(Click on Image to Enlarge)
More than half of people surveyed believe Harry and Meghan's interview with Oprah Winfrey was the wrong thing to do, while only a fifth believe the couple left Britain because they didn't receive enough support from the Palace
* Survey reveals the damaging impact Meghan and Harry's interview has had on opinions of the Royal Family
* Poll showed most people who watched interview disbelieved Meghan's claims of racism from family member
* Most felt the couple prioritized media attention over their duty - though there was a split between age groups
Most Britons think the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were wrong to have given their explosive interview, a poll reveals today.
A majority of the public believes they have let down the Queen – and should be stripped of their royal titles.
The survey was conducted after millions watched the bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview on ITV on Monday.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: This sums up my point of view .... Meghan Markle Inspires Millions Of Young Girls With Message That No Matter How Famous, Rich, And Powerful They Are, They Will Always Be Oppressed (Babylon Bee).
3 comments:
Harry Markle has not so much burned his bridges as has blown them up. You don't go on TV & state your family is racist. If the allegation on who said what is true, you punch them on the beak. As for their child not being given a title such as Prince, Princess Anne's kids were not made prince's or princesses either. Who's going to be believed? A woman who has been on the thrown for 70 years with 2.5 billion subjects & served as an ambulance driver in London in WW2 or a twice married TV actress who has alienated herself from her family & also faced allegations of bullying junior staff? Keep ducking 🙉
The bobby makes good points, all of them.
If for some god awful reason Harry's children became next n line, they would be titled very quickly. Look what happened with George the first. He did not appear to be near the front of the line and then he was.
"Shortly after George's accession to his paternal duchy, Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, who was second-in-line to the English and Scottish thrones, died. By the terms of the English Act of Settlement 1701, George's mother, Sophia, was designated as the heir to the English throne if the then reigning monarch, William III, and his sister-in-law, Anne, died without surviving issue. The succession was so designed because Sophia was the closest Protestant relative of the British royal family. Fifty-six Catholics with superior hereditary claims were bypassed.[14] The likelihood of any of them converting to Protestantism for the sake of the succession was remote; some had already refused.[15]
In August 1701 George was invested with the Order of the Garter and, within six weeks, the nearest Catholic claimant to the thrones, the former king James II, died. William III died the following March and was succeeded by Anne. Sophia became heiress presumptive to the new Queen of England. Sophia was in her seventy-first year, thirty-five years older than Anne, but she was very fit and healthy and invested time and energy in securing the succession either for herself or for her son. However, it was George who understood the complexities of English politics and constitutional law, which required further acts in 1705 to naturalise Sophia and her heirs as English subjects, and to detail arrangements for the transfer of power through a Regency Council. In the same year, George's surviving uncle died and he inherited further German dominions: the Principality of Lüneburg-Grubenhagen, centred at Celle."
George the 1st benefitted from not being assured an inheritance. It made him shrewder and tougher. Harry's children might benefit from the same thing, but it is hard to see it happening, when they are being brought up by a social climber mom, who resorts to race politics to get ahead.
For someone to marry into a family that has inherited power then cry "racist" isn't very smart.
She just ensured the Monarchy in Britain for the foreseeable future.
Post a Comment