...some roasting...

Attached Images

 

Ahh, and there we have the French caustic sense of social satire. I wondered who's gonna post this irreverent cartoon coming from Charlie Hebdo's team.
They just don't care about BLM sensibilities or about the centuries old and outdated institution which is British monarchy. (or any other monarchy that wants to play a bigger role other than "decorative")
I suppose we'll read about a whole series of uhm, strong reactions pretty soon. From both sides, from pro-Meghan and anti-Meghan/pro-royals camps. United against the newly found common enemy - satire. Things are going to be better soon, I tell you.

Apparently the Palace wasn't used to dealing with a "Strong Independent Woman".

Ah yes, who recalls the meek Princess Anne... Or Margaret for that matter. And of course Elizabeth just does everything she's told by... erm... hmm.

You can get married pretty much anywhere as long as there is a permanent roof.

Royal Family plus Archbishop Canterbury likely equals anywhere you want.


Sure, plenty of pics staged for the cameras. Hardly the same I'll bet.

Margaret was a raging alcoholic. Anne... met her second husband years before she was able to divorce her first. Elizabeth's life has not really been her own since her father died. Strong women, yes. Independent is questionable. They're embedded in the establishment.

Is that how the French see it? Seems a bit unfair on the Queen -even in the name of humour.

Much better to just chop off all their heads - the French way of dealing with royalty....

Definitely not the same - there will be no photos of Archie out there riding a bike - mainly because a two year old can't ride a bike.

If Prince Harry wasn't out on a bike with his dad, Prince Charles - it was probably because bicycles is something that Prince Charles didn't do - which is a shame.

I remember well the time that “pakis” (am so sorry, just need to make a point) moved in next door to my parents semi in Kent (now Bromley). My mother sounded a lot like what I am reading here

Umm, how would you describe Lizzie #1?

Tom

P.S. Clearly I've watched far too much "Blackadder"!

P.P.S. Which is why I still cannot take Hugh Laurie seriously as Dr. House!

Well at least Charlie Hebdo, but we all know they're crazy...

Sometimes you don't know how to take their satire, it's way too caustic even for my sense of humour. But I'm glad they still do it, irreverently as always. Not caring about taboos and sensibilities. I wouldn't be mad at them.

That isn't appropriate to write even to make a 'point' (and I use the term loosely, considering I don't think you have one, as people in this thread are not throwing racist slurs around)... it's no different to writing the N word.

Your judgement is poor.

You can get married anywhere you want, but it still has to follow rules. The rules weren't followed in the backgarden,so it wasn't a wedding in any legal sense. The Archbish isn't a hedge priest, there isn't any legal concept of common-law marriage in the UK, and even the Scottish one was scrapped quite a long time ago.

Meghan* is either delusional (or incorrectly informed) in saying it was the real wedding, or lying.



* Or, "Me-again", as some unkind people refer to her.

Prince Charles was into Camilla at that time, not into bicycles.

As Harry's deceased lovely mother declared in an incendiary interview (deja-vu anyone?) "Well , there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded".

But Meghan Markle "feels" that is was her real wedding, so who is anyone else to question that? It's her truth, remember?

This is why I also don't understand the praise for Oprah Winfrey for the interview. Any decent, forensic interviewer would have been well researched and been able to ask a couple of probing follow-up questions which would have revealed this claim to be untrue. As it was, the interview was treated as some kind of therapy session where the subjects were allowed to get away with whatever they wanted!

I don't see how anyone in their right mind or who considers themselves an even remotely sensible person being could think that was an objective or unbiased interview. The entire charade was designed to provide a sympathetic and biased ear from an interviewer who could make the maximum publicity and impact, or otherwise the Sussexes would not have allowed it to happen. It was pre-emptive PR against the Royals before they were allowed to provide their side of the dstory, plain and simple.

But this is how media operates in general. I don't think they ever ask anyone their side of the story when they start a smear campaign. I'm not saying Oprah intentionally started one, mind. It might be more outraging for some folks here now because it involves the royals (who apparently can do no wrong), but otherwise this is just normal life for the rest of the world.....

Yes, media always wins, not the "truth", whatever the "truth" is in this case as it seems there are two completely different worlds crashing each other, while there's almost no communication between the two of them. Freedom of speech is absolutely great, as always it remains to be used responsibly....and I don't think insulting viewers' intelligence will make things any better. More or better communication might.

I'd only seen clips of the interview up to last night, when I watched the whole thing. Despite the heavy overlay of sweetness, I thought it reeked of disingenuousness and spite.

The twin grenades of racism (slyly left largely unspecified* and thus allowed to cause maximum damage to a family that had shown the very opposite of racism and concern for the colour of future royals by taking Meghan in and walking her down the aisle in a lavish wedding*) and indifference to mental distress (not credible that a pregnant woman would have been barred from seeking medical care or been incapable of calling a doctor/asking an aide to call one/telling her husband "I'm not feeling too well. I think I need to see a doctor/go to hospital") seem to me to have been lobbed at the royal family/institution of the monarchy because of what I suspect is the main cause of Harry and Meghan's apparent bitterness: money.

(* so I suspect that what was said [when and by however many people, something they seemed to diverge on - odd if it meant so much to them] was on the less serious end of the racism scale)

I don't know what happened in that back garden and I don't want to comment on it.

But purely from a legalistic point of view, there are subtle differences between what the church and what the state consider valid marriage ceremonies. Henry VIII made himself head of the Church of England to be able to resolve those differences to his advantage. But to this day, the House of Commons does not and never did create church law.

And that's just the Church of England. If you look at the Church of Scotland for example, things get more complicated still.

yup

And "strong independent women" don't run to Oprah to bitch.

They stand their ground and get the job done.

or to shoot up the offices of Charlie Hebdo.

anyway, AFAIK, the UK has beheaded more crowned heads of state than France. 2:1.

And this despite the French having abolished the monarchy four times whereas England & Scotland did it only once (the UK not legally or officially existing at the time).

So I see little evidence that the French have any higher proclivity to behead monarchs, but a lot of evidence of the contrary.