Discussion:
Harry and Megan resign.
(too old to reply)
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-01-08 22:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
Farmer Giles
2020-01-08 22:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Oh dear, how on earth will we cope.
John
2020-01-09 07:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Oh dear, how on earth will we cope.
No difference to a time before they exited.
Keema's Nan
2020-01-09 09:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some
would have us believe it is.
Not when the paparazzi follow them everywhere they go, just to make money out
of them.

Is it in the national interest to look at photos of their every waking hour?
abelard
2020-01-09 11:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
they should not have to deal with the problems dealt with
by millions...they're entitled...
and paid exorbitantly for their dreadful travails
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2020-01-09 11:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".

It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Dan S. MacAbre
2020-01-09 12:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
abelard
2020-01-09 13:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
they wish to be 'progressive'
--
www.abelard.org
Dan S. MacAbre
2020-01-09 13:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
they wish to be 'progressive'
All of the fun, but none of the duty. Very modern.
abelard
2020-01-09 13:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
they wish to be 'progressive'
All of the fun, but none of the duty. Very modern.
very precisely put as usual
no sense of duty...

the lower classes in fancy clothes
--
www.abelard.org
Incubus
2020-01-09 14:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
they wish to be 'progressive'
All of the fun, but none of the duty. Very modern.
very precisely put as usual
no sense of duty...
the lower classes in fancy clothes
Give them some Burberry casual wear.
Incubus
2020-01-09 14:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
How dare you!

I think, from a royal perspective, their marriage has been a mistake. What
could have been a PR success story with the usual "diversity" crowd due to her
being half-caste has descended into a farce. He married an outspoken Feminist
who was already famous as an actress and has a few skeletons in her closet
regarding her relationship with her family, particularly her father. The media
scrutiny and reaction from the public has been less than flattering. It seems
to me that Prince Andrew's indescretions have given them the excuse they were
waiting for.

I wonder whether Her Majesty opposed the marriage due to the aforementioned
issues. That might explain why their decision was not made after consultation
with the Royal Family.
Dan S. MacAbre
2020-01-09 15:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
How dare you!
I think, from a royal perspective, their marriage has been a mistake. What
could have been a PR success story with the usual "diversity" crowd due to her
being half-caste has descended into a farce. He married an outspoken Feminist
who was already famous as an actress and has a few skeletons in her closet
regarding her relationship with her family, particularly her father. The media
scrutiny and reaction from the public has been less than flattering. It seems
to me that Prince Andrew's indescretions have given them the excuse they were
waiting for.
I wonder whether Her Majesty opposed the marriage due to the aforementioned
issues. That might explain why their decision was not made after consultation
with the Royal Family.
I enjoyed this before:

https://conservativewoman.co.uk/harry-and-meghan-an-utter-disgrace/

Seems spot-on.
Incubus
2020-01-09 15:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
How dare you!
I think, from a royal perspective, their marriage has been a mistake. What
could have been a PR success story with the usual "diversity" crowd due to her
being half-caste has descended into a farce. He married an outspoken Feminist
who was already famous as an actress and has a few skeletons in her closet
regarding her relationship with her family, particularly her father. The media
scrutiny and reaction from the public has been less than flattering. It seems
to me that Prince Andrew's indescretions have given them the excuse they were
waiting for.
I wonder whether Her Majesty opposed the marriage due to the aforementioned
issues. That might explain why their decision was not made after consultation
with the Royal Family.
https://conservativewoman.co.uk/harry-and-meghan-an-utter-disgrace/
Seems spot-on.
Indeed, it is. Piers Morgan savages them both on a regular basis and although
I felt he was a bit harsh at times before, he was right in the last article I
read:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7868371/PIERS-MORGAN-Queen-FIRE-Royal-Hustlers.html

It's quite a brutal piece :)
Dan S. MacAbre
2020-01-09 20:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
How dare you!
I think, from a royal perspective, their marriage has been a mistake. What
could have been a PR success story with the usual "diversity" crowd due to her
being half-caste has descended into a farce. He married an outspoken Feminist
who was already famous as an actress and has a few skeletons in her closet
regarding her relationship with her family, particularly her father. The media
scrutiny and reaction from the public has been less than flattering. It seems
to me that Prince Andrew's indescretions have given them the excuse they were
waiting for.
I wonder whether Her Majesty opposed the marriage due to the aforementioned
issues. That might explain why their decision was not made after consultation
with the Royal Family.
https://conservativewoman.co.uk/harry-and-meghan-an-utter-disgrace/
Seems spot-on.
Indeed, it is. Piers Morgan savages them both on a regular basis and although
I felt he was a bit harsh at times before, he was right in the last article I
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7868371/PIERS-MORGAN-Queen-FIRE-Royal-Hustlers.html
It's quite a brutal piece :)
Delivered in the style we know and, er, love :-) Hard to believe that
English people are to read such things, but their
do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do approach seems to be driving people crazy.
But yes, I feel that, basically, she wants to be able to make political
pronouncements (i.e. slag off Trump) without the usual constraints. I
don't think it will end well.
Incubus
2020-01-10 09:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
How dare you!
I think, from a royal perspective, their marriage has been a mistake. What
could have been a PR success story with the usual "diversity" crowd due to her
being half-caste has descended into a farce. He married an outspoken Feminist
who was already famous as an actress and has a few skeletons in her closet
regarding her relationship with her family, particularly her father. The media
scrutiny and reaction from the public has been less than flattering. It seems
to me that Prince Andrew's indescretions have given them the excuse they were
waiting for.
I wonder whether Her Majesty opposed the marriage due to the aforementioned
issues. That might explain why their decision was not made after consultation
with the Royal Family.
https://conservativewoman.co.uk/harry-and-meghan-an-utter-disgrace/
Seems spot-on.
Indeed, it is. Piers Morgan savages them both on a regular basis and although
I felt he was a bit harsh at times before, he was right in the last article I
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7868371/PIERS-MORGAN-Queen-FIRE-Royal-Hustlers.html
It's quite a brutal piece :)
Delivered in the style we know and, er, love :-) Hard to believe that
English people are to read such things, but their
do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do approach seems to be driving people crazy.
But yes, I feel that, basically, she wants to be able to make political
pronouncements (i.e. slag off Trump) without the usual constraints. I
don't think it will end well.
She surely knew what was expected of someone marrying into the Royal Family in
terms of remaining neutral on political issues. It seems that she has brought
Prince Harry around to her way of thinking and it is embarrassing.

I have always felt that the focus on her relationship with her family was
unfair. The other criticism that has been levelled at them has been brought
upon themselves.
Dan S. MacAbre
2020-01-10 10:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
How dare you!
I think, from a royal perspective, their marriage has been a mistake. What
could have been a PR success story with the usual "diversity" crowd due to her
being half-caste has descended into a farce. He married an outspoken Feminist
who was already famous as an actress and has a few skeletons in her closet
regarding her relationship with her family, particularly her father. The media
scrutiny and reaction from the public has been less than flattering. It seems
to me that Prince Andrew's indescretions have given them the excuse they were
waiting for.
I wonder whether Her Majesty opposed the marriage due to the aforementioned
issues. That might explain why their decision was not made after consultation
with the Royal Family.
https://conservativewoman.co.uk/harry-and-meghan-an-utter-disgrace/
Seems spot-on.
Indeed, it is. Piers Morgan savages them both on a regular basis and although
I felt he was a bit harsh at times before, he was right in the last article I
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7868371/PIERS-MORGAN-Queen-FIRE-Royal-Hustlers.html
It's quite a brutal piece :)
Delivered in the style we know and, er, love :-) Hard to believe that
English people are to read such things, but their
do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do approach seems to be driving people crazy.
But yes, I feel that, basically, she wants to be able to make political
pronouncements (i.e. slag off Trump) without the usual constraints. I
don't think it will end well.
She surely knew what was expected of someone marrying into the Royal Family in
terms of remaining neutral on political issues.
You'd have thought so; but she has clearly been unable to resist the
urge to revert to type. Poor Harry. Clearly learned nothing from the
abdication crisis. Not that he's in a position to have to abdicate; but
it's clear to most of us that they inhabit two worlds that don't mix.

It seems that she has brought
Post by Incubus
Prince Harry around to her way of thinking and it is embarrassing.
I have always felt that the focus on her relationship with her family was
unfair. The other criticism that has been levelled at them has been brought
upon themselves.
Unfair, but bound to happen. I wouldn't normally pay any attention to
that; but seeing some commentators reacting by blaming their problems on
racist Britons is only going to make things worse. Nobody in political
circles is learning a single thing.
Incubus
2020-01-10 10:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
How dare you!
I think, from a royal perspective, their marriage has been a mistake. What
could have been a PR success story with the usual "diversity" crowd due to her
being half-caste has descended into a farce. He married an outspoken Feminist
who was already famous as an actress and has a few skeletons in her closet
regarding her relationship with her family, particularly her father. The media
scrutiny and reaction from the public has been less than flattering. It seems
to me that Prince Andrew's indescretions have given them the excuse they were
waiting for.
I wonder whether Her Majesty opposed the marriage due to the aforementioned
issues. That might explain why their decision was not made after consultation
with the Royal Family.
https://conservativewoman.co.uk/harry-and-meghan-an-utter-disgrace/
Seems spot-on.
Indeed, it is. Piers Morgan savages them both on a regular basis and although
I felt he was a bit harsh at times before, he was right in the last article I
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7868371/PIERS-MORGAN-Queen-FIRE-Royal-Hustlers.html
It's quite a brutal piece :)
Delivered in the style we know and, er, love :-) Hard to believe that
English people are to read such things, but their
do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do approach seems to be driving people crazy.
But yes, I feel that, basically, she wants to be able to make political
pronouncements (i.e. slag off Trump) without the usual constraints. I
don't think it will end well.
She surely knew what was expected of someone marrying into the Royal Family in
terms of remaining neutral on political issues.
You'd have thought so; but she has clearly been unable to resist the
urge to revert to type. Poor Harry. Clearly learned nothing from the
abdication crisis. Not that he's in a position to have to abdicate; but
it's clear to most of us that they inhabit two worlds that don't mix.
It seems that she has brought
Post by Incubus
Prince Harry around to her way of thinking and it is embarrassing.
I have always felt that the focus on her relationship with her family was
unfair. The other criticism that has been levelled at them has been brought
upon themselves.
Unfair, but bound to happen. I wouldn't normally pay any attention to
that; but seeing some commentators reacting by blaming their problems on
racist Britons is only going to make things worse. Nobody in political
circles is learning a single thing.
They're currently blaming the BAFTA awards on "racism". Meanwhile, the MOBO
awards aren't discriminatory at all.
Dan S. MacAbre
2020-01-10 10:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
How dare you!
I think, from a royal perspective, their marriage has been a mistake. What
could have been a PR success story with the usual "diversity" crowd due to her
being half-caste has descended into a farce. He married an outspoken Feminist
who was already famous as an actress and has a few skeletons in her closet
regarding her relationship with her family, particularly her father. The media
scrutiny and reaction from the public has been less than flattering. It seems
to me that Prince Andrew's indescretions have given them the excuse they were
waiting for.
I wonder whether Her Majesty opposed the marriage due to the aforementioned
issues. That might explain why their decision was not made after consultation
with the Royal Family.
https://conservativewoman.co.uk/harry-and-meghan-an-utter-disgrace/
Seems spot-on.
Indeed, it is. Piers Morgan savages them both on a regular basis and although
I felt he was a bit harsh at times before, he was right in the last article I
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7868371/PIERS-MORGAN-Queen-FIRE-Royal-Hustlers.html
It's quite a brutal piece :)
Delivered in the style we know and, er, love :-) Hard to believe that
English people are to read such things, but their
do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do approach seems to be driving people crazy.
But yes, I feel that, basically, she wants to be able to make political
pronouncements (i.e. slag off Trump) without the usual constraints. I
don't think it will end well.
She surely knew what was expected of someone marrying into the Royal Family in
terms of remaining neutral on political issues.
You'd have thought so; but she has clearly been unable to resist the
urge to revert to type. Poor Harry. Clearly learned nothing from the
abdication crisis. Not that he's in a position to have to abdicate; but
it's clear to most of us that they inhabit two worlds that don't mix.
It seems that she has brought
Post by Incubus
Prince Harry around to her way of thinking and it is embarrassing.
I have always felt that the focus on her relationship with her family was
unfair. The other criticism that has been levelled at them has been brought
upon themselves.
Unfair, but bound to happen. I wouldn't normally pay any attention to
that; but seeing some commentators reacting by blaming their problems on
racist Britons is only going to make things worse. Nobody in political
circles is learning a single thing.
They're currently blaming the BAFTA awards on "racism". Meanwhile, the MOBO
awards aren't discriminatory at all.
A field of endeavour that is entirely lost on me, I'm sorry to say :-)
Joe
2020-01-10 13:16:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 10:19:52 +0000
Nobody in political circles is learning a single thing.
How can they, when they already know it all?
--
Joe
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-01-09 18:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
How dare you!
I think, from a royal perspective, their marriage has been a mistake. What
could have been a PR success story with the usual "diversity" crowd due to her
being half-caste has descended into a farce. He married an outspoken Feminist
who was already famous as an actress and has a few skeletons in her closet
regarding her relationship with her family, particularly her father. The media
scrutiny and reaction from the public has been less than flattering. It seems
to me that Prince Andrew's indescretions have given them the excuse they were
waiting for.
I wonder whether Her Majesty opposed the marriage due to the aforementioned
issues. That might explain why their decision was not made after consultation
with the Royal Family.
One might ask you the same question so how dare you?

