RuamRudy

I wasn't being funny, I was being accurate. The UK has had 11 monarchs. That is not even one dozen, let alone 'dozens'.

Again, for the love of god, I never mentioned England anywhere until you tipped up when you replied to me with this unnecessarily caustic but factually incorrect post. Whilst there have, no doubt, been dozens of kings and queens of England, they are/were irrelevant to my posts because we were discussing the United Kingdom. I suggest you learn the difference between England and the UK.

The UK was founded in 1801. How could a state which didn't even exist prior to that have a royal lineage dating back earlier? Repeat after me: On 1 January 1801, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland merged, which resulted in the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the secession of southern Ireland in the 1920s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs

Transam did not say that England has had dozens of kings and queens. If he had done, wouldn't be having this discussion. My challenge to him was correct because the statement he actually made was incorrect. I have no idea where you come from but maybe you should read a bit about England, the origins of the United Kingdom and what constitutes the British isles. If you did, it might save you from making so many of these belligerently incorrect posts.

The UK came into existence in 1801. Since that time there have been, I believe, 11 monarchs. There were, indeed, kings and queens of the precedent countries but to call them monarchs of the UK is incorrect.

No, my point being that your statement that the UK has had dozens of monarchs is incorrect. Nowhere did I mention England, so I asked Kwasaki why he did.

I never mentioned England in my post - why do you suppose that England is, in any way, relevant to my point?

A point of history - the UK has only existed for a few hundred years; there has been no more than a handful of monarchs in that time, certainly not dozens. But there was a time when kings were leaders; they were bold, strong, noble, showing wisdom and intellect. Their role was to protect their kingdom and its people from harm. Which of these traits do you think Charles possesses? We do not need a pampered dandy to sit at the top table by accident of birth. Our taxes and our countries' resources should be used to better the lives of all people, not a very small but very expensive and very exclusive family of incredibly mediocre individuals.

And yet we all give him that, and more - and you and many others can't afford to stay in the UK. Can you see the issue yet?

You just described every single member of the royal family to a tee. But I was more interested in the inference that to love one's country one must live there.

So many formerly great products have been ruined through multinational corporate greed. Kraft/Mondelez are amongst the worst offenders.

Seen as posh? To be honest, this says more about you than it does about those who buy it. Personally, when Kraft bought it, I gave up on it - but Cadbury? Another formerly great product ruined by Kraft.

With this in mind, how do you suppose all those Asian based British expats feel about the UK? There are a lot of them on here who wax lyrical about it daily.

The internet must cause them concern though - the UK newspapers may have obligingly looked away, but UK social media was abuzz with articles such as this last year: Searches for "pegging" went up 400 percent after a salacious rumor started circulating about Prince William's alleged sexual predilections

As I said, I don't think that he has the intellectual rigour to develop an ideological opposition to the UK; I think that he is simply the product of his upbringing. His disdain for the press and his contempt for their nefarious activities is well known; it appears that he also sees the apparatus which works to keep us all in awe of his family as being complicit in the press's hounding of his mother and of himself. You can hate facets of your country without wishing to see its demise.

I see no evidence that Harry wants to bring about an end to the monarchy - like the rest of his clan, I don't think he has the depth of intellect to actually develop that idea - but if your incredibly tenuous claim was true, how does that equate to hating his country? Are you suggesting that anything other than total and unequivocal acceptance of all Britain's quirks and foibles is tantamount to hatred of it?

Here's an interesting article about Mark Holland, a former press secretary of Charles. Smears, leaks and innuendo seems to be standard tools of the trade for such positions. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/24/prince-harry-says-he-was-collateral-damage-in-camillas-pr-ascent He did, for example, start the task of convincing the British public that Camilla was more than just a home wrecking adulteress, and that she was actually someone we should consider our better.

This article gives an indication of how 'unfairly' Meghan has been treated by the press. Rather than courting such negativity, could it be that the press (and the palace?) are out to punish them? https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

I am not sure I agree with you. Ever since he and Meghan became a couple, the press have been critical. The hypocrisy of the mail and express especially has been highlighted previously, but they plough on relentlessly with their campaign. It's no secret that the royal family have used the press - and been used my the press - to punish those who step out of line. I believe this is another example of it.

With the almost relentless slew of negative stories about them, I am starting to wonder if they are being set up by those with an interest in portraying them as ungrateful, demanding etc. What better way to shore up support for a rather unappetising king to be, than to cast his wayward son as an unpatriotic, malignant threat to the very concept of Britishness - Harry is, after all, dispensable...

The last time a dictator invaded a sovereign European country it didn't stay regional for very long. It's those itching for appeasement who are struggling to get the bigger picture.

Has the friend ever been out of the Philippines before? Immigration is very tough on first time travellers. If they can show return flights, hotel bookings, itineraries etc, it will usually help. If they were going for a job, they would need to have been registered as Overseas Foreign Workers - if they don't have this status then they need to demonstrate without doubt that they are genuine tourists.

What is the point of these photos? Where is the connection?

To be fair to Harry, he comes from a family who are hardly renowned for their intellect. Generations of inbreeding plus a generally lazy, privileged and over-indulged lifestyle has given us a monarchy that is weak, narcissistic (although I will concede that this seems to have been a trait for monarchies throughout history) and incapable of leading, let alone functioning by themselves. "His lifestyle would seem extravagant to Louis XIV: a team of four valets so that one is always available to lay out and pick up his clothes; a servant to squeeze his toothpaste on to his brush, and another who once held the specimen bottle while he gave a urine sample. Step into the world of the Prince of Wales, a lifestyle so pampered that even the Queen has complained that it is grotesque." Pampered prince puts sun king in shade

Is this really the sign of a mature and confident country, where a small coterie of ridiculously over indulged ingrates rely on such embarrassing juju nonsense to try to inspire awe and wonder in the minds of the drones who support them? There is no such thing as holy oil. In reality, it is nothing more than snake oil, produced for the fools who stare on in slack-jawed adulation.