Is Meghan Markle the most beautiful royal ever?

Didge wrote:

gelico wrote:

it was the media article which did that didge

we are merely commenting on that

there have been some interesting and funny comments

personally i haven't judged either of them, not on looks or anything else

like i said, your questions should be asked of the media rather than anyone on here

or perhaps you think this thread should never have been put up,,,,

So your excuse for doing so, is because an article did so?

personally i haven't judged either of them, not on looks or anything else


So you are basically a sheep to what others think Gelico?

no

Come on Gelico, that is a lame excuse

I don't need to give excuses for anything I say

That has been interesting comments and now many defensive comments, when I hit back at posters on their views and what drives them

you expect people to not defend themselves when you're chatting shit at them?


Well the media people are not here and thus those joining in this farce will have to tackle my points onto them.

well, if that didn't get folk quaking in their boots, then nothing will

I have no problem with any thread being put up. Can you show where I am against the thread?

Just about every comment you've made on it, nothing much

Never made any such claim. Never even claimed you could not say as you please.

I never said you did

What it seems, is that you are trying to enter the Cathy Newman school and claim things I have never stated.

No

I have though rightly taken on yours and others views as poor, insecure, bitchy etc.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It must be awful having to look nice all the time.

It must be horrible to have an off day and knowing someone cant wait to take a pic and sell it for thousands.

The paparazzi used to call Diana the C and T words, in the hope she would break down and cry...a photo of her crying or screaming at them would make them a lot of money.

Hopefully those days are gone.

magica wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:


I'm sure there's no rule that says royalty has to be white. That sounded really racist of you.

Why is it racist, because to say she's mixed race, when she is. Is it racist to state the obvious . I can't fawn over her like everyone else.

If I'm not allowed to mention her colour then free speech is dead on here, along with th press.

magica wrote:

I don't think she's right for royally she's of mixed race, ex actor, divorced lady who is now going to have the world on a plate.

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:

It must be horrible to have an off day and knowing someone cant wait to take a pic and sell it for thousands.

The paparazzi used to call Diana the C and T words, in the hope she would break down and cry...a photo of her crying or screaming at them would make them a lot of money.

Hopefully those days are gone.

C and T words?

magica wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:


I'm sure there's no rule that says royalty has to be white. That sounded really racist of you.

Why is it racist, because to say she's mixed race, when she is. Is it racist to state the obvious . I can't fawn over her like everyone else.

If I'm not allowed to mention her colour then free speech is dead on here, along with th press.

Didge wrote:

magica wrote:

Why is it racist, because to say she's mixed race, when she is. Is it racist to state the obvious . I can't fawn over her like everyone else.

If I'm not allowed to mention her colour then free speech is dead on here, along with th press.

Maybe you can explain why you mention the colour of her skin or that she is mixed ethnically?

No such thing as mixed race.

Even the Royals are mixed ethnically

Prince Phillip being Greek/Danish, where the Royal family changed their name after WW1 from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor

I mean lets look at your views to deny her something that is invented and a concept, Royalty

magica wrote:

I don't think she's right for royally she's of mixed race, ex actor, divorced lady who is now going to have the world on a plate.

So you have ruled out the entire Royal family already as being mixed ethnically (I know you classed this as race, which is very dumb).

Acting?

Been the center story of all Royals through history, to act.

The last point, that you must hold some religious antiquated view on divorce.

Seriously

So again, it seems you do have a racial issue on skin colour, as the Royals today are all Mixed race/ethnically

gelico wrote:personally i haven't judged either of them, not on looks or anything else

Didge wrote:
Yes you have

no

Didge wrote:
Yes you are

I don't need to give excuses for anything I say

Didge wrote:
Yes you have

you expect people to not defend themselves when you're chatting shit at them?

Didge wrote:
Read again slowly what you just said and see how you just made my point, when people have been chatting chit about people, but behind their backs and they are the women on here.

Imagine how they would fell based on your pathetic competition on looks, being so superficial, being the fact you have never met them

well, if that didn't get folk quaking in their boots, then nothing will

Didge wrote:
Are you thus quaking?

Just about every comment you've made on it, nothing much

Didge wrote:
Show where I said this thread should not be allowed?

Or did I rightly condemn you and others for being bitchy and clearly insecure?

I never said you did

Didge wrote:
Yes you have

No

Didge wrote:
Yes you have

I don't know how you do it but you have the amazing ability to bore me rigid after just a few posts when  you get on your righteous high horse about something, I just tend to roll my eyes and sort of zone right out

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Maybe you can explain why you mention the colour of her skin or that she is mixed ethnically?

No such thing as mixed race.

Even the Royals are mixed ethnically

Prince Phillip being Greek/Danish, where the Royal family changed their name after WW1 from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor

I mean lets look at your views to deny her something that is invented and a concept, Royalty



So you have ruled out the entire Royal family already as being mixed ethnically (I know you classed this as race, which is very dumb).

Acting?

Been the center story of all Royals through history, to act.

The last point, that you must hold some religious antiquated view on divorce.

Seriously

So again, it seems you do have a racial issue on skin colour, as the Royals today are all Mixed race/ethnically

You just said there was no such thing as mixed race.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


What is lighthearted about comparing looks?

Its elitism, how inequality is born from Syl and like I say based on something superficial and individual. Based on their tastes and attractions.

Its not based on what they actually do or their beliefs.

No its not, that's why I said it was shallow.

Didge, you may not know this but women, even ordinary women like me and others on here, are judged on our looks from the day we are born.
Pretty baby, beautiful child, she is the clever one (translate as her lack of beauty is compensated by her brains) you look nice in that, that hairstyle suits you, that dress looks nice, your arse looks big, we all know that rejection/acception is often  based on looks, weight, height, size of boobs, age,  marital status, number of children, and so it goes on, from birth till death.
This happens in the work place and throughout society.

Meghan and Kate wil be very used to being judged on their looks. Its the way of the world.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Maybe you can explain why you mention the colour of her skin or that she is mixed ethnically?

No such thing as mixed race.

Even the Royals are mixed ethnically

Prince Phillip being Greek/Danish, where the Royal family changed their name after WW1 from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor

I mean lets look at your views to deny her something that is invented and a concept, Royalty



So you have ruled out the entire Royal family already as being mixed ethnically (I know you classed this as race, which is very dumb).

Acting?

Been the center story of all Royals through history, to act.

The last point, that you must hold some religious antiquated view on divorce.

Seriously

So again, it seems you do have a racial issue on skin colour, as the Royals today are all Mixed race/ethnically

You just said there was no such thing as mixed race.

Didge wrote:

gelico wrote:personally i haven't judged either of them, not on looks or anything else

no



I don't need to give excuses for anything I say



you expect people to not defend themselves when you're chatting shit at them?


well, if that didn't get folk quaking in their boots, then nothing will


Just about every comment you've made on it, nothing much


I never said you did


No



I don't know how you do it but you have the amazing ability to bore me rigid after just a few posts when  you get on your righteous high horse about something, I just tend to roll my eyes and sort of zone right out

I know my points hold true when you poorly try to misdirect as seen above, claiming you are bored, contradicting yourself by then replying

Ouch

Syl wrote:Mags isn't racist, I have known her for 10 years on forums, I think she worded it wrongly, as Canny pointed out earlier I believe.

Syl wrote:Mags isn't racist, I have known her for 10 years on forums, I think she worded it wrongly, as Canny pointed out earlier I believe.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

No its not, that's why I said it was shallow.

Didge, you may not know this but women, even ordinary women like me and others on here, are judged on our looks from the day we are born.
Pretty baby, beautiful child, she is the clever one (translate as her lack of beauty is compensated by her brains) you look nice in that, that hairstyle suits you, that dress looks nice, your arse looks big, we all know that rejection/acception is often  based on looks, weight, height, size of boobs, age,  marital status, number of children, and so it goes on, from birth till death.
This happens in the work place and throughout society.

Meghan and Kate wil be very used to being judged on their looks. Its the way of the world.

So you are judged on your looks and are doing the exact same very thing

Sorry, but how are you even making your point, when I already stated about how either this is institutionalized or genetic earlier?

There is nothing wrong with saying someone is pretty. The problem always starts when you compare how good looking they are compared to someone else.

So what you are saying is that men and more so wome contribute to why women end up disillusioned over how they look and that they should conform to a norm you and others perceive on them in how they look.

So thank you for proving my point here.

Why not actually look to get out of this norm that demonizes people and start being actually different?

Vintage wrote:

Didge wrote:

I know my points hold true when you poorly try to misdirect as seen above, claiming you are bored, contradicting yourself by then replying

Ouch

Seriously? This is a discussion forum. Its not a lecture hall.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You just said there was no such thing as mixed race.

There is no such thing as mixed race biologically

Its a concept and why I placed ethnically next to it

Is that what you took from magica being actually racial in her views?

No surprise there then

Syl wrote:Didge, if people find a thread about looks shallow, they can just ignore it and let us flibbertigibbets have our opinions.

But just to add, didn't Meghan spend an absolutely obscene amount on the dress she wore for her engagement pictures to Harry.
Sort of proves that to us females, looks, and the way we present to others, certainly do matter.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:Mags isn't racist, I have known her for 10 years on forums, I think she worded it wrongly, as Canny pointed out earlier I believe.

She certainly is.

Why argued on mixed race?

When the Royal family is based on the concept ( just for rags) classed as mixed race?

Is it her skin colour?

Some people do not even see they are racist

This shows she is subconsciously racist

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

There is no such thing as mixed race biologically

Its a concept and why I placed ethnically next to it

Is that what you took from magica being actually racial in her views?

No surprise there then

I was merely pointing out your error - you contradicted yourself.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

She certainly is.

Why argued on mixed race?

When the Royal family is based on the concept ( just for rags) classed as mixed race?

Is it her skin colour?

Some people do not even see they are racist

This shows she is subconsciously racist

What mix of races is the "royal" family?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I was merely pointing out your error - you contradicted yourself.

Show me the contradiction?

We do use mixed race as a concept

Biologically it does not exist

In your own time

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:Mags isn't racist, I have known her for 10 years on forums, I think she worded it wrongly, as Canny pointed out earlier I believe.

She certainly is.

Why argued on mixed race?

When the Royal family is based on the concept ( just for rags) classed as mixed race?

Is it her skin colour?

Some people do not even see they are racist

This shows she is subconsciously racist

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

So you are judged on your looks and are doing the exact same very thing

Sorry, but how are you even making your point, when I already stated about how either this is institutionalized or genetic earlier?

There is nothing wrong with saying someone is pretty. The problem always starts when you compare how good looking they are compared to someone else.

So what you are saying is that men and more so wome contribute to why women end up disillusioned over how they look and that they should conform to a norm you and others perceive on them in how they look.

So thank you for proving my point here.

Why not actually look to get out of this norm that demonizes people and start being actually different?

Women are often judged on their looks, we may not like it, we might not even be aware of it, but I believe throughout life, especially working life, many women are.
Looks, age, marital status....something men are rarely judged on.

This thread wont make any difference to anyone...in fact, I haven't seen the bitchiness and jealousy that you and someone else talked about, just opinion, and we are all entitled to have one.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

She certainly is.

Why argued on mixed race?

When the Royal family is based on the concept ( just for rags) classed as mixed race?

Is it her skin colour?

Some people do not even see they are racist

This shows she is subconsciously racist

It was Wetwipe who first brought skin colour into the thread, she answered him.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What mix of races is the "royal" family?