Neither of these two young people are public property they chose to marry as has been the right of countless couples before them and it is no one else's business. Their marriage was a matter for themselves and, to a lesser extent their respective families.
Incubus
2020-01-10 09:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
It's going to be a huge blow for those companies who churn out commemorative
plates for sentimental old biddies. The Royal Mint will have to take up the
slack.
Can't help wondering what their 'carbon footprint' will be, what with
all that jetting back and forth :-) Clearly, their kind of activism is
about clearing the airways (and the roads) so that the elite can have a
loss bothersome travel experience.
How dare you!
I think, from a royal perspective, their marriage has been a mistake. What
could have been a PR success story with the usual "diversity" crowd due to her
being half-caste has descended into a farce. He married an outspoken Feminist
who was already famous as an actress and has a few skeletons in her closet
regarding her relationship with her family, particularly her father. The media
scrutiny and reaction from the public has been less than flattering. It seems
to me that Prince Andrew's indescretions have given them the excuse they were
waiting for.
I wonder whether Her Majesty opposed the marriage due to the aforementioned
issues. That might explain why their decision was not made after consultation
with the Royal Family.
One might ask you the same question so how dare you?
Neither of these two young people are public property they chose to marry as has been the right of countless couples before them and it is no one else's business. Their marriage was a matter for themselves and, to a lesser extent their respective families.
Their marriage is in the public eye, whether you like it or not. I am free to
provide any analysis I wish to make, whether you like it or not. Given that
the taxpayer pays for their security and travel, that also means we have a
right to criticise them, whether you like it or not.

If it makes you feel any better, this is still available to purchase:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Royal-Heritage-Wedding-Commemorative-Multi-Colour/dp/B0788BV28B

What better way to demonstrate your subservience and willingness to be a
peasant?
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-01-10 11:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
How dare you!
I think, from a royal perspective, their marriage has been a mistake. What
could have been a PR success story with the usual "diversity" crowd due to her
being half-caste has descended into a farce. He married an outspoken Feminist
who was already famous as an actress and has a few skeletons in her closet
regarding her relationship with her family, particularly her father. The media
scrutiny and reaction from the public has been less than flattering. It seems
to me that Prince Andrew's indescretions have given them the excuse they were
waiting for.
I wonder whether Her Majesty opposed the marriage due to the aforementioned
issues. That might explain why their decision was not made after consultation
with the Royal Family.
One might ask you the same question so how dare you?
Neither of these two young people are public property they chose to marry as has been the right of countless couples before them and it is no one else's business. Their marriage was a matter for themselves and, to a lesser extent their respective families.
Their marriage is in the public eye, whether you like it or not. I am free to
provide any analysis I wish to make, whether you like it or not. Given that
the taxpayer pays for their security and travel, that also means we have a
right to criticise them, whether you like it or not.
And you pay zero recognisence of the have that people have the general right to marry who they choose without reference to anyone else.

As regards general commemorative paraphernalia commercially produced on these occasions, his will boils down to a breach or non breach of *Crown* (not royal) copyright or patent. It is not as though the individuals concerned actually endorse these products.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom
Incubus
2020-01-10 12:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
How dare you!
I think, from a royal perspective, their marriage has been a mistake. What
could have been a PR success story with the usual "diversity" crowd due to her
being half-caste has descended into a farce. He married an outspoken Feminist
who was already famous as an actress and has a few skeletons in her closet
regarding her relationship with her family, particularly her father. The media
scrutiny and reaction from the public has been less than flattering. It seems
to me that Prince Andrew's indescretions have given them the excuse they were
waiting for.
I wonder whether Her Majesty opposed the marriage due to the aforementioned
issues. That might explain why their decision was not made after consultation
with the Royal Family.
One might ask you the same question so how dare you?
Neither of these two young people are public property they chose to marry as has been the right of countless couples before them and it is no one else's business. Their marriage was a matter for themselves and, to a lesser extent their respective families.
Their marriage is in the public eye, whether you like it or not. I am free to
provide any analysis I wish to make, whether you like it or not. Given that
the taxpayer pays for their security and travel, that also means we have a
right to criticise them, whether you like it or not.
And you pay zero recognisence of the have that people have the general right to marry who they choose without reference to anyone else.
I'm not disputing that. However, when you marry into certain situations, there
are certain expectations. When I visit my in-laws, for example, a certain
standard of table manners that was never taught to me as a child is expected of
me. Certain topics of conversation are not encouraged at the dinner table.
Marrying into the Royal Family, particularly becoming a "senior royal" involves
a lot of protocol and expected behaviour. My issue isn't that she married him;
it is that she married him and completely baulked tradition.

I'm not pro or anti-Royal but if they are to occupy an exalted position, I
certainly don't want them using that position to tell me what to think or how
to behave.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
As regards general commemorative paraphernalia commercially produced on these occasions, his will boils down to a breach or non breach of *Crown* (not royal) copyright or patent. It is not as though the individuals concerned actually endorse these products.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom
Well, I was being rather sarcastic with that reference.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-01-09 18:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
What article?

When are you going to learn?

The Royal family derive their income from the monarch the crown estates which are not owned by the taxpayer and never have been. Prince Harry in common with other members of The Royal Family will receive an allowance from the Royal purse which will reflect his contribution to public life. He will no doubt enjoy an additional allowance from his father who enjoys an income from the Duchy of the second of the two *Crown Estates* that exist in this country and as such are not owned by government or taxpayer Income tax is payable upon the net proceeds of both of these estates.

It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.

It would further appear that the Prince is intent upon creating an independent source of income making him less or totally independent of these royal 'handouts' which he will use as a base for his continued work in the charity and voluntary sector.

He will of course be a wealthy man in his own right.

It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
Farmer Giles
2020-01-09 18:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney
paradise some would have us believe it is.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer.
Not so much
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
What article?
When are you going to learn?
The Royal family derive their income from the monarch the crown
estates which are not owned by the taxpayer and never have been. Prince
Harry in common with other members of The Royal Family will receive an
allowance from the Royal purse which will reflect his contribution to
public life. He will no doubt enjoy an additional allowance from his
father who enjoys an income from the Duchy of the second of the two
*Crown Estates* that exist in this country and as such are not owned by
government or taxpayer Income tax is payable upon the net proceeds of
both of these estates.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an
independent means to support his wife and family.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It would further appear that the Prince is intent upon creating an
independent source of income making him less or totally independent of
these royal 'handouts' which he will use as a base for his continued
work in the charity and voluntary sector.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
He will of course be a wealthy man in his own right.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an
independent means to support his wife and family.
O.B.N. and bar.

The Crown Estate is ours, and the royals cost us a fortune.

The Queen owns the Crown Estate about as much as Boris Johnson owns 10
Downing St.

You disagree? Then tell me when the Royal Family bought it, and from whom?
Incubus
2020-01-10 09:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
What article?
When are you going to learn?
The Royal family derive their income from the monarch the crown estates which are not owned by the taxpayer and never have been. Prince Harry in common with other members of The Royal Family will receive an allowance from the Royal purse which will reflect his contribution to public life. He will no doubt enjoy an additional allowance from his father who enjoys an income from the Duchy of the second of the two *Crown Estates* that exist in this country and as such are not owned by government or taxpayer Income tax is payable upon the net proceeds of both of these estates.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
It would further appear that the Prince is intent upon creating an independent source of income making him less or totally independent of these royal 'handouts' which he will use as a base for his continued work in the charity and voluntary sector.
He will of course be a wealthy man in his own right.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
Meanwhile, their travel and security will be paid for by the taxpayer.

The article is on the Telegraph website.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-01-10 11:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
Meanwhile, their travel and security will be paid for by the taxpayer.
Travel on official /state business only!

Their security is paid for by the same people who pay for both your's and my security. The appropriate Police Authority funded out of taxes. The Royal Family pay their taxes just like anyone else.
Post by Incubus
The article is on the Telegraph website.
Then why didn't you cite it in the time honoured way?
Incubus
2020-01-10 11:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
Meanwhile, their travel and security will be paid for by the taxpayer.
Travel on official /state business only!
Their security is paid for by the same people who pay for both your's and my security. The appropriate Police Authority funded out of taxes. The Royal Family pay their taxes just like anyone else.
I'm not aware that my security costs hundreds of millions of pounds.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
The article is on the Telegraph website.
Then why didn't you cite it in the time honoured way?
It's not difficult to look for yourself but here you go:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/01/08/prince-harry-meghan-choose-brave-new-world-independence-except/
Incubus
2020-01-10 09:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
What article?
When are you going to learn?
The Royal family derive their income from the monarch the crown estates which are not owned by the taxpayer and never have been. Prince Harry in common with other members of The Royal Family will receive an allowance from the Royal purse which will reflect his contribution to public life. He will no doubt enjoy an additional allowance from his father who enjoys an income from the Duchy of the second of the two *Crown Estates* that exist in this country and as such are not owned by government or taxpayer Income tax is payable upon the net proceeds of both of these estates.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
It would further appear that the Prince is intent upon creating an independent source of income making him less or totally independent of these royal 'handouts' which he will use as a base for his continued work in the charity and voluntary sector.
He will of course be a wealthy man in his own right.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
O.B.N. and bar.
The Crown Estate is ours, and the royals cost us a fortune.
The Queen owns the Crown Estate about as much as Boris Johnson owns 10
Downing St.
You disagree? Then tell me when the Royal Family bought it, and from whom?
Who paid for their "cottage" to be refurbished to the tune of millions? Oh yes
- the taxpayer!
Dan S. MacAbre
2020-01-10 10:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
What article?
When are you going to learn?
The Royal family derive their income from the monarch the crown estates which are not owned by the taxpayer and never have been. Prince Harry in common with other members of The Royal Family will receive an allowance from the Royal purse which will reflect his contribution to public life. He will no doubt enjoy an additional allowance from his father who enjoys an income from the Duchy of the second of the two *Crown Estates* that exist in this country and as such are not owned by government or taxpayer Income tax is payable upon the net proceeds of both of these estates.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
It would further appear that the Prince is intent upon creating an independent source of income making him less or totally independent of these royal 'handouts' which he will use as a base for his continued work in the charity and voluntary sector.
He will of course be a wealthy man in his own right.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
O.B.N. and bar.
The Crown Estate is ours, and the royals cost us a fortune.
The Queen owns the Crown Estate about as much as Boris Johnson owns 10
Downing St.
You disagree? Then tell me when the Royal Family bought it, and from whom?
Who paid for their "cottage" to be refurbished to the tune of millions? Oh yes
- the taxpayer!
ISTM that their idea of 'financial independence' is about as genuine as
the whole idea of 'carbon offsetting' :-)
True Blue
2020-01-10 16:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
What article?
When are you going to learn?
The Royal family derive their income from the monarch the crown estates which are not owned by the taxpayer and never have been. Prince Harry in common with other members of The Royal Family will receive an allowance from the Royal purse which will reflect his contribution to public life. He will no doubt enjoy an additional allowance from his father who enjoys an income from the Duchy of the second of the two *Crown Estates* that exist in this country and as such are not owned by government or taxpayer Income tax is payable upon the net proceeds of both of these estates.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
It would further appear that the Prince is intent upon creating an independent source of income making him less or totally independent of these royal 'handouts' which he will use as a base for his continued work in the charity and voluntary sector.
He will of course be a wealthy man in his own right.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
O.B.N. and bar.
The Crown Estate is ours, and the royals cost us a fortune.
The Queen owns the Crown Estate about as much as Boris Johnson owns 10
Downing St.
You disagree? Then tell me when the Royal Family bought it, and from whom?
Who paid for their "cottage" to be refurbished to the tune of millions? Oh yes
- the taxpayer!
ISTM that their idea of 'financial independence' is about as genuine as
the whole idea of 'carbon offsetting' :-)
I think it's do-able for them, but it won't be pretty. I think they could "earn" a living in the same way Harry's Auntie Sarah did, by prostituting themselves to the most gaudy tattle rags in the States. After that it could be product endorsement. It will become interesting when their star fades, as it must, if they choose this course. And then there will be the mess of the divorce, which will come, as sure as the sun rises.

