- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 925 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 68194
Oprah's said Harry confirmed to her it wasn't Brenda or Philip.
Anyway, being concerned about its race probably meant whether it was a shape-shifting reptilian or a human.
|>>|| No. 68195
I'm not sure how having the celebrity equivalent of a facebook teary counts as wanting to live a private life. My money is on Charles but the racial thing sounds like a bit of a fabrication, from what I gather he's keen on having a clear out of who counts as a royal.
The only rational explanation is that Phillip was replaced years ago by a double. There's no fucking way he hasn't put his foot in it on having a black great-grandchild.
|>>|| No. 68196
If you showed someone a picture of the baby I doubt many would know he's one-quarter black. I mean, I'm not entirely convinced Meghan is actually black; it feels more like people want her to be black than she actually is black.
|>>|| No. 68199
Oh sweetie, race is a social construct and a spectrum; please stop being so oppressive and problematic.
|>>|| No. 68204
only if it's televised 24 hours a day and we unfreeze davina mccall from whatever cryogenic chamber she's in to host it.
prince phillip in the diary room alone would be worth a gander.
|>>|| No. 68205
I really don't get it, she's barely even magnolia. You could put her in a lineup of completely ethnically "white" people and still have people darker skinned than her.
We're all adopting this daft, perplexing Yank concept of race and it's at times arbitrary, absurd and utterly inscrutable. The royal family obviously are racist, I mean they come from a time Britain ruled half the brown people in the world, but what even is the fuss here. You can't be racist against someone who isn't even racial.
|>>|| No. 68206
It's snobbishness. The royals don't like her because a) She's American and b) a celebrity. That's all there is to it. They don't want a brash stuck up yank changing the way they do things. This isn't a jack black movie. It's got fuck all to do with her skin.
|>>|| No. 68207
You say that, but I don't know exactly what she's supposed to have tried to change. On the contrary going on what she said in the interview she claims to have tried her hardest to fit in despite very little support from 'the institution' e.g. Googling the lyrics to the national anthem and hymns. If she was trying to reform the monarchy that's news to me.
I couldn't put a fag paper in between Kate and Meghan in terms of how they appear to have acted immediately after marrying into the family. They both went around meeting people, smiling, and wearing nice dresses. Yet one has received ire and the other hasn't.
|>>|| No. 68208
That doesn't change the point you're replying to. She might well not have tried to change anything, but even in neutral conversation an american acrtress is going to be recieved differently than an upper middle class englishwoman.
My grandma is often horrified at how "aggresive" even the mildest americans are, and she is almost certainly less high strung than any given royal.
|>>|| No. 68209
>IT'S SNOBBISHNESS. THE ROYALS DON'T LIKE HER BECAUSE A) SHE'S AMERICAN AND B) A CELEBRITY. THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT.
lads, are... are we royalty?
|>>|| No. 68211
I assumed the family devide has something to do with Meghan Markles political connections.
|>>|| No. 68212
The Mail in particular were pretty disparaging of Kate before she married Prince William, making out that the Middletons were sharp-elbowed social climbers who raised their daughters to be gold diggers and snare rich husbands to try and hide that they were new money scum. They did a complete u-turn after the wedding and now write articles about 'thrifty kate' because she wore the same coat more than once.
|>>|| No. 68216
Oh I don't know, I can already think of one example where the press tried even after the wedding:
>Pippa Middleton's bottom 'was FALSE' during royal wedding of William and Kate - claims French expert
>The bum that stole the show during the 2011 royal wedding has been accused of being fake by a respected French royal expert
Then again, Kate had her house in order and didn't have palace staff leaking bullying accusations or whatever other controversy Meghan provided on a given week which is the fodder newspapers actually care about (because money). The fact that she'll probably also be Queen one day might have also dawned on editors.
|>>|| No. 68217
If I got a black woman pregnant I would wonder what the baby would look like. I didn't realise this was racist.
|>>|| No. 68218
I've known plenty of people, my own family even, to come out with casually racist shite often enough. If the royal family isn't ten times as bad I'd be flabbergasted. I'm quite confused as to why you lads think otherwise, probably a lot of you are casually racist too, but I don't care about the royal family beyond how we, errr, get rid of them a swiftly as possible.
