You see, that is your issue. You have dictated that your opinions must be facts, and no matter how much evidence there is, you are not going to think you might be wrong.
menime123 wrote:Ah well, you see there is your issue. You rely too heavily on what you have googled to learn, rather than what you already know to be truth.
menime123 wrote:Which of course is why I moved the conversation forward, but you seem to repeatedly want to continue down this line of conversation.
You didn't move the conversation forward. In the beginning, you held your wrong opinion; now, you are still holding your clearly wrong opinion, with absolutely no new evidence or argument added
17 people without a princely title are officially considered a part of "the royal family".17 people without a princely title are officially considered a part of "the royal family".17 people without a princely title are officially considered a part of "the royal family".17 people without a princely title are officially considered a part of "the royal family".17 people without a princely title are officially considered a part of "the royal family".
menime123 wrote:As I have previously said, there is a world of difference between ‘The Royal Family’ and those that belong to the ‘Mountbatten-Windsor Family’ (aka The Queen’s extended family).
That is the truth.
menime123 wrote:Should you chose to believe they are one and the same, then so be it - I have not one ounce of concern. However I accept your confusion as ‘The Royal Family’ term is used interchangeably and often quite incorrectly.
Incorrectly? Who are you? Oxford Dictionary or are you the sovereign?
Neither? Then what qualifies you to be the judge on that, as opposed to the actual head of the royal family deciding who is a part of the royal family?
menime123 wrote:But the entire truth is that only Royalty can be Royal
menime123 wrote:and to be Royalty you must have a Royal title.
Wrong. Not according to the royals themselves, and the sovereign; not according to how the word is used in real life either.
So you hold a view that is contradictory to whether you see the term as prescriptive or descriptive.
menime123 wrote:It is quite simply as straight forward as that.
Must like your incorrect use of the word "straightforward", your opinion is just flat out, obviously, incorrect, for all the reasons mentioned above and prior to this.
menime123 wrote:As it stands, Prince Henry’s child has no legal right to become a prince of princess at the time of birth. I fully agree that The Queen will make them one, but until she does, they will not be Royal.
I already told you that's a moot point as the baby will more than likely survive The Queen, thus gaining the title automatically.
menime123 wrote:Now there is no sense in continuing this line of discussion - this is a news thread, and I’d prefer it to remain as such. It’s bad enough there’s been lizard talk on recent pages. If you want to discuss further, feel free to PM me.
You: "I've moved on"
Also you: "Nah not without saying how right I am because I'm God or something"
You: "This should be a conversation done via PM"
Also you: "Well, ONLY for people who are not me. I can continue posting here because I decide everything"
You were embarrassing before, now you're just pathetic.
Allow me to recap on how wrong you are on multiple levels -
"The baby will not be royal because they will not get a princely title"
- unlikely at birth, but extremely likely before they die, so if we are saying "will not", that is objectively wrong
"The baby will not be royal because they are not going to be a member of the royal family"
- wrong since the Lord Chamberlain, the person who represents The Queen on these matters, has included 17 people without a princely title
What you saying essentially is that "the baby will not be royal no matter what The Queen says, because I have decreed that they will not a member of the royal family in the beginning and cannot accept to admit being wrong".