Lady Colin Campbells latest YouTube claims-Most of Montecito hate them and Hillary Clinton is using Meghan

Bitch stole my act.

I'm no fan of Markle, but, Campbell is a right wing pseudo-twat.

r2 She says she's a Liberal who pursues her aims cautiously and conservatively so defines herself as a centrist.

Lady C is a very strange looking “lady”. No wonder she’s bitter.

OP you're still sucking that scammer's dick. Why do you keep posting his fairytales? His 5 minute marriage to a British "lord" (before the husband found out she had a dick) now makes her a "royal", Montecito and Clinton insider. Give me a fucking break, She talks out of her ass, for idiots stupid enough to believe her.

Why did he never change his first name?

Because he's a man.

She just rambles on….do you listen to all her vlogs, OP?

[quote] She just rambles on….do you listen to all her vlogs, OP?

He's a devout "Lady" Colin dick sucker.

I was in Montecito yesterday. They don't think about them at all, which might actually be more of an insult.

r5 What has her marriage history got to do with the veracity and accuracy of her claims?? She was born upper class not aristrocrat and she mixes in those circles. I actually haven't said whether I believe her or not so you might be making an assumption or two there.

r9 No I ain't. Childish caricature. Why the aggressive insults?

Everyone's 15 minutes are UP. Move along.

Leave SurvivingAngel alone you shitheads!

Also hey SA! I don't watch LCC but i do watch River and hoping he'll have something to say about that absolutely bullshit Bot Sentinel report!

Montecito skews OLD!

Why would Markle want to live among los viejos?

She’s so fucking clueless.

r14 Cheers much appreciated!

Apparently there are whispers that some big companies have told Meghan they won't work with her because she is a seen as a divisive marmite character and wouldn't be good for business. This strategy and push supporting some deluded notion that most people like the Harkles especially Meghan and its just a tony number of people on social media who don't eg 80 accounts on twitter is a Meghans attempt to pushback at that and and persuade these companies they are wrong and they should work with her because she is in reality popular!! The allegation is this it's only 80 accounts on twitter is a way to try to change the narrative so companies will work with Meghan. Interesting of true and explains the coordinated feel to the story and its media coverage!

I cannot see it working as River I'm sure will entertainingly point out!!

r15 A belief she'd be among movers and shakers?

r13 The Harkles are struggling to accept that though and the reality their appeal or popularity isn't self sustaining outside of the monarchy.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

The first claim is very believable. Other celebs could be moving out due to the extra security those two require. The second claim makes no sense. Also the reason we haven't heard from Rachel in ages is because she's obviously pregnant with baby #3 just mere months after giving birth to the spare's spare.

R3 George also says he's a LADY.

[quote] She was born upper class

He was born the son of a Jamaican shopkeeper. Nothing more nothing less.

She's the son of a Lebanese rug merchant. She's about as "centrist" as Eva Braun if Eva had a willy.

[quote] [R5] What has her marriage history got to do with the veracity and accuracy of her claims?? She was born upper class not aristrocrat and she mixes in those circles. I actually haven't said whether I believe her or not so you might be making an assumption or two there.

She was born a man in Jamaica. He claim to fame is her title. Which she acquired 100 yrs ago, with her 5 minute marriage to a British lord. Which lasted until he found out that she was a man. She's no different than any other internet troll, posting their opinions on the internet.

[quote] Lady Colin Campbells latest YouTube claims-Most of Montecito hate them Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's billionaire next-door neighbor sells his $19million mansion - the latest of the rich and famous Montecito residents (including Rob Lowe) to exit since the ex-royals arrived Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's billionaire neighbor sold his $19million mansion in April He is the latest of the rich and famous Montecito, California residents to exit since the ex-royals arrived Actor Rob Lowe also ditched his home in Meghan and Harry's neighborhood in September last year

Harry and Meghan purchased their home in 2020. Rob Lowe listed his home in 2018 and then lowered the price in 2019. The home sold in 2020.

What's your next lie?

George is constantly ranting about the Markles "merching" yet he never misses an opportunity to shill his own dilapidated "castle" for a pay venue wedding site and other "suitable occasions". Hawking his "commemorative stamps" "suitable for framing" . His gaudy paste jewelry plugs. His cadaverous hyper filtered kabuki mask of a face. Harpy parvenue . Hyacinth Bouquet without the charm. That being said he's more entertaining then The View.

Meghan was seen conferring with Guthy Renker to bring out her skincare or cosmetics line. Doing informercials means QVC appearances. She can make a ton of money but forget the political aspirations, which I assumed weren't serious, anyway. I think her best bet would be a Chanel perfume ad assuming she lost weight and could land one

Bitch stole my act.

If H&M would have just buggered off to America and kept their yaps shut, I bet they'd be raking it in and still be popular. Their very stupid public complaints about the BRF, including the book Scobie ghost-wrote for them and the Oprah interview along with other various and sundry, have shot them in the foot.

r23 Her claim to fame is her actions eg best selling books not her title.

R29 His claim to fame is his AUTHORSHIP of best selling books.

It is obvious that this thread has been infested with Harkle acolytes. They wish to discredit Her Ladyship for being a fact checker and truth teller. Hoi Polloi are beneath contempt.

Love lady C ,her info is accurate and first rate. Only megan bots hate her.

While I don’t think anyone welcomes their grandiose presence in Montecito, I don’t think anyone is selling and moving because of it, either.

[quote] Lady Colin Campbells latest YouTube claims-Most of Montecito hate them and Hillary Clinton is using Meghan Love lady C ,her info is accurate and first rate. Only megan bots hate her.

[quote] Queen Elizabeth is Shielding Prince Andrew From Prosecution Over Sex Crimes This girl was a hustler. Bottom line ...a paid for whore who recruited other girls ....he did nothing legally wrong... its a bit sick sleeping with a seventeen year old ... if people who seem so outraged stood up and did something to stop sex trafficing ...it would be a different story... THIS IS A SMEAR CAMPAIGN.....

[quote] Queen Elizabeth is Shielding Prince Andrew From Prosecution Over Sex Crimes He did nothing ILLEGAL he slept with a grifting whore !

Hillary just wants to get into Meghan’s pants.

Lady CC can be amusing. I don't believe her latest video. She's out of material at this time.

Why doesn’t Lady C show the slightest gratitude for the material Harry and Meghan have handed her? What would the old biddy have to gas on about, otherwise? (Her withered, non functional penis and adopted cabana boys from Russia?)

Lady Colin Campbell is a rightwing nut job who spews rumors without basis. A good gossip has shit that are based in some factual evidence or solid connections in the know. But not LCC. I fucking hate the thirsty Sussexes, but I also hate that LCC is out there practically every day on YT spewing rightwing conjectures as facts. Remember, she was also saying rumors of Meghan arrested for prostitution in California, and that possibility of Meghan never being pregnant. Just batshit for kool-aid shit that her fans eat it up as facts.

There are enough to hate on both Harry and Meghan without introducing BSC rightwing nut job like LCC into the mix.

How will the Royals ever get the Markle dog shit off their shoes, for once and for all? I am serious. How do they distance themselves permanently from her and her bloodcurdling tackiness? Apparently, they can’t take her title.

^....

Harkle interns busy

You know who has been proved to be a small organized group of obsessive, racist trolls complete with sock puppets?

Trumpian Klan Grannies who claim that Harry and Meghan fans are paid shills.

yawn

r33 The claim they are hated in Montecito and people moving away was not aimed or linked by me and wasn't stated in Lady C YouTube video. That was the tabloids.

r37 Cabana boys?

r38 I thought it was a traffic offence not prostitution?

[quote] Why did he never change his first name?

She did. Her first name is Georgia, which she had changed from George.

Lady Colin Campbell is her title because she was once married to Lord Colin Campbell, the younger son of the Duke of Argyll. Her name is not Colin.

I'll only watch this video if she again giggly re-tells fart jokes Prince Philip makes about Princess Anne's horses. Does she?

