Harry & Meghan #51 The Fresh Prince of Hot Air: from Royal stock to laughing stock

Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.
Norbs

Norbs

VIP Member
ResidentMerkin said:
Madonna did the same thing for the 45 min she was living here in the UK and married to Guy Ritchie. As a ResidentMerkin, that drives me utterly bananas when Merkins move here, having NEVER set foot outside of the United States (and sometimes even having never set foot out of their native Ohio/Los Angeles) and within a week they've developed this cringey faux British Accent.... you literally want to slap the taste out of their mouths when you listen to them. I usually hear that, note the name and walk away having categorised that person as unwell.
Click to expand...


but none did it so wonderfully as Steve McClaren.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: 11
P

Pixie1

VIP Member
freda19 said:
OOH, sparkly new thread, thanks Scotchy, and another cracker title, well done Norbs :m

@Pixie1. Pom generally does the night shift, not very often in here during the day ... enjoy.
Click to expand...
Thank you Freda, I look forward to finding out what H&M have been up to. 😀 I have an awful lot to catch up on 🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10
Just_me1954

Just_me1954

VIP Member
  • Like
Reactions: 10
Just_me1954

Just_me1954

VIP Member
50sGirl said:
Please could you tell me the Harkles instagram account name?
Click to expand...
It is not the harkles as in megs and H, but username theharkles You have to follow them to view. When i link to account it just comes up with that square icon and says cant be loaded, so you will have to do a search for their username.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10
Great_Kate

Great_Kate

VIP Member
Missmoorie said:
HMTQ can take their titles away. It's been done before in 1917. So there's a precedent. The continuation of the Monarchy is of prime importance to HMTQ and I'm hoping that she will be ruthless.
Click to expand...
She could take the HRH per letter patent but they are not using them anymore and won’t if they want to keep them (and instead remind everyone they totally could use them). She definitely cannot take the Peerage. So they will always be the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The four cases 1917 were indeed Acts of Parliament. The Title Deprivation Act of 1917 was passed to deprive “enemies of the United Kingdom” of peerage titles as well as princely dignities. As Meghan carries the title per marriage it is indeed Harry who would have to be stripped. Harry is neither a traitor (as in taking up arms against his country) nor a convict. He is a spoilt brat, craving attention and feeling wronged by the world. Bring a pair of what Freda says is not a crime though. The Act was very specifically created for war times and the legal definition of an enemy of state or supporting enemies of the state is pretty much reserved for war scenarios. It is not even clear if the Act could be revoked in this situation at all. There is no other precedence around than this one culling in the 20th Century. It’s also unclear if the order of action would have to be the same. Then a committee was appointed that collected evidence and reported upon people who have during war borne arms against the king and his allies. The report was handed to both Houses of Parliament. No motion of disapproval within a month or so it was submitted to the monarch to ratify. The title does not affect the succession of estate or property. The successors of the people stripped maintain the right to petition for a rival of the titles. Which would also be surveyed by a committee which will make a recommendation to the monarch.

*just saw that you found it out yourself. No idea why your post didn’t show up straight away....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 10
Facehugger

Facehugger

VIP Member
Pixie1 said:
Hiya Facehugger 👋😀. Thank you for that, I had a bit of a giggle 🤭🤭🤭. Who would have thought eh 😉. I must add this page to my watched list 😀👍. I'm going to wrap up some Christmas presents in a minute but I will definitely catch up later and have a look for Pomsy pics 😂❤
Click to expand...
I'll save you a chair. 🤭🤣 Our Scotchy and Freda like to post a pic or two at times, you're in for a treat missus x
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 10
bubbadabut

bubbadabut

VIP Member
Can anyone tell me the name of the guy who does the 'it's all floppy doppy' Harry and Meghan videos on Instagram? I was wondering if he's got any new ones and I can't for the life of me remember his name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10
bubbadabut

bubbadabut

VIP Member
Poppea said:
No private contract trumps the law, so this would be irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Thanks I know very little about surrogacy or the laws surrounding it. I do know someone who used one though, due to her being born without a womb. She does have ovaries though, so provided the eggs and the surrogate was just the host.

Does a surrogate have more rights if they themselves donate the egg, or is it all the same either way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10
spangly

spangly

VIP Member
mylifeisasillymoviefail said:
I don't think and NDA will trump the law.of the country. E.g. if there were safeguarding concerns these would not be 'forbidden' . Or they may be but that element of an NDA wouldn't stand. It is a civil contract so any element of criminal responsibility would not be covered.
So whatever situation there may be no concerns for the child.
I don't know US law but would imagine that confidential referrals to social services/ child services are still easily made.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more along the lines of people that just wanted to spill the tea against a cleb or defend themselves when something is said against them by that person (eg, the nanny doing something to endanger archie's life?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10