Cas Stark

You often speak as if once something was true, it must always be true. If George V was racist, then it follows that his descendents, 100 years later must also be racist. If any given institution or country was racist in the past, then they must still be racist today. That seems to me objectively wrong. In the US, African Americans are doing better than they have ever done in the past, better economically, educationally, culturally. Yet many people here speak like it is still 1960 or maybe even 1940 with no acknowledgement of the massive strides that have been made over the past half century.

In the US 'woman of color' encompasses a lot of ethnicities that aren't considered black. Is it controversial now to not consider Asians and people from Latin America as black? And for the record, while I am old, one of my parents is non white and I am not male.

She can obviously identify as whatever she wants, I mean, that goes without saying. But to my knowledge she has always identified herself as 'biracial', indeed sometimes she has identified herself as caucasian and spoken at length of growing up as biracial in the US. Sometimes, when people don't like you or what you say they find reason to be 'offended' and always choose the most negative possible interpretation of other people's words.

And there is the difference. Barack Obama is also biracial but identifies as black. Meghan to my knowledge has never identified herself as black, but as mix-ed race, going so far as to say she was never treated like a 'black woman' until she married Harry. The issues around driving/camping/shopping/walking while black is predicated on the individual visually appearing 'black' , if the cop/shop owner/karen looks at you and sees an Italian or a Brazilian, then it isn't going to be the same situation ,but I'm sure you will be offended by that as well.

What's offensive about it? It's a fact. She's biracial.

The 60s were 60 years ago. Times and attitudes have changes since then.

The 'spike' is because there is been a lot of news about them lately. There was the 'car chase'. Harry's court testimony. Then, Spotify dropped them. This did seem to have opened the gates a bit, with insiders spilling details the public hadn't heard before. They didn't get the full Spotify payout. Bill Simmons called them fucking grifters. Specifics about their dumb podcast ideas are coming out. Kelly Osborn went on a rant. Also, someone, probably H&M, floated the Dior deal and that was a news cycle. Now, still more is coming out about their Netflix deal and ideas. With respect, trolling through social media accounts from their weird fanbase the #sussexsquad, suggests perhaps others need to get out and touch grass. Lastly, I hate to be a stickler, but Meghan Markle isn't 'black' she is biracial, a black mother and a white father. If I met her on the street my first thought on her ethnicity would probably be Italian or South American. With her hair straight she looks completely racially ambiguious, she could be any of about a dozen various ethnicities and nationalities.

I would approve if they renounced all their titles and became Mr. and Mrs. whatever, and Harry and the children were out of the line of sucession. As for their last name, I don't care. Changing it to Spencer would just be more evidence of how nuts they are, but I don't have any objection to it. I do expect that eventually when they've squeezed everything they can out of the monarchy that they will give up the titles and go full republican.

That was so strange. If he never intended for his family to be branded racists as a result of that interview, why not correct the record at the time? Why let those accusations go on and on for years until he randomly asserts, oh no, not racist, we never said that, it was the media.

They don't have any control. They're basking in the dwindling light of past centuries and the affection of people like me who like pagentry, tradition and big jewels. The very fact, that as Harry says, they have to have strategies to pacify the tabloids tells you they have no real power. They are at the mercy of the media and have been for several decades. Harry is right when he says they're trapped in a mutual relationship there. I get it, you don't like the royals or the aristocracy, that's fine. But you attribute to them all kinds of powers and bad behavior for which there is no actual evidence. Charles is weak and probably arrogant. I don't know if he meets the threshold for 'bad person', he was an environmentalist years before it became mainstream. I think you're in the distinct minority on getting evil vibes from the 96 year old grandma. She always seemed like a nice lady to me, nothing special, no great intellect or talent there, but a nice lady who was doing what she saw as her duty. We can just agree to disagree here.

You keep saying that, they're not good people, but on what evidence. What is wrong with Princess Anne? Or her children? Or Andrew's children? Or Edward? How are they bad people? Why was the Queen a bad person? I do believe Harry is dishonest and is not a good person as evidenced by his factual statements and behavior. You know the royals haven't had any power in centuries right? That during the peak of Empire, they were already figureheads. Queen Victoria was just branding by that point. I mean, I'm sure she enjoyed getting all the jewels, but blaming the royals for colonialism is not accurate unless you want to go way back to the Stuarts and the Tudors. The Windsors have always been just window dressing with no real power.

Really? On a web site where thousands of words have been spent on the importance of a lemon tree in a fictional universe, and you fear for my mental health over a few dozen posts about the British royal family? Try harder.

Ah, so no evidence needed then. Just guilty as [not] charged. I thought as much.

When did they change the definition of pedophilia to 17 year olds? You might want to alert the authorities since the vast majority of countries including the UK and most of the US have the age of consent at 16. As for racism, that's a claim Meghan has made, I guess if you find her honest and credible, that's up to you. I'll give you extravagance, but that's baked into the cake, that's part of of the appeal. I was personally disappointed the royals didn't break out the tiaras for Charles coronation. What's the point of having dozens of nearly priceless tiaras if no one wears them because some dips*** bolshevik wannabes are going to start blabbing about the they should be sold off to fund road repair.

I don't agree they are far worse. At the worst, they're simply trying to hold onto their positions, I can't blame them, I would do the same. Meghan has taken all of the privilege, the fame and the money that comes with that family's unique position and spit on it. She has been actively working for literally years to harm the family and the institution they represent. That is vile and is in a class by itself.

You're projecting. You don't like the royal family and you think the hereditary aristocracy is bad, fine. Ask yourself, why Meghan continues to call herself the Duchess of Sussex and was so hot to ensure her chileren got the Prince/Princess titles. Maybe she doesn't actually share your view there, when the title affords her all kinds of privilege.

Maybe. Prince Phillip is on record saying that royals need to remember people don't come to see the individual but the 'role' which seems pretty self aware to me. The Queen's father was also humble about his own lack of capabilities. I'd imagine being at the pinacle of your country's social system, living the life of an oligarch, you'd need to actively work not to be an arogant jerk though. Meghan, in her short few years as a super famous person has done many, many things that show me she is manifestly not a nice or sincere person. I can't say the same for the queen. Maybe she was a cruel bitch, but I doubt it. Too many people from across the world including the Obamas spoke too fondly of her. At the very least, QEII kept any bad deeds behind closed doors and that served her very very well. Her grand daughter in law would have been wise to take a lesson there.

Instead of a mural you could look into wall paper, they have the stick ons in a lot of mural like almost full wall patterns that,while not cheap, are not crazy expensive either.

He's the only one who doesn't seem to understand that everything he has is due to his parents. The idea that Vladimir Putin and Zuckerberg and the Pope would talk to Harry shows exactly what an entitled prat he actually is, and that all of his progressive talk is fully performative. When he looks in the mirror he sees His Royal Highness Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, a Blood Royal and Very Important Person. When he says 'just call me Harry' its the equivalent of the Lord of the Manor throwing out coin on his birthday to the peasants. At least Meghan, while I don't think she is a nice person, has a list of accomplishments that pre date her involvement with Harry.

How can you guarantee its baseless speculation? Indeed, one of Harry's chief complaints about the palace staff was that they would not answer 'all of it' and he was again and again advised that it was both foolish and impossible to address every single dumb story. Harry's MO is to threaten to sue over stories he considers false, exactly what he did over the stupid Lilibet kerfluffle. It is a reasonable conclusion that if they don't deny something there is a reason for it. It would be interesting that anyone who is almost 40 would be considering a name change as part of a rebranding effort. I have no idea why anyone at this point defends either of these two strange and unkind people. Prince Harry, he who barely graduated from UK version of high school and has never had a job thinks his peer group is Putin, Zuckerberg and the Pope. That is beyond laughable. News about the royals is entertaining for some people, some many millions of people, including me. I don't need to 'touch grass' but thanks for the concern. Bless your heart.

Talk to me like I'm stupid: If they were going to view the titanic, which is in a specific place, why is it taking so long to find the sub? Is it because its so small? or too deep?

From what I understand, she only did the celebrity interviews herself. The riff raff eperts were interviewed by staff. That's fine I guess, but not really 'on brand' with Archetypes which was supposed to showcase stories of the marginalized and shine a light on ?something? new. If the podcast had aired in 1982 instead of 2022, it might have been fresh and illuminating. This is their chief problem with anything outside of the royal family, their views/ideas are totally Basic 101, points that anyone can pick up googling for 10 minutes. It will be interesting if they deny the stories that they have/are considering changing their last name to Spencer. **This is another downside of suing everyone all the time. When you decline to sue or demand a retraction it leaves the impression that whatever has been said must be true.

I'm shocked, no one has yet made a joke about how their 'hearts will go on'....

Yeah but the two are intertwined, and if the city focused on the actual problem...trash that is accessible to rodents, the rat issue would diminish. But, we always seem to prefer to treat the effect and never the cause in the US. Poisoning animals by the thousands is despicable even if they are rats. I don't see any effect of the wildfire smoke on the plants so far.

If we would simply control and manage our human garbage, including fines for failure to keep your trash secured, and not allowing people to live in public parks, etc. etc. that would probably eliminate the rat problem. But I guess it's easier to poison animals. Sad, but not surprising.