Discussion:
Piers Morgan Urges the Queen to Strip Cuckold Prince Harry and Nigger Sow Meghan Markle of Their Titles
(too old to reply)
hamilton
2020-08-24 04:39:37 UTC
Permalink
iers Morgan wants Queen Elizabeth to strip Prince Harry and
Meghan Markle of their royal titles.
Piers tweeted this request after Meghan spoke out about voting
in the upcoming election.
Nobody likes a hater, Piers Morgan. We think Meghan Markle
asking people to vote is a pretty reasonable request, but
apparently Piers doesn't agree. He recently tweeted in favor of
Queen Elizabeth stripping Meghan and Prince Harry of their
titles due to recent comments regarding American politics.

"The Queen must strip the Sussexes of their titles," he tweeted.
"They can’t remain as royals & spout off about foreign elections
in such a brazenly partisan way."

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find
the same content in another format, or you may be able to find
more information, at their web site.
The Queen must strip the Sussexes of their titles. They can’t
remain as royals & spout off about foreign elections in such a
brazenly partisan way. https://t.co/6uZ3FTbjHW

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) August 21, 2020
Meghan made a virtual appearance at Michelle Obama's "When All
Women Vote" livestream event last week and made a powerful
statement about voting: "At this juncture, if we aren't part of
the solution, we are part of the problem. If you aren't going
out there and voting, then you're complicit. If you are
complacent, you're complicit."

She continued, "We look at the attempts of voter suppression and
what that's doing—it’s all the more reason we need each of you
to be out there supporting each other, to understand that this
fight is worth fighting and we all have to be out there
mobilizing to have our voices heard."

Even though Meghan is an American, Piers took issue with her
speaking about the upcoming presidential election. Ever since
Meghan and Harry announced that they're stepping down from their
senior royal duties, there's been a lot of controversy. Because
they're no longer working members of the royal family, they are
no longer referred to His and Her Royal Highness (a style used
for senior members of the royal family that's usually issued to
sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters of the monarch).
However, they still hold their Duke and Duchess of Sussex
titles. Only Queen Elizabeth can strip Meghan and Harry of their
Sussex titles, so maybe it's just best if Piers stays out if it.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a33711062/pier
s-morgan-urges-queen-strip-prince-harry-meghan-markle-titles/
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
2020-08-24 20:18:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 06:39:37 +0200 (CEST), "hamilton"
Post by hamilton
iers Morgan wants Queen Elizabeth to strip Prince Harry and
Meghan Markle of their royal titles.
Piers tweeted this request after Meghan spoke out about voting
in the upcoming election.
Nobody likes a hater, Piers Morgan. We think Meghan Markle
asking people to vote is a pretty reasonable request, but
apparently Piers doesn't agree. He recently tweeted in favor of
Queen Elizabeth stripping Meghan and Prince Harry of their
titles due to recent comments regarding American politics.
Piers Morgan is right. There is no place for wogs in the Royal
Family.
mro...@btopenworld.com
2020-08-25 10:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by hamilton
"The Queen must strip the Sussexes of their titles," he tweeted.
"They can’t remain as royals & spout off about foreign elections
in such a brazenly partisan way."
The point is that we do not elect the Royals and this is their strength as well as their weakness and vulnerability. Any politician given determination can rise to the apex of political power. No amount of determination can raise anyone to sovereign head of state. The holding of nominal powers serves to protect against the usurpation of real powers.

For this reason, the constitutional position of royalty should remain as it is subject only to nature and tradition. The royals might provoke or even invite interest in themselves but whoever is born royal or marries into the Royal family should remain royal and it should be no business of anyone else. That is the only way the institution can survive and continue to serve the people independently.
Keema's Nan
2020-08-25 12:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@btopenworld.com
Post by hamilton
"The Queen must strip the Sussexes of their titles," he tweeted.
"They can’t remain as royals & spout off about foreign elections
in such a brazenly partisan way."
The point is that we do not elect the Royals and this is their strength as
well as their weakness and vulnerability. Any politician given determination
can rise to the apex of political power. No amount of determination can raise
anyone to sovereign head of state. The holding of nominal powers serves to
protect against the usurpation of real powers.
For this reason, the constitutional position of royalty should remain as it
is subject only to nature and tradition. The royals might provoke or even
invite interest in themselves but whoever is born royal or marries into the
Royal family should remain royal and it should be no business of anyone else.
That is the only way the institution can survive and continue to serve the
people independently.
I know this is going way O/T but we (wife and I) were discussing a
hypothetical royal question the other evening, after watching a programme on
King George V and the controversy surrounding his death.

