Shits going down with the Royals

[Rougarou 594]

Have to agree with everyone else here; clouded judgment and stupid moves betray how weak a beta male Harry actually was. He doesn’t deserve the title/royalty, as it turns out, so it’s probably for the best of all involved.

Imagine the resentment by his kids though, “you did what!? I could have had what? Now I go to some public school in Toronto?”

[Steel Shank 9434]

8 hours ago, hornian said:

If he was thinking about laying pipe I bet you would have some input. 

I'll grant you that.

[tx 3 putt 77612]

#undefeated 

[cabowabo 4514]

Hope Trump wins in 2020 even more now. Keep that drama queen ho in Canada.

[Homercles 10206]

Indeed, that’s a great reason to hope that dumbass stays president.  

[tx 3 putt 77612]

Classic succubus move is to separate him from family and friends  

[Sandman 3419]

I just can't imagine how he came to that decision. 

"Yeah, you're right. I don't want to live in palaces or have a staff of servants that handle my everyday needs. And I certainly don't want to be paid a salary for just walking around, breathing and shit. Fuck my grandma's stupid lifestyle, let's move to Canada."

I can understand why he wouldn't want to be in the limelight but he's not the heir, his brother gets to take all that shit. He can chill in relative anonymity if he wants. I constantly forget the QEII has a fourth child, Edward. You ever hear about that dude? Nope. 

[conVINCEd 21473]

4 minutes ago, Sandman said:

I just can't imagine how he came to that decision. 

"Yeah, you're right. I don't want to live in palaces or have a staff of servants that handle my everyday needs. And I certainly don't want to be paid a salary for just walking around, breathing and shit. Fuck my grandma's stupid lifestyle, let's move to Canada."

I can understand why he wouldn't want to be in the limelight but he's not the heir, his brother gets to take all that shit. He can chill in relative anonymity if he wants. I constantly forget the QEII has a fourth child, Edward. You ever hear about that dude? Nope. 

You forgot prima nocta.

[Doc Reeves 6434]

13 minutes ago, Sandman said:

I just can't imagine how he came to that decision. 

"Yeah, you're right. I don't want to live in palaces or have a staff of servants that handle my everyday needs. And I certainly don't want to be paid a salary for just walking around, breathing and shit. Fuck my grandma's stupid lifestyle, let's move to Canada."

I can understand why he wouldn't want to be in the limelight but he's not the heir, his brother gets to take all that shit. He can chill in relative anonymity if he wants. I constantly forget the QEII has a fourth child, Edward. You ever hear about that dude? Nope. 

She was having a hard time with the media and argued that their kids would have to see that like he did with his mother when the tabloids sniffed out her affair (and also Charles’ but kept it hush for a little while) and who he also blames for her death.

now, they get to go be celebrities in Vancouver, British Colombia which is also (surprise) the film capital of Canada. She can revel in her status as a celebrity without doing any of the real work for obtaining it. While they still can’t directly profit from once being royals, that could prove impossible. 
 

Shits already in motion:

 

Harry and Meghan in Netflix's sights, says streaming firm's chief

Ted Sarandos confirms interest in Sussexes after palace announced new arrangements 

Caroline Davies

Sun 19 Jan 2020 08.49 ESTLast modified on Sun 19 Jan 2020 10.58 EST

Netflix is among global companies eyeing up the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as the couple step into a new future as private individuals, liberated from the monarchy and unfettered by official financial constraints on their commercial deals.

Hours after Buckingham Palace announced Harry and Meghan would no longer formally represent the Queen, the streaming giant’s chief content officer, Ted Sarandos, said of working with the couple: “Who wouldn’t be interested? Yes, sure.” 

The couple’s soon-to-be new status as non-working royals could see them following the example of the former US first couple Barack and Michelle Obama, who agreed a production deal with Netflix to make TV and film projects. The Sussexes will spend the majority of their time in Canada, with Harry expected to join Meghan and their son Archie there later this week.

The divorce deal, thrashed out over 10 days of turmoil, involved complicated issues, with the Queen demanding solutions be found within days, not weeks. This “necessitated a number of detailed conversations between officials and members of the family”, a source said.

But talks were said to have been “extremely friendly and constructive because the common goal was clear, as was the desire to reach a successful conclusion – everyone was pleased to have got here today”, claimed the source. This is in contrast to the “hurt” and “disappointment” senior royals were said to have felt when the couple unilaterally released their agenda without forewarning the Queen, Prince of Wales, and Duke of Cambridge.

 

The Queen made her first appearance following the announcement when she was joined by Prince Andrew at St Mary the Virgin church in Norfolk to attend a Sunday service.

As questions remain over how the Sussexes will choose to live, Meghan’s estranged father, Thomas Markle, has been outspoken in his criticism. Speaking to a Channel 5 documentary, yet to be aired, he reportedly said the couple were in danger of “turning into lost souls” .

“They are turning it [royal family] into Walmart with a crown on,” he reportedly said.

Under the arrangement announced on Saturday, the couple will retain their HRH – His and Her Royal Highness – styles, but it is said they will not use them. They will go by Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

The couple will repay the £2.4m public funds used to refurbish Frogmore House, their official residence in Windsor, which will remain largely empty in the near future as they relocate to Canada. They will pay commercial rent on the property. They will no longer receive public funding through the sovereign grant, although they will remain funded privately by the Prince of Wales.

They will retain their patronages, but Harry, a former soldier, will have to give up his honorary military titles, including that of captain general of the Royal Marines, passed on to him by Prince Philip.

Crucially, the Sussexes are “required” to step down from royal duties. They had hoped, as previously stated on their sussexroyal.comwebsite, for a half-in half-out role and intended to “continue to carry out duties for Her Majesty” as well as “works for the monarchy within the UK or abroad, as called upon”. However, as is now clear, the Queen will not be calling on their services, though they will still be able to attend family occasions such as Trooping the Colour.

The complexities of mixing commercial deals without tarnishing the reputation of the royal family is clearly thought to have been too great a risk. Already, new video footage showing the couple at the movie premiere of Disney’s Lion King in London is circulating. It shows Harry telling the film’s director, Jon Favreau, that Meghan is available for voiceover work, with Meghan seemingly joking: “That’s really why we’re here – it’s the pitch.”

The duchess has since struck a deal for voiceover work with Disney, in exchange for a charitable donation. Last year, it emerged Harry is to work with Oprah Winfrey on a documentary on mental health for Apple TV.

As it stands, the Sussex deal allows the couple financial freedom to trade on their international celebrity though they have said “everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty”. The arrangement will be reviewed in 12 months’ time.
 

The Queen, in her personal statement, acknowledged the “intense scrutiny” the couple had endured. The question remains if it will be less intense in North America, where there are broader freedoms over issues such as privacy, and where use of paparazzi photographs is not constrained by the agreed stricter rules of the UK media, drawn up following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

Mark Thompson, the CEO of the New York Times and a former BBC director general, said he believed it could be managed, especially if “you’re not saying stuff, you’re not doing the kind of things that the paparazzi and celebrity hounds find interesting, you begin to have a quieter life” .

“There are plenty of cases of big movie stars who have done that,” he told the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday. They could hide, and have a better chance of living a quiet life compared with “spending the entire time inside the royal system”, he said. “ I kind of believe that could work for them.”

Edited January 19, 2020 by Doc Reeves

[Guest Lobo]

54 minutes ago, Sandman said:

I can understand why he wouldn't want to be in the limelight but he's not the heir, his brother gets to take all that shit. He can chill in relative anonymity if he wants. I constantly forget the QEII has a fourth child, Edward. You ever hear about that dude? Nope. 

Who's the third child?  You got Chuck, the pederass, Edward, and who's the third guy?  Jose Carreras?  

