News0 min 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 have no intention of assuming on the one hand that any allegations that Markle makes are automatically true, and on the other that any allegations made against her are automatically false. In that sense, yes, I'm willing to believe that she might be a bully, or rather she might have bullied some people in the past. But I can't and won't comment beyond that -- and it should go without saying that it isn't relevant to assessing the allegations she's making.
Anybody think Mr and Mrs Windgeor and Ms Wowphrey will now go on world wide telly and apologise to our Royal Family about the facts they got wrong, eg., withdrawal of protection on they resigned from duties and the fact the Queen cannot give Archie the title Prince because of protocol not because his mother is of mixed race?
Should I hold my breath?
Should I hold my breath?
Although Archie is growing up without a royal title, he is still seventh in line to the throne and will move up the line of succession when Prince Charles becomes king. Once his grandfather is the UK monarch, Archie will automatically become a prince and at the age of 18, he can decide whether or not he wants to use HRH.
all i see is a b-list hollywood actress or are not allowed to say that but actor, who bagged a prince to further her dead acting career,ail i think she knew exactly what she was doing, like an actor who learns their lines, tail that wags the dog never rang so true, for them it will all burn out, all they have is supposed victimhood to live off, and that gets tired with the public, the book then the film and the cost of there life style... dwindling returns eventully, maybe they will have ebony ivory shampoos and smellies lined up..
// Jim, so are you willing to believe that Meghan is a bully - an allegation that was formally registered yadda yadda
Mogz plays the race card and oprah leads the charge first by believing it deploring it and then of course it must be investigated ( without evidence/corrobpration)
and palace flunkeys accuse Megz of bullying and it is ignored - or it is sufficient for Megs to say no I didnt
two unsubstantiated statements one taken at face value and one discounted - and of course fairness demands BOTH are taken at face value OR both are not believed
[I caused chaos at a works disciplinary with this rather simple observation. accused worker kept his job]
Mogz plays the race card and oprah leads the charge first by believing it deploring it and then of course it must be investigated ( without evidence/corrobpration)
and palace flunkeys accuse Megz of bullying and it is ignored - or it is sufficient for Megs to say no I didnt
two unsubstantiated statements one taken at face value and one discounted - and of course fairness demands BOTH are taken at face value OR both are not believed
[I caused chaos at a works disciplinary with this rather simple observation. accused worker kept his job]
oops perhaps she cant
The 1917 Letters Patent were resented by junior members of the royal family, most notably the Princes of Hanover, descendants of George III’s fifth son, the Duke of Cumberland, who lost their formal designation as Princes of Great Britain in 1917. The Hanovers continue to style themselves as Royal Hignesses and British Princes and Princesses in defiance of the 1917 Letters Patent.
The 1917 Letters Patent were resented by junior members of the royal family, most notably the Princes of Hanover, descendants of George III’s fifth son, the Duke of Cumberland, who lost their formal designation as Princes of Great Britain in 1917. The Hanovers continue to style themselves as Royal Hignesses and British Princes and Princesses in defiance of the 1917 Letters Patent.
//That's not what I said.//
I find it difficult to put any other slant on it, Jim. You said that she’s made allegations of bullying and racial abuse and you find it difficult not to believe them (and so by default, find it easier to believe they are true). I don’t follow the trials and tribulations of minor royals too closely but as far as I know there were no reports that the Duchess had mentioned suffering racial abuse prior to the ridiculous interview she gave.
//Just on the subject of "the victim must always be believed", it's either badly-worded or badly-interpreted.//
It’s neither. Sir Richard Henriques, a former High Court judge, undertook an enquiry into Midland. In his report he commented on the obtaining a search warrants. He said:
“FINDING: The warrants to search the premises of Lord Bramall, Lady Brittan, and Mr Proctor were, in my judgement, obtained unlawfully. The written applications stated that “Nick’s” account had remained consistent and he is felt to be a credible witness who is telling the truth. “Nick’s” account had not been consistent throughout. Further, there were, in my judgement, no reasonable grounds to believe “Nick” and the statement that he had told the truth was no consistent with information then available. The magistrate was misled.”
There can be no explanation for the Met’s action in seeking search warrants other than the fact that they believed “Nick” regardless of the facts before them. Sir Richard remarked “The policy of ‘believing victims’ strikes at the very core of the criminal justice process … it has and will generate miscarriages of justice on a considerable scale. The philosophy that “the victim must be believed” has permeated the police to such a degree that objective investigation becomes almost impossible if it is to be followed and it’s filtering down to less important investigations. They should revert to “ABC”: Accept Nothing; Believe Nobody; Check Everything”. Until an investigation on that basis is conducted into the allegations made by the Duchess (which is unlikely to get very far due to her reticence in naming her tormentors) I’ll stick with my doubts because making allegations on the Oprah Winfrey Show does not cut it for me.
Stripped of their titles? I really don't care. She's a D-List actress whose life plan didn't quite pan out as she expected; he's a minor Royal who has thrown his toys out of the pram because he subscribed to the philosophy that "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets." And she didn't.
I find it difficult to put any other slant on it, Jim. You said that she’s made allegations of bullying and racial abuse and you find it difficult not to believe them (and so by default, find it easier to believe they are true). I don’t follow the trials and tribulations of minor royals too closely but as far as I know there were no reports that the Duchess had mentioned suffering racial abuse prior to the ridiculous interview she gave.
//Just on the subject of "the victim must always be believed", it's either badly-worded or badly-interpreted.//
It’s neither. Sir Richard Henriques, a former High Court judge, undertook an enquiry into Midland. In his report he commented on the obtaining a search warrants. He said:
“FINDING: The warrants to search the premises of Lord Bramall, Lady Brittan, and Mr Proctor were, in my judgement, obtained unlawfully. The written applications stated that “Nick’s” account had remained consistent and he is felt to be a credible witness who is telling the truth. “Nick’s” account had not been consistent throughout. Further, there were, in my judgement, no reasonable grounds to believe “Nick” and the statement that he had told the truth was no consistent with information then available. The magistrate was misled.”
There can be no explanation for the Met’s action in seeking search warrants other than the fact that they believed “Nick” regardless of the facts before them. Sir Richard remarked “The policy of ‘believing victims’ strikes at the very core of the criminal justice process … it has and will generate miscarriages of justice on a considerable scale. The philosophy that “the victim must be believed” has permeated the police to such a degree that objective investigation becomes almost impossible if it is to be followed and it’s filtering down to less important investigations. They should revert to “ABC”: Accept Nothing; Believe Nobody; Check Everything”. Until an investigation on that basis is conducted into the allegations made by the Duchess (which is unlikely to get very far due to her reticence in naming her tormentors) I’ll stick with my doubts because making allegations on the Oprah Winfrey Show does not cut it for me.
Stripped of their titles? I really don't care. She's a D-List actress whose life plan didn't quite pan out as she expected; he's a minor Royal who has thrown his toys out of the pram because he subscribed to the philosophy that "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets." And she didn't.
NJ - since you're about could you please have a look here:
https:/
Your knowledge could be useful.
https:/
Your knowledge could be useful.
