Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles finally makes his youngest brother Duke of Edinburgh on Edward’s 59th birthday.

The Queen still retained the Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh title after Philip's death. It would have been unseemly to so quickly bestow the DoE title on Edward so quickly after her death.

I think Charles has played this one well.

No she did not. Look it up. After Philipp died it went to Charles so Camilla was technically the Duchess of Edinburgh.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchess_of_Edinburgh

Did you miss the word Dowager? DoE reverted to Charles as a matter of course, so that was fine. It was a matter of respect not to hand it to Edward while the late DoE's wife and the ruling monarch was still alive and grieving. As it should have been. Edward could wait, and he did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of hypocrites here. Monarchy is awful, antiquated institution, most of you say, but how dare Harry and Meg not put up with it and enforce it and work for it, and just shut up, they just need to shut up and be representatives of the colonizers in 2022.

I’m not a big harry and Megan follower but I was impressed when they said they were leaving to strike out on their own. But then it doesn’t seem like they are actually doing that. Is she going on casting calls? Is he going back to school to get an education in something useful? Or maybe he could be a personal trainer? I don’t know what he’s qualified to do. She should get an acting gig and he could be a SAHD. And they should just never mention the BRF in public again.

Lol, they would never lower themselves to WORK. Not when they can sell out their family for $$$$.

I assume you are also willing to criticize Mike Tindall, who just signed on for Im a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here? A little tackier than a podcast about sexism IMO.

I’ll criticize Mike Tindall when he goes on Oprah and trashed his in-laws.

Oprah is not interested in interviewing someone like him lol. So what you are saying is that he can do no wrong in your eyes.

dp It isn't "our eyes" that matter. Mike tindall hasn't told any secrets has he?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of hypocrites here. Monarchy is awful, antiquated institution, most of you say, but how dare Harry and Meg not put up with it and enforce it and work for it, and just shut up, they just need to shut up and be representatives of the colonizers in 2022.

I’m not a big harry and Megan follower but I was impressed when they said they were leaving to strike out on their own. But then it doesn’t seem like they are actually doing that. Is she going on casting calls? Is he going back to school to get an education in something useful? Or maybe he could be a personal trainer? I don’t know what he’s qualified to do. She should get an acting gig and he could be a SAHD. And they should just never mention the BRF in public again.

Lol, they would never lower themselves to WORK. Not when they can sell out their family for $$$$.

I assume you are also willing to criticize Mike Tindall, who just signed on for Im a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here? A little tackier than a podcast about sexism IMO.

I’ll criticize Mike Tindall when he goes on Oprah and trashed his in-laws.

Oprah is not interested in interviewing someone like him lol. So what you are saying is that he can do no wrong in your eyes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kind that gets eggs thrown at him in public

York has a long history of being problematic for the Crown! It’s pretty far from London.

Interesting that the royals are getting booed and egged in all parts of the U.K. now. Are you saying only London is safe?

Charles and Camilla will never have the people’s hearts!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles finally makes his youngest brother Duke of Edinburgh on Edward’s 59th birthday.

This way he doesn’t have to buy him a birthday gift.

His ancestors have looted the British populace for over a millenia, surely he can afford a nice gift?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A list performers are all turning down requests to perform at his coronation. Rolling Stone and other media have interviewed PR firms who are all advising their clients to not associate their brand with the royal family. Not good when PR firms think you are toxic to their brands.

Great, maybe he will go to the Blist folks and pick some bands/performers people actually enjoy.

Anonymous wrote:A list performers are all turning down requests to perform at his coronation. Rolling Stone and other media have interviewed PR firms who are all advising their clients to not associate their brand with the royal family. Not good when PR firms think you are toxic to their brands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:India is demanding the Kohinoor diamond back LOL.

So is Pakistan and Afghanistan.

I have seen the Guardian News article related to the dispute, your comment is most likely based on that. I also have researched this and the diamond in the royal scepter. I was disappointed at the poor quality of reporting, it didn’t do justice to the history of the diamond or the controversy surrounding the stone.
India is not wrong to ask for it back and I agree with them on this
I really do not know your level of ignorance, but if you would know your subject matter better you most likely would agree too

My point is, more than one country wants it. Who decides especially when the country hat has it claims it was a gift? Stop being insulting.

Please read some more history
It was a war loot, never a gift
Before that it was legally owned by India

no.. not really, it was owned by raja Ranjit Singh who's heir was forced to give it to Queen Victoria. The Raja was the Raja of the Punjab/Lahore, so it should be returned to at the Sikh community in either Lahore (there is a temple and community there) or Amritsar. The diamond has more ties to the Muslim/Sikh peoples of India than the Hindu and India is fast becoming hindu theocracy so I really dont think it should be given to them. Bharat isn't Hindustan, that India no longer exists.

So clearly no one knows who the true owner is of the diamond.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles finally makes his youngest brother Duke of Edinburgh on Edward’s 59th birthday.

The Queen still retained the Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh title after Philip's death. It would have been unseemly to so quickly bestow the DoE title on Edward so quickly after her death.

I think Charles has played this one well.

No she did not. Look it up. After Philipp died it went to Charles so Camilla was technically the Duchess of Edinburgh.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchess_of_Edinburgh

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles finally makes his youngest brother Duke of Edinburgh on Edward’s 59th birthday.

The Queen still retained the Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh title after Philip's death. It would have been unseemly to so quickly bestow the DoE title on Edward so quickly after her death.

I think Charles has played this one well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles finally makes his youngest brother Duke of Edinburgh on Edward’s 59th birthday.

This way he doesn’t have to buy him a birthday gift.

Anonymous wrote:Charles finally makes his youngest brother Duke of Edinburgh on Edward’s 59th birthday.

Anonymous wrote:Charles finally makes his youngest brother Duke of Edinburgh on Edward’s 59th birthday.