WATCH MORE - The Royal family have a shady history when it comes to affairs. Here's our TAKE on the "other women" who plagued their unions: th-cam.com/video/gnzL-NjBNqs/w-d-xo.html
This is incredibly disturbing. The fact there's still so much importance on "bloodline" even though there is no such thing as "royal blood" and nothing inherently more worthy to be royalty within genetics is very disgusting. Yikes.
Yeah I mean what makes "royal blood" more special to keep up a bloodline for in comparison to peasant/non-royal blood? Like I get that it's a comon tradition for the crown to be passed on from generation to generation every new heir, but I'm pretty sure that many royal bloodlines also started off with someone was like your average everyday commoner instead of a literal god or whatever and even these days it's more common than one thinks for royals to marry commoners like e.g the Dutch royal family.
@@kayleighdriessen That’s the thing. It USED to be believed that the royal family was chosen by God to rule, thus the whole bloodline thing. But that isn’t true. We know it isn’t true. And yet the system functions like it is.
In a sense, there is a "Bloodline" due to centuries of incest essentialy drying-up their gene pool but pretending such a repugnant thing to be worthy of not just respect, but the right to rule is an insult to human morale... There's literally nothing worthy of respect in the whole concept of royalty, why is still a thing?
I don't know if it has to do with "royal" blood anymore, since Catherine is a commoner. I think you can all relax. They just want to make sure they can bear children. That for the heir is not that scandalous to me, anyway. They do NEED an heir. 😂
I mean, I cannot even imagine what Lady Diana had to go through being pregnant at 19 which was not a pleasant experience for her and then going through Post-Partum Depression.
One trope I think is worth a look: the twins. They always must be together or they're nothing. They always look the same, act and speak the same way and at the same time. And their role is very limited: they're either the funny ones (the Tweedles, Fred and George Weasley) or the scary antagonists (the twins in Shining or Matrix).
This trope is why I loved shows like Sister Sister and Suite Life of Zack and Cody that deconstructed this trope, those pairs were complete opposites of each other and had their own distinct personalities and story arcs.
So true, the amount of attention given to a royals fertility is baffling. And we aren't even talking about sexuality yet. I can't name any royal currently alive who isn't in a heterosexual relationship. Because same sex marriage also poses a threat to the line of succession and therefore to the trone.
True. There is a cousin of Prince Charles, Lord Mountbatten who came out as gay and is in a gay relationship but he is the first of the aristocrats to come out. Plus he was married to a women and had kids before he felt comfortable enough to finally be himself. There have been royals in the past that were gay/bisexual but it was generally swept under the rug.
@Charlotte -- Well, it's not *being* gay (or bi) that posed a threat to the bloodline, as royals have been before and took lovers to suit themselves (so long as it was discrete out of respect to their politically arranged marriages, and they had a kid or two). It was the fear that : . 1. the royal wouldn't choose to somehow make it work to spawn an heir, even an illegitimate one, which threatened a kingdom's stability (and/or the current upper classes's comfortable positions at the top, which tbh was their bigger concern) during a power-change. . 2. Religious persecution possibly threatening to de-rulerify the ruler (or heir), which would put an end to a ruling family's dynasty / legacy (and their kins' positions as hangers-on in court), which was a threat many people took as seriously as did Tywin Lannister.
P. S. Also, there was no way, back in the day, to have an open same sex marriage and a 'legit' child. 'Bastards' weren't easily accepted and you couldn't hide that a child was 'out of wedlock' when born to the marriage of two men or two women, since neither the technology nor idea was there for surrogacy or some-such. Someday perhaps, such tech will exist, but it certainly didn't then and everyone was aware it took m+w to spawn little rugrat-hoomins. So one party to the union would not get their bloodline passed on, which threatened the family alliance for which most arranged marriages were made (or accepted).
@@iprobablyforgotsomething Yes, I agree. Here you see again that the interests of the crown and of the succesion are put before the wants and needs of the individual (as was possebly the case when King Charles chose Princess Diana over Queen Camilla). In western Europe where individuality is verry important, this causes a problem. Especially because it is still verry important for the royal houses to get a biological heir, but having a loving romantic/sexual relationship with someone you aren't married to is seen as moraly wrong. So if a royal who is in line of the trone does not want to be in a heterosexual relationship, their options (or atleast the options I could think of) are: 1. to either keep their queerness a secrect and press on and be in a heterosexual relationship (with or without a secret queer relationship) 2. or to abdicate the trone so they can come out as queer Unless ofcourse it's a homosexual relationship where one of them is transgender
In India (which has a Pro-Natalist Society), there are many sections of people (mostly Savarna Hindus) who look at women with fertility issues as a malevolent spirit and maybe barred from baby showers. It’s rather ridiculous in my opinion.
And you people wonder why I dislike you so much. Teaching your sons to treat western women like dirt and being cruel to women who can't have biological children. Shame on you people you are shaming and putting a very dark stain on the way India is viewed.
EXACTLY! Men today blame single mother for not seeking stable fathers for their kids then turn around and shame women for aborting the fetus to avoid a fatherless disaster. You have serial baby daddies who impregnate every woman they see like Nick Cannon yet the state won't give them vasectomies to stop the fatherless/ baby mama crisis (that they conveniently blame on women)
Agreed!! I don't care about the royals or celebrities at all. I originally subscribed for the high quality media analysis. I'm really sad about what this channel is turning into.
I loved their video content like the ‘mean girls’. The fixation on the royals is a bit much at the moment, especially as I find them very hit and miss.
When Charles was seeing Camilla, both were in their early twenties and Camilla went on to marry and have children. So to suggest that Charles couldn't marry Camilla partly due to concerns about her fertility is ludicrous. Harry has walked back on Meghan's implication that the royal family is racist, btw.
Yeah, they were starting to lose their colonies and thought this was the best they could do to incentivize them to stay in the commonwealth. Idiots. Decolonize, de-dollerize is becoming a reality with BRICS now.
The bit about the Queen's cousins - they were on her mother's side of the family, and were not royal at all. The decision to hide them away and declare them legally dead was done by the Bowes-Lyons family, not the royal family.
sidetrack: i don’t think that picture of diana’s daughter picture is real. there exists only that one image on the internet which looks like morphed image of diana herself…any other pictures of that girl look nothing like her
Why does this channel not analyze TV and movies as much anymore??? There's an incredible amount of shows and films they haven't covered so they can't be running out of content on that front. Am I the only one who prefers that content to these video essays about the real world ? I just feel like the take filled such a needed gap in tv/film analysis youtube, both because the writing/analysis is a much higher quality than most channels and because the channel is led by women and has a much needed female perspective in media analysis. I wish you would go back to producing that kind of content regularly! The content on IRL happenings feels cheap and gossipy in comparison.
I agree I stopped watching them a while ago when their analysis went full "woke political discussion " . I guess it's more click bait than videos about cinema It's just too bad we don't have channels analyzing movies and TV that are of quality
@@somebody7070 The Take has ALWAYS had a progressive stance in their film analyses. If you think they're just pretending to be "woke" to get clicks you clearly weren't much of a fan to begin with.
@@tiat3137 I dont think they fake being woke at all, they clearly have been so since the beginning ( and yess I watched them since they had 300k subscribers) BUT the difference is in between the videos about cinema/TV they sometimes would have the political videos . WHILE NOW not only is it 90% of the content "political " but even the few videos about cinema are still sparsed with " woke" commentary
3:23 He was allowed to ‘sow his wild oats’ (encouraged by Lord Mountbatten) and she had to be thoroughly investigated to ensure she had no ex-boyfriend. In her words, “kept myself tidy.”
There are many royal families in the world, not just British. Brunei, Oman, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Morocco, Bhutan, Cambodia, Japan, Thailand, Tonga, Eswatini and Lesotho. Why skip over Elizabeth 1? Or Wallis Simpson and Edward VIII?
While this is a very interesting topic I feel like it wasn't as deep conversation as it could be. It only focus on British royal family (ok, ok, I know it's the most famous in the world...) But there are more royal families and different approaches to how this conversation has been handled in other countries. For example, in Norway you have an "already mother of a child" marrying the heir in 2001 and it was a huge piece of news. And when the current heir is a woman (Sweden) the issue also stands. Anyway, I think this is a very poor researched video and that the focus on just the British should appear at least in the title.
Same. The current Spanish queen is a 'peasant' (no royal background nor "blood") and the heir to the throne is a girl 🤷🏻♀️ these Yanks are obsessed with the Brits 😅
That's it. Thank you, the take, for your videos, but I think it's time to unsubscribe. The channel is not the same anymore. I cannot handle seeing more videos about the royals or social media trends. Goodbye.
Rachal: I don't care about the grandeur but i remind the world every day I'm the dutchess of Sussex the take: we don't like the royal family but we keep making videos about the royal family
Love how they talk about "people" being way too obsessed with the (British) royal family meanwhile their channel has gone from analyzing characters in movies and TV-shows and films to every other video being about the British royal family.....