Considering how many Canadians were sky-murdered recently, is this really the best time for these to be stealing all the Canadian headlines?  I'm all for being left alone and making your own way in life, but they had to know on some level this is a horrible fucking time to be eating up the limelight in Canada.  I guess they're sorta on the Queen's timeline here, but considering the relationship that still remains to this day between Canada and the Monarchy, shouldn't her cunt-ass have known better as well?  I mean, yeah you can't put all royal on business on hold while this airliner incident gets fully investigated.  But I mean, they're still shipping body parts back to Canada for burial and this is all the news up there is talking about is their new residents.  

[Sandman 3419]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

Who's the third child? 

Anne, she was actually the 2nd child. Charles, Anne, Andrew the Pedo, Edward.

[Loco 3754]

 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21983]

Why would anyone voluntarily move to Canada?

[Dewey 3298]

3 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Why would anyone voluntarily move to Canada?

Because ice is in limited supply? 

[RPM 26368]

17 hours ago, tbone_ said:

I don’t give two shits about these people but that could be the dumbest move ever.

You don't give up mailbox money. 

[RomaVicta 30033]

A lot of smart people contributing to one of the dumbest threads I've ever seen. 

The pose that the world and the only motivation of men is pussy and easy money is pretty embarrassing. The assumption that we have much of an idea of what goes on in the depths of another family is ill-founded.

I've only browsed the above article (thanks Doc Reeves) to know what's going on. 

Maybe it's actually love and happiness that drive men rather than pussy and money. Stunning revelation, I know. Do you make marital choices based on the quality of the vagina? Should I assume that when I meet your wife and assume your father decided the same way?

No. It's love. Why men (at least the ones I observe on the message boards of America) run away from that word is mysterious to me. Can it really be fear of appearing soft? Really? I prefer to think it's part of the message board locker room bs, but it's rather pervasive.

Money over happiness? That's what someone should choose? You could argue that money can ease the way to happiness, and I will heartily agree. But what if you're not free to do what you want with it? What if your life is constrained in ways that you don't like? What if you really don't like being a royal freak show instead of a more normal person? I say you choose happiness or your best guess at what might make you happy.

I know nothing of these people. I just ascribe normal motivations to them. They may be headed for disaster. She may be the wicked witch some of you claim. They could both be wicked for all I know. That said, maybe they are just two people who love each other, got married, and found that the life his title forces them to lead will destroy them as a couple.

They'll have money still. They'll have attention, still, but it likely will taper off to something less intense than royal scrutiny. 

Good luck to them. 

Oh, and I'm in the camp that's mystified that anybody cares about the Royals in the first place.

[Zombie 284]

26 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

A lot of smart people contributing to one of the dumbest threads I've ever seen. 

The pose that the world and the only motivation of men is pussy and easy money is pretty embarrassing. The assumption that we have much of an idea of what goes on in the depths of another family is ill-founded.

I've only browsed the above article (thanks Doc Reeves) to know what's going on. 

Maybe it's actually love and happiness that drive men rather than pussy and money. Stunning revelation, I know. Do you make marital choices based on the quality of the vagina? Should I assume that when I meet your wife and assume your father decided the same way?

No. It's love. Why men (at least the ones I observe on the message boards of America) run away from that word is mysterious to me. Can it really be fear of appearing soft? Really? I prefer to think it's part of the message board locker room bs, but it's rather pervasive.

Money over happiness? That's what someone should choose? You could argue that money can ease the way to happiness, and I will heartily agree. But what if you're not free to do what you want with it? What if your life is constrained in ways that you don't like? What if you really don't like being a royal freak show instead of a more normal person? I say you choose happiness or your best guess at what might make you happy.

I know nothing of these people. I just ascribe normal motivations to them. They may be headed for disaster. She may be the wicked witch some of you claim. They could both be wicked for all I know. That said, maybe they are just two people who love each other, got married, and found that the life his title forces them to lead will destroy them as a couple.

They'll have money still. They'll have attention, still, but it likely will taper off to something less intense than royal scrutiny. 

Good luck to them. 

Oh, and I'm in the camp that's mystified that anybody cares about the Royals in the first place.

Agreed with all that. I think it's weird that people find it weird that a young couple would want to leave the microscopic constant scrutiny of London for a low key relaxed life in a beautiful place like Vancouver.  London's a fun city, but I would find raising children there overwhelming. Vancouver, if that's their destination, is a gorgeous city with wide open green spaces, a great culinary scene, and a chill pace of life. IMO, a much better place to raise children and just a generally better quality of life than a hectic city like London. 

[Doc Reeves 6434]

1 hour ago, Zombie said:

Agreed with all that. I think it's weird that people find it weird that a young couple would want to leave the microscopic constant scrutiny of London for a low key relaxed life in a beautiful place like Vancouver.  London's a fun city, but I would find raising children there overwhelming. Vancouver, if that's their destination, is a gorgeous city with wide open green spaces, a great culinary scene, and a chill pace of life. IMO, a much better place to raise children and just a generally better quality of life than a hectic city like London. 

well, the English monarchy was the seat of the Anglican Church which give legitimacy to their thrown. The monarchy is seen a an actual calling by God Himself, so it is a religious position as well as a political one.  Hence, just saying “nah, I don’t feel like it” is a bit like Jesus saying the same about dying on the cross. 
 

Also, a little of ‘don’t let the door hit you....’:

 

She may be the Duchess of Sussex, but Meghan Marklehas yet to be accepted for British citizenship — andMegxit may stop her from ever obtaining it, according to a report Thursday.

The “Suits” star started the process toward getting a British passport soon after her May 2018 royal wedding to Prince Harry, the sixth in line to the throne, according to The Times of London.

She was bestowed her Duchess of Sussex title, and a year later gave birth to a royal baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor — but still could not skip the normal process for citizenship, the report said.

Most crucially, her application relies on her spending most of her time in the UK — completely at odds with her widely reported plans to mostly skip Britain and instead settle in Canada and then eventually Los Angeles.

 

“She may quickly run into trouble when calculating her permissible absences from the UK,” said an article in Free Movement, a website set up by immigration lawyer Colin Yeo.

Buckingham Palace has always stressed she would not get preferential treatment in the process, which requires her to have lived in the UK for five years before lodging an official application, the UK Times said.

Once she applies, the rules state she must not have been out of the country for more than 270 days in the past three years, or 90 days in the previous month.

“She is going to be at the top end of that,” immigration lawyer Philip Trott told the paper. “There is no harm in being out, as long as you spend most of your time here.

”The advice we normally give to clients is that most of your time means six months and one day every year,” he said — far more than reports suggest the Duchess wants to spend in Blighty.

One solution would be if Harry landed a diplomatic role overseas — such as governor general of Canada — which would make all their time abroad count the same as being home in Britain. That is unlikely to fit with their stated goals for more independence, however.

Either way, the duchess’ spokeswoman insisted to the paper, “There is no change in the fact that she is pursuing the path to British citizenship.”

[Not a cat 5726]

"Once she applies, the rules state she must not have been out of the country for more than 270 days in the past three years, or 90 days in the previous month."

She should have no problem meeting that second one, at least.

[WhatTheBuck 28814]

5 hours ago, Doc Reeves said:

She can revel in her status as a celebrity without doing any of the real work for obtaining it.

Sort of like being born to the royal family. 

[tx 3 putt 77612]

she's not going back 

[Doc Reeves 6434]

23 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Sort of like being born to the royal family. 

While you’re point is valid, being a royal is different than being a celebrity

[Zombie 284]

39 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

While you’re point is valid, being a royal is different than being a celebrity

True. A celebrity usually worked hard and earned their status like Meghan did. The royals were just born into it. I have a lot more admiration for Meghan than some inbred royal who did nothing to deserve their status. 

[Doc Reeves 6434]

2 minutes ago, Zombie said:

True. A celebrity usually worked hard and earned their status like Meghan did. The royals were just born into it. I have a lot more admiration for Meghan than some inbred royal who did nothing to deserve their status. 

hmmm...  

I would check on their life of service and the history of their family. They are hard, cold, ruthless motherfuckers who’s family business is running the world. MM is a B- actress who no one gave a shit about.

[RPM 26368]

This won't be the first time a royal has stepped down for love. Edward VIII abdicated to marry a divorced American sloot.

