ChatterBank0 min ago
Meghan Merkel
121 Answers
I can't seem to find anything about 'the interview' on here, what does everyone think, whose side are you on, is it damaging for the Royal Family, is there no going back now for Harry?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by saintpeter48. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.up to grandchildren of the monarch
and archie - loo-ie and Carlotta AREN'T
and loo-loo and C are ickle princes and princesses
I have to say I thought the californian pair had said NO to a title. My friend Madge who lives darn the road says whenever I will let her, the cleaner, that one anyway SHE says (but I am giving away secrets) that they want a title for the babby, so that they can mark up the babyware to er princely levels.
More profit see
and archie - loo-ie and Carlotta AREN'T
and loo-loo and C are ickle princes and princesses
I have to say I thought the californian pair had said NO to a title. My friend Madge who lives darn the road says whenever I will let her, the cleaner, that one anyway SHE says (but I am giving away secrets) that they want a title for the babby, so that they can mark up the babyware to er princely levels.
More profit see
no- oh god
the arbiter of all this is her Maj
and according to Jowett LC who decided all this and then redecided it in 1952
(subject of Wallace being HRH - yes because on abdication the King goes back to what he was before - to wit HRH Prince and she is the wife) and then
( 1952 no - it boils down to the fount of all honours is The Queen and she has a say-so which is final, )
the arbiter of all this is her Maj
and according to Jowett LC who decided all this and then redecided it in 1952
(subject of Wallace being HRH - yes because on abdication the King goes back to what he was before - to wit HRH Prince and she is the wife) and then
( 1952 no - it boils down to the fount of all honours is The Queen and she has a say-so which is final, )
barsel, it is only lately been on news sites:
https:/ /www.ch ronicle live.co .uk/new s/uk-ne ws/who- racist- baby-co mment-h arry-19 989796
https:/
I do think this is a spectacular own goal claiming racism for the reason her son is not a Prince which seems to be the allegation. I have no doubt that she was subject to racism, but I do not think that is a claim that one can fairly lay at racism's door. Why should her child have something that others are not entitled to? Princess Eugenie's son will not be HRH nor a prince. Whereas unless it is changed, Archie will be so entitled in years to come. Although I havent actually heard what she said and so I am prepared to concede that this could be skewed reporting.
It is the airing one's dirty linen in public which most irritates me. There is much to be said for "never explain, never complain".
It is the airing one's dirty linen in public which most irritates me. There is much to be said for "never explain, never complain".