With obsessed people like this Campbell woman , Meghan will always be in the British public eye. Like Diana and Simpson, even long after her death.

Retired shop bottoms in flyoverstan living in Shady Pines Mobile Home Communities have a unique and valid conception of the British Commonwealth's class structure and its signs and symbols.

Campbell's Condensed Cream of Cunt.

Yep klan grannies???? Only ss PAID people use that trying to get the threadclosed down. Its so obvious, apparently they are too cheap to hire people with an above average intellect. Just losers ,living in mommies basement. GET A REAL JOB !

Go away Lady Boy George!

r52 Their efforts are risible I agree! Very sub standard!

So I guess everybody thinks she's full of shit when she says she was born intersex?

[quote] Harry and Meghan fans are paid shills.

Well they’d have to be [bold] Tony Woodard [/bold], because who else would be ignorant enough to stan for two whiny, inauthentic, publicity-whoring, lying, deceitful, shady, narcissistic wannabes?

The Harry and Meghan saga is boring now, The royal family do not respond to anything they do, so there is no longer any drama there. Actually, it seems like the regular press covers them less and less, too. They seem to be fading away.

Will Megan attend Elizabeth's funeral?

Just listening to that old broad brings the wafting odor of rancid vag into one’s home.

True… which is quite an accomplishment, considering she doesn’t have one.

Listen, R56, and listen well.

I am a long-time member of this board who has no dog in this fight other than calling out bullshit.

‘Lady’ Colin Campbell is a troll who sold her books based on a tenuous connection to the aristocracy. She is nothing but a sham and an interloper, with fake tiles, fake houses, fake sons, and fake jewelry; a jealous interloper.

While Harry and his wife are certainly not without blame, this bitter wannabe frau KLAN GRANNY has no power here and is offensive to my very delicate nature.

And just in case you’re Matt. Don’t mess with me son. I’ll call your mother tonight if you get out of line.

DRAG HAH!

Meh, Edward VIII was a Nazi. This is all pretty small potatoes. The main branch will go on in their boring Wills and Kate way, and Harry and Meghan will be the mildly embarrassing relatives that moved somewhere? Canada? California? Who really knows?

The ole rat trap better pray we don't die in a car crash or her career is kaput.

r61 why are her sons fake? Because their adopted? I dont think its right to slur her sons in that way if you are referring to them being adopted.

SurvivingAngel = The Ole Rat Trap

R65 oh dear!

They’re not their, and slander not slur, you ignorant cunt.

[bold]Tony Woodhead[/bold]

We don’t care who the hell you are.

Don’t. Make. Threats. On. This. Forum.

PERIOD.

[wuote] ‘Lady’ Colin Campbell is a troll who sold her books based on a tenuous connection to the aristocracy. She is nothing but a sham and an interloper, with fake tiles, fake houses, fake sons, and fake jewelry; a jealous interloper.

How can her sons be fake since she adopted them legally? or do you somehow think only biologicsal children are "real" ones?

R67/R68 This is beneath your Ladyship. Put down the Boodles and get to bed.

[quote]r69 How can her sons be fake since she adopted them legally? —Tread carefully, bitch

She more procured them than adopted them.

r71 Are they legally adopted or not? It is not a question of degree or more one thing than the other.It is yes or no.

Maybe they're fake "sons". I mean, she's intersex, right?

What do we make of the claim and argument made in the video that Hillary Clinton is using Meghan and knows full well Meghan hasnt the ability to be elected president or to do the job?

Hillary is just trying to get her loser name in public, two losers using each other.

[quote]R72 Are they legally adopted or not? It is not a question of degree or more one thing than the other.It is yes or no.

Ask her yourself in the comments section of her videos. She’d appreciate the traffic.

Buncha’ trolls reacting to this thread. Y’all need to stop! Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies Klan grannies

R77 ^ We have your meds.

r75 She fears becoming irrelevant?

She already is.

Rachel wants to be a global ambassador, a mental health advocate and a lifestyle, health and wellness influencer so badly it's pathetic. She has a certain image of who she sees herself as and wants to be. The majority sees the reality while the Sussex Squad Karens drink the cyanide laced flavor aid on the daily to maintain seeing and believing the fantasy.

r80 Maybe she is struggling to understand that is the case....

I don’t like the terms relevant and irrelevant in regards to people, anyway. Aren’t all people relevant? They are to someone.

It’s more accurate to describe others as popular, newsworthy… I don’t know- some other term than relevant.

[quote] The majority sees the reality while the Sussex Squad Karens drink the cyanide laced flavor aid on the daily to maintain seeing and believing the fantasy.

It’s become a cult, R81. Not unlike other bizarre cults of personality we’ve observed within the US....and other places.

What’s fascinating is to watch the Sussexes as they scramble to do anything: read books (for toddlers) to underserved older children in Harlem! Promote parental leave! Write to global leaders about vaccines! State they developed the Hubb Kitchen (ha!)! Write op-eds in NYT about personal miscarriage! Have photo-ops in cemeteries for veterans! Speak to teens about mental health! Go on Oprah to discuss drug and alcohol abuse! Sit with Oprah to claim Daddy did not fund their security! Go onstage to cheerlead for a Covid (vaccines)! Sue the press for publishing information and photos of their son; yet have underprivileged children in Harlem photographed for their promotional purposes! Become CHIMPO for a quasi-mental health organisation! Sign with Spotify to develop (ONE) podcast! Sign with Netflix to develop programs! Write books! Hire ghostwriter! Sign on with a financial corporation that claims to be ethical but whose track record reveals this not to be the case! Hire many individuals for a quasi-foundation called Archewell! Lose hired employees at Archewell! Sign on to some travel company named Travalyst whose purpose seems mysterious! Purchase mega mansion in exclusive California enclave!

And they are generating less and less attention from their families, former friends, colleagues, politicos, press and now the populace. They have shot the wad.

I like Lady C. She’s amusing.

R39 It isn't her title, it's her husband's. If the Queen takes it away from him, Meghan loses it. If they get divorced, she loses it. If the Queen let's Harry keep it, then Meghan keeps it.

They seem to feel confident that the titles aren't going to be removed. Outwardly, the two ingrate brats would appear to be correct. My guess is the family have given up on them and figure that grey-rocking the two sleazy mental cases will make the titles increasingly meaningless, so why bother with the headache? Also, Parliament would have to get involved and sign off on it. Parliament already punted once back to the Queen after a petition was submitted asking the government to remove the titles. They've got enough tral shit to deal with right now.

The Harkles are their own worst enemies. Most of Britain hate them (Meghan's latest YouGov approval rating was . . . 28%), and most of America don't give a tinker's curse about them.

The monarchy will just move on. I suppose if Harry really stirs the pot with his upcoming memoir, or some really ugly stuff that I suspect is percolating behind the scenes emerges, the title issue might come into play, but otherwise, that ship has probably sailed.

But the issues raised by too many HRHs too far down the line probably is on Charles' mind after the debacle with his younger son and re the grandchildren. I would bet an amendment to the 1917 Titles Act is in the pipeline to keep the HRHs to children of the direct heir only within 4 places or something like that, so future spares know their kids won't have them from the get-go.

r28 that was unlikely as Meghan is really unpopular in general. Most Americans saw through her too.

R87 New Yorkers certainly did. If you look at real photos of their "tour", there are only scattering of people gathered to see them. And The POST ran huge headlines jeering at them. And we know something intensely uncomfortable occurred at the UN where they also didn't get what they wanted, and a huge marital spat that allowed Harry to escape for drinks with pals without the missus for once in the Carlyle's bar.

Their problem, as always, is that they won't admit they have a problem: it's always the Others that have a problem.

So they never change tactics.

Wasn't the first hearing on the ANL appeal supposed to occur this month?

I'm surprised that old hermaphrodite wasn't offed years ago.

R74, I already said it. Hillary wants to get into Meghan’s pants. Or she mistakenly thinks that woke pantomime is appealing to the younger crowd.

Hils has an appalling lack of judgement. Either that, or she’s as venal as Rachel.

The 2016 election was like a choice between choosing herpes or HIV: a lose-lose situation for the US populace.

I am normally a big Hillary fan, but sometimes she says or does something that reveals shockingly little understanding of international issues. Like when she gave the yes to catch/kill Khadaffi and destroy Libya, with no understanding of the picture on the ground. Here, she has no comprehension of the British monarchy or media norms.

R92 - In fairness to Mrs Clinton, she's hardly alone in that room. Cf. the invasion of Iraq, which our own dear Tony Blair fervently joined, despite iron clad evidence that Saddam had nowt to do with 9/11, convinced that the Iraqis would joyously welcome the Christian Crusaders to liberate them from iron-fisted Sunni Saddam.

The fact is, where the Middle East is concerned, it appears to be damned if you do and damned if you don't. Obama made a mistake with Syria - in fairness, boxed into a corner by a public that didn't want another ground war in the ME - and allowing Assad to put two fingers up to the West as it made loud noses about red lines in the sand, and ending up with egg all over its face, the balance of power shifting to Iran as Iraq moved into Iran's arms without Saddam the gatekeeper, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Right back to the fall of the CIA-backed Shah of Iran.

Libya's collapse without a Plan B for what happened when Qaddafi was gone set Libya up and another departure point for migrants heading for Europe - that is, the ones who had enough money to pay off the "guards" running the concentration camps for those who didn't.

The West never learns, apparently. So Hillary is hardly singular in this.

[quote] It’s become a cult, [R81]. Not unlike other bizarre cults of personality we’ve observed within the US....and other places. What’s fascinating is to watch the Sussexes as they scramble to do anything: read books (for toddlers) to underserved older children in Harlem! Promote parental leave! Write to global leaders about vaccines! State they developed the Hubb Kitchen (ha!)! Write op-eds in NYT about personal miscarriage! Have photo-ops in cemeteries for veterans! Speak to teens about mental health! Go on Oprah to discuss drug and alcohol abuse! Sit with Oprah to claim Daddy did not fund their security! Go onstage to cheerlead for a Covid (vaccines)! Sue the press for publishing information and photos of their son; yet have underprivileged children in Harlem photographed for their promotional purposes! Become CHIMPO for a quasi-mental health organisation! Sign with Spotify to develop (ONE) podcast! Sign with Netflix to develop programs! Write books! Hire ghostwriter! Sign on with a financial corporation that claims to be ethical but whose track record reveals this not to be the case! Hire many individuals for a quasi-foundation called Archewell! Lose hired employees at Archewell! Sign on to some travel company named Travalyst whose purpose seems mysterious! Purchase mega mansion in exclusive California enclave! And they are generating less and less attention from their families, former friends, colleagues, politicos, press and now the populace. They have shot the wad. —Stick a Fork in Them: They are Done.

You're projecting. Hating Meghan and Harry is not only a cult. Its an industry. The tabloids and people like Mr. Campbell are making a fortune off of your cult. Who gives a fuck about the outdated British monarchy and the Windsors. It needs to be abolished. Exploitation of others is not a birthright. Devine rule is bullshit created by guess who, rulers.

[quote] I am normally a big Hillary fan, but sometimes she says or does something that reveals shockingly little understanding of international issues. Like when she gave the yes to catch/kill Khadaffi and destroy Libya, with no understanding of the picture on the ground. Here, she has no comprehension of the British monarchy or media norms.

You believe that you understand "international issues" better than the Yale educated former secretary of state. You believe that your assessment of a rumor pushed by a Youtuber (known liar) makes you more savvy than Clinton. You believe that you understand the media better than someone who spent decades in the public eye, being scrutinized by the media. Please feel free to share your credentials. However, it extraordinarily clear that you have a rather exaggerated sense of self.

[quote] Hils has an appalling lack of judgement. Either that, or she’s as venal as Rachel. The 2016 election was like a choice between choosing herpes or HIV: a lose-lose situation for the US populace.

Endless incompetence, endless corruption, six hundred thousand dead, a recession, 2 impeachments, an attempt to overthrow the government, a continued effort to overturn the 2020 election results and you're still claiming that Clinton and Trump were equal. Because an internet troll posted some nonsense.

I don't know them.

Lady C has 132 THOUSANDS suscribers....meGain has zilch

r94 In the same post you argue how awful and bad the monarchy is and then describe how precarious and unstable your superior American democracy is!

R97 you are living in a dream world. Of course American democracy is superior to the system the British have.

A constitutional monarchy without a constitution, run by a man with so many children by so many women not even he seems to be sure of how many there are. At the end of the day a panel of appointed judges decides what the uncodified constitution

would say if it existed. Yeah, having a government similar to Israel and Saudi Arabia is a great idea. It suits a second-tier country such as yours. As economically and internationally important as Portugal at this point.

[quote] [R94] In the same post you argue how awful and bad the monarchy is and then describe how precarious and unstable your superior American democracy is!

1. The UK is also a democracy. Yet still clinging to an antiquated monarchy.

2. You're comparing to two. I'm not, nor did I claim one was superior.

R84's brilliant rundown shows how all over the place and pathetic they have been. Like a shotgun spewing shot everywhere hoping to hit something. Bless them.

[quote] [R84]'s brilliant rundown shows how all over the place and pathetic they have been. Like a shotgun spewing shot everywhere hoping to hit something. Bless them.

Psychological projection is not brilliant. I really don't understand what exactly you want from these people. What is it that you believe they owe you. Do you want them hanged in the public square? Tarred and feathered? Lethal injection? Death by firing squad? What?

LADY C 2024

I read her Diana book when it first came out long ago. It was a great read, and very prescient about all the drama to come.

[quote]Psychological projection is not brilliant.

But it's literally just a list of things they did.

As for a media "hate" industry - sigh. It's coverage. Of famous people. Which is what the media does. And yes, sometimes those famous people aren't very popular and the coverage is less than fawning. I challenge you to find any "hateful" headlines from mainstream outlets in the past - well let's say this year. If it truly is an industry you should be able to provide multiple examples very easily.

r98 Gosh how soon January 6th 2021 is forgotten and downplayed. One of your major political parties is turning fascist in nature and tactics and you think your democracy is safe. I can't stand Boris Johnson but pointing out he has illegitimate kids is all beer compared to January 6th and the state of the US republican party. Your society seems much more bitterly divided and dysfunctional than other democracies.

r100 The word superior is my sarcastic retort at your denigrating of the UK when your democracy was nearly overthrown in January. America is much more of a Plutocracy than many realise. UK society is nowhere near as bitterly divided politically as the USA.

R104 - It was prescient and it was clear that at that time it was also well sourced. Unfortunately, her later books were awful. It's too bad.

R107 - The demise of Britain at the hands of this that or the other PM is as boring as it has always been. They do not understand that whilst Britain does not have a written constitution, it does have constitutional law set by precedent. PMs come and go, just as the "temporary occupants of the Oval Office" as I believe Gen. Douglas MacArthur once called them.

It is, for example, "constitutionally set into law" that the Sovereign cannot change the line of succession: only Parliament can.

George Bush had only two children but still managed to decimate the balance of power in the Middle East.

I would be the first to express my dismay at the current state of my country. But, really - as the old saying has it around here, "Situation desperate but not serious".

And Britain is hardly alone - quite a few countries without monarchies are grappling with similar issues, and a few countries with hereditary monarchies (cf. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands) are doing quite fine with exactly the same hereditary monarchical system as Britain's.

The monarchy is, in fact, the least of Britain's problems right now.

The income inequality gap, which by the way is second only to America's - that great democracy that allowed the wealthy over the last forty years to get the tax code changes so that 90% of America's wealth is concentrated in 10% of the population - is a far greater problem.

Perspective is everything.

Meanwhile, back at the topic of the thread, I tend to distrust Lady C's sources at this point.