It's nothing new, though. Harry's mother was an unprincipled, scheming thicko, who died whilst cavorting with a sleazy dago, after having that greasy mountebank Hewitt father the boy behind Charles' back.
Incubus
2020-01-10 16:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by True Blue
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
What article?
When are you going to learn?
The Royal family derive their income from the monarch the crown estates which are not owned by the taxpayer and never have been. Prince Harry in common with other members of The Royal Family will receive an allowance from the Royal purse which will reflect his contribution to public life. He will no doubt enjoy an additional allowance from his father who enjoys an income from the Duchy of the second of the two *Crown Estates* that exist in this country and as such are not owned by government or taxpayer Income tax is payable upon the net proceeds of both of these estates.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
It would further appear that the Prince is intent upon creating an independent source of income making him less or totally independent of these royal 'handouts' which he will use as a base for his continued work in the charity and voluntary sector.
He will of course be a wealthy man in his own right.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
O.B.N. and bar.
The Crown Estate is ours, and the royals cost us a fortune.
The Queen owns the Crown Estate about as much as Boris Johnson owns 10
Downing St.
You disagree? Then tell me when the Royal Family bought it, and from whom?
Who paid for their "cottage" to be refurbished to the tune of millions? Oh yes
- the taxpayer!
ISTM that their idea of 'financial independence' is about as genuine as
the whole idea of 'carbon offsetting' :-)
I think it's do-able for them, but it won't be pretty. I think they could "earn" a living in the same way Harry's Auntie Sarah did, by prostituting themselves to the most gaudy tattle rags in the States. After that it could be product endorsement. It will become interesting when their star fades, as it must, if they choose this course. And then there will be the mess of the divorce, which will come, as sure as the sun rises.
It's nothing new, though. Harry's mother was an unprincipled, scheming thicko, who died whilst cavorting with a sleazy dago, after having that greasy mountebank Hewitt father the boy behind Charles' back.
She had such lovely eyeliner, though.
Farmer Giles
2020-01-10 10:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
What article?
When are you going to learn?
The Royal family derive their income from the monarch the crown estates which are not owned by the taxpayer and never have been. Prince Harry in common with other members of The Royal Family will receive an allowance from the Royal purse which will reflect his contribution to public life. He will no doubt enjoy an additional allowance from his father who enjoys an income from the Duchy of the second of the two *Crown Estates* that exist in this country and as such are not owned by government or taxpayer Income tax is payable upon the net proceeds of both of these estates.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
It would further appear that the Prince is intent upon creating an independent source of income making him less or totally independent of these royal 'handouts' which he will use as a base for his continued work in the charity and voluntary sector.
He will of course be a wealthy man in his own right.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
O.B.N. and bar.
The Crown Estate is ours, and the royals cost us a fortune.
The Queen owns the Crown Estate about as much as Boris Johnson owns 10
Downing St.
You disagree? Then tell me when the Royal Family bought it, and from whom?
Who paid for their "cottage" to be refurbished to the tune of millions? Oh yes
- the taxpayer!
Yes, 'cottage' - what a joke, they take us for fools.

What 'cottage' requires £2,500,000 to 'refurbish'?

