The Harry and Meghan fuss

[urban genie]

Not sure what to make of this.....freedom of speech, satire and all that, but it’s not exactly in good taste:

I find that disrasteful on many fronts, but also consider it shite and dislikable because it's french.

But without political satire the world would be a sadder place

 

[urban genie]

It's what Charlie Hebdo does.

No one is safe and since their attack they've done far more outrageous stories and covers but because they don't take the piss out of the royals there's no offence taken.

Yeah but their fench, so naturally cunts ;-)

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I find that disrasteful on many fronts, but also consider it shite and dislikable because it's french.

But without political satire the world would be a sadder place

 

[urban genie]

I like the dutch, because they ain't french ;-)

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I know what you mean, but agree with @mat's setiments. The terrorist attack has emboldened them and given them the "licence" to be more provacative and offend a wider group of people.

All for satire and offence, just not sure it helps anyone's argument to equate the treatment of Meghan to that of George Floyd.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

All for satire and offence, just not sure it helps anyone's argument to equate the treatment of Meghan to that of George Floyd.

I'm not sure that's the point, they could be taking the piss out of Meghan for being "hysterical", or playing up to France's innate sense of republicanism and dislike of English nobility or making a point about social structures. There is also the obvious point of the satire of the non-literal expression "I can't breathe".

Just speculating though, I don't have any knowledge of French language or culture.

 

[urban genie]

All for satire and offence, just not sure it helps anyone's argument to equate the treatment of Meghan to that of George Floyd.

Think that is the only real issue I have of it, it missunderstands how that will actualy percieved and looked by many it probably doesn't aim too

For once a bit wide of the mark, but then it is aimed at it's french readership and culturally will be missunderstood by maybe us and the yanks that are more invested in this soap opera

 

[mat]

All for satire and offence, just not sure it helps anyone's argument to equate the treatment of Meghan to that of George Floyd.

I interpret it as a dig at the royal family problems full stop. They are attacking Liz for being the head of an unelected monarchy with great power and Meghan for playing the victim. The Floyd reference is saying she's conflating her introduction into opulance and the price of being there is easy in comparison to real life and the oppression people like Floyd faced.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

They used to, they don't anymore.

The rules were relaxed under the Cameron coalition government as the future Cambidge children (Louis and Charlotte) wouldn't have been automatically entitled to become Prince and PrincAS suhesses but first born George would have been.

The question is whether Harry and Meghan were under the impression that the rules were to be relaxed again- and why they were under that impression. Is it the case they have erroneously jumped to that conclusion, or were they actively [by false representation] or passively misled i. e. by an ommision of communicating the true facts and circumstances and the knock-on effect of Charlie's desire for a smaller monarchy to them.

I think it's a bit more complicated.

Certainly the 1917 declaration limits prince/princess titles to monarch, children and grandchildren. Obviously no-one thought that there would be an occasion with great-grandchildren, and that's why it was changed for George/Charlotte/Louis. It seems inconceivable that this was not known, and the interview allowed the water to be muddied heavily by the complete lack of challenge.

As such, there is no doubt that Archie should not currently be Prince Archie.

As you touch on, it's pretty widely reported that Charles and William have drawn up plans to slim the monarchy down - I've seen that reported (but nothing more, i.e. with no official confirmation) that what was talked about in the interview was that these plans would exclude Archie from becoming Prince (without something catastrophic happening). At that point, it could be potentially be news to them - at that point, it turns into whether what was known has been misrepresented or not.

 

[Bigga]

I can't believe the fallout this interview has caused from some top editor resigning his position after fellow writers indicated they would not accept writing awards from his ceremony to people arguing and fighting with each other on TV...



Lots of correct and incorrect opinions on the whole thing.

*I thought that I'd throw this in before the match tonight!!