The Royal Family #30

[Popcorn&Peanuts]

Yet it still manages to be boring! I don't think they will have many viewers.

Nah, they'll be fine. Their biggest critics pore over their every word (the DM already has 18 articles on this 59-second trailer), their fans will devour it and the average person is just interested enough to give it a go. Even my husband who is completely unmoved by anything celebrity or royal-related said he would watch an episode or two to see what it's all about. The Sussexes generate massive interest - both hugely negative and positive - and that's undeniable.

It's a real shame the BRF cocked up with Meghan. She ignited renewed interest in the instituion in my little Commonwealth country but that interest has turned to indifference and dislike to the BRF after everything that has happened since. Never doubt the power of relatability. Meghan, whatever one's concerns about her, is infinitely more relatable to the average person than the stuffy and obscenely privileged BRF.

 

[monga]

I really don't like Nazir Afzal. There's not a race bandwagon he won't jump on.

Where is all this going though? You're at a function or meeting with as load of people you have never met and don't know are you not allowed to ask any kind of personal questions to get to know someone or their background. Are we limited to 'what do think of the weather today?' It's all getting a bit scary.

I'm not defending LSH and this incident though. She was clumsy and wrong to continue to ask and a woman in her position and her experience should definitely have known how to conduct herself.

Probably on autopilot and not really interested or listening in who she was talking to , I can’t imagine the royals or their subjects take much of an interest in the public tbh it’s just a job to them, get the function out of the way till they get back to their real lives.

 

[Whatamadworld]

Do Lady Hussey and Prince Charles get along? Makes you wonder if she was always a bit racist, but avoided being so overt about it during the Queen's reign due to worry about the Queen dismissing her. At 83 she's probably set up financially and doesn't care about how her words and actions affect Charles' reign.

 

[QueenBW]

Meghan and Harry: we want privacy

Also Meghan and Harry: *make a 6 episode documentary about their lives giving unprecedented access, showing photos and footage that should be private since they're about their private lives*

Make it make sense please.

 

[thegirlscout]

Meghan and Harry: we want privacy

Also Meghan and Harry: *make a 6 episode documentary about their lives giving unprecedented access, showing photos and footage that should be private since they're about their private lives*

Make it make sense please.

I’m going to have a look at the show but I’m a bit confused about what else they can add, I thought they said everything in the Oprah interview or did they miss something?

 

[TYL159]

Nah, they'll be fine. Their biggest critics pore over their every word (the DM already has 18 articles on this 59-second trailer), their fans will devour it and the average person is just interested enough to give it a go. Even my husband who is completely unmoved by anything celebrity or royal-related said he would watch an episode or two to see what it's all about. The Sussexes generate massive interest - both hugely negative and positive - and that's undeniable.

It's a real shame the BRF cocked up with Meghan. She ignited renewed interest in the instituion in my little Commonwealth country but that interest has turned to indifference and dislike to the BRF after everything that has happened since. Never doubt the power of relatability. Meghan, whatever one's concerns about her, is infinitely more relatable to the average person than the stuffy and obscenely privileged BRF.

Yet Meghan's children are still 6th and 7th in line to the throne and her husband 5th in line, working royal or not

Succession

The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne.

www.royal.uk

'My view is that Fulani planned this right from the very start. She’s an anti-Royal, anti-British Marxist!’
@Nigel_Farage

 

[monga]

Do Lady Hussey and Prince Charles get along? Makes you wonder if she was always a bit racist, but avoided being so overt about it during the Queen's reign due to worry about the Queen dismissing her. At 83 she's probably set up financially and doesn't care about how her words and actions affect Charles' reign.

I doubt that going by Prince Philip’s racist comments, even Harry was embroiled in racial controversy, it must be the norm behind the palace walls.

 

[QueenBW]

I’m going to have a look at the show but I’m a bit confused about what else they can add, I thought they said everything in the Oprah interview or did they miss something?

They missed the money influx and attention.

 

[monga]

Yet Meghan's children are still 6th and 7th in line to the throne and her husband 5th in line, working royal or not

Succession

The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute. The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne.

www.royal.uk

'My view is that Fulani planned this right from the very start. She’s an anti-Royal, anti-British Marxist!’
@Nigel_Farage

Nigel

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

I wonder if it is racist that Sistah Space only supports black women that are victim's of domestic violence?

 

[Boring Monday]

If any one can explain to me how someone could set up, in a huge group of people being spoken to by someone who doesn’t know they exist, and not only that controlling a conversation they didn’t start and tried to stop then maybe I could give it due consideration.

 

[thegirlscout]

We could really go a thread on Ngozi because this lady has some damming tweets about her behaviour.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lizanelly1

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

If any one can explain to me how someone could set up, in a huge group of people being spoken to by someone who doesn’t know they exist, and not only that controlling a conversation they didn’t start and tried to stop then maybe I could give it due consideration.

Well, to be fair, "where are you from" is a common question and it is possible to manipulate a situation using tone and facial expressions.

I have observed it plenty of times, I had a narcissistic colleague (she had been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder)

 

[Lilliepad]

I wonder if it is racist that Sistah Space only supports black women that are victim's of domestic violence?

No. Pretty obvious that it’s not lol

 

[Chocolategoggler]

Taz has further evidence to add m'lud....

 

[whathastheworldcometo]

No. Pretty obvious that it’s not lol

Why not?

Initially, just by the promise, it seems to be positive discrimination as it focuses on a marginalised group, so it is legal.
But imagine that a member of another domestic group approaches the charity and they would be turned down, as it happened to the bi-racial girl that tweeted about it, then wouldn't it be negative discrimination and illegal?

It doesn't appear to be so clear cut to me, but maybe I am overlooking something?

 

[LoopyLou47]

Nigel

Nigel showing his true colours. Baiting the racists again.

 

[Boring Monday]

Well, to be fair, "where are you from" is a common question and it is possible to manipulate a situation using tone and facial expressions.

I have observed it plenty of times, I had a narcissistic colleague (she had been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder)

I mean, really … seriously … she could steer a conversation she didn’t know she was going to have with a person she didn’t know from Adam … did she walk away twirling a <non existent> moustache with a *mwah hahahaha* because if she did she is wasted doing what she’s doing.

 

[Lilliepad]

Why not?

Initially, just by the promise, it seems to be positive discrimination as it focuses on a marginalised group, so it is legal.
But imagine that a member of another domestic group approaches the charity and they would be turned down, as it happened to the bi-racial girl that tweeted about it, then wouldn't it be negative discrimination and illegal?

It doesn't appear to be so clear cut to me, but maybe I am overlooking something?

Yes, you are overlooking something.

As you’ve mentioned, it focuses on a marginalised group which is institutionally discriminated against. There are plenty of other charities that would be able to help other groups outside of this. Positive discrimination isn’t racist, it leans into the fact that there are nuances that come from being black that other charities may have less experience with, alongside the understanding that many white charities may miss with black women. Think about things such as medical racism. Those issues would be pertinent here.

In the case of a bi-racial person seeking help from SS, I personally think that it’s wrong that they were turned away as they would face many of the same issues and nuances a black woman would, but I also understand the argument that a half white woman would much more advantage in the western world due to proximity to whiteness, and so the charity wants to focus on those without that privilege. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Mrs Fluff]

It’ll keep Piers and Lady Colin in material for months …

I see this as something I might watch. I didn’t and don't like Meghan but this does put a different slant on things. People are forgetting if she (Lady SH) was around the Queen a lot it stands to reason she was around PP a lot. The Queen appeared respectful, the other two dinosaurs just mentioned weren't