Harry and Megan's break-up with Her Majesty..... - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15069306
Ter wrote:Harry does not have a drop of Windsor blood in him.
His mother fucked around with the body guards.


I did a quick search of images. He still resembles his father and brother to a considerable extent.
#15069324
Patrickov wrote:I did a quick search of images. He still resembles his father and brother to a considerable extent.


Image

I think he looks more like his real biological father :)

Image

You think he looks more like the guy on the left or the right ?
Or do you need new reading glasses ? :)
#15069333
Ter wrote:You think he looks more like the guy on the left or the right ?
Or do you need new reading glasses ? :)


The following image does show Harry not that different from Charles.

Image

Or, in a more alarming note, one has to question even William's legitimacy.

And I take serious offence on the final sentence, which I think is a serious personal attack.
#15069422
He got that ginger longfaced blue-eyed Git look from his mum(though as a woman she naturally made it look better). He looks exactly like her brother as well.

Image

His mother's genes were obviously stronger than Dad's. Charles gave him the massive nose.
#15069428
I think Patrickov may have been joking. bless.

Setting aside our gossipy suspicions regarding Harry’s legitimacy, publicly, Harry is of noble blood. You can take away the titles, but you can’t do that with heritage otherwise the whole institution crumbles.

I’m kind of shocked they are trying to go down that path.
#15069498
Ter wrote:

Oh I am sorry, I did not mean to offend you.


Apology accepted.

I would also like to thank the Honourable Member @ness31 for assuming me to be joking instead of being mean.
#15069511
Why are foreigners so obsessed with the royal family?


Well, it’s my Monarchy too I’m afraid, but mainly I like to keep a tab on things like Baroness Scotland ;) .

This latest effort to strip Harry of his right to use the word ‘royal’ comes down to basic law and common sense. Im surprised at how awfully uneducated some influential advisors are.
#15069514
ness31 wrote:I hate to drag this up again, I really do, but I’m not sure I can agree with the establishment trying to take away the use of the word ‘royal’ for Harry.


They cannot legally use it.

See, that’s the thing about nobility, you either have the blood or you don’t. And as far as we know, Harry is of royal descent.

Thoughts?


The Tradesmark Act of 1994 and the Paris Convention for the protection of 1884 Property forbid it.

The Queen is able to relax these rules - and she does so - at times of celebration and so on, which is why you get loads of tat being sold when royal babies are born and at anniversaries and so on.
But that is not the sole purpose of the businesses that cash in.

My daughter bought me a tin of celebration biscuits from Marks and Spencer as a joke, when Archie was born, for instance. ( they were reduced)

It's not set in stone, as such. However, allowing Harry and Meghan to exploit their royal connections, purely as a business venture, would not be allowed.

Harry probably knows this. This is her.

The whole statement on their websites is purely an American construct.

Harry wouldn't use those turns of phrases.
#15069517
So, if he doesn't want to be a Royal anymore, I offer my services, as a replacement. :D I am sure I can convince my wife to be a Duchess or some such thing.

I won't look any more like Charles than he did. ;)
#15069518
The Tradesmark Act of 1994 and the Paris Convention for the protection of 1884 Property forbid it.


I’d love to see the relevant legislation. I’m not going to wade through it all though :lol:
I’d have thought the legislation was in place to stop the unscrupulous from cashing in on the word. Not a royal themselves. It doesn’t really make sense to forbid someone who is royal from using their own claim to privilege.
#15069521
snapdragon wrote:The Charles-not-being-Harry's-father thing died off years ago in the UK, because it's so ridiculous.


It is not ridiculous.
Diana admitted publicly that she fucked everything that moved and had a penis in the palace.
Harry's phenotype corresponds remarkably well with that of one of the body guards. Including the hair of course.
I wish to ridicule bastard Harry and social climber Meghan, as is my right.
I admire Piers Morgan for doing the same, and he has a bigger audience than I :)
Last edited by Ter on 24 Feb 2020 11:24, edited 1 time in total.
#15069523
ness31 wrote:I’d love to see the relevant legislation. I’m not going to wade through it all though :lol:


Then you won't get to see it. I'm not doing it for you.

I’d have thought the legislation was in place to stop the unscrupulous from cashing in on the word. Not a royal themselves. It doesn’t really make sense to forbid someone who is royal from using their own claim to privilege.


He's only a prince by birth.

The Royal thing is granted to him, and can be taken away.
#15069525
Ter wrote:It is not ridiculous.
Diana admitted publicly that she fucked everything that moved and had a penis in the palace.
Harry's phenotype corresponds remarkably with that of one of the body guards. Including the hair of course.
I wish to ridicule bastard Harry and social climber Meghan, as is my right.]


And I have the right to laugh at you for doing it. Why do you care, though?


I admire Piers Morgan for doing the same, and he has a bigger audience than I :)


I've heard they love him in America.
#15069529
Then you won't get to see it. I'm not doing it for you.


It was worth a shot ;)


He's only a prince by birth.

The Royal thing is granted to him, and can be taken away.


Those two statements contradict one another don’t you think?
#15069531
ness31 wrote:It was worth a shot ;)


Not with me.

Those two statements contradict one another don’t you think?


No. Look, if you want to debate something then at least do a bit of finding out beforehand.

I have nothing much on this morning and it's pissing with rain, so I'm at a bit of a loose end, but that won't last.
#15069534
I don’t intend researching something that should be common sense. If you are royal by birth, you are royal by birth. It’s a hereditary issue. That’s the whole point of nobility.

Have a good day with your shitty weather. Maybe get some sun, sounds like you could use some :)
#15069733
ness31 wrote:I don’t intend researching something that should be common sense. If you are royal by birth, you are royal by birth. It’s a hereditary issue. That’s the whole point of nobility.


Royalty isn't a characteristic and has nothing to do with it. That should be common sense.

The title HRH is honororary and can be removed.


Have a good day with your shitty weather. Maybe get some sun, sounds like you could use some :)


Some of us have to work. It's a beautiful day today, but that doesn't mean I'm any more inclined to do your research for you.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

@Rich more veterans lose their lives in peace ti[…]

@FiveofSwords You still haven't told us how yo[…]

Left vs right, masculine vs feminine

You just do not understand what politics is. Poli[…]

Are you aware that the only difference between yo[…]