There are others around with better sources. And, as I said, I have an odd feeling some very unpleasant shit is about to hit the fan all at once: the Queen's possible demise, the ANL case, the Christmas hols. and yet again the stories of will they or won't they, and after doing a search, those stories about Spotify suing the Harkles are still current. Spotify has at no time come out and denied the rumours.

Stay tuned.

[quote] [R100] The word superior is my sarcastic retort at your denigrating of the UK when your democracy was nearly overthrown in January. America is much more of a Plutocracy than many realise. UK society is nowhere near as bitterly divided politically as the USA.

The antiquated monarchy is not “the UK.” I criticized the monarchy. It is an antiquated relic of the Dark Ages. Monarchies should never have existed. Exploitation is not a birthright. Devine rule is bullshit.

Whatever else you’d like to discuss is no relevant to this conversation.

I actually think the monarchy still serves a function, precisely by taking the "Head of State" role away from presidents, who as we saw with Trump, may be completely useless and ridiculous twats. It's a thing, and I do thing it still serves. Elizabeth has been ideal for the role. Charles will be less good at it all, but I don't think things will fall apart with him going through the motions.

[quote] actually think the monarchy still serves a function, precisely by taking the "Head of State" role away from presidents, who as we saw with Trump, may be completely useless and ridiculous twats. It's a thing, and I do thing it still serves. Elizabeth has been ideal for the role. Charles will be less good at it all, but I don't think things will fall apart with him going through the motions.

“Head of state” should not be a birthright.

maybe it should r111. There are actually good reasons for taking it out of the hands of the great and good and often stupid and tiresome electorate.

[R82] she is a unaware narcsissist , totally unaware. They will throw the blame everywhere except onto themselves.

r109 America is a plutocracy with a fair number of political dynasties. In many ways a society Monarchical in structure and substance if not in name. Because we acknowledge we have a monarchy we can adapt to blending the positive traditional aspects of ot with modernity. America doesn't acknowledge it has strong aspects and traits of monarchy in both structure and form in its society so some would argue is less good at blending and balancing the traditional with modernity. Calling something antiquated is too simplistic as a way of summarising up a system. Isn't your right to bear arms antiquated? Some of your abortion restrictions antiquated?

[quote] [R109] America is a plutocracy with a fair number of political dynasties. In many ways a society Monarchical in structure and substance if not in name. Because we acknowledge we have a monarchy we can adapt to blending the positive traditional aspects of ot with modernity. America doesn't acknowledge it has strong aspects and traits of monarchy in both structure and form in its society so some would argue is less good at blending and balancing the traditional with modernity. Calling something antiquated is too simplistic as a way of summarising up a system. Isn't your right to bear arms antiquated? Some of your abortion restrictions antiquated?

Plutocracy and monarchy are bad, regardless of the country. Your money nor your family tree should give you the right to rule. I don’t support either.

If you believe the word “antiquated” should not be used. Perhaps you should not use it. However, “antiquated “ is an appropriate term for describing a monarchy.

We acknowledge and discuss the problems in the United States all of the time. Foreigners, like you, live to join in those discussions. For better or worse most Americans couldn’t care less about the England, the monarchy or the UK.

I have no problem acknowledging and addressed the problems in the US. I don’t agree or support what I find to be problematic in the United States. You want to turn this into a pissing contest. Which is silly. I’m not interested. Both nations have an endless amount of problems and flaws.

^ What does any of this rubbish have to do with the fact that I'm an incredibly fetching bird/bloke?

r116 so how would you abolish a plutocracy and what do you think enabled it to come about in the first place?

I would suggest that a plutocracy is much harder to abolish than a monarchy .In part because the logic of the american dream often touted and widely believed is that the wealthy deserve their wealth .They earned it.They will use or rely on your argument that because their wealth and priviledge are not divine rights but earned and "self made" that trying to take it away from them is an affront to the american way of life.It arguably is a more difficult type of entitlement to tackle than the entitlement of a monarchy and the rejection of monarchy can create similar issues in different guises.Ie a system with monarchy like qualities but not the name monarchy.