Already posted ethnically what they are

Greek, German, Dutch etc

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:Didge, if people find a thread about looks shallow, they can just ignore it and let us flibbertigibbets have our opinions.

But just to add, didn't Meghan spend an absolutely obscene amount on the dress she wore for her engagement pictures to Harry.
Sort of proves that to us females, looks, and the way we present to others, certainly do matter.

So people should just ignore things?

Talk about trying poorly in how to get out of why this was posted

So you think she is materialistic, based on what she spent on a dress.

Now that can be argued off as a valid point

As then its based on whether she is materialistic or not

So that would not be based on looks, but whether some people value material objects over people and love themselves

The fact you place that on looks, shows you have not a clue

It goes under materialism

Syl wrote:Mags isn't racist, I have known her for 10 years on forums, I think she worded it wrongly, as Canny pointed out earlier I believe.

magica wrote:I said she was mixed race then went onto say something else. I didn't mean she's not good because of her colour.
I shouldn't have had it in the same sentence.
What I should've done was started a new sentence.
I don't care if she's blue with pink spots

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Already posted ethnically what they are

Greek, German, Dutch etc

Are they races?

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

It was Wetwipe who first brought skin colour into the thread, she answered him.

Which proves she is racist

She emphatically is, though I doubt she even recognises that she is

magica wrote:I said she was mixed race then went onto say something else. I didn't mean she's not good because of her colour.
I shouldn't have had it in the same sentence.
What I should've done was started a new sentence.
I don't care if she's blue with pink spots

magica wrote:I said she was mixed race then went onto say something else. I didn't mean she's not good because of her colour.
I shouldn't have had it in the same sentence.
What I should've done was started a new sentence.
I don't care if she's blue with pink spots

Didge wrote:

magica wrote:I said she was mixed race then went onto say something else. I didn't mean she's not good because of her colour.
I shouldn't have had it in the same sentence.
What I should've done was started a new sentence.
I don't care if she's blue with pink spots

You placed one of the reasons against her being married as a Royal as mixed race

When the entire Royal family is mixed ethnically

So please explain, as you are digging yourself a massive hole

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:I said she was mixed race then went onto say something else. I didn't mean she's not good because of her colour.
I shouldn't have had it in the same sentence.
What I should've done was started a new sentence.
I don't care if she's blue with pink spots

Didge is on a roll. I knew what you meant. x

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:Mags isn't racist, I have known her for 10 years on forums, I think she worded it wrongly, as Canny pointed out earlier I believe.

Okay, then why would mixed race I(I am using her terminology, clearly based on skin colour) be a problem to being in the British Royal family. When the present Prince of Wales is ethnically mixed?

I dont think she is conciously racist, but such a view clearly shows it is racist, as how can anyone not be considered to be a Royal, based on and let me highlight this. "Mixed Race"?

This was her own words

magica wrote:

Didge wrote:

Which proves she is racist

She emphatically is, though I doubt she even recognises that she is

If she was white and I said oh what white skin is that racist. Meghan is proud of her colour, so why must it be ignored by people like you who I think are quiet racists.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

Okay, then why would mixed race I(I am using her terminology, clearly based on skin colour) be a problem to being in the British Royal family. When the present Prince of Wales is ethnically mixed?

I dont think she is conciously racist, but such a view clearly shows it is racist, as how can anyone not be considered to be a Royal, based on and let me highlight this. "Mixed Race"?

This was her own words

The royal family have always kept to their own in recent history, white, C of E, virginal, probably why they are so dysfunctional.

eddie wrote:

magica wrote:I said she was mixed race then went onto say something else. I didn't mean she's not good because of her colour.
I shouldn't have had it in the same sentence.
What I should've done was started a new sentence.
I don't care if she's blue with pink spots

Fair enough then. I always think truly racist people have no qualms about saying they’re racist - they’re usually vocally proud of the fact.

And, that is why Ben, myself and Jules merely said it sounded racist.

magica wrote:

Syl wrote:

Didge is on a roll. I knew what you meant. x

Thanx Syl. I've never been called racist  in real life or forums and I have lovely black friend as well as mixed race, who love it

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

So people should just ignore things?

Talk about trying poorly in how to get out of why this was posted

So you think she is materialistic, based on what she spent on a dress.

Now that can be argued off as a valid point

As then its based on whether she is materialistic or not

So that would not be based on looks, but whether some people value material objects over people and love themselves

The fact you place that on looks, shows you have not a clue

It goes under materialism

Why would I try to make excuses about posting a thread...this one or any other?

This is how it works, we read a news item, or hear something interesting, or just want a natter or advice....we post a thread about it if we, or believe others, may find it interesting.

Then people either want to comment or they don't.

I do think sometimes you over think things.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

The royal family have always kept to their own in recent history, white, C of E, virginal, probably why they are so dysfunctional.

What has that got to do with on what magica said on who can be a Royal?

Didge wrote:

magica wrote:I said she was mixed race then went onto say something else. I didn't mean she's not good because of her colour.
I shouldn't have had it in the same sentence.
What I should've done was started a new sentence.
I don't care if she's blue with pink spots

You placed one of the reasons against her being married as a Royal as mixed race

When the entire Royal family is mixed ethnically

So please explain, as you are digging yourself a massive hole

magica wrote:

I don't think she's right for royally she's of mixed race, ex actor, divorced lady who is now going to have the world on a plate.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:
Why would I try to make excuses about posting a thread...this one or any other?

This is how it works, we read a news item, or hear something interesting, or just want a natter or advice....we post a thread about it if we, or believe others, may find it interesting.

Then people either want to comment or they don't.

I do think sometimes you over think things.

So when women could not get the vote, you would be like then conform?

Or how women were allowed to be raped in marriage and the law would not back them?

You would conform?

This is happenning all over the world, where people conform to wrongs

So that has to be the biggest load of claptrap I have ever heard.

Either you speak out on wrongs or you become a sheep?

Which one are you?

By saying this is how it works, already answers for me that question

gelico wrote:

Didge wrote:


So your excuse for doing so, is because an article did so?

personally i haven't judged either of them, not on looks or anything else


So you are basically a sheep to what others think Gelico?

no

Come on Gelico, that is a lame excuse

I don't need to give excuses for anything I say

That has been interesting comments and now many defensive comments, when I hit back at posters on their views and what drives them

you expect people to not defend themselves when you're chatting shit at them?


Well the media people are not here and thus those joining in this farce will have to tackle my points onto them.

well, if that didn't get folk quaking in their boots, then nothing will

I have no problem with any thread being put up. Can you show where I am against the thread?

Just about every comment you've made on it, nothing much

Never made any such claim. Never even claimed you could not say as you please.

I never said you did

What it seems, is that you are trying to enter the Cathy Newman school and claim things I have never stated.

No

I have though rightly taken on yours and others views as poor, insecure, bitchy etc.

I don't know how you do it but you have the amazing ability to bore me rigid after just a few posts when  you get on your righteous high horse about something, I just tend to roll my eyes and sort of zone right out

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

What has that got to do with on what magica said on who can be a Royal?

You asked..why would it be a problem for Meghan to be a member of the royal family....I gave you three reasons why she wouldn't have been accepted a few short years ago.
Blame them not Mags...she didn't make the rules..

Vintage wrote:

gelico wrote:

I don't know how you do it but you have the amazing ability to bore me rigid after just a few posts when  you get on your righteous high horse about something, I just tend to roll my eyes and sort of zone right out

Precisely, its no longer a discussion thread it becomes a pompous lecture, which is why I'm signing off for now, shame it was an interesting thread, until now.