The Take is taking Megan and Harry’s money. That’s my deep analysis of the characters and tropes of this atrociously researched, laughably, unbalanced, propaganda feeling insipid film.
No, they're taking advertising money because you're a sucker rage clicking on the video. You are putting money in their pocket because you have no self control and feel the need to give them attention. It's not that hard to get. The same reason every dude bro TH-camr is raging about every marvel movie having women in them. Anger leads to clicks, and you're angry.
8:07 The Crown isn’t real life you know. While I’ll admit considering her generation it’s likely she wasn’t a nurturing mother we just don’t know that.
Exactly! This is atrociously researched, unbalanced, and seemingly agenda driven. To say that the role of a woman in the British royal family is to produce an air is quite laughable, considering they have the longest living matriarch with the late Queen Elizabeth. I feel like they’re taking money from Sussex PR. There’s been so much content lately, and it’s so skewed and strange. It makes everything else on the channel seem less reputable and trustworthy.
This channel loves the Meghan/Oprah interview too much. Wanting to know what kids from an interracial couple look like is not racist. This isn't HotD. 🙄
There have been so many proven falsehoods from that interview which is why Oprah has taken it off the internet and you can only see fragments. She has moved as far away from it and them as she can. The take is taking Megan money. That’s all I can think bc this channel used to be great. 😢
@@Eddie-Atwater SO? Media is scandalous. Haven't they published falsehoods about Meghan Markle too and YOU believed them? Stop the one sided ness. It's a white supremacist tactic and white women are not victims. They uphold white supremacy the most.
@@suzygirl1843 no, the hierarchy is based on the line of succession, that is literally the whole point of the monarchy, like it or not. Harry’s kids not being granted the same privileges as William’s children has nothing to do with their mother’s skin colour but rather with their lower rank (they are not children of the Heir apparent).
I like a lot your videos but in this one, the thing about the baby of megan and Harry is incorrect i am in a mix culture relationship and the color of the skin of our kids is a conversation, is a normal question
It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if they did. Not all, just the important ones William and Harry. They’re just as much breeding stock as the women and you’d want to check that. Infertile kings have caused just as much trouble historically as infertile queens.
The “shady history of lineage“ section is oh so shady itself. What channel that wants to keep their reputation replays clips Oprah herself has taken down to try and save her own journalistic integrity? I think you’re better than this the take.
Then when he usually chooses who he wants to succeed him after his death (unless there’s already a strict sett order). A king or queen not having children isn’t the end of the world movies make it seem.
The Take is “on the take.” Harry and Megan, no no- excuse me, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, as they insist on being called, have definitely bought the airwaves here.
I guess the best way to figure that out is to research if Prince Phillip had to take one before marrying the then Princess Elizabeth. At that point I think her father had already ascended to the throne so she was heir presumptive.
@@rodgermurphy5721 Duh, you don't mind bad stuff happening to other people. It only bad when it happens to you. Britain is not good for the entire world
Oh Lord, again that same bs about the colour of the baby. When will that lie end? Who the Hell wouldn't wonder how the baby will be like anyway? Never met a baby who didn't get any of that "boy or girl", "blond or brunette" pondering before birth. And Harry even had to admit that there was nothing ominous about the question.
@@suzygirl1843 have you interacted with a large swath of humanity? Or are you in a rather tight homogeneous social group why not extend faith in some peoples humanity and realize that yes, speculating on what a baby will look like is what tons of people do in friends and family groups all over the world and they do it without any ill will. Often the to be parents speculate and enjoy hearing other peoples comments as well.
@@suzygirl1843 Why? Its perfectly normal to ponder out loud who your baby might look like. Will they have the father's eyes, or the mothers hair colour for example. So long as they were pahsing it as a wondering, then no harm done. It depends on how they said it and what exactly they said. Dince the only one saying anything is Megan its hard to judge.
It just all seems so gross. Does this not just seem weird? It's weird In Australia anyway. I remember when Prince George was born. Like the news was just flooded with stuff about him and I felt like damian where I just wanted to scream 'he doesn't even go here!'
neat video but it's only focused on British royal bloodlines when the description says "European" -- just a thought since the british royal family seems to be the only ones anyone is ever wanting to write / talk about
Prince William has 3 children, Harry has 2, I think the line of succession is safe; although King George III had 15 children and only one of them produced an heir. This has been an issue for the British monarchy since the Conqueror, and he only had a claim that Edward the Confessor was his cousin and Edward had no heirs, probably on account of his piety and the fact his wife's family murdered his brother. This is just how these things work and have always worked.
Exactly! Citing the crown as a reputable historical source is laughable, but so is using those parts of the Oprah interview. They have been proven false on so many accounts.
Bloodlines mean a lot to some people and there is nothing wrong with that. It is rare when you can trace your family's origin back to God knows when. Especially if a war / epidemic or an accident wipes out a whole family - that line is gone. Blood means a lot because for some it is about DNA, which is information, useful to understand why perhaps one has certain behaviors or sicknesses in a family. With regards to the Royal Family I get why fertility is an important issue. They represent history and heritage alongside the country's history and heritage. Until the Royal Family in Britain is relevant, so will the succession line. Btw I would not be surprised if they also thoroughly checked whether William was fertile not just Katherine. And Meghan and Harry wed after Louis was born, perhaps because by that time the line was "secure" with 3 heirs. Also I think even if the Royal Family were ever to consider adoption, I don't think that child would have a happy life because no matter how they will try in raise him in an inclusive environment - everyone will know and talk saying he is not of Royal blood. Unfortunately, we may think we are very evolved but sad thing is - blood connection is valued higher.
a minor medical correction: the condition is called "hyperemesis gravidarum", not hypermesis. it means, basically, excessive nausea, vomiting and dizziness during pregnancy. not a big deal, but surely inconvenient.
Being is princess isn't just about wearing lovely clothes and waving to crowds. Princesses have duties. Duty is an utterly foreign concept to most "modern" women.
WATCH MORE - The Royal family have a shady history when it comes to affairs. Here's our TAKE on the "other women" who plagued their unions: th-cam.com/video/gnzL-NjBNqs/w-d-xo.html
This is incredibly disturbing. The fact there's still so much importance on "bloodline" even though there is no such thing as "royal blood" and nothing inherently more worthy to be royalty within genetics is very disgusting. Yikes.
Yeah I mean what makes "royal blood" more special to keep up a bloodline for in comparison to peasant/non-royal blood? Like I get that it's a comon tradition for the crown to be passed on from generation to generation every new heir, but I'm pretty sure that many royal bloodlines also started off with someone was like your average everyday commoner instead of a literal god or whatever and even these days it's more common than one thinks for royals to marry commoners like e.g the Dutch royal family.
@@kayleighdriessen That’s the thing. It USED to be believed that the royal family was chosen by God to rule, thus the whole bloodline thing. But that isn’t true. We know it isn’t true. And yet the system functions like it is.
In a sense, there is a "Bloodline" due to centuries of incest essentialy drying-up their gene pool but pretending such a repugnant thing to be worthy of not just respect, but the right to rule is an insult to human morale...
There's literally nothing worthy of respect in the whole concept of royalty, why is still a thing?
I don't know if it has to do with "royal" blood anymore, since Catherine is a commoner. I think you can all relax. They just want to make sure they can bear children. That for the heir is not that scandalous to me, anyway. They do NEED an heir. 😂
Yeah it’s basically eugenics
I mean, I cannot even imagine what Lady Diana had to go through being pregnant at 19 which was not a pleasant experience for her and then going through Post-Partum Depression.
That queen who lost 17 children ☹️
Oh we already know what the family did to remedy the situation. They removed her.
One trope I think is worth a look: the twins. They always must be together or they're nothing. They always look the same, act and speak the same way and at the same time. And their role is very limited: they're either the funny ones (the Tweedles, Fred and George Weasley) or the scary antagonists (the twins in Shining or Matrix).
That would be cool
They could even talk about the depiction of Sugar and Spice from this season of Drag Race
This trope is why I loved shows like Sister Sister and Suite Life of Zack and Cody that deconstructed this trope, those pairs were complete opposites of each other and had their own distinct personalities and story arcs.
Especially with Dead Ringers having just come out
@@unicornsprinkles8964especially with the remake of Dead Ringers with Rachel Wise
So true, the amount of attention given to a royals fertility is baffling. And we aren't even talking about sexuality yet. I can't name any royal currently alive who isn't in a heterosexual relationship. Because same sex marriage also poses a threat to the line of succession and therefore to the trone.
True. There is a cousin of Prince Charles, Lord Mountbatten who came out as gay and is in a gay relationship but he is the first of the aristocrats to come out. Plus he was married to a women and had kids before he felt comfortable enough to finally be himself. There have been royals in the past that were gay/bisexual but it was generally swept under the rug.
@Charlotte -- Well, it's not *being* gay (or bi) that posed a threat to the bloodline, as royals have been before and took lovers to suit themselves (so long as it was discrete out of respect to their politically arranged marriages, and they had a kid or two). It was the fear that :
.
1. the royal wouldn't choose to somehow make it work to spawn an heir, even an illegitimate one, which threatened a kingdom's stability (and/or the current upper classes's comfortable positions at the top, which tbh was their bigger concern) during a power-change.
.
2. Religious persecution possibly threatening to de-rulerify the ruler (or heir), which would put an end to a ruling family's dynasty / legacy (and their kins' positions as hangers-on in court), which was a threat many people took as seriously as did Tywin Lannister.
P. S. Also, there was no way, back in the day, to have an open same sex marriage and a 'legit' child. 'Bastards' weren't easily accepted and you couldn't hide that a child was 'out of wedlock' when born to the marriage of two men or two women, since neither the technology nor idea was there for surrogacy or some-such. Someday perhaps, such tech will exist, but it certainly didn't then and everyone was aware it took m+w to spawn little rugrat-hoomins. So one party to the union would not get their bloodline passed on, which threatened the family alliance for which most arranged marriages were made (or accepted).
@@iprobablyforgotsomething Yes, I agree. Here you see again that the interests of the crown and of the succesion are put before the wants and needs of the individual (as was possebly the case when King Charles chose Princess Diana over Queen Camilla). In western Europe where individuality is verry important, this causes a problem. Especially because it is still verry important for the royal houses to get a biological heir, but having a loving romantic/sexual relationship with someone you aren't married to is seen as moraly wrong. So if a royal who is in line of the trone does not want to be in a heterosexual relationship, their options (or atleast the options I could think of) are:
1. to either keep their queerness a secrect and press on and be in a heterosexual relationship (with or without a secret queer relationship)
2. or to abdicate the trone so they can come out as queer
Unless ofcourse it's a homosexual relationship where one of them is transgender
They used to have lovers on the side. Who knows whether they were male or female.
In India (which has a Pro-Natalist Society), there are many sections of people (mostly Savarna Hindus) who look at women with fertility issues as a malevolent spirit and maybe barred from baby showers. It’s rather ridiculous in my opinion.
Savarna folks and their practices are disgustingly ignored. They're so oppressive.
🙄
And you people wonder why I dislike you so much. Teaching your sons to treat western women like dirt and being cruel to women who can't have biological children. Shame on you people you are shaming and putting a very dark stain on the way India is viewed.
That's so sad. I'm sure there are 0 consequences for infertile men.
is that what we mean when we say sumangali? or is that divorced women?
I think as a man the obsession with female fertility is weird in general.
EXACTLY! Men today blame single mother for not seeking stable fathers for their kids then turn around and shame women for aborting the fetus to avoid a fatherless disaster. You have serial baby daddies who impregnate every woman they see like Nick Cannon yet the state won't give them vasectomies to stop the fatherless/ baby mama crisis (that they conveniently blame on women)
Yeah fuck that weird fetish, they deserve all the kink shame. (I'm not playing, this is a real fetish for some reason, mostly the pregnancy part).
Very much agreed. We aren't like cattle or something
Wish The Take would go back to their more compelling topics and essays instead of making a video a month about “royals”
A month? Feels like every week.
Agree. Feels like this very good channel on film, TV, and media has become a bit of a gossip column.
The only thing that explains this in my head is that they must be taking money from Sussex PR firms
Agreed!! I don't care about the royals or celebrities at all. I originally subscribed for the high quality media analysis. I'm really sad about what this channel is turning into.
I loved their video content like the ‘mean girls’. The fixation on the royals is a bit much at the moment, especially as I find them very hit and miss.
When Charles was seeing Camilla, both were in their early twenties and Camilla went on to marry and have children. So to suggest that Charles couldn't marry Camilla partly due to concerns about her fertility is ludicrous. Harry has walked back on Meghan's implication that the royal family is racist, btw.
It's Royal Family people. They thrive on keeping the old traditions alive. This is what they've always done. Them getting "modernized" is complete BS
Yeah, they were starting to lose their colonies and thought this was the best they could do to incentivize them to stay in the commonwealth. Idiots. Decolonize, de-dollerize is becoming a reality with BRICS now.
Modernizing means no royal family at all. They just cost money and do NOTHING for the country.
The bit about the Queen's cousins - they were on her mother's side of the family, and were not royal at all. The decision to hide them away and declare them legally dead was done by the Bowes-Lyons family, not the royal family.
sidetrack: i don’t think that picture of diana’s daughter picture is real. there exists only that one image on the internet which looks like morphed image of diana herself…any other pictures of that girl look nothing like her
Why does this channel not analyze TV and movies as much anymore??? There's an incredible amount of shows and films they haven't covered so they can't be running out of content on that front. Am I the only one who prefers that content to these video essays about the real world ? I just feel like the take filled such a needed gap in tv/film analysis youtube, both because the writing/analysis is a much higher quality than most channels and because the channel is led by women and has a much needed female perspective in media analysis. I wish you would go back to producing that kind of content regularly! The content on IRL happenings feels cheap and gossipy in comparison.
I agree
I stopped watching them a while ago when their analysis went full "woke political discussion " . I guess it's more click bait than videos about cinema
It's just too bad we don't have channels analyzing movies and TV that are of quality
Yeah I agree. The occasional video would be fine but it's the majority of their content now
@@somebody7070 The Take has ALWAYS had a progressive stance in their film analyses. If you think they're just pretending to be "woke" to get clicks you clearly weren't much of a fan to begin with.
@@tiat3137 I dont think they fake being woke at all, they clearly have been so since the beginning ( and yess I watched them since they had 300k subscribers) BUT the difference is in between the videos about cinema/TV they sometimes would have the political videos . WHILE NOW not only is it 90% of the content "political " but even the few videos about cinema are still sparsed with " woke" commentary
I can see why they needed William to have kids. Wouldn't want to leave that throne to Harry.
“Just like they killed Philip” as if he wasn’t about to drop dead any day now 🙄 8:15
True. A 99 year old, who looked like his own corpse for years, dies - this cannot be natural! 🙄
3:23 He was allowed to ‘sow his wild oats’ (encouraged by Lord Mountbatten) and she had to be thoroughly investigated to ensure she had no ex-boyfriend. In her words, “kept myself tidy.”
“Rumors abounded about the doctor who performed the test implanting a fertilized embryo into his own wife” I’m sorry WHAT 👁👄👁
There are many royal families in the world, not just British.
Brunei, Oman, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Morocco, Bhutan, Cambodia, Japan, Thailand, Tonga, Eswatini and Lesotho.
Why skip over Elizabeth 1? Or Wallis Simpson and Edward VIII?
I think Edward viii and Wallis Simpson were nazi sympathizers and deserve their own separate video. No need to add further complexity to this one
Agreed. Even if they just focus on the British, missing Elizabeth I it's a miss...
As well as Dutch
While this is a very interesting topic I feel like it wasn't as deep conversation as it could be. It only focus on British royal family (ok, ok, I know it's the most famous in the world...) But there are more royal families and different approaches to how this conversation has been handled in other countries. For example, in Norway you have an "already mother of a child" marrying the heir in 2001 and it was a huge piece of news. And when the current heir is a woman (Sweden) the issue also stands.
Anyway, I think this is a very poor researched video and that the focus on just the British should appear at least in the title.
And agenda driven to suit Sussex PR dollars. It is so sad. I used to love this channel. Now I’m thinking about unsubscribing.
Welcome to the take. They've never been that great at research, but they've gotten very lazy recently
Same. The current Spanish queen is a 'peasant' (no royal background nor "blood") and the heir to the throne is a girl 🤷🏻♀️ these Yanks are obsessed with the Brits 😅
But the woman had more children and the child of the previous relationship is not a royal.
That's it. Thank you, the take, for your videos, but I think it's time to unsubscribe. The channel is not the same anymore. I cannot handle seeing more videos about the royals or social media trends. Goodbye.
👋🏻
Royalty should go,period
They will... as soon as they stop bringing in the tourist dollars. That's basically the only reason they all haven't been tossed out on their asses.
Rachal: I don't care about the grandeur but i remind the world every day I'm the dutchess of Sussex
the take: we don't like the royal family but we keep making videos about the royal family
Love how they talk about "people" being way too obsessed with the (British) royal family meanwhile their channel has gone from analyzing characters in movies and TV-shows and films to every other video being about the British royal family.....
Megan money is not worth this. It makes the whole channel seem dodgy.
I don't care about their bloodlines. And I don't care about men who yell. "My legacy!" It's ludicrous.
Manosphere?
@@suzygirl1843 Not always, but sometimes.
The Take is taking Megan and Harry’s money. That’s my deep analysis of the characters and tropes of this atrociously researched, laughably, unbalanced, propaganda feeling insipid film.
No, they're taking advertising money because you're a sucker rage clicking on the video. You are putting money in their pocket because you have no self control and feel the need to give them attention. It's not that hard to get. The same reason every dude bro TH-camr is raging about every marvel movie having women in them. Anger leads to clicks, and you're angry.
Maybe that makes too of us, no? 😂
@@Eddie-Atwater lol you can’t even spell the no 1 sit back down
8:07 The Crown isn’t real life you know. While I’ll admit considering her generation it’s likely she wasn’t a nurturing mother we just don’t know that.
Exactly! This is atrociously researched, unbalanced, and seemingly agenda driven. To say that the role of a woman in the British royal family is to produce an air is quite laughable, considering they have the longest living matriarch with the late Queen Elizabeth. I feel like they’re taking money from Sussex PR. There’s been so much content lately, and it’s so skewed and strange. It makes everything else on the channel seem less reputable and trustworthy.
How is this a TV trope?
This channel loves the Meghan/Oprah interview too much. Wanting to know what kids from an interracial couple look like is not racist. This isn't HotD. 🙄
Hmmm. I think it's more complex than that. Hierarchies are established based on how "black" the kid is
There have been so many proven falsehoods from that interview which is why Oprah has taken it off the internet and you can only see fragments. She has moved as far away from it and them as she can. The take is taking Megan money. That’s all I can think bc this channel used to be great. 😢
@@Eddie-Atwater SO? Media is scandalous. Haven't they published falsehoods about Meghan Markle too and YOU believed them? Stop the one sided ness. It's a white supremacist tactic and white women are not victims. They uphold white supremacy the most.
@@suzygirl1843 no, the hierarchy is based on the line of succession, that is literally the whole point of the monarchy, like it or not. Harry’s kids not being granted the same privileges as William’s children has nothing to do with their mother’s skin colour but rather with their lower rank (they are not children of the Heir apparent).
I like a lot your videos but in this one, the thing about the baby of megan and Harry is incorrect i am in a mix culture relationship and the color of the skin of our kids is a conversation, is a normal question
Please tell me the Royal men they marry go through fertility checks too.
Until they have some trustworthy source on that I call bullshit.
It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if they did. Not all, just the important ones William and Harry. They’re just as much breeding stock as the women and you’d want to check that. Infertile kings have caused just as much trouble historically as infertile queens.
The “shady history of lineage“ section is oh so shady itself. What channel that wants to keep their reputation replays clips Oprah herself has taken down to try and save her own journalistic integrity?
I think you’re better than this the take.
Go away bot!!
May God bless everyone. Have a good day.
When if the Royal Man was infertile? 🤔
In the old days I think they just locked him away from questioning eyes while the younger sibling got shunted up the importance list.
Then when he usually chooses who he wants to succeed him after his death (unless there’s already a strict sett order). A king or queen not having children isn’t the end of the world movies make it seem.
I would worry more about incest in royal bloodline’s.
Royalty should not exist anymore outside of fiction.
The Take is “on the take.”
Harry and Megan, no no- excuse me, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, as they insist on being called, have definitely bought the airwaves here.
I assume a male would need to take one also, before marrying a Princess
I guess the best way to figure that out is to research if Prince Phillip had to take one before marrying the then Princess Elizabeth. At that point I think her father had already ascended to the throne so she was heir presumptive.
@@stephysteph9538 there may not have been a sense that the man could be at fault for infertility back then.
Just abolish the British Monarchy. Problem solved!!
They can't. They draw in too much revenue from dumbass tourists
Agreed
@@alizehustle9385 Everybody outside Britain is sick and tired of them
@@suzygirl1843 I like them
@@rodgermurphy5721 Duh, you don't mind bad stuff happening to other people. It only bad when it happens to you. Britain is not good for the entire world
Bring back screen prism content please!
AGREED
Oh Lord, again that same bs about the colour of the baby. When will that lie end? Who the Hell wouldn't wonder how the baby will be like anyway? Never met a baby who didn't get any of that "boy or girl", "blond or brunette" pondering before birth. And Harry even had to admit that there was nothing ominous about the question.
Exactly. I am married to a chinese man and I wondered (as did all our relatives) what the babies would like like.
@@jaimicottrill2831 Wonder, yes. TO mention it out loud. Keep that stuff to yourself
@@suzygirl1843 have you interacted with a large swath of humanity? Or are you in a rather tight homogeneous social group why not extend faith in some peoples humanity and realize that yes, speculating on what a baby will look like is what tons of people do in friends and family groups all over the world and they do it without any ill will. Often the to be parents speculate and enjoy hearing other peoples comments as well.
@@Eddie-Atwater Nope. Quit spreading your "democracy". Nobody wants to be like USA or UK.
@@suzygirl1843 Why? Its perfectly normal to ponder out loud who your baby might look like. Will they have the father's eyes, or the mothers hair colour for example. So long as they were pahsing it as a wondering, then no harm done. It depends on how they said it and what exactly they said. Dince the only one saying anything is Megan its hard to judge.
6:08 huh. I'm angry all of the sudden.
It just all seems so gross. Does this not just seem weird? It's weird In Australia anyway. I remember when Prince George was born. Like the news was just flooded with stuff about him and I felt like damian where I just wanted to scream 'he doesn't even go here!'
Upper class caring about bloodlines....also water is wet.
God that family is a circus show.
Right?
neat video but it's only focused on British royal bloodlines when the description says "European" -- just a thought since the british royal family seems to be the only ones anyone is ever wanting to write / talk about
Prince William has 3 children, Harry has 2, I think the line of succession is safe; although King George III had 15 children and only one of them produced an heir. This has been an issue for the British monarchy since the Conqueror, and he only had a claim that Edward the Confessor was his cousin and Edward had no heirs, probably on account of his piety and the fact his wife's family murdered his brother. This is just how these things work and have always worked.
Catherine, Princess of Wales, was born a commoner without any title
Can we just get rid of colonialism & the Royal family all together. I'm so tired of watching them continue to oppress everything they touch.
Absolutely agreed.
That was hearsay about "the conversation" and later came out that it was actually about Harry's ginger-ness not meghans "skin color"
Exactly! Citing the crown as a reputable historical source is laughable, but so is using those parts of the Oprah interview. They have been proven false on so many accounts.
Why are you a tabloid now, The Take?? What happened dude??
From Taylor Swift boyfriend to this? Where are the literature tropes?
Yeah and what a price can sometimes have to be paid just ask the Habsburgs. You know the family that's famous because of their jaw.
That's not an issue with fertility obsession, but rather inbreeding.
@@libertasinveritas3198 yeah and it's in an attempt to keep the bloodline pure. This is about Bloodlines and royalty.
Broodmares. It's unfortunately not any more complicated than that.
Please STOP replaying the lies of Meghan.
Please top replaying the lies of the Royal Family. They're terrorists and one is a rapist
Amen. They are taking money from Megan and Harry PR teams.
Bloodlines mean a lot to some people and there is nothing wrong with that. It is rare when you can trace your family's origin back to God knows when. Especially if a war / epidemic or an accident wipes out a whole family - that line is gone. Blood means a lot because for some it is about DNA, which is information, useful to understand why perhaps one has certain behaviors or sicknesses in a family.
With regards to the Royal Family I get why fertility is an important issue. They represent history and heritage alongside the country's history and heritage. Until the Royal Family in Britain is relevant, so will the succession line. Btw I would not be surprised if they also thoroughly checked whether William was fertile not just Katherine. And Meghan and Harry wed after Louis was born, perhaps because by that time the line was "secure" with 3 heirs.
Also I think even if the Royal Family were ever to consider adoption, I don't think that child would have a happy life because no matter how they will try in raise him in an inclusive environment - everyone will know and talk saying he is not of Royal blood. Unfortunately, we may think we are very evolved but sad thing is - blood connection is valued higher.
a minor medical correction: the condition is called "hyperemesis gravidarum", not hypermesis. it means, basically, excessive nausea, vomiting and dizziness during pregnancy. not a big deal, but surely inconvenient.
It can be a huge deal. If you become dehydrated during pregnancy, you can die. It is a bid deal
Be a uterus.
Being is princess isn't just about wearing lovely clothes and waving to crowds. Princesses have duties. Duty is an utterly foreign concept to most "modern" women.
Ah, you're one of those pickme's
are most modern women marrying into royal families? i don't think so
Love when a man acts like he knows the struggles of women's everyday life! 😃
princesses have duties, yes - but everyone's body is their own.
@@lordfreerealestate8302 Clearly the concept of duty is foreign to you too.
Second! ✌🏾🥈
Fertility is a good thing and as such probably one of the few things actually worth obsessing about.
Women who can't reproduce then?
nani?
Nah, the planet has plenty of people.
@@cgt9056 Women who can't reproduce usually suffer from it. (Because infertility is not a good thing.) It's tragic and does not change the facts.
@@TheJennnq It has not. The population is actually in decline.
Who was that woman who looked just like Diana?
Me but I need to stay under the radar 🫣
@@fairyprincess911 ahahah tell me who was it
“The claim” you heard this from Megan herself not some Internet sleuth why are you discrediting her?
Bc she is a chronic liar
@@awi1316 The Royal Family are chronic liars and terrorists