Fucking hell, autistlad, get a clue.
|>>|| No. 68219
It's not that we don't think the royal family can be racist, even if Philip hasn't had a gaffe in a while, it's more that we're not entirely convinced that the reason Meghan and Harry decided to leave the royal family was because of dolphin rape.
|>>|| No. 68220
Can't even escape this mind numbing bullshit on this autist shed.
|>>|| No. 68222
>the reason Meghan and Harry decided to leave the royal family was because of dolphin rape
Meghan and Harry haven't said that. dolphin rape may or may not be a factor, but their fundamental fear was a re-run of Diana, with Meghan being marginalised for failing to fit in with the Royal machinery.
|>>|| No. 68223
It's possibly all the more tiresome how we're expected to have sympathy for the poor girl, she's had such a rough time of it, I bet she was starting to run out of £50 notes to dry her tears on.
The royal family is almost certainly racist, how can it not be, but this is the culmination of the identity politics brain rot eating away at any and all foundation of class consciousness in the western world. When someone who until very recently was actual fucking royalty gets the victim treatment and we're all expected to think it's tragic.
|>>|| No. 68224
How can you not have sympathy for someone who was made to cry over the choice of flowers at her £32million wedding?
|>>|| No. 68225
Megan and Harry won't be first in line for the guillotine, that's as good as I'll give them.
|>>|| No. 68226
I'm sure the arguments I have with my girlfriend wouldn't evoke any sympathy if they made the tabloids either. I think she's well aware the only reason they're discussing it is because the media want people to discuss it, you don't need be patronising about it.
|>>|| No. 68227
Is the media in the UK just that much worse? Compared to other places.
|>>|| No. 68229
>THE ROYAL FAMILY IS ALMOST CERTAINLY RACIST, HOW CAN IT NOT BE, BUT THIS IS THE CULMINATION OF THE IDENTITY POLITICS BRAIN ROT EATING AWAY AT ANY AND ALL FOUNDATION OF CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE WESTERN WORLD. WHEN SOMEONE WHO UNTIL VERY RECENTLY WAS ACTUAL FUCKING ROYALTY GETS THE VICTIM TREATMENT AND WE'RE ALL EXPECTED TO THINK IT'S TRAGIC.
I reckon its mostly a shattering of aspirational illusions. Girls still grow up dreaming about marrying prince charming and later as a form of escapism from the dreary humdrum of a working class life. To learn that the world doesn't work like a fairy tale can be a shock that is particularly offensive to Americans who need reassuring that meritocracy exists.
Haven't you ever wondered what it would be like to be King? I like to think I'd be okay at it until I'm either exposed as a complete asparagus or my life comes back to haunt me.
>I'M SURE THE ARGUMENTS I HAVE WITH MY GIRLFRIEND WOULDN'T EVOKE ANY SYMPATHY IF THEY MADE THE TABLOIDS EITHER.
Depends on the argument really, Jeremy Kyle and agony aunt columns should tell us all we need to know on the public's interest in the affairs of the other classes and the divisions that can emerge.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a stern talking to from Kate. Or the chance to see her dominating Meghan on her wedding day for that matter.
|>>|| No. 68230
If people are really going around aspiring to marry into the monarchy I need to drop my passive monarchism
The main reason I tolerate the idea is because I tell myself it puts a cap on aspirational bullshit. It drives home the impact your origins has on your life circumstances: Anyone can rise to the top of yank society - just start a business in an up and coming natural monopoly as a merely quite-rich wanker - but in Britain we've got a cap: You can get all the money you like, you can sell the king of Saudi Arabia a trillion pounds worth of fighter jets and pocket every penny, but you'll never be the Queen. You weren't born into it. That breaks the ice for the principle that sometimes you can't overcome your birth. In the American example you're stuck rebutting stupid anecdotes all day rather than just going "So you think you could be the next king?"
|>>|| No. 68232
Spite can go a very long way. The British public love to see someone built up so they can be knocked down.
Benefit cuts are very popular because a lot of people would rather be elevated above someone else by making the other person worse off rather than through improving their own lot. They love a bit of suffering.
|>>|| No. 68241
I misread that as "Keep Piers Morgan on GHB" and the world was temporally a more interesting place.
|>>|| No. 68242
100%. A few hours of top shelf chemsex and he might cheer up a bit and stop being such an utter cunt.
|>>|| No. 68244
do any of you lads ever get that thing where you've got a big fat shit brewing, one that's not quite ready to drop, but certainly starting to create pressure on one's prostate, and it makes you into an irritable, maungy arsehole?
