Actually, I'm surprised you guys are watching Oprah.

rgag12 said:

---

titan said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

Actually blue

---

Learn something everyday. The blue is certainly more prominent than the red.

---

Weren't the Hessians mercenaries? I bet there ones in blue, red, and green.

---

technically auxiliaries

Well, just to jump in again...

Royals
Total scumbags. Whatever they "do for their country" is mere breadcrumbs. It's akin to Pablo Escobar giving 20s to the peasants of Bogota and building them a soccer field.

The Royals are rich beyond imagination for seemingly having the right relatives. They were great friends with Jimmy Savile, as I stated. Prince Andrew (like Bill Clinton) was a frequent guest of Jeffrey Epstein at Pedo Island and other places.

Bill Clinton
Total scumbag.. Rapist. Liar. Pedophile. On and on.

They are all scumbags, which is evidently the primary qualification to be a world leader. Pedo Joe fits right in.

Btw, the Royals killed Diana. Meghan should really tread lightly.

AggiePops said:

---

Actually, I'm surprised you guys are watching Oprah.

---

I didn't watch Oprah it's all over the news in snippets, Twitter, etc. I haven't even seen the interview just read about parts of it.

annie88 said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Actually, I'm surprised you guys are watching Oprah.

---

I didn't watch Oprah it's all over the news in snippets, Twitter, etc. I haven't even seen the interview just read about parts of it.

---

Maybe you should watch it? You sure do have lengthy opinions about it for someone that did not watch it.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

NSIAP

https://instagr.am/p/CMKvn8gnSx0

---

Genius. Like Prager said a few weeks ago -- "those who believe they are victims can never be happy, and often won't be very constructive" . And this is true even of actual victims who dwell on something --- it keeps them from the present life. Such mindset only regresses -- its always "back then" to them. It was a good segment.

A is A said:

---

annie88 said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Actually, I'm surprised you guys are watching Oprah.

---

I didn't watch Oprah it's all over the news in snippets, Twitter, etc. I haven't even seen the interview just read about parts of it.

---

Maybe you should watch it? You sure do have lengthy opinions about it for someone that did not watch it.

---

Why? I was replying to the OP, where the comment was clearly stated not to mention the few Twitter clips about it.

For someone making ignorant blanket statements about the monarchy, you might want to take your own advice

HollywoodBQ said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

A bunch of conservatives choosing to support royalists over an American. ****ing loyalist need to leave.

---

Good lord, no. Don't support any of these nitwits, and I can't fathom why Brits put up with the Royal Family and all the dukes, earls, vicounts, discounts, etc. etc.

---

no 2A

---

No, it's culture. It is simply a different way of thinking and doing that goes back centuries. It's a holdover from a time when countries weren't and couldn't be run by bureaucracies, but by individuals who had to balance a lot of interests and functions. They had a governmental structure that gave a lot of autonomy to those they could trust with governing because they couldn't manage it all.

Understand that the English system of sovereignty goes back to times when humanity in the European sphere was essentially coming out of tribalism. Sovereigns were leaders capable of inspiring or forcing followership and uniting people to common goals and causes. They conquered or subjugated those around them to build larger domains and consolidate power. Governing by committee or consent could bring paralysis in a time when your neighbor could and would raid you, kill you, and take from you, so there were distinct tactical and strategic advantages to autocracies. Large areas like Britain, France, Germany, etc were too much for any one person to manage, so the feudal system was born out of necessity. Powerful leaders who became sovereigns rewarded close allies or warriors with land and/or responsibility as a means of keeping their favor but also delegating management. This brought a lot of order to the essential anarchy of early civilization.

They eventually did this through titles. Titled individuals were land holders and expected to manage that land and the individuals on it, but also defend and protect it. The difference in title meant a difference in the importance or the amount of land that person was entrusted with. Dukes were generally royals or had very important holdings, like border territory. Marquesses, Earls, and Viscounts generally had larger holdings and were in charge counties or provinces. Barons were basic landholders.

For the lower classes, there wasn't always an ability or, more so, desire to move away from the system. Their lords were also charged with defending them. Overthrow that guy and someone else, like a neighboring adversary, will simply step in and pick up the pieces to take the land, possibly killing everyone already there. It was advantageous to be a vassal to a powerful lord who could marshal troops in the event of invasion by foreign adversaries (which happened a lot) or provide a means of refuge until allies could arrive to help.

There was also the driving force of early capitalism. Fighting costs money. Money for time, food, weapons, training, etc. The key here was weapons like swords, horses, armor, etc. Peasants and lower class individuals didn't have the accumulation of money to outfit an army. Lords did through their land ownership and rents/taxes. They were the few individuals with the necessary accumulated capital to raise a defense when it was essentially private (with the added benefit from a tactical standpoint that they could make executive decisions and didn't have to govern by committee).