If he was in a coma, but the medics had left him to pass away naturally over
a period of months, or maybe years, might it have been possible for the
Prince Of Wales to marry Wallis Simpson secretly while the King was
incapacitated and unable to say no?

This would have meant that had KGV passed away sometime later than he did,
then Edward VIII would have been married by the time he inherited the throne;
and presumably the government would have been unable to do anything about it?
mro...@btopenworld.com
2020-08-25 18:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by ***@btopenworld.com
Post by hamilton
"The Queen must strip the Sussexes of their titles," he tweeted.
"They can’t remain as royals & spout off about foreign elections
in such a brazenly partisan way."
The point is that we do not elect the Royals and this is their strength as
well as their weakness and vulnerability. Any politician given determination
can rise to the apex of political power. No amount of determination can raise
anyone to sovereign head of state. The holding of nominal powers serves to
protect against the usurpation of real powers.
For this reason, the constitutional position of royalty should remain as it
is subject only to nature and tradition. The royals might provoke or even
invite interest in themselves but whoever is born royal or marries into the
Royal family should remain royal and it should be no business of anyone else.
That is the only way the institution can survive and continue to serve the
people independently.
I know this is going way O/T but we (wife and I) were discussing a
hypothetical royal question the other evening, after watching a programme on
King George V and the controversy surrounding his death.
If he was in a coma, but the medics had left him to pass away naturally over
a period of months, or maybe years, might it have been possible for the
Prince Of Wales to marry Wallis Simpson secretly while the King was
incapacitated and unable to say no?
This would have meant that had KGV passed away sometime later than he did,
then Edward VIII would have been married by the time he inherited the throne;
and presumably the government would have been unable to do anything about it?
Not so all marriages involving members of the Royal Family must have the blessing and consent of the head of that family who is course the monarch. Therefore we would still have a situation where the marriage of the heir to the throne was undertaken without the consent of the ruling monarch of the day.

More interesting would be the circumstance where the heir became the monarch whilst still a bachelor or spinster and subsequently wished to marry. Frankly in this day and age I don't know what would happen. I can only surmise that Parliament would agree to recognise the legitimacy of any issue from the union provided that there was no existing impediment to the marriage.

There are after all historical precedents.
Keema's Nan
2020-08-25 20:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by ***@btopenworld.com
Post by hamilton
"The Queen must strip the Sussexes of their titles," he tweeted.
"They can’t remain as royals & spout off about foreign elections
in such a brazenly partisan way."
The point is that we do not elect the Royals and this is their strength as
well as their weakness and vulnerability. Any politician given determination
can rise to the apex of political power. No amount of determination can raise
anyone to sovereign head of state. The holding of nominal powers serves to
protect against the usurpation of real powers.
For this reason, the constitutional position of royalty should remain as it
is subject only to nature and tradition. The royals might provoke or even
invite interest in themselves but whoever is born royal or marries into the
Royal family should remain royal and it should be no business of anyone else.
That is the only way the institution can survive and continue to serve the
people independently.
I know this is going way O/T but we (wife and I) were discussing a
hypothetical royal question the other evening, after watching a programme on
King George V and the controversy surrounding his death.
If he was in a coma, but the medics had left him to pass away naturally over
a period of months, or maybe years, might it have been possible for the
Prince Of Wales to marry Wallis Simpson secretly while the King was
incapacitated and unable to say no?
This would have meant that had KGV passed away sometime later than he did,
then Edward VIII would have been married by the time he inherited the throne;
and presumably the government would have been unable to do anything about it?
Not so all marriages involving members of the Royal Family must have the
blessing and consent of the head of that family who is course the monarch.
Not necessarily. There is a provision for an heir who is aged over 25 to
approach the Privy Council with his intentions and, given that PC procedure
has taken place, the marriage can take place after a further 12 months has
elapsed.

The only way for the marriage to be stopped would be if both Commons and
Lords expressed their disapproval.

It may have created a potential constitutional crisis, but then the
abdication did that anyway.

Would both houses of parliament wish to add the veto of the marital request
of the heir to the throne onto the horror of having the current King (and the
heir’s father) lying in a coma?
mro...@btopenworld.com
2020-08-25 21:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by ***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by ***@btopenworld.com
Post by hamilton
"The Queen must strip the Sussexes of their titles," he tweeted.
"They can’t remain as royals & spout off about foreign elections
in such a brazenly partisan way."
The point is that we do not elect the Royals and this is their strength as
well as their weakness and vulnerability. Any politician given determination
can rise to the apex of political power. No amount of determination can raise
anyone to sovereign head of state. The holding of nominal powers serves to
protect against the usurpation of real powers.
For this reason, the constitutional position of royalty should remain as it
is subject only to nature and tradition. The royals might provoke or even
invite interest in themselves but whoever is born royal or marries into the
Royal family should remain royal and it should be no business of anyone else.
That is the only way the institution can survive and continue to serve the
people independently.
I know this is going way O/T but we (wife and I) were discussing a
hypothetical royal question the other evening, after watching a programme on
King George V and the controversy surrounding his death.
If he was in a coma, but the medics had left him to pass away naturally over
a period of months, or maybe years, might it have been possible for the
Prince Of Wales to marry Wallis Simpson secretly while the King was
incapacitated and unable to say no?
This would have meant that had KGV passed away sometime later than he did,
then Edward VIII would have been married by the time he inherited the throne;
and presumably the government would have been unable to do anything about it?
Not so all marriages involving members of the Royal Family must have the
blessing and consent of the head of that family who is course the monarch.
Not necessarily. There is a provision for an heir who is aged over 25 to
approach the Privy Council with his intentions and, given that PC procedure
has taken place, the marriage can take place after a further 12 months has
elapsed.
Of course a great deal can happen in 12 months.
Post by Keema's Nan
The only way for the marriage to be stopped would be if both Commons and
Lords expressed their disapproval.
At the cost of the rights of succession of all his heirs!
Post by Keema's Nan
It may have created a potential constitutional crisis, but then the
abdication did that anyway.
Would both houses of parliament wish to add the veto of the marital request
of the heir to the throne onto the horror of having the current King (and the
heir’s father) lying in a coma?
Except that you have have created a hypothesis out of a historical situation which was resolved by Edward''s abdication without resort to a change in the law.
Keema's Nan
2020-08-26 08:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by ***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by ***@btopenworld.com
Post by hamilton
"The Queen must strip the Sussexes of their titles," he tweeted.
"They can’t remain as royals & spout off about foreign elections
in such a brazenly partisan way."
The point is that we do not elect the Royals and this is their strength as
well as their weakness and vulnerability. Any politician given
determination
can rise to the apex of political power. No amount of determination can
raise
anyone to sovereign head of state. The holding of nominal powers serves to
protect against the usurpation of real powers.
For this reason, the constitutional position of royalty should remain as it
is subject only to nature and tradition. The royals might provoke or even
invite interest in themselves but whoever is born royal or marries into the
Royal family should remain royal and it should be no business of anyone
else.
That is the only way the institution can survive and continue to serve the
people independently.
I know this is going way O/T but we (wife and I) were discussing a
hypothetical royal question the other evening, after watching a programme on
King George V and the controversy surrounding his death.
If he was in a coma, but the medics had left him to pass away naturally over
a period of months, or maybe years, might it have been possible for the
Prince Of Wales to marry Wallis Simpson secretly while the King was
incapacitated and unable to say no?
This would have meant that had KGV passed away sometime later than he did,
then Edward VIII would have been married by the time he inherited the throne;
and presumably the government would have been unable to do anything about it?
Not so all marriages involving members of the Royal Family must have the
blessing and consent of the head of that family who is course the monarch.
Not necessarily. There is a provision for an heir who is aged over 25 to
approach the Privy Council with his intentions and, given that PC procedure
has taken place, the marriage can take place after a further 12 months has
elapsed.
Of course a great deal can happen in 12 months.
Post by Keema's Nan
The only way for the marriage to be stopped would be if both Commons and
Lords expressed their disapproval.
At the cost of the rights of succession of all his heirs!
Post by Keema's Nan
It may have created a potential constitutional crisis, but then the
abdication did that anyway.
Would both houses of parliament wish to add the veto of the marital request
of the heir to the throne onto the horror of having the current King (and the
heir’s father) lying in a coma?
Except that you have have created a hypothesis out of a historical situation
which was resolved by Edward''s abdication without resort to a change in the
law.
Yes. That is the whole point of hypothetical situations, and you seem unable
to grasp the point behind all this; but I’m not really surprised.

You seem only able to deal with the tunnel vision, and have no concept of a
little lateral thinking.

Loading...