Harry and Meghan - everyone still being respectful please

[Oldbutstillgotit]

Lots still to talk about .

I’m old. I remember when the press focused on Anne and Andrew as the Glamorous Young Royals The Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Michael of Kent also had their time in the limelight., then disappeared Then came Diana. Then Catherine. Then Meghan and Harry
Basically, the press (and hence the public) are fickle - youth and beauty is what they want and they don’t hesitate to move on

This pair are pushing 40. In ten years they’ll be pushing 50. At that time, George will be coming up to 18 and it will be open press season on him and his girlfriends

Harry and Meghan will become utterly irrelevant at that point. Hence they have a small window of opportunity to make money. Unless they can do something to give them longevity in the pUblic eye , they will become footnotes. My guess is that they won’t be able to do so

They are speaking out again; same old, same old. Nasty old racist Blighty, surely the shittiest nation to have ever existed.

The UK has a constitutional monarchy. It still exists because the British public allow it to exist. These two seem to be hellbent on doing everything they can to bring it down.

I agree
They are happy to be hell bent on removing the monarchy before William is King because they really couldn’t bear that
I don’t see why they are still involving themselves here for any other reason

@SunbathingDragon, fair enough, I should have added “ to some extent or the other”

You’ve probably seen this or something along these lines, here is one of the many discussions around it

www.simplypsychology.org/implicit-bias.html

This goes right back to their initial statement and the plans as they were originally laid out in the website, before they got pared back. There was no intention for Harry and MM to shed the patriarchal and prejudiced Traditions off in their entirety, just the ones they felt were too constricting - for them.

I agree with whoever said this !

Meant to say another .

Here are a set of tests by Harvard. They must have a really good set of data by now, across a number of areas

implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatouchtestv2.html

Here we go again ....
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8793931/Prince-Harry-reveals-awakening-issues-faced-black-people.html

@JaJaDingDong

I think Archie would remain in the LoS even if Harry leaves. Not sure though.

You may be right, but I do recall that when some minor Royal (Earl of St. Andrews?) gave up his place in the succession, it was for the rest of his 'line' too. Wonder what's happened - he had to as he was marrying a Roman Catholic, which is now 'allowed'. Was he reinstated?

[quote Trut]@SunbathingDragon, fair enough, I should have added “ to some extent or the other”

You’ve probably seen this or something along these lines, here is one of the many discussions around it

www.simplypsychology.org/implicit-bias.html[/quote]
Why do you seem so intent on telling people what they think and assuming what they’ve read?

[quote Oldbutstillgotit]Here we go again ....
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8793931/Prince-Harry-reveals-awakening-issues-faced-black-people.html[/quote]
I tried to watch it, I really did
Can’t stand the fidgeting from Harry

Ok sun, if you haven’t read anything on implicit bias, I’ve shared some of the research. 😊

I also think that HM should bite the bullet, and announce at the same time that Andrew will be removed from succession, until/unless his name is cleared.

I don't think it's as simple as that. I am pretty sure that an Act of Parliament has to be passed before excluding someone from the succession.

I think Andrew could voluntarily renounce his place in the succession of his own "volition." No doubt some of the men in grey suits in the palace have plenty of blackmail material which could be used to apply a bit of heavy pressure.

But I think that, in that case, his daughters would also be removed-I am pretty sure that when Edward VIII abdicated and married Wallis Simpson, the rule was that any children that might result from the marriageWS was about 41 at the time of her marriage, so still perfectly plausible that she might have become pregnant--would not be in the line of succession.

But I think that, in that case, his daughters would also be removed-I am pretty sure that when Edward VIII abdicated and married Wallis Simpson, the rule was that any children that might result from the marriageWS was about 41 at the time of her marriage, so still perfectly plausible that she might have become pregnant--would not be in the line of succession

That was only possible because the (possible future) DC had not yet been born. Once someone does exist and has been legitimately born into the line of succession then they stay in it in their own right

Sitting there in your £11m mansion preaching away. . You are boiling my piss.

I just watched that video.

God, that was .... painful...?

Implicit tests are easily gamed, by the way!

This of course proves absolutely nothing.

That implicit test was fun but I’m not sure what it had to do with this thread.

I have a slight automatic preference for African Americans over European Americans (see photo attached, I’m a white middle class millennial for stats purposes)...but I still don’t particularly like Harry or Meghan. I mean if I had to go into specifics, Harry annoys me more than Meghan (they’re both hypocritical but I think he’s more so considering his very privileged background and general disrespect to his family and home nation, as well as all his past misdemeanours: drugs, violence, racism etc. Meghan appears to enjoy being woke and self righteous which is fine in itself but I don’t think she’s pariularly qualified to preach. She also comes across as a little patronising at times).

But please feel free to discuss my results and it’s correlations to my feelings and opinions 🙂

@EdithWeston

But I think that, in that case, his daughters would also be removed-I am pretty sure that when Edward VIII abdicated and married Wallis Simpson, the rule was that any children that might result from the marriageWS was about 41 at the time of her marriage, so still perfectly plausible that she might have become pregnant--would not be in the line of succession

That was only possible because the (possible future) DC had not yet been born. Once someone does exist and has been legitimately born into the line of succession then they stay in it in their own right

That's really interesting - I didn't know that.

@greenteafiend Agree, implicit tests (as with every test) can be gamed.

It is interesting that the prev article I linked to talks about how children view the world and the “othering” that can happen early on. And I was struck by this too “Professor Brian Nosek and colleagues tested more than 700,000 subjects and found that more than 70% of White subjects more easily associated White faces with positive words and Black faces with negative words, concluding that this was evidence of implicit racial bias (Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2007)”. I’d like to know the reverse results too, eg do people in general, from other races too, have a positive bias towards others “like them” ?

And I think the stuff on implicit gender bias and sexuality bias are interesting as well.

Maybe times have changed and we are more “woke”. It will be interesting to see trends over time.

[quote NoFoxToGive]@Royalinsider

I am stunned that you continually compare M&H to actual, working royals. Who cares if Charles and the Queen have had TV crews following them? Did they do that for a mega payout from Netflix? No. And it was only in order to highlight the work they do for us, not to glorify themselves.

And I am truly agog that you think Meghan has achieved things that other royals haven’t. Have you never heard of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Awards? the Prince’s Trust? Heads Together? Meghan wrote a forward to a cookbook she had no hand in creating & “designed” some clothes that a few people were given for free. Big whoop. Oh, and donated £10 a month for a dog kennel in a shelter - sadly not occupied by the dog she abandoned in Canada.

And, lets knock one fictitious narrative on the head right now...that poor Harry was desperate to leave the royal family and dear Meghan gave him his wings. That the sainted duo fought for and won their blessed freedom and went and found their happy ending.

Awww.

Bullshit. Read their presumptuous manifesto again. Nowhere, literally nowhere, did they say they didn’t want to be working royals anymore. They still wanted the tours, the spot on the balcony, the free house, the adulation and crowds. They just wanted all that part time so that they could use their unearned and undeserved platform & titles to make themselves some money...the £2m a year from Charles wasn’t enough, evidently. They also didn’t want to be covered by journalists they didn’t like.

And they were told to fuck off, quite rightly.

Spin, spin, spin all you like - but these two are a walking disaster, puffed up with their own egos and sense of entitlement, and most people can see that.[/quote]
Well said, NoFoxToGive!!!
I could write reams on my opinion of H&M, (and, to a lesser extent, the Royal Family as a whole).But I realised I was in danger of becoming obsessed and bitter. But I HAVE joined Republic - check them out. I believe strongly that they now have no right to their Duke and Duchess titles.
Other than that, I don't give a s**t what these two do, as long as I'm not paying for them!

I'm honestly gobsmacked that H and M have given an interview to a British newspaper about institutional racism in the U.K. from their luxury mansion in California paid for by H's inherited wealth. They really are putting two fingers up to the RF.

JaJaDingDong
I think Archie would remain in the LoS even if Harry leaves. Not sure though

You may be right, but I do recall that when some minor Royal (Earl of St. Andrews?) gave up his place in the succession, it was for the rest of his 'line' too. Wonder what's happened - he had to as he was marrying a Roman Catholic, which is now 'allowed'. Was he reinstated?

I suppose it would depend on whether he's planning on bringing any children up in the Catholic religion.
Rightly or wrongly, whilst the monarch is head of the Church, we can't have a Catholic monarch, although I think the monarch is not allowed to be married to a Catholic. Any issue would have to be raised in the CofE though.

From reading a as PP's post it would seem that Archie would retain his place in the LoS if Harry "stepped down" but any child born after Harry left would not be included in the LoS.