Would Wild Birds Eat Grapes If They Were...
Home & Garden5 mins ago
Stripped Of Their Title?
197 Answers
Harry and Meghan. Yes or no?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by smurfchops. 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.
I didn't watch the whole programme, but was there really an accusation of racism? I saw Oprah doing her shocked open-mouthed "What!?" I suspect that the questopn about possible skin colour was aked before the marriage, possibly as part of a 'making sure you're prepared for all the publicity that might come flying your way.'
I'm not going to pretend I've followed every part of the tale of the Sussexes, but, from what I've seen, the reaction against them is extremely disproportionate, not to mention lacking in some level of self-reflection (for example, it isn't difficult to find examples of Meghan being criticised for the exact same thing that Kate Middleton is praised for).
// I understood that they wanted to be just Mr and Mrs Windsor, am I mistaken?//
yuppity sqad
Mountbatten Windsor
1962 Letters Patent ( that is how they do title stuff instead of Dear Proles be it known within.....) yeah I know I shd get out more - (*) said that titleless relations of the Queen should be mountbatten windsor as a default
this proved VERY unpopular and kept very quiet as the pushy Lord Mountbatten was seen to be pushing his name and no one liked it.
the queen married prince P who was a mountbatten sort of and declined to change the name of her House, and somewhere graciously said: "now thenk yew - I will stay windsor"
I think the BC says archie mountB-W
but so what I cant say I am fixated by any of this
(*) I am a sad donkey: I was reading Halsbury statutes, easy after Gray and Lumley Craven and Aiken - whilst you were playing rugby, being a hooray henry ( 1960 marque) and er looking at Playboy
yuppity sqad
Mountbatten Windsor
1962 Letters Patent ( that is how they do title stuff instead of Dear Proles be it known within.....) yeah I know I shd get out more - (*) said that titleless relations of the Queen should be mountbatten windsor as a default
this proved VERY unpopular and kept very quiet as the pushy Lord Mountbatten was seen to be pushing his name and no one liked it.
the queen married prince P who was a mountbatten sort of and declined to change the name of her House, and somewhere graciously said: "now thenk yew - I will stay windsor"
I think the BC says archie mountB-W
but so what I cant say I am fixated by any of this
(*) I am a sad donkey: I was reading Halsbury statutes, easy after Gray and Lumley Craven and Aiken - whilst you were playing rugby, being a hooray henry ( 1960 marque) and er looking at Playboy
// I'm not going to pretend I've followed every part of the tale of the Sussexes, but, from what I've seen,// it is clear that here 1 + 1 doesnt make 2 !
// Never heard of or ever used the word opprobrium, but have looked it up.// o god sqad Naomi should be doctor and you should be patient! - hey lucky no one understand what I write huh?
// Never heard of or ever used the word opprobrium, but have looked it up.// o god sqad Naomi should be doctor and you should be patient! - hey lucky no one understand what I write huh?
Jim, the reaction isn’t disproportionate at all. Harry said a long time ago that he’d tried his best to tell Meghan what sort of life she would be living if she married him, and yet she told Oprah she knew absolutely nothing about what to expect. Can anyone really believe she wasn’t aware of what her forthcoming role would entail - especially since she claimed whilst in Africa that her British friends had warned her against the marriage - so who’s lying?
Despite their claim of respect for the queen and her simpering angelic platitudes about Kate they have shown nothing but disdain for the monarchy and for this country - a country that welcomed her with open arms. You mention spite. That’s something Meghan knows all about. There is no other reason for this disgracefully manufactured self-promoting circus.
Despite their claim of respect for the queen and her simpering angelic platitudes about Kate they have shown nothing but disdain for the monarchy and for this country - a country that welcomed her with open arms. You mention spite. That’s something Meghan knows all about. There is no other reason for this disgracefully manufactured self-promoting circus.
There is difference, in thinking you're aware of what's coming, or in being told about it, and actually living it.
It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Meghan Markle has been subject to bullying and to racially-charged abuse. I'm not sure that blaming her for not realising that might be a possibility is appropriate.
It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Meghan Markle has been subject to bullying and to racially-charged abuse. I'm not sure that blaming her for not realising that might be a possibility is appropriate.
So what's her problem now ?? She's got what she wanted, Harry has been removed from his home, his family and she's living the life of luxury in a place where she wanted to be. They have pots of money and another child on the way. Why doesn't she just get on with her life, in 'private' as she wanted and enjoy it all and leave the Royal Family alone ??
//Especially not considering that they've made allegations of bullying and racism.//
//It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Meghan Markle has been subject to bullying and to racially-charged abuse.//
Really? Is that all it takes to convince you, Jim? Just “make allegations” - that's good enough for you. As I commented yesterday, these allegations are unsubstantiated, untested and will remain that way because the accuser has not named the alleged perpetrator(s) and seems unlikely to do so. The allegations cannot be checked out and the accused is unable to put forward his or her version of events. Sounds in line with two philosophies which seem to have grabbed credibility:
First, the preposterous recommendation #12 from the Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence:
“That the definition should be: ‘A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.’ "
Second, the philosophy that the Metropolitan police adopted during the disastrous “Operation Midland” fiasco which decreed that “the victim must always be believed.” This led them to believe the word of a fantasist and paedophile when they were told by him that a ring of VIPs was involved in child sexual abuse and murder. It also prompted one of their senior officers to mislead the country’s Chief Magistrate when applying for a search warrant.
There is a case going through the Court of Appeal which challenges the College of Policing’s guidance which followed from the Macpherson report and I think we all know how Operation Midland turned out. Seems those lessons need to trickle down elsewhere.
//If the Royal Family wants to survive this with their reputations intact then the correct response is to treat the allegations with respect, not indifference.//
The racism allegation cannot be treated with respect. It is unsubstantiated and cannot be investigated (short of interrogating all members of the Royal Family bar the one or two the Duchess has said were not involved). If she wants them taken seriously she should make them seriously and properly rather than reveal them for the first time to the host of a trashy US chat show.
//It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Meghan Markle has been subject to bullying and to racially-charged abuse.//
Really? Is that all it takes to convince you, Jim? Just “make allegations” - that's good enough for you. As I commented yesterday, these allegations are unsubstantiated, untested and will remain that way because the accuser has not named the alleged perpetrator(s) and seems unlikely to do so. The allegations cannot be checked out and the accused is unable to put forward his or her version of events. Sounds in line with two philosophies which seem to have grabbed credibility:
First, the preposterous recommendation #12 from the Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence:
“That the definition should be: ‘A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.’ "
Second, the philosophy that the Metropolitan police adopted during the disastrous “Operation Midland” fiasco which decreed that “the victim must always be believed.” This led them to believe the word of a fantasist and paedophile when they were told by him that a ring of VIPs was involved in child sexual abuse and murder. It also prompted one of their senior officers to mislead the country’s Chief Magistrate when applying for a search warrant.
There is a case going through the Court of Appeal which challenges the College of Policing’s guidance which followed from the Macpherson report and I think we all know how Operation Midland turned out. Seems those lessons need to trickle down elsewhere.
//If the Royal Family wants to survive this with their reputations intact then the correct response is to treat the allegations with respect, not indifference.//
The racism allegation cannot be treated with respect. It is unsubstantiated and cannot be investigated (short of interrogating all members of the Royal Family bar the one or two the Duchess has said were not involved). If she wants them taken seriously she should make them seriously and properly rather than reveal them for the first time to the host of a trashy US chat show.
// Really? Is that all it takes to convince you, Jim? Just “make allegations” - that's good enough for you. //
That's not what I said. I don't blame you for jumping on those quotes per se, but that's to ignore the wider context. The Sussexes have been around as a couple for years now: do you really think that the story only came to my attention this morning, or that that's all there is to my opinion on the matter? For example, I made a reference to the marked difference between how identical actions by the Duchess of Sussex on the one hand, and the Duchess of Cambridge on the other, have been received and portrayed by the media. That's a pattern that at the very least provides some extra context.
That's not what I said. I don't blame you for jumping on those quotes per se, but that's to ignore the wider context. The Sussexes have been around as a couple for years now: do you really think that the story only came to my attention this morning, or that that's all there is to my opinion on the matter? For example, I made a reference to the marked difference between how identical actions by the Duchess of Sussex on the one hand, and the Duchess of Cambridge on the other, have been received and portrayed by the media. That's a pattern that at the very least provides some extra context.
Just on the subject of "the victim must always be believed", it's either badly-worded or badly-interpreted. It stands to reason that all allegations must be taken seriously, investigated as far as possible, and the alleger treated with respect. That's not the same thing as an allegation being automatically true, with no need for further investigation. What matters is that the starting point should be to assume honesty.
