cancel2 2022
Canceled
How come you are using the Daily Mail as a source, given your low opinion about it? As for the other link, please give me a break!
Last edited:
Thoughts on Oprah's interview of the non working royals
- Thread starter Hawkeye10
- Start date
How come you are using the Daily Mail as a source, given your low opinion about it? As for the other link, please give me a break!
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I notice that nobody in the US media has addressed these 'inconsistencies' and most certainly not Soap Oprah! Almost everything they said was either highly exaggerated, taken out of context or just downright lies.
The 10 questions Oprah didn't ask Prince Harry and Meghan Markle during their interview
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14289...ok&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebarwebl
The 10 questions Oprah didn't ask Prince Harry and Meghan Markle during their interview
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14289...ok&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebarwebl
Last edited:
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win
They should do away with the royal asshats, they should go the way of that has-been phony empire
This will fly with the Brits like a turd, right?
https://pagesix.com/2021/03/13/megh...8.2095956333.1615452554-1073147802.1575355777
They can slander away at will but when it comes to them being called into question they need a standard applied that is above Due Process.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Define underage, do you mean under 16?
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
18 in civilized countries. 16 or less in Third World Shitholes with Pedophile Kings.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I don't like them but you do!
christiefan915
Catalyst
In the US it varies state by state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States
How about this, from the Guardian: "The following year, Andrew and Epstein went on holiday together and were pictured on a yacht in Phuket, Thailand, surrounded by topless young women. The Times of London reported that the prince’s holiday was paid for by Epstein."
Many RWs made a big deal out of Clinton traveling with Epstein and called him a pedo, so why does Andrew get a pass? It appears Andrew was on friendly terms with Epstein for years... more than 20 years. It defies credibility that he didn't know what Epstein was.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
The Daily Mail used to refer to him as Airmiles Andy back in the day. I don't know what he knew of Epstein but then what did Soap Oprah know of Weinstein?
Last edited:
Life is Golden
Saint
Were you comatose when BLM and Antifa burned cities and businesses to the ground for six months?
Or perhaps those are the "non Americans" you are referring to in your statement?
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
No cities in Texas were burned to the ground. What do you expect me to do, dear?
Life is Golden
Saint
Stop pretending the worst thing what happened in the US was the ransacking of Pelosi's office. That incident paled compared with the shit that went on last summer. I didn't witness any virtual handwringing from you over those incidents. Not once.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Dear, are you okay? Do you need a cold compress? The worst thing to ever happen in the US was Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression. After that WWII and then the Great Depression.
The Capitol Insurrection by treasonous assholes is worse than rioters in Portland because one is Federal, which means it affects us all, dear, and the other is State, which I have no control over unless it's in Texas.
Do you need me to go over these in more detail for you?
Life is Golden
Saint
Wow, so you consider the ransacking of Pelosi's office worse than a business owner being beat to death in the street by a "woke" BLM terrorist.
Mmmkay.
Hard to believe you were in the military at all when you side with domestic terrorists. Just saying.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
No. Why would you assume that? Do you usually leap to wild conclusions to push your political ideology?
Another assumption. Why, pray tell, dear, do you think I "side with the domestic terrorists"?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
There are many excellent columnists write for the Mail, like Bel Mooney, Alex Brummer, Richard Littlejohn, Richard Kay, Peter Hitchens, Jan Moir, Dominic Sandbrook, John Humphreys, Amanda Platell, Baz Bamiboye to name a few!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/index.html
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Great piece in the Spectator by an author I've not encountered before.
Not all Americans are on Team Meghan
LEE COHEN
The press is awash with reports of the disgust and distaste of the American public towards the UK, in particular towards the Royal Family, with Americans apparently uncritically accepting the Duchess of Sussex’s ‘truth’. The UK press may have smelled a rat in what was portrayed at the Sussexes’ Montecito estate in the Oprah soft-soap spectacle; yet it seems overly inclined to take at face value reports of outrage and condemnation in the US. Rest assured, British cousins, this is not the whole story.
At present, the big guns of the US media are in the hands of people pushing a certain agenda. In the environment this creates, Meghan Markle must be believed, regardless of the obvious gaps in her account, because that serves the agenda. The ready acceptance of any public assertion by a woman of color of course works only if the subject is on message. When it comes to an American woman of colour who happens to be on the right, or a certain British Home Secretary, automatic benefit of the doubt doesn’t apply, because they are the ‘wrong sort’ who have sold out.
