Prince Harry and Meghan Markle thread

[Prosciutto Crudo]

Who gives a shit about those people ?

Here's the next king of England :




First santa then the jews. Just wait 20~30 years and you'll see.

 

[Czee]

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.

 

[Thomas More]

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.

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.

I'm pretty sure one of those pictures was air brushed ( it was before the era of photoshop)

 

[Max Roscoe]

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.

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....

As for that interview, the amount of whining and self centered narcisism from Megan was shocking. It's hard to believe the race card trumps the "I'm a rich beautiful princess and my life is so hard" pretensiousness with the general public. But I suppose iconoclasm is now our national pasttime, and they are cheering for Megan to destroy one more vestige of European culture.

 

[JohnQThomas]

Who needs royalty anyway, am I right guys?

Rejecting royalty is the American way.

 

[911]

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.

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.

 

[JohnQThomas]

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.

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.

 

[JohnQThomas]

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.

 

[Papaya]

Just asking you, maybe i am not getting this right... you are suggesting that

Wouldnt have surprised me at this point

 

[Goni]

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.

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 .

 

[JohnQThomas]

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.

 

[Slim Shady]

Another Hagelian dialectic; Prince Andrew diddles kids on the Epstein express, Meghan and Harry make a big SJW show. The whole time everyone bombs the middle East and pushes gays and trannies. The queen sits up in her ivory tower.

 

[CSFurious]

What comes up?

I don't want to get in trouble with Roosh or the other moderators. You can do it yourself and find out.

 

[911]

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.

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.

 

[JohnQThomas]

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.

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.

 

[911]

In a healthy society, those temptations are held in check, and people of good upbringing, regardless of social class, will behave with honor. Those values have always been a strong part of our western civilizations, it is only through a deliberate and concerted effort applied through many generations that they have been subverted.

Younger people today are too detached from that history.

 

[El Draque]

I am utterly cynical about Markle.

I think it's very possible she is literally an agent, & has been selected, almost cast, for her abilities to manipulate & control the frankly idiotic and naive Harry.

He is a boy whose mother was 'the black sheep' (no pun), she had her (at the time) radical causes, hugging AIDS children, supporting landmines charities etc. With Markle there was someone who would automatically 'not fit in' with the rest of the family, mirroring his mother.

She was introduced to Harry by Nisha Monoo - to save you the bother, here's the "early life"

Early years​

Nonoo was born in Bahrain to an Iraqi father of Jewish descent and an English mother.[3] Her family moved to London when she was 11, and attended ACS Cobham school and Guildford High School in Surrey.[4] During high school, Misha Nonoo worked as a fashion model represented by Nevs agency. She moved to New York City in 2009, and worked in menswear for a tailoring company.[2]


I suspect the British Royal Family have been marked as 'problematic', and for subversion. We've had Epstein & Prince Andrew, & now this.

The end result is to make the BRF look old fashioned, racist & out of touch. To ultimately destroy the most popular member (Harry prior to Meghan was always the relatable one to much of the public). To weaken the heir, William, by taking out his one strongest relationship on the planet, his brother.

I think it's concerted & pre meditated.

More 'revelations' (eg hit pieces) will follow, no doubt.

 

[The Prime Minister]

Question for the Brit members here:

How important is the Royal Family/Monarchy in your country?

Is it just symbolic? Or does it have actual significance?

Do British citizens even care about this crap (Megan/Harry drama)?

I know it's a historical/cultural holdover, but just how important is this to Brits today?

 

[Max Roscoe]

As a non-Brit, the royal family represents the last vestige of the patriarchal institution of the monarchy. The monarchy was the head of the Christian empires, and were given special dispensation from God to look after their people here on earth.

Of course, that is not to say that all rulers lived up to that, and the monarchy has been weakened today to the point that it barely resembles the authority it once held, but it has importance the same way our statues that are now being destroyed have importance.

The one thing I admire about the current system is that it separates head of state and head of government, which is a far better system than what we have in America. Half of America at any moment has great disdain for their head of state, because it is the same elected office as president, where they just voted for the opposition. A head of state in a stable society has the respect and admiration of the people, even if they have quarrels with its government.

The Authoritarian Personality states that power is ultimately fascist and evil, and monarchy stands in polar opposition to democracy, which is one of the greatest evils on the planet today. Practically speaking, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot of the monarchy goes away at this point in the UK. But the final end of monarchy, as a symbol of Christian Power, is definitely a goal.

 

[kel]

Not entirely on topic, and I'm not going to watch that of course so for all I know he gave a dignified memorial and the picture is just clickbait, but is that not the most punchable face you've ever seen in your life?