Royals and race: inquiry under way into naming of Charles and Catherine in new book

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Macron was elected in a free and fair election, Charles was not. 

 

It's ironic that you continually rail against the "unelected Brussels bureaucrats" and complain vehemently about what you perceive as a lack of democracy in the EU, but are happy to champion this anachronism which places an individual as the HoS on purely hereditary grounds, and has nothing at all to do with meritocracy.

 

Such a system has no place in a 21st century democracy.

 

Not ironic at all - if you understand the vastly different roles that the British Royal Family and the EU play.

 

If I was stating that the UK government should not be elected, you might have a decent point. But I am not.

[JonnyF]

Just now, Georgealbert said:

You are just getting to the point of being ridiculous.

 

So you are saying that if you do not see the original letters, every news source is lying.

 

Even Megan Markle herself says she send the letters.

 

Bye, as it is pointless trying to talk to a brick wall.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12813423/meghan-markle-omid-scobie-not-leak-names-royal-racists.html

 

Markle is a proven liar. As is Scobie. It is an unsubstantiated allegation.

 

The only racism that can be proven is Harry's in the video I already posted. Which is somewhat ironic. 

 

Harry himself said the family are not racist and blamed the allegation on the press.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-may-have-rowed-back-on-his-racism-claim-but-the-damage-is-done-and-race-now-affects-the-lens-through-which-the-royal-family-are-viewed-12783236

 

Funny how you always try to leave the debate when you get owned. 

[Georgealbert]

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Markle is a proven liar. As is Scobie. It is an unsubstantiated allegation.

 

The only racism that can be proven is Harry's in the video I already posted. Which is somewhat ironic. 

 

Harry himself said the family are not racist and blamed the allegation on the press.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-may-have-rowed-back-on-his-racism-claim-but-the-damage-is-done-and-race-now-affects-the-lens-through-which-the-royal-family-are-viewed-12783236

 

Funny how you always try to leave the debate when you get owned. 

 

 

I leave the debate, because I get to the point you bore me.

 

All you try to do is bait, troll and bully, but I am not intimidated by you, it fact I feel sorry for people like you, who seem to believe you are a legend in your own head.

 

You are so inconsistent, it makes you look silly. When you can not answer you result to defection and more baiting.

 

So yes BYE, i will let you reply to this post and then offer no answer, that way you childish understanding will think you have won another debate, when in reality everyone but you can see the truth.

 

 

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

 

 

I leave the debate, because I get to the point you bore me.

 

All you try to do is bait, troll and bully, but I am not intimidated by you, it fact I feel sorry for people like you, who seem to believe you are a legend in your own head.

 

You are so inconsistent, it makes you look silly. When you can not answer you result to defection and more baiting.

 

So yes BYE, i will let you reply to this post and then offer no answer, that way you childish understanding will think you have won another debate, when in reality everyone but you can see the truth.

 

 

 

You have not disproven a single point I have made. When you get owned by actual facts (and associated links that I have provided) you resort to posting more pictures of your fridge magnets, make a couple of childish insults then run away .

 

 

[cleopatra2]

32 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

So it's just an allegation then.

I have a preponderance of evidence going beyond probability that the letters exist and what the Telegraph reported is True.

The most obvious that proves the existence of the letters beyond credible doubt is that the King as initiated an investigation into the source of the leak because only an handfull of persons have seen the letters.

[RayC]

46 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Not ironic at all - if you understand the vastly different roles that the British Royal Family and the EU play.

 

If I was stating that the UK government should not be elected, you might have a decent point. But I am not.

 

The idea that the British Royal Family is apolitical is nonsense. The very fact that the PM has to brief the Monarch on a weekly basis illustrates that. Why can't Charles get the news through the same channels as the rest of us?

 

Moreover, because of his position Charles has a platform from where he broadcasts his views, a fact he demonstrated yet again at the latest COP meeting.

 

Charles has been continuously interfering in political matters since his youth and governments are forced to spend time considering matters. He has disproportionate influence and it is undemocratic.

 

If we must have a HoS who is not the PM, let us elect him or her.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos

[JonnyF]

16 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The idea that the British Royal Family is apolitical is nonsense. The very fact that the PM has to brief the Monarch on a weekly basis illustrates that. Why can't Charles get the news through the same channels as the rest of us?

 

Moreover, because of his position Charles has a platform from where he broadcasts his views, a fact he demonstrated yet again at the latest COP meeting.

 

Charles has been continuously interfering in political matters since his youth and governments are forced to spend time considering matters. He has disproportionate influence and it is undemocratic.

 

If we must have a HoS who is not the PM, let us elect him or her.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos

 

Charles does not interfere with the running of the country. He offered his clumsy, ill informed opinions on the climate from time to time when he was Prince but he will need to learn to stop that now he is HoS. 

 

The House of Lords should be elected, I would agree on that. The Head of State? Given the fact that the role is essentially ceremonial in the UK, there is no need to vote on it. 

[JonnyF]

54 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I have a preponderance of evidence going beyond probability that the letters exist and what the Telegraph reported is True.

The most obvious that proves the existence of the letters beyond credible doubt is that the King as initiated an investigation into the source of the leak because only an handfull of persons have seen the letters.

 

So you are saying you believe the unsubstantiated allegations.

[cleopatra2]

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

So you are saying you believe the unsubstantiated allegations.

I have not seen any reports or comments from any off the main parties involved that dispute/contest  the Telegraph report into the existence of the letters or content.

The fact the Palace have said that the King is looking for the source of the leak, supports beyond any credible doubt that the letters do exist.

[JonnyF]

46 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I have not seen any reports or comments from any off the main parties involved that dispute/contest  the Telegraph report into the existence of the letters or content.

The fact the Palace have said that the King is looking for the source of the leak, supports beyond any credible doubt that the letters do exist.

 

Have you got the official release from the Palace that says the King is looking for the source?

 

Or is that a rumour as well?

[Georgealbert]

52 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I have not seen any reports or comments from any off the main parties involved that dispute/contest  the Telegraph report into the existence of the letters or content.

The fact the Palace have said that the King is looking for the source of the leak, supports beyond any credible doubt that the letters do exist.

Sorry you are wasting you time trying to explain to this poster.

 

He is a classic candidate for research by Dunning and Kruger.

 

He will never accept facts, what ever links you provide.

 

He will continue to bait, troll and try to intimidate you, to try to get you to rise to his posts, and try to get you banned.

[couchpotato]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

So you are saying you believe the unsubstantiated allegations.

Of course (as I'm sure many others do)---but its not really racism, but bad form curiosity from pompous royals. Still they should know better, and definitely don't utter things out loud that will come back to haunt you. It'll all pass over in time, but the stigma will last a lot longer.

Either way I won't lose any sleep over this 'storm in a teacup'.

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, couchpotato said:

Of course (as I'm sure many others do)---but its not really racism, but bad form curiosity from pompous royals. Still they should know better, and definitely don't utter things out loud that will come back to haunt you. It'll all pass over in time, but the stigma will last a lot longer.

Either way I won't lose any sleep over this 'storm in a teacup'.

 

So essentially you agree it is unsubstantiated rumour and that even if it were true, it wouldn't really be racist.

 

Poor form from Harry and his wife. But when you have no talent and no job I guess you have to sell out your own family to pay for the mansion and the private jets. Pretty pathetic when you think about it. 

 

The fact they are being rightfully ridiculed is Karma in action.

 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Charles does not interfere with the running of the country. He offered his clumsy, ill informed opinions on the climate from time to time when he was Prince but he will need to learn to stop that now he is HoS. 

 

The House of Lords should be elected, I would agree on that. The Head of State? Given the fact that the role is essentially ceremonial in the UK, there is no need to vote on it. 

 

Even if the UK HoS was essentially a ceremonial role, it does not justify it being 'by appointment' let alone, hereditary. The fact, as I have pointed out previously, is that the UK monarch is not apolitical. Imo the sooner we become a republic the better (not that I expect it to happen anytime soon unfortunately).

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

Even if the UK HoS was essentially a ceremonial role, it does not justify it being 'by appointment' let alone, hereditary. The fact, as I have pointed out previously, is that the UK monarch is not apolitical. Imo the sooner we become a republic the better (not that I expect it to happen anytime soon unfortunately).

 

The Queen was always apolitical. King Charles will get there in the end he just needs to drop the climate alarmism. Not a good look when you live in a palace and take private jets.

 

I agree it won't happen any time soon. Thankfully. 

[VocalNeal]

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Poor form from Harry and his wife. But when you have no talent and no job I guess you have to sell out your own family to pay for the mansion and the private jets.

 

Strangely he could have had a good life, lived in a nice house and never wanted for anything. Except his wife did not want to live in the shadow.🤔

[xylophone]

4 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

It is known that comments about Archie's skin colour was made.

The leaked letters where the then Prince Charles acknowledges the comments were not made in malice.

 

 

And that doesn't surprise me in the least, because Prince Philip was a racist and Charles is as dumb as a bag of rocks, and his main aim in life was to become a tampon so that he could be very close to Camilla when he was doing the business, yet still married to Princess Diana.........

 

In 1993, the British press published the full transcript of a private conversation between then-Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles in which the two had an intimate and sexual exchange. The conversation was notable for a number of reasons, not least of which because it involved the heir to the throne saying that he would like to “live inside [her] trousers” and joking that he would like to be reincarnated as a tampon, hence the name of the scandal.

Charles and his now-wife and queen consort Camilla were both married to other people at the time. The transcript not only confirmed Princess Diana’s claims that Charles had been cheating on her but threw gasoline on Charles and Diana’s already contentious separation.

[RayC]

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The Queen was always apolitical. King Charles will get there in the end he just needs to drop the climate alarmism. Not a good look when you live in a palace and take private jets.

 

I agree it won't happen any time soon. Thankfully. 

 

The Queen was not apolitical. I'd argue that she was a very canny political operator who made sure her views were made public via friendly 3rd parties (MPs, journalists, etc.) Occasionally, cracks appeared it in the veneer but not very often. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/queen-s-birthday-five-times-elizabeth-ii-dropped-her-veil-of-neutrality-and-revealed-her-political-opinions-a6992781.html

 

Charles shouldn't be given the opportunity to 'get there' as the monarchy has no place in public life in a 21st century democracy.

[scottiejohn]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

You seem to have missed the point entirely. It's not about one's choice, it's about criticizing another person's. In this case, allegedly, 2 royals had "concerns" about the color of a child's skin. Not their own child but someone else's. That would make them bigoted. The royals, like anyone else, do have a right to be bigoted. But let's not treat bigotry as though it's morally neutral.

Asking a question or expressing a thought does not mean you are "expressing concern"!  It means you are asking a question or thinking out loud.

 

Is it sexist to ask/exclaim "I wonder what sex the baby will be?"

 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by scottiejohn

[scottiejohn]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

I'd argue that she was a very canny political operator who made sure her views were made public via friendly 3rd parties (MPs, journalists, etc.) Occasionally, cracks appeared it in the veneer but not very often. 

Five times in 70 years does sound like HM was standing on a soap box and spouting forth.

Can you not just accept what a remarkable lady HM was?

As even The French President Macron said "To you, she was your Queen. · To us, she was The Queen"

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Five times in 70 years does sound like HM was standing on a soap box and spouting forth.

Can you not just accept what a remarkable lady HM was?

As even The French President Macron said "To you, she was your Queen. · To us, she was The Queen"

I have no time at all for Charles or for the other Royal duffers, however I did respect HM the Queen, because she epitomised all that was good and staunch in the British character, especially when it was needed.

 

As for the others – – not worth the paper they're printed on.

[scottiejohn]

21 minutes ago, xylophone said:

As for the others – – not worth the paper they're printed on.

Why?

 

[RayC]

3 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Five times in 70 years does sound like HM was standing on a soap box and spouting forth.

Can you not just accept what a remarkable lady HM was?

As even The French President Macron said "To you, she was your Queen. · To us, she was The Queen"

 

Five times in 70 years caught publicly airing her views. As I said, the views of 'The Palace' were often made known via friendly third parties.

 

What I object to is the existence of the institution (I wish the Royal family no individual harm): I think that QEII performed her duties diligently and had the best interests of the country at heart. Charles may well take after his mother; we shall see.

 

I can only repeat what I stated before: The very fact that the UK HoS is a hereditary position whose sole criterion for selection is birth "right" is, by definition, undemocratic and I object to it for that reason. 

 

It's also worth remembering that QEII would not have been monarch if her uncle had not fallen in love with a divorcée. Had that not happened, the UK would have had a Nazi sympathiser as HoS, and the UK; Europe and, probably, the rest of the world would have been a wholly different - and imo a much worse - place. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a hereditary system if it throws up such a possibility.

[stevenl]

8 hours ago, RayC said:

 

The idea that the British Royal Family is apolitical is nonsense. The very fact that the PM has to brief the Monarch on a weekly basis illustrates that. Why can't Charles get the news through the same channels as the rest of us?

 

Moreover, because of his position Charles has a platform from where he broadcasts his views, a fact he demonstrated yet again at the latest COP meeting.

 

Charles has been continuously interfering in political matters since his youth and governments are forced to spend time considering matters. He has disproportionate influence and it is undemocratic.

 

If we must have a HoS who is not the PM, let us elect him or her.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos

I like the idea of a monarchy, think it has more standing and believe letting politics handle the present roles will not be an improvement.

Let them be, but an assessment of the financials is warranted.

 

And yes, I agree it is totally undemocratic.

Edited December 6, 2023 by stevenl

[JonnyF]

11 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Five times in 70 years caught publicly airing her views. As I said, the views of 'The Palace' were often made known via friendly third parties.

 

What I object to is the existence of the institution (I wish the Royal family no individual harm): I think that QEII performed her duties diligently and had the best interests of the country at heart. Charles may well take after his mother; we shall see.

 

I can only repeat what I stated before: The very fact that the UK HoS is a hereditary position whose sole criterion for selection is birth "right" is, by definition, undemocratic and I object to it for that reason. 

 

It's also worth remembering that QEII would not have been monarch if her uncle had not fallen in love with a divorcée. Had that not happened, the UK would have had a Nazi sympathiser as HoS, and the UK; Europe and, probably, the rest of the world would have been a wholly different - and imo a much worse - place. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for a hereditary system if it throws up such a possibility.

 

The Royal family play a role and they play it very well.

 

It seems to me that the only people who object to it are those who are envious of their wealth and maybe unhappy with their own lot in life. There is no reason to change a system that has been working well for centuries so that we can end up with someone like Macron, or even worse the war criminal Blair. 

[JonnyF]

16 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

Sorry you are wasting you time trying to explain to this poster.

 

He is a classic candidate for research by Dunning and Kruger.

 

He will never accept facts, what ever links you provide.

 

He will continue to bait, troll and try to intimidate you, to try to get you to rise to his posts, and try to get you banned.

 

You really are obsessed. If you are not responding directly to me you are lecturing other posters about me. 

 

I really don't need to live rent free Bro. Try to move on...

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The Royal family play a role and they play it very well.

 

It seems to me that the only people who object to it are those who are envious of their wealth and maybe unhappy with their own lot in life. There is no reason to change a system that has been working well for centuries so that we can end up with someone like Macron, or even worse the war criminal Blair. 

I really don't understand this. Why the consistent need for personal attacks because someone has an opinion different from yours.

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I really don't understand this. Why the consistent need for personal attacks because someone has an opinion different from yours.

 

It's just how I see it. They are doing their duty to the country and on the whole doing it well. I certainly wouldn't want to lead such a life, cutting ribbons and opening hospitals. I see no reason to attack them other than envy of their wealth.

 

The only personal attacks I can see is on the Royal Family themselves. I honestly don't think most people believe they are actually racist, it's just a convenient stick to beat them with. Why? Well I have given my theory and the reasons behind it, feel free to disagree with it.  

[stevenl]

34 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

It's just how I see it. They are doing their duty to the country and on the whole doing it well. I certainly wouldn't want to lead such a life, cutting ribbons and opening hospitals. I see no reason to attack them other than envy of their wealth.

 

The only personal attacks I can see is on the Royal Family themselves. I honestly don't think most people believe they are actually racist, it's just a convenient stick to beat them with. Why? Well I have given my theory and the reasons behind it, feel free to disagree with it.  

Thanks for a post without personal attacks on other forum members or taking swipes at other people.

[JonnyF]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Thanks for a post without personal attacks on other forum members or taking swipes at other people.

 

Maybe you could practice what you preach?