I imagine that's piers morgan's permanent state of existence, and I honestly feel a bit sorry for him.
|>>|| No. 68250
Where have you been lad? The same complaint was made about that headline back when it was published.
|>>|| No. 68268
I don't why everyone is so determined to take at face value a carefully stage-managed PR exercise orchestrated by a multi-millionaire who acts for a living. It is a rare, rare thing for me to find myself agreeing with Piers Morgan but I'm with him on this - I don't believe for a second that she was driven to feeling suicidal at the palace. It's a claim anyone can make to give themselves an unassailable victim status and she did it with aplomb.
|>>|| No. 68269
They take at face value his dramatic storming-off stage, nobody has any credulity these days.
|>>|| No. 68272
You must be new here ladchap, we don't use that sort of language. I thought it was wordfiltered tbh.
|>>|| No. 68273
It's filtered with auto-permaban on some parts of the site but not others. I have no idea why.
|>>|| No. 68274
I'm sure there were a few allegations of bullying against her because she thought she'd be able be demanding with the help and treat them like shit.
As far as I'm aware, nigger results in an automatic one hour ban but you can still post it. I'll see what happens and let you know.
|>>|| No. 68275
Not banned, I guess /iq/ must be a special case where the normal rules don't apply.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 68286
That's positively ghoulish. She'd been melted down in the Royal Furnace before Harry was even fertile.
Is this just how the Royal Family function, or do other non-monarchs view their family members as minor deities?
|>>|| No. 68287
Am I supposed to think small children writing letters to their deceased grandparents is either 'ghouliush' or somehow an indictment of the Royal Family? They're just kids, lads, leave them alone.
|>>|| No. 68288
Yes, it's ghoulish. What purpose does it serve? Is it popular? Am I one of the few people who never grew up writing letters to dead people?
|>>|| No. 68289
William getting his kids to write cards to their grandma that died, what, about 15 years before they were born in order to post pictures of them on social media for a bit of good PR and the whole Harry & megham shitstorm is certainly off.
|>>|| No. 68290
>WHAT PURPOSE DOES IT SERVE?
I reckon Harry and William are just a bit tapped. I've never known someone who lost their mother when they were young to not be unhealthy about it and parents are always eager to share their neurosis.
|>>|| No. 68432
Tl;dw, Princess anne is the Royal who supposedly speculated on archie's skin colour, but it's a load of bollocks because her objections were about the cultural differences between British people and Septics and Meghan not really getting the royal family as an institution.
|>>|| No. 68433
>but it's a load of bollocks
Because if we can take anyone's word on this, it's that of someone who went on TV to defend Prince Andrew. Also, why are you watching some posh old lady talking for forty minutes about some pointless monarchy bullshit?
|>>|| No. 68434
>WHY ARE YOU WATCHING SOME POSH OLD LADY TALKING FOR FORTY MINUTES
I thought you lads were into that sort of thing.
|>>|| No. 68438
I always thought it had the potential to be much, much less outrageous than everybody thinks. Obviously, one cannot admit to such things, but if my sister fucked Stevie Wonder, I would ask her if the baby might be blind. It wouldn't matter either way if it was blind or not; I'd just be making conversation. And I certainly wouldn't bring it up with Stevie Wonder, because he's black and therefore liable to stab me. But that's what Princess Anne did, and Harry ran off to grass her up to his ghastly waifu and now everyone's seething mad.
|>>|| No. 68442
>Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has contradicted British royal Meghan’s claim that she married Britain’s Prince Harry several days before the official lavish ceremony at Windsor Castle in 2018.
>Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, told Oprah Winfrey in an interview earlier this month that she wed Queen Elizabeth’s grandson in a secret ceremony officiated over by the Archbishop a few days before the Windsor event, which was held in a glare of royal pomp and pageantry. “You know, three days before our wedding, we got married - no-one knows that,” she said. “Just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
>But Welby contradicted that. “The legal marriage took place on that Saturday,” Welby was quoted as saying by Die Welt, adding that he personally signed the marriage certificate. “I would have committed a crime if I had signed something that was not true.” He said he had earlier had a “series of private and pastoral meetings” with Harry and Meghan, but declined to give details on the conversation. “If you talk to a priest, you can expect that conversation to remain private.”
