wtf I added that dog picture to a post I didn't make like six hours ago. Whatever.

>>69046

But you're wrong.

>>69051

But it is a very good dog picture.

>>69056

Is it though, or is it a deepfake of a dog?

>>69057

The depth-of-field looks convincingly real.

>>69036
She's not wrong though, BLM as long as it's outside the palace. Harry wearing a nazi outfit would presumably mark him as a hypocrite. Not sure what Meghan's done other than be generally annoying.

It just seems a bit weird. Imagine if a 18 year old Royal got pictured in that dashing regalia today, they'd be absolutely eviscerated. While I do remember the press having a field day with that, it was more of a 'We all know it's not that serious but it looks bad so let's ham it up', whereas now it'd be taken as an admission that one has a Zyklon-B button in the shower. So I'd say she's justified in her assessment.

>>69056>>69057>>69058
I saw it on Twitter. I think the post said the dog was on benzos after an operation. I am not qualified to prove its veracity one way or another.

>>69050
What a magnificent beast! I say, have you knotted it yet?

You'd just shave it off by this point.

>>69092

It is tragic isn't it. You at least go for the trimmed 1950s dad look, not the 13th century monk look.

>>69092

I was going to say he could at least go Jason Statham, but it looks like ARE JAY has taken to shaving it off too.

Harry is evidently going down the same path.

>>69092
My hair looks like that, and while people do comment that it's falling out, whenever I see someone I know, they always say, "You're balder than you were last time." That's barely even possible, which suggests that by Living My Best Life™ and not letting you fuckers tell me what hairstyle to have, I also seem to somehow still plant the idea in people's ideas of me that I do still have hair.

>>69092
What the fuck, they look nothing like the children in the statue.

>>69096
I can't believe they commissioned it themselves, it's atrocious.

>>69097

Could be worse tbh

>>69097
Which one of them is fucking the sculptor (or wants to)?
It's shit.

I don't know what you're all complaining about. They've captured David bowie's likeness very well.

>>69100
Did they call him a carpetbagger or a carpet-bagger though?

>>69092

>WHAT THE FUCK, THEY LOOK NOTHING LIKE THE CHILDREN IN THE STATUE.
It's not hard to guess which one was hidden round the back out of sight.

According to Harry, the term megxit is whale poacheric.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/10/prince-harry-says-megxit-is-a-whale poacheric-term-aimed-at-his-wife-meghan

>>69941
I honestly think you should consider ending your life for bumping this thread.

>>69942
Beggars can't be choosers.

>>69941
>The Duke of Sussex has said he warned Twitter boss Jack Dorsey about political unrest in the US - just a day before the deadly 6 January riots. I warned him his platform was allowing a coup to be staged," Prince Harry said at the RE:WIRED tech forum in the US. That email was sent the day before. And then it happened and I haven't heard from him since," the duke said.
>The duke used his personal experience with online hatred and the press to reflect that social media companies were not doing enough to stop the spread of misinformation. He said the internet was "being defined by hate, division and lies", adding: "That can't be right."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59229044

If only we'd listened to Harry and shut down the internet before it was too late.

>>69944

I like the new angle this has given me on what life must be like as prince harry. Evidently he's just as terminally online as any of us.

When he's not playing polo or appearing on talk shows about his wife or opening a diabetic kids school or whatever, he's sat in his pants and vest, with pot noodle spilled down the front, doomscrolling through fifteen tabs of rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk, twitter, and 4chan.

disclaimer, i don't know which is which out of harry and... what's his name, the other one. it's like ant and dec.

>>69946
I think his mum dying has made him a bit unhinged, which isn't entirely surprising. He gives the impression that he thinks lots of people are out to get him and his family, particularly the media, which again isn't surprising after what happened to his mum.

I can see him regularly Googling himself or seeing what people are posting about him on twitter. Maybe if we keep saying his name he'll be summoned here.

He's gone fully California. That's what he's done. Meghan's pussy game must be to die for.

>>69948

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.

>>69948
Based on how serious people have taken the rumours of his illegitimacy here in the past, going as far as to call it libellous, then I think he posts here.

What a great big fanny.

>>70295

How unreasonable of him to want equal protection as the rest of his family now that he's a bigger target than they ever were. Why are you consistently reading muckrag articles about the royals? You're in no position to judge anyone.

>>70295
What the Mail is failing to mention is that he wants to pay for it. Same protection, but he shoulders the cost.

>>70296
>WHY ARE YOU CONSISTENTLY READING MUCKRAG ARTICLES ABOUT THE ROYALS? YOU'RE IN NO POSITION TO JUDGE ANYONE.

You don't get a truly balanced worldview unless you read the muckrags. Anyone with a functioning brain can pick apart the bias and spin they apply to their articles, but there's a lot they cover that the BBC and guardian simply won't.

>>70298

God forbid someone not get a balanced worldview of the latest celebrity gossip.

>>70299
How else would you keep up on what Carol Vorderman is doing with her curves?

>>70297
So he can pay for private security. Maybe he could get in touch with Oprah's people again.

>>70298
May I remind you that this is a website that bans the tabloid press because modlad wants to stop Brexit on the internet or whatever.

>>70298
>Guardian
>Not a muckrag
KEK

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>70301
Yeah, but didn't the mods say that the only Unbiased news sources are the ft and private eye?

>>70302
>KEK

Ah, no wonder we are seeing an influx of shitposting DM articles recently, this joker is fresh off the boat from funchan.

>>70304
Is there a link between 4chan and the daily mail which I'm unaware of?

>>70305
You have to be thick as pigshit to seriously engage with either.

>>70303
>YEAH, BUT DIDN'T THE MODS SAY THAT THE ONLY UNBIASED NEWS SOURCES ARE THE FT AND PRIVATE EYE?

You're right, this does sound like a class issue.

>>70305
Didn't some opinionator get caught out sharing their own articles on /pol/ for clicks?

>>70298
>ANYONE WITH A FUNCTIONING BRAIN CAN PICK APART THE BIAS AND SPIN
Right, but if there are important parts of the story which they actively leave out (for example, nobody else has to pay for Prince Harry's bodyguards; he will pay for them himself) then no amount of knowing they're lying will reinsert that part of the story. You'd need to read it somewhere else. Why not just go there in the first place?

>>70308
You're being a bit disingenuous yourself when there's nothing stopping him paying for security. What he wants is access to public security services with an explicit intention being intelligence gathering, justified because some paps followed him from a charity event.

You would be using police resources including manpower, Harry. You can't expect special treatment compared to other celebrities or that money magically makes it okay.

>>70309
You're being entirely disingenuous if your response to "they left some information out" is "you're wrong because here's even more information left out".

A bit like the implication that he's any more/less entitled to public money or services than the rest of the royals, made by arguing about him in particular.

>>70305

The venn diagram of their audience is very heavily overlapping. But it's not specifically /pol/, it's just that the Mail panders to an American audience nowadays, and therefore the majority of /pol/.

It's partially because it typically runs the kind of story that validates a lot of their right wing prejudices, and from an international perspective, even the more moderate yanks love a bit of that "Bloody hell Double darn dagnabbit, you can't even buy a spoon in sharia britain!" type outrage bait. It makes them more comfortable in the illusion of their own freedom to see other countries having silly laws and brown people, and they lap it up.

I'm forever telling Yanks on another forum I visit that the Mail is basically the real life equivalent of that mad one that prints barmy nonsense in harry potter, like alex jones in newspaper form. But they don't believe me, because they would genuinely, consciously rather believe you can't eat pork in manchester or whatever. they like it that way.

>>70308
When it's literally the second sentence in their article, how have they left it out?

>MY MONEY IS ON PRINCESS MICHAEL OF KENT.

Can't be her. She listens to rap music and beat boxing.

Having spent our 90 minutes together intrigued by the music player, I conclude the conversation by asking Katharine what she is listening to these days.

“It’s quite a hard question to answer,” she says, pausing to think of her favourite artists. “I just love music. Something that catches my ear on the radio - I don’t really listen to records. If it makes my feet tap then I’m happy.”

As well as once declaring a fondness for the boy band Blue, I heard she also quite likes rap music.

“Oh yes I do,” she says, smiling.

Which rappers?

“I don’t know all their names.”

Eminem? “Yes.”

Stormzy? “No”.

Ice Cube? “Yes”.

Kayne West? “No”.

I wonder if she ever listens to any thrash metal. “I’d give it a go but possibly not for long. My husband likes music but very serious music. I’ll listen to anything. I even like beat boxing.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/duchess-of-kent-13-years-teacher-royal-family/

>>71264

>I wonder if she ever listens to any thrash metal

I'm quite certain I saw her at a Kemakil/Shrapnel gig in Norwich in about 2009.

Sometimes, the royals don't quite manage to hide their inbreeding.

>The Dutch version of a new book has been pulled from the shelves after naming the senior royal at the heart of a dolphin rape scandal involving the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

>In the UK version of his book, Scobie reveals that the Duchess complained about two people who had upset her by making comments about Prince Archie’s skin tone but stops short of naming them, citing “laws in the UK”.

>However, the Dutch translation includes a critical detail that does not feature in any other edition. “In those private letters an identity was revealed and confirmed,” it says, before naming one of the alleged culprits. The person responsible meant “no ill will or bias”, according to Scobie in the Dutch translation. The book quotes a royal insider who claims that person wanted to clarify that point, which was considered “very important.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/11/28/dutch-version-endgame-pulled-shelves-royal-racist-named/

>The book was withdrawn after Scobie was alerted to a discrepancy on page 128 of the Dutch book, in which he discusses which member of the royal family commented how dark the skin of prince Harry and Megan’s first child would be. The British version made no revelations but the Dutch version reads “But in those private letters an identity was revealed and confirmed – Charles”.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2023/11/dutch-version-of-royalty-book-endgame-withdrawn-over-error/

Alright, how had Charles down as the racist royal?