Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

Be right back

retro:electro wrote: »

Typical Chaz hogging the limelight

There's major steam coming out of someone's ears in California!!

Leg End Reject

Be right back wrote: »

There's major steam coming out of someone's ears in California!!

The sad thing is they might not have had another shot like that with Archie before they left.

Itssoeasy

Lads it’s a photo of great grandparents and their great grand children. If people are trying to look for the photographic equivalent of the hidden messages in led zeppelin IV than they need to have a talk with themselves. I know my family have done it after a death of a grandparent, and the question is asked of who has a photo of the grandchildren together. And isn’t talking photos something that Kate does ?

Leg End Reject

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Lads it’s a photo of great grandparents and their great grand children. If people are trying to look for the photographic equivalent of the hidden messages in led zeppelin IV than they need to have a talk with themselves. I know my family have done it after a death of a grandparent, and the question is asked of who has a photo of the grandchildren together. And isn’t talking photos something that Kate does ?

We're not looking for a philosophical meaning, we're simply commenting on the photo.

Yes, Kate takes photos, that's why she took that one I presume. It's a relaxed family photo, rather than an official portrait.

Itssoeasy

Leg End Reject wrote: »

We're not looking for a philosophical meaning, we're simply commenting on the photo.

Yes, Kate takes photos, that's why she took that one I presume. It's a relaxed family photo, rather than an official portrait.

I know that ye aren’t but I assume that comments about steam and California was a joke and not based on actual comments made. That was my point. Maybe I should have been clearer.

Be right back

Be right back wrote: »

There's major steam coming out of someone's ears in California!!

I'll bet Megs dearly wishes she could attend the funeral. It's eyeballs, media attention, everything she clearly loves but pretends to hate. It's destroying her being in the shade right now

Leg End Reject

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I know that ye aren’t but I assume that comments about steam and California was a joke and not based on actual comments made. That was my point. Maybe I should have been clearer.

Oh! Yes, they were intended as a joke.

Purple Mountain

ceadaoin. wrote: »

How old was he when they left? There probably aren't any pictures of all the kids together which include him anyway. I expect some press release or new photos to be released by the sussexes in retaliation though.

The great grandchildren photo was from a collection on the Royal Family Instagram page. One photo in the same group was one of just Philip and Harry so nothing to see here folks!
Archie was only about 6 months old when he left the UK so probably not any photos of him with the rest of the great grandchildren.

retro:electro

I don’t think anyone expects Archie to be in the photos since they were taken before he was even born. It more just brings it home and highlights how much he’s missing out on. They look like any ordinary family there with their great granny and grandad. It’s sad he will grow up not knowing his cousins. I know how much I cherish those kinds of photos. Sadly Archie won’t have any from either side.

retro:electro

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t think anyone expects Archie to be in the photos since they were taken before he was even born. It more just brings it home and highlights how much he’s missing out on. They look like any ordinary family there with their great granny and grandad. It’s sad he will grow up not knowing his cousins. I know how much I cherish those kinds of photos. Sadly Archie won’t have any from either side.

After my marriage to my children’s father broke down, I stubbornly made sure that the kids had regular contact with his parents. (He had skipped the country with his new love and played little or no part in their lives) It was tough going at times, but I’ve never regretted it. They have three lots of cousins and are equally close to them all.

Be right back

retro:electro wrote: »

I don’t think anyone expects Archie to be in the photos since they were taken before he was even born. It more just brings it home and highlights how much he’s missing out on. They look like any ordinary family there with their great granny and grandad. It’s sad he will grow up not knowing his cousins. I know how much I cherish those kinds of photos. Sadly Archie won’t have any from either side.

I don't get how Harry being so close to his own cousins growing up, can deny his son of the same.

end of the road

Be right back wrote: »

I don't get how Harry being so close to his own cousins growing up, can deny his son of the same.

i'm sure there are plenty of people who have been close to their cousins, have had children themselves, and have then emigrated which in turn denies those children from being close to their cousins.
should all those individuals have stayed at home and not emigrated or is it just harry who should have stayed where he was unhappy so as to not deny his child from being around his cousins regularly?

Be right back

end of the road wrote: »

i'm sure there are plenty of people who have been close to their cousins, have had children themselves, and have then emigrated which in turn denies those children from being close to their cousins.
should all those individuals have stayed at home and not emigrated or is it just harry who should have stayed where he was unhappy so as to not deny his child from being around his cousins regularly?

It appears that he has fallen out with his relatives, not just emigrated. It's a pity that Archie might not be close to his cousins because both sides are not speaking.

MoonUnit75

Sardonicat wrote: »

So it's democratic by not being subject to democratic process? Okay......

When you look at it though, the British royal family enjoy higher approval than most political parties, 62% overall and up to 85% of older people. Several of the last few US elections show a very sharp divide with a remarkably close to even split between people who support the president and those who revile him. What matters most is legitimacy, there are democracies which elect leaders with low overall support and monarchies which enjoy massive support. Can you really say the elected official with less than half the population supporting them is more legitimate than a monarchy with 80% support?

retro:electro

end of the road wrote: »

i'm sure there are plenty of people who have been close to their cousins, have had children themselves, and have then emigrated which in turn denies those children from being close to their cousins.
should all those individuals have stayed at home and not emigrated or is it just harry who should have stayed where he was unhappy so as to not deny his child from being around his cousins regularly?

The point is that Archie is going to be estranged from family on both sides, and whatever you think of the ins and outs of all that went on, that is very sad and an unfortunate way to grow up.

walshb

Nothing to see here, it’s just emigration. Happens to the best of us. Harry and the clan are still cool as chips!

MoonUnit75

end of the road wrote: »

i'm sure there are plenty of people who have been close to their cousins, have had children themselves, and have then emigrated which in turn denies those children from being close to their cousins.
should all those individuals have stayed at home and not emigrated or is it just harry who should have stayed where he was unhappy so as to not deny his child from being around his cousins regularly?

They didn’t move to California because they were unhappy, they originally went to Canada and said they would split their time between there and the UK. Then the Canadians made it clear they weren’t picking up the tab for the security of ex-senior royals who regularly jump on private jets. That sent them off in a huff to California where they could set themselves up as premium-rate influencers and royalty for hire to the highest bidder, one compassionate pay check at a time.

Sardonicat

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

When you look at it though, the British royal family enjoy higher approval than most political parties, 62% overall and up to 85% of older people. Several of the last few US elections show a very sharp divide with a remarkably close to even split between people who support the president and those who revile him. What matters most is legitimacy, there are democracies which elect leaders with low overall support and monarchies which enjoy massive support. Can you really say the elected official with less than half the population supporting them is more legitimate than a monarchy with 80% support?

We don't elect governments based on opinion polls, though, do we? And the Royal Family don't actually do anything, unlike elected representatives. The Monarch is the (unelected) Head of State. In this case, she happens to be very good in that role. The rest of them do what exactly? In exchange for a palace and servants and free money. 'Working' royals? Don't make me laugh .

Leg End Reject

walshb wrote: »

Nothing to see here, it’s just emigration. Happens to the best of us. Harry and the clan are still cool as chips!

Who needs family anyway! Riiiiiiiight???????

Leg End Reject

Leg End Reject wrote: »

Who needs family anyway! Riiiiiiiight???????

Not Meagain anyway!

Leg End Reject

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not Meagain anyway!

She just needs them to pony up for the lifestyle she wishes to become accustomed to.

Be right back

Leg End Reject wrote: »

She just needs them to pony up for the lifestyle she wishes to become accustomed to.

And they'll be besties again! Once she has forgiven them, of course...

MoonUnit75

Sardonicat wrote: »

We don't elect governments based on opinion polls, though, do we? And the Royal Family don't actually do anything, unlike elected representatives. The Monarch is the (unelected) Head of State. In this case, she happens to be very good in that role. The rest of them do what exactly? In exchange for a palace and servants and free money. 'Working' royals? Don't make me laugh .

I’m sure you would agree though there is a much greater discrepancy in the popularity of elected prime ministers than the royal head of state? None of the main British political parties officially support republicanism or abolition of the monarchy, they are democratically elected and we must assume this reflects the position of the vast majority of voters. That’s the democratic position of these parties, if people wanted rid of the royal family, popular parties would reflect that.

The royal family do have a major civic role to play, they are the figureheads of society and aim to transcend the ebb and flow of the type of divisive politics Meghan represents. They enjoy support across the political divide.

You could argue that the degeneration of the political landscape of the US into TV reality stars, the religious fundamentalism of the left wing twitterati and right wing gun lovers could be tempered by an apolitical head of state who enjoys the kind of popular support that the UK royal family does. There is a real risk of a general political and social collapse there because the mainstream politicians are not extreme enough to keep either side from provoking conflict. There is no unifying social force which orientates people towards solidarity and away from divisive conflict. Traditional religions used to provide this unifying force but they are now gone and unlikely to come back, we now have partisan secular religions which have the opposite effect.

end of the road

Be right back wrote: »

It appears that he has fallen out with his relatives, not just emigrated. It's a pity that Archie might not be close to his cousins because both sides are not speaking.

that's a different situation, if indeed he has fully fallen out with his family as a whole or even in part.

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

When you look at it though, the British royal family enjoy higher approval than most political parties, 62% overall and up to 85% of older people. Several of the last few US elections show a very sharp divide with a remarkably close to even split between people who support the president and those who revile him. What matters most is legitimacy, there are democracies which elect leaders with low overall support and monarchies which enjoy massive support. Can you really say the elected official with less than half the population supporting them is more legitimate than a monarchy with 80% support?

both are legitimate as the monarchy exists as it has been deemed by the people that they should continue to exist.
however as the elected official actually leads the country and makes the decisions and is put in power by the electorate, he or she would be more legitimate, whereas the monarchy on the other hand, even if it enjoys more support, is unelected and has what power it does have and the privilage it has via birth right.

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

They didn’t move to California because they were unhappy, they originally went to Canada and said they would split their time between there and the UK. Then the Canadians made it clear they weren’t picking up the tab for the security of ex-senior royals who regularly jump on private jets. That sent them off in a huff to California where they could set themselves up as premium-rate influencers and royalty for hire to the highest bidder, one compassionate pay check at a time.

they stepped back from royal duties and left the UK because they were unhappy with their situation.
after that, i couldn't care a less what they tried to set themselves up as, that's their issue.

MoonUnit75

end of the road wrote: »

both are legitimate as the monarchy exists as it has been deemed by the people that they should continue to exist.
however as the elected official actually leads the country and makes the decisions and is put in power by the electorate, he or she would be more legitimate, whereas the monarchy on the other hand, even if it enjoys more support, is unelected and has what power it does have and the privilage it has via birth right.

Well I think you are starting to confuse legitimacy and authority, the government has elected authority to pass laws and make economic decisions which affect the population. That doesn’t automatically give them legitimacy, Saddam Hussein was ‘elected’. Our own current Taoiseach represents a minority of voters, his authority comes from a back room deal on which voters had no say. Elections are often affected by misinformation campaigns and plain ignorance. A significant number of voters have no real idea how the state is run and vote based on sound bites, gaffes, the height of the candidate but mostly due to their charisma rather than their capabilities.

they stepped back from royal duties and left the UK because they were unhappy with their situation.
after that, i couldn't care a less what they tried to set themselves up as, that's their issue.

But you said they emigrated because they were unhappy, they could have gone to France and the kids could take the Chunnel to Granny at the weekends. They went to California asking for privacy and an end to media intrusion into their private lives, then air all the dirty laundry on Oprah to a global audience of billions. Oprah for chrissakes, the one who launched Deepak Chopra and had Tom Cruise jumping on her couch. Tacky as fluck.

end of the road

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Well I think you are starting to confuse legitimacy and authority, the government has elected authority to pass laws and make economic decisions which affect the population. That doesn’t automatically give them legitimacy, Saddam Hussein was ‘elected’. Our own current Taoiseach represents a minority of voters, his authority comes from a back room deal on which voters had no say. Elections are often affected by misinformation campaigns and plain ignorance. A significant number of voters have no real idea how the state is run and vote based on sound bites, gaffes, the height of the candidate but mostly due to their charisma rather than their capabilities.



But you said they emigrated because they were unhappy, they could have gone to France and the kids could take the Chunnel to Granny at the weekends. They went to California asking for privacy and an end to media intrusion into their private lives, then air all the dirty laundry on Oprah to a global audience of billions. Oprah for chrissakes, the one who launched Deepak Chopra and had Tom Cruise jumping on her couch. Tacky as fluck.

plenty of people emigrate from the UK to the US taking the children and the children don't get to see granny or grandad very often.
is it okay for them to do that or are they wrong as well? or is it just harry and meghan should have only gone to france?
it's very unfortunate for the average granny and grandad as well you know, they are missing out on their granchildren.

retro:electro

If true, this is prob one of the reasons why there will be no photos of little Archie with his cousins and grandparents. “Too young” to travel to Balmoral but old enough to travel on a private jet to holiday with Elton John :cool:

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/observer.com/2019/09/prince-harry-meghan-markle-declined-queen-elizabeth-balmoral-visit-invite-archie/amp/

Trapped! I tell you.

end of the road

that article suggests the sun is the one which claimed that they didn't attend due to the child being to young.
i wouldn't put any faith in any claims made by the sun newspaper, tbh.

MoonUnit75

end of the road wrote: »

plenty of people emigrate from the UK to the US taking the children and the children don't get to see granny or grandad very often.
is it okay for them to do that or are they wrong as well? or is it just harry and meghan should have only gone to france?
it's very unfortunate for the average granny and grandad as well you know, they are missing out on their granchildren.

As I said earlier in the thread, they didn’t just move far away, they gave a spiteful and vindictive TV interview directly aimed to damage the reputation and standing of Harry’s family. They have driven an emotional as well as physical divide right through both their families now. I also suspect it was intended not only to humiliate the royal family but to ensure Harry would publicly burn his bridges, that might be why Meghan overcooked the ‘racism’ element and made it out to be completely different to how Harry recalled it.

They are acting like entitled narcissists, but, as Meghan might say, ‘I am not saying that to disparage anyone’.

MoonUnit75

retro:electro wrote: »

If true, this is prob one of the reasons why there will be no photos of little Archie with his cousins and grandparents. “Too young” to travel to Balmoral but old enough to travel on a private jet to holiday with Elton John :cool:

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/observer.com/2019/09/prince-harry-meghan-markle-declined-queen-elizabeth-balmoral-visit-invite-archie/amp/

Trapped! I tell you.

Actual screen grab of Harry retrieving Meghan’s passport and keys: