The Harry and Meghan fuss

[Octavian]

@Octavian why are you quoting the first letters patent as a response? I have posted the exceptions that came after this.

Because the exceptions don’t apply to Harry’s children, obviously.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

I don’t know what all the arguing is about in this thread. It is as plain as the nose on your face that there is simply no racism whatsoever within the British royal family, establishment, or media.
You only have to look at the wonderfully even-handed way that Meghan and Kate have both been treated by the media and establishment. Both treated exactly the same way. Same style of headlines. Everything.
Look too, at the simply enthralling and beautiful way Harry’s beloved mother was treated in life and death. Her treatment, whilst married to the heir to the throne, was exactly the same as it was after he divorced her so he could marry a horse, and did not change one iota after she began dating a Muslim gentleman.

Anyone who says otherwise is clearly a sandals-wearing communist with body odour and an overly hairy set of genitalia.

It’s obvious.

 

[oldius]

@oldius claimed it to.

If you don’t think she did that you’re lying to yourself.

When asked if Archie was snubbed due to race, her answer was that conversations about titles and his skin colour were in tandem.

It’s pretty obvious what she wanted people to know.

Context is everything.

 

[Octavian]

I don’t know what all the arguing is about in this thread. It is as plain as the nose on your face that there is simply no racism whatsoever within the British royal family, establishment, or media.
You only have to look at the wonderfully even-handed way that Meghan and Kate have both been treated by the media and establishment. Both treated exactly the same way. Same style of headlines. Everything.
Look too, at the simply enthralling and beautiful way Harry’s beloved mother was treated in life and death. Her treatment, whilst married to the heir to the throne, was exactly the same as it was after he divorced her so he could marry a horse, and did not change one iota after she began dating a Muslim gentleman.

Anyone who says otherwise is clearly a sandals-wearing communist with body odour and an overly hairy set of genitalia.

It’s obvious.

Nobody has claimed there is no racism, nice straw man though.

I’m the only one arguing from my position, and all I’ve said is Meghan was disingenuous I’d suggest Archie isn’t a Prince due to racism.

I was told this forum is an anti-establishment website and anyone who disagrees is bullied off.

Now I get to experience it!

 

[Phil1]

I’m guessing when Yaya Toure questioned whether Pep had a problem with African players you rushed to his defence and said nobody could prove what Yaya was implying in court?

What a ridiculous argument and stop behaving like a child with Fode, who is a child, you’re in your 50s man.

He's in his 40s, though I imagine this last 10 pages has added 10 years on him as it has me just by fucking reading it... :-)

 

[Octavian]

He's in his 40s, though I imagine this last 10 pages has added 10 years on him as it has me just by fucking reading it... :-)

Someone said he looked 58.

Apologies Alan

 

[domalino]

I might be confused here but what she did was just that, she changed it so the heir to the throne’s children were Prince and Princesses and the reason given was gender equality no?

It makes a lot more sense than giving titles to the children of someone who will never be king.

You are confused.

The old rule meant the older male child of William would be a prince. 1 child of William's would be a Prince.

To change this to be gender-equal, you just change it from his eldest male child, to eldest child. Again, that means only 1 Prince or Princess amongst William's kids.

What the queen did was expand it so if william has 10 kids, there's 10 princes and princesses.

She went miles past simply making it gender equal.

It makes a lot more sense than giving titles to the children of someone who will never be king.

You really can't say "someone who'll never be king" about Harry. At the time this expansion happened, Harry was 3rd in line to the throne, and when the "snub" happened I think he was 6th. There's probably been many times in the last few years he's 1 helicopter or plane crash away from being the heir to the throne. History is full of second sons becoming King because of a few tragic deaths.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Because the exceptions don’t apply to Harry’s children, obviously.

So constructing strawmen again?

The fact there have been exceptions proves the point that the Queen could have changed the whole situation with the stroke of a pen.

 

[Octavian]

You are confused.

The old rule meant the older male child of William would be a prince. 1 Prince.

To change this to be gender-equal, you just change it from his eldest male child, to eldest child. Again, that means only 1 Prince or Princess amongst William's kids.

What the queen did was expand it so if william has 10 kids, there's 10 princes and princesses.

I wasn’t confused with that, I understand that, I was confused with your point but now I understand.

The reasoning given was anti discrimination against girls but I also, just guessing as a parent and grandparent myself, that having siblings with different titles growing up isn’t exactly nice and must be confusing for them.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I’m guessing when Yaya Toure questioned whether Pep had a problem with African players you rushed to his defence and said nobody could prove what Yaya was implying in court?

What a ridiculous argument and stop behaving like a child with Fode, who is a child, you’re in your 50s man.

Bad Ban Ban.