Duchess Meghan Markle says Britains Royal Family Members are Racists.

a reply to: carewemust

Well...they are European royalty and their ancestors did kinda help start slave trading so....

originally posted by: carewemust
Monday, March 8, 2021


From what little I know, they are merely "figureheads". No real power inside the United Kingdom.

-CareWeMust

I've discussed this one time on here years ago but I don't remember what the consensus was. I have of course heard the above notion more than anything, but then there was also two times in school I believe I remember I don't remember which classes probably government but that the professor or the teacher said oh no they are just shy of being absolute monarchs it's just that they don't use the potential power that they could because it would be so controversial to the public that hasn't been gone and you know hundreds of years or a hundred years or something. so what do the Brits say does she have nearly the power of an absolute monarch and I think they meant it as and she could switch around governments as much as she cared to until she have the exact ministers possibly that were needed to do her exact bidding maybe I don't know it's really I think that her biggest power is just disbanding the government and making a new one but I guess that could be tweaks into near absolute power right or were those teachers way off way way off?

Footpath loo boot brilliant porridge Bob's your uncle lolol (never get to use funny British ever)

Just want to say I'm Scottish and the Royal Family, Queen et al mean absolutely nothing to me. I want them gone. This lot were brought in from Germany. Their surname was Saxecoburg and Gotha until World War 1 when in 1917 it was decided it was too embarrassing to have a German name so they chose to call themselves Windsor instead. The reason the English establishment brought them in was because they were Protestant, and not Catholic. The Royals hate Catholics and that is the reason for so much sectarian division in UK. The worst of that was the troubles in Northern Ireland but some of it still goes on. They are a disgusting bunch of evil criminals. They supported Hitler and the Nazis in WW2 and the latest evil is Prince Andrew pals with Jeffrey Epstein. What happened to Princes Dianna was highly suspicious as well.
Got no time for them

a reply to: carewemust

did anyone forget to tell Meghan that we are abolishing the royal family so her son wont be a prince anyway

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Boadicea

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, in which, the reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth the second, is the head of state.

As to how it works, well it works for them and there's, hence the reason the status quo remains in place.

The queens true power is real estate. The Queen, owns about one sixth of the planet’s surface, and is the largest legal land owner in the World. And British claim the crown has no power but thats far from true. For one the crown retains the right to claim any land for use. In Britain the Land Act of 1925 suposedly gave the British subjects the right to two kinds of land ownership. Freehold and Leasehold. Freehold is described in the Land Registry Act of 2002 as ‘an interest in an estate in land, fee simple’. Leasehold is similarly ‘an interest in an estate in land, in fee simple, for a term of years’. Fee simple is the important phrase here. It’s a medieval phrase which puts limitations on ownership in the form of taxation, police power, Eminent Domain and Escheat.

Eminent Domain (also known as Compulsory Purchase) gives the Crown, or its Government agents, the power to purchase land from the freeholder in the event of necessity. The freeholder has no power to refuse this purchase and the queen gets to decide for how much. The power of the king or queen has always been in titles and land.

The crown actually gets paid from 3 different sources 1st is the" The Sovereign Grant" this is money the UK gives the royal family from property surrendered by George III back in 1760. This properties was managed by the treasury notice i did not say given. As technically who ever holds the crown owns these properties. Though taking this away from treasury control is unlikely since this is a vast source of income for the british government.

The next source is "The Privy Purse and the Duchy of Lancaster " This is the queens estate and properties she owns This makes about 486 million US a year. The land itself is valued at about £13.4 billion or about 18 and a half billion usd.

And finally we have the "The Duchy of Cornwall"
Established in 1137, the private estate "funds the public, charitable, and private activities of the Prince of Wales and his family . Its private funds but has been estimated to be 200 million to 500 million.

The queen is still in control of the british government it just was made to seem that is not the case.

a reply to: dragonridr

They got us by the short and curlies as soon as we are registered at birth really and issuesd with a national insurance number

Markle made a comment in the interview in regards to having her passport, keys and drivers license taken when she became a royal, I have looked and cant find any info if this is true or not.

Would they take these items for secuirty reasons and also, there are lots of videos of kate driving around, picking up her kids at school and other times, i know they are followed with secuirty detail behind but come to think of it I have never seen any videos of markle driving in england anywhere and if they do drive are they not required to carry documentation with them

Just curious if anybody knows what the protocol on this is.

My impression from the interview is that markel twisted alot of information to appear nefarious but so far has yet to be proven in the light that she portrays it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Very astute observation -- yes!

And she's been steady and consistent in her message from the beginning. I appreciate very much how she acknowledges their feelings and wishes, and now their accusations without either confirming nor denying anything. She affirms that they are valued and loved members of the family and always will be despite the awful position they have put her in. Not harsh, not angry, neither defensive nor offensive.

