Jump to content
Batman

Meg-xit

Recommended Posts

Thoughts?

 

Surely if they want to ‘step back’, they can do so without a penny from the taxpayer?

 

She arrived to bag a footballer but hit the big time with a Prince...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With you typifying the average tabloid target - (the angry moany sniper)I am not surprised they want to fck off.

 

Hey that money (my bloody taxes) spent on Megan’s a dress could have funded a nurse (our angels).

 

What a lovely last comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty tacky when you realise their intention is to profit off their titles but with none of the responsibilities that come with them. Kind of typifies modern society and apparently the Queen feels really let down. 558e17b08221a92a1853ed9f4012d98b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plenty more left for the royalists to fawn over.
Abd that's fine assuming they will be giving up their titles and privileges and financial support that goes with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there has been some 'behind the scenes' sniping due to her being (a) American, (b) previously divorced, © not quite WASP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good on them, they will be better off away for the scummy press in this country.

 

Exactly this. Why would they stay given the relentless stalking and character assassination by much of media and lapped up by eejits like Jamie and Hypo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough if people want to pay them enough money just because of celebrity status, but I imagine the taxpayer will still be paying a hefty bill for security. Nice if they start to pay that themselves instead. They haven't really done anything wrong. The only issue would be if they still claimed tax money or lived in property paid for by taxpayers. Plenty of people out there are making money off celebrity status based on their name or family. I don't care about that.

 

Not surprising they want to escape the press. Like someone said, there are a couple of people on here who are kind of like the Daily Mail in poster form and you can just see the sneering vitriol in the way they have already posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Exactly this. Why would they stay given the relentless stalking and character assassination by much of media and lapped up by eejits like Jamie and Hypo.

 

Where have I lapped up anything? I just think it's pretty disrespectful to the Queen to release something like this out of the blue and I don't think they should receive financial support and living off their titles if they don't want the responsibilities. Give up their titles and they can do whatever they like and it's no one elses business. I can also make my own mind up when they start lecturing others about how to live whilst jetsetting around the world. I don't need a hostile press to know that makes them look bad.

Edited by hypochondriac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if there has been some 'behind the scenes' sniping due to her being (a) American, (b) previously divorced, © not quite WASP.

 

I fail to see what her skin colour has to do with anything. I personally didn't even know she was mixed race until the press made a big deal out of it, I expect many others were in the same boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've behaved rather poorly but frankly that's their business.

 

Hopefully this means they are effectively no longer considered as "part" of the royal family and the taxpayer can stop paying upkeep for them in perpetuity.

 

Good timing for the old Lady as well, first Andrew and then her "grandson" sticks the boot in via the press :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a 2 bed apartment on the market in Crawley, so it's good to know there are a couple more potential buyers out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They've behaved rather poorly but frankly that's their business.

 

Hopefully this means they are effectively no longer considered as "part" of the royal family and the taxpayer can stop paying upkeep for them in perpetuity.

 

Good timing for the old Lady as well, first Andrew and then her "grandson" sticks the boot in via the press :lol:

 

It isn't if the want to forge "a progressive" new direction from within the Royal Family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if there has been some 'behind the scenes' sniping due to her being (a) American, (b) previously divorced, © not quite WASP.

 

Some in the Royal echelon was supposed to have remarked that she was “frightfully common” apparently. He never looked comfortable in his role so good luck to him for bailing out. Why he didn’t go through the normal Buck House protocol though is odd and a kick in the teeth for Grannie after all she has been through with Chuck and Di, Andy and Fergie and then Andy again. Still it helps to trim down The Firm which is no bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some in the Royal echelon was supposed to have remarked that she was “frightfully common” apparently. He never looked comfortable in his role so good luck to him for bailing out. Why he didn’t go through the normal Buck House protocol though is odd and a kick in the teeth for Grannie after all she has been through with Chuck and Di, Andy and Fergie and then Andy again. Still it helps to trim down The Firm which is no bad thing.

 

Well that's a shock because I agree with you. Like I said, as long as he gives up his titles and not the cake and eat it approach then he can do whatever he likes and the best of luck to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fail to see what her skin colour has to do with anything. I personally didn't even know she was mixed race until the press made a big deal out of it, I expect many others were in the same boat.

Her skin colour and heritage shouldn't, I agree, but I suspect that there has been a degree of resistence to her within the coterie that creates the royal 'bubble', based on the 3 criteria I listed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Her skin colour and heritage shouldn't, I agree, but I suspect that there has been a degree of resistence to her within the coterie that creates the royal 'bubble', based on the 3 criteria I listed.
Maybe but it's not like they haven't been worthy of criticism without any of that stuff, going through staff at a rate of knots, opening themselves up to claims of hypocrisy over climate lecturing, new age lectures about gender neutral child rearing, millions of pounds of taxpayer money spent on refurbishing their property and the pretty poor way she treated her father over the wedding along with moaning about their lifestyle with an African backdrop. Yes the mail and the like have been typically sensationalist but its not like there's been a shortage of negative pr. Oh and the rumoured plan to monetise their titles is pretty vulgar if true so the royals wouldn't be too wrong in that respect. Edited by hypochondriac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
opening themselves up to claims of hypocrisy over climate lecturing.

 

That’s typical of the attitude which is making them want to get out of this country. All they were doing is use their position to promote a good cause and instead of being praised for trying to help they just get vilified for being hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s typical of the attitude which is making them want to get out of this country. All they were doing is use their position to promote a good cause and instead of being praised for trying to help they just get vilified for being hypocritical.
That was one thing I highlighted when there's a whole catalogue of things which when taken together make it quite understandable why public sentiment has largely turned against them.

 

People don't like being preached to by woke celebrities (see the recent Ricky Gervais golden globes speech for example) and they particularly don't like climate change lectures when they are frequently jetting round the globe on private jets and when they are taking huge amounts of money from tax payers. The Queen understands the need to keep the public onside because without them their positions would cease to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was one thing I highlighted when there's a whole catalogue of things which when taken together make it quite understandable why public sentiment has largely turned against them.

 

People don't like being preached to by woke celebrities (see the recent Ricky Gervais golden globes speech for example) and they particularly don't like climate change lectures when they are frequently jetting round the globe on private jets and when they are taking huge amounts of money from tax payers. The Queen understands the need to keep the public onside because without them their positions would cease to exist.

 

A lot of people seemed to really enjoy that Ricky Gervais speech from what I could tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of people seemed to really enjoy that Ricky Gervais speech from what I could tell.
I meant the content of his speech. It was well received because he was telling a room of woke celebrities that people don't like being preached to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good on them, they will be better off away for the scummy press in this country.

 

Ah but will the UK Press leave them alone or will they intensify their coverage hoping to fine even more that the plebs can tut tut at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s typical of the attitude which is making them want to get out of this country. All they were doing is use their position to promote a good cause and instead of being praised for trying to help they just get vilified for being hypocritical.
Some is misguided IMO, Im all for stopping the murder of elephants for the ivory but to destroy works of art in the royal collection (belongs to us) hundreds of years old just because they were made of ivory is disgusting. ISIS destroy works of art not our society. Edited by OldNick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was one thing I highlighted when there's a whole catalogue of things which when taken together make it quite understandable why public sentiment has largely turned against them.

 

People don't like being preached to by woke celebrities (see the recent Ricky Gervais golden globes speech for example) and they particularly don't like climate change lectures when they are frequently jetting round the globe on private jets and when they are taking huge amounts of money from tax payers. The Queen understands the need to keep the public onside because without them their positions would cease to exist.

 

They were not lecturing anyone, they were just trying to do their bit to help save the planet. What is wrong with you people, surely trying to help is a good thing regardless of their carbon footprint - yes?

 

Little Englanders didn’t like what they said because 1. It’s the truth and 2. It wasn’t told to them by the usual beardy, sandal-wearing lefty, it was the darlings of their establishment echoing what the likes of Jeremy Corbyn have been saying for decades.

 

Of course there is more than a hint of hypocrisy, but the same can be said for anyone that has ever spoken out about the environment, especially anyone rich and famous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They were not lecturing anyone, they were just trying to do their bit to help save the planet. What is wrong with you people, surely trying to help is a good thing regardless of their carbon footprint - yes?

 

Little Englanders didn’t like what they said because 1. It’s the truth and 2. It wasn’t told to them by the usual beardy, sandal-wearing lefty, it was the darlings of their establishment echoing what the likes of Jeremy Corbyn have been saying for decades.

 

Of course there is more than a hint of hypocrisy, but the same can be said for anyone that has ever spoken out about the environment, especially anyone rich and famous.

 

Without wanting to go into Corbyn on another thread, I generally agree. It's almost impossible not to be a hypocrite in some capacity. If I set up some local recycling scheme, I'm sure I'd have people pointing out that I used to drive a gas-guzzling car with a 3.5L engine, or the flights I took last year just to go and have a few beers with friends in France. Doesn't mean I shouldn't try to do what I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without wanting to go into Corbyn on another thread, I generally agree. It's almost impossible not to be a hypocrite in some capacity. If I set up some local recycling scheme, I'm sure I'd have people pointing out that I used to drive a gas-guzzling car with a 3.5L engine, or the flights I took last year just to go and have a few beers with friends in France. Doesn't mean I shouldn't try to do what I can.
Multiple private jet flights on a number of holidays isn't really the same thing is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They were not lecturing anyone, they were just trying to do their bit to help save the planet. What is wrong with you people, surely trying to help is a good thing regardless of their carbon footprint - yes?

 

Little Englanders didn’t like what they said because 1. It’s the truth and 2. It wasn’t told to them by the usual beardy, sandal-wearing lefty, it was the darlings of their establishment echoing what the likes of Jeremy Corbyn have been saying for decades.

 

Of course there is more than a hint of hypocrisy, but the same can be said for anyone that has ever spoken out about the environment, especially anyone rich and famous.

I don't agree but let's say for the sake of argument that you're correct so we can discount the climate change lectures as a reason for people being annoyed. Do you disagree with the rest of my analysis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They were not lecturing anyone, they were just trying to do their bit to help save the planet. What is wrong with you people, surely trying to help is a good thing regardless of their carbon footprint - yes?

 

Little Englanders didn’t like what they said because 1. It’s the truth and 2. It wasn’t told to them by the usual beardy, sandal-wearing lefty, it was the darlings of their establishment echoing what the likes of Jeremy Corbyn have been saying for decades.

 

Of course there is more than a hint of hypocrisy, but the same can be said for anyone that has ever spoken out about the environment, especially anyone rich and famous.

 

Spot on. There has long been a tradition of shooting the messenger. We have seen it recently with Greta. Too many people are looking to play the (wo)man not the ball. It is not unreasonable to point out inconsistancies, but not to the extent that the original message gets lost. We are particularly guilty of doing that in this country. The press have always built people up only to knock them down again. Does it really matter if the message is coming from a “woke celebrity,” a politician or anybody else. It is the message that is the important thing. Most of us agree that we need to do more about reducing our carbon footprint. Most of us fly or drive diesels or do other stuff that we should limit. Technically it makes us all hypocrites, but if we are aware that we need to change our behaviour, recycle, make other changes, it all helps. People like them travel a lot as part of their position. It doesn’t make sense for them to take a yacht every time they cross an ocean. Greta Thunberg attends events all over the world too. She would never get anywhere if she relied on solar power or the wind. If, by their actions, many other carbon footprints are reduced, isn’t that the point? Climate change isn’t going to slow down if Megan and Harry take fewer flights, but it will if thousands of people take fewer flights. If they do because Megan and Harry travel the world to spread that message, the result is worth it surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also just heard that one trip to Fiji cost the tax payer 81k last year and travel costs have apparently doubled for the entire Royal family since meghan married Harry but state visit costs have remained the same which suggests we are all paying for their holidays.

Edited by hypochondriac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree but let's say for the sake of argument that you're correct so we can discount the climate change lectures as a reason for people being annoyed. Do you disagree with the rest of my analysis?

 

You may be right, to be honest I don't really pay much attention to the Royals so couldn't say. When they talked about climate change it interested me and I was astounded at the vitriol aimed at them for just trying to do some good. I guess the average Daily Mail reader took comfort in the highlighting of their hypocrisy, made their own lifestyles less guilt free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Royals are a working family and it is not unreasonable for the tax payer to pay for their travel if they are working. I don’t see why we should pay for their holiday travel though. The whole financial thing needs to be reviewed and it is good to hear that Charles is already working on slimming down The Firm. The country has had to tighten its belt over the last decade. It shouldn’t have taken them so long to be seen to be more economically efficient too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Royals are a working family and it is not unreasonable for the tax payer to pay for their travel if they are working. I don’t see why we should pay for their holiday travel though. The whole financial thing needs to be reviewed and it is good to hear that Charles is already working on slimming down The Firm. The country has had to tighten its belt over the last decade. It shouldn’t have taken them so long to be seen to be more economically efficient too.
No one said we shouldn't pay for their travel but as I said, travel costs have doubled whilst state visit costs have stayed the same since meghan and Harry got married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another nail in the coffin.

 

The whole basis of our antiquated system is you’re born into it. Once Royals start picking and choosing whether they’re Royals or not, the public will quite right ask questions about the long term feasibility of it, particularly when they’ll keep the good bits, money, accommodation, prestige. I’ve no doubt his dopey father will be an absolute disaster as King, and within this century the country will become a grown up modern democracy. I just hope I’m around to see that glorious day. Brexit & no monarchy, what a double.....

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with you to a certain point Duckie. The only thing is that if we were a Republic, Boris Johnson would be our head of state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am with you to a certain point Duckie. The only thing is that if we were a Republic, Boris Johnson would be our head of state.

 

Nurse!!!!!!!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It got a bit fiesty one question time last night when someone described the criticism against MM as racism. I have read of lot of critical articles against her but wouldn’t describe them as racist. The press have certainly taken against her but I think that has more to do with her behaviour than the colour of her skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It got a bit fiesty one question time last night when someone described the criticism against MM as racism. I have read of lot of critical articles against her but wouldn’t describe them as racist. The press have certainly taken against her but I think that has more to do with her behaviour than the colour of her skin.
Laurence Fox was the best person appearing on there for ages. Superb performance from him (and anyone interested should search out his triggernometry interview from a few weeks back.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It got a bit fiesty one question time last night when someone described the criticism against MM as racism. I have read of lot of critical articles against her but wouldn’t describe them as racist. The press have certainly taken against her but I think that has more to do with her behaviour than the colour of her skin.

 

Not cool to respond to your own posts but I had a chat in the pub about this tonight and I was reminded of an incident when someone (can’t remember who but it was in the press) said that Meghan Markle has “tainted” the Royal Family by marrying into it. That is a racist slur so it has happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not cool to respond to your own posts but I had a chat in the pub about this tonight and I was reminded of an incident when someone (can’t remember who but it was in the press) said that Meghan Markle has “tainted” the Royal Family by marrying into it. That is a racist slur so it has happened.

 

The only reference I can find of this is someone called Jo Marney (26) who at the time was the partner of the 53 year old leader of UKIP. Apparently this was written in text messages to a 'friend' who took some gold from the press.

 

I cannot find anything printed in the press that isn't a summary of this incident.

 

Some dumb bimbo sending racist text messages to a friend is hardly a 'racist slur' of any signigicant magnitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that far right extremist Danny Baker called the baby a monkey. Thankfully the racist was swiftly booted from the BBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only reference I can find of this is someone called Jo Marney (26) who at the time was the partner of the 53 year old leader of UKIP. Apparently this was written in text messages to a 'friend' who took some gold from the press.

 

I cannot find anything printed in the press that isn't a summary of this incident.

 

Some dumb bimbo sending racist text messages to a friend is hardly a 'racist slur' of any signigicant magnitude.

 

As the UKIPs leader’s girlfriend the tweet obvious attracted a great of attention and was all over the media in hours. How much press attention does something have to get before it is seen as a slur?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As the UKIPs leader’s girlfriend the tweet obvious attracted a great of attention and was all over the media in hours. How much press attention does something have to get before it is seen as a slur?

 

Where has anyone said it isn't a racist slur?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake. I should have added “of any sinificance.” Once something is in the national media it is significant, wouldn’t you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My mistake. I should have added “of any sinificance.” Once something is in the national media it is significant, wouldn’t you agree?
Some random non entity getting their racist text publicised by the press is hardly evidence of a deeply racist society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})