Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Meagan and Harry


Recommended Posts

Actually, they both disgust me. I'll never be, nor will I ever be a fan of the royal family... but, family business should stay family business.

 

If I said what I thought about her, someone would think I was talking about Smirky anyway. I'll leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda wondering why, in this day and age there is even a “royal family”. You’d think Brit’s would wise up and see what a waste of time and money those inbred bastards are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should trying being in Oz, its all day everday on the news......so #&%&%$$ over these two pandered, spoilt brats and the disservice that they are doing to the royal family.

 

Just do everyone a favour and ride off into the sunset and DISSAPPEAR !!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Buckshot Bear said:

You should trying being in Oz, its all day everday on the news......so #&%&%$$ over these two pandered, spoilt brats and the disservice that they are doing to the royal family.

 

Just do everyone a favour and ride off into the sunset and DISSAPPEAR !!!!

Wasn't it one of you Aussies that pitched a fit when somebody made a joke about the King?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Yul Lose said:

Kinda wondering why, in this day and age there is even a “royal family”. You’d think Brit’s would wise up and see what a waste of time and money those inbred bastards are.

 

 

If you do a little digging you'll discover that the Royal family does a mountain of charity work and that overall Britain is probably better off with the Monarchy than without it. Their wealth comes from mostly behind the scenes jobs that they are required to hold as part of their royal titles. None of them sit around and just collect money from the taxpayer.

One of the problems with Megan she expected to get paid without having to actually work for it.

 

Don't have a way to prove it but I would bet that in the long run the Royal family costs the British taxpayers a lot less than our presidents cost us. 

 

When Windsor Castle burned Queen Elizabeth came up with a way to have it fully restored. Her leadership resulted in the taxpayers only footing 30% of the bill. The other 70% came from her opening up Buckingham Palace (Her Home) to tourists. 

 

A little know fact is the the Royal Family including Queen Elizabeth all actively participated in saving all but 2 priceless works of are from the castle while fire crews battled the blaze. She as did other members of the royal family were part of several human chains that passed items out of the castle to prevent damage. The royal family didn't participate for the cameras they did so because that is how they were raised. 

 

If the White House or Congress caught fire, Do you think the president or his family much less any members of congress would help save the treasures in them without first thinking about how it would effect their political careers. You can be 1000% sure they would first make sure any effort was captured by the media. They would also disappear as soon as the cameras did. 

 

BTW I could care less about the Royal families affairs. However they are not existing solely on the British Taxpayer as many people assume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

 

If you do a little digging you'll discover that the Royal family does a mountain of charity work and that overall Britain is probably better off with the Monarchy than without it. Their wealth comes from mostly behind the scenes jobs that they are required to hold as part of their royal titles. None of them sit around and just collect money from the taxpayer.

One of the problems with Megan she expected to get paid without having to actually work for it.

 

Don't have a way to prove it but I would bet that in the long run the Royal family costs the British taxpayers a lot less than our presidents cost us. 

 

When Windsor Castle burned Queen Elizabeth came up with a way to have it fully restored. Her leadership resulted in the taxpayers only footing 30% of the bill. The other 70% came from her opening up Buckingham Palace (Her Home) to tourists. 

 

A little know fact is the the Royal Family including Queen Elizabeth all actively participated in saving all but 2 priceless works of are from the castle while fire crews battled the blaze. She as did other members of the royal family were part of several human chains that passed items out of the castle to prevent damage. The royal family didn't participate for the cameras they did so because that is how they were raised. 

 

If the White House or Congress caught fire, Do you think the president or his family much less any members of congress would help save the treasures in them without first thinking about how it would effect their political careers. You can be 1000% sure they would first make sure any effort was captured by the media. They would also disappear as soon as the cameras did. 

 

BTW I could care less about the Royal families affairs. However they are not existing solely on the British Taxpayer as many people assume.

I guess we’ll just disagree on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Wasn't it one of you Aussies that pitched a fit when somebody made a joke about the King?

 

Certainly wasn't this cowboy, I take the p#ss outta' anybody....nothing's sacred to me (or most Aussies).

 

I've posted up a lot of royal memes poking fun at Charles.....still doesn't mean that I'm not in favour of the King being the head of State for Australia.....because I most definitely am a supporter of the Commonwealth and Australia's history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utilitarian explanations aside ("good works" and such), the monarchy continues in Great Britain because it is a pre-modern institution that symbolizes the nation. Both England and Scotland are ancient nations, existing long before ours and before any of today's political institutions there or elsewhere. 

 

Governments are wholly transient, political parties and theories arise and fade away, but the nation continues. That's the point.

 

The real question is why one would want to abolish it. Because of money? The one time England tried a republic the people got sick of it in short order and recalled a king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I learned a lot, probably not all true, but I learned a lot about the royal family when I watched the series “The Crown”. At the same time I did some reading about different historical events that the series portrayed. It left me with a lot more respect for the Royal family and what they have done over the years. 
 

The current BS with H&M are outside my area  of Give a Damn. I know nothing about them and don’t care to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t care to either, but can’t get away from the incessant whining of those two. I don’t read the articles, but MSM has headlines about them every day. I saw a commercial tonight that the Royal brat is going to be on 60 Minutes with Anderson Cooper this week.  Can you just smell a promo for his “tell-all” book?

 

What respect I had for him due to his service in the Middle East is now gone in light of his behavior since coupling with the Devine Miss M. They should be on Jerry Springer where they belong. <_<
 

YMMV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how she didn't want any part of them being in the royal family only AFTER making damn sure she got her royal, fairytale, princess wedding. I could understand wanting to step away from all that and leading a quieter life but then you should not have that big wedding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Smokin Gator SASS #29736 said:

I could understand wanting to step away from all that and leading a quieter life but then you should not have that big wedding.

 

And doing endless interviews and specials about how much she hates being in the spotlight and wants her privacy.

 

=====================

 

As pointed out above, the monarchy represents stability and continuity.  Like it or not, the history of Mother England is part, a very large part, of the history of the United States.

 

Harry's wife is a passive-aggressive narcissist.  I have no idea what he sees in her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

  I have no idea what he sees in her.

 

55 minutes ago, Charlie Harley, #14153 said:

It depends if the lights are on. 


SMACK! “And lookie there folks another home run…right outta the park! These boys are on fire tonight!”  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 said:

I'm afraid Prince Harry was not thinking with his big head when he got involved with Meghan.

His Great Uncle had a similar problem.

heck his FATHER had the same problem. Look how THAT turned out.

2 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

  I have no idea what he sees in her.

A means to an end. As the younger Prince, he was never going to get into the spotlight on his own. That's probably why he joined the Service. Now, he's found somebody to get him there again. She wanted the spotlight but couldn't get her own "Reality" Show, (I'm just guessing here, but I doubt that I'm far from wrong.) Between them, they're getting what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Charlie Harley, #14153 said:

It depends if the lights are on. 

 

If the lights were off, when you turn them on...better make sure your wallet is still there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buckshot Bear said:

 

I think just about every Royal has been in some branch of the military for a long time.

Yup. Charles was a Royal Navy patrol plane pilot. And son William was a respected search & rescue pilot and air ambulance pilot up until assuming his Royal duties. He continues to fly to maintain his license. 
 

And there’s the Mountbattens etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

I believe that's Edward VIII, abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson.

 

1 hour ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

Great-great.

Yes.

 

His great uncle would be either his grandmother's brother or his grandfather's brother. If his grandmother had a brother she wouldn't have been Queen. I suppose Philip could have had a brother who was a womanizer. Don't know anything about Phillip's family

 

Edward was Charles' great uncle. His mother's uncle, his grandfather's brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if we’ll see a return to old English law at some point with her dumbassery? Maybe perhaps a turning back of the clock to, oh, I don’t know…sometime in 1533. Ol’ King Henry VIII knew how to handle difficult marriages. 

 

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.