Keeping up with the Markles

CaptainRAVE said:
Oh ‘she heard it through Harry’ and ‘a few random chats’.

Oh no, her child wasn’t crowned ‘prince’. My heart bleeds.
Click to expand...

According to my wife, who is neither Royalist nor Republican, but studies the history of England’s Kings and Queens, King George V laid down the rules in 1917.
The titles of Prince and Princess are restricted to the children of the reigning sovereign, e.g. Prince Charles, the children of the sovereign’s sons, e.g. Prince Harry, and the eldest son of the sovereign’s son, e.g. Prince George..

thenewoc said:
Notice so far Oprah hasn't confirmed that Harry or some company of theirs isn't being paid for this interview.
Click to expand...

She made it patently clear in the first five seconds, that no one was being paid for the interview, whether she had her fingers crossed when she said it, I didn’t notice.

Merlin5 said:
I'm betting it was Phillip she won't name.
Click to expand...

It was said twice that it was neither the Queen, nor the Duke of Edinburgh, but let’s be fair, they can keep the speculation going for ever just by saying that they’ll never divulge the name.
 
Hades said:
You have consistently changed tohe goalposts since I replied to a question about a mixed race white/Pakistani couple with my real life experience of being in exactly that relationship.

But why is white on brown racism any more serious than brown on white racism?
Click to expand...

It's not but it's what is being discussed in here. So back on topic. Your the one being pedantic about tangents in the first place. Like I said before I'm sure your plight is worthy of its own thread.
 
XeNoN89 said:
So does 'Coloured People' and 'People of Colour' but unfortunately we live in a ridiculous time where one thing is fine and the other makes you a racist to the woke mob
Click to expand...

People of colour is just a term for anyone who isn't white. Coloured is/was a term for black people and mixed race white/back. The reason it isn't used any more is because of its history mainly in the US and their terrible history with racism and the treatment of black people. It was only 55 years ago that segregation was finally made illegal. There is a push for a new voting right act because still black people and Latinos are having their voting rights suppressed in certain states. Do you really not understand history and so see why certain terms are no longer used? Using the N-word was common 50 years ago. Would you use it now? Would it make you woke because you wouldn't use it now?
 
Psycho Sonny said:
It's not but it's what is being discussed in here. So back on topic. Your the one being pedantic about tangents in the first place. Like I said before I'm sure your plight is worthy of its own thread.
Click to expand...
I humbly apologise for replying to a question from you about the experience of a mixed race couple... with my 30 year experience of being in a mixed race couple. I'll keep in mind next time that when you ask a question you don't actually want anyone with direct experience to answer it ;)

Love and kisses x
 
Psycho Sonny said:
You're going off on a tangent now. We are specifically discussing white on brown racism. You are free to start a new thread and we can discuss there.

I'm sure the decades of racism you received throughout childhood and growing up are worthy of it.
Click to expand...
I thought you couldn't be racist against the white man anyhow? Only whites can be racist against non-whites. So I keep being told :p
 
Just to throw some fire on the babies' skin colour question, I have a friend whose sister married a black person, and I remember this friend saying to our group of friends how cute she thought any children they had would be, and wondered about what their skin tone would be like, because it can vary so much depending on how the genes decide to arrange themselves etc.

I have another (white British) friend who married an Italian, and similar conversations were had about what their children (first one born now, very cute they are too) would look like and whether their skin would be darker or lighter.

Neither of those conversations seemed racist to me at the time, and they don't seem racist in hindsight either (although I'm sure some would disagree).
 
GreatAuk said:
Just to throw some fire on the babies' skin colour question, I have a friend whose sister married a black person, and I remember this friend saying to our group of friends how cute she thought any children they had would be, and wondered about what their skin tone would be like, because it can vary so much depending on how the genes decide to arrange themselves etc.
Click to expand...

Of course they did, it's pretty standard - there were plenty of black and other people making similar remarks on twitter etc..

It's the way they've left it as some sinister implication - like the possibility that this would be a reason for not having security or not having a title and/or some way of warning Harry off her etc.. when they've deliberately kept it vague, not really given the context etc..

Obviously, if it were an actual reason for them warning Harry off Meghan (supposing it came from Charles) - say something along the lines of "But your kids, think of your kids, they could be brown etc.." then that is obviously racist (albeit, it's not exactly something confined to white parents of that age - could just as easily be Black or Asian parents opposed to their offspring marrying someone from another race/ethnicity).

On the other hand, if they're literally just blowing up some otherwise innocent conversation simply speculating on his skin colour or teasing Harry about whether the baby will be a ginger too etc.. then meh - it's very dodgy to have implied it was something else. There isn't an easy way for it to be defended either if that were the case - supposing it were Charles and he'd just said something playfully or off the cuff then imagine trying to explain that in the current climate without it being distorted or taken way out of context and causing more negative publicity.
 
And how would that make people stop demonstrating they love sleazy stories. It works so the editors order another dozen stories.

There's no fairness or justice. Just a reflection of what people want to see more of. A story which gets miserable engagement is a bad story to run.

As long as no law is broken you can't tell the media to not publish stories which sell, on a public person.

Look at all the thirsty boys (and girls) who tuned in hoping to hear some quality drama. And were seriously disappointed.
 
arknor said:
whats her face wants to be the next kim kardashian obviously
Click to expand...


Well she may get round to surgical implanting a pair of hump back whales into her arse, then record a porno and make sure it gets leaked. Thats about what Kardashian done to get "famous" and have bags of money thrown at her.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
I've never understood why some people who have served get so indoctrinated, I've got other mates who've served who couldn't give a toss about the royal family. Lets face it they don't give a toss about any of us.

edit: actually Harry has probably done more for injured ex servicemen/women than all the rest put together. I wonder if he is still going to front Invictus now? Was probably the best bit of PR the royals have had since.... well maybe Andrew in the Falklands but then he turned out to like hanging with a sex offender.
Click to expand...

Then they didn’t know why they joined up - obviously for some of the wrong reasons.

All service personnel ( Including Harry ) swear an oath to the Monarchy.

Randy Andy will answer for allegations against him in time I’m sure , in the media’s eyes there’s a bigger villain at the moment . Sorry 2.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Britis...ty-to-the-monarch-in-their-oath-of-allegiance
 
Piers Morgan has just been destroyed on GMB. What an absolute embarrassment that man is. He clearly had an agenda against Meghan, gets called out on it and has walked off setm
 
So it turns out they may not be married under UK law.

https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/guidebookclergyfeb15final.pdf

"The book states that "a couple who are already lawfully married cannot choose to re-marry each other, unless there is some doubt as to the validity of the earlier marriage."

" Per the rule book, two or more witnesses must be present at the marriage for it to be considered legally binding. It’s unclear if the Archbishop counts as one but regardless, the duo would still be missing a witness."

So they had 2 weddings. Both was not legal under church law.
 
Didn't anybody think it was Ian Wright dressed as Mrs Doubtfire?

i1uEFcN.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom