Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Prince Harry

This piece is really good: Meghanomania and the Big Bong - utopian drivel

some highlights:
One of the many crimes of Meghan Markle is that she is “woke”, although, Lord knows, I can’t figure out what it is that she’s done that’s “woke”, besides existing as a woman of colour and holding her own opinions. But if you want to know what “woke” means, and why a “woke elite” are trying to shut down all criticism, why not read Andrew Doyle’s new book, ‘Woke’, in character as Titania McGrath, with glowing reviews from Rod Liddle, Sarah Vine and Ricky Gervais? Why not read Brendan O’Neill’s spiked editorial on Markle, “A woke Wallis Simpson”? Why not read Rod Liddle’s latest on the “wokeplace romance”? Why not check out Toby Young on how the Labour Party got woke and broke? Why not see what Sarah Vine likes so much about Ricky Gervais, “the Wokefinder General”? Why not read Helen Lewis on the superwoke elite, or listen to Helen Lewis on the News Quiz, supposedly the country’s leading news satire radio programme, where the assassination of Soleimani revolved around a joke that the Left wouldn’t have criticised the attack if the Iranian general had misgendered someone.
Click to expand...

The role of the “Royal Correspondent” or “Royal Expert” is also a unique part of the British press: the job is a form of fiction writing, producing and projecting believable and compelling narratives onto the essentially unknowable and meaningless inner lives of people whose constitutional role is precisely not to have inner lives. These people are dessicating human ghouls, parasites on the back of parasites, maliciously projecting and meddling in the lives of people who they claim to venerate and adore, but the stories they tell reveal the ideologies they subscribe to.
Click to expand...

Before Princess Diana’s death, which, at the time, both media and public agreed was partly down to obsessive press coverage, she was little more than reckless and indecent. After, she was a saint, and everyone agreed this must never happen again, and the Daily Mail promised not to publish paparazzi photos again. Of course, they didn’t, and within years photos of his mother’s corpse were on TV and in magazines, and the Daily Express was weekly running headlines such as “Perhaps Diana should have worn seatbelt”. They did that to his mother, and they would do it to his wife given half a chance, before branding her a misunderstood martyr too. They are lying, venal scum without an ounce of moral fibre, with no understanding of the meaning of self-reflection. In their own eyes they are the backbone of contemporary English culture. To an extent they are right, and that should weigh on their shoulders as a heavy shame.
Click to expand...
 
DJWrongspeed said:
i'd like to think this was the last of it
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to drop HRH titles

but you know we'll never hear the end of it :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Well within minutes it's already been twisted into, 'Queen strips titles from MeGAIN and DEMANDS £2.4 million tax payers money back from her', so yeah. She's well rid of the shit show TBH. I just wonder how much they'll be stalked in Canadialand (lots I guess). I expect the Fail is absolutely gutted that their target has said, 'fuck this' and left.
 
DJWrongspeed said:
i'd like to think this was the last of it
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to drop HRH titles

but you know we'll never hear the end of it :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, good on them for going that far and doing some of the stuff people on this thread were saying they wouldn't. Giving up HRH and paying back the refurbishment money are much more significant steps to take.

Though if stepping back from being a senior royal (for reasons other than ill health) means losing HRH status, why is nonce Andrew still an HRH? He really should lose that title too, right?

The security thing is different, though. Thing is, if Harry doesn't have really serious protection, official protection that comes with rights that private bodyguards don't have (like being able to carry weapons at airports) then it won't be just him at risk, but everyone around him. I would personally not want to be at a charity event with such a high profile Prince (which he'll still be in reality even if he says he's not) with right-winger nutters who hate him (and he served in Afghanistan so he's probably a target in some other quarters too) unless he had some really heavy protection around him. Plus if something happened to him the political fallout could be huge in terms of war and anti-terrorism.
 
Are they the East Sussexes or the west Sussexes? Or is one East and the other west?

That twat Laurence Fox has got the slagging he deserved. Why was he on QT anyhow? Is it cos there is an Etonian government & the BBC thought they would balance it out by having a Harrowian cunt for balance?
 
Being labelled a white privileged male if you're white, male, and very, very posh, is a statement of fact, not racism.

That said, I'm fairly sure that a lot of the racism directed at Meghan Markle is from the US rather than the UK - the UK tabloids have an international readership and tons of the negative comments (from the few I've read, because you don't read them often if you want to not hate the world) are from people in the US.

So although some of this show up racism in the UK, IMO a lot of it is racism in the US being given an audience in UK media. The number of people in the UK who care about mixed-race marriages between a mixed-race black woman and a white man is small, these days.

I'm white, but I think non-white posters would back me up that - at least, talking about relationships now, not in our parents' times. People sometimes care about inter-religion marriages, but as an adult, the only people in the UK I've met who gave a shit about inter-racial relationships were not from the UK (the worst I've met was from people from Ireland). A mixed-race black woman getting together with a white bloke would usually get no comment at all if they went to your school or whatever. There will be exceptions, and they will hurt, but they will be outliers. In the US, however, it's still a very very big deal. And they're the ones driving this "outrage."

Plus a lot of other manufactured outrage that isn't race-based, but class-based, and based on the way the British media always set women against each other.
 
I see there's no mention of the £2.3m a year they get from Charles' Duchy of Cornwall income, leaving the media, and me, assuming that will continue, making this 'financially independent' plan a joke.
 
scifisam said:
So although some of this show up racism in the UK, IMO a lot of it is racism in the US being given an audience in UK media. The number of people in the UK who care about mixed-race marriages between a mixed-race black woman and a white man is small, these days.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I think this is wishful thinking. It’s true that Lawerence Fox is becoming a poster boy for ‘alt light’ vermin on both sides of the Atlantic, but we’ve got plenty of home-grown bigots here too, as Diane Abott can testify.

Not all of the hysterical Markel-haters consciously hate her because she’s mixed race, but they have been duped by the racist vermin media into hating her for completely irrational and inconsistent reasons. They have bought into this bullshit because of unconscious bias which research and has shown time and time again to be a very wide spread phenomenon. There have been studies that show that people develop rationalisations for the prejudices.

For example, in mock hiring studies where black candidates have property P and white candidates have property Q, the research subjects say the white candidate should get the job because property Q is what matters. But when the situation is reversed and the white candidate has Property P and the black candidate has property Q research subjects are more likely to say property P is what counts.

A significant portion of the Markel-haters are just nasty gas-lighting racist bigots but a great many are also people just aren’t very bright who are exhibiting their unconscious biases.
 
Last edited:
scifisam said:
I'm white, but I think non-white posters would back me up that - at least, talking about relationships now, not in our parents' times. People sometimes care about inter-religion marriages, but as an adult, the only people in the UK I've met who gave a shit about inter-racial relationships were not from the UK (the worst I've met was from people from Ireland). A mixed-race black woman getting together with a white bloke would usually get no comment at all if they went to your school or whatever. There will be exceptions, and they will hurt, but they will be outliers. In the US, however, it's still a very very big deal. And they're the ones driving this "outrage."

Plus a lot of other manufactured outrage that isn't race-based, but class-based, and based on the way the British media always set women against each other.
Click to expand...

I do think there is quite a strong line of rascism about the Royals though. Princess Michael of Kent who along with her husband seem pretty keen on the keeping of the germanic royal bloodlines finally apologised for her choice of brooch but I would not be at all suprised if she had been wanting to make a point.
Princess Michael of Kent speaks out after wearing racist brooch
 
scifisam said:
So although some of this show up racism in the UK, IMO a lot of it is racism in the US being given an audience in UK media. The number of people in the UK who care about mixed-race marriages between a mixed-race black woman and a white man is small, these days.
Click to expand...

I don't think shitty attitudes are all that uncommon, unfortunately - my father would certainly have had a few things to say if I'd married a mixed-race woman, and I'd most likely have ended up never speaking to him again - he's no longer with us, but a lot of people from that generation and younger with similar attitudes still are.
 
ska invita said:
An interesting element of this is the ingrained sexist response - another case of the Yoko Ono effect - the selfish woman who is pushing the man around to get her way and breaking up the correct order of things - his order - as she goes. How could the man in any such situation possibly go along with any of it? What has she done to him? We used to like him - poor man, under the thumb etc.

Underlying it is the rule that women should fit in quietly into a mans pre-existing world and be subservient to it. The notion that the man might welcome the change that the relationship brings is inconceivable. The idea that the man's love/respect for the woman takes priority over anything else doesn't even register as a possible sane reality - its a sign of weakness on his part and a sign of her being (as Eamon said) "manipulative, spoilt" etc.
Click to expand...
talking of which - Private Eye dont half put out some shit sometimes

83553346_10157447500779300_2254730115252486144_n.jpg
 
Apparently Queenie doesnt approve of anyone gaining financially by using their "royal" status so they've been asked / told to remove the word "royal" from all their branding.

Maybe they could just add an e to it?

Sussex Royale... lol...
 
Lupa said:
Apparently Queenie doesnt approve of anyone gaining financially by using their "royal" status so they've been asked / told to remove the word "royal" from all their branding.

Maybe they could just add an e to it?

Sussex Royale... lol...
Click to expand...
What’s she going to do if they don’t? Sue them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Prince William’s many good deeds
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
176
Views
10K
Petcha
P
Bingoman
Is the Princess of Wales dead yet?
Replies
20
Views
623
moochedit
moochedit
friedaweed
Gwynedd council calls for abolition of title Prince of Wales
Replies
2
Views
393
Serene
Serene
editor
Petition: End "Prince of Wales" title out of respect for Wales
Replies
2
Views
478
spellbinder
S
A380
Is HRH Prince Philip STILL dead?
2
Replies
56
Views
2K
Clair De Lune
Clair De Lune
Back
Top Bottom