|
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 12390772)
Not his status but that of the charities and organisations he supports. Perhaps you have him confused with Kanye West.
|
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 12390773)
It's called goodwill advertising, for himself.
|
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 12390774)
Allow me to signal my virtue, it is that I am untroubled by charitable endeavors by the rich and famous (except Bono, of course).
|
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 12390775)
I find all private charity and philanthropy to be problematic. It perversely concentrates power and it lets society/government off the for hook for caring, supporting and investing in other humans.
|
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 12390712)
It's not an erroneous concern. It's a facile argument to suggest that without a monarchy there'll a dramatic reduction in the market of tea towels and snow globes. Who cares? Even one penny of public money spent on the monarchy is an affront to human dignity.
If Harry had anything about him, he'd renounce his titles, apologize for participating in such a disgusting pantomime, give all his money to the state and go and get a job. You could switch the Monarchy out with a President. All the palaces and castles aren't going anywhere. The revenue needles would probably increase. Harry was a penis. After military school, combat and losing several friends from military school (who died in combat) he seems to have become a better example to people. Best of luck to Megs and Haz. However the monarchy has no place in the 21st century. It's more ludicrous than any religion. |
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by JamesM
(Post 12390777)
With Oink on this one.
You could switch the Monarchy out with a President. All the palaces and castles aren't going anywhere. The revenue needles would probably increase. Harry was a penis. After military school, combat and losing several friends from military school (who died in combat) he seems to have become a better example to people. Best of luck to Megs and Haz. However the monarchy has no place in the 21st century it's more ludicrous than any religion. |
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by christmasoompa
(Post 12109760)
I shouldn't think 'the Establishment' will give two hoots if he marries her (heirs to the throne can get away with wild behaviour and marrying those considered less suitable - see Princess Margaret's life for a similar story!).
The press might, but if it shakes the bloody Daily Mail up (it was in there that her mother was described in such an awful way I think) then that can only be a good thing IMO. Only thing is, she's a bit ugly isn't she? I mean really, could he not have found somebody that looks a bit better than her. :sarcasm: |
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by Jerseygirl
(Post 12390781)
Yeah but she looks just like Pippa during the engagement interview...who looks very much like her sister Kate. :blink:
|
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 12390778)
But less ludicrous than the President.
|
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by Jerseygirl
(Post 12390781)
Yeah but she looks just like Pippa during the engagement interview...who looks very much like her sister Kate. :blink:
A part of me feels that Chelsy Davy was likely 'the one' but she did not wish to have the 24/7 365days intrusions where your life is actually not your own to live . I believe they remain good friends. :unsure: |
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Financially, it's all a bit of a wash, at least to the likes of you and me, that is. A few pennies a week each up or down. But it's a lot better on their side of the equation, that's for sure.
Harry likes to play the 'ordinary chap' schtick, and I'm sure he probably believes it himself, but the truth is that the Royal Family are an anachronism which ought to be sidelined at every opportunity. Getting the country to go all gooey over a wedding is going in the wrong direction. |
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 12390873)
But it's a lot better on their side of the equation, that's for sure.
But she's also still working in her 90's, has her every move scrutinised, can't ever be free to do what she actually want to do ('I think I'd like to be a teacher/hairdresser/road sweeper'.....oh, but I get no choice in my life), has to be 'public' all the time, has to spend hours making small talk with pointless people (over 16,000 public engagements in her lifetime :eek:), etc. Even last year she had 332 royal engagements, so a grand total of 33 days off in a year at 90 years old? No thanks. I guess it depends on whether you value financial security or happiness more, and I know which I'd choose. As I said above, I wouldn't swap places with them for anything. I'll take my life with my pathetic one house and money worries, but the freedom to do what I want thanks. :lol: |
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 12390775)
I find all private charity and philanthropy to be problematic. It perversely concentrates power and it lets society/government off the for hook for caring, supporting and investing in other humans.
|
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 12390769)
I enjoyed seeing them on the news. I liked how they looked at each other, how she held onto him. It's good to see some outright happiness and love.
|
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
Originally Posted by christmasoompa
(Post 12390886)
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The Queen may be a heck of a lot richer than I, have no money worries and have several homes to choose from.
But she's also still working in her 90's, has her every move scrutinised, can't ever be free to do what she actually want to do ('I think I'd like to be a teacher/hairdresser/road sweeper'.....oh, but I get no choice in my life), has to be 'public' all the time, has to spend hours making small talk with pointless people (over 16,000 public engagements in her lifetime :eek:), etc. Even last year she had 332 royal engagements, so a grand total of 33 days off in a year at 90 years old? No thanks. I guess it depends on whether you value financial security or happiness more, and I know which I'd choose. As I said above, I wouldn't swap places with them for anything. I'll take my life with my pathetic one house and money worries, but the freedom to do what I want thanks. :lol: The Queen is on the throne, we've been paying for her son for 70 years to be understudy, paying for HIS son for 30-odd years, and now paying for HIS son... how many other jobs do you hire the person doing the job and the next 4 people who will do it? Think about it, it's ridiculous. I'm not a monarchist but I'm not strongly in favour of abolition or republicanism. I do think the monarchy should be severely trimmed down and made less ostentatious. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 4:12 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.