[mchookem 16415]

curious...does this mean that Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor is also out of the family? 

that name is more british than Benedict Cumberbatch lol

[naija 2869]

hmmm...  
I would check on their life of service and the history of their family. They are hard, cold, ruthless motherfuckers who’s family business is running the world. MM is a B- actress who no one gave a shit about.

Jesus Christ dude, why are you taking it so personally? Talk about unhinged.

[Doc Reeves 6434]

1 minute ago, naija said:

 

Jesus Christ dude, why are you taking it so personally? Talk about unhinged.

 

Lol

thats me

[G650 14278]

27 minutes ago, RPM said:

This won't be the first time a royal has stepped down for love. Edward VIII abdicated to marry a divorced American sloot.

Personally I think he was looking for a way out and Wallis gave him the excuse.

[Zombie 284]

1 hour ago, Doc Reeves said:

hmmm...  

I would check on their life of service and the history of their family. They are hard, cold, ruthless motherfuckers who’s family business is running the world. MM is a B- actress who no one gave a shit about.

They haven't run the world in 200 years and more realistically closer to 400 years. They have been nothing more than glorified mascots since then. MM may not have been A-list, but I read she managed to make 4 or 5 million and did it through her own hard work. I find that far more impressive than merely being born into a family and making quaint speeches at supermarket openings. 

[Guest Lobo]

21 minutes ago, Zombie said:

They haven't run the world in 200 years and more realistically closer to 400 years. They have been nothing more than glorified mascots since then. MM may not have been A-list, but I read she managed to make 4 or 5 million and did it through her own hard work. I find that far more impressive than merely being born into a family and making quaint speeches at supermarket openings. 

200-400 years since their peak?  While I agree with the second part of your post, I think your history degree did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.  

[Doc Reeves 6434]

👍🏻

[tx 3 putt 77612]

1 hour ago, RPM said:

This won't be the first time a royal has stepped down for love. Edward VIII abdicated to marry a divorced American sloot.

His love of hitler’s cock was also in play here 

[Zombie 284]

19 minutes ago, Lobo said:

200-400 years since their peak?  While I agree with the second part of your post, I think your history degree did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.  

I'm referring to the royals, not the UK. The Bill of RIghts in 1689 affirmed parliamentary supremacy over the monarchy. The Reform Act of 1832 further diminished the already limited power of the monarch. In terms of actual power, I think my assertion is not especially controversial or disputed by historians. But I agree that I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the UK beyond some Wikipedia browsing, so I could well be off on my understanding. 

[Surly Bevo 25226]

 

[Guest Lobo]

17 minutes ago, Zombie said:

I'm referring to the royals, not the UK. The Bill of RIghts in 1689 affirmed parliamentary supremacy over the monarchy. The Reform Act of 1832 further diminished the already limited power of the monarch. In terms of actual power, I think my assertion is not especially controversial or disputed by historians. But I agree that I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the UK beyond some Wikipedia browsing, so I could well be off on my understanding. 

Fair point.  Should have been clearer to me about them being glorified mascots, but everything else suggested just the UK and not exclusive to the crown.  We could debate for years over how inseparable, or not as it were, for centuries.  Anyway, I see your point.  Gotta give 'em credit, they've hung on elegantly in the face of complete and total worthlessness.  It'd be like beck and orlando's great, great, great granchildren still being connected to football.  

[gsoda3 3284]

4 hours ago, Doc Reeves said:

well, the English monarchy was the seat of the Anglican Church which give legitimacy to their thrown.

the monarchy was around way before the establishment of the church of england.

Edited January 20, 2020 by gsoda3

[HouTex 1894]

200-400 years since their peak?  While I agree with the second part of your post, I think your history degree did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.  

This. Under Queen Victoria, the sun never sat on the British Empire. They controlled something like 2/3 of the world’s population.

[TwiceHorn 31624]

18 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

the monarchy was around way before the establishment of the church of england.

And the notion of rule by divine right long preceded the Church of England.  And even Christianity, for that matter.

