M & H-as-I-call-him 16

[yolofish]

Well here we are, another thread for those who wish to discuss. We are not nasty, but we do call account on what is going on, and and what taxpayers pay for.

Peridito whenever the thread turns personal or unpleasant I'm afraid it always seems to come back to you.

I think this is very unfair! And it's making it personal. I have seen many unpleasant comments about M&H and about posters who disagree with the dominant (on here) view of M&H. It's definitely not @peridito causing this, who I've seen try to be thoughtful and reasoned.

What often causes unpleasantness is when some posters object to being disagreed with or having their opinions challenged and then make allegations of derailing, moral judgement etc.

peridito and rockingchair PLEASE give it a rest! We get it OK, you don't like the conversation. That's fine, your prerogative in fact, but you don't get to police the conversation either.

If you see something that breaks talk guidelines, report it. Otherwise those who are having the conversation would just like to get on with it.

framboise for eg, clearly has issues with some comments, but she picks them up and outlines her reasoning, and doesnt try and resort to claiming the moral high ground.

Thank you.

Framboise do you draw on your general US legalities knowledge re MM and Archie citizenships or was there something official?

You seem to know the US law, so I believe what you’re saying.

Yolo well said.

I vaguely recall something published around wedding time that MM had to give up American citizenship as Royals can’t have dual allegiances etc.

Anyone recall or have definite info?

They announced that she wouid follow the normal rules for naturalisation.

As those require no more than 90 days per year out of the country during your period of qualifying residency, then it is unlikely she will be naturalised soon. I expect (but defer to those who know visa rules better than I do) that she will have ILTR.

FramboiseRoyale

She has not accepted a title. She has no title in her own right, but only the convention in the UK of a woman having the style and title of her husband.

This is just me musing and isn't a question aimed at you, Framboise, it's just that your post made me wonder.

The late princess of Wales kept that title (but not the HRH) after her divorce, as did the duchess of York.

Presumably, that means that if (heaven forfend etc) H&M divorced, M could keep the "duchess" bit if she wanted to, or would being American change that?

yolofish - The HMQ thing being able to stop Archie from leaving the country was something to do with some ancient statute about the monarch's progeny being the property of the monarch IIRC. Highly unlikely to be used but I think technically possible!

Yes I think it highly unlikely that the Queen intends to invoke the 1717 "Royal Prerogative" law.

Just because a child has dual citizenship does not mean that one parent can unilaterally take them to their home country. If - just for the sake of example - H&M were to separate Archie's residence would be determined by the courts in the country where the child is habitually resident. This depends on their legal status in Canada - if they are living in Canada on a 6 month visitor visa then I think the British courts would have jurisdiction - however in they have permanent residence in Canada then it may be the Canadian courts.

That's interesting Lunde thanks for that. So at the moment, when they are 'citizens of nowhere' (copyright T.May) they are actually still Bitish/US citizens and Archie is both?

"How very unlike the homelife of our own dear Queen" as was once said!

rocking, why did you have the following sentence in bold as if someone has said it? Peridito whenever the thread turns personal or unpleasant I'm afraid it always seems to come back to you.

I can't see where anyone has said these words (apart from you).

Rockinghorsecandle is repeating a post of mine, annielouise.

I asked for it to be withdrawn because I'm so sick of the nitpicking from a few posters and could see the thread being derailed yet again.

Sorry for the confusion.

@yolofish you don't get to 'police' the thread either! Accusing people who disagree with you of doing it is silly. We'll all continue to chip in as we see fit, even though we have different opinions. Public forum etc...

Chip

Ok, thanks MyImaginary. It was hours ago. Not sure why rocking feels the need to bring it up now when it was removed (how did they manage to copy it so much later, too?). That spat with peridito was hours ago.

Are peridito and rocking the same people?

Butterymuffin

I will be arriving on a donkey. That's got to be green.

Well, if it has to be green, will this one do:

www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/chagall-the-green-donkey-n05758

alliwantisagoodnightssleep

Regarding Oscar dresses. Meghan could recycle either of her Wedding Dresses

I vote for the evening one.

That way, she could thumb her nose at The Donald by wearing white (as some did at the State of the Union speech) as well as being seen to shop her wardrobe

@annielouise if you think about it, you might be able to work it out

LaMarschallin. The Stella McCartney reception dress was stunning on M. It was how I had envisaged her wedding dress style. I liked the aesthetic of the ceremony dress but I don’t really think it fitted Meghan’s style the way the evening one did.

Just posting to say new thread member cafetièrecoffee isn’t me, in case anyone gets their coffee confused.

rocking dont you get bored? If I didnt like a topic, I might come on, make my points, have a little bit of argie bargie perhaps and then go and do something more interesting.

THAT's why people think you are needling!

Must look up the Stella McCartney dress, I don't remember it. I thought she looked bloody amazing at the time of the wedding, but having reseen some pictures recently I'm not so sure. Brave decision to wear something so absolutely plain though - very unforgiving.

@yolofish I think you just don't like being disagreed with! And it seems to make you self-righteous and hypocritical, bolstered by your safety in numbers.

Feel free to stop with the personal attacks etc and get back to the thread! But you can stop trying to force me off, cheers.

LaM, Meghan presumably has four dresses: wedding one, (presumably to T as I like to call him) and going away / evening dress one, and wedding two (to H as I like to call him) and evening dress two.
Never mind about the alleged annulled marriage.

I doubt they’ll want to rock up to the oscars. I think they got laughed at at the BAFTAs and the A-listers don’t take kindly (claws out And sharpened) for upstart, up stagers.

I doubt they’d be so stupid to piss all over the people they want money from.

The only way they’d could attend anything Oscar related without rubbing everyone up the wrong way, is as a guest of the Disney ceo to an after party, and even then that’s a dangerous game for them, and they risk losing more than they gain.

@yolofish I think you just don't like being disagreed with! And it seems to make you self-righteous and hypocritical, bolstered by your safety in numbers.

Is that a personal attack? Should I report it?

Please could you point out where I've been hypocritical?

Or, in fact dont bother because I honestly dont care that much.

Now back to how many potential outfits: I'm liking isntcoffeewonderful point, and of course the numerous outfits that PC paid for?

I am not wonderful

@yolofish it's clearly a response to your own personal attack.

You are hypocritical because you advise others of doing stuff, like policing, personal attacks etc, that you clearly do yourself.

Then you get self righteous and claim your tired of it, but have to have the last word before demanding a 'return to the thread'! It's entirely in keeping with the overall tone of the threads.

*accuse