Harry and Meghan to resign

EdwardTeach said:
Do you honestly think the royal family are an example of good breeding? Harry and Charles both only managed 2 a levels despite going to elite private schools, and let's not talk about Prince Andrew (unless breeding people to lose the ability to sweat is a priority).
Click to expand...
If you read my previous posts you would see that I do NOT see them as a good example, and BTW there is no necessity for eugenics to entail interbreeding, mating pairs need not be related at all. Anyway, as I said it's niche and probably going off at an oblique angle from the presumed purpose of the thread. My input was in regard to bloodlines in general, not our Royal Family's bloodlines specifically.

All that aside I don't really have any great interest in Meghan, I thought the marriage was ill advised and would lead to problems, it has, and they are where they are. Hopefully they remain true to their proclaimed desire to leave the public arena and no longer be working members of our Royal Family, to pursue their private lives quietly abroad.
 
Last edited:
Dalandius said:
Over two and a half years later they are still courting publicity, what happen to them removing themselves from the public eye?
Click to expand...
His Grandma has died. If he wasnt there youd be criticising him for not being there wouldnt you.

Their problem was the way the gutter press reported absolute nonsense and lies and this week its been in full flow only proving their point.
 
Chris Wilson said:
If you read my previous posts you would see that I do NOT see them as a good example … My input was in regard to bloodlines in general, not our Royal Family's bloodlines specifically.
Click to expand...

The thing is, you originally replied to someone who questioned the Royals’ birthright to wealth and power by saying that it’s purely down to eugenics and bloodline.

Given that they have more wealth and power than 99.9% of the global population, they must surely have some of the best genetics. But then you say you don’t think they’re a good example of eugenics.

It’s a rather muddled position.

Either they have better genes than 99.9% of the global population (which doesn’t say much for the rest of us) and that justifies their success, or their wealth and power isn’t a result of their superior breeding and bloodline.

You can’t have it both ways.
 
Last edited:
Dalandius said:
Over two and a half years later they are still courting publicity, what happen to them removing themselves from the public eye?
Click to expand...

Are they? They are here because his grandmother died.

Also they left the UK because our scummy press made their lives hell and they got zero support from his family. That doesn't mean they decided to live as hermits. They now choose what they want to do, what publicity they want. They both still do good works and do work like the rest of us for money. I've more respect for that than the sponges that are the rest of them. They all just inherited £m in cash, race horses, jewellery etc and didn't pay a penny in inheritance tax. That IMO is disgraceful.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
I am asking a question. Someone said Sterling was being attacked by the British tabloids on their front pages. You seemed to imply that he wasn't any more than other white players. So I asked you to show me these white players of a similar fame that got the same treatment. Is it that difficult to understand. You seemed very sure so it should be easy.
Click to expand...

It would be easy if it was a legitimate question. But you'll dismiss any answer on the basis that the players were more or less famous than Sterling. Or some other reason. You're about ideology, not evidence.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Ok give me a white player that has made as many negative front pages as Sterling. If you are so about evidence lets see it.
Click to expand...
Pretty much every generation has one indivdual who ends up on the front pages as much as the back it's just the way it is. Geroge Best, Paul Gascoigne, David Beckham, Wayne Rooney all spring to mind.
 
Dalandius said:
That point annoyed me at the time, she first said the Queen was very supportive and then came out with the line about getting no support. Both can not be true, which one was it?
Click to expand...
could it be that both are True, that the Queen was very supportive, but then withdrew that support as she came under pressure from other family/outside people ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom