Harry and Meghan stepping aside

rjsterry

It's reported that Harry asked for a meeting with the Queen last year, but this was blocked (by someone other than the Queen). Undoubtedly going for broke has blown up in their faces and I would imagine they and their PR team realise they have screwed this up. Interesting that you seem to attach little blame to Harry - pretty sure it was a joint statement and he's just as much of a grown-up as she is. It's also possible that the Queen is more worried about becoming estranged from her grandson and great grandchild than a bit of bad press. I don't see how Charles is humiliated in this at all.

shortfall

rjsterry said:

It's reported that Harry asked for a meeting with the Queen last year, but this was blocked (by someone other than the Queen). Undoubtedly going for broke has blown up in their faces and I would imagine they and their PR team realise they have screwed this up. Interesting that you seem to attach little blame to Harry - pretty sure it was a joint statement and he's just as much of a grown-up as she is. It's also possible that the Queen is more worried about becoming estranged from her grandson and great grandchild than a bit of bad press. I don't see how Charles is humiliated in this at all.

I don't particularly like the he term but Harry looks like a real cuck at the moment. He's clearly just as much to blame for this as his wife but for different reasons, namely that he's too weak to stand up to her. Or that's how it looks to me.

rjsterry

You'll have to explain that one to me. I've obviously hit that point where I don't know what the kids are talking about. All sounds a bit men's rights-y, though.

shortfall

A cuck is a weak or servile man or a term of abuse for a man with moderate or progressive views. I'm using it as the former.

rjsterry

Still don't get why you think it's all her. How do you know it wasn't his idea? I mean it's such a cliché; real life isn't actually like Eastenders.

orraloon

shortfall said:

A cuck is a weak or servile man or a term of abuse for a man with moderate or progressive views. I'm using it as the former.

U ok hun? You seem awfully involved.

shortfall

rjsterry said:

Still don't get why you think it's all her. How do you know it wasn't his idea?

I don't.

shortfall

orraloon said:

shortfall said:

A cuck is a weak or servile man or a term of abuse for a man with moderate or progressive views. I'm using it as the former.

U ok hun? You seem awfully involved.

You're probably right. I'm in a new job that involves a lot of driving and it's been wall to wall Meghan on LBC and Talk Radio.

rjsterry

shortfall said:

orraloon said:

shortfall said:

A cuck is a weak or servile man or a term of abuse for a man with moderate or progressive views. I'm using it as the former.

U ok hun? You seem awfully involved.

You're probably right. I'm in a new job that involves a lot of driving and it's been wall to wall Meghan on LBC and Talk Radio.

That explains a lot. Maybe try Radio 3 .

shortfall

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

orraloon said:

shortfall said:

A cuck is a weak or servile man or a term of abuse for a man with moderate or progressive views. I'm using it as the former.

U ok hun? You seem awfully involved.

You're probably right. I'm in a new job that involves a lot of driving and it's been wall to wall Meghan on LBC and Talk Radio.

That explains a lot. Maybe try Radio 3 .

I might have to. I find radio 2 and 4 increasingly hard work these days. I like the debates on LBC and Talk Radio but then James OBrien comes on and I just want to hit the radio with a large hammer.

rick_chasey

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

It's reported that Harry asked for a meeting with the Queen last year, but this was blocked (by someone other than the Queen). Undoubtedly going for broke has blown up in their faces and I would imagine they and their PR team realise they have screwed this up. Interesting that you seem to attach little blame to Harry - pretty sure it was a joint statement and he's just as much of a grown-up as she is. It's also possible that the Queen is more worried about becoming estranged from her grandson and great grandchild than a bit of bad press. I don't see how Charles is humiliated in this at all.

I don't particularly like the he term but Harry looks like a real cuck at the moment. He's clearly just as much to blame for this as his wife but for different reasons, namely that he's too weak to stand up to her. Or that's how it looks to me.

Oh mate you need to sort your attitude towards women out.

Men can do things that their wives want *because they also want to do it or because they enjoy making their wife happy* That does not make you a “cuck”.

What are you, incel?

Why are you assuming he doesn’t want to go to Canada?

shortfall

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

It's reported that Harry asked for a meeting with the Queen last year, but this was blocked (by someone other than the Queen). Undoubtedly going for broke has blown up in their faces and I would imagine they and their PR team realise they have screwed this up. Interesting that you seem to attach little blame to Harry - pretty sure it was a joint statement and he's just as much of a grown-up as she is. It's also possible that the Queen is more worried about becoming estranged from her grandson and great grandchild than a bit of bad press. I don't see how Charles is humiliated in this at all.

I don't particularly like the he term but Harry looks like a real cuck at the moment. He's clearly just as much to blame for this as his wife but for different reasons, namely that he's too weak to stand up to her. Or that's how it looks to me.

Oh mate you need to sort your attitude towards women out.

Men can do things that their wives want *because they also want to do it or because they enjoy making their wife happy* That does not make you a “cuck”.

What are you, incel?

Why are you assuming he doesn’t want to go to Canada?

I'm sure he does want to go to Canada, and if that's all there was to it I'd wish him well. But you know there's more to it than that, it's the manner in which he (they) have gone about it.

shortfall

rick_chasey said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

It's reported that Harry asked for a meeting with the Queen last year, but this was blocked (by someone other than the Queen). Undoubtedly going for broke has blown up in their faces and I would imagine they and their PR team realise they have screwed this up. Interesting that you seem to attach little blame to Harry - pretty sure it was a joint statement and he's just as much of a grown-up as she is. It's also possible that the Queen is more worried about becoming estranged from her grandson and great grandchild than a bit of bad press. I don't see how Charles is humiliated in this at all.

I don't particularly like the he term but Harry looks like a real cuck at the moment. He's clearly just as much to blame for this as his wife but for different reasons, namely that he's too weak to stand up to her. Or that's how it looks to me.

Oh mate you need to sort your attitude towards women out.

Men can do things that their wives want *because they also want to do it or because they enjoy making their wife happy* That does not make you a “cuck”.

That's what I'd say if I didn't want people to think I was a cuck😂

rick_chasey

What, he doesn’t want to live in the various houses of his grandma and wants to live somewhere where he believes he and his children will get less attention from the press who he has been on record for saying helped kill his mother and was a menace in his childhood?

I mean, I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

Pross

Fair few posts been made on this thread considering the amount of people protesting no interest in the royals at the start!

awavey

pinno said:

I doubt that anyone on here has ever experienced life under the constant spotlight of the public and the media, so what's been t written thus far is pure speculation.

As for 'Harry at the supermarket' doing 'normal' things... ...with his security. Hmm. How 'normal' is that?!

my point on that is he isnt pursued by a press pack constantly tracking his every move, that supermarket thing didnt even feature in any of the tabloid newspapers because they werent interested, he has security,who frankly apparently blend in so much they look like he's just out with his best mates, because he is rich and considered a target, which is the same deal whether he is a senior royal in the public eye, or exceedingly wealthy retired Harry of the Canadian rockies.

they arent in the constant spotlight of the public or the media if they choose not to be, Princess Anne hardly features in newspaper columns yet apparently she is the one who does the most royal engagements and openings and stuff, and yet you wouldnt even know she was doing it

pinno

awavey said:

pinno said:

I doubt that anyone on here has ever experienced life under the constant spotlight of the public and the media, so what's been t written thus far is pure speculation.

As for 'Harry at the supermarket' doing 'normal' things... ...with his security. Hmm. How 'normal' is that?!

my point on that is he isnt pursued by a press pack constantly tracking his every move, that supermarket thing didnt even feature in any of the tabloid newspapers because they werent interested, he has security,who frankly apparently blend in so much they look like he's just out with his best mates, because he is rich and considered a target, which is the same deal whether he is a senior royal in the public eye, or exceedingly wealthy retired Harry of the Canadian rockies.

they arent in the constant spotlight of the public or the media if they choose not to be, Princess Anne hardly features in newspaper columns yet apparently she is the one who does the most royal engagements and openings and stuff, and yet you wouldnt even know she was doing it

Sorry, but princess Anne hasn't quite got the street cred as the two sons William and Harry. Princess Anne's mother wasn't killed by an act that was predominantly driven by the media.

@shortfall: Did you click that link I posted? The money raised by the royal wedding totally eclipses the cost. What's the bug bear you have with the tabloid(?) cliche about 'the public purse... at the expense of the taxpayer'?

Longshot

The taxpayer earns royally from the royals, whatever the tabloids and anti-monarchists say to the contrary.

rick_chasey

Longshot said:

The taxpayer earns royally from the royals, whatever the tabloids and anti-monarchists say to the contrary.

Recon they’d make a similar amount without the royals in the buildings tbf

Longshot

rick_chasey said:

Longshot said:

The taxpayer earns royally from the royals, whatever the tabloids and anti-monarchists say to the contrary.

Recon they’d make a similar amount without the royals in the buildings tbf

Doesn't matter, a deal's a deal. 'We' wouldn't have the buildings/land/income without it.

orraloon

awavey said:

Princess Anne hardly features in newspaper columns yet apparently she is the one who does the most royal engagements and openings and stuff, and yet you wouldnt even know she was doing it

Paraphrasing Monty Python's Holy Grail:
"Who's that then?"
"Dunno"
"Must be a royal"
"How can you tell"
"Hasn't got sh1t all over 'er/'im"

rick_chasey

Fwiw, the irony isn’t lost on me that there are a bunch of Brexiters who are complaining the royal wants to leave the obligations of the royal institution but not the benefits.

Longshot

pinno said:

Sorry, but princess Anne hasn't quite got the street cred as the two sons William and Harry. Princess Anne's mother wasn't killed by an act that was predominantly driven by the media.

Which came first? The street cred or the low profile?

surrey_commuter

I seem to be in a small minority of people who would abolish the monarchy tomorrow but if we are going to keep them then I would like to see them thoroughly misuse their wealth and power.

shortfall

pinno said:

awavey said:

pinno said:

I doubt that anyone on here has ever experienced life under the constant spotlight of the public and the media, so what's been t written thus far is pure speculation.

As for 'Harry at the supermarket' doing 'normal' things... ...with his security. Hmm. How 'normal' is that?!

my point on that is he isnt pursued by a press pack constantly tracking his every move, that supermarket thing didnt even feature in any of the tabloid newspapers because they werent interested, he has security,who frankly apparently blend in so much they look like he's just out with his best mates, because he is rich and considered a target, which is the same deal whether he is a senior royal in the public eye, or exceedingly wealthy retired Harry of the Canadian rockies.

they arent in the constant spotlight of the public or the media if they choose not to be, Princess Anne hardly features in newspaper columns yet apparently she is the one who does the most royal engagements and openings and stuff, and yet you wouldnt even know she was doing it

Sorry, but princess Anne hasn't quite got the street cred as the two sons William and Harry. Princess Anne's mother wasn't killed by an act that was predominantly driven by the media.

@shortfall: Did you click that link I posted? The money raised by the royal wedding totally eclipses the cost. What's the bug bear you have with the tabloid(?) cliche about 'the public purse... at the expense of the taxpayer'?

Fair comment re the net cost of the wedding, point still stands that she and Harry didn't foot the bill. Same goes for Frogmore House. FWIW I'm not anti monarchy.

rjsterry

Do you think they had much choice about the kind of wedding they had? I'm not sure a few friends at the local registry office was an option.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

Do you think they had much choice about the kind of wedding they had? I'm not sure a few friends at the local registry office was an option.

Definitely could have gone Charles & Camilla route and not invited every celeb around, but I don’t really know why this is relevant.

pinno

shortfall said:

FWIW I'm not anti monarchy.

Didn't think you were.

I tried to placate you with the rationale that this so called privileged existence is probably not what as good as what it seems on the surface.

As others have said, I would not swap my life or the world for it.

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry said:

Do you think they had much choice about the kind of wedding they had? I'm not sure a few friends at the local registry office was an option.

Why not - no doubt they'd have faced a huge amount of opposition but it doesn't seem to bother them now. They could certainly have had a much lower key wedding at a private venue and argued that a huge state occasion wasn't appropriate in the 21st century for someone that isn't even heir to the throne.

ballysmate

No royal titles, no public money and paying back the money for Frogmore.
Canadians are apparently lukewarm to them so green card it is then.