Jamie123

Piers is right and Meghan is wrong

Recommended Posts

I haven't really been following this sordid tale (fingers crossed) but whatever Meghan Markle says, her son COULD not possibly have been denied the title of prince because of his "skin colour". That's  because (as the child of a younger son of the heir apparent) he's NOT ENTITLED TO BE A PRINCE ANYWAY.

He could be blue with purple and green spots and he still wouldn't be a prince.

He is however entitled to call himself "Earl of Dumbarton" (his father's subsidiary title). But he doesn't. And do you know why not? Because Meghan-schmegan doesn't want him to!

Piers Morgan may be an irritating twit, but he's spot on about this. Meghan was talking rubbish.

P.S. "Skin-colour" nothing. Young Archie is as white as I am, and so's his mum.

Edited by Jamie123
I can't spell Meghan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't watch or listen to the interview, but I have read fragments of the extensive media commentary and reaction. The thing that surprised me was the statement issued by the Palace in which the Queen "The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan." It took a tv interview in a foreign country for the Queen to learn about that? That suggests, at the least, some significant internal communication problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I didn't watch or listen to the interview, but I have read fragments of the extensive media commentary and reaction. The thing that surprised me was the statement issued by the Palace in which the Queen "The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan." It took a tv interview in a foreign country for the Queen to learn about that? That suggests, at the least, some significant internal communication problems. 

Another possible interpretation:

Harry has always been a bit of a spoiled whiner, but since taking up with Meghan, he has become insufferable. The two now seek to disgrace the family name in word as well as in deed. So we're doing what we can to control their damage by cutting them out of the picture as much as possible. Our response to their latest flood of tears is "Bummer, so sorry." We feel that is much more dignified and kind than "Your tantrums and  humiliating behavior (sorry, behaviour) have inevitably resulted in this bad outcome. So instead of blaming us, please just lie quietly in the grave you have dug for yourselves."

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

Another possible interpretation:

Harry has always been a bit of a spoiled whiner, but since taking up with Meghan, he has become insufferable. The two now seek to disgrace the family name in word as well as in deed. So we're doing what we can to control their damage by cutting them out of the picture as much as possible. Our response to their latest flood of tears is "Bummer, so sorry." We feel that is much more dignified and kind than "Your tantrums and  humiliating behavior (sorry, behaviour) have inevitably resulted in this bad outcome. So instead of blaming us, please just lie quietly in the grave you have dug for yourselves."

The "we believe Meghan" and "nasty-nasty-Piers-he-must-apologise" guff being spouted by ITV bosses reminds me very much of the "we believe the 'victim'" stance of police following the Jimmy Savile revelations. Meghan cannot be wrong because she's black (is she really?? she's got a bit of black in her, but she looks more like a white woman to me) and "black lives matter". We must "cancel" Piers Morgan before someone comes along and "cancels" us!

Like him or hate him, Piers Morgan was GMB. You might shake your fist at the TV and call him an idiot, but at least he made the show interesting. Without him it's all just...meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Like him or hate him, Piers Morgan was GMB.

Googling suggests that GMB means Good Morning Britain, which I assume is a TV show similar in tone and content to Good Morning America. Not sure I have ever watched GMA. I am sure I have never seen GMB. In contrast, seeing a GMC is quite common in Washington state, especially in the more rural areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Googling suggests that GMB means Good Morning Britain, which I assume is a TV show similar in tone and content to Good Morning America. Not sure I have ever watched GMA. I am sure I have never seen GMB. In contrast, seeing a GMC is quite common in Washington state, especially in the more rural areas.

Sorry yes - I should have explained what "GMB" was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I haven't really been following this sordid tale (fingers crossed) but whatever Meghan Markle says, her son COULD not possibly have been denied the title of prince because of his "skin colour". That's  because (as the child of a younger son of the heir apparent) he's NOT ENTITLED TO BE A PRINCE ANYWAY.

He could be blue with purple and green spots and he still wouldn't be a prince.

He is however entitled to call himself "Earl of Dumbarton" (his father's subsidiary title). But he doesn't. And do you know why not? Because Meghan-schmegan doesn't want him to!

Piers Morgan may be an irritating twit, but he's spot on about this. Meghan was talking rubbish.

P.S. "Skin-colour" nothing. Young Archie is as white as I am, and so's his mum.

Perhaps I am not as interested as I ought but this whole "Royal" thing does not appear to be much of a benefit to anyone.  With that said and my obvious bias against entitlements - I did catch that Miss Meghan, herself, admitted that she is "uneducated" in the roles and affairs of state expected and required of traditional "Royals" in their cultural settings.  For example she was unaware of bowing protocols before the queen in private.  Sadly "Americans" are world famous for being arrogant and intolerant of all cultures beyond their own way with things.  It seems to me that Miss. Meghan may enjoy some popularity and celebrity status among the ignorant masses here in the USA but she is not dispelling much of the disapproval of our culture's arrogance and intolerance of other traditions and cultures.   In addition, I have difficulty with having sympathy for those that regret (complain) about the consequences of their own choices and behaviors. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Traveler said:

In addition, I have difficulty with having sympathy for those that regret (complain) about the consequences of their own choices and behaviors.

It's the old phrase: "You've made your bed, now lie in it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would their have been as much adverse reaction to the questions about the colour of Meghan's future baby if the questions had been about the colour of his eyes rather than the colour of his skin? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Sadly "Americans" are world famous for being arrogant and intolerant of all cultures beyond their own way with things.

That may be so, but in my experience, Americans are no more guilty of such arrogant intolerance than most other nationalities, and probably less guilty than many others. That would include many who take pleasure in fault-finding of Americans and the US in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

Would their have been as much adverse reaction to the questions about the colour of Meghan's future baby if the questions had been about the colour of his eyes rather than the colour of his skin? 

Well if his eyes were blue, it might be considered a throwback to his Aryan forefathers. The Royal Family are descended from Germans after all!

(Then again, if you go back far enough most English are descended from Germans.)

Edited by Jamie123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

(Then again, if you go back far enough most English are descended from Germans.)

I would guess that "most" in this case means 99.99% of the ancestral English. I would be gobsmacked if even one ancestrally English person—in other words, those who are not recent immigrants from outside Europe—lacked Germanic ancestry. That includes pretty much all Americans with any English ancestry.

The Anglo-Saxon tribes were by definition Germanic. Obviously, their language was a Germanic language. But English ancestry includes a lot of Welsh, as well as other aboriginal British groups, especially Scottish and Irish. My understanding of history suggests that the Vikings injected a fair amount of Norse blood into the population. So it's quite a mongrel population, fitting principal ancestors for Americans.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Vort said:

I would guess that "most" in this case means 99.99% of the ancestral English. I would be gobsmacked if even one ancestrally English person—in other words, those who are not recent immigrants from outside Europe—lacked Germanic ancestry. That includes pretty much all Americans with any English ancestry.

The Anglo-Saxon tribes were by definition Germanic. Obviously, their language was a Germanic language. But English ancestry includes a lot of Welsh, as well as other aboriginal British groups, especially Scottish and Irish. My understanding of history suggests that the Vikings injected a fair amount of Norse blood into the population. So it's quite a mongrel population, fitting principal ancestors for Americans.

Indeed we're a mixed bunch here: Beaker people, Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Normans, Hugenots, Jews and of course Negros. The latter were brought here in the 18th Century as slaves, and stingy rich people had them as valets and footmen. (Unlike white servants, they didn't need wages!) That didn't last long: when the government abolished slavery these blacks were absorbed into the white population. Many an English person alive today could well have black ancestors!

Edited by Jamie123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

Well if his eyes were blue, it might be considered a throwback to his Aryan forefathers. The Royal Family are descended from Germans after all!

(Then again, if you go back far enough most English are descended from Germans.)

That's like saying Koreans are descended from Ghengis Kahn.  Yeah, I probably have 0.000001% of Ghengis Kahn's DNA in me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That's like saying Koreans are descended from Ghengis Kahn.  Yeah, I probably have 0.000001% of Ghengis Kahn's DNA in me.

LOL I wasn't being totally serious, although their REAL surname is German: "Saxe Coburg Gotha". George V changed it to "Windsor" during World War I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

LOL I wasn't being totally serious, although their REAL surname is German: "Saxe Coburg Gotha". George V changed it to "Windsor" during World War I.

I kinda figured. I wasn't criticizing you personally.  I just know that a lot of people out there would take that position for real.  I was criticizing those individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now