Meghan the bully.

First topic message reminder :

Though as these accusations came to light in 2018 I wonder why they are only being addressed (with lots of publicity) by the palace now....just days before the Oprah interview is aired both in the US and a day later in the UK?

Harry and Meghans antics are now being likened to Edward and Mrs Simpsons treachery.
A slight over exaggeration methinks.

If I were william and a reporter said ''is your family racist''? I would have simply turned and said

''well apart from Harry who dressed as a nazi and referred to a colleague as a paki, I would say the rest of us aren't racist, thankkfully''

gelico wrote:


If I were william and a reporter said ''is your family racist''?  I would have simply turned and said

''well apart from Harry who dressed as a nazi and referred to a colleague as a paki, I would say the rest of us aren't racist, thankkfully''

I bet in every family the vast majority do or say something that can be considered racist by someone else.

I have been told off for referring to someone as 'half-caste'....I certainly didn't mean it to be racist, it was just a word used that's no longer fashionable, and I forgot.
No doubt someone would interpret that to mean I am racist.

The word gets flung around far too easily nowadays.

Syl wrote:

gelico wrote:


If I were william and a reporter said ''is your family racist''?  I would have simply turned and said

''well apart from Harry who dressed as a nazi and referred to a colleague as a paki, I would say the rest of us aren't racist, thankkfully''

I bet in every family the vast majority do or say something that can be considered racist by someone else.

I have been told off for referring to someone as 'half-caste'....I certainly didn't mean it to be racist, it was just a word used that's no longer fashionable, and I forgot.
No doubt someone would interpret that to mean I am racist.

The word gets flung around far too easily nowadays.

personally i am not convinced wearing a "Nazi uniform" at a fancy dress party is racist any more than wearing a nazi uniform costume in a tv series is

I am also unsure that the word paki (unless used as a insult) is racist ether. Paki is short for Pakistanie,same way as Brit is short for British,or rusky is russian,or Yank for American,or Aussie for an Australian ect ect

words can impart multiple meanings and what's important is the context they are used

Re: Prince Williams press statement yesterday...

Um, your brother tells you about racist remarks made to you by family, behind your wife's back, and then you learn your sister-in-law has gone through a mental crisis, and you haven't called yet???

To say there was warmth in that family would be gratuitous. And imagine...Harry has faced that frigidity all his life, being the, uh, ginger stepchild.

Here's to a better life in America.

How do you know he told him except in that snide, vengeful 'interview', which was nothing more than a a string of lies and half truths that they knew the RF couldn't come back on and knowing most of the audience outside the UK and the Commonwealth wouldn't have a clue about the way things work.

Original Quill wrote:Re: Prince Williams press statement yesterday...

Um, your brother tells you about racist remarks made to you by family, behind your wife's back, and then you learn your sister-in-law has gone through a mental crisis, and you haven't called yet???

To say there was warmth in that family would be gratuitous.  And imagine...Harry has faced that frigidity all his life, being the, uh, ginger stepchild.

Here's to a better life in America.  

Fuck me you're full of shit.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Re: Prince Williams press statement yesterday...

Um, your brother tells you about racist remarks made to you by family, behind your wife's back, and then you learn your sister-in-law has gone through a mental crisis, and you haven't called yet???

To say there was warmth in that family would be gratuitous. And imagine...Harry has faced that frigidity all his life, being the, uh, ginger stepchild.

Here's to a better life in America.

Fuck me you're full of shit.

...says the ignorant southerner. If you haven't got anything of substance to say—and you never do—STFU. You give Americans a bad name.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Fuck me you're full of shit.  

...says the ignorant southerner.  If you haven't got anything of substance to say—and you never do—STFU.  You give Americans a bad name.

Maybe Meghan should visit Andrew Cuomo. I'm sure he could make her feel better about how she was treated in the UK.

How close are Meghan and Jussie Smollet?

Just wondering.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Fuck me you're full of shit.  

...says the ignorant southerner.  If you haven't got anything of substance to say—and you never do—STFU.  You give Americans a bad name.

says the man who is still insisting Harry is illegitimate

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Fuck me you're full of shit.  

...says the ignorant southerner.  If you haven't got anything of substance to say—and you never do—STFU.  You give Americans a bad name.

you two should get a room LOL

gelico wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

...says the ignorant southerner. If you haven't got anything of substance to say—and you never do—STFU. You give Americans a bad name.

says the man who is still insisting Harry is illegitimate

Of course! Why do you think the Royals have been treating Harry as the caboose on the family train? The Royal family bias against Harry, merged with their bias against Meghan's black genes, to create a perfect storm. WTF do you think I've been saying from the start???

It' took Meghan to recognize that the issues (bastardy and racism) were both the same ugly sentiments. With her poise and confidence, she decided to speak out where Harry (all of his life) was too timid. That's why you see in the Oprah interview, she is the spokesperson, while he is the hang-dogged, sheepish one, somewhat shamed for not realizing heretofore what was going on.

He can be forgiven, however; as Marshall McLuhan said: If all the world were hues of red, the one color you wouldn't recognize was red. It took the newcomer on the scene to recognize that the bias was not normal, nor justified. Bless her American common sense, and (what's the word we use so often?) independence!

Korben wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

...says the ignorant southerner. If you haven't got anything of substance to say—and you never do—STFU. You give Americans a bad name.

you two should get a room LOL

Just put him on a boat with the rest of the south, and shove 'em off.

As Edward I once said, after winning the 1296 campaign with Scots, ‘Bon bosoign fait qy de merde, se deliver’ (It feels good to take a good shit.)

Harry and Wills certainly entered the world through the same vagina, but whether the egg was fertilized by the same semen donor might be of some doubt.
He has almost none of Charles's characteristics, but several of Jamie Hewitts.
Just sayin'.

"

"Their first conversation felt natural, she said, and it was this that sparked her attraction. As she put it, they got along famously," Princess Diana's royal protection officer, Ken Wharfe, wrote in his book Diana: Closely Guarded Secret. "He told her he was a riding instructor and, when she confessed she was afraid of horses, offered to help her overcome her fear."
major james hewitt on the polo field at windsor
Cavalry officer James Hewitt became Princess Diana’s riding instructor in 1986.
MirrorpixGetty Images
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
He had an affair with Princess Diana.

Not long after he became Diana's riding instructor, the two became romantically involved—an arrangement that would last for several years. The Princess's marriage to Prince Charles was known to be rocky by the time she met Hewitt, and Charles was reportedly already carrying on his own liaison with his former girlfriend (and future wife) Camilla Parker-Bowles, which Diana's bodyguard, Wharfe, posited may have contributed to her willingness to begin an affair with Hewitt.

“Hewitt, a natural womaniser, gave her the attention and affection she relished, and then the passion she yearned for," he wrote. "The pair usually met at an old cottage in Devon belonging to Shirley, Hewitt’s mother, where the creaking bedroom floorboards told the story more loudly than any confession."

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a33984149/james-hewitt-princess-diana-affair-details/

Original Quill wrote:Re: Prince Williams press statement yesterday...

Um, your brother tells you about racist remarks made to you by family, behind your wife's back, and then you learn your sister-in-law has gone through a mental crisis, and you haven't called yet???

To say there was warmth in that family would be gratuitous.  And imagine...Harry has faced that frigidity all his life, being the, uh, ginger stepchild.

Here's to a better life in America.  

The royal family have always seemed pretty aloof with one another. Charles and his siblings were brought up by nannies, sent off to private schools, and family life was always placed 2nd after royal duties.

Diana changed that, she brought her lads up in a much more normal family environment, and whether you want to believe it or not, William and Harry had a close relationship, which was obvious to see....and even more so after Kate came on the scene. The three of them were often seen having fun together.
Charles even managed to do a bit of bonding with both of his sons after Diana died.
Harry had a much freer life than Wills ever did, he was not born to be king, Wills was.

Korben wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

...says the ignorant southerner.  If you haven't got anything of substance to say—and you never do—STFU.  You give Americans a bad name.

you two should get a room LOL

He's not my type.

Too full of shit.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Re: Prince Williams press statement yesterday...

Um, your brother tells you about racist remarks made to you by family, behind your wife's back, and then you learn your sister-in-law has gone through a mental crisis, and you haven't called yet???

To say there was warmth in that family would be gratuitous. And imagine...Harry has faced that frigidity all his life, being the, uh, ginger stepchild.

Here's to a better life in America.

The royal family have always seemed pretty aloof with one another. Charles and his siblings were brought up by nannies, sent off to private schools, and family life was always placed 2nd after royal duties.

