I definitely saw pictures Diana in a nudie magazine back in the 80s when I was in college. The same magazine had pictures of an Asian chick with a feminine oriface that went side to side.If you Google her name along with "naked", you may find some things that reveal why she and Harry were kicked out of the Royal Family by the Queen.
Can't help but think it's due to lack of male leadership in the monarchy. I think as modern queens go Elizabeth II is pretty impressive, but a boy needs a patriarch....I was about to say the same thing. It was, apparently, the same situation with Edward VIII. His mother left him completely in the care of an abusive, psychotic nanny for years. Wallis Simpson was a manipulative, Yoko Ono-type like Meghan which is what he was looking for.
She will never divorce him, she can't go any higher on her hypergamy kick, she would fall back from real princess to middle aged B-Movie has been. He's stuck with her for life.I've put bets on within 2yrs, Megan makes a sex tape while cheating on Harry, divorce rape his ass, and Harry commits suicide.
I'm fairly certain I'll win $500 with the other dudes I put down $100 for. Sex tape was not part of the bet. The rest are, however.
Young royals get an expensive education but not necessarily a great one. As in most countries, the less-intelligent children of the rich are crammed and tutored until they can regurgitate facts and solve equations, but they get prestigious credentials without really learning how to think for themselves. I suspect that elite private secondary and postsecondary schools have special “easy” courses or sections for rich kids, or at least that administrators pressure teachers to give certain “special” students passing grades whether earned or not.I have to say I think Harry is an idiot. I remember when he got his A level exam results, and they were terrible. Given the privileged education he has had, he must be a half-wit.
In Europe most monarchies were removed by (((revolutions))) or wars done by certain cliques.By the way, this is the trouble with dynasties. Some ancestor may have had the gumption and smarts to gain power and to lead well, but it doesn’t follow that all descendants will be likewise equipped for leadership. The wise king may sire a mediocre son who may sire a worthless grandson. This is one reason hereditary monarchies have fallen out of favor and have, in most countries that had them, been either removed or stripped of actual power.
Monarchies have fallen for many reasons—including loss of popular support because they became oppressive and/or incompetent. Militaries became disgruntled and indifferent in protecting their Commanders in Chief. Otherwise, anti-monarchy cliques would have had too few followers to triumph.In Europe most monarchies were removed by (((revolutions))) or wars done by certain cliques.
What you said still holds on, but that is not the reason why monarchies felt down in Europe .
Monarchies have fallen for many reasons—including loss of popular support because they became oppressive and/or incompetent. Militaries became disgruntled and indifferent in protecting their Commanders in Chief. Otherwise, anti-monarchy cliques would have had too few followers to triumph.
The same can and does happen when a government of any type loses popular support. Indeed, from time to time there is talk of this possibility in some contemporary republics; and sometimes it actually happens. The difference is that nepotism happens to be an especially lousy way of selecting competent leaders.
Love of honor or “glory” is a selfish motive which is little (if at all) nobler or more righteous than is love of material riches. Few humans or human organizations—be they family dynasties, nation states, or political parties—can long resist temptation of one kind or another.The nation-states as we know them today, countries like France, Spain, Sweden, Britain, wouldn't even exist if it weren't for monarchies that operated largely as timocracies, or government in which love of honor is the ruling principle. If it weren't for that, Europe would have been overrun by luciferian international bankers many centuries years ago, instead righteous Christian rulers like Philippe IV, grandson of Saint Louis of France, cut off the head of the snake and sent their globalist agenda 500 years back.
Ironically, countries like Russia and China are largely operating today like timocracies, with authoritarian leaders sanctioned by the church and by Confucian ethics respectively. In China's case, the communist party has morphed into a kind of imperial red dynasty that is set to become the world's leading power, with Xi aspiring to be the greatest figure in modern Chinese history. Someone like him is not interested in making a couple of hundred millions on the side milking the system like Biden is, he wants to have his likeness on school classrooms and currency bills 50 years from now.
Neolibs and neocons criticize Putin saying he's a corrupt leader who has got hundreds of billions stashed, projecting into him qualities of opportunists like Obama or Biden who are in it for the money, occupying a mostly symbolic position which doesn't hold real power (as shown by Trump's stunted POTUS tenure). Putin's ambition is much greater and much more noble than just to retire as a billionaire, he wants to have the kind of historic legacy as a national figure that rivals that of historic Russian figures like Peter the Great or Catherine (who absorbed Crimea into the Russian empire). It's the same ambition that leaders like Charles de Gaulle or JFK had, to leave legacies as national heroes and builders of nations.