Life is Golden
It's Morning in America Again
Were you in a coma during Trump's presidency?
Thoughts on Oprah's interview of the non working royals
- Thread starter Hawkeye10
- Start date
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Obviously not so what is the point of your question? Are you saying Trump isn't a pedophile who hung out with pedophiles during his wild and crazy days in the 1990s?
Have you seen the pictures?
christiefan915
Catalyst
I have zero respect for Charles. He was too much of a wimp to marry Camilla when both were single; apparently he bought into the Firm's delusion that a future queen had to be virginal (while all the time he was screwing around like a rabbit.) Instead he found a naive young teenager with a crush on him and decided she would fill the bill. I won't forget that official video of their engagement when the reporter asked if he was in love and he answered "whatever 'in love' means." Check out the new video footage from your rag the Daily Mail, showing Diana's expression after Charles spoke.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...ove-means-comment-seen-unearthed-footage.html
Diana's depression was directly attributable to Charles' boorish behaviour. He never loved her so he didn't treat her with the love and tenderness you would expect of any newly-married couple. He still kept in contact with Camilla even if they didn't resume their affair until a few years passed. He bought into his father's advice that the prince could screw around on his wife as long as he kept it discreet.
Everything William and Harry learned about love and acceptance came from their mother because Charles was not an affectionate, hands-on parent. You claim her interview with Bashir was full of lies but after all the dirty laundry was aired, she was right. I say the biggest problem in their marriage was Charles' relationship with Camilla, and all the smaller issues that occurred stemmed from that. Both Charles and Camilla cheated on their spouses; neither has a moral compass so they deserve each other. Yet you've never spoken about them in all your criticism of Diana.
All we know about seatbelts is that Diana didn't have hers on during her last car ride. We don't know if she thought she was too grand to wear them all the time, that's projection. Furthermore, that accident didn't happen because of seatbelts but because the driver was drunk, almost 4 times over the legal limit. So how about we put the blame on Henri Paul, where it really belongs, instead of on the victims.
William and Harry had a horrible time coping with their mother's death. I recall their own television interview, when Harry stated he fell into a major depression after Diana was killed. That interview happened before Harry met Meghan so it can't be blamed on her. From the way people talk about depression it's clear they don't understand it's a biochemical issue, not a character flaw. I commend Harry for going into treatment. Apparently he got more support from the Palace than either Diana or Meghan did.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I don't expect the Daily Fail to take Oprah's side in all this. They know which side their bread is buttered.
christiefan915
Catalyst
No, he wasn't. Read the footnote numbered 6.
In 1999, a French investigation found that Paul, who lost control of the vehicle at high speed while intoxicated by alcohol and under the effects of prescription drugs, was solely responsible for the crash. He was the deputy head of security at the Hôtel Ritz and had earlier goaded paparazzi waiting for Diana and Fayed outside the hotel.[SUP][3][/SUP] Anti-depressants and traces of an anti-psychotic in his blood may have worsened Paul's inebriation.[SUP][4][/SUP] In 2008, the jury at a British inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by Paul and the following paparazzi vehicles.[SUP][5][/SUP] Early media reports claimed Rees-Jones survived because he was wearing a seat belt, but further investigations revealed that none of the occupants of the car were wearing their seat belts.[SUP][6][/SUP]
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Bashir was incredibly lucky not to be prosecuted for his disgusting behaviour. I don't expect you to know about his lies he told to get Diana to cooperate.
Charles wanted to marry Camilla however her husband wasn't so agreeable. Yeh he was a weak man but he was weak rather than malevolent, MM is very much a prize bitch who has cut loose everybody in her quest for fame and fortune. Why you feel the need to defend her totally baffles me and I can tell you just about everybody in England, do you not believe me?
Last edited:
christiefan915
Catalyst
I read the stories about his lies to get her to cooperate. It doesn't mean that she herself lied.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Easier to adopt that attitude rather than address the issues raised. Suffice to say that most Brits believe that version of events rather than the soap Oprah version.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Maybe not lied but certainly exaggerated and stretched the truth, I wonder how her sons felt about their mother trashing their father on live TV and washing their dirty linen in public. Maybe you Americans feel that there is nothing sacred but that certainly wasn't the case in 1997 England.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Why the fuck would I waste my time watching the ultimate in whiney princesses--literally a princess--snivel and complain about how unfair her massively privileged life has been to a racist narcissist (remember Oprah's rant about the Swiss store clerk for example?) from Hollywierd who is herself the paragon of privilege?
christiefan915
Catalyst
I'm defending her for the same reason I've defended Diana and Kate, because I think the double standards around these women are appalling. On JPP alone they've gotten more criticism than pedo Andy, goofy Mark Phillips or Fergie, and for less reason. So Harry fell in love with an American, big deal. Yet for some reason it gave the haters free rein to pseudo-analyze their relationship and decide that Meghan's a fatal woman who ensnared a naive innocent into her thrall. Harry is no innocent. He had tons of experience with women living both in and out of England. He met and bonded with Meghan over their shared interests.
I believe what you said about almost everybody in England because I've seen the UK tabloids, but I don't understand why the relationship is a problem with people who have no dogs in the fight. Aren't the English happy that there's one less family for them to subsidize?
Charles could have married Camilla when both were single. She went on to marry Parker-Bowles after Charles broke up with her. Both Camilla and P-B had affairs while married to each other. That seems to be the done thing in British upper classes. But it's beside the point. The important thing is that Charles married an infatuated teenager whom he had no intention of being faithful to. He used her for breeding only. IMO that's unforgiveable.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I wonder how her sons felt when they learned their father didn't marry their mother for love but for expedience. And it's not like Charles didn't trash her right back through his toadies like Nicholas Soames.
Life is Golden
It's Morning in America Again
Your statement: "I've only seen non-Americans so determined to see the United States of America crash and burn."
I ask again, were you comatose during Trump's presidency?
Possibilities:
1) The is a great window onto where the culture is at this very moment.
2) The continuation of the Monarchy is at stake, both if and if so how.
3) The difference between the USA and the UK response is interesting.
4) Real life soap operas are entertaining.
5) Watching Harry ruin his life is like watching a car crash.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Are you saying Trump was determined to crash and burn the nation?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I think you need to look up the dictionary definition of paedophilia. Having sex with a 17 year old like Virginia Roberts is not illegal in the the UK, just so you know.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
I remember the huge pressure put on Charles to settle down and get married. The Royals were rightfully concerned that he chose somebody with no past and knew the ropes. Diana seemed ideal from that perspective, sadly they were wrong. Camilla was well into her mid thirties at the time, her child bearing days were over.
Last edited:
christiefan915
Catalyst
I'll say one last thing about C & C because we're not looking at the same timeline. Their relationship started in the early Seventies when both were in their 20s. That's when he could have committed despite joining the Royal Navy. Andrew and Fergie married while he was still on active duty, same with William and Kate.
As for the rest, I'll link to these articles. Clearly Andrew has a predilection for sex with underage girls. He is said to have stayed in Epstein's mansion 75 times over 20 years.
Prince Andrew is pictured inside paedophile Jeffrey Epstein's £63million mansion of depravity nine years ago... so how did he miss signs of the billionaire's sexual deviance?
I'm Not Saying Prince Andrew Is A Pedophile, But He's Totally a Pedophile
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
But it really isn't. It's two ultra-privileged women yakking. The Kardashians are a better glimpse of culture than a princess and a billionaire chatting.
No, it's not.
Okay...
Not to me.
I can get that crap from any of a dozen reality shows I don't watch...
Two women selling what power wants sold, sucking up to power for profit. Yes the Kardashians do that to a degree but they mostly serve up what people, real people, want to buy.....they dont service power like Oprah and Meghan just did. .