What a vindictive grandmother the Queen is turning out to be.

dooderooni said:
Exposing evidence of wrongdoing, especially by those in positions of power is called investigative journalism, those invited to official duties or charity events are reporters, the shitehawks who hound people in the public eye are not even in the same league.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, but is it only reasonable to print wrong doings? Or when you yourself want them to print or air a story. I do not like the press one iota, but so long as people buy them papers will follow them. The BBC and other media outlets do to, not just the press. Is it fine to jet off around the world on private jets and tell others to fly less. As I say, I support everyones right to privacy, but if you are happy to receive loads of money and privileges, then you have to expect some intrusion surely?
 
It’s not about being a republican or not it’s about knowing and understanding the legal laws of the land. And the queen isn’t nothing to you either, she is the monarch who’s name your govt stand in and who you would face if you ever stood trial.

she is not a as person she is a title.
 
atypical_boro said:
It’s not about the Queen’s role as “monarch” either.
Click to expand...
But it is, as the issue is their using the term royal which is a legally protected term btw and can only be used with the monarchs permission.
it is a protected term for a reason - to stop it being exploited overseas to sell cheap tat on would be a perfect reason
 
zorro_mfc said:
But it is, as the issue is their using the term royal which is a legally protected term btw and can only be used with the monarchs permission.
it is a protected term for a reason - to stop it being exploited overseas to sell cheap tat on would be a perfect reason
Click to expand...

She’s happy to do it herself though. She’s still the “head of state” in Canada anyway so dunno what her problem is.
 
zorro_mfc said:
But it is, as the issue is their using the term royal which is a legally protected term btw and can only be used with the monarchs permission.
it is a protected term for a reason - to stop it being exploited overseas to sell cheap tat on would be a perfect reason
Click to expand...

It’s a formality, nothing more. She’s done her best to “modernise” her role as monarch, so she and her propaganda spinners claim.

Funny that she’s done nothing to repeal the law that says she’s allowed to kill people, though. Wonder why.
 
atypical_boro said:
It’s not about what I think Col. It’s not about the Queen’s role as “monarch” either. What I’m questioning here is her approach to the rift with her grandson. Regardless of her “role”, she should be a grandmother first and foremost.

All just adds fuel to the fire that he’s not really Charles’ son to be honest. Look what she’s done for her son Andrew. All is forgiven. What Harry has “done” doesn’t even compare!
Click to expand...

Well I am not sure how you know he isn’t Charles I get the suspicions though. Lets be honest here, the rift was brought about by Harry and Meghan. They chose with a free will an open mind to enter the royal life as a married couple and knew exactly what would follow. They could have had a private wedding without the media circus, but they seemingly wanted the pomp and ceremony. They were happy to receive tax payers money for Frogmore, knowing that they were planning to vacate the country, not very clever really. Like I say, good luck to them in the future.

As for the rift. The rift seems to be about wealth creation not about them moving to Canada. The Queen has not shunned her grandson one bit, he is welcome as is Meghan at any time, she is on record. I am sure she will be welcome in Canada or LA or wherever their gaff is in USA, when Trump has left as President and they have moved there for her career. Why should they benefit from the firm when they wish to leave it behind? Personally, I think it is best for everyone how it is. Meghan has family form for leaving parts of her family behind. I would respect her more if she visited her dad, but equally accept he needs to stfu.
 
Last edited:
atypical_boro said:
It’s a formality, nothing more. She’s done her best to “modernise” her role as monarch, so she and her propaganda spinners claim.

Funny that she’s done nothing to repeal the law that says she’s allowed to kill people, though. Wonder why.
Click to expand...

I am not clear how she could achieve that on her own? Her powers are in the main ceremonial are they not? The reality is very different now from Henry VIII’s day
 
coluka said:
Well I am not sure how you know he isn’t Charles I get the suspicions though. Lets be honest here, the rift was brought about by Harry and Meghan. They chose with a free will an open mind to enter the royal life as a married couple and knew exactly what would follow. They could have had a private wedding without the media circus, but they seemingly wanted the pomp and ceremony. They were happy to receive tax payers money for Frogmore, knowing that they were planning to vacate the country, not very clever really. Like I say, good luck to them in the future.

As for the rift. The rift seems to be about wealth creation not about them moving to Canada. The Queen has not shunned her grandson one bit, he is welcome as is Meghan at any time, she is on record. I am sure she will be welcome in Canada or LA when Trump has left as President and they have moved there for her career.. Why should they benefit from the firm when they wish to leave it behind? Personally, I think it is best for everyone how it is. Meghan has family form for leaving parts of her family behind. I would respect her more if she visited her dad, but equally accept he needs to stfu.
Click to expand...

Well as I say Col, if my Nana had found a way to create wealth she’d have let me in on it no matter what I’d done, and whatever my views on politics/royalty/celebrity etc.

All I’m saying is that the Queen is putting her own “powers” to use against her own grandson. People can argue all they want about it being her “right” to do so nd her “duty as queen”, but it doesn’t make her a good grandmother, which I think she should be putting first.

Suspect we’ll never fully agree though, fair enough, and don’t have much else to add on it now.
 
zorro_mfc said:
Again wrong not my opinion by the way a legal fact. I’m not sure you grasp that as it’s not up for debate it’s a legal fact.
Click to expand...

What’s a legal fact? That she is the Head of State? Well, yeah it’s legally the case no one is disputing that. Doesn’t mean I don’t see her the same as any other old woman though.
 
coluka said:
I am not clear how she could achieve that on her own? Her powers are in the main ceremonial are they not? The reality is very different now from Henry VIII’s day
Click to expand...
Not according to Zorro, he’s such a republican he wants to put us all in our place on Her Majesty’s behalf! 😬
 
atypical_boro said:
is that Harry's fault? Did he ask for all of this?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but he's happy to take the obscene wealth that comes with it, without the work that being a paid Royal entails.

Double standards and then some.

The whole concept of Royalty is outdated and becoming increasingly obsolete.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
Of course not, but he's happy to take the obscene wealth that comes with it, without the work that being a paid Royal entails.

Double standards and then some.

The whole concept of Royalty is outdated and becoming increasingly obsolete.
Click to expand...

And so is the Queen.

The difference between Harry and the Queen is that Harry isn’t trying to stop anyone else doing it
 
atypical_boro said:
Well as I say Col, if my Nana had found a way to create wealth she’d have let me in on it no matter what I’d done, and whatever my views on politics/royalty/celebrity etc.

All I’m saying is that the Queen is putting her own “powers” to use against her own grandson. People can argue all they want about it being her “right” to do so nd her “duty as queen”, but it doesn’t make her a good grandmother, which I think she should be putting first.

Suspect we’ll never fully agree though, fair enough, and don’t have much else to add on it now.
Click to expand...

I get your view atypical and agree that we wont necessarily agree. I am sure your nan would have, their are some nans in this world that wouldn’t too. However your nan did not have constitutional powers and if she had would assume she would respect them if she had, otherwise she would soon have the constitutional rights removed. The Queen is merely protecting the firm for the future Kings and Queens putting the institution ahead of 1 person. I believe she has acted with dignity and fairness and loves her grandson very much. I think Harry and Meghan have to a degree acted selfishly in their own personal interests (I have no truck with that tbf, so long as the taxpayer is not involved. Your views will ring fair with many others around the country I am sure. (y)
 
zorro_mfc said:
If you want to see how you can be a senior royal and still be normal look at Zara Phillips (not title) and her husband the rugby bloke ( again no title) and and Anne is the queen’s oldest child.

so it can be done
Click to expand...

Charles is the oldest child!
 
Its very bad for a population of a country to hold a family captive as some sort of show for the world to see how grand we can dress them up.
It effects their mental health and gives them a really distorted reality, and by kneeling, grovelling before them. This behaviour is also bad for the people who do it. You really arent inferior to them, they have no special powers, blood or thoughts and neither have you.

You have a young man who doesn't really know what he wants, as he is damaged mentally by our royalist nut job supporters and the way he has been brought up. I think he will end up in Bedlam, never mind Canada.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top