Meghan and Harry

redblood said:
You'll be thrilled to know that you couldn't have insulted me anymore with those words.
You are despicable.
Click to expand...
Now try and imagine how people feel when you use unacceptable terms like "coloured", then maybe you'll begin to understand why you're in the wrong here.
 
r00fie1 said:
If we focus on the "Royal Family" - its origins and its wealth - coupled with the inter-relationships with other privileged Monarchs and families across the globe:

[Unfortunately the complete lineage diagram is to large to fit comfortably on this page]
View attachment 14988

There is no doubt much of their wealth stems from the silk road and trading with countries who used enslaved peoples across the globe, to build an empire. The Royal Family`s vast wealth and ownership of thousands of acres of land is embedded in the tradition of colonialism and subjegation of foreign peoples around the globe. The "Commonwealth" is no such thing - as wealth is concentrated in the hands of the Royals and their apparatchiks: hangers - on and second and third cousins and third and fourth families and individuals. The Royal Family by its very nature is institutionally racist - its very existence rests on subjegation and occupation of others lands.

The connections between the Royal Family and the Nazi regime in Germany is well documented. Active, overt, support for Hitlers methods and policies in the 20s and 30 became a quiet whisper. It is no coincidence that Battenberg - became Mountbatten - Windsor.

The system of patronage and the feudalistic remnants to which politicians, bankers and fellow-travellers cling, are representative of the real power of the "Family" across the globe. "Power" is measured by the proximity to wealth - those who can command armies and support to maintain their privileged position over all peoples, at the expense of the many.

Harry Windsor is a decent bloke, who, through no fault of his own, was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Hes a decent bloke, not because he is a "Prince" or has the right to wear Irmine, Fox - fur and lots of items symbolic of power and authority. In the army he gave a monkeys about those under his command like any other Commissioned Officer. His work to highlight mental health is invaluable. He doesnt just issue statements and praise for those fighting to combat poor mental health - but gets his hands dirty.

He probably doesnt nip to the "chippy" on a Friday or ask his Mam for twenty quid to go out on a Saturday night. He may well be a cornerstone of reaction if the flak hit the fan, but we cant tell.

Fair play to him and his Missus. All this blah-blah is because he is sticking the "V" up to patronage and the Establishment.
Click to expand...
Interesting seeing that. I didn't know about the Battenberg Knatchbull link. My son goes to the local Grammar named after one of Knatchulls ancestors. As you say subjigation and theft of foreign resources for the betterment of the royals and hangers on not for the British people. The Knatchbulls were governor of Bombay and Bengal and viceroy of India amongst other titles. They were also Tory MPs. More cronyism. They ruled over India, protected the east india company and ruled over the Indian people with an iron fist. The profits went back to the landed gentry in England and the royals. No need for you or I to feel guilty about it though, the working classes saw none of these profits, although a few thousand got jobs for pittance or danger money as a soldier.
 
BiggEggo said:
Decent blokes generally have more about them than to don a Nazi uniform, especially when they have had his expensive education.
Click to expand...
Marrying a woman of mixed - race at the expense of feudal privilege tells us all that hes grown up.
Doesnt it?
Wearing the uniform of the Hitler youth in 2004 [aged 19 at the time] cant be excused.
How many of us have expressed racism/ homophobia / sexism / etc and realised our mistake in the last 17 years?
 
Iam surprised the misogyny of the Royal family is never brought up, the heir being decided by sex.
The more you look at the charade the more you realise it belongs in the history books.
 
jam69 said:
Iam surprised the misogyny of the Royal family is never brought up, the heir being decided by sex.
The more you look at the charade the more you realise it belongs in the history books.
Click to expand...
I thought they changed it a couple of years ago, where the next in line would be the first born, rather than the first born male?
 
uncle_rico said:
I thought they changed it a couple of years ago, where the next in line would be the first born, rather than the first born male?
Click to expand...
Think they might have actually, if they must keep it why not give it to a different family each year.
A deserving family gets the "pleasure" of all the privilege for one year then gets out before it turns them into a freak show exhibit
 
MFP said:
Now try and imagine how people feel when you use unacceptable terms like "coloured", then maybe you'll begin to understand why you're in the wrong here.
Click to expand...
Whilst coloured is generally considerred an offensive terrm, and you probably shouldn't use it, the NAACP still have the term in their acronym so it would be more accurate to describe it as old fashioned rather than racist. It is considerred racist in the US but for a different reason, it was the terrm used to segregate on buses, water fountains and cafes. In the UK it has never been used historically, as far as I can tell as a racist slur.

Terminology changes all the time, once calling someone black would have been considered offensive and the correct terrm was negro, nowadays you would be called out for using the term.

Using the term coloured, in and of itself, doesn't mark someone as racist, in the same way as more obvious racist terms would. "send all black people home" is far more racist than "I met a coloured bloke in the pub last night".

Let's have a bit of balance, point out that people may find the term coloured offensive and move on.
 
r00fie1 said:
Marrying a woman of mixed - race at the expense of feudal privilege tells us all that hes grown up.
Doesnt it?
Wearing the uniform of the Hitler youth in 2004 [aged 19 at the time] cant be excused.
How many of us have expressed racism/ homophobia / sexism / etc and realised our mistake in the last 17 years?
Click to expand...
Not sure that airing dirty washing in public is a very grown up thing to do. Many holes are now appearing in their version of events. They don't seem able to differentiate between a wedding rehearsal and a wedding which is a bizarre.
Does not reflect well on them and I see their popularity has plunged to an all time low.
I don't think this is playing out as they had hoped. Two sides to every story as they say.
 
Laughing said:
Whilst coloured is generally considerred an offensive terrm, and you probably shouldn't use it, the NAACP still have the term in their acronym so it would be more accurate to describe it as old fashioned rather than racist. It is considerred racist in the US but for a different reason, it was the terrm used to segregate on buses, water fountains and cafes. In the UK it has never been used historically, as far as I can tell as a racist slur.

Terminology changes all the time, once calling someone black would have been considered offensive and the correct terrm was negro, nowadays you would be called out for using the term.

Using the term coloured, in and of itself, doesn't mark someone as racist, in the same way as more obvious racist terms would. "send all black people home" is far more racist than "I met a coloured bloke in the pub last night".

Let's have a bit of balance, point out that people may find the term coloured offensive and move on.
Click to expand...
Laughing.
Thank you for posting your words.
The poster that said that my posts on here were rotten and later suggested that I were racist wouldn't know that I lived in America in the mid sixties
as a thirteen year old and witnessed first hand the racial injustices or that I worked my entire life here in Australia and posted on this forum how rewarding
and how working alongside and making friends from all over the globe, enriched my life.

He also wouldn't know that my wife and I didn't have children due to the fact that the more of the world that we got to see merely gave us the passion to see
much, much more and that children would come later.
We planned to have them after returning to Oz after taking a year off work to travel the world in 1990.
After immersing ourselves into so many cultures and learning so much from the experience that we decided to do it all again for another year round trip
in 95.
Upon returning from that trip, we knew that having children was out of the equation as we once again wanted to do again, which we did in 2001.

His accusation of me put a knife through my heart .
Thank you for not only helping me remove that knife but also for understanding my words in my previous posts and knowing which side of the fence
my heart lays.
 
Laughing said:
Whilst coloured is generally considerred an offensive terrm, and you probably shouldn't use it, the NAACP still have the term in their acronym so it would be more accurate to describe it as old fashioned rather than racist. It is considerred racist in the US but for a different reason, it was the terrm used to segregate on buses, water fountains and cafes. In the UK it has never been used historically, as far as I can tell as a racist slur.

Terminology changes all the time, once calling someone black would have been considered offensive and the correct terrm was negro, nowadays you would be called out for using the term.

Using the term coloured, in and of itself, doesn't mark someone as racist, in the same way as more obvious racist terms would. "send all black people home" is far more racist than "I met a coloured bloke in the pub last night".

Let's have a bit of balance, point out that people may find the term coloured offensive and move on.
Click to expand...
That's all you really needed to say.
 
redblood said:
On the contrary.
That's all you needed to say.
No offence would have taken place but instead you preferred to twist my posts to suit your agenda.
Click to expand...
It's genuinely depressing that in the 3/4 days which have passed since you were called out on the use of your inappropriate language, you still seem very reluctant to understand why using such terms is offensive, instead have moved to defend and excuse yourself whilst trying to present me challenging you on it as the problem here and not your repeated use of the term "coloured" to describe people. What a sad and shameful display from you that you're still incapable of seeing any wrong and have clearly done nothing to educate yourself on why it's unacceptable.
 
MFP said:
It's genuinely depressing that in the 3/4 days which have passed since you were called out on the use of your inappropriate language, you still seem very reluctant to understand why using such terms is offensive, instead have moved to defend and excuse yourself whilst trying to present me challenging you on it as the problem here and not your repeated use of the term "coloured" to describe people. What a sad and shameful display from you that you're still incapable of seeing any wrong and have clearly done nothing to educate yourself on why it's unacceptable.
Click to expand...
I'll try again.
Using your very own words.
That's all YOU really needed to say. What Laughing said. From the outset. That's all YOU really needed to say. ( got it yet? ) No offence would have been taken. ( comprehend? )
I acknowledged Laughings responses and interpretations of the words by thanking him for his explanations. I guess that you must have missed that.

What I find sad and shameful is to intentionally discredit my words, which were described by you as Rotten......

" The royal family would go from zeroes to heroes for me if we were to see photos of family gatherings with coloured children, uncles and aunties in amongst them.
What a bright shining light for the rest of the world that would be, to be able to show the world, a new, modern and multi cultural royal family akin to the society
in which we live "

........ and as being the words from a racist mouth which you have alluded to. ( your post to me " You probably are racist now I think about it" )

I'm sure you knew when you first read my post that it was a well intentioned one but decided to choose one word and a contentious one to discredit it.
It would have been so easy for you to have advised that I should prefer the use of children of different skin colour other than coloured children but that wasn't
good enough for you.
You wanted confrontation, you wanted to get as many insults in. Sad and shameful, ignorant, reluctant to understand etc etc and suggesting that I'm racist is
as low as one can go and you've wallowed in it.

My suggestion to you considering you are so depressed with my posts is to report them to admin or better still.
Copy and paste my posts and start a new thread.... Is this guy a racist or what ? or am I being pedantic? and see what the consensus is with our Boro brothers and sisters
as I've had enough of your game of chess.
Whilst you're at it get admin to check out my posting history or yourself if you prefer but you will be disappointed when you find nothing to tar me with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top