The British reader may have an interest in what the American person in the street actually thinks about the Oprah interview. I’m sorry to say that the information gap – how the UK is perceived and reported (and, in the case of the Royal Family, portrayed in fictionalised history like The Crown) – will lead plenty of Americans to take Meghan and Harry’s claims at face value. This is not, I’m glad to say, universally the case.
Taken at her word, the Duchess of Sussex remains ignorant of much regarding her husband’s country and the family into which she married. According to her interview, it appears she did less preparation for her life as a royal than she must have expended for any of her acting roles. But this supposed lack of knowledge must be claimed in order to present the conclusion that only racism deprived her child of the security protection and title that she saw as her son’s due as a great-grandchild of the Queen.
This is an obviously false narrative. Regarding the title, exception is made only for the children of the future king, in the unusual circumstance of the reigning monarch having great-grandchildren (a circumstance unforeseen when George V limited princely titles to the grandchildren of the monarch). It takes little research to know this, and it’s hardly credible that this was not explained to her. Similarly, the security provisions for the Sussexes were entirely consistent with all other working royals of comparable place in the succession.
A US audience can be forgiven for not having the background to be able to identify these obvious untruths. Even so, some have picked up that, even in the interview, Megan’s account was not wholly consistent with Harry’s.
Media over-simplification tends to neglect the Americans motivated to pursue a deeper understanding of the UK and its institutions, by awareness that our origins and national freedoms spring from the history and values shared with Britain. This cohort is impervious to demands to cancel history and culture, and is broadly in opposition to the proxy war being waged by media and academia against British and US institutions and values. Like our British opposite numbers, we do spot the inconsistencies in the narrative pushed by the Sussex duo.
Of course, we’re not helped by Biden jumping on the bandwagon, instantly praising Markle’s ‘courage’. But you must understand that he’s now – perhaps literally – captive to the wing of his party that pushes an institutional racism agenda, not least as cover for its manifest and long-term failure to make lives better in the inner cities (almost all in forever-Democrat political hands). And he’s President in large part by dint of a media that pushes the everything-is-about-race message.
I have been consistently reminding my countrymen who cheer the recent shameful exploits of the Sussexes and call for an end to the monarchy, that in this context the only opinions that count are of those in the Queen’s realms, amongst whom we are not. That said, it does not serve the Western World – still reliant largely on the Anglosphere for defence of its freedom – for Americans to have a less-positive view of our staunchest ally. In damaging the UK brand, the Sussexes have damaged the West.
In contrast to the bulk of current British press reports, it should be understood that many of us on this side of the Atlantic are very much not behind any part of Meghan’s intrusion into Harry’s performance of Hamlet. On the contrary, we view this latter-day Lady Macbeth, not only to be entirely in the wrong production but also on the wrong stage, at least when she was a supposed working royal.
An early danger signal about Meghan’s failure to understand the obligations of being a royal was her expressed personal views of President Trump – compounded subsequently by her intervention in the 2020 election. Compare and contrast this refusal to play her diplomatic part with the record of Her Majesty: whenever the national interest (as determined by the serving Government of the day) has required it, the Queen has unflinchingly provided a welcome to all manner of dictators, strong men and even Irish terrorists sharing responsibility for the death of her family members. Having been on the receiving end of Meghan’s disrespect, it’s somehow fitting to end with Mr Trump’s verdict: ‘I’m not a fan of hers, and I would say this …. I wish a lot of luck to Harry, because he’s going to need it’. I daresay!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/not-all-americans-are-on-team-meghan
Not all Americans are on Team Meghan
LEE COHEN
The press is awash with reports of the disgust and distaste of the American public towards the UK, in particular towards the Royal Family, with Americans apparently uncritically accepting the Duchess of Sussex’s ‘truth’. The UK press may have smelled a rat in what was portrayed at the Sussexes’ Montecito estate in the Oprah soft-soap spectacle; yet it seems overly inclined to take at face value reports of outrage and condemnation in the US. Rest assured, British cousins, this is not the whole story.