Could have built twenty houses for that. Parasites the lot of them.
Incubus
2020-01-10 10:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
What article?
When are you going to learn?
The Royal family derive their income from the monarch the crown estates which are not owned by the taxpayer and never have been. Prince Harry in common with other members of The Royal Family will receive an allowance from the Royal purse which will reflect his contribution to public life. He will no doubt enjoy an additional allowance from his father who enjoys an income from the Duchy of the second of the two *Crown Estates* that exist in this country and as such are not owned by government or taxpayer Income tax is payable upon the net proceeds of both of these estates.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
It would further appear that the Prince is intent upon creating an independent source of income making him less or totally independent of these royal 'handouts' which he will use as a base for his continued work in the charity and voluntary sector.
He will of course be a wealthy man in his own right.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
O.B.N. and bar.
The Crown Estate is ours, and the royals cost us a fortune.
The Queen owns the Crown Estate about as much as Boris Johnson owns 10
Downing St.
You disagree? Then tell me when the Royal Family bought it, and from whom?
Who paid for their "cottage" to be refurbished to the tune of millions? Oh yes
- the taxpayer!
Yes, 'cottage' - what a joke, they take us for fools.
What 'cottage' requires £2,500,000 to 'refurbish'?
Could have built twenty houses for that. Parasites the lot of them.
Careful - you'll upset Mel Rowing. If everyone thought that way, there'd be no
limited edition commemmorative plates to collect and he'd have to resort to
buying special edition coins from the Royal Mint.
Farmer Giles
2020-01-10 12:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
What article?
When are you going to learn?
The Royal family derive their income from the monarch the crown estates which are not owned by the taxpayer and never have been. Prince Harry in common with other members of The Royal Family will receive an allowance from the Royal purse which will reflect his contribution to public life. He will no doubt enjoy an additional allowance from his father who enjoys an income from the Duchy of the second of the two *Crown Estates* that exist in this country and as such are not owned by government or taxpayer Income tax is payable upon the net proceeds of both of these estates.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
It would further appear that the Prince is intent upon creating an independent source of income making him less or totally independent of these royal 'handouts' which he will use as a base for his continued work in the charity and voluntary sector.
He will of course be a wealthy man in his own right.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
O.B.N. and bar.
The Crown Estate is ours, and the royals cost us a fortune.
The Queen owns the Crown Estate about as much as Boris Johnson owns 10
Downing St.
You disagree? Then tell me when the Royal Family bought it, and from whom?
Who paid for their "cottage" to be refurbished to the tune of millions? Oh yes
- the taxpayer!
Yes, 'cottage' - what a joke, they take us for fools.
What 'cottage' requires £2,500,000 to 'refurbish'?
Could have built twenty houses for that. Parasites the lot of them.
Careful - you'll upset Mel Rowing.
That's one way that I know for sure I've got things right!

If everyone thought that way, there'd be no
Post by Incubus
limited edition commemmorative plates to collect and he'd have to resort to
buying special edition coins from the Royal Mint.
As someone once said, many moons ago, if it's Her Majesty's this that or
the other then why is it the 'national' debt?
Incubus
2020-01-10 12:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
What article?
When are you going to learn?
The Royal family derive their income from the monarch the crown estates which are not owned by the taxpayer and never have been. Prince Harry in common with other members of The Royal Family will receive an allowance from the Royal purse which will reflect his contribution to public life. He will no doubt enjoy an additional allowance from his father who enjoys an income from the Duchy of the second of the two *Crown Estates* that exist in this country and as such are not owned by government or taxpayer Income tax is payable upon the net proceeds of both of these estates.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
It would further appear that the Prince is intent upon creating an independent source of income making him less or totally independent of these royal 'handouts' which he will use as a base for his continued work in the charity and voluntary sector.
He will of course be a wealthy man in his own right.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
O.B.N. and bar.
The Crown Estate is ours, and the royals cost us a fortune.
The Queen owns the Crown Estate about as much as Boris Johnson owns 10
Downing St.
You disagree? Then tell me when the Royal Family bought it, and from whom?
Who paid for their "cottage" to be refurbished to the tune of millions? Oh yes
- the taxpayer!
Yes, 'cottage' - what a joke, they take us for fools.
What 'cottage' requires £2,500,000 to 'refurbish'?
Could have built twenty houses for that. Parasites the lot of them.
Careful - you'll upset Mel Rowing.
That's one way that I know for sure I've got things right!
If everyone thought that way, there'd be no
Post by Incubus
limited edition commemmorative plates to collect and he'd have to resort to
buying special edition coins from the Royal Mint.
As someone once said, many moons ago, if it's Her Majesty's this that or
the other then why is it the 'national' debt?
It's a bit like "privatise the profits, nationalise the debt".
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-01-10 12:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
What article?
When are you going to learn?
The Royal family derive their income from the monarch the crown estates which are not owned by the taxpayer and never have been. Prince Harry in common with other members of The Royal Family will receive an allowance from the Royal purse which will reflect his contribution to public life. He will no doubt enjoy an additional allowance from his father who enjoys an income from the Duchy of the second of the two *Crown Estates* that exist in this country and as such are not owned by government or taxpayer Income tax is payable upon the net proceeds of both of these estates.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
It would further appear that the Prince is intent upon creating an independent source of income making him less or totally independent of these royal 'handouts' which he will use as a base for his continued work in the charity and voluntary sector.
He will of course be a wealthy man in his own right.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
O.B.N. and bar.
The Crown Estate is ours, and the royals cost us a fortune.
The Queen owns the Crown Estate about as much as Boris Johnson owns 10
Downing St.
You disagree? Then tell me when the Royal Family bought it, and from whom?
Who paid for their "cottage" to be refurbished to the tune of millions? Oh yes
- the taxpayer!
The owner who else? The cottage you refer to is part of the Frogmoor Estate itself part of the Crown Estates which in fact produce a profit for H.M Treasury (the taxpayer) Renovation of the cottage will of course increase the asset value of the cottage Since the cottage is not a public building a rent will be chargeable whether this rent is paid by the couple themselves or by the Queen who I understand gifted the cottage to the couple as a wedding present. This rent will reflect the asset value of the cottage.

Hence by renovating the cottage, the overall value of the Crown Estates will have been increased.

You will not accept that the Crown end the monarchy are separate and independent institutions will you? The Queen is merely the personification of the Crown. This does not mean that she owns it. She cannot sell, give, transfer, bequeath or any way transfer its assets to any other party. When she dies, her successor (presumably the PoW) will enjoy a similar status.

The Crown Estates are administered by Commissioners who report annually to Parliament. They are net contributors to the National Exchequer and have no direct bearing on taxpayers.
Incubus
2020-01-10 12:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise some would have us believe it is.
From the article I read on The Telegraph's website, they still retain their £5m
income, paid travel and security courtesy of the British taxpayer. Not so much
"Let them eat cake!" as "Have your cake for free, and eat it, and the taxpayer
provides you a butler".
What article?
When are you going to learn?
The Royal family derive their income from the monarch the crown estates which are not owned by the taxpayer and never have been. Prince Harry in common with other members of The Royal Family will receive an allowance from the Royal purse which will reflect his contribution to public life. He will no doubt enjoy an additional allowance from his father who enjoys an income from the Duchy of the second of the two *Crown Estates* that exist in this country and as such are not owned by government or taxpayer Income tax is payable upon the net proceeds of both of these estates.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
It would further appear that the Prince is intent upon creating an independent source of income making him less or totally independent of these royal 'handouts' which he will use as a base for his continued work in the charity and voluntary sector.
He will of course be a wealthy man in his own right.
It would appear that he is about to give all this up seeking an independent means to support his wife and family.
O.B.N. and bar.
The Crown Estate is ours, and the royals cost us a fortune.
The Queen owns the Crown Estate about as much as Boris Johnson owns 10
Downing St.
You disagree? Then tell me when the Royal Family bought it, and from whom?
Who paid for their "cottage" to be refurbished to the tune of millions? Oh yes
- the taxpayer!
The owner who else?
Ultimately, the taxpayer. See the article I gave you.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The cottage you refer to is part of the Frogmoor Estate
itself part of the Crown Estates which in fact produce a profit for H.M
Treasury (the taxpayer) Renovation of the cottage will of course increase the
asset value of the cottage Since the cottage is not a public building a rent
will be chargeable whether this rent is paid by the couple themselves or by
the Queen who I understand gifted the cottage to the couple as a wedding
present. This rent will reflect the asset value of the cottage.
There is no rent being paid.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Hence by renovating the cottage, the overall value of the Crown Estates will
have been increased.
What fantastic value for money.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
You will not accept that the Crown end the monarchy are separate and
independent institutions will you? The Queen is merely the personification of
the Crown. This does not mean that she owns it. She cannot sell, give,
transfer, bequeath or any way transfer its assets to any other party. When
she dies, her successor (presumably the PoW) will enjoy a similar status.
The Crown Estates are administered by Commissioners who report annually to
Parliament. They are net contributors to the National Exchequer and have no
direct bearing on taxpayers.
Irrelevant. The renovation costs involved £2.4m directly from public funds.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/06/24/public-paid-24m-renovate-duke-duchess-sussexs-frogmore-cottage/
Roger
2020-01-10 13:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
There is no rent being paid.
Perhaps this is really the fulcrum of the issue. There is no rent being paid because the occupants are full time royals and accomodation goes with the job.

If they want to take a step backwards and be independent then they should be charged rent for the house and that rent will, of course, represent the value after modernisation.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-01-10 16:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Who paid for their "cottage" to be refurbished to the tune of millions? Oh yes
- the taxpayer!
The owner who else?
Ultimately, the taxpayer. See the article I gave you.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The cottage you refer to is part of the Frogmoor Estate
itself part of the Crown Estates which in fact produce a profit for H.M
Treasury (the taxpayer) Renovation of the cottage will of course increase the
asset value of the cottage Since the cottage is not a public building a rent
will be chargeable whether this rent is paid by the couple themselves or by
the Queen who I understand gifted the cottage to the couple as a wedding
present. This rent will reflect the asset value of the cottage.
There is no rent being paid.
You can of course cite this "fact" in your inimitable style.

Of course rent is being paid. Frogmoor is part of the Crown Estate which is run on strictly on commercial grounds. Such a shortfall would be pounced upon by the trusts auditors responsible for the Commission's report
to Parliament.
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Hence by renovating the cottage, the overall value of the Crown Estates will
have been increased.
What fantastic value for money.
Happens up and down the country all the time. Old/neglected/derelict properties are renovated or demolished and replaced with a view towards improving their capital value and hence rental or selling values in search of profit.

Take a look at that 'Homes under the Hammer' series that is broadcast most mornings.

Having decided that the cottage in question would make them a desirable home, the couple would employ architects to put their ideas on paper for planning permissions etc. These plans would then go to the Estate Commissioners who would find out through the usual way what the desired modifications would cost them. This sum would be translated into an increase in the rent demanded.

It would be then back to the couple (or whoever is paying the rent) to decide whether the scheme should go ahead. It has gone ahead and so should the cottage eventually become vacant again (I would assume there would be minimum agreed rental period) then it would be relet or less likely, sold.

The renovation costs should be seen as an investment.
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
You will not accept that the Crown end the monarchy are separate and
independent institutions will you? The Queen is merely the personification of
the Crown. This does not mean that she owns it. She cannot sell, give,
transfer, bequeath or any way transfer its assets to any other party. When
she dies, her successor (presumably the PoW) will enjoy a similar status.
The Crown Estates are administered by Commissioners who report annually to
Parliament. They are net contributors to the National Exchequer and have no
direct bearing on taxpayers.
Irrelevant. The renovation costs involved £2.4m directly from public funds.
Which public funds?
Post by Incubus
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/06/24/public-paid-24m-renovate-duke-duchess-sussexs-frogmore-cottage/
"The cottage has been remodelled from five separate living quarters into one large official residence for the couple and their son Archie, paid for largely by the Sovereign Grant."

The term 'Public Funds' is usually taken to mean the proceeds from taxation.

The sovereigns Grant has nothing to do with taxation. It is derived as I have already told you, from the proceeds of the Duchy of Lancaster which holds vast land holdings which go back centuries.

It looks like H.M is footing the bill.
Incubus
2020-01-10 16:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Who paid for their "cottage" to be refurbished to the tune of millions? Oh yes
- the taxpayer!
The owner who else?
Ultimately, the taxpayer. See the article I gave you.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The cottage you refer to is part of the Frogmoor Estate
itself part of the Crown Estates which in fact produce a profit for H.M
Treasury (the taxpayer) Renovation of the cottage will of course increase the
asset value of the cottage Since the cottage is not a public building a rent
will be chargeable whether this rent is paid by the couple themselves or by
the Queen who I understand gifted the cottage to the couple as a wedding
present. This rent will reflect the asset value of the cottage.
There is no rent being paid.
You can of course cite this "fact" in your inimitable style.
It's in the article I have you.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Of course rent is being paid. Frogmoor is part of the Crown Estate which is run on strictly on commercial grounds. Such a shortfall would be pounced upon by the trusts auditors responsible for the Commission's report
to Parliament.
Harry and Meghan pay no rent for Frogmoor.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Hence by renovating the cottage, the overall value of the Crown Estates will
have been increased.
What fantastic value for money.
Happens up and down the country all the time. Old/neglected/derelict properties are renovated or demolished and replaced with a view towards improving their capital value and hence rental or selling values in search of profit.
That's something one expects private investors to pay for, not the taxpayer.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Take a look at that 'Homes under the Hammer' series that is broadcast most mornings.
Having decided that the cottage in question would make them a desirable home, the couple would employ architects to put their ideas on paper for planning permissions etc. These plans would then go to the Estate Commissioners who would find out through the usual way what the desired modifications would cost them. This sum would be translated into an increase in the rent demanded.
It would be then back to the couple (or whoever is paying the rent) to decide whether the scheme should go ahead. It has gone ahead and so should the cottage eventually become vacant again (I would assume there would be minimum agreed rental period) then it would be relet or less likely, sold.
The renovation costs should be seen as an investment.
Oh - will we be receiving the dividends?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Incubus
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
You will not accept that the Crown end the monarchy are separate and
independent institutions will you? The Queen is merely the personification of
the Crown. This does not mean that she owns it. She cannot sell, give,
transfer, bequeath or any way transfer its assets to any other party. When
she dies, her successor (presumably the PoW) will enjoy a similar status.
The Crown Estates are administered by Commissioners who report annually to
Parliament. They are net contributors to the National Exchequer and have no
direct bearing on taxpayers.
Irrelevant. The renovation costs involved £2.4m directly from public funds.
Which public funds?
Post by Incubus
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/06/24/public-paid-24m-renovate-duke-duchess-sussexs-frogmore-cottage/
"The cottage has been remodelled from five separate living quarters into one large official residence for the couple and their son Archie, paid for largely by the Sovereign Grant."
The term 'Public Funds' is usually taken to mean the proceeds from taxation.
The sovereigns Grant has nothing to do with taxation. It is derived as I have already told you, from the proceeds of the Duchy of Lancaster which holds vast land holdings which go back centuries.
It looks like H.M is footing the bill.
£67m total, out of which £2.4m came from the taxpayer.

It's all in the article. As I said, the renovation costs involved £2.4m
directly from public funds.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-01-10 21:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
It's all in the article. As I said, the renovation costs involved £2.4m
directly from public funds.
The article is rubbish in that is confuses terms.

Just one instance, it says:

"A report, published by Buckingham Palace, disclosed the total Sovereign Grant for 2018/9 was £82.2m: equivalent to £1.24 per person in the UK."

But there is no equivalence since the Duchy of Lancaster, the sole source of the queens income is self funding. It runs at a profit which goes direct to the treasury. Every person in the UK simply does not contribute £1.24 of their taxation whether direct or indirect ito the Duchy of Lancaster and hence to the Sovereign Grant the queen's sole source of income (excluding her private investments which of course are secret) The Duchy creates so much income that it literally gives it away to the state which means all of us. It doesn't need taxpayer help.
Farmer Giles
2020-01-10 21:54:49 UTC
Permalink
The monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are
usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend.

Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as
head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list
payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property
maintenance, communications and other expenses.

All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment
called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 25% of surplus
revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio -
resulting in a payment of £76.1m for 2017/2018.

However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the
monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the
metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are
borne by local councils.

Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall
– despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and
Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions
of pounds every year.

When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the
monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £345m annually.
Keema's Nan
2020-01-13 09:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
The monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are
usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend.
Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as
head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list
payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property
maintenance, communications and other expenses.
All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment
called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 25% of surplus
revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio -
resulting in a payment of £76.1m for 2017/2018.
However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the
monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the
metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are
borne by local councils.
Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall
– despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and
Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions
of pounds every year.
When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the
monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £345m annually.
It appears that Megan has buggered off to North America, but at least she had
the good manners not to have killed an innocent motorcyclist before she did
so.
Ned Latham
2020-01-13 09:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Keema's Nan wrote:

----snip----
Post by Keema's Nan
It appears that Megan has buggered off to North America, but at least
she had the good manners not to have killed an innocent motorcyclist
before she did so.
Didn't try very hard, did she?
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-01-13 10:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
It appears that Megan has buggered off to North America, but at least she had
the good manners not to have killed an innocent motorcyclist before she did
so.
And what has this to do with the price of eggs?

A totally unrelated incident. What contribution does this intervention make?
Keema's Nan
2020-01-13 10:40:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
It appears that Megan has buggered off to North America, but at least she had
the good manners not to have killed an innocent motorcyclist before she did
so.
And what has this to do with the price of eggs?
A totally unrelated incident. What contribution does this intervention make?
Go back to bed.

It was meant as sarcasm, and therefore miles above your head.

Sweet dreams.....
abelard
2020-01-13 10:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
It appears that Megan has buggered off to North America, but at least she had
the good manners not to have killed an innocent motorcyclist before she did
so.
And what has this to do with the price of eggs?
A totally unrelated incident. What contribution does this intervention make?
it certainly amused me

which is purpose enough!
--
www.abelard.org
Roger
2020-01-13 10:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
The monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are
usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend.
Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as
head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list
payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property
maintenance, communications and other expenses.
All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment
called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 25% of surplus
revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio -
resulting in a payment of £76.1m for 2017/2018.
However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the
monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the
metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are
borne by local councils.
Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall
– despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and
Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions
of pounds every year.
When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the
monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £345m annually.
For what it's worth the Italian President's Office and related palaces cost the Italian taxpayer €670M / anno.
CheeseySock
2020-01-10 20:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Perhaps being a member of the Royal Family is not the Disney paradise
some would have us believe it is.
its a media spectacular!
Loading...