Sorry for the typos below - browser difficulties - a late nineteenth-century *figure* like Charles Dilke, that should say, *and* who were essentially radical Whig aristocrats, in the case of how Dilke and his wife helped pave the way for the Labour Party.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Surely by that definition, Churchill wasn't a Tory as he was a Liberal for a time? And Cecil Parkinson canvassed for Labour in the 1950s.
Thinking people develop their views over time and experiment politically as youngsters. It's utterly ludicrous to label someone as "not a Tory" for life because they were a Lib Dem at university, or republican at one time. She was, and changed her mind.
Churchill shared essential Tory values as did Parkinson so could choose their party and both were monarchists.
Anyone who is a republican however by definition cannot and never will be a Tory however, if Truss is now a monarchist and as far as I see she has not made any republican statements recently then it is possible she may be a Tory now
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.
For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.
It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.
This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint
Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.
Check out the list of Royal engagements (published by some nuttermonarchist archivist in The Times each year). Hundreds and hundreds overall.
When some institution or other gets a visit from a member of the Royal Family it is a matter of huge anticipation and excitement.
Meanwhile, there are not that many working royals.
Not sure what slimming down ou are expecting, save to get rid of Sandringham/Balmoral perhaps saving a few quid.
The only people who will take the side of Harry and Meghan are those who dislike the monarchy anyway. Both of them have seen their popularity drop markedly with the general public, according to Yougov.
I think what shocked Meghan, and there are quotations saying similar things from the interview in The Times today, was that the reality of the monarchy was different to the fairytale image they have in the States.
It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.
I think she thought she was signing up to be "Leading Lady" only to find it was a "Supporting Role".
Rental homes have 1 family in them (unless they are housing of multiple occupation which is a different matter).
And how does a rental home with 1 family in it becoming a owner occupied home with 1 family in it change the dynamics of the rental market. Demand for rental housing drops by 1 house, supply of rental housing also drops by 1 house - in a market with x million rental properties the impact is always zero.
No, because the population is constantly evolving with new people being born and growing up to need somewhere to live, and older people dying. If you have a policy that gradually shifts rented accommodation to accommodation for sale, the pool of rented homes for the next cohort shrinks (other things being equal).
The effect can be seen in council housing. The pool of council housing shrinks every year because people exercise their right to buy. In due course, the buyers move on and buy somewhere else, and the property becomes free - but only for people able to buy.
It's possible to argue for this to happen on the grounds that you believe that as many people as possible should own their homes, as you think it makes society more stable or more Conservative-voting or any other worthy or less worthy aim. But it does make life harder for the nearly half of the population who really can't afford to buy or who (like me) don't want to, so even if one thinks it's a good thing the downside should be acknowledged.
It wouldnt be gradually shifting the status quo from rented to owner occupied, it would be stopping the massive shift from owner occupied to rented that has happened in the last 25 years since btl mortgages took off and have become seen as both easy money and the best way to save for a pension (which in turn has a further negative impact on UK investment).
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Edit - And I notice you've gone all Corbynite calling unimpeachable facts 'smears.'
The smear was the implied motivation you ascribed for the Quern’s decision. That’s not a fact.
But Dave wasn't involved day to day with that in the way that the Queen was involved in a daily basis with Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex.
You are stating as fact things which you simply do not know to be true.
The reason Harry's child did not automatically get a title is, as others have pointed out, because the rule is that grandchildren of the monarch get a title. Archie is not the grandchild of a monarch but will become one when Charles becomes King. An exception was made for William and Kate's children because they are in the direct line of succession. They are simply - from a protocol perspective - more important than someone who is 6th or 7th in line to the throne. Bluntly, once William married and had children, Harry and anyone he married and their children are no longer important. Useful additions and colour but not central to it. That seems to have grated with them both.
You and I may think such things silly but to whine about them as if they were the most outrageous example of cruelty is frankly pathetic.
HMQ has repeatedly said publicly how impressed she was at how Meghan became a part of the family, how loved and cherished they are. Charles stepped in when Meghan's father did not attend his daughter's wedding, an act of kindness and welcome. Even Harry himself said publicly on the Today programme after the invitation to Sandringham over Xmas (something which neither Kate nor Sarah Ferguson nor Sophie Wessex ever got) how welcoming the family had been and that they had been the family Meghan had never had, a statement which annoyed some of the Markle relatives. All these statements and actions have been thrown back in the face of HMQ.
Family rows in public are distasteful and demeaning of all those concerned. Doing it to raise your profile and make yourself an even more sellable commodity is particularly unworthy. A real shame.
I am with @kle4 on this. They keep saying how they want to do good and talk about the causes close to their heart but all they seem to want to talk about is themselves and how badly they claim they've been treated. It is tiresome.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
Not even Victorian.
The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.
William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
Tory members give a +66% rating to a Secretary of State who's department manages the internal UK border which he himself denies exists.
So they rate stupid liars very highly...
Given their policies and propaganda it is surely a near essential requirement. Someone like Hancock does get away with minimising his number of lies by saying he is very busy with covid, but for the most of the cabinet it is a daily part of the job. Shapps and Johnson leading the way in this skill.
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
Just a minor private backyard wedding with the Archbishop of Canterbury, then effectively a service of Thanksgiving at Windsor Castle with the Archbishop too
I'm not really interested in the "he said, she said" stuff as we've only heard one side of the story, but that claim that they were already married struck me as quite a big deal, as if true it would land the Archbishop of Canterbury in very hot water.
Surely they had a private blessing with the Archbishop and not an actual wedding?
The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
A friend who came to a Labour dinner was placed next to Maria Eagle, who has a keen mind but isn't famous for her frivolity. He asked her in all innocence whether she was a member of this troupe that he'd read about. She was Not Amused.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, who is a Conservative secretary of state, is not a Tory.
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.
For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.
It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.
This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint
Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.
The interview has generated a lot of breathless coverage but is a damp squib in my opinion.
The central accusation, that someone speculated crassly on a future child’s skin colour, is incredibly dull.
That's the only allegation that I find substantive tbh, but that's probably because I'm in a mixed race marriage myself so maybe I'm more alert to that kind of casual racism. Though I'd probably give it a pass if it was Philip and understand if the Queen's reactions was "it's Philip, deal with it".
The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, who is a Conservative secretary of state, is not a Tory.
One irony of the British monarchy that has always amused me is the most significant monarchs are almost all those who should not have become monarch.
In particular, if I was to name the three "best" monarchs of the UK I would say in Queen Elizabeth, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II . . . which is a bit of an oddity for a line led by Agnatic Cognatic Primogeniture.
I believe even in The Times birth notice for her majesty that it mentioned that she was in line of succession but extremely unlikely to become monarch.
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.
For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.
It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.
This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint
Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.
A "slimed down" monarchy, eh? A vivid suggestion, but could get messy.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, who is a Conservative secretary of state, is not a Tory.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, who is a Conservative secretary of state, is not a Tory.
In particular, if I was to name the three "best" monarchs of the UK I would say in Queen Elizabeth, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II . . . which is a bit of an oddity for a line led by Agnatic Cognatic Primogeniture.
More than two to one is a strange reporting of 43%. It could alternatively be reported as a majority think the country will be at least as good as a republic.
The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
I think if it was Philip it would have been brushed off and they wouldn't be livid. I don't think Harry would be angry at his 99 year old grandad having said something off. People laugh off nonsense their grandparents say.
The fact they're so angry does indeed imply to me that it was not Philip they're talking about.
I'm not really interested in the "he said, she said" stuff as we've only heard one side of the story, but that claim that they were already married struck me as quite a big deal, as if true it would land the Archbishop of Canterbury in very hot water.
Surely they had a private blessing with the Archbishop and not an actual wedding?
They apparently said or implied it was the actual wedding. Now that's not very likely as the Archbishop of Canterbury is the last person you would think would hold a fake marriage service.
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
Just a minor private backyard wedding with the Archbishop of Canterbury, then effectively a service of Thanksgiving at Windsor Castle with the Archbishop too
“Just the three of us” would not constitute a legal wedding: there have to be at leadt two witnesses don’t there?
And surely this will be easily verified or not by some not particularly enterprising member of the press ordering their marriage certificate from the GRO?
Mr. Thompson, doesn't always work out. Edward II had an elder brother (Alfonso, I think) who died as a child but later than usual (10, or suchlike). And Richard II was the real heir but such a devious little shit he ended up causing the Wars of the Roses.
I'm not really interested in the "he said, she said" stuff as we've only heard one side of the story, but that claim that they were already married struck me as quite a big deal, as if true it would land the Archbishop of Canterbury in very hot water.
Surely they had a private blessing with the Archbishop and not an actual wedding?
They apparently said or implied it was the actual wedding. Now that's not very likely as the Archbishop of Canterbury is the last person you would think would hold a fake marriage service.
Hmmm Well I think the CoE had better clear this up asap lol!
The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
And also pick one version - currently there are two, Harry's (pre-marriage) and Meghan's (while she was pregnant).
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.
For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.
It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.
This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint
Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.
A "slimed down" monarchy, eh? A vivid suggestion, but could get messy.
IIRC Charles wants to bin most of the Civil List etc.
Under Blair, there was a hilarious moment when a suggestion from Charles was considered - getting rid of the Civil List, in return for the returning the full revenue of the estates etc. Apparently it took some time for various people to realise that the Royals would get more money, and the (theoretical) control of the Crown by Parliament would be removed.
The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
And also pick one version - currently there are two, Harry's (pre-marriage) and Meghan's (while she was pregnant).
Or 2 separate incidents, one before and one after.
Morning and on topic: Yet again no mention of the person who (i) currently holds down a prestige, big beast cabinet job and is doing so with ease, (ii) is of a good age and looks the part, (iii) has an aura of competence, (iv) comes over as a decent and likable sort, (v) is a true blood leaver but is not overly divisive, (vi) is slated to deputize as PM when Johnson goes missing, (vii) has a Con members approval rating of +67.7 which is a podium and not far off that of the 2nd place of absolute boy Rishi Sunak, and (viii) is called DOMINIC RAAB.
I'm on him as next Tory leader at 20 and I'm pretty happy with that as we speak.
The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
I think if it was Philip it would have been brushed off and they wouldn't be livid. I don't think Harry would be angry at his 99 year old grandad having said something off. People laugh off nonsense their grandparents say.
The fact they're so angry does indeed imply to me that it was not Philip they're talking about.
Not sure I agree on this point. He's one of a few of the most likely candidates I think, but as people have said, until or unless they name names, this is still just an incomplete accusation at this point.
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.
For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.
It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.
This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint
Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.
Check out the list of Royal engagements (published by some nuttermonarchist archivist in The Times each year). Hundreds and hundreds overall.
When some institution or other gets a visit from a member of the Royal Family it is a matter of huge anticipation and excitement.
Meanwhile, there are not that many working royals.
Not sure what slimming down ou are expecting, save to get rid of Sandringham/Balmoral perhaps saving a few quid.
The only people who will take the side of Harry and Meghan are those who dislike the monarchy anyway. Both of them have seen their popularity drop markedly with the general public, according to Yougov.
You are HYUFD and I claim £5.
Have Yougov polled people who have had time to process what has been said? Or just the briefings, attacks and leaks against them prior to them speaking?
Nah Sean is quite right. The number of people in the UK who will have their view on the monarchy changed by this is tiny. This wasn't even for the UK market. The couple have burnt all their bridges here already. This was purely for the sake of their new home country - hence the predictable and obvious accusations of racism. It is straight out of the PR playbook.
Any British republicans who were hoping this was going to change opinion in the UK are going to be sadly disappointed.
There's more than just the UK that has Her Majesty as head of state. There are 16 countries that do. Many of the 16 do not have a white majority too.
This won't just be playing out in the UK but in Jamaica and other countries too. The terrible way Meghan has been treated both in the past and this week will not have endeared the monarchy to Jamaicans and others I suspect.
But it is inevitable and right that those countries will eventually choose to follow the majority of their fellow Commonwealth colleagues and remove the Queen as head of state. Something I completely understand. That is of no import as far as I am concerned. My comment is purely about the claims this significantly increases support for republicanism in this country which is very much wishful thinking by anti-monarchists like yourself.
Edit: And Meghan was only treated terribly in her own mind. It bears no relation to reality.
The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.
Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
This looks like a slide in Nicola's numbers to me - it wasn't the same metric, but the favourability/unfavourability metric was weighted far more heavily in her favour before.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Link please - or do you make the rules?
The Tory Party was founded as the party of the Court and the crown and the Church of England and the landed gentry as opposed to the Whigs (the ancestors of the Liberals), the party of merchants and nonconformists
What it was then and what it is now are two very different things
The interview has generated a lot of breathless coverage but is a damp squib in my opinion.
The central accusation, that someone speculated crassly on a future child’s skin colour, is incredibly dull.
That's the only allegation that I find substantive tbh, but that's probably because I'm in a mixed race marriage myself so maybe I'm more alert to that kind of casual racism. Though I'd probably give it a pass if it was Philip and understand if the Queen's reactions was "it's Philip, deal with it".
I think the other message to be drawn from this accusation is that it was pretty dumb and emotionally unintelligent of Harry to pass the comment back to his wife ffs!
The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
I think if it was Philip it would have been brushed off and they wouldn't be livid. I don't think Harry would be angry at his 99 year old grandad having said something off. People laugh off nonsense their grandparents say.
The fact they're so angry does indeed imply to me that it was not Philip they're talking about.
Not sure I agree on this point. He's one of a couple of the most likely candidates I think, but as have people have said until or unless they name names, it's just an accusation so far.
He's the most obvious candidate but he's also the one it would be expected from. I highly doubt Harry would be angry at him for it, he'd roll his eyes behind his back but understand it comes from the place of being a nonagenarian. Old people say stupid things.
I didn't want the interview but from the sound of it Harry is angry about it. That to me rules out Philip which means look at the less obvious candidates. I don't believe Philip saying something like that would wind up Harry so much.
If a professional investigator was asked to investigate such an allegation, the first thing they would do is ask the complainant for the name of the person who said the alleged remark, when, who else was present, whether it was repeated, what was said in reply, the context, whether there was anything written down afterwards, who else was told about it etc.
I note that a professional interviewer (Oprah) was unable to ask even these most basic questions, which doesn't say much for her interviewing skills, frankly.
In the absence of such details, it is virtually impossible to investigate such a vague allegation.
Making such a claim without being willing to back it up with details is nasty because it is impossible for anyone to defend themselves against it or for there to be any form of closure.
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.
For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.
It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.
This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint
Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.
Check out the list of Royal engagements (published by some nuttermonarchist archivist in The Times each year). Hundreds and hundreds overall.
When some institution or other gets a visit from a member of the Royal Family it is a matter of huge anticipation and excitement.
Meanwhile, there are not that many working royals.
Not sure what slimming down ou are expecting, save to get rid of Sandringham/Balmoral perhaps saving a few quid.
The only people who will take the side of Harry and Meghan are those who dislike the monarchy anyway. Both of them have seen their popularity drop markedly with the general public, according to Yougov.
You are HYUFD and I claim £5.
Have Yougov polled people who have had time to process what has been said? Or just the briefings, attacks and leaks against them prior to them speaking?
Nah Sean is quite right. The number of people in the UK who will have their view on the monarchy changed by this is tiny. This wasn't even for the UK market. The couple have burnt all their bridges here already. This was purely for the sake of their new home country - hence the predictable and obvious accusations of racism. It is straight out of the PR playbook.
Any British republicans who were hoping this was going to change opinion in the UK are going to be sadly disappointed.
There's more than just the UK that has Her Majesty as head of state. There are 16 countries that do. Many of the 16 do not have a white majority too.
This won't just be playing out in the UK but in Jamaica and other countries too. The terrible way Meghan has been treated both in the past and this week will not have endeared the monarchy to Jamaicans and others I suspect.
But it is inevitable and right that those countries will eventually choose to follow the majority of their fellow Commonwealth colleagues and remove the Queen as head of state. Something I completely understand. That is of no import as far as I am concerned. My comment is purely about the claims this significantly increases support for republicanism in this country which is very much wishful thinking by anti-monarchists like yourself.
Edit: And Meghan was only treated terribly in her own mind. It bears no relation to reality.
I think to non-royalists like yourself Meghan getting slandered in the press with character assassination attempts relating to a period she was struggling with her mental health, prior to her speaking about herself struggling with her mental health, is a terrible way to treat her.
The bombardment against her for weeks and months now in the media is terrible and has been coming from the palace or friends of the palace. That is reality.
Discretion would have been the better part of valour. The palace should have not leaked or said anything prior to this - all the bullying in the Mail in recent months against her just feeds into what she had to say.
The monarchy would have been better advised to keep a stoic silence on this matter - and encouraged their friendly press to do the same. Instead of seeking to destroy someone feeding into what they have to say.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
Not even Victorian.
The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.
William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
If a professional investigator was asked to investigate such an allegation, the first thing they would do is ask the complainant for the name of the person who said the alleged remark, when, who else was present, whether it was repeated, what was said in reply, the context, whether there was anything written down afterwards, who else was told about it etc.
I note that a professional interviewer (Oprah) was unable to ask even these most basic questions, which doesn't say much for her interviewing skills, frankly.
In the absence of such details, it is virtually impossible to investigate such a vague allegation.
Making such a claim without being willing to back it up with details is nasty because it is impossible for anyone to defend themselves against it or for there to be any form of closure.
Quite correct. Any one of us can fling mud, but should be expected to back our allegations with specifics.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
Not even Victorian.
The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.
William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
These online lessons aren't all they are cracked up to be.
I think I'll drop this politics for beginners course and go learn a language instead.
It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.
You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
Its clearly not intended to - it's already been said theres more to come and not including full details in some allegations is designed for a sequel.
But it should be closed. You cannot maintain royal aloofness if princes are wrestling in the dirt in front of the peasants. Even if he raises more things go silent.
The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.
Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
That's great. I imagine that gave both of them a good chuckle.
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.
For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.
It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.
This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
Not even Victorian.
The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.
William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
But its not the same party and doesn't have the same principles.
The whole "we married in secret with the AoC" stuff makes me think that Harry isn't the brightest.
Trump was right, you can't trust those liberal communists, one moment they are threatening the end of the American way of life, the next they are conducting illegal marriage ceremonies.
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.
For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.
It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.
This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint
Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.
Check out the list of Royal engagements (published by some nuttermonarchist archivist in The Times each year). Hundreds and hundreds overall.
When some institution or other gets a visit from a member of the Royal Family it is a matter of huge anticipation and excitement.
Meanwhile, there are not that many working royals.
Not sure what slimming down ou are expecting, save to get rid of Sandringham/Balmoral perhaps saving a few quid.
The only people who will take the side of Harry and Meghan are those who dislike the monarchy anyway. Both of them have seen their popularity drop markedly with the general public, according to Yougov.
You are HYUFD and I claim £5.
Have Yougov polled people who have had time to process what has been said? Or just the briefings, attacks and leaks against them prior to them speaking?
Nah Sean is quite right. The number of people in the UK who will have their view on the monarchy changed by this is tiny. This wasn't even for the UK market. The couple have burnt all their bridges here already. This was purely for the sake of their new home country - hence the predictable and obvious accusations of racism. It is straight out of the PR playbook.
Any British republicans who were hoping this was going to change opinion in the UK are going to be sadly disappointed.
There's more than just the UK that has Her Majesty as head of state. There are 16 countries that do. Many of the 16 do not have a white majority too.
This won't just be playing out in the UK but in Jamaica and other countries too. The terrible way Meghan has been treated both in the past and this week will not have endeared the monarchy to Jamaicans and others I suspect.
But it is inevitable and right that those countries will eventually choose to follow the majority of their fellow Commonwealth colleagues and remove the Queen as head of state. Something I completely understand. That is of no import as far as I am concerned. My comment is purely about the claims this significantly increases support for republicanism in this country which is very much wishful thinking by anti-monarchists like yourself.
Edit: And Meghan was only treated terribly in her own mind. It bears no relation to reality.
I think to non-royalists like yourself Meghan getting slandered in the press with character assassination attempts relating to a period she was struggling with her mental health, prior to her speaking about herself struggling with her mental health, is a terrible way to treat her.
The bombardment against her for weeks and months now in the media is terrible and has been coming from the palace or friends of the palace. That is reality.
Discretion would have been the better part of valour. The palace should have not leaked or said anything prior to this - all the bullying in the Mail in recent months against her just feeds into what she had to say.
The monarchy would have been better advised to keep a stoic silence on this matter - and encouraged their friendly press to do the same. Instead of seeking to destroy someone feeding into what they have to say.
So let's get this right - Meghan is justified in using the media to get her point across, but the domestic staff who allegedly suffered bullying at her hands should just stfu?
If a professional investigator was asked to investigate such an allegation, the first thing they would do is ask the complainant for the name of the person who said the alleged remark, when, who else was present, whether it was repeated, what was said in reply, the context, whether there was anything written down afterwards, who else was told about it etc.
I note that a professional interviewer (Oprah) was unable to ask even these most basic questions, which doesn't say much for her interviewing skills, frankly.
In the absence of such details, it is virtually impossible to investigate such a vague allegation.
Making such a claim without being willing to back it up with details is nasty because it is impossible for anyone to defend themselves against it or for there to be any form of closure.
Oprah must have done thousands of interviews, but is she a professional interviewer in the sense of seeking to extract info like that? She's an entertainment superstar not an interrogator.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
Not even Victorian.
The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.
William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
I, like all others on here, am most likely a direct descendant of an ape. There may be some residual behavioural similarities on some days, but for the most part I'd like to think we have all evolved quite a bit since then! The Tory Party? Who knows?
Just as an aside, is anyone here into esports (either watching or betting)? Just curious.
Not sure if it's classed as an esport, but me and 2 of my 3 lads really got into playing Warzone during the first lockdown and all of my sons watch live tournaments of various of games and esports as well as streams of pro players . I've got 54 year old eyes and reactions, so I mostly die very quickly and they have to buy me back, or I pilot a chopper or drive a jeep while they do the actual skilful stuff- sort of like in real life where I taxi them about. At the risk of opening up the BBC argument again, they never watch "live" TV, but do watch live game streams and YouTube. They find the concept of actually paying to watch something bizarre. As my youngest tells me, it's free somewhere on the internet.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
Not even Victorian.
The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.
William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
These online lessons aren't all they are cracked up to be.
I think I'll drop this politics for beginners course and go learn a language instead.
I think I might do a thread on the original Tory party's support for Jacobism.
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
Just a minor private backyard wedding with the Archbishop of Canterbury, then effectively a service of Thanksgiving at Windsor Castle with the Archbishop too
“Just the three of us” would not constitute a legal wedding: there have to be at leadt two witnesses don’t there?
And surely this will be easily verified or not by some not particularly enterprising member of the press ordering their marriage certificate from the GRO?
It's an odd claim to make. If it turns out to be untrue, then it risks undermining the veracity of the other claims they make.
If true then it is very odd because for a marriage to be legal there need to be two witnesses and it is curious that the AoC and the whole Royal Family would go along with a sham.
I am curious about it from a professional perspective. Often in investigations people make a claim which can easily be checked and turns out to be untrue. They do it to bolster their case but of course it does the opposite. If people lie about X, why wouldn't they also lie about Y and Z etc.
So I'll be interested to see what, if anything, we learn about this.
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
Just a minor private backyard wedding with the Archbishop of Canterbury, then effectively a service of Thanksgiving at Windsor Castle with the Archbishop too
She wasn't taking the risk of him doing a runner! (I used to work with a guy who did that....)
Just the three of us? Erm, don't you need a witness or two to sign bits of paper?
That's not a legal wedding if there were only 3 of them.
There's usually some wonderful musician providing wonderful music for the guests during the signing of the register. ISTR reports of this at their wedding too. So were they all, participants and witnesses, just twiddling their thumbs at that point?
I'd prefer to ignore it all and just wait for the next big thing, really, but this seems a bit daft.
It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.
You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
She's a political animal.
You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
Not even Victorian.
The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.
William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
I, like all others on here, am most likely a direct descendant of an ape. There may be some residual behavioural similarities on some days, but for the most part I'd like to think we have all evolved quite a bit since then! The Tory Party? Who knows?
Oh I don't know, Johnson is still a bit of a toraig ( vagabond ).
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.
For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.
It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.
This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.
For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.
It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.
This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint
Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.
Check out the list of Royal engagements (published by some nuttermonarchist archivist in The Times each year). Hundreds and hundreds overall.
When some institution or other gets a visit from a member of the Royal Family it is a matter of huge anticipation and excitement.
Meanwhile, there are not that many working royals.
Not sure what slimming down ou are expecting, save to get rid of Sandringham/Balmoral perhaps saving a few quid.
The only people who will take the side of Harry and Meghan are those who dislike the monarchy anyway. Both of them have seen their popularity drop markedly with the general public, according to Yougov.
You are HYUFD and I claim £5.
Have Yougov polled people who have had time to process what has been said? Or just the briefings, attacks and leaks against them prior to them speaking?
Nah Sean is quite right. The number of people in the UK who will have their view on the monarchy changed by this is tiny. This wasn't even for the UK market. The couple have burnt all their bridges here already. This was purely for the sake of their new home country - hence the predictable and obvious accusations of racism. It is straight out of the PR playbook.
Any British republicans who were hoping this was going to change opinion in the UK are going to be sadly disappointed.
There's more than just the UK that has Her Majesty as head of state. There are 16 countries that do. Many of the 16 do not have a white majority too.
This won't just be playing out in the UK but in Jamaica and other countries too. The terrible way Meghan has been treated both in the past and this week will not have endeared the monarchy to Jamaicans and others I suspect.
But it is inevitable and right that those countries will eventually choose to follow the majority of their fellow Commonwealth colleagues and remove the Queen as head of state. Something I completely understand. That is of no import as far as I am concerned. My comment is purely about the claims this significantly increases support for republicanism in this country which is very much wishful thinking by anti-monarchists like yourself.
Edit: And Meghan was only treated terribly in her own mind. It bears no relation to reality.
I think to non-royalists like yourself Meghan getting slandered in the press with character assassination attempts relating to a period she was struggling with her mental health, prior to her speaking about herself struggling with her mental health, is a terrible way to treat her.
The bombardment against her for weeks and months now in the media is terrible and has been coming from the palace or friends of the palace. That is reality.
Discretion would have been the better part of valour. The palace should have not leaked or said anything prior to this - all the bullying in the Mail in recent months against her just feeds into what she had to say.
The monarchy would have been better advised to keep a stoic silence on this matter - and encouraged their friendly press to do the same. Instead of seeking to destroy someone feeding into what they have to say.
So let's get this right - Meghan is justified in using the media to get her point across, but the domestic staff who allegedly suffered bullying at her hands should just stfu?
Except the Palace have been briefing against Meghan for months now, Meghan only spoke for the first time last night.
I am suggesting the Palace would have been better advised to stay above it until now at least, then respond if necessary. Instead their attempts to pre-empt the interview feed into the narrative that she was the one bullied not the bully.
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
Just a minor private backyard wedding with the Archbishop of Canterbury, then effectively a service of Thanksgiving at Windsor Castle with the Archbishop too
“Just the three of us” would not constitute a legal wedding: there have to be at leadt two witnesses don’t there?
And surely this will be easily verified or not by some not particularly enterprising member of the press ordering their marriage certificate from the GRO?
It's an odd claim to make. If it turns out to be untrue, then it risks undermining the veracity of the other claims they make.
If true then it is very odd because for a marriage to be legal there need to be two witnesses and it is curious that the AoC and the whole Royal Family would go along with a sham.
I am curious about it from a professional perspective. Often in investigations people make a claim which can easily be checked and turns out to be untrue. They do it to bolster their case but of course it does the opposite. If people lie about X, why wouldn't they also lie about Y and Z etc.
So I'll be interested to see what, if anything, we learn about this.
I'd assume it merely not to be a literal statement. Sadly for investigators people are casual in language.
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.
For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.
It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.
This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint
Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.
Check out the list of Royal engagements (published by some nuttermonarchist archivist in The Times each year). Hundreds and hundreds overall.
When some institution or other gets a visit from a member of the Royal Family it is a matter of huge anticipation and excitement.
Meanwhile, there are not that many working royals.
Not sure what slimming down ou are expecting, save to get rid of Sandringham/Balmoral perhaps saving a few quid.
The only people who will take the side of Harry and Meghan are those who dislike the monarchy anyway. Both of them have seen their popularity drop markedly with the general public, according to Yougov.
You are HYUFD and I claim £5.
Have Yougov polled people who have had time to process what has been said? Or just the briefings, attacks and leaks against them prior to them speaking?
Nah Sean is quite right. The number of people in the UK who will have their view on the monarchy changed by this is tiny. This wasn't even for the UK market. The couple have burnt all their bridges here already. This was purely for the sake of their new home country - hence the predictable and obvious accusations of racism. It is straight out of the PR playbook.
Any British republicans who were hoping this was going to change opinion in the UK are going to be sadly disappointed.
There's more than just the UK that has Her Majesty as head of state. There are 16 countries that do. Many of the 16 do not have a white majority too.
This won't just be playing out in the UK but in Jamaica and other countries too. The terrible way Meghan has been treated both in the past and this week will not have endeared the monarchy to Jamaicans and others I suspect.
But it is inevitable and right that those countries will eventually choose to follow the majority of their fellow Commonwealth colleagues and remove the Queen as head of state. Something I completely understand. That is of no import as far as I am concerned. My comment is purely about the claims this significantly increases support for republicanism in this country which is very much wishful thinking by anti-monarchists like yourself.
Edit: And Meghan was only treated terribly in her own mind. It bears no relation to reality.
I think to non-royalists like yourself Meghan getting slandered in the press with character assassination attempts relating to a period she was struggling with her mental health, prior to her speaking about herself struggling with her mental health, is a terrible way to treat her.
The bombardment against her for weeks and months now in the media is terrible and has been coming from the palace or friends of the palace. That is reality.
Discretion would have been the better part of valour. The palace should have not leaked or said anything prior to this - all the bullying in the Mail in recent months against her just feeds into what she had to say.
The monarchy would have been better advised to keep a stoic silence on this matter - and encouraged their friendly press to do the same. Instead of seeking to destroy someone feeding into what they have to say.
So let's get this right - Meghan is justified in using the media to get her point across, but the domestic staff who allegedly suffered bullying at her hands should just stfu?
Except the Palace have been briefing against Meghan for months now, Meghan only spoke for the first time last night.
I am suggesting the Palace would have been better advised to stay above it until now at least, then respond if necessary. Instead their attempts to pre-empt the interview feed into the narrative that she was the one bullied not the bully.
The Palace remarks were made after the interview was recorded.
Ms Markle went into open warfare against our royal family after her taxpayer funded wedding and after she rose to A list status only because of her entry into it, she should not be surprised at the response
It has a clear hierarchy and is about duty and service, not privilege and luxury.
You fucking what? The queen has spent her entire "working" life being taken the races in a Rolls Royce (latterly a Bentley) and handed flowers.
No, she hasn't. If you think the Queen doesn't work hard and lead a life of duty, almost every single day, then you don't know much about the monarchy.
She's a political animal.
You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
Not even Victorian.
The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.
William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
But its not the same party and doesn't have the same principles.
The predecessor party died for a reason.
To be honest with you, I am taken aback by the number of people on here who claim to be Tory but are so outspoken anti monarchy.
The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.
Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
A friend was once deputed to escort the queen mum up some stairs. She gets out of the car (she's tiny, he's well over 6 feet) and she looks up at him. "Young man, are you drunk?" Shocked, stammers, "No, Ma'am". "Well I am, so you'd better help me up these stairs". Ice well and truly broken.....
If a professional investigator was asked to investigate such an allegation, the first thing they would do is ask the complainant for the name of the person who said the alleged remark, when, who else was present, whether it was repeated, what was said in reply, the context, whether there was anything written down afterwards, who else was told about it etc.
I note that a professional interviewer (Oprah) was unable to ask even these most basic questions, which doesn't say much for her interviewing skills, frankly.
In the absence of such details, it is virtually impossible to investigate such a vague allegation.
Making such a claim without being willing to back it up with details is nasty because it is impossible for anyone to defend themselves against it or for there to be any form of closure.
Oprah must have done thousands of interviews, but is she a professional interviewer in the sense of seeking to extract info like that? She's an entertainment superstar not an interrogator.
Oh come off it! You are given what looks like gold dust and you don't ask the obvious follow up question: who told you that?
No. This isn't interrogation. It is basic curiosity. And the lack of follow up is deliberate. It is wounding without striking. It is, frankly, despicable.
If someone had said something like that to me I'd have had it out with them right away and demanded an apology. Not brought it up two years later in a public forum in such a vague but harmful way.
Two days after my AZ/Oxford jab and I am feeling dreadful. Had a real bad night - fever, chills, terrible muscle pains and severe headache.
I knew there were some fever like effects for a day or so. But this has poleaxed me. Anyone else had a bad reaction? How many days does this last?
The first night I woke at 2am almost at the point of having a panic attack because the chills/shakes/convulsions were so bad. Couldn’t get out of bed for 2 days. Bang on 48 hrs after the jab I snapped back close to normal though felt tired for a few days more. Not looking forward to the second dose much but England expects every man must do his duty and all that.
Is it possible you'd already had Covid (possibly asymptomatic) ? Certainly so extreme a reaction seems to be more common in those who have had. Though I think the stats also suggest that fever is a more common reaction to the AZN vaccine when compared with some of the others.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
Not even Victorian.
The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.
William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
But its not the same party and doesn't have the same principles.
The predecessor party died for a reason.
In large part it is, 86% of Tory voters are monarchists for example, far more than support cutting tax for the rich or austerity now.
The Tory Party remains more a monarchist party than a hardline capitalist party, it is merely non socialist
If a professional investigator was asked to investigate such an allegation, the first thing they would do is ask the complainant for the name of the person who said the alleged remark, when, who else was present, whether it was repeated, what was said in reply, the context, whether there was anything written down afterwards, who else was told about it etc.
I note that a professional interviewer (Oprah) was unable to ask even these most basic questions, which doesn't say much for her interviewing skills, frankly.
In the absence of such details, it is virtually impossible to investigate such a vague allegation.
Making such a claim without being willing to back it up with details is nasty because it is impossible for anyone to defend themselves against it or for there to be any form of closure.
Oprah must have done thousands of interviews, but is she a professional interviewer in the sense of seeking to extract info like that? She's an entertainment superstar not an interrogator.
Oh come off it! You are given what looks like gold dust and you don't ask the obvious follow up question: who told you that?
No. This isn't interrogation. It is basic curiosity. And the lack of follow up is deliberate. It is wounding without striking. It is, frankly, despicable.
If someone had said something like that to me I'd have had it out with them right away and demanded an apology. Not brought it up two years later in a public forum in such a vague but harmful way.
She did follow up though. The clip was just played on Sky.
I have been very impressed with LIz Truss and she has enhanced her claim to the top spot
On the Megan interview I have to say it is very damaging to both sides and nobody can be sure how this pans out but I expect it will be extremely divisive
I am more than surprised that they were married 3 days before their lavish wedding ceremony and that was not known at the time of the ceremony
I do expect it ends their connection and titles with the Royal Family and it is certain changes will come about following the Queen's passing
They weren’t married 3 days before (except in their hearts).
It’s fine then wanting to say private vows. Expecting ++Cantab to officiate is a little pretentious
They were married three days before, not that it matters one jot. It’s fairly common nowadays.
For me, the explosive revelations are that the family had “concerns” about the colour of their child’s skin. I hadn’t expected that. It is horrific.
It's that last bit that both doesn't surprise but still leaves me wondering who was stupid enough to say it outside beyond the obvious suspect of Princess Michael of Kent.
Besides being very racist it is very dumb when meghan markle is pretty pale anyway, even a racist should calm down but they are not known for such.
It is very clever not to say who it was. Could be anyone, possibly very senior, so tars the lot and sets up a sequel. I'd have assumed phillip making a poor joke.
It's interesting to read twitter and David Allen Green's viewpoints.
This seems to sum things up as well and is my viewpoint
Once the Queen has gone a Republic or a very slimed down Family is the future. Sadly the latter was already in progress until Charles and William scared away the most useful part of it.
Check out the list of Royal engagements (published by some nuttermonarchist archivist in The Times each year). Hundreds and hundreds overall.
When some institution or other gets a visit from a member of the Royal Family it is a matter of huge anticipation and excitement.
Meanwhile, there are not that many working royals.
Not sure what slimming down ou are expecting, save to get rid of Sandringham/Balmoral perhaps saving a few quid.
The only people who will take the side of Harry and Meghan are those who dislike the monarchy anyway. Both of them have seen their popularity drop markedly with the general public, according to Yougov.
You are HYUFD and I claim £5.
Have Yougov polled people who have had time to process what has been said? Or just the briefings, attacks and leaks against them prior to them speaking?
Nah Sean is quite right. The number of people in the UK who will have their view on the monarchy changed by this is tiny. This wasn't even for the UK market. The couple have burnt all their bridges here already. This was purely for the sake of their new home country - hence the predictable and obvious accusations of racism. It is straight out of the PR playbook.
Any British republicans who were hoping this was going to change opinion in the UK are going to be sadly disappointed.
There's more than just the UK that has Her Majesty as head of state. There are 16 countries that do. Many of the 16 do not have a white majority too.
This won't just be playing out in the UK but in Jamaica and other countries too. The terrible way Meghan has been treated both in the past and this week will not have endeared the monarchy to Jamaicans and others I suspect.
But it is inevitable and right that those countries will eventually choose to follow the majority of their fellow Commonwealth colleagues and remove the Queen as head of state. Something I completely understand. That is of no import as far as I am concerned. My comment is purely about the claims this significantly increases support for republicanism in this country which is very much wishful thinking by anti-monarchists like yourself.
Edit: And Meghan was only treated terribly in her own mind. It bears no relation to reality.
I think to non-royalists like yourself Meghan getting slandered in the press with character assassination attempts relating to a period she was struggling with her mental health, prior to her speaking about herself struggling with her mental health, is a terrible way to treat her.
The bombardment against her for weeks and months now in the media is terrible and has been coming from the palace or friends of the palace. That is reality.
Discretion would have been the better part of valour. The palace should have not leaked or said anything prior to this - all the bullying in the Mail in recent months against her just feeds into what she had to say.
The monarchy would have been better advised to keep a stoic silence on this matter - and encouraged their friendly press to do the same. Instead of seeking to destroy someone feeding into what they have to say.
So let's get this right - Meghan is justified in using the media to get her point across, but the domestic staff who allegedly suffered bullying at her hands should just stfu?
Except the Palace have been briefing against Meghan for months now, Meghan only spoke for the first time last night.
I am suggesting the Palace would have been better advised to stay above it until now at least, then respond if necessary. Instead their attempts to pre-empt the interview feed into the narrative that she was the one bullied not the bully.
Except that's not true as we've had leaks about and from the Sussexes for years.
The palace definitely ramped up leaks in retaliation for the interview, which was unwise, but how were we already aware that the pair were unhappy with treatment from some royals? Because it is not the case they've not leaked stuff before now, that's really quite an absurd claim.
The palace have shot themselves in the foot somewhat, you dont hold the high ground by jumping off it, but it's just silly to act like until now it's all been one way.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
Not even Victorian.
The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.
William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
But its not the same party and doesn't have the same principles.
The predecessor party died for a reason.
To be honest with you, I am taken aback by the number of people on here who claim to be Tory but are so outspoken anti monarchy.
This surprises me much less post-Thatcher. It's often forgotten how both fervently monarchist and socially left-wing, by today's standards, the Critchley-era Tory Wets were, nowadays ; the Thatcherites saw themselves as the new broom in all this, while only paying lip service to the old Establishment.
The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
I was once responsible for looking after Philip on a royal walkabout, so got to observe him at close hand. His method of interacting with the crowd was to march up to anyone of an ethnic minority and ask them where they came from, or some similar question. Whatever the answer, he then followed up with an anecdote about how he had visited that country in the 1970s, or had relatives there, or knew their PM, or similar.
Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
That's great. I imagine that gave both of them a good chuckle.
I think unfortunately it is a often function of the age of the individual. I once remember my great embarrassment when my father (who would now be 94 were he still alive) was at an event in my village and asked a woman who was of Asian ethnicity "Where are you from?" "Cambridge" came the reply. We all knew what he meant, but he didn't intend to be offensive, he just thought he was making interested conversation.
Harry does surprisingly well there. Particularly when you look at the (apparent) question which is mark those you like the most, so it also intersects with those you have an opinion on at all or even know who they are. I know who the first six are without thinking, but even Duchess of Sussex isn't obvious to me (I recall the Sussex Royal branding and that's Harry and Meghan, so it must be Meghan?). I assume the next three after Charles are William an Kate's children? Duchess of Cornwall is Camilla?
So I'd probably only think about the first six and Charles, the rest I'd think 'meh', not even sure who they are, without a good bit of thought.
How can anyone even have an opinion on the children?
The only thing I will say on this Harry and Meghan crap is that if it is true some royal asked about what skin colour the baby would have then I can see why she'd instantly want out of it all depending on the response from the Queen about disciplinary action against whoever said it, assuming it wasn't Philip.
Now I shall go back to blocking it all out.
If true, name names and dates and to whom and all the details. Otherwise it's a nasty but conveniently vague smear.
I can only imagine it was Philip so no names are being named. If it was a minor royal and the Queen took no action then I would be livid just as both of them seem to be.
I think if it was Philip it would have been brushed off and they wouldn't be livid. I don't think Harry would be angry at his 99 year old grandad having said something off. People laugh off nonsense their grandparents say.
The fact they're so angry does indeed imply to me that it was not Philip they're talking about.
Not sure I agree on this point. He's one of a couple of the most likely candidates I think, but as have people have said until or unless they name names, it's just an accusation so far.
He's the most obvious candidate but he's also the one it would be expected from. I highly doubt Harry would be angry at him for it, he'd roll his eyes behind his back but understand it comes from the place of being a nonagenarian. Old people say stupid things.
I didn't want the interview but from the sound of it Harry is angry about it. That to me rules out Philip which means look at the less obvious candidates. I don't believe Philip saying something like that would wind up Harry so much.
I'd like to say I don't really care about the whole thing but that would be a lie. I'm not particularly a Royalist but I think on balance the royal family are good for the country.
I think they are deliberately and maliciously not naming who it was. I can well believe that one person did it (Prince Philip being the obvious one) but it casts the whole royal family under suspicion. They feel that they have been badly treated but they seem to be the ones throwing the stones. The context is also important. I don't see the harm in speculating just like you might speculate on what eye or hair colour a baby might have. If it was done in a disparaging way then that would clearly be offensive and racist.
Meghan said that she hadn't Googled Harry and didn't know about him. I am reminded of the Mrs Merton question... "What first attracted you to the Queen's grandson, Prince Harry?"
My final comment on this is to look at Meghan's history. She has managed to estrange herself from almost her entire family. This interview will have estranged them from all of Harry's family. Are all these other people all so awful that she has had to do this? Or is it more likely that the one person involved with both might be at fault?
If a professional investigator was asked to investigate such an allegation, the first thing they would do is ask the complainant for the name of the person who said the alleged remark, when, who else was present, whether it was repeated, what was said in reply, the context, whether there was anything written down afterwards, who else was told about it etc.
I note that a professional interviewer (Oprah) was unable to ask even these most basic questions, which doesn't say much for her interviewing skills, frankly.
In the absence of such details, it is virtually impossible to investigate such a vague allegation.
Making such a claim without being willing to back it up with details is nasty because it is impossible for anyone to defend themselves against it or for there to be any form of closure.
Oprah must have done thousands of interviews, but is she a professional interviewer in the sense of seeking to extract info like that? She's an entertainment superstar not an interrogator.
Oh come off it! You are given what looks like gold dust and you don't ask the obvious follow up question: who told you that?
No. This isn't interrogation. It is basic curiosity. And the lack of follow up is deliberate. It is wounding without striking. It is, frankly, despicable.
If someone had said something like that to me I'd have had it out with them right away and demanded an apology. Not brought it up two years later in a public forum in such a vague but harmful way.
She did follow up though. The clip was just played on Sky.
Indeed, Ive only seen the one minute clips from the news and it was clear this question was asked. Confused as to why others could possibly have a strong view that it was not asked.
A friend who came to a Labour dinner was placed next to Maria Eagle, who has a keen mind but isn't famous for her frivolity. He asked her in all innocence whether she was a member of this troupe that he'd read about. She was Not Amused.
Wasn't there once an MPs' football team, that boasted Ed Balls as star striker??
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss, in the Cabinet, isn't a Tory? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I think he means "Victorian Tory". :-)
Not even Victorian.
The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.
William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
The modern Conservative Party is a direct descendant of the original Tory Party, the modern Liberal Party is a direct descendant of the original Whig Party
But its not the same party and doesn't have the same principles.
The predecessor party died for a reason.
In large part it is, 86% of Tory voters are monarchists for example, far more than support cutting tax for the rich or austerity now.
The Tory Party remains more a monarchist party than a hardline capitalist party, it is merely non socialist
There is a difference between being monarchists and landed gentry.
The modern Tory party may have mostly monarchists in it, but it is not a party of, by or for the landed gentry as you claimed. It hasn't been since it was founded for a very good reason - far more than just the landed gentry vote.
Its perfectly possible to be a republican and a Tory - like myself, TSE, the most popular Tory Secretary of State amongst Tory members and many more.
The Queen's uncle was a Nazi sympathiser, Her Majesty herself used to do Nazi salutes, is it any surprise she didn't offer her first non white great-grandchild a title like she did for the Aryan looking Charlotte and Louis?
That’s a very unpleasant smear
Shame on you
Sorry Charles, the royal family has made both Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Duchess of Sussex have suicidal thoughts (and in the former's case, attempt to kill herself.)
This is a failing organisation led by an out of touch person, the Queen needs to go lest we do see an outsider end up killing themselves thanks to the rules of the 'firm.'
If this was any other organisation it would be called a failing institution with the police involved.
Utter rubbish, as to be expected by a non Tory republican like you.
Never have a seen I more pathetic example of narcissism and self indulgence from these 2 multi millionaires than seems to be the case with this interview.
Trashing in public the family who made them (with the exception of the Queen knowing full way if they attacked her that would destroy them), trashing Prince Charles despite all the funds they received from the Duchy of Cornwall. Factually wrong too, as Archie is not the son of an heir to the throne he by definition could not be a prince but he got a title as Earl of Dumbarton which they then renounced when they abandoned their royal duties.
I wish never to see or hear from this pair ever again and may they be exiled from these shores never to set foot here again. They are the 21st century Duke and Duchess of Windsor without the class!
BIB - I see you missed the Prince Andrew interview in 2019 then?
Also, I noticed last week you said Boris Johnson was a social democrat, so in your head he's as much as a Tory as me!
You can effectively be a social democrat, as distinct from being a socialist and still be a Tory, see Macmillan for example who effectively governed as a social democrat as Boris largely is now.
You cannot however be a republican and be a Tory.
Is there a checklist so one can check whether one is a Tory or not?
If you a republican you can be a centre right liberal but you cannot be a Tory, it is logically impossible, to be a Tory you have to be a monarchist
Eh? Liz Truss is a republican and she is in the Tory cabinet!
Liz Truss is not a Tory, she is a centre right liberal.
Hence she was originally in the Liberal Democrats (though I note even Truss seems to have quietly dropped her republicanism since becoming a Tory Cabinet Minister)
Liz Truss republicanism/HYUFD remainerism.
You are either both Tories or neither of you are.
Liz Truss is an ex LD on the liberal wing of the Conservative Party, as I said she is not a Tory
Then, sadly, neither are you.
I'm fairly sure that when we hear people talking about the 'bloody Tories', they make no such distinction...
If a professional investigator was asked to investigate such an allegation, the first thing they would do is ask the complainant for the name of the person who said the alleged remark, when, who else was present, whether it was repeated, what was said in reply, the context, whether there was anything written down afterwards, who else was told about it etc.
I note that a professional interviewer (Oprah) was unable to ask even these most basic questions, which doesn't say much for her interviewing skills, frankly.
In the absence of such details, it is virtually impossible to investigate such a vague allegation.
Making such a claim without being willing to back it up with details is nasty because it is impossible for anyone to defend themselves against it or for there to be any form of closure.
Oprah must have done thousands of interviews, but is she a professional interviewer in the sense of seeking to extract info like that? She's an entertainment superstar not an interrogator.
Oh come off it! You are given what looks like gold dust and you don't ask the obvious follow up question: who told you that?
No. This isn't interrogation. It is basic curiosity. And the lack of follow up is deliberate. It is wounding without striking. It is, frankly, despicable.
If someone had said something like that to me I'd have had it out with them right away and demanded an apology. Not brought it up two years later in a public forum in such a vague but harmful way.
Why would you if you know what is going to be said and where the barriers are.
You lead up to the important fact and then switch to the next topic - job done. Especially when the interviewees are paying for the interview and say have editorial control (don't know if they did or didn't but I can't see Megan being as stupid as Prince Andrew).
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
Comments
I mean, it’s crass, but quite normal. After all, part of Meghan’s attractive novelty was that she was bringing some non-white ethnicity to the family.
The whole affair is quite sad, and I would bet decent money that Harry and Meghan will have split within 5 years.
Which is a shame for Harry and for the monarchy. Meghan had star quality and her wedding choreography was excellent.
Anyone who is a republican however by definition cannot and never will be a Tory however, if Truss is now a monarchist and as far as I see she has not made any republican statements recently then it is possible she may be a Tory now
The "Leading Lady" slots are already filled.
So they rate stupid liars very highly...
The reason Harry's child did not automatically get a title is, as others have pointed out, because the rule is that grandchildren of the monarch get a title. Archie is not the grandchild of a monarch but will become one when Charles becomes King. An exception was made for William and Kate's children because they are in the direct line of succession. They are simply - from a protocol perspective - more important than someone who is 6th or 7th in line to the throne. Bluntly, once William married and had children, Harry and anyone he married and their children are no longer important. Useful additions and colour but not central to it. That seems to have grated with them both.
You and I may think such things silly but to whine about them as if they were the most outrageous example of cruelty is frankly pathetic.
HMQ has repeatedly said publicly how impressed she was at how Meghan became a part of the family, how loved and cherished they are. Charles stepped in when Meghan's father did not attend his daughter's wedding, an act of kindness and welcome. Even Harry himself said publicly on the Today programme after the invitation to Sandringham over Xmas (something which neither Kate nor Sarah Ferguson nor Sophie Wessex ever got) how welcoming the family had been and that they had been the family Meghan had never had, a statement which annoyed some of the Markle relatives. All these statements and actions have been thrown back in the face of HMQ.
Family rows in public are distasteful and demeaning of all those concerned. Doing it to raise your profile and make yourself an even more sellable commodity is particularly unworthy. A real shame.
I am with @kle4 on this. They keep saying how they want to do good and talk about the causes close to their heart but all they seem to want to talk about is themselves and how badly they claim they've been treated. It is tiresome.
The party he's referring to, the successor of the Cavaliers, was dissolved in 1834 which was before even Victoria was Queen.
William IV was the last monarch to have a Tory party that's he's talking about.
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1368872010676400129
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/toeing-the-party-line-5350451.html
A friend who came to a Labour dinner was placed next to Maria Eagle, who has a keen mind but isn't famous for her frivolity. He asked her in all innocence whether she was a member of this troupe that he'd read about. She was Not Amused.
In particular, if I was to name the three "best" monarchs of the UK I would say in Queen Elizabeth, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II . . . which is a bit of an oddity for a line led by Agnatic Cognatic Primogeniture.
I believe even in The Times birth notice for her majesty that it mentioned that she was in line of succession but extremely unlikely to become monarch.
https://twitter.com/john_actuary/status/1368871931768897538?s=20
https://order-order.com/2021/03/08/two-snp-mps-accused-of-sexual-harassment-by-staffer/
The fact they're so angry does indeed imply to me that it was not Philip they're talking about.
And surely this will be easily verified or not by some not particularly enterprising member of the press ordering their marriage certificate from the GRO?
Under Blair, there was a hilarious moment when a suggestion from Charles was considered - getting rid of the Civil List, in return for the returning the full revenue of the estates etc. Apparently it took some time for various people to realise that the Royals would get more money, and the (theoretical) control of the Crown by Parliament would be removed.
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1368875655228751872?s=20
I'm on him as next Tory leader at 20 and I'm pretty happy with that as we speak.
Edit: And Meghan was only treated terribly in her own mind. It bears no relation to reality.
Until he went up to one Sikh guy and asked him "when did you come here?", only to get the reply "nine o'clock this morning, sir", which did rather floor him.
I didn't want the interview but from the sound of it Harry is angry about it. That to me rules out Philip which means look at the less obvious candidates. I don't believe Philip saying something like that would wind up Harry so much.
If a professional investigator was asked to investigate such an allegation, the first thing they would do is ask the complainant for the name of the person who said the alleged remark, when, who else was present, whether it was repeated, what was said in reply, the context, whether there was anything written down afterwards, who else was told about it etc.
I note that a professional interviewer (Oprah) was unable to ask even these most basic questions, which doesn't say much for her interviewing skills, frankly.
In the absence of such details, it is virtually impossible to investigate such a vague allegation.
Making such a claim without being willing to back it up with details is nasty because it is impossible for anyone to defend themselves against it or for there to be any form of closure.
The bombardment against her for weeks and months now in the media is terrible and has been coming from the palace or friends of the palace. That is reality.
Discretion would have been the better part of valour. The palace should have not leaked or said anything prior to this - all the bullying in the Mail in recent months against her just feeds into what she had to say.
The monarchy would have been better advised to keep a stoic silence on this matter - and encouraged their friendly press to do the same. Instead of seeking to destroy someone feeding into what they have to say.
https://twitter.com/KellyIpsosMORI/status/1368877959042498560?s=20
I think I'll drop this politics for beginners course and go learn a language instead.
But it should be closed. You cannot maintain royal aloofness if princes are wrestling in the dirt in front of the peasants. Even if he raises more things go silent.
The predecessor party died for a reason.
Not sure if it's classed as an esport, but me and 2 of my 3 lads really got into playing Warzone during the first lockdown and all of my sons watch live tournaments of various of games and esports as well as streams of pro players . I've got 54 year old eyes and reactions, so I mostly die very quickly and they have to buy me back, or I pilot a chopper or drive a jeep while they do the actual skilful stuff- sort of like in real life where I taxi them about. At the risk of opening up the BBC argument again, they never watch "live" TV, but do watch live game streams and YouTube. They find the concept of actually paying to watch something bizarre. As my youngest tells me, it's free somewhere on the internet.
If true then it is very odd because for a marriage to be legal there need to be two witnesses and it is curious that the AoC and the whole Royal Family would go along with a sham.
I am curious about it from a professional perspective. Often in investigations people make a claim which can easily be checked and turns out to be untrue. They do it to bolster their case but of course it does the opposite. If people lie about X, why wouldn't they also lie about Y and Z etc.
So I'll be interested to see what, if anything, we learn about this.
When Boris waddles out in front the proverbial bus, how do Labour members sign up to the Tory Party for £10 and ensure its Liz Truss?
I'd prefer to ignore it all and just wait for the next big thing, really, but this seems a bit daft.
You would have shit bricks if she had intervened for Remain in the way she did for No in the Indyref.
I am suggesting the Palace would have been better advised to stay above it until now at least, then respond if necessary. Instead their attempts to pre-empt the interview feed into the narrative that she was the one bullied not the bully.
Ms Markle went into open warfare against our royal family after her taxpayer funded wedding and after she rose to A list status only because of her entry into it, she should not be surprised at the response
No. This isn't interrogation. It is basic curiosity. And the lack of follow up is deliberate. It is wounding without striking. It is, frankly, despicable.
If someone had said something like that to me I'd have had it out with them right away and demanded an apology. Not brought it up two years later in a public forum in such a vague but harmful way.
Certainly so extreme a reaction seems to be more common in those who have had. Though I think the stats also suggest that fever is a more common reaction to the AZN vaccine when compared with some of the others.
The Tory Party remains more a monarchist party than a hardline capitalist party, it is merely non socialist
The palace definitely ramped up leaks in retaliation for the interview, which was unwise, but how were we already aware that the pair were unhappy with treatment from some royals? Because it is not the case they've not leaked stuff before now, that's really quite an absurd claim.
The palace have shot themselves in the foot somewhat, you dont hold the high ground by jumping off it, but it's just silly to act like until now it's all been one way.
https://twitter.com/garius/status/1368881336258342915
Today's monarch isn't set up for the future which means problems down the line as aloof won't do in the 21st century.
So I'd probably only think about the first six and Charles, the rest I'd think 'meh', not even sure who they are, without a good bit of thought.
How can anyone even have an opinion on the children?
I think they are deliberately and maliciously not naming who it was. I can well believe that one person did it (Prince Philip being the obvious one) but it casts the whole royal family under suspicion. They feel that they have been badly treated but they seem to be the ones throwing the stones. The context is also important. I don't see the harm in speculating just like you might speculate on what eye or hair colour a baby might have. If it was done in a disparaging way then that would clearly be offensive and racist.
Meghan said that she hadn't Googled Harry and didn't know about him. I am reminded of the Mrs Merton question... "What first attracted you to the Queen's grandson, Prince Harry?"
My final comment on this is to look at Meghan's history. She has managed to estrange herself from almost her entire family. This interview will have estranged them from all of Harry's family. Are all these other people all so awful that she has had to do this? Or is it more likely that the one person involved with both might be at fault?
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1368883211703582720?s=20
The modern Tory party may have mostly monarchists in it, but it is not a party of, by or for the landed gentry as you claimed. It hasn't been since it was founded for a very good reason - far more than just the landed gentry vote.
Its perfectly possible to be a republican and a Tory - like myself, TSE, the most popular Tory Secretary of State amongst Tory members and many more.
You lead up to the important fact and then switch to the next topic - job done. Especially when the interviewees are paying for the interview and say have editorial control (don't know if they did or didn't but I can't see Megan being as stupid as Prince Andrew).
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.