At present, the big guns of the US media are in the hands of people pushing a certain agenda. In the environment this creates, Meghan Markle must be believed, regardless of the obvious gaps in her account, because that serves the agenda. The ready acceptance of any public assertion by a woman of color of course works only if the subject is on message. When it comes to an American woman of colour who happens to be on the right, or a certain British Home Secretary, automatic benefit of the doubt doesn’t apply, because they are the ‘wrong sort’ who have sold out.
The British reader may have an interest in what the American person in the street actually thinks about the Oprah interview. I’m sorry to say that the information gap – how the UK is perceived and reported (and, in the case of the Royal Family, portrayed in fictionalised history like The Crown) – will lead plenty of Americans to take Meghan and Harry’s claims at face value. This is not, I’m glad to say, universally the case.
Taken at her word, the Duchess of Sussex remains ignorant of much regarding her husband’s country and the family into which she married. According to her interview, it appears she did less preparation for her life as a royal than she must have expended for any of her acting roles. But this supposed lack of knowledge must be claimed in order to present the conclusion that only racism deprived her child of the security protection and title that she saw as her son’s due as a great-grandchild of the Queen.
This is an obviously false narrative. Regarding the title, exception is made only for the children of the future king, in the unusual circumstance of the reigning monarch having great-grandchildren (a circumstance unforeseen when George V limited princely titles to the grandchildren of the monarch). It takes little research to know this, and it’s hardly credible that this was not explained to her. Similarly, the security provisions for the Sussexes were entirely consistent with all other working royals of comparable place in the succession.
A US audience can be forgiven for not having the background to be able to identify these obvious untruths. Even so, some have picked up that, even in the interview, Megan’s account was not wholly consistent with Harry’s.
Media over-simplification tends to neglect the Americans motivated to pursue a deeper understanding of the UK and its institutions, by awareness that our origins and national freedoms spring from the history and values shared with Britain. This cohort is impervious to demands to cancel history and culture, and is broadly in opposition to the proxy war being waged by media and academia against British and US institutions and values. Like our British opposite numbers, we do spot the inconsistencies in the narrative pushed by the Sussex duo.
Of course, we’re not helped by Biden jumping on the bandwagon, instantly praising Markle’s ‘courage’. But you must understand that he’s now – perhaps literally – captive to the wing of his party that pushes an institutional racism agenda, not least as cover for its manifest and long-term failure to make lives better in the inner cities (almost all in forever-Democrat political hands). And he’s President in large part by dint of a media that pushes the everything-is-about-race message.
I have been consistently reminding my countrymen who cheer the recent shameful exploits of the Sussexes and call for an end to the monarchy, that in this context the only opinions that count are of those in the Queen’s realms, amongst whom we are not. That said, it does not serve the Western World – still reliant largely on the Anglosphere for defence of its freedom – for Americans to have a less-positive view of our staunchest ally. In damaging the UK brand, the Sussexes have damaged the West.
In contrast to the bulk of current British press reports, it should be understood that many of us on this side of the Atlantic are very much not behind any part of Meghan’s intrusion into Harry’s performance of Hamlet. On the contrary, we view this latter-day Lady Macbeth, not only to be entirely in the wrong production but also on the wrong stage, at least when she was a supposed working royal.
An early danger signal about Meghan’s failure to understand the obligations of being a royal was her expressed personal views of President Trump – compounded subsequently by her intervention in the 2020 election. Compare and contrast this refusal to play her diplomatic part with the record of Her Majesty: whenever the national interest (as determined by the serving Government of the day) has required it, the Queen has unflinchingly provided a welcome to all manner of dictators, strong men and even Irish terrorists sharing responsibility for the death of her family members. Having been on the receiving end of Meghan’s disrespect, it’s somehow fitting to end with Mr Trump’s verdict: ‘I’m not a fan of hers, and I would say this …. I wish a lot of luck to Harry, because he’s going to need it’. I daresay!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/not-all-americans-are-on-team-meghan
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Fuck the Goddamn Royals. They are vestigial organs from a time long dead. Any country with a monarchy is sucking up to a brutal, racist past. A truly free people will get rid of their monarchy by law or by force. Sheep will continue to be led to the slaughter by Kings.
Sic semper tyrannis
Carpe Regem
Mors Rex