[quote] [R116] so how would you abolish a plutocracy and what do you think enabled it to come about in the first place? I would suggest that a plutocracy is much harder to abolish than a monarchy .In part because the logic of the american dream often touted and widely believed is that the wealthy deserve their wealth .They earned it.They will use or rely on your argument that because their wealth and priviledge are not divine rights but earned and "self made" that trying to take it away from them is an affront to the american way of life.It arguably is a more difficult type of entitlement to tackle than the entitlement of a monarchy and the rejection of monarchy can create similar issues in different guises.Ie a system with monarchy like qualities but not the name monarchy.

You’ve gone from arguing one is better. To arguing one is easier to abolish, therefore better. You want to turn this into a pissing contest. Which is silly. I’m not interested.

^^

Lady C opined that based on her "exclusive sources at the palace" her dear chum Lilibet Windsor was hospitalized due to a case of piles. Aggravated by constipation and her staying up to the wee hours watching The Crown and eating bags of Jammie Dodgers. How common.

Why do Americans get so aeriated about a system of government that exists in several countries? Not all countries want the same political system as you America ,you tried to change that most notably in Vietnam.

r118 Which is better and which is easier to remove are connected points not separate. No pissing contest but an illustration of how oversimplistic an argument it is that the monarchy should be abolished because it is unfair and antiquated when those same features are present in countries without a monarchy and when some countries with monarchy have a more egalitarian character.

I think America should sail over there to liberate the people from the queen.

Then just leave.

[quote] [R118] Which is better and which is easier to remove are connected points not separate. No pissing contest but an illustration of how oversimplistic an argument it is that the monarchy should be abolished because it is unfair and antiquated when those same features are present in countries without a monarchy and when some countries with monarchy have a more egalitarian character.

When I said that the monarchy was antiquated. You decided that my statement meant all other systems of government were perfection and the US is superior perfection. You've continued producing one strawman after another. You're arguing with no one but yourself.

You criticized the plutocracy in the US. To which I stated I am also opposed. You used that criticism to try to defend the British Monarchy. Let me make this clear. I am opposed to monarchies, plutocracies, oligarchies and dictatorships and no its not unfair to say that they all should be abolished.

r124 Abolished how? What is it you are after ? A world with no hierarchy at all? My argument is not a strawman at all but rather illustrative of the nature of the quandary. I am not merely pointing out that America is not perfect but rather that its issues are basically the same with a different exterior sheen. I think there is value and merit in pointing out and understanding that the fundamental are not so different in nature. If we just change the wrapping paper and not the present but pretend the presents are entirely different because we've changed the wrapping paper then we will fundamentally misdiagonose the issue.

USA has Head of State and Head of Government wrapped up in one job.Great if you are happy with that

That will be why world opinion of you changes massively when you have a dementia president Reagan or a loon like Dubya, then you go to sensible people like Carter or Obama.The world doesn't know what is coming down the line..

A seperate head of state, be it monarch or president, gives stability and not radical political change.

Does anyone take this freak seriously? Her opinions are based solely on speculation and embellishments. She’s half crazy, no - full batshit crazy with very tenuous connections to the BRF. Has she ever even been to Montecito? How would she know what they’re doing there? She’s an insane freak.

The British monarch has no official power - officially, that is. The biggest gripe about the Royals is that they have more money than God, AND they get to suckle from the tax payer tete which under writes their lavish life styles, while going around acting all hoity toity and shit. Republicans have been hip to the grift for many, many years.

She’s a mixed bag. She was quite accurate about Diana and Meghan before anyone else. Andrew Morton is trying to catch up with her. Her book on the Queen Mother was another matter. She’s probably only good at understanding narcissists since she probably has those tendencies herself.

Lady Colin Campbell's sound equipment is as cheap as her jewelry.

R122- R126 Tiresome bores.

Is Lady Colin Campbell related to our own deceased Mrs Patrick Campbell?

The latter would wisely never wear white, given her ravenous penchant for scat.

R132 Not.