I doubt she’ll be allowed to say much about anything anymore.tin_robot wrote:News stories about the engagement are already driving me mad.
Was listening to the radio in the car earlier, and they described Megan Markle as "sassy" no less than 4 times, and commented on her "Hollywood waistline and teeth". They then touched on her feminist credentials (by playing the same "if women can't get a seat at the table, then we'll just have to make our own table" clip twice in a matter of minutes) but they'd already somewhat undermined it by discussing her as if she was the Queen's latest horse.
Still, marginally better than the Spectator, who have opined that she's not suitable to marry William because she's a divorcee, and it would undermine the Queen's role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England - somehow forgetting entirely that the CofE only exists (and with the monarch at its head) because Henry 8th fancied a divorce.
I dare not even glance at the Daily Mail.
feminist credentials
tin_robot wrote:the Queen's latest horse.
davyK wrote:The whole bunch of them are irrelevant. Just ignore them.
Childintime wrote:I’ve enjoyed looking at the Guardian today. Their editorial states that as a republic paper they don’t care about the wedding - it’s a nice thing to get married, but that’s it.
They’ve published 20 articles / columns / vids / liveblogs on the topic in the past 24 hours. Lol.
Vela wrote:Or just link the entire monarchy to welfare every single time the austerity toting tory terrorists try to tax people with extra bedrooms in their house.davyK wrote:The whole bunch of them are irrelevant. Just ignore them.
Childintime wrote:I’ve enjoyed looking at the Guardian today. Their editorial states that as a republic paper they don’t care about the wedding - it’s a nice thing to get married, but that’s it. They’ve published 20 articles / columns / vids / liveblogs on the topic in the past 24 hours. Lol.
WorKid wrote:Apparently not.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!