>British media have previously published a copy of the wedding certificate showing the official marriage occurred at Windsor Castle, with the official who drew up the licence saying Meghan was either confused or misinformed, and the couple had perhaps exchanged some simple vows before the Archbishop.
It'll be a laugh if Meghan now comes out with proof and the Archbishop goes to prison for a crime he just reminded everyone of.
|>>|| No. 69036
Julie Burchill has been sacked by the Telegraph for joking that Harry and Meghan should have named their baby Georgina Floydina. Pc gone bloody mad, can't even tell a joke these days.
|>>|| No. 69037
But it's only funny because it's offensive. It's not smart of incisive or making a statement, it's just purely offensive and intended to piss off as many people as possible. It just seems like such a stupid joke to make. What did she expect?
|>>|| No. 69039
I get better blowjobs from them too, what's your point? We should all embrace our inner child now and then.
|>>|| No. 69040
I am writing to inform you of your immediate sacking from britfa.gs. Please gather your things and do not make any new posts.
|>>|| No. 69041
Al I'm going to say is, don't say I didn't tell you do, when thirty years down the line we live in a cultural context where the anti-pc backlash has reached roll swing and open dolphin rape is once again entirely acceptable.
These things sways move in cycles, through permutations of right left, liberal puritan. We are currently in puritan left, the counterculture will be liberal right. After that it will be puritan right, to which the antidote will be liberal left; which will again devolve into puritan left and the cycle will repeat.
|>>|| No. 69042
That's not really true though is it? Nobody in the Ming dynasty would understand any of this.
|>>|| No. 69045
I'm pretty fucking sure the Ming Dynasty Daoist would be capable of grasping the Pendulum Effect as a grand historical narrative. It's less noticeable for us because the pendulum swings much faster now over election cycles and in the west we like our end of history.
|>>|| No. 69046
Sorry, let me rephrase for your pedantry: Nobody in the Ming dynasty would agree with such a simplistic dualistic and universalising depiction of history that, as it's used in this context, only applies very narrowly to the West as it is now.
|>>|| No. 69049
there isn't really enough of a monoculture for there to be a counterculture to anymore. the self-conscious way in which people want to say "Oh, we're the new counterculture!" speaks only to the fact we've done a dismal job of finding a new direction after the 70s-90s, so instead we try to loop it in an increasingly shitty fashion.
if you want a vision of the future, imagine Blair and Oasis pretending they're Wilson and the Beatles, forever.
|>>|| No. 69051
wtf I added that dog picture to a post I didn't make like six hours ago. Whatever.
|>>|| No. 69059
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.
|>>|| No. 69060
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.
|>>|| No. 69093
It is tragic isn't it. You at least go for the trimmed 1950s dad look, not the 13th century monk look.
|>>|| No. 69094
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.
|>>|| No. 69095
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.
|>>|| No. 69100
I don't know what you're all complaining about. They've captured David bowie's likeness very well.
|>>|| No. 69102
>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.
|>>|| No. 69942
I honestly think you should consider ending your life for bumping this thread.
|>>|| No. 69944
>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."
If only we'd listened to Harry and shut down the internet before it was too late.
|>>|| No. 69946
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.
|>>|| No. 69948
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.
|>>|| No. 69952
He's gone fully California. That's what he's done. Meghan's pussy game must be to die for.
|>>|| No. 69961
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.
|>>|| No. 70296
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.
|>>|| No. 70297
What the Mail is failing to mention is that he wants to pay for it. Same protection, but he shoulders the cost.
|>>|| No. 70298
>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.
|>>|| No. 70299
God forbid someone not get a balanced worldview of the latest celebrity gossip.
|>>|| No. 70300
How else would you keep up on what Carol Vorderman is doing with her curves?
|>>|| No. 70301
So he can pay for private security. Maybe he could get in touch with Oprah's people again.
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.
|>>|| No. 70303
Yeah, but didn't the mods say that the only Unbiased news sources are the ft and private eye?
|>>|| No. 70304
Ah, no wonder we are seeing an influx of shitposting DM articles recently, this joker is fresh off the boat from funchan.
|>>|| No. 70307
>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.
Didn't some opinionator get caught out sharing their own articles on /pol/ for clicks?
|>>|| No. 70308
>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?
|>>|| No. 70309
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.
|>>|| No. 70310
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.
|>>|| No. 70312
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.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]