - the *only* exception so far. Can't think why ... |
Archie is not the only exception though, I think you will find that Anne’s and Edwards children do not have prince or princess titles.
I can imagine the outcry from a few on here if the taxpayer was paying for their security when he removed himself from Royal duties.
He actually declared they wanted to be financially independent so really can’t play that card either.
Amazing though how everyone that gets involved with Ms Markle eventually falls out with her big style,family,first husband and now the Royals,anyone seeing a pattern here? | | | |
| Just asking. on 09:41 - Mar 9 with 740 views | Ryorry |
| Just asking. on 09:24 - Mar 9 by bluejacko |
Archie is not the only exception though, I think you will find that Anne’s and Edwards children do not have prince or princess titles.
I can imagine the outcry from a few on here if the taxpayer was paying for their security when he removed himself from Royal duties.
He actually declared they wanted to be financially independent so really can’t play that card either.
Amazing though how everyone that gets involved with Ms Markle eventually falls out with her big style,family,first husband and now the Royals,anyone seeing a pattern here? |
Re others - in Anne's case that's only because she specifically asked for hers not to be.
Will look the others up.
As for your final para - that's just the kind of defamatory smearing that drove H & M out of the country in the first place - says more about you than her. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