It's a worldwide, cross-cultural phenomenon.

[gsoda3 3284]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And the notion of rule by divine right long preceded the Church of England. And even Christianity, for that matter.

It's a worldwide, cross-cultural phenomenon.

yup.  one of the reasons why dieu et mon droit is in french and not english.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

3 hours ago, RPM said:

This won't be the first time a royal has stepped down for love. Edward VIII abdicated to marry a divorced American sloot.

And he was an absolute disgrace and a fucking traitor that almost single-handedly destroyed the monarchy.

[HouTex 1894]

And he was an absolute disgrace and a fucking traitor that almost single-handedly destroyed the monarchy.

Based on everything I’ve read, he really loved Wallis. The nazi sympathy stuff, per my avatar’s writings and from his biographers, was not clear cut. He wanted to avoid another war (like Baldwin and Chamberlain) but if he was a true nazi there’s no way Churchill would have supported him. And it cost Churchill dearly.

As for his marriage to Wallis, he believed he was King and he should be able to marry whoever he wished. Henry VIII and all. Their marriage was long-lasting. Pussy remained undefeated.

[gsoda3 3284]

11 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

And he was an absolute disgrace and a fucking traitor that almost single-handedly destroyed the monarchy.

there's a new book out proposing wallis simpson was trying to break up with him but that he and others in power wouldn't let her go.  believe what you want of it (i don't).

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

His father, George V, was quoted saying something to the effect that Edward would destroy himself within 12 months after assuming the throne which was spot on. He obviously had contempt for his role as head of the Church of England. Some things are more important than the love of a thrice divorced American admirer of fascism. He also wanted to change the constitutional tradition and role of a monarch. Everything I have read about him disgusts me to the core. I can’t stand traitors. In 20 years there will be more files released by the Windsor Castle archives that will have more evidence of his treachery I’m sure.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Being a fake Royal isn't for everyone, but they could've done a better job of hiding what shitty human beings they are.

[TeddyBearStallion 73]

On 1/9/2020 at 11:21 AM, Doc Reeves said:

 

Also, American 7s are British 12s

You're joking right?   I've never seen such a high concentration of talent anywhere as I have in the UK.  

 

True Story, I was riding a train in Scotland with Miss Manchester 2009 Sara Beverley.  I got so distracted by her that I left my jacket (in Scotland of all places) on the train because I was so focused on helping her with her luggage.  She had a pert derriere, I might add...  and yes, I do have pics.  

[workswithseed 2122]

2 minutes ago, TeddyBearStallion said:

You're joking right?   I've never seen such a high concentration of talent anywhere as I have in the UK.  

 

True Story, I was riding a train in Scotland with Miss Manchester 2009 Sara Beverley.  I got so distracted by her that I left my jacket (in Scotland of all places) on the train because I was so focused on helping her with her luggage.  She had a pert derriere, I might add...  and yes, I do have pics.  

Well I'd call that an outlier, but I would love to see pics. 

[Michael Knight 12997]

13 hours ago, Sandman said:

I just can't imagine how he came to that decision. 

"Yeah, you're right. I don't want to live in palaces or have a staff of servants that handle my everyday needs. And I certainly don't want to be paid a salary for just walking around, breathing and shit. Fuck my grandma's stupid lifestyle, let's move to Canada."

I can understand why he wouldn't want to be in the limelight but he's not the heir, his brother gets to take all that shit. He can chill in relative anonymity if he wants. I constantly forget the QEII has a fourth child, Edward. You ever hear about that dude? Nope. 

He's still incredibly rich,  now he has 0 responsibility

[Zombie 284]

38 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Well I'd call that an outlier, but I would love to see pics. 

Agreed. I lived in London for a time and while there is certainly a concentration of talent in certain upscale parts, the vast majority look like Alabamans with worse teeth if that can be imagined. 

[TeddyBearStallion 73]

40 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Well I'd call that an outlier, but I would love to see pics. 

 

Here you go.  It took me a little while to dig around but I found it.  

  

 

Edited January 20, 2020 by TeddyBearStallion