Truly a class act.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Try voting out the Queen.

LOL -- about the same as trying to out vote the Queen!

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Boadicea

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, in which, the reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth the second, is the head of state.

As to how it works, well it works for them and there's, hence the reason the status quo remains in place.

Thank you for explaining...

Now I have to sheepishly admit that I knew that and was trying to make a joke -- and apparently very poorly! I shall hang my head in shame and slink off now...

a reply to: dragonridr


To put it in very simple terms, are you basically saying that the Royal Family are landlords, and both the British government and the British people will forever have to pay them rent?

There's been some absolute bollocks written in this thread most of which I've just laughed at.

Some people's perceptions of The Royals and their role in British life really is quite bizarre.
It would take quite some time to point out and correct all the misconceptions and inaccuracies.

The truth is they have zero impact on our daily lives and cost the taxpayer relatively little and when I look around at alternative Heads of State I think the present monarch gives value for money.

But....and its a massive BUT, I do take exception when I find out that The Queen has exerted pressure on various Prime Ministers and unduly influenced policy continuously throughout her reign.
Will we ever know the full extent of this 'influence'?
I doubt it.

The very concept of a Monarchy goes against all of my personal values and beliefs, but I was prepared to put up with them as long as they provided 'value for money' and stayed out of the business of government.
I now find myself seriously questioning the justification for their continued role and presence in UK society.

a reply to: bigyin

Just want to say I'm Scottish and the Royal Family, Queen et al mean absolutely nothing to me.

I'm English and they mean relatively little to me.

I want them gone.

I'm coming round to that way of thinking myself.

This lot were brought in from Germany.

Over three hundred years ago.
My ancestors were digging up tatties in Ireland back then.
No-one questions my 'Britishness', why would we apply different criteria to them?

I find it quite funny that many who criticise the Royals for being 'German' also support open door immigration policies and woke politics.

Their surname was Saxecoburg and Gotha until World War 1 when in 1917 it was decided it was too embarrassing to have a German name so they chose to call themselves Windsor instead.

Quite reasonable and understandable considering the times don't you think?

The reason the English establishment brought them in was because they were Protestant, and not Catholic.

Common practice throughout Europe during those times.
Not saying it was right simply the way things were back then.
Whether you or like it the UK is a Protestant country.

The Royals hate Catholics.....

Do they?
Do they really HATE all Catholics?

.....and that is the reason for so much sectarian division in UK.

Is it?
Of course its played an historical role but its not the only reason, far from it.
And if we are being accurate that 'sectarian divide' only occurs/occurred in parts of the UK, namely Ulster and the central belt region of Scotland.
The vast majority of the UK is quite free from this 'sectarian division' you speak of.

I'm English....and was raised Roman Catholic, never experienced the slightest bit of sectarianism.
Of course I've had people take the piss and I've taken the piss back but certainly nothing malicious and I've never been prevented from doing anything or going anywhere or trying to achieve anything just because I'm Catholic.
I can't say the same for the fact that I come from a working class North Eastern background.

Class prejudice is far, far more prevalent than any sectarian or even racial divide here in the UK.

The worst of that was the troubles in Northern Ireland but some of it still goes on.

Please start a thread on The Troubles and I'll happily discuss things with you.
Only a complete idiot would deny that sectarianism didn't play a hugely significant role but it certainly wasn't the only contributory factor and it ultimately became about nothing more than gangsterism and racketeering.

They are a disgusting bunch of evil criminals.

All of them?

They supported Hitler and the Nazis in WW2.....

No they didn't.

..... and the latest evil is Prince Andrew pals with Jeffrey Epstein.

A truly disgusting human being whose activities should be investigated fully and if proven to have committed any sex crimes at all then he should be punished in full accordance of the law.
But let's face it, unfortunately The Windsor's aren't the only family to have a nonce in their midst.

What happened to Princes Dianna was highly suspicious as well.

It was indeed.
I lean towards it being an accident....but I don't discount that there may well be more to it than the official story claims.
When you look at her story I don't think any of them, including Diana, come out of it with any degree of integrity.

Got no time for them

As I said before, I'm coming round to that way of thinking.....but it would seem for different reasons.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: carewemust

Well...they are European royalty and their ancestors did kinda help start slave trading so....