Over time, the system has simply adapted and changed with the times. If there necessarily a need for the nobility? Not really, though they are still generally very wealthy and politically connected. Anyone in government benefits from their support. The commoners, by and large, sill short the system as a matter of tradition. They're used to it and don't care. It's just how things are.

As far as overthrowing the nobility, as is suggested above, they're the ones with the wealth and land because they, or their forebears, took it fair and square. It's no different than the US government fighting for and taking land from native Americans. They fought for it, or fought for someone else who did, and ended up with it. Then they built wealth from it and passed it down. Saying they should be overthrown or shouldn't have titles is not much different than, "Give us what you have or we'll take it because you have something we don't." It's no better than the little socialists and anarchists *****ing about rich people. Cry all you want about tyranny, but at this point, their continued residence in the UK is consent to be governed. Nothing is stopping them from moving because they don't like having a sovereign or nobility. If that's the government they want to consent to, who is anyone else to tell them that they're wrong just because you like something different?

I was hoping that Oprah would settle the question of whether Meghan and Harry are straight...or superstraight.

The line Hessians wore blue, the Jaegers did wear green since they were employed as skirmishers and sharpshooters. They were also armed with rifles.

A Jaeger (Light Infantry) for your viewing pleasure:

BCG Disciple said:

---

Clob94 said:

---

Holy sheet.

---

A clear cut libel case? Going to assume this guy is not an attorney.

---

How much do you know about British law?

Does anyone really care what Markle has to say?

aggie3200 said:

---

Does anyone really care what Markle has to say?

---

Millions watched it. So I would say yes

DallasAg 94 said:

---

I don't believe her.

---

Worse....I don't care even one iota. They're a relic of about 500+ years ago.

aggie3200 said:

---

Does anyone really care what Markle has to say?

---

Apparently the White House does because they thanked them for their courage in sharing their mental health troubles and personal story. Should have just STFU and said no comment because you risk pissing off a close ally.

annie88 said:

---

A is A said:

---

annie88 said:

---

AggiePops said:

---

Actually, I'm surprised you guys are watching Oprah.

---

I didn't watch Oprah it's all over the news in snippets, Twitter, etc. I haven't even seen the interview just read about parts of it.

---

Maybe you should watch it? You sure do have lengthy opinions about it for someone that did not watch it.

---

Why? I was replying to the OP, where the comment was clearly stated not to mention the few Twitter clips about it.

For someone making ignorant blanket statements about the monarchy, you might want to take your own advice

---

I watched it live. I wouldn't post on a topic about and interview if I didn't watch the interview. I do not rely on twitter as news.

would love to know what you think I said that was an "ignorant blanket statement"

snowdog90 said:

---

Well, just to jump in again...

Royals
Total scumbags. Whatever they "do for their country" is mere breadcrumbs. It's akin to Pablo Escobar giving 20s to the peasants of Bogota and building them a soccer field.

The Royals are rich beyond imagination for seemingly having the right relatives. They were great friends with Jimmy Savile, as I stated. Prince Andrew (like Bill Clinton) was a frequent guest of Jeffrey Epstein at Pedo Island and other places.

Bill Clinton
Total scumbag.. Rapist. Liar. Pedophile. On and on.

They are all scumbags, which is evidently the primary qualification to be a world leader. Pedo Joe fits right in.

Btw, the Royals killed Diana. Meghan should really tread lightly.

---

careful. this is an unpopular opinion on this thread

thirdcoast said:

---

The black community should be wondering if Meghan is too white to be acting so woke for blacks.

She suffers from same illness as Kap....never been black enough her whole life, and now has platform to finally be accepted as black.

---

I've been trying to figure out how white skinned Megan and Ginger Prince were going to have a brown baby

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

Clob94 said:

---

Holy sheet.

---

A clear cut libel case? Going to assume this guy is not an attorney.

---

How much do you know about British law?

---

Fair point. Enough to know it is absolutely insane to believe that there is enough specificity involved in the statements to constitute defamation. She didn't even say anything. Someone somewhere made a comment about their baby's skin tone and THAT is clear cut libel? What if someone jokingly said it's not possible to be more fair skinned than Harry - as a ginger dig? We have no idea what was said and how it was said or if it was said and literally no idea about who was supposed to have said it - to say it's clear cut libel is insane!

BCG Disciple said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

Clob94 said:

---

Holy sheet.

---

A clear cut libel case? Going to assume this guy is not an attorney.

---

How much do you know about British law?

---

Fair point. Enough to know it is absolutely insane to believe that there is enough specificity involved in the statements to constitute defamation. She didn't even say anything. Someone somewhere made a comment about their baby's skin tone and THAT is clear cut libel? What if someone jokingly said it's not possible to be more fair skinned than Harry - as a ginger dig? We have no idea what was said and how it was said or if it was said and literally no idea about who was supposed to have said it - to say it's clear cut libel is insane!

