• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Royals

MorningAngel

MorningAngel

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 14, 2015
Messages
3,206
There has been reports that Harry and Meghan won’t be making Archie’s birth certificate public. Why? Are they hiding something?

Was he really born days earlier (wouldn’t surprise me)?

Someone suggested she had lied about her age and this would tell the truth.

On that matter my mum pointed out today that she had got pregnant extremely quickly for someone in their late thirties. What if it was all a show and it was a surrogate birth :oops: That would explain why Meghan seemed to hold her bump quite so much (if it wasn’t attached).

Or is it they just wanted to be secretive while they spend all our money?
 
MorningAngel said:
There has been reports that Harry and Meghan won’t be making Archie’s birth certificate public. Why? Are they hiding something?

Was he really born days earlier (wouldn’t surprise me)?

Someone suggested she had lied about her age and this would tell the truth.

On that matter my mum pointed out today that she had got pregnant extremely quickly for someone in their late thirties. What if it was all a show and it was a surrogate birth :oops: That would explain why Meghan seemed to hold her bump quite so much (if it wasn’t attached).

Or is it they just wanted to be secretive while they spend all our money?
Click to expand...

I don't know, an old friend of mine was asked by his girfriend whether he wanted to start a family. He said yes, but he wasn't convinced he was ready despite their both being thirty-four years old. He agreed with slight reluctance, relying on the fact that it would likely take months or more, during which time he would likely to come around to the idea.

They started 'trying' that very night, her next period didn't arrive and shortly after she announced she was pregnant--with twins!

Some people just seem super-fertile and fecundity continues surprising late for some women.
 
Last edited:
Yithian said:
I don't know, an old friend of mine was asked by his girfriend whether he wanted to start a family. He said yes, but he wasn't convinced her was ready despite their both being twenty-four years old. He agreed with slight reluctance, relying on the fact that it would likely take months or more, during which time he would likely to come around to the idea.

They started 'trying' that very night, her next period didn't arrive and shortly after she announced she was pregnant--with twins!

Some people just seem super-fertile and fecundity continues surprising late for some women.
Click to expand...

Twenty four is very different from late thirties. They are forever telling us that after 35 fertility drops off.

https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/fei/at-what-age-does-fertility-begin-to-decrease/
8C1742B4-D59F-42CF-A169-44271C513274.jpeg
 
Yithian said:
Some people just seem super-fertile and fecundity continues surprising late for some women
Click to expand...

Indeed. Lots of late babies welcomed into half of my ancestry - fortunately not the half I take after!
 
Mythopoeika said:
You live in Dublin. Do you even pay anything towards the Royal family?
Click to expand...

No. I really like Harry and Meghan though and I admire both the Queen and Prince Philip for their efforts in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and aiding Sinn Féin's journey into the political mainstream. A section of the Northern Ireland electorate who had previously felt alienated from the British State now saw that the Head of State meet their leaders and accept them as Ministers of the Crown, equal to any Unionists.
 
Newt said:
But they have shown that the baby does not have lizard feet.
10 toes, just like humans have!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48245005
Click to expand...
Archie was barefoot in the photo, which means Paul McCartney had died and been replaced by a shape shifting Glenn Miller. Or am I mixing my conspiracies?

Harry and Meghan seem a genuinely happy and likeable couple. For all the carping about their privilege and wealth, few of us would genuinely choose the life Harry was born into with the constant scrutiny. In theory, a hereditary monarchy is hard to justify philosophically, but when you see what democracy can produce instead, I'm happy to pay 69p for the royals we actually have.
 
Last edited:
Tbh, I loved that toe photo. I said 'Awww... Toes!' And went all slushy for 30 seconds.

I only like royalty when they have been dead 200 years and become interesting and historical.
That's why we need to keep them, so people in the future will have dead royalty to write books about.
 
If the royals don't enjoy the scrutiny that goes with their immensely privileged lifestyles then they can simply resign.

They no longer wield any meaningful political power so are essentially impotent on that front.

As far as tourism or diplomacy goes, plenty of countries with no royalty enjoy flourishing tourism industries and maintain thoroughly effective diplomatic and trade relations with other countries.

They support charities? What about all the many charities who don't enjoy royal patronage? You think they're unworthy of support?

So what exactly is the point of the Royal Family?

An exercise in nostalgia for an age of imperial privilege and all the ugly history of oppression and exploitation that goes along with that?

The individual members of the royal family may well be thoroughly decent individuals. But IMO the actual institution of royalty is utterly obscene and frankly embarrassing.
 
graylien said:
If the royals don't enjoy the scrutiny that goes with their immensely privileged lifestyles then they can simply resign.

They no longer wield any meaningful political power so are essentially impotent on that front.

As far as tourism or diplomacy goes, plenty of countries with no royalty enjoy flourishing tourism industries and maintain thoroughly effective diplomatic and trade relations with other countries.

They support charities? What about all the many charities who don't enjoy royal patronage? You think they're unworthy of support?

So what exactly is the point of the Royal Family?

An exercise in nostalgia for an age of imperial privilege and all the ugly history of oppression and exploitation that goes along with that?

The individual members of the royal family may well be thoroughly decent individuals. But IMO the actual institution of royalty is utterly obscene and frankly embarrassing.
Click to expand...

1) 'Resigning' would hardly return a high-profile of the royal family to the anonymity of everyday life. It's not as if the world heard nothing of Edward VIII after his abdication--the press followed him everywhere. And Diana was hounded until her death by the tabloid media.

2) Some royals--notably the Queen and the Prince of Wales still have a lot of power. They don't 'wield' it, because that would jeopardise its continued existence, but it very certainly exists.

3) The British Monarchy existed long before the age of Imperialism.

4) I've travelled widely abroad. The British Royal family is a) popular and b) an attraction that draws an enormous amount of tourism and money to the U.K. in a way that other post-monarchical or low-key monarchical states do not enjoy. It is rarely THE reason why people choose to visit the country, but it's a hard-to-quantify contributing factor: it adds to the atmosphere of the experience.
 
Mikefule said:
Archie was barefoot in the photo, which means Paul McCartney had died and been replaced by a shape shifting Glenn Miller. Or am I mixing my conspiracies?

Harry and Meghan seem a genuinely happy and likeable couple. For all the carping about their privilege and wealth, few of us would genuinely choose the life Harry was born into with the constant scrutiny. In theory, a hereditary monarchy is hard to justify philosophically, but when you see what democracy can produce instead, I'm happy to pay 69p for the royals we actually have.
Click to expand...

They are scrutinized in the car, again when they get out of the car, then again when they shake peoples hands and then again when they get back in the car.

The rest of the time they are free to do what the fuck they like.

Personally, I'd live with that for several free mansions, lots of spending money and the rest.
 
Yithian said:
2) Some royals--notably the Queen and the Prince of Wales still have a lot of power. They don't 'wield' it, because that would jeopardise its continued existence, but it very certainly exists.
Click to expand...

Actual formal powers?
 
Some interesting conjecture which proposes the imagery of the baby is actually that of a doll:

An intriguing follow-through from the 'false bump' hypothesis is that the Duchess allegedly now still has too much of a post-natal bump (I've lost the reference, dammit).

And that post-partum c-sectioned new mothers are rarely-seen wearing white shifts & high-heels (again, I've mislaid the link...not like me, I'm losing my google-fu)
 
Ermintruder said:
Some interesting conjecture which proposes the imagery of the baby is actually that of a doll:

An intriguing follow-through from the 'false bump' hypothesis is that the Duchess allegedly now still has too much of a post-natal bump (I've lost the reference, dammit).

And that post-partum c-sectioned new mothers are rarely-seen wearing white shifts & high-heels (again, I've mislaid the link...not like me, I'm losing my google-fu)
Click to expand...

Johnny Vaughan has long expressed the opinion that Royal babies are in fact wooden dolls. I'm guessing they've upgraded?
 
The Youtuber 'Daily Empress' (of baby doll video above) also attacking the so-called birth certificate.

My interpretation of that document is that (to use UK geneological terminology) what we see here is simply an "Extract of a Certificate of Birth". None of which are signed: they are records of the original registration itself having taken place. I've never really understood why such things exist, but they have, for centuries.

So that is meaningless in this counterfeit conspiracy context. All of which is just elevated soap opera for the consumer.....distractive nonsense for proles.
 
Lol. That video maker has no idea how the uk BMDs work.

You sign the registrar's big book. Then everything is a copy of that entry in the big book.

A copy is signed by the registrar to show that it is a true copy of the entry in the book.
The signatures in the book are not forged for the copies.

I don't know (or care) wether they are lying about the baby, but that looks like an entirely normal birth certificate.

And OMG!!! The new style is so damn ugly!

And also, the death register, that would be a Necronomicon, lol!
 
graylien said:
If the royals don't enjoy the scrutiny that goes with their immensely privileged lifestyles then they can simply resign.

They no longer wield any meaningful political power so are essentially impotent on that front.

As far as tourism or diplomacy goes, plenty of countries with no royalty enjoy flourishing tourism industries and maintain thoroughly effective diplomatic and trade relations with other countries.

They support charities? What about all the many charities who don't enjoy royal patronage? You think they're unworthy of support?

So what exactly is the point of the Royal Family?

An exercise in nostalgia for an age of imperial privilege and all the ugly history of oppression and exploitation that goes along with that?

The individual members of the royal family may well be thoroughly decent individuals. But IMO the actual institution of royalty is utterly obscene and frankly embarrassing.
Click to expand...
What gets me is the amount of money that must be spent on Security, cars & drivers, chefs, doctors, waiting staff, cleaners, shoppers, helicopters/planes, gardeners, organisers, butlers..... And of course, even when they're not, say at Balmoral, or any other number of residences, someone still has to be there 24/7 looking after the place, keeping the heating on, tending the gardens etc etc. It surely runs into £ Billions not just Millions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top