Jump to content

Shits going down with the Royals

Zombie

By Zombie
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours 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.

The fucked up thing that is glossed over in all this is that Harry and Meghan are paying back $2.4 million dollars worth of renovations to their "cottage.". This was paid by the public while they were "royals" in a fucking democracy. And they are even paying that back with money that was derived from the same ill gotten gains. 

Democracies don't have monarchs. Fuck them all.  England is brexiting against the wrong thing.  Some working class schmo put a few of his hard earned pounds toward renovating the house of the grandson of a powerless queen. Why prop that bullshit up anymore?  

France did it right. Versailles now belongs to the people of France. There is no royal family even though there are plenty of descendants of French kings around.  Buckingham Palace?  It isn't England's.

Edited by FondrenRoad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 905
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Your Mom
Your Mom

The only thing that was bungled was the collective actions of millions of nosy gossip mongers who mistakenly thought they were entitled to know her whereabouts and all the goings-on that were none of

Huckleberry
Huckleberry

We fought a war so I wouldn't have to even ignore threads about this kind of shit on my favorite American message boards. That was literally in the Declaration of Independence. LITERALLY

ftf82
ftf82

Posted Images

formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

The fucked up thing that is glossed over in all this is that Harry and Meghan are paying back $2.4 million dollars worth of renovations to their "cottage.". This was paid by the public while they were "royals" in a fucking democracy. And they are even paying that back with money that was derived from the same ill gotten gains. 

Democracies don't have monarchs. Fuck them all.  England is brexiting against the wrong thing.  Some working class schmo put a few of his hard earned pounds toward renovating the house of the grandson of a powerless queen. Why prop that bullshit up anymore?  

France did it right. Versailles now belongs to the people of France. There is no royal family even though there are plenty of descendants of French kings around.  Buckingham Palace?  It isn't England's.

I don’t see any real difference between a hereditary head of state and an elected one. It’s not like US taxpayers don’t pay millions of dollars for the upkeep of the President and his family-including redecorating the White House every time there’s a new one. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31440

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I don’t see any real difference between a hereditary head of state and an elected one. It’s not like US taxpayers don’t pay millions of dollars for the upkeep of the President and his family-including redecorating the White House every time there’s a new one. 

That's an excellent point, particularly given who is in the White House.  But they are all expensive to maintain.

Of course you can argue that they have to maintain the PM and other actual government officials and the royals are an extra burden.

Also, as pointed out earlier, while it is a cost to the UK citizen, it is not paid from general revenue.  If the Crown Estate, and Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster were not owned by the royals, they would likely be mostly in private hands and the only public revenue would be taxation on the properties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tbone_

tbone_ 14113

Posted
Posted

On the news this morning the question was why can’t they continue in some limited royal capacity. Answer was because the rest of the family didn’t want them out there pursuing commercial interests while supposedly still being royals.

So that’s it then. They are going to be the British Kardashians. Way too much money to ignore I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

The fucked up thing that is glossed over in all this is that Harry and Meghan are paying back $2.4 million dollars worth of renovations to their "cottage.". This was paid by the public while they were "royals" in a fucking democracy. And they are even paying that back with money that was derived from the same ill gotten gains. 

Democracies don't have monarchs. Fuck them all.  England is brexiting against the wrong thing.  Some working class schmo put a few of his hard earned pounds toward renovating the house of the grandson of a powerless queen. Why prop that bullshit up anymore?  

France did it right. Versailles now belongs to the people of France. There is no royal family even though there are plenty of descendants of French kings around.  Buckingham Palace?  It isn't England's.

You're discounting the value of a constitutional monarch's role as a non-political, unifying symbol of the state. The tradition and history that the monarch as the ultimate representative of the British people. Compare that to our situation. Our head of state is the President who is currently despised by a huge slice of the population. We've had members of teams and entire teams skip championship commemorations at the White House under Trump. That would never happen in Britain. There would be respect and love for their head of state. There are many examples of where having royalty is a tremendous advantage. Look at Juan Carlos' role in helping Spain transition from Franco to democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

You're discounting the value of a constitutional monarch's role as a non-political, unifying symbol of the state. The tradition and history that the monarch as the ultimate representative of the British people. Compare that to our situation. Our head of state is the President who is currently despised by a huge slice of the population. We've had members of teams and entire teams skip championship commemorations at the White House under Trump. That would never happen in Britain. There would be respect and love for their head of state. There are many examples of where having royalty is a tremendous advantage. Look at Juan Carlos' role in helping Spain transition from Franco to democracy.

Yes, but they are going around using their Royal titles to beg for voiceover jobs. Traditionally, the royalty looked down on "work". It's a philosophical thing. You can either be above it all, or down in the muck with the commoners. They've clearly chosen muck. Though at the same time, their decision is partly motivated by this cultural thing where people view themselves as "global citizens".

Either way they're pointlessly shitting on their own family and tradition. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CooterBrown

CooterBrown 18004

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Why are the going to Canada first if it's already known they will wind up in LA?  Are they saving up for a down-payment on a place in LA?

Unless Harry wants to stir up another shitstorm and get a US green card, he's gonna have to be out of the US for a portion of each year. He can do Canada with no formalities since it's a Commonwealth country. I imagine you'll see them split time between the US and Canada for appearances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Yes, but they are going around using their Royal titles to beg for voiceover jobs. Traditionally, the royalty looked down on "work". It's a philosophical thing. You can either be above it all, or down in the muck with the commoners. They've clearly chosen muck. Though at the same time, their decision is partly motivated by this cultural thing where people view themselves as "global citizens".

Either way they're pointlessly shitting on their own family and tradition. 

It's very distasteful for Prince Harry and his wife to try to profit from his royal status. It's a sign of not understanding the spiritual role that they play both with the C of E and as the embodiment of the British people. They're supposed to be above the fray. I am sure Meghan before marrying thought that being a royal would not be much different than being a celebrity. She was probably shocked at the traditions and protocol that a royal has to abide by. She failed in her obligation in being prepared and to know what she was getting into. Marrying someone like her without the proper breeding, in not being from nobility, from a broken home will hopefully serve as a cautionary tale in future marriages in the House of Windsor. Marrying a commoner is riskier. Still you can find gems like Princess Kate, who has the class, sophistication, style and proper upbringing to confidently perform her duties. If I could have any woman in the world, it'd be her.

Edited by Iconoclast Texan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

It's very distasteful for Prince Harry and his wife to try to profit from his royal status. It's a sign of not understanding the spiritual role that they play both with the C of E and as the embodiment of the British people. They're supposed to be above the fray. I am sure Meghan before marrying thought that being a royal would not be much different than being a celebrity. She was probably shocked at the traditions and protocol that a royal has to abide by. She failed in her obligation in being prepared and to know what she was getting into. Marrying someone like her without the proper breeding, in not being from nobility, from a broken home will hopefully serve as a cautionary tale in future marriages in the House of Windsor. Marrying a commoner is riskier. Still you can find gems like Princess Kate, who was the class, sophistication, style and proper upbringing to confidently perform her duties. If I could have any woman in the world, it'd be her.

 

Right on but what does your husband think?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
G650

G650 14245

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, formermav43 said:

I don’t see any real difference between a hereditary head of state and an elected one. It’s not like US taxpayers don’t pay millions of dollars for the upkeep of the President and his family-including redecorating the White House every time there’s a new one. 

As I mentioned earlier, I think the hereditary ones are probably a better set than the current elected ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G650

G650 14245

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, formermav43 said:

I was just referring to paying for one vs the other in general. But yeah, I can actually see some advantages to the hereditary one.

Well, I wasn't really commenting on advantages of one or the other, rather that I would prefer our current elected ones die in a fire, whereas I'm pretty ambivalent on the royals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HornOnTheBayou

HornOnTheBayou 8919

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

It's very distasteful for Prince Harry and his wife to try to profit from his royal status. It's a sign of not understanding the spiritual role that they play both with the C of E and as the embodiment of the British people. They're supposed to be above the fray. I am sure Meghan before marrying thought that being a royal would not be much different than being a celebrity. She was probably shocked at the traditions and protocol that a royal has to abide by. She failed in her obligation in being prepared and to know what she was getting into. Marrying someone like her without the proper breeding, in not being from nobility, from a broken home will hopefully serve as a cautionary tale in future marriages in the House of Windsor. Marrying a commoner is riskier. Still you can find gems like Princess Kate, who has the class, sophistication, style and proper upbringing to confidently perform her duties. If I could have any woman in the world, it'd be her.

Icono is right. Kate obviously has her Texans jerseys tailored. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen. Applewhite

Gen. Applewhite 226

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

You're discounting the value of a constitutional monarch's role as a non-political, unifying symbol of the state. The tradition and history that the monarch as the ultimate representative of the British people. Compare that to our situation. Our head of state is the President who is currently despised by a huge slice of the population. We've had members of teams and entire teams skip championship commemorations at the White House under Trump. That would never happen in Britain. There would be respect and love for their head of state. There are many examples of where having royalty is a tremendous advantage. Look at Juan Carlos' role in helping Spain transition from Franco to democracy.

Username does not check out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Reeves

Doc Reeves 6434

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

A bunch of dudes gossiping seven pages about the daily goings on of Harry and Megan. If manly dudes are this vexed, just think of the general public. Yep they are going to be uber rich in whatever endeavours they choose to do. 

you’re absolutely right. 
 

if you feel inclined to see people really freaking out you should check out the comments and letters to the editors in Hong Kong, Australia and japan in regards to articles about how the monarchy is a complete waste of time. Some superlative aggying going on right now

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31440

Posted
Posted

What's kind of ironic is that, rather than escaping fame/notoriety, they're just creating more.  I get that maybe royals get more scrutiny and perhaps unfavorable scrutiny.

But with all this nonsense, they're sure to attract unfavorable scrutiny for the rest of their lives.

Attention horse gonna attention horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

What's kind of ironic is that, rather than escaping fame/notoriety, they're just creating more.  I get that maybe royals get more scrutiny and perhaps unfavorable scrutiny.

But with all this nonsense, they're sure to attract unfavorable scrutiny for the rest of their lives.

Attention horse gonna attention horse.

They don't really want to escape fame. They want to profit from it. They will now be Instagram/Twitter influencers and probably already have the following to make 50 to 100 million a year doing it.  The hard part of building an attention whore empire is already done. They don't need to build it from the ground up like the Kardashians did. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tbone_

tbone_ 14113

Posted
Posted
They don't really want to escape fame. They want to profit from it. They will now be Instagram/Twitter influencers and probably already have the following to make 50 to 100 million a year doing it.  The hard part of building an attention whore empire is already done. They don't need to build it from the ground up like the Kardashians did. 

Exactly this. They don’t want less attention. They want more than the royal family will let them have. And they want to exercise their god given right to get paid for it which the royal family won’t let them do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20561

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

They don't really want to escape fame. They want to profit from it. They will now be Instagram/Twitter influencers and probably already have the following to make 50 to 100 million a year doing it.  The hard part of building an attention whore empire is already done. They don't need to build it from the ground up like the Kardashians did. 

 

1 hour ago, tbone_ said:

Exactly this. They don’t want less attention. They want more than the royal family will let them have. And they want to exercise their god given right to get paid for it which the royal family won’t let them do.

Yeah, it sure seems like instead of following the family tradition of using their status for charitable works, they're hoping to profit off the family name and not have to bother with showing up to hospitals and the like.  The talk of wanting "financial independence" is laughable.  In addition to daddy still paying allowance, I'm pretty sure any business pursuits are going to capitalize off the family connection.  They're not going to be living off of MM going back to a B cable series regular salary.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Reeves

Doc Reeves 6434

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Duty to your homeland, honor, faith, tradition, etc.... I can go on and on

There is a cultural divide here. That’s the reason Americans are trying to shoehorn racism and sexism in this because it’s the only frame of reference they have to put it in.

 

-And if the go to TV they will literally put the Kardashians out of business. I might tune in for that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Loco

Loco 3752

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

There is a cultural divide here. That’s the reason Americans are trying to shoehorn racism and sexism in this because it’s the only frame of reference they have to put it in.

 

-And if the go to TV they will literally put the Kardashians out of business. I might tune in for that.

So in your mind, what are the factors leading the British tabloid press to attack Megan for the same deeds they praised Kate?  Why did they equate Megan's child with a chimpanzee?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Reeves

Doc Reeves 6434

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Loco said:

So in your mind, what are the factors leading the British tabloid press to attack Megan for the same deeds they praised Kate?  Why did they equate Megan's child with a chimpanzee?

 

The tabloids are not synonymous with both the British people or the monarchy. 90% of British people don’t give a shot about any of that. 

itd be like basing your whole view of an issue off Fox News

Edited by Doc Reeves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Loco

Loco 3752

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

The tabloids are not synonymous with both the British people or the monarchy. 90% of British people don’t give a shot about any of that. 

itd be like basing your whole view of an issue off Fox News

You mean like a large chunk of the US does?   Kinda makes my point.   Media has been weaponized to either delight or disgust...  that's how you keep an audience.  I can fully understand why Harry & Megan would want to extricate themselves from a formal structure that would expose their family to that kind of vitriol.  It seems to me they are getting slammed for making some money for themselves while simultaneously gaining more control of their media exposure and narrative.

or perhaps he put the pussy on the pedestal..  idk idc

Edited by Loco
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Doc Reeves said:

There is a cultural divide here. That’s the reason Americans are trying to shoehorn racism and sexism in this because it’s the only frame of reference they have to put it in.

 

-And if the go to TV they will literally put the Kardashians out of business. I might tune in for that.

Very well said. Completely agree. I value monarchy and tradition because of my heritage. We had a monarchy that lasted for 2,500 years replaced by an Islamic Republic that has been ruthless and murderous. The same happened in Russia after Tsar Nicholas and his family were killed replaced by Soviet tyranny. I am jealous of the countries with constitutional monarchs. Identity politics obsessed American don’t have appreciation for what royalty brings - majesty, spiritual enlightenment, something to aspire to better than what is common and ordinary, national pride and unity. 

Edited by Iconoclast Texan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Reeves

Doc Reeves 6434

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Loco said:

You mean like a large chunk of the US does?   Kinda makes my point.   Media has been weaponized to either delight or disgust...  that's how you keep an audience.  I can fully understand why Harry & Megan would want to extricate themselves from a formal structure that would expose their family to that kind of vitriol.  It seems to me they are getting slammed for making some money for themselves while simultaneously gaining more control of their media exposure and narrative.

or perhaps he put the pussy on the pedestal..  idk idc

Your pint is absolutely correct. This is a weaponized attack on her. There lots of mud being thrown, but it’s not just simply because she’s a woman or part black, it’s because she’s a commoner. 

They came after her hard, much like they did Diana in the 80s and instead of being miserable and plugging on she got her husband to leave the monarchy. Taken on it’s face it doesn’t seem that important but it an incredible shift of power

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...