---

the libel is Meghan insinuating that the entire royal family are racists because she didn't single out an individual who made the remarks.

What awaits MM if she ever goes back to London,

"To the Tower with her!!!"

BCG Disciple said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

Clob94 said:

---

Holy sheet.

---

A clear cut libel case? Going to assume this guy is not an attorney.

---

How much do you know about British law?

---

Fair point. Enough to know it is absolutely insane to believe that there is enough specificity involved in the statements to constitute defamation. She didn't even say anything. Someone somewhere made a comment about their baby's skin tone and THAT is clear cut libel? What if someone jokingly said it's not possible to be more fair skinned than Harry - as a ginger dig? We have no idea what was said and how it was said or if it was said and literally no idea about who was supposed to have said it - to say it's clear cut libel is insane!

---

Britain has very different libel laws than we do. They're basically our polar opposite, and they're historically a destination for libel shopping because they're so friendly to plaintiffs and shift the burden of proof mostly to defendants. It's to the point that we've enacted legislation to not enforce libel judgements from British courts.

She could very well have a libel suit brought against her and Harry. She may enjoy some immunity because we will probably not enforce any judgement against her assets, which are undoubtedly American, but Harry likely has plenty of assets sill under British jurisdiction.

Ragoo said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

Clob94 said:

---

Holy sheet.

---

A clear cut libel case? Going to assume this guy is not an attorney.

---

How much do you know about British law?

---

Fair point. Enough to know it is absolutely insane to believe that there is enough specificity involved in the statements to constitute defamation. She didn't even say anything. Someone somewhere made a comment about their baby's skin tone and THAT is clear cut libel? What if someone jokingly said it's not possible to be more fair skinned than Harry - as a ginger dig? We have no idea what was said and how it was said or if it was said and literally no idea about who was supposed to have said it - to say it's clear cut libel is insane!

---

the libel is Meghan insinuating that the entire royal family are racists because she didn't single out an individual who made the remarks.

---

This. She made a a public insinuation and accusation against a member of the royal family without specifically naming someone, which effectively names them all because anyone who hears that can only apply equal suspicion to each individual. It damages all of their reputations.

If she did name someone, she'd likely be sued for libel anyway without some kind of evidence to back it up, and she'd probably lose because the burden would be on her to prove that it actually happened.

ShaggySLC said:

---

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

James Hewitt. British Army officer who had an affair with Diana. Look him up. The resemblance between him and Harry is definitely there.

---

---

He looks like his grandfather in this photo:





Some resemblance to his maternal uncle Charles, the Earl of Spencer



Just because Harry and James Hewitt are gingers doesn't mean Prince Charles is not his father.

You can see Charles in his eyes.





Dammit.

How dark will the child's skin be?

Probably not near as dark as the average blonde hair blue eyed 100% white surfer. Meghan isn't even the type of biracial you assume as black. She has pale skin, narrow nose, and straight hair looking more latin or mideastern. Probably why she is flexing so hard with the woke stuff....finally a chance to really be seen as black.

thirdcoast said:

---

How dark will the child's skin be?

Probably not near as dark as the average blonde hair blue eyed 100% white surfer. Meghan isn't even the type of biracial you assume as black. She has pale skin, narrow nose, and straight hair looking more latin or mideastern. Probably why she is flexing so hard with the woke stuff....finally a chance to really be seen as black.

---

Never knew (read: gave a ****) she was even remotely "mixed".

I'm half-and-half, my son is a quarter. He looks white as ****. I expected nothing less with his white ass mom.

Is she as black as Warren is Indian (feather, not dot)?

I did not watch any of the Meghan Markle interview from Oprah on CBS. Instead, I watched Fox Animation Domination shows: The Simpsons, the Great North, Bob's Burger, and Family Guy. But I first heard about that interview on Austin's Mix 94.7 station as I was driving to work.

I had no clue she wasn't white. I just assumed she, being a rich and pampered prima Donna, was a white chick that spent a lot of time at the beach working on her tan.

Is her mom or dad black?

BigRobSA said:

---

thirdcoast said:

---

How dark will the child's skin be?

Probably not near as dark as the average blonde hair blue eyed 100% white surfer. Meghan isn't even the type of biracial you assume as black. She has pale skin, narrow nose, and straight hair looking more latin or mideastern. Probably why she is flexing so hard with the woke stuff....finally a chance to really be seen as black.

---

Never knew (read: gave a ****) she was even remotely "mixed".

I'm half-and-half, my son is a quarter. He looks white as ****. I expected nothing less with his white ass mom.

Is she as black as Warren is Indian (feather, not dot)?

---

I don't think you would mistake her mother for being white or Asian

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

I had no clue she wasn't white. I just assumed she, being a rich and pampered prima Donna, was a white chick that spent a lot of time at the beach working on her tan.

Is her mom or dad black?

---

Her mother: