Politics Meghan Markle and Prince Harry - Racially Villified or Royally Unpopular?

Remove this Banner Ad

Roylion said:
So tell me again how Charles is 'damaged' and 'toxic'.
Click to expand...
He divorced Diana and then she died. Not his fault entirely but marrying “the other woman in that marriage” is.
He’s old, once again not his fault, but that’s the situation.
He’s boring and says silly things.
He looks like a caricature of a silly old king. Funny that, because that’s what he’ll be.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Present Not Past said:
He divorced Diana and then she died. Not his fault entirely but marrying “the other woman in that marriage” is.
Click to expand...

And how will that negatively effect his job as monarch when the time comes?

Present Not Past said:
He’s old, once again not his fault, but that’s the situation.
Click to expand...

And so? Being old means a person is damaged and toxic is it?

Present Not Past said:
He’s boring and says silly things.
Click to expand...

“Boring”? How so? “Says silly things”? Such as?

Present Not Past said:
He looks like a caricature of a silly old king.
Click to expand...

So it’s his looks that make him toxic and damaged?
 
Seriously, the fact that Meghoul can't get over herself to go to Philips funeral just shows how much of a self-important entitled bitch that she is, if roles were reversed and her gramps passed away she'd yank Harry's chain and demand that he go.

Again, it makes it look like Harry is doing all the heavy lifting in the relationship.

"They don't hate her cause she African* American. They hate her cause she arsehole American"

* seriously though , I've seen white people with darker skin than her.
 
Elizabeth was more or less a blank canvas when she ascended the throne and she was chameleon like in her ability to evolve with the requirements of her job, rarely most notably her reaction to the death of Diana, getting it wrong. Whereas Charles will come to the throne an elderly man with what we know to be a fairly rigid set of values which while progressive in some areas, notably environmentalism, others are still rooted in an colonial era mindset and as we know when we age ourselves the older you get the more set in your ways you become. My concern with him is that he won't be able to be a monarch like his mother and that as Britain and the Commonwealth react to her death he won't be able have the agility to respond to those reactions as will be required.
 
Roylion said:
And how will that negatively effect his job as monarch when the time comes?



And so? Being old means a person is damaged and toxic is it?



“Boring”? How so? “Says silly things”? Such as?



So it’s his looks that make him toxic and damaged?
Click to expand...

‘the whole essence of monarchy is someone in their prime, or a well known long serving successful one like the current queen.

in the heyday of monarchy William would make sure Charles had some kind of accident, if he hadn’t died anyway

you can quote your facts till you are blue in the face, roylion, Charles won’t invigorate the ‘show’.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Pessimistic said:
‘the whole essence of monarchy is someone in their prime, or a well known long serving successful one like the current queen.

in the heyday of monarchy William would make sure Charles had some kind of accident, if he hadn’t died anyway

you can quote your facts till you are blue in the face, roylion, Charles won’t invigorate the ‘show’.
Click to expand...

The whole essence of hereditary monarchy (which is what this is) is it's passed on to the next in line. That's it.

Edward VII was quite old when he became King and didn't have a lot to recommend him as a person and only reigned for nine years before he died but he became King because he was the eldest son of Queen Victoria.

Now you can argue for something different (getting rid of the monarchy and becoming a republic) but passing over Charles to William is just a ridiculous idea.
 
Bumpswithagrin said:
The whole essence of hereditary monarchy (which is what this is) is it's passed on to the next in line. That's it.

Edward VII was quite old when he became King and didn't have a lot to recommend him as a person and only reigned for nine years before he died but he became King because he was the eldest son of Queen Victoria.

Now you can argue for something different (getting rid of the monarchy and becoming a republic) but passing over Charles to William is just a ridiculous idea.
Click to expand...

‘in the heyday of monarchy. Middle Ages etc, a weak king didn’t last and he didn’t get th spend his dotage murdering foxes etc. He was dun in.

these days we have the democratic process to replace weak or ineffective leaders. I’m just saying a person becoming king well after retirement age is not how it was meant to be

the hereditary bit made the choice easy as long as the candidate was strong.

now a monarch as a figurehead not an actual leader is the thing now, but it’s not an actual battlefield today, it’s a PR thing, where ironically the youthful candidate is preferred over the elderly one.
 
MarcMaverick said:
Seriously, the fact that Meghoul can't get over herself to go to Philips funeral just shows how much of a self-important entitled b*tch that she is, if roles were reversed and her gramps passed away she'd yank Harry's chain and demand that he go.

Again, it makes it look like Harry is doing all the heavy lifting in the relationship.

"They don't hate her cause she African* American. They hate her cause she arsehole American"

* seriously though , I've seen white people with darker skin than her.
Click to expand...

meghan pretty much reverse ghosted her family(they ghosted her first) upon joining the royals so not such a fair analogy.

but isn’t it Harry and meghan just being diplomatic?
 
Pessimistic said:
‘the whole essence of monarchy is someone in their prime, or a well known long serving successful one like the current queen.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily the case. As has already been stated Edward VII was in his late 50s when he came to the throne after a long stretch as Prince of Wales and died at the age of 68. There's no reason why Charles should not be able to competently fulfil the role and functions of the monarch.

Pessimistic said:
in the heyday of monarchy William would make sure Charles had some kind of accident, if he hadn’t died anyway
Click to expand...

No he wouldn't. Sons usurping their fathers in the 'heydey of monarchy' was actually quite rare. Edward III succeeding to the throne while his father Edward II was alive is really the only example. Henry III was seen a weak king, but his son Edward Longshanks (Edward I) made no move to overthrow his father. Henry II's sons Henry the Young King, Richard and Geoffrey tried but were defeated. Henry VI was seen a weak king, but his son Edward never attempted to overthrow him. Instead it was his distant cousin Edward of York that did that.

Mary II and her husband William of Orange overthrew her father James II in 1688, but that was really a question of religious strife.

Pessimistic said:
you can quote your facts till you are blue in the face, roylion, Charles won’t invigorate the ‘show’.
Click to expand...

'Invigorate the show'? What does this even mean?
 
Last edited:
Pessimistic said:
nbut it’s not an actual battlefield today, it’s a PR thing, where ironically the youthful candidate is preferred over the elderly one.
Click to expand...

It's largely irrelevant. The monarch fills a constitutional role, whatever age he or she happens to be.
 
Roylion said:
That's not necessarily the case. As has already been stated Edward VII was in his late 50s when he came to the throne after a long stretch as Prince of Wales and died at the age of 68. There's no reason why Charles should not be able to competently fulfil the role and functions of the monarch.



No he wouldn't. Sons usurping their fathers in the 'heydey of monarchy' was actually quite rare. Edward III succeeding to the throne while his father Edward II was alive is really the only example. Henry III was seen a weak king, but his son Edward Longshanks (Edward I) made no move to overthrow his father. Henry II's sons Henry the Young King, Richard and Geoffrey tried but were defeated. Henry VI was seen a weak king, but hius son Edward never attempted to overthrown him. Instead it was his distant cousin Edward of York that did that.

Mary II and her husband William of Orange overthrew her father James II in 1688, but that was really a question of religious strife.



'Invigorate the show'? What does this even mean?
Click to expand...

‘you tell me roylion, you doggedly don’t see even belittle all others points of view. On example I said damaged and toxic just once and you have repeated the words maybe a dozen times. They were throwaway words yet they triggered you.

don’t ask me to explain anything to you because it’s plainly obvious you won’t see it, or choose not to see it, or enjoy ranting on at the subject.
I suspect you see what I mean perfectly well, but hate even admitting it in any way

monarchy had a way of removing ineffective leaders, you provided a couple of really good examples,then deleted them. Why the deletion? (Maybe bigfooty is stuffing up)

on another tack my daughter was in the away team at Fitzroy ammos yesterday and it was great to see a community club being reinvigorated.
 
Last edited:
Pessimistic said:
‘you tell me roylion, you doggedly don’t see even belittle all others points of view.
Click to expand...

I reply to a number of people...not just you.

Pessimistic said:
On example I said damaged and toxic just once and you have repeated the words maybe a dozen times.
Click to expand...

You still haven't explained it.

Pessimistic said:
I suspect you see what I mean perfectly well,
Click to expand...

If I did, I wouldnt ask.

Pessimistic said:
monarchy had a way of removing ineffective leaders, you provided a couple of really good examples,then deleted them.
Click to expand...

And what were those examples?

I haven't deleted anything.

Anything I edit is to provide more clarity.
 
How's this pair of campaigners hijacking the Queen's nickname after the best part of a couple of years tearing her legacy to pieces?

I'm no royal apologist but Harry and the Yank are a horrible pair of self-entitled arseholes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blue Arrow
Covid-19 Covid Inquiry, why no Royal Commission?
Replies
23
Views
1K
Werewolf
Werewolf
_Mike_
Vale Lt Col Harry Smith
Replies
1
Views
461
Tasmaniac
T
G
  • Locked
  • Poll
Society/Culture Biggest flog? Chief or Gough?
Replies
14
Views
587
Gethelred
Gethelred
MPMonkeys
Advertising: okay or obnoxious?
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Chief
Chief
Rotayjay
The Robodebt Royal Commission
27 28 29 30 31
Replies
771
Views
35K
peetoo
peetoo
Crankyhawk
Society/Culture "Triggering" and whose responsibility is it
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
mr bagcroft
mr bagcroft
Gethelred
Society/Culture Sport: Arbitrary, Needless or Essential?
2 3
Replies
67
Views
3K
ferball
ferball

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top