Diana changed that, she brought her lads up in a much more normal family environment, and whether you want to believe it or not, William and Harry had a close relationship, which was obvious to see....and even more so after Kate came on the scene. The three of them were often seen having fun together.
Charles even managed to do a bit of bonding with both of his sons after Diana died.
Harry had a much freer life than Wills ever did, he was not born to be king, Wills was.

Why do you think I'm so disappointed in William? It's as if he's gone over to the other side. Like I said on another post: "...your brother tells you about racist remarks made to you by family, behind your wife's back, and then you learn your sister-in-law has gone through a mental crisis, and you haven't called yet???" Where's is Diana's grace and decency in that scenario? Has he forgotten the teachings of his mother?

Like, Will's seen which side his bread is buttered, and made his choice. I had high hopes—what with the Queen-mum and Diana being British—that the boys would be free of off-shore duplicity. Diana is very popular on this side of the Atlantic, and if Will wants to go along with good-time Charlie, and turn against Diana’s 2nd son, his own brother, we’ll see how far that gets him with Anglo-American relations. One day William will be king...but the trash he has cast along the roadside on the way, will still be there.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

The royal family have always seemed pretty aloof with one another. Charles and his siblings were brought up by nannies, sent off to private schools, and family life was always placed 2nd after royal duties.

Diana changed that, she brought her lads up in a much more normal family environment, and whether you want to believe it or not, William and Harry had a close relationship, which was obvious to see....and even more so after Kate came on the scene. The three of them were often seen having fun together.
Charles even managed to do a bit of bonding with both of his sons after Diana died.
Harry had a much freer life than Wills ever did, he was not born to be king, Wills was.

Why do you think I'm so disappointed in William?  It's as if he's gone over to the other side.  Like I said on another post: "...your brother tells you about racist remarks made to you by family, behind your wife's back, and then you learn your sister-in-law has gone through a mental crisis, and you haven't called yet???"  Where's is Diana's grace and decency in that scenario?  Has he forgotten the teachings of his mother?

Like, Will's seen which side his bread is buttered, and made his choice.  I had high hopes—what with the Queen-mum and Diana being British—that the boys would be free of off-shore duplicity.  Diana is very popular on this side of the Atlantic, and if Will wants to go along with good-time Charlie, and turn against Diana’s 2nd son, his own brother, we’ll see how far that gets him with Anglo-American relations.  One day William will be king...but the trash he has cast along the roadside on the way, will still be there.

William hasn't done anything wrong. Obviously it's Harry who has turned on his family.

Thanks to Harry, today  William and Kate   had reporters running after them shouting out "Is your family racist?"

He was then asked if he had spoken to his brother, he said Not yet, but I will do.

Andy wrote:Harry and Wills certainly entered the world through the same vagina, but whether the egg was fertilized by the same semen donor might be of some doubt.
He has almost none of Charles's characteristics, but several of Jamie Hewitts.
Just sayin'.

"

"Their first conversation felt natural, she said, and it was this that sparked her attraction. As she put it, they got along famously," Princess Diana's royal protection officer, Ken Wharfe, wrote in his book Diana: Closely Guarded Secret. "He told her he was a riding instructor and, when she confessed she was afraid of horses, offered to help her overcome her fear."
major james hewitt on the polo field at windsor
Cavalry officer James Hewitt became Princess Diana’s riding instructor in 1986.
MirrorpixGetty Images
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
He had an affair with Princess Diana.

Not long after he became Diana's riding instructor, the two became romantically involved—an arrangement that would last for several years. The Princess's marriage to Prince Charles was known to be rocky by the time she met Hewitt, and Charles was reportedly already carrying on his own liaison with his former girlfriend (and future wife) Camilla Parker-Bowles, which Diana's bodyguard, Wharfe, posited may have contributed to her willingness to begin an affair with Hewitt.

“Hewitt, a natural womaniser, gave her the attention and affection she relished, and then the passion she yearned for," he wrote. "The pair usually met at an old cottage in Devon belonging to Shirley, Hewitt’s mother, where the creaking bedroom floorboards told the story more loudly than any confession."

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a33984149/james-hewitt-princess-diana-affair-details/

Very mills and Boon.

One flaw, the article says Hewitt became Diana's riding instructor in 1986, they became lovers soon after.
Harry was born in 84, so unless Diana's vagina was equipped with a time machine......

Syl wrote:

Andy wrote:Harry and Wills certainly entered the world through the same vagina, but whether the egg was fertilized by the same semen donor might be of some doubt.
He has almost none of Charles's characteristics, but several of Jamie Hewitts.
Just sayin'.

