Meghan and Harry to step back from front line Royalising

Would you buy a puppy from this couple!

 

Some of the stuff I've been reading about them today in a lot of the papers makes me understand completely why they want out. Talk about character assasination. It even looks like they were trying to do it the right way until someone at the Palace leaked it.

 

Man U fan, of course.

 

I have no time for any of the people involved, but the fact that Meghan triggers so many people and organisations I viscerally loathe leads me to believe there must be something good about her.

On the other hand, the craven evil of our tabloid press is beyond doubt. This article throws further light:
https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/...pttt1wfj?format=amp&__twitter_impression=true

 

Sums up the royals that Harry and Megan saying they want a quiet life is considered worse than Prince Andrew hanging out with a nonce and banging underage girls.

 

I don’t think it’s “worse”, I just think it is reflective of a willingness to abide by the rules of the game.. Andrew has probably accepted his wrongdoing and been disciplined by “The Firm”. Whereas the whole point about H & M is that they are refusing to abide by its rules.

Ie one is trying to keep it in-house, the other is refusing to do so.

 

P O P B I T C H advertise quite a few "Media Masterclass Evenings" where, as it says on the tin, a 'meeja expert' tells all. I've been to a few and they've been quite a laugh. I went to one a while ago on 'The Future of Privacy' where the subject of the Royal Family came up. Because the 'Firm' are so old-fashioned they employ all the right people who basically are all very old-school, very loyal and keep their mouths shut - they don't tell any tales out of school - all of the newsprint "Royal Correspondents" basically just regurgitate palace press reports or 'make stuff up' - they have no 'special access'. Each of the tier one royals have their own media team and all are subordinate to the Buck Palace team: H(M)Q. If anything leaks out it's only because it has been sanctioned by HQ. Lessons were learnt during the Diana/Charles media war particularly Diana's 'manipulation' of the media which is now seen as more "manipulation by the media".

I can only imagine that the entire media management team knows the entire monarchy's on shaky ground at the moment as last summer's prorogation omnishambles has show that the entire "Guardians of the Country's Constitution" defence has been publicly proven to be ********. Some of them know the game's up.

 

Do you? I suspect the vast majority of Express/Mail/Torygraph readers have entirely forgotten about it, and if they do recall it, think Boris and Queenie did the right thing.

Guardianistas and Corbynistas may not have done, but who cares about them anymore?

 

Amol Rajan tweeted earlier this week to congratulate John Humphrys on joining the Daily Mail. A number of people pointed out the Mail's many loathsome takes on asylum etc its virulent anti BBC stance and Humphrys tabloid style behaviour presenting Today, indicating they were sadly a fit. Rajan took offence and blamed twitter folk and their behaviour as if the Daily Mail is a normal and respectable choice of employer. It's not, it's firmly in the Dark Lord's terrain and anyone working for it is a first order scumbag.

 

What discipline does 'The Firm' dish out for paedophilia?

 

Meghan wants a quiet life away from the Royals so that when she leaves him whilst living abroad somewhere there will be less of a fuss.

 

I'm ambivalent about the monarchy as an institution. I don't see much need for them but they do bring in a few quid from tourists, more than they cost, so I don't think the 'outrageous burden on the public purse' thing matters. What they do with it is important to some extent and if the two intending defectees are aiming to be self-sufficient that is to be encouraged. They broadly do stuff promoting good causes eg. mental health, Grenfell etc and if they use their name/current titles to get publicity for those causes, that's fine by me.

I despise the tabloid press however, twisting and spinning things to suit their own agenda, which is ALWAYS aimed at protecting their own financial and political interests, appealing to the lowest common denominator among their easily-led readership. Their hounding of anyone who doesn't dance to their merry tune is abhorrent, defended by the claim of 'free speech' but constantly abusing that privilege with their poisonous (and in this case, subtly racist) 'reporting'.

I couldn't really care what a couple of royals want to do to make their lives easier but I do care how the tabloid press and their sycophantic supporters (eg. Eamon ******* Holmes) respond to it.

 

I love 'breaking the rules' and others that do too.

 

Being forced to shag someone who's reached the age of consent?

 

Agree with this. I'm not staunch Royalist, but like it or not the monarchy is a big part of our country's history and I don't think dumpstering it just so we can vote in some Z list reality TV "celebrity" as head of state accomplishes much.

 

Why couldn't we vote in someone really worthy as President?

 

We could. We could vote anyone in as head of state.

That's the entire bloody problem.

 

Yeah because The Queen has so much control at the moment.

 

True, but we’d end up with Farage or Jade Goody’s corpse as Presidente if left to the public.

 

Or someone like Trump, an utter **** with lots of money and a big mouth - Piers Morgan for example, God help us!

 

And there was I thinking we already had someone just like that...

 

The amount of cover this drivel has received is an obscenity.

 

I love how there are still thickos who believe the "they bring in more money from tourism than they cost" myth.

Do some research.

 

From the geordies:

 

I’m not racist and I’m fed up of being accused of being so.

I don’t care what colour skin she, or anyone has. For the record, nor do I care if you’re gay, or if you’re religious, or if you think Jeremy Corbyn is our lord and saviour.

I dislike Megan because she’s American. And in my eyes, that’s unforgivable.

 

Every time a royal article makes the news, a vast proportion of Brits read the story, post online that they have no idea how the story constitutes news, and then cannot understand why the story gets loads of traction.

A major reason the royals are all over the newspapers is because, despite your insistence that the articles aren’t worthy of your attention, it’s one of the only articles you post about online.

You are making it news because you clearly aren’t as ambivalent as you think.

 

This thread has now been on here for six days. It's only on page two. I'd suggest that if it concerned a 'major political event' then it'd have run to a lot more than that by now even if the Politics section has been off-limits for a bit.

I've posted four times previously. Six lines in total. None of them anything at all about the supposed 'substance' of the thread. Just taking the p.ss really. I can assure you that had there been any real 'substance' to this thread then I'd have been a lot more verbose.

So I'd also suggest that, as you say, this nation is largely composed of a lot of grovelling sycophants, curtseyers and forelock tuggers but the 'politicos' on here aren't representative of that pathetic situation.

 

Who is accusing you of being racist? Genuine question.

 

The voices in my head.

 

Think you might have missed the joke there.

 

Er.... ok... I'll just go & sit down over there...

 

In your defence, it was a rather pointless, flat joke.

I thought was a hilarious piece of witty prose when I wrote it...

Then I woke up, sober.