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

Style icon indeed.

Neyite quoting the Queen Mother on how she disliked Wallis Simpson and how she claimed that Wallis Simpson was responsible for Bertie's daily birth as if it was fact.

Look, you all believe everything that the British tabloids write about H&M and I mean everything. And you will never get over that Harry just left because he wouldn't be the RF scapegoat any more.

His father being king is what makes it impossible at short notice!

There is months of planning for these visits, months and months. It cannot be done at short notice and that is not his decision.

In fact, he would have no say in it.

Months and Months to attend a final in Oz?

Ah no that is absolute nonsense.

In October, he had not planned to attend the men’s World Cup, controversially held in Qatar, due to a busy winter schedule. But before Southgate’s squad was knocked out in the quarter-final it was understood William’s office was looking at making possible arrangements for him to attend if the men reached the final. William is now on his annual summer break.

I'd say the biggest threat to William if he went to Australia would be the boos from the English/Australian people at the game. What would the point be of killing William? There are already plenty of replacements, so it wouldn't make any difference politically to the monarchy. In fact, it might do the monarchy good in that people would have sympathy for them.

Wow, what on earth is going on in your head to think, let alone commit to paper, that?? Anyway, getting away from that malevolent post, a few things:

1. My purpose in raising the matter of the massive publicly expressed dislike on the YouTube Netflix Trailer video is because of the negative effect it is having on the Invictus Games. In a way, it doesn't matter if the comments are valid or not; it's the effect of them. Surely if H&M had any self awareness at all - and they clearly have none - they would find a way to step out of the limelight and allow the Games to proceed without them, either their presence but more, IMO, without the Archewell/Netflix deal.
2. The decision about Australia's Head of State, or any other Commonwealth country's, will be taken by the citizens of that country whenever they decide. It's up to them.
3. My issue with H&M is quite simple. They couldn't get their own way with the "half-in, half-out" proposal, so off they went. But since then, they have trashed their families, both personally and institutionally, made money by playing the perpetual victims, the Netflix reality bending the "truth" in a way that would astonish even Uri Geller, exaggerating or making up stories (eg the Lion King premiere, "When you married into this family, we rejoiced in the streets the same we did when Mandela was freed from prison" - as if!).
4. Harry has shot the albatross and now has it dangling round his neck. An albatross necklace, if you will.

Excuses? Just pointing out the position he was in. Commercial or not the optics were that he would be there for a day or two and then coming straight back. Do you not think his climate change street cred would be damaged if he went? I would argue that it would be. If he goes talking the talk about climate change then I'd remember his short haul over and back to Oz for a big football match and say he is a hypocrite. Maybe he thinks walking the walk is more important than a football match and thinks it is worth the inevitable criticism?

Thinking about this and using a financial analogy to suss where H&M are at then I’d think of the monarchy as a big blue chip umbrella company. A conservative, predictable, boring juggernaut. Booms, busts, panics and bulls seem to have little impact on the company’s fundamentals but it faces the inevitable loss of market territory because it is...conservative, boring and predictable. Some long term investors want to cash out and explore new investment. From within there is a clamor from two executives of a subsidiary brand for investment so they can branch out and embrace these new markets coming along downstream.

The CEO isn’t interested as it conflicts with the companies culture/values and so a decision is made to split the subsidiary off from the umbrella company and let it get listed on another exchange as an independent entity with the two executives becoming the CEOs.

They do an IPO and it attracts significant investment. Criticising the umbrella company as being outdated and tone deaf helps secure investment. Early investors make some money back when they sell their initial investment (e.g. Harpo Productions). It wasn't a long term investment. It was a shrewd trade.

Three years later the subsidiary not only hasn’t gained any market share it is losing it. The outlook from forecasters is negative since the company is hemorrhaging cash. So the questions are – would you buy stock in this subsidiary today? I wouldn't. Would you make a long term investment in the blue chip company? No because I would want to make money and would making a return akin to that from a current account i.e. sweet FA and thus a non runner.

Not so sure I can get on board with this.

Harry and Megan are generally considered the ones pushing the climate change/green agenda and getting a lot of stick for it.

William being a climate change activist/green guy is news to me, lol.

If he did make the trip to OZ, I can envisage the usual suspects from Gbeebies, the daily mail, Telegraph etc p00 p00hing any lefty complaints about green issues and telling everyone to just get behind him and the Lionesses.

The Earthshot Prize.

Did any of his family enter?

Because their carbon footprint is fúcking colossal.

Do as I say, how very royal.

The Royal Family’s combined carbon footprint tallies up to a massive 3,810 tonnes a year. To put this into perspective, the average Brit has an annual carbon footprint of just 10 tonnes

Pretending about the environment since 1968. Even you'd have to admire his 55 year long commitment to pretending to give a f*ck.

Yes pretending to give a fúck.

I have literally no idea what you are talking about, could you explain please?

You mean some poor people have to pay for his lavish lifestyle?

Yip, that would be textbook definition of hypocrisy.

It's okay you can be critical of the royal family, it won't make your hatred for Markle any less in my eyes.