"

"Their first conversation felt natural, she said, and it was this that sparked her attraction. As she put it, they got along famously," Princess Diana's royal protection officer, Ken Wharfe, wrote in his book Diana: Closely Guarded Secret. "He told her he was a riding instructor and, when she confessed she was afraid of horses, offered to help her overcome her fear."
major james hewitt on the polo field at windsor
Cavalry officer James Hewitt became Princess Diana’s riding instructor in 1986.
MirrorpixGetty Images
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
He had an affair with Princess Diana.

Not long after he became Diana's riding instructor, the two became romantically involved—an arrangement that would last for several years. The Princess's marriage to Prince Charles was known to be rocky by the time she met Hewitt, and Charles was reportedly already carrying on his own liaison with his former girlfriend (and future wife) Camilla Parker-Bowles, which Diana's bodyguard, Wharfe, posited may have contributed to her willingness to begin an affair with Hewitt.

“Hewitt, a natural womaniser, gave her the attention and affection she relished, and then the passion she yearned for," he wrote. "The pair usually met at an old cottage in Devon belonging to Shirley, Hewitt’s mother, where the creaking bedroom floorboards told the story more loudly than any confession."

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a33984149/james-hewitt-princess-diana-affair-details/

Very mills and Boon.

One flaw, the article says Hewitt became Diana's riding instructor in 1986, they became lovers soon after.
Harry was born in 84, so unless Diana's vagina was equipped with a time machine......

Don't let facts get in the way of a good a fantasy.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

The royal family have always seemed pretty aloof with one another. Charles and his siblings were brought up by nannies, sent off to private schools, and family life was always placed 2nd after royal duties.

Diana changed that, she brought her lads up in a much more normal family environment, and whether you want to believe it or not, William and Harry had a close relationship, which was obvious to see....and even more so after Kate came on the scene. The three of them were often seen having fun together.
Charles even managed to do a bit of bonding with both of his sons after Diana died.
Harry had a much freer life than Wills ever did, he was not born to be king, Wills was.

Why do you think I'm so disappointed in William?  It's as if he's gone over to the other side.  Like I said on another post: "...your brother tells you about racist remarks made to you by family, behind your wife's back, and then you learn your sister-in-law has gone through a mental crisis, and you haven't called yet???"  Where's is Diana's grace and decency in that scenario?  Has he forgotten the teachings of his mother?

Like, Will's seen which side his bread is buttered, and made his choice.  I had high hopes—what with the Queen-mum and Diana being British—that the boys would be free of off-shore duplicity.  Diana is very popular on this side of the Atlantic, and if Will wants to go along with good-time Charlie, and turn against Diana’s 2nd son, his own brother, we’ll see how far that gets him with Anglo-American relations.  One day William will be king...but the trash he has cast along the roadside on the way, will still be there.

Because you're a weird fucker that makes up strange stories about things you couldn't possibly know?

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

says the man who is still insisting Harry is illegitimate

Of course!  Why do you think the Royals have been treating Harry as the caboose on the family train?  The Royal family bias against Harry, merged with their bias against Meghan's black genes, to create a perfect storm.  WTF do you think I've been saying from the start???

It' took Meghan to recognize that the issues (bastardy and racism) were both the same ugly sentiments.  With her poise and confidence, she decided to speak out where Harry (all of his life) was too timid.  That's why you see in the Oprah interview, she is the spokesperson, while he is the hang-dogged, sheepish one, somewhat shamed for not realizing heretofore what was going on.  

He can be forgiven, however; as Marshall McLuhan said: If all the world were hues of red, the one color you wouldn't recognize was red.  It took the newcomer on the scene to recognize that the bias was not normal, nor justified.  Bless her American common sense, and (what's the word we use so often?) independence!  

Where's the facts that the Windsors ever put Harry on the backburner or treated him any differently to William? Did Diana treat them differently? Did she love one more than the other? I've seen no indication Charles thinks that way either.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

The royal family have always seemed pretty aloof with one another. Charles and his siblings were brought up by nannies, sent off to private schools, and family life was always placed 2nd after royal duties.

Diana changed that, she brought her lads up in a much more normal family environment, and whether you want to believe it or not, William and Harry had a close relationship, which was obvious to see....and even more so after Kate came on the scene. The three of them were often seen having fun together.
Charles even managed to do a bit of bonding with both of his sons after Diana died.
Harry had a much freer life than Wills ever did, he was not born to be king, Wills was.

Why do you think I'm so disappointed in William?  It's as if he's gone over to the other side.  Like I said on another post: "...your brother tells you about racist remarks made to you by family, behind your wife's back, and then you learn your sister-in-law has gone through a mental crisis, and you haven't called yet???"  Where's is Diana's grace and decency in that scenario?  Has he forgotten the teachings of his mother?

Like, Will's seen which side his bread is buttered, and made his choice.  I had high hopes—what with the Queen-mum and Diana being British—that the boys would be free of off-shore duplicity.  Diana is very popular on this side of the Atlantic, and if Will wants to go along with good-time Charlie, and turn against Diana’s 2nd son, his own brother, we’ll see how far that gets him with Anglo-American relations.  One day William will be king...but the trash he has cast along the roadside on the way, will still be there.

Harry and Meghan had to have the Queen's permission to marry. Under the terms of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, the first six persons in the line of succession require the Sovereign's consent in order to marry. Harry was fifth in line at the time of his engagement. So...if this great big fat racist family loathed Meghan's lineage that much, that was the time to blow her out.   Instead, the Queen gave them her blessing.   Sound racist to you?

Um...this is the 21st-century. Queen's permission to marry? If Harry's proposal met with Liz's disapproval, he could've just moved here earlier.

Original Quill wrote:Um...this is the 21st-century.  Queen's permission to marry?  If Harry's proposal met with Liz's disapproval, he could've just moved here earlier.

that would have been hilarious giving up millions and the title prince only to be dumped when she realizes you got nothing any more.

The police have addressed Harry and Meghans  claims about Archies security being stopped because he didn't have the title 'Prince'.


"The move to strip Prince Harry, Meghan Markle and their son of their security had nothing to do with the Palace's stance on Archie becoming a prince, it emerged last night.

Prince Harry claimed in the Oprah chat that when the Sussexes were in Canada he was told 'at short notice security was going to be removed'.

Meghan also claimed the decision not to make her son a prince meant he would not get police protection.

But round-the-clock police protection is understood to have been taken away when they stepped down as working royals after a meeting of the government body that oversees protection.

Prince Charles then reportedly said he would not fund their private security out of his own money.

The assumption by Harry that taxpayers would fund security after he and Meghan left the UK was branded 'arrogant' and 'unworkable' yesterday.

Former chief superintendent Dai Davies, who led the Metropolitan Police's royalty protection unit, said the couple's plans were 'utterly unrealistic' and could have put British police at risk.

Mr Davies said he was 'gobsmacked' that the couple expected British taxpayers to pick up the bill – estimated at £4million a year.

He added: 'It was utterly unrealistic to think they could continue to have their royal protection team working in America – in fact it would have put their [police] lives at risk.'







https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9345861/Police-pour-scorn-Harry-Meghans-claims-Archies-security-tied-prince.html

Maddog wrote:

Billionaire Steve Bing had more money than that cartoon shows  - yet he was so unhappy that he took his own life.

YOU seem to have a financially very comfortable existence yourself, Maddog
yet you often grouchily complain about life on here.  

Wealth does not automatically bring happiness.
And being wealthy does not remove a person's right to moan about things.

gelico wrote:
what's the tall poppy syndrome?  never heard of it

I've always liked that expression cos it's EXACTLY how the media works. They build up celebrities to the max first, in order that they can cut them down later. They make as much money bigging them up, as trashing them afterwards. Gossip sells papers.

It's a sadistic media 'bloodsport'. Take a look    > >

Harry and Meghan are already related... They are distant cousins.

Tommy Monk wrote:Harry and Meghan are already related... They are distant cousins.

On the paternal side...  

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Billionaire Steve Bing had more money than that cartoon shows  - yet he was so unhappy that he took his own life.

YOU seem to have a financially very comfortable existence yourself, Maddog
yet you often grouchily complain about life on here.  

Wealth does not automatically bring happiness.
And being wealthy does not remove a person's right to moan about things.

Never heard of him. Maybe if he whined on Oprah's show he would still be alive.

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:

Billionaire Steve Bing had more money than that cartoon shows  - yet he was so unhappy that he took his own life.

YOU seem to have a financially very comfortable existence yourself, Maddog
yet you often grouchily complain about life on here.  

Wealth does not automatically bring happiness.
And being wealthy does not remove a person's right to moan about things.

Never heard of him.  

Maybe if he whined on Oprah's show he would still be alive.  

Yes, maybe. Cos Oprah knows a good shrink.



(Bing was an American billionaire who got a very famous, glamorous English actress Liz Hurley pregnant. Big story ATT. Died last year)

gelico wrote:


If I were william and a reporter said ''is your family racist''?  I would have simply turned and said

''well apart from Harry who dressed as a nazi and referred to a colleague as a paki, I would say the rest of us aren't racist, thankkfully''

Harry's unPC choice for a fancy dress party and his unPC language were foolish one-off pecadilloes which do not define him in any way.
If he is married to a mixed race lady and making babies with her - it's a safe bet that he is not racist.

Original Quill wrote:Um...this is the 21st-century.  Queen's permission to marry?  If Harry's proposal met with Liz's disapproval, he could've just moved here earlier.

Pffft nothing. Do you think for one moment their lavish and hugely expensive wedding would have taken place had Harry not followed Royal protocol? If he'd have wanted to defy that, the pair of them could have toddled off and got married in a registry office with a couple of witnesses. But they didn't, did they? The tax payers of Britain forked out for that wedding...all £30million of it, and also the extra £2.5 million renovation of Frogmore so they could live in style and comfort. It suited them at that time to follow that protocol because it paid for everything, and Meghan got her fairy tale wedding to her Prince. It's all coming out now that no pre-wedding ever took place. That it was simply a rehearsal. British law dictates that for a wedding to take place there must be two witnesses and the person marrying them...which makes five, not the three Meghan says were at this pre-wedding she speaks of.

Regarding being part of the Royal Family Meghan told Oprah 'Our plan was to do this for ever. I wrote letters to his family saying: 'I am dedicated to this. Use me as you'd like.' 'Yet later in the interview, the couple were asked whether the Queen had been 'blindsided' by their January 2020 decision to quit. Harry has insisted he'd never blindside his grandmother and that talks about him leaving the family took place two years earlier....before the pair were even married.

The wedding is in the past.  Fuhgeddaboudit.  If the taxpayers of Britain got stiffed, learn from it.  £30million is chump change; we bought into Republican bullshit over Iraq, and it cost us $17-trillion.

It's not as if both sides are not provoking each other.  A good lesson learned.  As far as who is to blame, I have my opinion, you have yours.  If you want mine...the religious wars are over.  Kick the Germans out, and recall the Stuart descendants…fook-sake, let bygones be bygones.

It appears Meghans half sister is calling her out now.

Her husband's family thinks she's full of shit as well as her own family.

Can't be that many people wrong.

Original Quill wrote:The wedding is in the past.  Fuhgeddaboudit.  If the taxpayers of Britain got stiffed, learn from it.  £30million is chump change; we bought into Republican bullshit over Iraq, and it cost us $17-trillion.

It's not as if both sides are not provoking each other.  A good lesson learned.  As far as who is to blame, I have my opinion, you have yours.  If you want mine...the religious wars are over.  Kick the Germans out, and recall the Stuart descendants…fook-sake, let bygones be bygones.

Maybe we could have a completely fresh start and offer the job to Wee Burney Nicola Sturgeon......

Just done a very quick trawl, Quill, and it would appear that you’re out of luck so far as your new Stuart dynasty is concerned...the last member  was a Roman Catholic cardinal who is unlikely to have left any contenders behind- at least legitimate ones.

The present “heir”, so to speak, is a certain Herr Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog Von Bayern, the (courtesy titled) Duke of Bavaria!

Deutschland, Deutschland Uber alles.........

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The wedding is in the past.  Fuhgeddaboudit.  If the taxpayers of Britain got stiffed, learn from it.  £30million is chump change; we bought into Republican bullshit over Iraq, and it cost us $17-trillion.

It's not as if both sides are not provoking each other.  A good lesson learned.  As far as who is to blame, I have my opinion, you have yours.  If you want mine...the religious wars are over.  Kick the Germans out, and recall the Stuart descendants…fook-sake, let bygones be bygones.

Maybe we could have a completely fresh start and offer the job to Wee Burney Nicola Sturgeon......

its been calculated that the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex generated £1 billion for the British economy in 2018 alone, including an additional £300 million in travel and accommodation spent by foreign tourists and £50 million spent on merchandise such as coins, dish cloths and clothing

The wedding was almost three years ago.
I bet most of us remember the day, it was joyful.
We were in Wales, the weather was scorchio, and the whole day seemed full of promise for them and for their lives ahead.

No matter how people try to rearrange the past, Meghan was well liked and the majority of people were so happy that Harry had found love after the pretty tumultuous life he had lived so far.

Once it became clear that life didn't suit her, he had a choice to make, he made it and that should be that....they should have gone on their way with the best wishes of their family and the public behind them.

It is they that are now harping on about money (not very classy) racism, mental health, etc etc.
People are fed up of them, but the most criticism has always come, not from the British public or even the press, but From Meghans own family.

There were talks prior to the wedding, they were given options working for the Royal Family full time, Harry remaining as a working Royal Meghan to continue as she was, both not working for the Royals but more or less doing their own thing (not merching the Royals though). They had a house in the Cotswolds for weekends etc they lived there for a while, Meghan apparently said she went to the shops wearing ordinary clothes and a baseball cap, then suddenly their privacy was compromised and they left. They had the cottage in Kensington Palace ( which was too small for three they said but William Catherine and George managed) while work was going on in apartment 1, a little place of 22 rooms, and police protection more or less a gated community, they rejected that.
Prince Charles offered them an working estate in Herefordshire, as their bolt hole or permanent residence if they wished for a more private existence, that was refused. Meghan asked for an apartment in Windsor Castle, the Queen said no - that's her bolt hole for weekends, so Frogmore Cottage was renovated then abandoned.

Syl wrote:

The wedding was almost three years ago.
I bet most of us remember the day, it was joyful.

We were in Wales, the weather was scorchio, and the whole day seemed full of promise for them and for their lives ahead.
No matter how people try to rearrange the past, Meghan was well liked and the majority of people were so happy that Harry had found love after the pretty tumultuous life he had lived so far.
Once it became clear that life didn't suit her, he had a choice to make, he made it and that should be that....they should have gone on their way with the best wishes of their family and the public behind them.
It is they that are now harping on about money (not very classy) racism, mental health, etc etc.
People are fed up of them, but the most criticism has always come, not from the British public or even the press, but From Meghans own family.

I luv luv luv royal weddings. I was giddy with excitement during William & Kate's wedding about 10 years ago - and a group of us at Micky's forum posted comments the whole day. Nonstop posting apart from toilet breaks!!

[ ETA:- not too keen on Kate now, but maybe more about that later.]

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The wedding is in the past.  Fuhgeddaboudit.  If the taxpayers of Britain got stiffed, learn from it.  £30million is chump change; we bought into Republican bullshit over Iraq, and it cost us $17-trillion.

It's not as if both sides are not provoking each other.  A good lesson learned.  As far as who is to blame, I have my opinion, you have yours.  If you want mine...the religious wars are over.  Kick the Germans out, and recall the Stuart descendants…fook-sake, let bygones be bygones.

Maybe we could have a completely fresh start and offer the job to Wee Burney Nicola Sturgeon......

Why? You've got Stuart heirs living in Edinburgh today.

Korben wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Maybe we could have a completely fresh start and offer the job to Wee Burney Nicola Sturgeon......

its been calculated that the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex generated £1 billion for the British economy in 2018 alone, including an additional £300 million in travel and accommodation spent by foreign tourists and £50 million spent on merchandise such as coins, dish cloths and clothing

Spot on!   +1

The £40M wedding costs, was a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the huge revenue it brought into the local & national economy. Purely in investment terms it was a zinger!! Is this fact being conveniently ignored by the naysayers?

It's not as if the money spent on the wedding went directly to Harry & Meghan. That money was not about them, it was about tradition, national pride and prestige. It was us saying to the world "look at the pomp and pageantry Brits can lay on, this is the  stylish way we push the boat out"  

That money was earmarked for the wedding of Charles's children  - since the day they were born. It's not as if it was a sudden unexpected expenditure that had not been planned for.    

At least H&M managed to hold their marriage together despite intense stress. Look how many royal marriages have collapsed after expensive showcase weddings.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Just done a very quick trawl, Quill, and it would appear that you’re out of luck so far as your new Stuart dynasty is concerned...the last member  was a Roman Catholic cardinal who is unlikely to have left any contenders behind- at least legitimate ones.

The present “heir”, so to speak, is a certain Herr Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog Von Bayern, the (courtesy titled) Duke of Bavaria!

Deutschland, Deutschland Uber alles.........

Sorry Fred, you need to look deeper.  You are believing the German tripe dished out by the Hanover's, et al, aimed at trying to claim the Stuarts are extinguished.  The Tudurs tried to do the same thing to the Plantagenets, in an effort to say you're stuck with us!

Read: HRH Prince Michael of Albany, The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland (1998).  The Stuarts are alive and well, living in Edinburgh, and carefully watched over by the Home Office.

Vintage wrote:There were talks prior to the wedding, they were given options working for the Royal Family full time, Harry remaining as a working Royal Meghan to continue as she was, both not working for the Royals but more or less doing their own thing (not merching the Royals though). They had a house in the Cotswolds for weekends etc they lived there for a while, Meghan apparently said she went to the shops wearing ordinary clothes and a baseball cap, then suddenly their privacy was compromised and they left. They had the cottage in Kensington Palace ( which was too small for three they said but William Catherine and George managed) while work was going on in apartment 1, a little place of 22 rooms, and police protection more or less a gated community, they rejected that.
Prince Charles offered them an working estate in Herefordshire, as their bolt hole or permanent residence if they wished for a more private existence, that was refused. Meghan asked for an apartment in Windsor Castle, the Queen said no - that's her bolt hole for weekends, so Frogmore Cottage was renovated then abandoned.

So, they were given lots of choices of homes to live in, but none of them were good enough for Meghan... Although she did want to live in Windsor castle, which seems to fit in with her preconceived fairytale ideas of marrying a prince and then living happily ever after in a castle and becoming King and Queen... But as this request for the castle was denied, and she realised she would never be queen, always playing second fiddle to Catherine, she threw a tantrum and fucked off back to America, taking Harry the lapdog with her...

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Just done a very quick trawl, Quill, and it would appear that you’re out of luck so far as your new Stuart dynasty is concerned...the last member  was a Roman Catholic cardinal who is unlikely to have left any contenders behind- at least legitimate ones.

The present “heir”, so to speak, is a certain Herr Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog Von Bayern, the (courtesy titled) Duke of Bavaria!

Deutschland, Deutschland Uber alles.........

Sorry Fred, you need to look deeper.  You are believing the German tripe dished out by the Hanover's, et al, aimed at trying to claim the Stuarts are extinguished.  The Tudurs tried to do the same thing to the Plantagenets, in an effort to say you're stuck with us!

Read: HRH Prince Michael of Albany, The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland (1998).  The Stuarts are alive and well, living in Edinburgh, and carefully watched over by the Home Office.

Would self-styled Prince Michael of Albany be the same chap as that somewhat tiresome Belgian born fantasist Michael Roger Lafosse who is pretty well known for making some interesting and amusing claims about his ancestry?

You know, the same fellow who upped sticks from his Edinburgh house and buggered off back to Belgium in 2006 while apparently awaiting deportation for gaining British citizenship with the aid of a forged birth certificate?

Still, as the “Fons Honorum and Grand Protector of the Imperial and Royal Dragon Court and Order in Britain and the English Speaking World” it does seem rather strange that he hasn’t put in an occasional appearance at the odd royal wedding, State Opening of Parliament or even the Westminster pay office where all his fellow Peers of the Realm turn up regularly, if only to collect the allowances and expenses that we poor taxpayers give them for doing nowt in particular.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Sorry Fred, you need to look deeper.  You are believing the German tripe dished out by the Hanover's, et al, aimed at trying to claim the Stuarts are extinguished.  The Tudurs tried to do the same thing to the Plantagenets, in an effort to say you're stuck with us!

Read: HRH Prince Michael of Albany, The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland (1998).  The Stuarts are alive and well, living in Edinburgh, and carefully watched over by the Home Office.

Would self-styled Prince Michael of Albany be the same chap as that somewhat tiresome Belgian born fantasist Michael Roger Lafosse who is pretty well known for making some interesting and amusing claims about his ancestry?

You know, the same fellow who upped sticks from his Edinburgh house and buggered off back to Belgium in 2006 while apparently awaiting deportation for gaining British citizenship with the aid of a forged birth certificate?

Still, as the “Fons Honorum and Grand Protector of the Imperial and Royal Dragon Court and Order in Britain and the English Speaking World” it does seem rather strange that he hasn’t put in an occasional appearance at the odd royal wedding, State Opening of Parliament or even the Westminster pay office where all his fellow Peers of the Realm turn up regularly, if only to collect the allowances and expenses that we poor taxpayers give them for doing nowt in particular.

Never heard of him, but I think you have the right fellow.