Harry and Megan: How long will it last?

How long


  • Total voters
    169
  • Poll closed .
There was something strange about the birth. The refusal to name the doctors, where, when. Very odd. Not right.

My bold definitely, it used to be the custom until quite recently that Royal births, especially where a potential heir to throne is due, that there HAD to be witnesses
snip " 1. Giving birth with an audience
For hundreds of years, royal women gave birth in front of spectators. It was a big custom among the French royalty—poor Marie Antoinette was almost killed by the great crush of people who poured into her bedchamber at Versailles when the doctor shouted that the baby was coming. Contemporary reports claim that it was stiflingly hot, that it was impossible to move for spectators, and that some people were climbing atop the furniture for a better view. No wonder she fainted. (And no wonder the custom was abandoned soon after. Well, sort of: The royal mother still gave birth before a crowd of people—ministers, advisors, trustworthy types—just a smaller one.)
A public viewing, no matter how uncomfortable for the one being viewed, was designed to prove to the entire court that the child was indeed the fruit of the royal woman’s womb, that there hadn’t been a switch up at some point.
Even if it wasn’t an official public—as in any punters off the street—policy, other royal women were expected to deliver their babies to an audience. Still, it didn’t work for Mary of Modena, queen consort of the Catholic King James II. No less than 70 people reportedly witnessed the birth of their longed-for son and heir, James Francis Edward Stuart, on June 10, 1688. But gossips still claimed that he was a changeling child smuggled into the birthing chamber in a warming pan, and that the real prince had been stillborn. The whole conspiracy was cooked up by Protestants wary that the Catholic King James II would raise his son, the heir to the throne, a Catholic; that would constitute a further imposition of what they now considered a foreign religion on a Protestant people. The supposed illegitimacy of young James, however, furnished William of Orange, the next Protestant in line for the British throne, with a good reason to invade.

But measures to make sure that the royal baby was indeed the right one were still in place until 1936. Until then, and including the births of Queen Elizabeth II and her sister, Princess Margaret, the British Home Secretary was required to stand outside the door of the birthing room, just to be sure."

And some people might not know that in cases of "mixed" heritage, a thing called "Throwback" can happen, as in this case The black woman - with white parents
snip "Nature had played a trick. Abraham and Sannie Laing were white, their parents, grandparents and great grandparents were white, yet their daughter was dark. By a biological quirk, the pigment of an unknown black ancestor had lain dormant for generations and manifested in Sandra. Genetic throwbacks were not unheard of but if there was ever a wrong place and wrong time for this phenomenon, it was apartheid South Africa.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer

woger wabbit

War Hero
Pity the bowtie didn't stay on the tux.
A bit off thread but interesting, I watched the interview with Meghans father last night and I must say that if half of what he said about the way he has been treated by his daughter then he has my sympathy. If the case about the letter does get to court, it will be very interesting particularly if the father does testify as according to dad Meghan has been a bit inventive with the truth.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
A bit off thread but interesting, I watched the interview with Meghans father last night and I must say that if half of what he said about the way he has been treated by his daughter then he has my sympathy. If the case about the letter does get to court, it will be very interesting particularly if the father does testify as according to dad Meghan has been a bit inventive with the truth.
Surely not? Wannabe Princess exaggerates parts of story and fails to mention others? Who'd have thought it?
 
A bit off thread but interesting, I watched the interview with Meghans father last night and I must say that if half of what he said about the way he has been treated by his daughter then he has my sympathy. If the case about the letter does get to court, it will be very interesting particularly if the father does testify as according to dad Meghan has been a bit inventive with the truth.
It appears that not only do retards believe the tabloids they also believe some bloke who has been hawking his stories to the tabloids.
 
Surely not? Wannabe Princess exaggerates parts of story and fails to mention others? Who'd have thought it?
Nobody who has the intellectual capacity to realise the press have paid her father and will probably continue to pay him.
The frothy mouthed spastics will probably believe him though.
 
Surely not? Wannabe Princess exaggerates parts of story and fails to mention others? Who'd have thought it?
I would suggest the warning signs might have been there, flashing "DANGER - DANGER" when Hazza talked about "the family she never had" during the engagement interview. Either that or the bit when she said she had no idea who Harry was when they met, or words to that effect, when her family (the one she did not have) and her friends have all spoken about how she idolised Diana.

If you're going to lie, lie big. For all his alleged failings, Mr Markle seems to have adored his daughter & she is still close to her mother.
 

woger wabbit

War Hero
It appears that not only do retards believe the tabloids they also believe some bloke who has been hawking his stories to the tabloids.
Not just some bloke, her Father, you really are the lawyer to defend the two twits aren't you? I should end all my replies with "over to you stacker" and await your current rant; over to you stacker! sigh. :mad:
 
Not just some bloke, her Father, you really are the lawyer to defend the two twits aren't you? I should end all my replies with "over to you stacker" and await your current rant; over to you stacker! sigh. :mad:
That will be the father who has been talking to the press for money? Just because he's her father doesn't stop him being a bit of a cunt does it?
But hey if he says something it must be true :roll:
 
FFS don't feed the plonker, half the thread contributors have him on ignore.
I can never remember why you put me on ignore, wasn't it something to do with you walting up your service and/or lying about a service person being killed by the red army faction?
 
I can never remember why you put me on ignore, wasn't it something to do with you walting up your service and/or lying about a service person being killed by the red army faction?
I don't know about the RAF thing, but I can safely say that he hasn't been walting up his army service.
 
I don't know about the RAF thing, but I can safely say that he hasn't been walting up his army service.
He seemed to forget just how many years he served.
He also claimed to be serving when a service member was murdered by the Red Army Faction in 1981 in Belgium.
He got the country wrong, the terrorist group wrong and the year wrong.
 
I guess you'd know!
Do you not think the bloke is a bit of a cunt? Yet for some reason some people are ready believe him.
 
Do you not think the bloke is a bit of a ****? Yet for some reason some people are ready believe him.
I think he has issues but I cannot condone the behaviour of his daughter to him. My dad was an alcoholic. I didn't invite him to my wedding and he knew why but we visited the next day and we had him round for many sunday dinners etc until he died when he was 50 and I was 20 and he didn't bring me up or pay for me to go to private school...

Families are families but I would have thought H&M could have made an effort to see him.
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top