web analytics

GOOD LUCK CANADA

By Pete Moore On January 13th, 2020

The Queen has agreed a “period of transition” in which the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will spend time in Canada and the UK.

She said she is “entirely supportive” of their desire for a new role but “would have preferred” them to remain full-time working royals.

She expects final decisions to be made in the coming days, she said.

And so on.

The only transition period they need, in my book, is 90 minutes on the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow.They can forget all that “Sussex Royal” marketing BS too. It sounds like a potato. And they can forget the security, the big house, the money and the security. Leave it all behind and subject the poor Canadians to your woke nonsense. Ultimately it’s feminism to blame. What this Meghan needs is a good talking to, and apron and time in the kitchen. Pushy women are always problem women.

In five years’ time, maximum, Harry will be back with his tail between his legs after she’s divorced him. You can bet on that.

62 Responses to “GOOD LUCK CANADA”

  1. Ultimately it’s feminism to blame. What this Meghan needs is a good talking to, and apron and time in the kitchen. Pushy women are always problem women.

    Superb.

    I’m absolutely sure that the won’t be forgetting about the big house, money and security too.

  2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Superb:

    https://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2020/01/13/confusion-as-britain-complains-about-foreigner-leaving-country/

  3. Paul – since you managed to make all of Longford’s negroids disappear, could you go over to London to do the same?

  4. But what about Ireland?

    Go on madman, put up again the same hoary theories and youtube coments that have been continuously smashed in the past.

    Howl away but don’t expect me to indulge you.

  5. Pete Moore, ATWs greatest feminist 😉

  6. Bet Pete wouldn’t tell the queen to fuck off to the kitchen.

  7. Bet Pete wouldn’t tell the queen to fuck off to the kitchen

    I think he might D, he’s previously described her as the worst Monarch. Doubt he’d tell Andrew or Charles though.

    Colm, Pete’s posts are largely for effect. It’s all about playing the game.

  8. The queen is a tough cookie, who has a sense of duty

  9. The queen is ancient and should retire. She should bypass Charles and William, then hand it off to Harry.

    Or just be done with the whole monarchy after she passes. Sell off the castles to tech billionaires and make the royals go earn a living, which includes cooking in their own kitchens.

  10. She should give the crown to the guy who wants to flee the country?

  11. Sell off the castles to tech billionaires

    Disagree, they should be kept as stately homes and their mantinence covered by paid public tours.

    Make the royals go earn a living, which includes cooking in their own kitchens.

    Good call, here you are:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51090107

  12. The Queen will never die…… even though our Pete called her a traitor who should have her head chopped off !!

  13. Ultimately it’s feminism to blame. What this Meghan needs is a good talking to, and apron and time in the kitchen. Pushy women are always problem women.

    Talking to! She needs a damn good spanking!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

  14. Paul McMahon,

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    Superb:

    Indeed Paul. You think they’d be happy getting rid of this foreigner whose on state handouts.

  15. Daphne,

    The queen is ancient and should retire. She should bypass Charles and William, then hand it off to Harry.

    IT’S like you’re reading my mind!!!!

  16. She should bypass Charles and William, then hand it off to Harry.

    The monarchy has survived for so long because it is ultra-conservative and runs on precedent.

    Communists seek change. It’s “exciting”. This is why communists built nothing that ever lasted.

  17. Pete you always make me smile.

  18. Maybe we should have got H&M to negotiate the UK’s ‘Transition’ from the EU. That way we too would have had all the benefits, received the money, and not to have had to follow the rules.

  19. It’s not rocket science Mark. Harry is negotiating the conditions of his exit before he departs.

  20. Has any British royal made money on a private basis Through branding of the type that Harry and Magin are supposedly Wanting to do

  21. Phantom –

    No. It’s an intolerable idea. You are either fully in and do your job every day or you are fully out and making your own way. Cashing in your your Royal status and links is absurd.

  22. The only way they will make money in the future is by cashing in on their Royal Status. Companies aren’t going to be queuing up to fund or sponsor them because of Meghan Markles fame as an actress.

  23. Pete 657

    Entirely correct

    She can always go back to doing TV ads for potato chip companies if Royal life is that bad

  24. Colm

    If royals can personally can in on their status, then the mystique is 100 percent lost

    They will be imitation Kardashians in a castle, And we already have that with Kardashians, real housewives , Trump etc

  25. Phantom

    Has any British royal made money on a private basis Through branding of the type that Harry and Magin are supposedly Wanting to do

    Yes. Prince Charles with his Duchy Brand food.

    https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/what-duchy-originals-it-anything-do-duchy-cornwall

  26. Good news for Prince Harry and Mrs. Prince Harry

    Burger “ King “ is hiring, a first great step to becoming self supporting.

    https://pagesix.com/2020/01/14/burger-king-offers-prince-harry-a-job/?_ga=2.223709211.1426075566.1579055015-1920047763.1578119590

  27. Dave

    That link says that the profits from that company all go to charity

    I wouldn’t think that anyone should have a problem with that

  28. Phantom,

    That link says that the profits from that company all go to charity

    I wouldn’t think that anyone should have a problem with that

    I was answering your question which was has money been made from the the royal name.
    I wasn’t debating whether or not the money goes to charity.

  29. I think that Harry and Mrs. Harry want to cash in personally on their royal status ( ” Becoming self sufficient ” or however they put it )

    That’s what I am getting at – I don’t imagine that any British royal in the history of the institution has ever done something so completely self serving as that.

    BTW I have seen reports that the couple has an estimated net worth of about $30 million or higher right now. So there should be no need for games with ” Sussex Royal ” teacups sold on QVC channel.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/prince-harry-net-worth-2018-4

  30. Queen Elizabeth’s Uncle, the former King, was notorious for cashing in on his former status. Let’s see what this couple actually does before joining the stoning party.

  31. We’re allowed to criticize celebrities.

    What did the uncle do.

  32. Phantom,

    We’re allowed to criticize celebrities.

    You’re allowed to criticize anyone.

    I’m not really sure what so bad about them ‘cashing in’ on their royal status. But maybe that’s because I don’t really care much about the royals.

  33. I am told that Edward ( who had abdicated as king ) didn’t take work in ” commerce and industry ” because of the conflict of interest inherent in that.

    https://www.vogue.com/article/what-happened-when-king-edward-viii-quit-the-royal-family

  34. The Duke of Windsor became a Nazis fan, received a significant allowance despite his inherited wealth and led a life of complaint and sulking bitterness among the jet set.

  35. But the question is has a royal before the unhappy Harrys before us personally cashed in on royal status by means of celebrity endorsements etc.

    We know that royals have always been rich.

    But Harry apparently seeks to personally cash in via Harry Sussex endorsements or whatever, etc, despite the fact he already is seriously wealthy. I don’t see that any royal has done this before.

  36. Royals have done a variety of no nos over the years. I believe his brother and wife have created entities to protect their brands. I honestly don’t know the extent of it all.

  37. I’d have thought that the only brand properly at play here would be one that is owned by the British nation, not by any individual or group of individuals?

  38. I think that Harry and Mrs. Harry want to cash in personally on their royal status

    As a former contributer to the British Exchequer I think it’s a great idea. Let consumers voluntarily finance them rather than UK taxpayer’s being forced to do so.

  39. But I think that they want to still have access to the British taxpayers’ largesse.

    This I believe is part of Pete and Colm’s complaint about what Harry is trying to pull off here.

  40. I don’t know if that’s tha case. As I said in a previous post, we’ll have to see what ‘working to be financially independent’ means. However, Charles is the Duchy of Cornwall which earned him some twenty one million quid in 2017-18. Were Charles to subsidise his son from the land that is constitutionally his would it be inappropriate?

  41. Phantom – I’m no expert on it all and suggest independent reading for clarification.

  42. I’d think that say Colm is as even handed as you can get on this.

    And that if there is any spinoff royal branding by individuals you may as well shut the thing down. The mystique I think would go to zero, fast.

  43. You may as well shut the thing down

    I actually agree with you, (I think the concept of the Monarchy belongs in the middle ages), however I doubt you’d be able to close down the notions of ‘blue blood’ and ‘ordained by God’ which support the concept of the Monarchy so easily.

  44. Just to be clear, I don’t propose to shut it down.

    I think that a lot of British people love the institution and I see no good reason to take this away from them. ( Yes, it costs money but it also brings in money from a zillion tourists etc )

    I just come down on the side that I think Pete and Colm are on, that a royal should have two choices – all in or all out.

  45. Paul McMahon,

    As a former contributer to the British Exchequer I think it’s a great idea. Let consumers voluntarily finance them rather than UK taxpayer’s being forced to do so.

    You’ve won my comment of the week price Paul. Well done.

  46. //I think the concept of the Monarchy belongs in the middle ages//

    I generally agree. But do you not think that a monarch acting as a kind of oracle in preserving a constitutional tradition (which I believe used to be the role at least) does have certain advantages over a written constitution? Like the American one, which seemingly nobody can agree on what it means but is still worshiped as immutable holy writ by some.

    Spain chose to revert to a monarchy after decades of fascism, and – Wolfe Tone would be turning in his grave if he could hear me – does anyone else think a monarchy might be a good idea for states like Iraq, Syria, Libya etc. A monarch is a ruler for everyone, truly above party or ethnic or religious divisions that elected heads of state often have. Shit, look at Trump.
    Jordan is one of the only monarchies in the ME and is probably the most stable Arab state. Morocco also didn’t see as much upheaval during the Arab Spring as its republican neighbours did.

    Of course we’re all good republicans at heart, but for some places an old benevolent king is preferrable to endless bloodshed and economic chaos.

  47. Wow I just now realized that Juan Carlos was no longer king of Spain

    He displayed personal courage when there was Guardia Civil uprising in Spain in 1981

    Queen Elizabeth has displayed a sense of duty at all times, and has been a force IMO for reconciliation among the peoples of the isles.

  48. Most monarchies have codified constitutions. And there is at least two Republics (Israel and San Marino) without a codified constitution.

    “Jordan is one of the only monarchies in the ME”

    About half the Middle East are monarchies. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman are all monarchies. Places like Egypt, Iran and Iraq were previously monarchies. And we’re pretty unstable (leading to their Republican revolutions).

    Some Republics are as stable as the most stable Monarchies. Some Monarchies are as unstable as the most tinpot Republics.

  49. Jonathan pie absolutely f****** nails it as usual.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbE0El17H00

  50. Noel, I’m against the concept of Monarchy on the fundamental principle that I absolutely disagree that someone can attain such a level of wealth, privilege and power not to mention be my ‘better’ purely as an accident of birth.

    Spain chose to revert to a monarchy after decades of fascism

    Not strictly true. Juan Carlos was appointed by Franco as his successor and this was accepted in the wake of Franco’s death rather than risk more fascist dictatorship and/or another potential civil war.

    As for the codified / uncodified constitution issue, give me Bunreacht na hÉireann or la Constitución Española for that matter over the British constitution of custom and tradition every day.

  51. Didn’t Juan Carlos’ actions in 1981 increase the stature of that monarchy among more of the public there?

  52. I would broadly disagree. Ultimately it is the lack of flexibility in many constitutions that cause a lot of problems. The poor drafting etc… means that there are referendums in the Republic every fucking year to try and fix the mistakes. While the entire Catalan crisis started due to a Constitutional Court interpretation of the Spanish Constitution.

  53. “Didn’t Juan Carlos’ actions in 1981 increase the stature of that monarchy among more of the public there?”

    Largely yes. Juan Carlos had been supported by the conservatives (though the Francoists weren’t big fans of his support for democracy). But he was largely not supported (if not outright opposed) by the political left. The 1981 coup changed that and after that Juan Carlos enjoyed pretty wide support in Spain.

  54. Didn’t Juan Carlos’ actions in 1981 increase the stature of that monarchy among more of the public there?

    Yes, what I am contesting is that Spain ‘chose’ a Monarchy in the wake of the death of Franco. Spain went along with the dictator’s apointment as a means to having a quiet life against more potential dictatorship or death.

    I think you’re the Catalan issue is a bit of an extreme example Seamus. I don’t know how the uncodfified Brit constitution would accomodate a UDI from say Cornwall.

    I like the idea of having referendums on constitutional issues.

  55. What you don’t want is endless referendums on every damned thing, at the behest of all the busybodies in the country.

  56. “I think you’re the Catalan issue is a bit of an extreme example Seamus. I don’t know how the uncodfified Brit constitution would accomodate a UDI from say Cornwall.”

    It isn’t an extreme example. The current crisis started with a ruling on the Spanish Constitution from the Constitutional Court in 2010. It would be like a British constitutional court striking down the Northern Ireland Act or the Scotland Act (or large sections of that act).

    Also, if the Spanish government agreed to have a referendum in Catalonia on independence, and it was won by the pro-Independence side then Catalonia still wouldn’t have independence. Because such a vote would be illegal under the Spanish constitution. If Scotland had voted Yes in 2014 then it would have got independence. There is greater flexibility.

    “I like the idea of having referendums on constitutional issues.”

    I don’t. I think referendums are terrible ideas and cause more problems than they solve. But the issue isn’t having a referendum on constitutional issues. The issue is that the constitution was so badly written that it needs to be almost permanently amended.

    Regardless of one’s views on the issues themselves the legalisation of same sex marriage, divorce or abortion should not have required a constitutional amendment. Changes to Oireachtas inquiries shouldn’t require referendums. Changes to how much money judges are paid, or court restructuring, shouldn’t require referendums.

  57. Living in the state I know what the issue is and I think it’s as an extreme example as how the British uncodified constitution would react were somewhere like the Isle of Man, (which of course isn’t in the UK), to declare independence.

    I don’t. I think referendums are terrible ideas and cause more problems than they solve.

    Then we’ll have to disagree. I think giving the nation a say on how their Constitution is shaped is a great idea.

    What you don’t want is endless referendums on every damned thing

    Agreed.

  58. “Living in the state I know what the issue is and I think it’s as an extreme example as how the British uncodified constitution would react were somewhere like the Isle of Man, (which of course isn’t in the UK), to declare independence.”

    Except you see it in other issues. Inflexibility of codified constitutions vs the flexibility of an unmodified one. The 2nd Amendment in America for example.

    Ultimately it isn’t fully a codified vs uncodified argument but more a rigid vs flexible argument. Or a badly written vs well written argument.

  59. Ultimately it isn’t fully a codified vs uncodified argument but more a rigid vs flexible argument. Or a badly written vs well written argument.

    Well my original comment was my preference of the written codified Bunreacht na hÉireann, (la Constitución Española was very much an afterthought), over the Brit Constitution custom & convention. I’ve no wish to get into an elongated discussion over the pros & cons of different constitutions, I’ll leave that to the academics and political scientists who have debated it endlessly, but will concede that a rigid constitution can be problamatic as can the vagueries of convention and custom.

  60. //The poor drafting etc… means that there are referendums in the Republic every fucking year to try and fix the mistakes//

    The referendums aren’t due to any poor drafting of Dev’s original constitution, or required to fix any mistakes. They are simply intended to make the constitution more easily applicable and more fair in the face of social change. Some of the referendums are in fact to change articles that were put there in previous referendums.

    As for flexibility vs rigidity – I don’t believe I’ve ever heard two Irish people disagreeing about what the constitution says or means. It seems to be clear to all.

    But rows and disagreement about various parts of the “flexible” American constution seem to be a national sport in the US.

  61. Noel,

    “As for flexibility vs rigidity – I don’t believe I’ve ever heard two Irish people disagreeing about what the constitution says or means. It seems to be clear to all.”

    The Irish Supreme Court must be an easy gig so. Why have it at all?

  62. Ouch!

    https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/your-country-sucks-by-meghan-markle-20200109192395?fbclid=IwAR2u-i5QK9aJlrq7mxCzR8dB2gVtrc2KwQMorn7rzHnd5qpMT23hHYfJZHs

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.