Since they don't mix with regular people much, you may be right. It's a good thing they hold no real authority in modern society!

a reply to: Boadicea

vote them out HA

mair like drag them oot by the scruff ae their necks and hing them upside doon and let their gold and jewels fall oot

chancers the lot of them

lets all focus on the debacle of a racist royal oooooh who could it be
eh the whole #in lot of them

but nevermind that yin ae them is a raging pedo , lets just forget that shall we and focus on a racist remark that may or may not have been said

a reply to: sapien82

There is something a bit off when these two-bit grifters get more attention and notoriety than his less than reputable uncle... At least Harry and Meghan aren't doing anything criminal or depraved. That's sad. And even sadder yet I'd bet even Randy Andy isn't the worst that's out there.

We are living those "interesting times" folks speak of!

originally posted by: Freeborn


But....and its a massive BUT, I do take exception when I find out that The Queen has exerted pressure on various Prime Ministers and unduly influenced policy continuously throughout her reign.
Will we ever know the full extent of this 'influence'?
I doubt it.

Pretty much identical views, I find the concept of the Monarchy abhorrentbut they have no power as it has been stripped by Parliament using the Royal Prerogative and having a non-political Head of State is a major benefit in diplomacy and national unity.

The recent reveal on The Queen having used her lawyers to influence policy and create loopholes needs urgent investigation. I had to study Public Admin law for Journalism exams and there was no mention of her ever having exerted nfluence in any of the Constitutional Law books or from experts in the field apart from her refusing to strip Mugabe of his knighthood and toasting him when Parliament was close to war.

All of her consent meetings have been recorded in Hansard but the memos and annotations for the recent revelations were witheld from there. Also the Constitutional powers in Queens consent are meant to be Parliament telling the Monarch to grant consent to what is placed before them and the Monarch can't refuse to grant consent.

There was talk of scrapping it once the Queen goes as the system only works if the Monarch takes their duties seriously; hopefully those revelations of her abusing the system will make sure it is stopped.

When the process is used it is noted ib the third reading of a Bill in the House of Lords by saying:
'My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of [insert bill] Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.'

It's only allowed Constitutionally if the Bill in question seeks to remove rights from the Royal Family (but not essential) but searching for that in Hansard comes up with over 400 Bills going through HoL where 10 - 25% don't seem to have any (in)direct relevance to the Royals such as the Coronavirus Bill, Food Safety Bill, Gas Bill etc... highly tempted to write to the Information Commisioner or request any notes on those Bills from the National Archives to find out what occured with those.

Recommend writing to a local MP to ask about the Queen and Prince Charles abuse of it or for an investigation of who in the House or Lords was seeking Royal consent for things that are of no concern to them and seemingly undermine dewmocracy, transparecny and the constitution.

originally posted by: Freeborn
There's been some absolute bollocks written in this thread most of which I've just laughed at.

Some people's perceptions of The Royals and their role in British life really is quite bizarre.
It would take quite some time to point out and correct all the misconceptions and inaccuracies.

The truth is they have zero impact on our daily lives and cost the taxpayer relatively little and when I look around at alternative Heads of State I think the present monarch gives value for money.

But....and its a massive BUT, I do take exception when I find out that The Queen has exerted pressure on various Prime Ministers and unduly influenced policy

Ummm did you just say amoungst that tyrade of "absolute bollocks" that they have -

"zero impact" ......then follow up with the queen...... "exherted pressure on VARIOUS prime ministers and unduly influenced policy."

If that aint the biggest contradiction I've ever seen.

You better believe their racists behind closed doors - how many Commonwealth countries are primarily colored and struggling. They are certainly takers and not givers.

Give me a break....

Mind you Meghan in my crystal ball anyway is definitely laying a little to much icing on the cake also, the proverbial "milking it for all its worth"

There all overpaid, overvalued, takers and need to be brought down about 10 000 pegs or so.

a reply to: bastion

do you honestly believe that the queen of great britain has no power over the UK , because some piece of paper was passed through a parliament

I dont

she is one of the most powerful and rich people on earth , do you really think she would allow a bunch of her underlings to usurp her families inheritance because the will of the people demand a democracy ?

I dont , she has all the agencies in her pocket on her watch and doing her bidding
her family has reigned over the British isles for centuries to think they would allow it to slip through their fingers into the hands of the peasantry is foolish .

Like the Duke of Argyle said during the petitions and protests of the act of union in 1707
"the peoples petitions are like kites in the wind"

No person may accept significant public office without swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen

words still have power and a great deal of meaning behind them.
in my opinion the queen is still in charge
its just a rouse to keep us all from pulling them out of their palaces cutting their heads off and redistributing their wealth and land

a reply to: sapien82

do you honestly believe that the queen of great britain has no power over the UK , because some piece of paper was passed through a parliament I dont

Even if that was true, how does it impact on your daily life ? If The Monarcjy didn't exist i can't see how anything would be different. Unless you can give me examples on how it could be.