Just to clarify here .... an octopus does not have tentacles.
Gransnet forums
Chat
Princess Lillibet. Your thoughts?
(291 Posts)Just that really.
Gundy If everything H&M is negative, it is because when they got engaged almost everyone was delighted that Harry, who had always appeared such a lost soul, had at last found someone who made him happy.
Many of us did not realise she was mixed race until it was specifically reported and, in a way that made her more welcome because with so many mixed ethnicity families in the UK, it brought the RF in line with so many other families in the country.
Most of us were accepting when they decided to withdraw from Royal life. If H&M had then gone off to the states, bought a modest house that matched their means and settled down to earn their living all would be have been fine, but as soon as they got there, they began living like Russian oligarchs, way over their income and then decided that the way to fund it was through an endless whinge fest in which they betrayed the privacy of their families, mainly his, accused the British people as a whole of being racist, of course there are racist people in the UK, but not the majority. Is the US any better?
Now we are having to deal with the silly 'Will they, won't they?' over the invitation to the Coronation. It is not big and it isn't clever, to play this game around such a ceremony. It is plain bad manners.
H&M need to realise that their behaviour over the last year in particular, now make it very likely, that if they do turn up for the coronation and are seen in public, they will be booed, which they, of course, will tell us is all aimed at M for racist reasons.
I do not know anyone of any age who isn't fed up with this essentially very boring couple.
so why haven't they called Archie
a Prince or did i miss it. any way their titles mean nothing these days they will never come to the throne so why the fuss if Meghan wants her child to use the title its because its a title she wanted and will never get
faye17
How clever Calistemon -
'One tentacle still clinging on to prestige and money, seven others waving around looking for a secure foothold somewhere'
British empire in a nutshell
No offence intended to squirrels
Brown or red
I didn't say that, Faye17!! It was another poster not me.
In fact I disagreed with it as I said that Harry is a human being not an octopus.
Joseanne
Just to clarify here .... an octopus does not have tentacles.
😂😂😂
Sorry, yes, arms.
Still nothing like Harry, who, being a human being, still has two and two legs.
Yes, bear, Archie is a Prince, too.
Funny how we focus on the females of the family!
(Historically and currently, they are far more interesting imo.
And women like observing and discussing other women)
What does have tentacles then?
Off to Google…
Could it be anything to do with William and Kate's children having the titles, Prince and Princess?
The Cambridge Dictionary reckons that octopi 🐙 have tentacles, as do jellyfish
(I do hope that this discussion meets with the approval of *USA Grundy*)
Bossyrossy
Could it be anything to do with William and Kate's children having the titles, Prince and Princess?
Yes, the grandchildren of the monarch are allowed to use the titles. It’s up to the parents.
As discussed up thread, Anne and Edward decided against it; while Andrew was for it, with Beatrice and Eugenie.
Of course they can choose not to use these titles once they are 18,it will then be their choice, not their money grabbing parents. Lady Louise illustrates this as she doesn't wish to be known as an HRH, and probably never will. It is usual and good manners to inform the monarch of a change of status, so that it can be announced properly from BP and the Court Circular, BUT with H good manners have certainly deserted him, and M probably wasn't aware of protocol anyway, so they just announced these titles as and when they saw fit. Could be a money spinner, why else use them in America?
Yawn. It's just some over-privileged people staying in the limelight so they can increase their income from gawpers.
They probably haven’t made a point of calling Archie ‘Prince’ yet as nothing newsworthy has happened to him lately, unlike Lilibet who has been christened, rather late compared to the age her brother was, thus providing an opportunity to flaunt the title.
This is to clarify things to bear.
But never fear, I’m sure something will occur soon to bring ‘Prince Archie’ to the headlines.
Probably his birthday being the same day as the Coronation will provide a for/against reason/excuse for their appearance (or not),
of course archie is a prince, it was the occasion of lilibet's christening that her princess title was used .
Yesterday 20:16Callistemon21
Tentacle 🤔
Are you likening Harry to an octopus?
One tentacle still clinging on to prestige and money, seven others waving around looking for a secure foothold somewhere?
Poor Harry, that's not a kind analogy.
FayeCallistemon didn’t say that. It was wrong attributed to her
Callistemon wrote the final sentence.
I can’t see who wrote the original post that she quoted
re the word 'tentacles' used in other ways .
Change, change, change, in the way we work and the way we live—that was the overriding theme of Metropolis’s Think Tank titled “The Far-Reaching ... Tentacles of Work.” The event was hosted by SmithGroup Los Angeles and moderated by Sam Lubell, executive editor of Metropolis.
used in family trees also!
faye17
Yesterday 20:16Callistemon21
Tentacle 🤔
Are you likening Harry to an octopus?
One tentacle still clinging on to prestige and money, seven others waving around looking for a secure foothold somewhere?
Poor Harry, that's not a kind analogy.
I didn't say that
I've already explained that I didn't say that in another post.
I quoted someone else.
Callistemon21
faye17
How clever Calistemon -
'One tentacle still clinging on to prestige and money, seven others waving around looking for a secure foothold somewhere'
British empire in a nutshell
No offence intended to squirrels
Brown or redI didn't say that, Faye17!! It was another poster not me.
In fact I disagreed with it as I said that Harry is a human being not an octopus.
READ MY POST PLEASE
It was Gundy of the USA who said it and I quoted her/his post.
Thought Harry wanted to be in a family - not an institution!!
Casdon It would be fair to say that views expressed in some of the more extreme messages on Gransnet aren’t shared by the majority of other people in the country - and I’d guess many others neither know or care.
To Gundy, I suppose. ^^
Indeed. Many are neutral. Just interesting "fluff news".
Callistemon
It was you who interpreted Gundy's use of the word tentacle as referencing an octopus.
It was you who made the link from octopus to Harry.
Nowhere in the post of yours did you attribute any part of it to another either by the use of inverted commas or a named reference.
Please post timed reference including name of what you now so vehemently claim to be the words of another.
Nothing about those two children is royal or right. Archie was the name used by George at home. And middle name 'Harrison- Harry's son- pathetic. Lilibet was the private nickname used by the late queen and her husband. Neither birth was attested to that it was formally witnessed to prove it was natural from Markle's own body. Therefore neither child, if they exist are princess or prince nor are they in the royal succession. This 'going along with' the lying traitors will bring down the whole monarchy, I fear. Deception is not ok. And deception is what the dreadful duo do on a daily basis.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »