Page 13 of 139 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516172363113 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 2075
Like Tree9072Likes

Thread: Love 'em or hate 'em: the Harry & Meghan megathread

  1. #181
    Silver Member Sweets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    503

    Default

    Yes, I understand that. My point was that Edward and Sophie made the decision years ago to not take public money to fund their lifestyle. Instead they use Sovereign Grants to pay for official travel and security during outings, and I believe their home, cars, holidays etc are funded by the Queen's own private fortune. It would make sense for Harry & Meghan to do much the same. It's not like Harry is third in line to the thrown these days. If they want more privacy, maybe that's the road they need to go down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kittylady View Post
    The Queen is a tax payer. Out of an estimated 400 million brought in through Crown holdings/other sources of income the government keeps 360 million.

    The cost of the Royal family to the average British tax payer per year is estimated to be 1.24 per person. The estimated worth of the Royals to the country in terms of tourism is an estimated 1.8 billion per year. Big events such as H&M's wedding push that sum even higher as it attracts even more visitors from abroad.

    Working Royals get an allowance to cover their expenses for duties carried out on behalf of the crown but their personal expenses are met from their own private sources of income.

    All in all the British economy does rather well out of having a Royal family.

  2. #182
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    57,482

    Default

    They can carry out their duties and appear in public when they have to, but there is no obligation for them to publish photos of their children whenever the biddies demand it, or to be subjected to abusive and illegal invasions by the tabloids. Being a working royal doesn’t give the media the right to publish private letters or make overt or thinly veiled racist attacks. Being a public figure or working royal doesn’t give anyone the right to any more information than that which they have to make public.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  3. #183
    Elite Member Kittylady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Somewhere been 'General Confusion' and 'Total WTF?'
    Posts
    21,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    They can carry out their duties and appear in public when they have to, but there is no obligation for them to publish photos of their children whenever the biddies demand it, or to be subjected to abusive and illegal invasions by the tabloids. Being a working royal doesn’t give the media the right to publish private letters or make overt or thinly veiled racist attacks. Being a public figure or working royal doesn’t give anyone the right to any more information than that which they have to make public.
    Exactly. Its the same as thinking that going to the cinema or buying a CD entitles you to know every single detail of the actor or artist's life. You are paying for their lifestyle, after all...

    These are people, not curiosities or zoo animals.
    I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S Thompson

    How big would a T-Rex wang be?! - Karistiona


  4. #184
    Elite Member lindsaywhit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sweets View Post
    Yes, I understand that. My point was that Edward and Sophie made the decision years ago to not take public money to fund their lifestyle. Instead they use Sovereign Grants to pay for official travel and security during outings, and I believe their home, cars, holidays etc are funded by the Queen's own private fortune. It would make sense for Harry & Meghan to do much the same. It's not like Harry is third in line to the thrown these days. If they want more privacy, maybe that's the road they need to go down.
    This is interesting. It does seem to be a very sensible option, although to be completely honest it's all a bit muddled for this non-Brit. (Public money vs. Sovereign Grants vs. Queen's private fortune vs. Charles private fortune? Yikes. Much as I love most of the Royal Family, all of it still seems basically funded, now or historically, by the British citizenry. Not saying that's a good or bad thing, just that that's what it is. )

    Anyway, still seems like an appropriate solution to at least part of the problem - couldn't Charles afford to support them in this way? As far as Sophie and Edward go, they obviously had to make this decision with the Queen's agreement and approval. Is Anne in a similar arrangement? I'm not implying she should be - does anyone work harder as a Royal? What about Andrew? Now he's the one that it would make my blood boil to support - does the Queen support him as well? If not, why not? I'm genuinely curious, not even meaning to be snarky about Andrew. (this time )

    Look, there's obviously no excuse for the racism - NONE - but even as a 'fantard' I do understand how some of the British public could become exasperated with paying for $14,000 dresses, private planes, etc. I just get really confused about who pays for what for the various royals, and I'm not even sure I'll ever truly understand it all. Feels a bit like trying to comprehend cricket to me, you know? Such an elegant sport - but what the heck is really going on?


  5. #185
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    57,482

    Default

    Re: clothes, my understanding is they’re given fixed allowances, so whether they spend it on 14k dresses or a shitload of 100$ dresses is up to them. Also, no one ever bitches about how much the men’s bespoke suits cost, they’re probably as expensive if not more than many of the clothes worn by the women, and notice how many tabloids make the point of detailing how much everything Markle wears cost, but then don’t do the same for the other royals. Like others have said, it’s the double standards that are the problem.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  6. #186
    Silver Member Sweets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    503

    Default

    I'm an Aussie so I understand it a bit but not to the extent of those on here who are from the UK. H & M would be wealthy enough in their own right to support themselves. Harry was left an inheritance from his mother and Meghan, I"m sure, has a few million to her name. They need to find a balance. How that happens, I don't know but Sophie and Edward seem to fly under the radar a lot.

    As for racism, there is absolutely no excuse for that.


    Quote Originally Posted by lindsaywhit View Post
    This is interesting. It does seem to be a very sensible option, although to be completely honest it's all a bit muddled for this non-Brit. (Public money vs. Sovereign Grants vs. Queen's private fortune vs. Charles private fortune? Yikes. Much as I love most of the Royal Family, all of it still seems basically funded, now or historically, by the British citizenry. Not saying that's a good or bad thing, just that that's what it is. )

    Anyway, still seems like an appropriate solution to at least part of the problem - couldn't Charles afford to support them in this way? As far as Sophie and Edward go, they obviously had to make this decision with the Queen's agreement and approval. Is Anne in a similar arrangement? I'm not implying she should be - does anyone work harder as a Royal? What about Andrew? Now he's the one that it would make my blood boil to support - does the Queen support him as well? If not, why not? I'm genuinely curious, not even meaning to be snarky about Andrew. (this time )

    Look, there's obviously no excuse for the racism - NONE - but even as a 'fantard' I do understand how some of the British public could become exasperated with paying for $14,000 dresses, private planes, etc. I just get really confused about who pays for what for the various royals, and I'm not even sure I'll ever truly understand it all. Feels a bit like trying to comprehend cricket to me, you know? Such an elegant sport - but what the heck is really going on?

  7. #187
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    57,482

    Default

    Why do they have to fly under the radar and give up their duties though? There’s no reason they shouldn’t be able to do their jobs, Harry is the only sibling of the future king and therefore close enough family that he should be able to maintain his role. But there’s nothing wrong with wanting to carry out your work without being abused by the right wing press because they can’t get over the fact that he married a biracial american woman with somewhat liberal views (as in, she promoted diversity and equality, which are only offensive to the racist and misogynistic).
    If Charles chooses to follow the Swedish model, then harry and markle’s kids are a different matter, they shouldn’t be included in the working royals once they’re grown up and I doubt they will be.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  8. #188
    Elite Member ShimmeringGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,307

    Default

    A cute clip....a quick glimpse of Frogmore Cottage....

    Prince Harry x Ed Sheeran

    All will be revealed tomorrow...
    #WorldMentalHealthDay



    https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1181899180282974209?s=20



  9. #189
    Elite Member effie2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Where it all begun
    Posts
    16,154

    Default

    Of course racism should not exist and racist views are not acceptable..there is no argument there...loud and clear. Point is if somebody thinks x comment is not racist for his own reasons,you DEBATE and not label said member as racist.I defend the right to have an opinion and define your own viewpoint,even if it is not the popular one.Saying i dont think this is racist does not make you a racist..that word is so easily thrown around here it almost lost its meaning.Same with biddy...lol.And what is wrong with biddies anyway...

  10. #190
    Elite Member ShimmeringGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,307

    Default

    Sorry, Ed and Harry are at Ivy Cottage on the grounds of KP.

    Prince Harry shares look inside Princess Eugenie's Kensington Palace cottage
    Princess Eugenie lives in Ivy Cottage with Jack Brooksbank
    LAST MODIFIED ON OCT 09, 2019 13:09 BST CHLOE BEST

    Prince Harry has given fans an inside peek at Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank's marital home in a new video for World Mental Health Week. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex teased a collaboration with Ed Sheeran that is launching on Thursday in an Instagram video, writing: "Coming soon… @teddysphotos #WMHD."


    The video shows Ed arriving at the front door and ringing the doorbell – which plays God Save The Queen – before Prince Harry answers. While at first glimpse the property could be mistaken for Prince Harry and Meghan's new home, Frogmore Cottage in Windsor, it actually appears to have been filmed at Kensington Palace – specifically Ivy Cottage, where Princess Eugenie and her husband Jack have lived for the past year. The front door is a tell-tale sign - as it was previously pictured by Lord Snowdon in 1999 - and has the same white door with glass window.

    Prince Harry has shared a peek inside Princess Eugenie's home

    A black-and-white official portrait from the couple's wedding hangs on the wall in the hallway, showing Eugenie and Jack sat in the carriage after their wedding ceremony at St. George's Chapel. There is a fireplace in the hallway, while a doorway leads through to a lounge, where there is a sofa lined with orange cushions, and candles on display on a shelf.

    The video was filmed at Ivy Cottage in Kensington Palace

    The clip marks the first time we have seen inside Ivy Cottage, which has been home to Prince Harry's cousin since 2018. The three-bedroom cottage is located across a small courtyard from Nottingham Cottage, the home that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex used to share.




    The exterior of Ivy Cottage Snowdon / Camera Press

    Princess Eugenie previously lived at St James' Palace with her sister Princess Beatrice, but moved in after announcing her engagement in 2018. It appears she has quickly put her own stamp on the property by displaying personal wedding photos and decorations in the home, which was once home to Mr Mole, Maintenance Manager at Kensington Palace, for over 21 years.



    Princess Eugenie's wedding portrait is on display in the hallway

    Speaking to Harpers Bazaar about her former home in St James's Palace, Eugenie described how she decorated her room. She told the magazine: “My bedroom is full of photos my parents have taken. Mumsy took one of an elephant spraying water on its back, which is incredible, and there’s one Papa took of Balmoral Castle. I’ve got a lot of art that needs to be put on the walls. And there are shoes everywhere.”

    https://www.hellomagazine.com/homes/...cottage-video/
    Sarzy likes this.

  11. #191
    Elite Member Kittylady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Somewhere been 'General Confusion' and 'Total WTF?'
    Posts
    21,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sweets View Post
    I'm an Aussie so I understand it a bit but not to the extent of those on here who are from the UK. H & M would be wealthy enough in their own right to support themselves. Harry was left an inheritance from his mother and Meghan, I"m sure, has a few million to her name. They need to find a balance. How that happens, I don't know but Sophie and Edward seem to fly under the radar a lot.

    As for racism, there is absolutely no excuse for that.
    The Royal Purse only covers working expenses and security. If H&M are on an official visit to somewhere, whether the UK or abroad, then that is covered by that allowance. Their private expenses are paid for out of their private income.

    There are some people who bitch about the cost of the 24 hour security each member of the Royal family receives but I think that is a legitimate expense, especially in today's world. The propaganda value to terrorist groups of kidnapping, injuring or even killing a member of the Royal family, especially one of the Queen's direct descendants is beyond monetary value
    lindsaywhit, Novice and weathered1 like this.
    I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. Hunter S Thompson

    How big would a T-Rex wang be?! - Karistiona


  12. #192
    Elite Member Ravenna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,794

    Default

    I just can't get past the inherently offensive concept of royalty: the idea that a bunch of inbred, adulterous, pedophilic, whoremongering, Nazi costume wearing, tampon idealizing, hazardously driving, intellectually substandard, hypocritical whiners are somehow better than everyone else by virtue of their birth, and are thus entitled to live lavishly at taxpayer expense.


    I also do not see how they can estimate how much money the royal family brings into the economy through tourism. How do they know which tourists were drawn to the museums and other cultural attractions vs those who came there because of the monarchy? How do they distinguish between those who visited because of the history and those who came because the UK still has a living monarch? After all, the Palace of Versailles continues to attract millions of visitors per year despite over two centuries having passed since France's last monarch lost his head.
    effie2, sputnik, Novice and 5 others like this.

  13. #193
    Elite Member lindsaywhit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenna View Post
    I just can't get past the inherently offensive concept of royalty: the idea that a bunch of inbred, adulterous, pedophilic, whoremongering, Nazi costume wearing, tampon idealizing, hazardously driving, intellectually substandard, hypocritical whiners are somehow better than everyone else by virtue of their birth, and are thus entitled to live lavishly at taxpayer expense.


    I also do not see how they can estimate how much money the royal family brings into the economy through tourism. How do they know which tourists were drawn to the museums and other cultural attractions vs those who came there because of the monarchy? How do they distinguish between those who visited because of the history and those who came because the UK still has a living monarch? After all, the Palace of Versailles continues to attract millions of visitors per year despite over two centuries having passed since France's last monarch lost his head.
    Okay, I have to laugh, because I love the whole royal thing, even while not universally caring for each royal, whether British or other, but my truly amazing, brilliant and heroic father was flummoxed and bit disgusted by my enjoyment of their pomp and tradition and position. During WWII, he was in the Dutch Underground, and barely escaped with his life more than once. (Great story for another time - he was once being hunted by the Gestapo and ended up being hidden, (and saved!) by two common German soldiers.) Anyway, at the end of the war, Queen Juliana had a ceremony honoring those in the Dutch Underground, and he refused to go, really annoying his mother, lol. He felt that allowing someone who had simply been born into their position to 'reward' him was tantamount to making their approval more important than the work that had been done and the lives that had been lost. (Much more complicated than that - he was an intellectual with implacable, sometimes really exhausting, integrity, but that's the short version, lol.)

    Anyway, even though I enjoy following the royals and believe they are in unique positions to make positive changes and contributions to the world, there's always a little part of me going, "Yes, but,...."
    sputnik, Ravenna, Novice and 4 others like this.


  14. #194
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    57,482

    Default

    I think they’re basically decorative historical relics but they’re part of the idiosyncrasy of a lot of countries and I like idiosyncrasies and historical holdovers.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  15. #195
    Elite Member SHELLEE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Florida Keys
    Posts
    23,795

    Default

    I tried to post the article but it came out very messy so I deleted it.

    https://people.com/royals/kate-middl...meghan-markle/
    See, Whores, we are good for something. Love, Florida
    #fingersinthebootyassbitch

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Meghan Markle & Prince Harry - WE Day UK 2019
    By palta in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: March 7th, 2019, 03:00 PM
  2. Prince Harry & Meghan Markle in Auckland
    By dowcat in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: October 30th, 2018, 10:00 AM
  3. Meghan and Harry at Wellchild Awards
    By BelledeJour in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: September 5th, 2018, 02:43 PM
  4. Harry and Meghan (in Givenchy) in Ireland
    By BelledeJour in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: July 19th, 2018, 04:51 PM
  5. Prince Harry & Meghan Markle at their wedding
    By BelledeJour in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: May 25th, 2018, 09:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •