Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Gawd even the Oprah--Prince Harry --Meghan Markle interview seems political


Recommended Posts

  • supermike80 changed the title to Gawd even the Oprah--Prince Harry --Meghan Markle interview seems political
28 minutes ago, squistion said:

https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1369007830548807681 (video clip at link). 

Charlie Kirk says Meghan Markle is "making it up like Jussie Smollett" and calls Prince Harry a "metrosexual beta male"

:mellow:

 

So Charlie Kirk was present at all the Royal conversations or just talking out his ###?!

Edited by Mile High
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not British and concede that I don't understand the legacy and tradition of a "royal family," but man if we had something similar and we publicly footed the bill for them to do all their awesome #### simply because they were born or married into a particular lineage I'd be pretty annoyed/pissed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mile High said:

So Charlie Kirk was present at all the Royal conversations or just talking out his ###?!

I'll go with door two Monte 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zow said:

I'm not British and concede that I don't understand the legacy and tradition of a "royal family," but man if we had something similar and we publicly footed the bill for them to do all their awesome #### simply because they were born or married into a particular lineage I'd be pretty annoyed/pissed. 

We LITERALLY fought a war and created a new country to break away from all of that. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zow said:

I'm not British and concede that I don't understand the legacy and tradition of a "royal family," but man if we had something similar and we publicly footed the bill for them to do all their awesome #### simply because they were born or married into a particular lineage I'd be pretty annoyed/pissed. 

Think Hollywood. Hollywood has stars and starlets beyond even the Royals. It's international. It serves the same function and filters untold billions away from people who could otherwise spend it on other things. And with all the tax breaks and intellectual property concerns, not to mention real estate, it does get into political economy at a certain level. 

But yeah, Hollywood is our imperfect equivalent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

Think Hollywood. Hollywood has stars and starlets beyond even the Royals. It's international. It serves the same function and filters untold billions away from people who could otherwise spend it on other things. And with all the tax breaks and intellectual property concerns, not to mention real estate, it does get into political economy at a certain level. 

But yeah, Hollywood is our imperfect equivalent.

Eh, I still see a difference in that - for the most part - A-list celebrities arguably get there on talent (or we choose to elevate them for whatever reason). To be royalty merely because of who your parents happen to be is just silly. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zow said:

Eh, I still see a difference in that - for the most part - A-list celebrities arguably get there on talent (or we choose to elevate them for whatever reason). To be royalty merely because of who your parents happen to be is just silly. 

If you ask Brits one on one, most would agree. Collectively, there's that pride.  And there's clearly something to it, as many Americans are all about following the British Royal family as well, which is even more weird. 

This is hundreds of years of tradition, just one of those things they do different.

They were all watching Oprah, and asking why we have commercials for medicine. Different countries, different weird things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I can’t criticize the Brits. My daughters are obsessed with the Kardashians and various Bachelors/Bachelorettes. At least the Royals have some tradition. 

But our taxes don’t pay for the kardashian’s houses and lifestyle. We actually chose to elevate them sex tape and all. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I can’t criticize the Brits. My daughters are obsessed with the Kardashians and various Bachelors/Bachelorettes. At least the Royals have some tradition. 

The Kardashians rode the coattails of an American heiress, Paris Hilton. She was Paris's friend on the social scene and played second fiddle most of the time. She made an educated guess by leaking her sex tape to the public. She calculated she'd go from nobody to somebody and that the American public would buy products and pay to voyeur any form of celebrity put forth, no matter how that celebrity came to be. She was right and made her family multi-multi millionaires by giving it up one night for the camera.

Sad and telling, really. There's so much wrong with the Kardashians that one senses the inklings of a populace so bankrupt that it could support a politicized Donald Trump coming to life, manifest in the masses, adopted and now part of history and the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zow said:

Eh, I still see a difference in that - for the most part - A-list celebrities arguably get there on talent (or we choose to elevate them for whatever reason). To be royalty merely because of who your parents happen to be is just silly. 

I agree with you about some sort of merit going into it rather than just being born into family, but the institutions serve the remarkably same function sociopolitically, down to the punctilio and maintenance required of them. Both seem to set manners and norms for their respective societies. The Royals are well-heeled and have antiquated manners and formal norms mixed with fame. It is a restrictive life, but one given to opulence and wealth. While within our society, one that is more dynamic and shifting (and possibly coarser) than that of Britain's, Hollywood brings proper modernity and cutting edge manners and norms mixed with fame. It is permissively restrictive in a paradoxical way, and also given to opulence and wealth. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mile High said:

So Charlie Kirk was present at all the Royal conversations or just talking out his ###?!

Charlie Kirk having his own radio talk show to provide him with a platform to call a 10 year, 2 Afghanistan tour Apache helicopter pilot who got elevated to the rank of Captain, a metrosexual beta male is today’s GOP in a nutshell. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zow said:

Eh, I still see a difference in that - for the most part - A-list celebrities arguably get there on talent (or we choose to elevate them for whatever reason). To be royalty merely because of who your parents happen to be is just silly. 

Yeah?  Say that to Miley Cyrus.  The Gretzky kid.  Any number of celebrities who are only famous because of their once famous parents.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

Yeah?  Say that to Miley Cyrus.  The Gretzky kid.  Any number of celebrities who are only famous because of their once famous parents.  

Party in the USA is the best "USA" song to come out in the past 30 years.  No, I'm not kidding.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, squistion said:

https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1369007830548807681 (video clip at link). 

Charlie Kirk says Meghan Markle is "making it up like Jussie Smollett" and calls Prince Harry a "metrosexual beta male"

:mellow:

 

I don't know about Harry being a "beta".......but I do get a Smollett vibe from Megan.  Something just seems off about her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Zow said:

I'm not British and concede that I don't understand the legacy and tradition of a "royal family," but man if we had something similar and we publicly footed the bill for them to do all their awesome #### simply because they were born or married into a particular lineage I'd be pretty annoyed/pissed. 

At times, it seems a good portion of this country embraced the idea of an American Royal Family.... #Barron2036

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, supermike80 said:
13 hours ago, Zow said:

Eh, I still see a difference in that - for the most part - A-list celebrities arguably get there on talent (or we choose to elevate them for whatever reason). To be royalty merely because of who your parents happen to be is just silly. 

Yeah?  Say that to Miley Cyrus.  The Gretzky kid.  Any number of celebrities who are only famous because of their once famous parents.  

The difference is that the fame and fortune of Miley Cyrus is largely dependent upon the free market system of American capitalism. There's no government subsidization which forces the people to financially support Miley's lifestyle whether we like it or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

The difference is that the fame and fortune of Miley Cyrus is largely dependent upon the free market system of American capitalism. There's no government subsidization which forces the people to financially support Miley's lifestyle whether we like it or not.

Well there are multiple differences however there are plenty of "celebrities" here that are only such because of their parents.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, supermike80 said:
6 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

The difference is that the fame and fortune of Miley Cyrus is largely dependent upon the free market system of American capitalism. There's no government subsidization which forces the people to financially support Miley's lifestyle whether we like it or not.

Well there are multiple differences however there are plenty of "celebrities" here that are only such because of their parents.  

In America, if the free market wants those children to lose a significant portion (if not all) of their celebrity status, then it will happen.

The Brits don't quite have that option.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sea Duck said:

In America, if the free market wants those children to lose a significant portion (if not all) of their celebrity status, then it will happen.

The Brits don't quite have that option.

DUDE........I get it.   I was responding to the comment about----oh nevermind  SIGH

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sea Duck said:

In America, if the free market wants those children to lose a significant portion (if not all) of their celebrity status, then it will happen.

The Brits don't quite have that option.

Yep. I still see this as being the distinguishing difference between the two and why I don't equate them. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Miley seems to be a weird example. Looked up Billy Ray and one of the first lines says "Best know as Miley's father. 

There's a logical fallacy at play here. When you only know of Billy Ray and Miley Cyrus, then it's easy to assume that she's only famous because of her father.

But when you expand the data to include EVERY child of a celebrity who ever tried for a career in the arts, then Miley's career starts to look more and more legit.

Again, that doesn't happen with the Royal Family. They are rich and famous because the British government (and taxpayers) pays for it to happen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, supermike80 said:

Yeah?  Say that to Miley Cyrus.  The Gretzky kid.  Any number of celebrities who are only famous because of their once famous parents.  

Miley is very talented. That girl can sing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside the whole royal/celebrity issue: the interview was political because it was about racism, which remains a big problem in the United Kingdom. It’s a different problem than here because our racial issues are rooted in our history of slavery and Jim Crow, while theirs are rooted in colonialism, but it’s nonetheless still a problem. Brexit proved that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, timschochet said:

Putting aside the whole royal/celebrity issue: the interview was political because it was about racism, which remains a big problem in the United Kingdom. It’s a different problem than here because our racial issues are rooted in our history of slavery and Jim Crow, while theirs are rooted in colonialism, but it’s nonetheless still a problem. Brexit proved that. 

That and we talk about race in this country CONSTANTLY.   For a nation heck bent on eliminating racial divide, we sure talk about it a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, supermike80 said:

That and we talk about race in this country CONSTANTLY.   For a nation heck bent on eliminating racial divide, we sure talk about it a lot.

Outside the "baby being too dark" thing what was really noteworthy in this interview? I mean the whole thing with the Royals is tabloid and that is a pretty shocking statement for the clickbait crowd.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The General said:

Outside the "baby being too dark" thing what was really noteworthy in this interview? I mean the whole thing with the Royals is tabloid and that is a pretty shocking statement for the clickbait crowd.

 

Heck I dunno.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The General said:

Outside the "baby being too dark" thing what was really noteworthy in this interview? I mean the whole thing with the Royals is tabloid and that is a pretty shocking statement for the clickbait crowd.

 

is that even true?  Like, are we supposed to believe people at face value? Especially celebrities who have an image to craft?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

is that even true?  Like, are we supposed to believe people at face value? Especially celebrities who have an image to craft?

I guess with tabloid stuff it doesn’t even matter :lol: But to your point we don’t know.

I did read the Royal Family response (well the Queen’s response) and she handled it well.

Said something to the effect that people’s recollections of the same conversation can sometimes be different but that they are first and foremost concerned about the well-being of the the family yada yada. Was a good statement. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The General said:

I have not watched the whole thing but that is definitely the most headline grabbing thing I was seeing. 

Of course. Because race.....Cause thats the biggest focus in this country by leaps and bounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

Of course. Because race.....Cause thats the biggest focus in this country by leaps and bounds.

That was my point though that in this case that was the most shocking thing. The race aspect of this was specifically called out in the statement made by the Queen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The General said:

That was my point though that in this case that was the most shocking thing. The race aspect of this was specifically called out in the statement made by the Queen.

Dont know what else they talked about.  Because all I read about was the racism

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

is that even true?  Like, are we supposed to believe people at face value? Especially celebrities who have an image to craft?

Had no idea Pierce Morgan posted here. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Dont know what else they talked about.  Because all I read about was the racism

I have watched the interview now, the rest of it was basically saying how weird the Royal family is and that they want their own life, etc. The implied racism, worries about their safety, and the comment about their child’s skin color was the main issue that I think most people would have. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2021 at 11:37 AM, joffer said:

more of a Billy/Kate guy myself

Whatever happened to Kate's sister, i remember she was pretty cute at their wedding and took plenty of spotlight from the new princess

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...