| The audacity of speaking out 06:55 - Mar 9 with 6799 views | bluelagos |
The misogyny of many monarchists is coming through in spades. Seems to some that Megan should know her place in life, and it clearly isn't in highlighting to the world the failings of the Monarchy.
Sorry Megan, it's not as simple as you're kids are a little bit too dark, it's also that you have an opinion and are willing to share it...
Fck that nonsense. Team Meg for me :-) [Post edited 9 Mar 2021 6:56]
|  |
| |  |
| The audacity of speaking out on 07:06 - Mar 9 with 3150 views | floridaboy |
Thought she was auditioning for a part in a soap! |  | | |
| The audacity of speaking out on 07:31 - Mar 9 with 3087 views | mikeybloo88 |
Guess you either believe everything they say is as true and dramatic as they claim, or you can believe that it's just one side of a story, remain open minded and consider you dont know for sure the true characters and possible motives of those involved. |  | | |
| The audacity of speaking out on 07:35 - Mar 9 with 3086 views | footers |
| The audacity of speaking out on 07:31 - Mar 9 by mikeybloo88 |
Guess you either believe everything they say is as true and dramatic as they claim, or you can believe that it's just one side of a story, remain open minded and consider you dont know for sure the true characters and possible motives of those involved. |
Or you couldn't give a feck about which Jeremy Kyle ape gets to wear the shiny hat and move on.
Either way. |  |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:05 - Mar 9 with 3034 views | Guthrum |
Not sure it's even that (tho it may be an element within). More that the modern British monarchy has become a machine generating income for so many people - both employees and in the media. The family itself has become a commodity to be managed and traded upon.
Most humans tend to fold under that kind of pressure. You only have to look at the world of celebrity for parallells - but at least they have the option of stepping back into the shadows. It takes years and generational planning to escape being a royal (c.f. Princess Anne and her children).
There are plenty of examples within the Royal Family. Margaret's drinking and Charles' struggles are well documented - and that in a gentler age, media wise. It did for Diana (not in a conspiracy sense, but the strain drove her over the edge). I'm pretty sure Andrew would not have got himself into trouble like that if he had been allowed to remain in the Navy. And now we have Harry and Megan.
If the institution is to survive at all, it needs serious downsizing. Reduce it to something more like the Danish or Dutch models, less of a circus. Otherwise the scandals and public breakdowns will just keep on coming. |  |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:09 - Mar 9 with 2999 views | Herbivore |
Now seems an opportune time to just do away with the monarchy and install David Attenborough as head of state. |  |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:17 - Mar 9 with 2967 views | GlasgowBlue |
| The audacity of speaking out on 07:31 - Mar 9 by mikeybloo88 |
Guess you either believe everything they say is as true and dramatic as they claim, or you can believe that it's just one side of a story, remain open minded and consider you dont know for sure the true characters and possible motives of those involved. |
As I said yesterday, the McPherson principle established that “a racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.
Any allegation should be taken seriously and investigated. It’s not doing the Royal family any good by staying silent and it would be helpful if Meghan and a Harry’s would name the individual so as to lift the cloud of suspicion hanging over completely innocent members of the royal family. |  |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:22 - Mar 9 with 2945 views | bluelagos |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:05 - Mar 9 by Guthrum |
Not sure it's even that (tho it may be an element within). More that the modern British monarchy has become a machine generating income for so many people - both employees and in the media. The family itself has become a commodity to be managed and traded upon.
Most humans tend to fold under that kind of pressure. You only have to look at the world of celebrity for parallells - but at least they have the option of stepping back into the shadows. It takes years and generational planning to escape being a royal (c.f. Princess Anne and her children).
There are plenty of examples within the Royal Family. Margaret's drinking and Charles' struggles are well documented - and that in a gentler age, media wise. It did for Diana (not in a conspiracy sense, but the strain drove her over the edge). I'm pretty sure Andrew would not have got himself into trouble like that if he had been allowed to remain in the Navy. And now we have Harry and Megan.
If the institution is to survive at all, it needs serious downsizing. Reduce it to something more like the Danish or Dutch models, less of a circus. Otherwise the scandals and public breakdowns will just keep on coming. |
Why retain a monarchy at all? If you believe in a meritocratic society, rather than one based on class, how can you support a head of state that is hereditary?
People saying let Lizzie be the last monarch are missing the point. It's not about whether she or Charles is a good person, it is about what they represent. They represent the ultimate "Know your place" and frankly one that is based on your class rather than your ability.
It's a no thanks for me. | |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:23 - Mar 9 with 2932 views | DanTheMan |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:17 - Mar 9 by GlasgowBlue |
As I said yesterday, the McPherson principle established that “a racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.
Any allegation should be taken seriously and investigated. It’s not doing the Royal family any good by staying silent and it would be helpful if Meghan and a Harry’s would name the individual so as to lift the cloud of suspicion hanging over completely innocent members of the royal family. |
I'm sure they can name the individual privately, we don't have any need nor right to know who it was. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:27 - Mar 9 with 2908 views | mr_bean |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:17 - Mar 9 by GlasgowBlue |
As I said yesterday, the McPherson principle established that “a racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.
Any allegation should be taken seriously and investigated. It’s not doing the Royal family any good by staying silent and it would be helpful if Meghan and a Harry’s would name the individual so as to lift the cloud of suspicion hanging over completely innocent members of the royal family. |
It's being reported this morning that Harry told Oprah to, at her earliest opportunity, divulge that "it wasn't Harry's grandmother or grandfather".
So, Daddy perhaps? | | | |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:29 - Mar 9 with 2889 views | lowhouseblue |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:17 - Mar 9 by GlasgowBlue |
As I said yesterday, the McPherson principle established that “a racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.
Any allegation should be taken seriously and investigated. It’s not doing the Royal family any good by staying silent and it would be helpful if Meghan and a Harry’s would name the individual so as to lift the cloud of suspicion hanging over completely innocent members of the royal family. |
that quote by itself is a bit misleading though. exactly as you then clarify, the principle is not that an incident that is perceived by someone to be racist is necessarily racist - it's that an incident that is perceived by someone to be racist should be recorded as such and investigated.
the quote just by itself rather plays to the line that some hard of thinking people play that any subjective perception or claim of racism by itself proves racism - which is clearly legally and in all practical terms nonsense. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:32 - Mar 9 with 2876 views | bluelagos |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:23 - Mar 9 by DanTheMan |
I'm sure they can name the individual privately, we don't have any need nor right to know who it was. |
Conflicted on this. Given that there is a possibility that a future King is a racist, I would think it is very much in the public interest.
We have nonetheless unproven allegation given we have only heard one side.
Is it a matter for the public? Well given we fund them then I think it not unreasonable that any findings are made public. | |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:32 - Mar 9 with 2874 views | Guthrum |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:22 - Mar 9 by bluelagos |
Why retain a monarchy at all? If you believe in a meritocratic society, rather than one based on class, how can you support a head of state that is hereditary?
People saying let Lizzie be the last monarch are missing the point. It's not about whether she or Charles is a good person, it is about what they represent. They represent the ultimate "Know your place" and frankly one that is based on your class rather than your ability.
It's a no thanks for me. |
Is having an elected (non-executive) President really that much more meritocratic? Surely it is just a function of having sufficient money and/or party backing behind you.
Plus the expense of the electoral process. And it's still installing another human as titular Head of State. It's not like elected officials are any more immune to corruption and scandal.
A bit swings-and-roundabouts for me. For something which is of limited relevance*.
* Do you think a President - even a non-executive one - would not be trying to influence policy in much the same way as members of the Royal Family do? | |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:35 - Mar 9 with 2850 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:29 - Mar 9 by lowhouseblue |
that quote by itself is a bit misleading though. exactly as you then clarify, the principle is not that an incident that is perceived by someone to be racist is necessarily racist - it's that an incident that is perceived by someone to be racist should be recorded as such and investigated.
the quote just by itself rather plays to the line that some hard of thinking people play that any subjective perception or claim of racism by itself proves racism - which is clearly legally and in all practical terms nonsense. |
Glad you clarified that because I was just thinking what a load of bollox that would be in the manner GB has repeatedly portrayed it! |  |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:35 - Mar 9 with 2844 views | Guthrum |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:27 - Mar 9 by mr_bean |
It's being reported this morning that Harry told Oprah to, at her earliest opportunity, divulge that "it wasn't Harry's grandmother or grandfather".
So, Daddy perhaps? |
Probably reading too much into that. More pointing out it was not the monarch herself, nor the individual whom most people would immediately assume it was. | |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:37 - Mar 9 with 2834 views | TractorWood |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:22 - Mar 9 by bluelagos |
Why retain a monarchy at all? If you believe in a meritocratic society, rather than one based on class, how can you support a head of state that is hereditary?
People saying let Lizzie be the last monarch are missing the point. It's not about whether she or Charles is a good person, it is about what they represent. They represent the ultimate "Know your place" and frankly one that is based on your class rather than your ability.
It's a no thanks for me. |
Exactly. The monarchy is misaligned to the modern world by being founded on superiority from birth right. It will go at some point, but I suspect but it will take hundreds of years of pressure and deckchair shuffling change. |  |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:39 - Mar 9 with 2811 views | bluelagos |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:32 - Mar 9 by Guthrum |
Is having an elected (non-executive) President really that much more meritocratic? Surely it is just a function of having sufficient money and/or party backing behind you.
Plus the expense of the electoral process. And it's still installing another human as titular Head of State. It's not like elected officials are any more immune to corruption and scandal.
A bit swings-and-roundabouts for me. For something which is of limited relevance*.
* Do you think a President - even a non-executive one - would not be trying to influence policy in much the same way as members of the Royal Family do? |
I look at the Irish model of elected head of state who basically opens doors, hosts dinners etc and they seem to have it sussed.
It can be done and is being done. And if the Irish head of state turns out to be a bit sh1t, they can get rid. We are stuck with whoever happened to drop out of Lizzie's or Kate's womb first. | |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:40 - Mar 9 with 2801 views | lowhouseblue |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:27 - Mar 9 by mr_bean |
It's being reported this morning that Harry told Oprah to, at her earliest opportunity, divulge that "it wasn't Harry's grandmother or grandfather".
So, Daddy perhaps? |
people in families say stupid things to each other shocker. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:44 - Mar 9 with 2788 views | Herbivore |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:40 - Mar 9 by lowhouseblue |
people in families say stupid things to each other shocker. |
Jesus wept. | |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:45 - Mar 9 with 2776 views | Guthrum |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:32 - Mar 9 by bluelagos |
Conflicted on this. Given that there is a possibility that a future King is a racist, I would think it is very much in the public interest.
We have nonetheless unproven allegation given we have only heard one side.
Is it a matter for the public? Well given we fund them then I think it not unreasonable that any findings are made public. |
You say 'we fund them', but strictly the old Civil List (now replaced by the Sovereign Support Grant) was in exchange for the monarchy giving up the income from its own royal estates to the government in order that the latter could fund its activities.
So, technically, they are only receiving back a portion of their own income, with the rest going to fund the running of the country. | |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:45 - Mar 9 with 2774 views | noggin |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:40 - Mar 9 by lowhouseblue |
people in families say stupid things to each other shocker. |
FFS. |  |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:49 - Mar 9 with 2750 views | bluelagos |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:45 - Mar 9 by Guthrum |
You say 'we fund them', but strictly the old Civil List (now replaced by the Sovereign Support Grant) was in exchange for the monarchy giving up the income from its own royal estates to the government in order that the latter could fund its activities.
So, technically, they are only receiving back a portion of their own income, with the rest going to fund the running of the country. |
If you are going down that route, can we backdate all the tax they avoided for 80 odd years? | |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:51 - Mar 9 with 2722 views | GlasgowBlue |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:40 - Mar 9 by lowhouseblue |
people in families say stupid things to each other shocker. |
Most people’s families aren’t public servants who are the figureheads of a multicultural society though.
An allegation has been made but left hanging and I think it needs investigating. The context of the comment needs clarifying as you are correct, elder members if the family can say some daft things. As I said yesterday, and elderly relative once said of my wife that she looked like “she had a touch of the tar brush about her”. A completely outdated phrase which was probably acceptable from the age they grew up in. It wasn’t made in an offensive manner or said to cause harm and it’s a phrase that will most likely fade away by the time my kids are grown up.
The context is important. Did the senior member of the royal family simply speculate on the colour of the baby, as I’m sure many people involved in mixed marriages have done, or did they balk at the prospect of a member of the Royal family having dark skin. | |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:54 - Mar 9 with 2695 views | lowhouseblue |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:45 - Mar 9 by noggin |
FFS. |
do you think that people in families don't say stupid things? do you know exactly what was said? do you know what the context was? have you only heard a third hand account? do you always rush to conclusions on such a basis?
keep an open mind - it will be good for you. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:56 - Mar 9 with 2675 views | Herbivore |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:54 - Mar 9 by lowhouseblue |
do you think that people in families don't say stupid things? do you know exactly what was said? do you know what the context was? have you only heard a third hand account? do you always rush to conclusions on such a basis?
keep an open mind - it will be good for you. |
Poundland Paz is in the house. | |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:56 - Mar 9 with 2675 views | noggin |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:54 - Mar 9 by lowhouseblue |
do you think that people in families don't say stupid things? do you know exactly what was said? do you know what the context was? have you only heard a third hand account? do you always rush to conclusions on such a basis?
keep an open mind - it will be good for you. |
When it refers to the Royal Family, "Keep an open mind" means bow to your superiors and accept that you are not worthy of the truth. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
