Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
GHScorpiosRule

The Royals: All the People Who Unironically Wear Robes and Crowns

Recommended Posts

Harry has always seemed very close to his grandparents, so it's sad to me that he's opting to live far from them when they have very little time left.  No one would be surprised if Philip died tomorrow,  and I'm sure the tabloids have stories ready to go about how the stress & sorrow inflicted by Harry is what killed him.  Harry and William's issues also make me very sad.  They were so close, even more so after losing their mother, and it's too bad that seems to be gone.  

They won't ever escape from the press.  It's just impossible in their situation, especially when I expect that they will be back regularly for weddings, funerals, and possibly some public events such as Remembrance Day, Trooping the Colour, and the like.  I know some stories are comparing them to the Duke & Duchess of Windsor, but I see parallels to Jackie Kennedy.  Her marriage to Aristotle Onassis was viewed by a lot of Americans as some type of betrayal, but I've always thought she married him for security (financial and otherwise) and as way to get herself and her children a safe haven.  But the marriage and her subsequent life only amplified the interest in her.  Someone in Harry's position - grandson of the current monarch, son of the next, only sibling of the one after that - can't fade away.  

Balmoral and Sandringham did become an issue when Edward abdicated, since he inherited them from his father and they were his property, not the Crown's.  Their purchase by George VI became part of the financial settlement made with the Duke of Windsor.  I suspect he always felt he didn't get enough for them!  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

29 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

William will be the next Duke of Cornwall when Charles becomes king and then George.   The Prince of Wales title may be conferred to him since it is his right, but I don't know if Charles will do it.  He is pushing 40, and it is not necessary.  Or the ceremony will be very lowkey to keep costs down.   The income from the duchy passes to William at this point.

 

The inheritance thing is trickier.  I am not a lawyer,  nor am I I British,  so I can be wrong here.  Elizabeth will have personal money and possession that she can leave her descendants.  And then there's the property of the crown that goes to Charles.  Some of the royal residences like Balmoral and Sandringham are family owned and theoretically hers to dispose of as she wishes.  That being said I would be shocked if she did not leave all of them to Charles.  Her grandfather did not separate them in his will, so I can't see Elizabeth doing anything differently.   

You're right about Balmoral and Sandringham, the Queen is probably going to continue the tradition of keeping those in the control of the ruling monarch, I corrected my post above.  I expect that she will also anticipate that Charles will give the rest of the family rather open access to those properties for vacations and holidays as they desire just as she has.

The Queen, for better or worse, is very tradition-minded and I expect her will will reflect that.  The woman has been a pillar of stability which can be a good thing.  However, as this latest situation has shown, it can also be a curse.  More than 20 years ago, she completely misjudged the situation when Diana died.  Similarly, she didn't step in and get ahead of the scandal which had been brewing for years with Andrew.  Now, she failed to understand just how toxic the current Palace relationship with the media, especially the Royal rota, is and Harry had to blow the thing up.  The fact is, the tabloid media have been eating the Royal family alive for years and very little has been done about it.  The media needs the royals just as much as the royals need them.  Too bad this probably won't lead to changes and a modernization in the way the Palace handles public relations.  They need to get some media savvy people on the payroll ASAP.

Edited by doodlebug
  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, kassygreene said:

if Charlotte had been born before her brother she also wouldn't have Cornwall when her father became King (although her younger brother probably would have been - weird).

 

I don't think that's true.  The Duke of Cornwall title (and the Duchy income that goes with it) is designed to always be available for the male heir by virtue of the fact that it's constantly merging with the crown when its holder becomes King.  If Charlotte had been born first and the title was given to her younger brother, then it would only be available for her own son if her brother died (and that's assuming the brother didn't have a son of his own).

Edit:  According to Wikipedia the title "can only be held by the oldest living son of the monarch who is also heir apparent."

Edited by Steph J
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Steph J said:

 

It's not up to her.  The heir automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall as long as he's male.  Apparently if the heir is female then the title just sits idle.

Charles became Duke of Cornwall immediately upon Elizabeth becoming Queen in 1952.  He only became Prince of Wales after (he was named Prince of Wales in 1958 and invested with the title in 1969).

I was reading on the Duchy of Cornwall website that Charles’s did not become entitled to the full income until he turned 21. I wonder how the income was handled for the 17 years between him becoming Duke of Cornwall and taking full control. Also Wikipedia says that Charles was proclaimed the Duke of Cornwall in 1973. Does anyone know what that’s about?

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

When Charles becomes King, William becomes Duke of Cornwall and has access to the income from that duchy.   He only becomes Prince of Wales if his father so designates it.   I don't see why he wouldn't.    Since William has an assured income, Harry probably will get more than his brother when Charles passes.    

It’s interesting that it’s possible to be the Prince of Wales but not the Duke of Cornwall. 

1 hour ago, kassygreene said:

The Duchy of Cornwall goes to the eldest son of the reigning monarch; daughters cannot inherit it, and when there is no son the income etc reverts to the crown.  So Princess Elizabeth was not the Duke of Cornwall, and if Charlotte had been born before her brother she also wouldn't have Cornwall when her father became King (although her younger brother probably would have been - weird).

Only a heir apparent can be the Duke of Cornwall. If Charlotte had been born first there would be no Duke of Cornwall in her generation (unless she became Queen without a male heir apparent and the title was held by the Crown). 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Dani said:

I was reading on the Duchy of Cornwall website that Charles’s did not become entitled to the full income until he turned 21. I wonder how the income was handled during the previous 17 years. Also Wikipedia says that Charles was proclaimed the Duke of Cornwall in 1973. Does anyone know what that’s about?

Can you point me to where it says that?

His personal page says: "The death of his grandfather and the accession of his mother as Queen Elizabeth II in 1952 made Charles her heir apparent. As the monarch's eldest son, he automatically took the titles Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland" and his Titles page lists his title as HRH The Duke of Cornwall from 1952 to now.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Steph J said:

Can you point me to where it says that?

His personal page says: "The death of his grandfather and the accession of his mother as Queen Elizabeth II in 1952 made Charles her heir apparent. As the monarch's eldest son, he automatically took the titles Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland" and his Titles page lists his title as HRH The Duke of Cornwall from 1952 to now.

It’s on the Wikipedia page for the Duke of Cornwall.   I did a quick google search but couldn’t find anything to support it but it seems like such a weird thing to be made up. Maybe it’s a typo and it should by 1953 to match The Queen’s coronation. 

Quote

The current Duke of Cornwall is Charles, Prince of Wales, eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II, the reigning monarch. Charles was officially proclaimed Duke of Cornwall at Launceston Castle in 1973.

 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think the clue is in the Wiki verbiage. Charles had the title since he was 5, but there was an official ceremony for him in 1973 at Launceston Castle. 

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

I think the clue is in the Wiki verbiage. Charles had the title since he was 5, but there was an official ceremony for him in 1973 at Launceston Castle. 

You’re right. I found a few sites that refer to the 1973 ceremony. Apparently the official ceremony is where he is presented with feudal dues and every Duke of Cornwall has had a ceremony at Launceston Castle. 

  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Dani said:

It’s interesting that it’s possible to be the Prince of Wales but not the Duke of Cornwall. 

Other way around.    William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall.   He won't necessarily become Prince of Wales.   Princes of Wales must be conferred by the sovereign, the Duke title is inherited.

Just now, merylinkid said:

Other way around.    William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall.   He won't necessarily become Prince of Wales.   Princes of Wales must be conferred by the sovereign, the Duke title is inherited.

Oh and they need to change the entailment on the Duchy of Cornwall so the heir apparent -- REGARDLESS OF GENDER -- can inherit.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Other way around.    William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall.   He won't necessarily become Prince of Wales.   Princes of Wales must be conferred by the sovereign, the Duke title is inherited.

No it’s also possible to be Prince of Wales and not Duke of Cornwall. It can happen when the heir apparent isn’t the son of the Monarch. George III became The Prince of Wales shortly after his father died but he couldn’t be The Duke of Cornwall because his grandfather was King. 

So there is a very unlikely scenario where William (or George) could be The Prince of Wales but not be The Duke of Cornwall. 

Edited by Dani
  • Like 1
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Zella said:

Yes, you're probably right on that about nobody within the family wanting them to lose the security detail and understandably so. But I've also seen discussion of Canadian taxpayers footing the bill if they relocate there, and that would be yet another PR debacle centered around the idea of being financially independent but not. 

Does any part of Canadian taxes go to the UK? I’ve seen speculation about Harry and Meghan possibly depending on Canadian taxpayer dollars, but I’m not really sure why they would be simply by virtue of relocating there.

Share this post


Link to post

18 minutes ago, bijoux said:

Does any part of Canadian taxes go to the UK? I’ve seen speculation about Harry and Meghan possibly depending on Canadian taxpayer dollars, but I’m not really sure why they would be simply by virtue of relocating there.

I have no clue about Canadian taxes, but my understanding is that Commonwealth countries foot the bill when royals are on their soil, so RCMP provides security for the royal family when they are in Canada, and that comes out of the RCMP's own budget. 

This article includes quotes from current and former RCMP officers about it:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/6393526/meghan-markle-prince-harry-canada-taxpayer-cost/amp/

Edited by Zella
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bijoux said:

Does any part of Canadian taxes go to the UK? I’ve seen speculation about Harry and Meghan possibly depending on Canadian taxpayer dollars, but I’m not really sure why they would be simply by virtue of relocating there.

No, the taxes Canadians pay go to their own country.

The tax question concerns security - in the article quoted above, it says that the RCMP provides (and pays) for the security of visiting royals on tour. The issue now is that if they decide to spend lengthy amounts of time in Canada, should the RCMP still be footing the bill? Royal visits are usually just a few days, maybe a week or so. It'll be viewed (and should be viewed) much differently if they have to cover royals that are camped on Canadian soil for weeks/months at a time.

The other option is the Metropolitan Police, who act as their security now. But the Met only provides 24/7 protection to senior royals (others get protection only when they are on official engagements), which would not apply to the Sussexes if their plan to step back goes through. The Met and Home Office have already spent this past decade slicing and dicing the security budget, which is why you have Andrew paying for his daughters's security and the Wessexes not having 24/7 protection, so I don't think they are eager to take up the added costs (and burden) of protecting no-longer-senior royals during lengthy stays abroad, especially if they are not carrying out official duties.

Of course, Charles could pull an Andrew and just pay for their protection. Or they could pay the difference, if they keep it despite their demotion. I know they're rich, but (like others have pointed out) I don't know if they're the type of rich that can afford those security costs.

 

Edited by Luciano
  • Like 3
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, bijoux said:

Does any part of Canadian taxes go to the UK? I’ve seen speculation about Harry and Meghan possibly depending on Canadian taxpayer dollars, but I’m not really sure why they would be simply by virtue of relocating there.

No taxes go to the UK but there is still a strong connection and I can see a lot of positive public reaction to having Harry and Meghan locate themselves here.  In the "olden days" likely they would have made Harry the Governor General of Canada which would have nicely resolved where they would be living. 

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ParadoxLost said:

I don't think they are operating under any assumption that tabloid interest will die down.  I'm sure they know it will get even worse from GB.  

But the part being somewhat ignored in most of the discussion I've seen is that there is a huge difference between being the target of tabloids and being forced to give those same tabloids exclusive access to your family and work so they can make a shit ton of money while they drag you through seven levels of hell.

They are taking back their ability to say no.  That they can post their own candid photos to social media and they can pick "friendly" media to do their PR with.  And in doing that, they can "punish" the worse of the lot instead of lining their pockets.  And I think that not being forced to deal with the tabloids that are pervasively vile about them in their reporting gives them an ability to tune them out that they don't have the ability to do working inside the Royal Rota.  And if things get too bad, they can go to NA or a charity trip without having the problem tag along with them for interviews.

Also, for all the bad press coming out of GB, the North America press is going to be, for the most part, friendly to them because they just opened up a revenue stream.  They are no longer stuck waiting for whatever the rota passes on.  They can get exclusives with H&M themselves now.  They are going to lobby for that and editorial opinions will be shaped by that.

 

I think you’re spot on with this. I had no idea about the Royal Rota until their announcement was made, and I found it outrageous that they had to continue to court the very media that spewed so much visceral and lies about them, specifically Meghan due to some antiquated system that’s been in place for nearly half a century. No wonder the tabloids are out of control over there if they know no matter what they do or say the royal family will still give them exclusive access to their lives etc.  

Again, good for Harry (and Meghan) for saying enough is enough. 
 

26 minutes ago, Miss Dee said:

I don't normally weigh in on royal matters, but: if I were a billionaire, then even if my son and his spouse/kid was leaving the family business and was cut off from the family money/perks as a result, the one thing I would insist upon paying for (assuming we're famous and media darlings/sacrificial lambs) is top security, for no other reason than he's my son and they're my family.

I really think the media and some of us royal watchers have speculated to the extreme on this. There’s no way in hell Charles is not going to, at the very least, keep paying for security for Harry and Meghan. Considering what happened to Diana, just no way. And Harry won’t reject it because his top priority is not only the mental health of his wife (and himself), but her and his child’s safety. 

Finance wise, I think the most they’ll have to worry about is paying for a home and other basic fundamentals of living. As already been stated this change will be most dramatic for Harry since he’s been living like a Prince his whole life. 

 

Edited by Enero
  • Like 23

Share this post


Link to post

11 minutes ago, Enero said:

I really think the media and some of us royal watchers have speculated to the extreme on this. There’s no way in hell Charles is not going to, at the very least, keep paying for security for Harry and Meghan. Considering what happened to Diana, just no way. And Harry won’t reject it because his top priority is not only the mental health of his wife (and himself), but her and his child’s safety. 

Finance wise, I think the most they’ll have to worry about is paying for a home and other basic fundamentals of living. As already been stated this change will be most dramatic for Harry since he’s been living like a Prince his whole life. 

Yes of course. Harry is Charles’ son and he loves him- even if he was angry and disappointed at this (I don’t think he is, he’s wanted to trim the senior royal family down, and with William having 3 kids of his own Harry won’t be needed in the line of succession), he would want his son and grandson to be safe. 
 

2020 is a far different time than when Charles was a young man- with cell phones, camera phones, social media etc the stalkers have more opportunities. No doubt he wants his son to be protected. 

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post

I am so happy to hear that Harry, Meghan and Archie are trying to break free from all the negative energy that comes from being a royal.

They killed his mother and have chewed Meghan to pieces!

I keep thinking of Forrest Gump...run Forrest run!  Run Harry run!!!

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone know if Canada has the same policy as the UK in terms of photos of minors?  In the UK the only time pictures of the royal kids have been in the press have been when they have been part of an official function - arrival ceremonies at airports, on the balcony, going to church, etc.  The press can report that George went with Grandma Carole to the village fete but there are no pictures.  If Canada doesn't have this policy, there might be a lot more pictures of Archie in the future than there would be if H&M stayed in the UK.  Think about George - after the pictures/videos from the trip to Australia when he was 8/9 months old, there was nothing other than pictures released by his parents for his 1st birthday and Christmas until he appeared in public the day Charlotte was born.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's been mentioned that H&M have trademarked a bunch of things, which is being interpreted as their intent to monetize their royal connections but trademarking is also used by companies and celebrities as a defensive measure to keep other people from making money off them.  Which is only smart and all things considered, probably a necessity. 

Honestly though, as an American I don't have any interest in who pays for what. (I can see why the Brits do.) Harry is always going to be grandson/son/brother/uncle to the monarch, so security needs and other expenses are never going to completely go away. PC can afford to subsidize it. 

I am interested in seeing if H&M can pull off a life contributing through their charities and other ventures while staying sane and maybe  even a little happy.         

  • Like 23

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calvada said:

Does anyone know if Canada has the same policy as the UK in terms of photos of minors?  In the UK the only time pictures of the royal kids have been in the press have been when they have been part of an official function - arrival ceremonies at airports, on the balcony, going to church, etc.  The press can report that George went with Grandma Carole to the village fete but there are no pictures.  If Canada doesn't have this policy, there might be a lot more pictures of Archie in the future than there would be if H&M stayed in the UK.  Think about George - after the pictures/videos from the trip to Australia when he was 8/9 months old, there was nothing other than pictures released by his parents for his 1st birthday and Christmas until he appeared in public the day Charlotte was born.  

I don’t think Canada has a law about photos of minors but it doesn’t seem to be much of an issue there because they don’t have the same type of tabloid press. Canada’s libel laws are stricter and publications being sued are required to prove what the print is true.

If they pick the right location they probably can have a significant degree of privacy after the hoopla dies down. There might be occasional pictures but it’s probably not worth the expense to chase one couple.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, tessaray said:

It's been mentioned that H&M have trademarked a bunch of things, which is being interpreted as their intent to monetize their royal connections but trademarking is also used by companies and celebrities as a defensive measure to keep other people from making money off them.  Which is only smart and all things considered, probably a necessity. 

Honestly though, as an American I don't have any interest in who pays for what. (I can see why the Brits do.) Harry is always going to be grandson/son/brother/uncle to the monarch, so security needs and other expenses are never going to completely go away. PC can afford to subsidize it. 

I am interested in seeing if H&M can pull off a life contributing through their charities and other ventures while staying sane and maybe  even a little happy.         

I believe I read somewhere that William and Kate did the same with their title.  It is a sound business practice that is commonly done.  But, if Meghan does want to revive her lifestyle brand, I would not blame her.  She does have a nice aesthetic that I can see many women wanting to emulate.  And if anyone can give Gwyneth and Goop a run for their money, Meghan can, and should.  

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently some Canadians are really mad about this article today.  LOL.

New York Times World

@nytimesworld

Many Canadians are giddy at the prospect that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle could be moving to Canada, injecting some razzle dazzle to the sprawling, bone-chillingly cold country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/11/world/canada/harry-meghan-royal-family.html?smid=tw-nytimesworld&smtyp=cur

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Apparently some Canadians are really mad about this article today.  LOL.

New York Times World

@nytimesworld

Many Canadians are giddy at the prospect that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle could be moving to Canada, injecting some razzle dazzle to the sprawling, bone-chillingly cold country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/11/world/canada/harry-meghan-royal-family.html?smid=tw-nytimesworld&smtyp=cur

57 Canadians were killed in a plane crash. We definitely have more pressing matters on our minds. (This is not to say that we can't think about and/or care about both.) Also, "bone-chillingly cold" is hysterical given that many major Canadian cities are currently warmer than places in the continental US.

  • Like 13
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post

The initial report is from The Times (UK), and the deal was purportedly a charity donation in exchange for voiceover work that was completed before their Christmas break. 

Edited by Dejana
  • Like 5
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I believe I read somewhere that William and Kate did the same with their title.  It is a sound business practice that is commonly done.  But, if Meghan does want to revive her lifestyle brand, I would not blame her.  She does have a nice aesthetic that I can see many women wanting to emulate.  And if anyone can give Gwyneth and Goop a run for their money, Meghan can, and should.  

I'm all for anyone dethroning the atrocity that is Goop! 😂

On a more serious note, Meghan does seem to have an aesthetic that blends modern and classy well, so yes, I can so her doing this well.

  • Like 10
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, RunningMarket said:

 Also, "bone-chillingly cold" is hysterical given that many major Canadian cities are currently warmer than places in the continental US.

Yes it is. International Falls, Minnesota tends to be one of the coldest even beating out Alaska at times. My dad grew up in Minnesota and had family that moved across the border into Canada they tease each other back and forth over the cold weather who had it colder or warmer, who had more or less snow then each other. Their Canadian family calling to tease and brag when it was warmer then Minnesota and visa versa when Minnesota was warmer then where they were at in Canada. 'What you have how many feet of snow? we've got none'. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

It's interesting that the last news item before this was the photo of the queen with the three future kings -- the next 100+ years of the monarchy.

Except I wouldn't be shocked if it fell apart altogether. Charles has some things he'd like to accomplish as sovereign but I'm not sure William is all in, given a choice.

Perhaps it would have happened anyway, but I see the beginnings of the change in the monarchy starting with Diana and her determination to expose her sons to the "regular" world. Then of course her paparazzi-plagued life and death helped both boys develop an implacable hatred of the more sensationalist elements of the press.

My guess is that the abrupt announcement from H&M was done to both get ahead of leaks and force the palace's hand because internal discussions had dragged on too long.

It does seem like this is a compromise decision and that H&M would be glad to leave entirely, except that Harry still feels a sense of duty to the queen and his charities and causes. I'm afraid him trying to walk a 50/50 line will end up pleasing no one, however.

Edited by 2727
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Sew Sumi said:

Question for the experts: Charles was already POW. 

Prisoner of War?

Share this post


Link to post

Of course

Thomas Markle Is ‘Disappointed’ After Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan Announce They Will ‘Step Back’ From the Royal Family

Quote

“I’ll just simply say I’m disappointed,” the retired lighting director, 74, told Us Weekly exclusively just hours after Harry, 35, and Meghan, 38, made their shocking announcement on Wednesday, January 8.

Samantha Markle Slams Duchess Meghan: “It Is a Slap in the Face”

Quote

Speaking to Inside Edition, Samantha said, “It is a slap in the face. I think what is shocking is the lack of consideration for the people involved, the British royal family, the promises that were originally made to honor royal duties and to lead by example.”

I bet Samantha is hoping this gets her off of the "fixated persons" list.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post

I wondered when they'd weigh in.  Of course there was no if about it.  Always when.  No one cares what you think Markles!

Edited by PennyPlain
  • Like 20

Share this post


Link to post

If anyone here has a subscription to The London Times, there is a story published with a Sunday (of course) dateline that I would love to read, but am too cheap to subscribe.

Paywalls!  Aargh!

The headline, and I'm paraphrasing:  Wills:  I've had my arm around him all my life.  I can't do it any more".  I'm sure there are contextual nuances that I couldn't read.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

So I can't find it now but people experiencing homelessness are referred to sleeping rough/rough sleepers in the UK. 

I've spent the day catching up on all the news. I give it 5 years before the Sussexes pull a Sophie Wessex or Fergie oopsie. The British Royal Family isn't exactly known for training their members on how to handle life outside of the Firm. Now that it's rumored to be a "Get it done immediately" deal I figure it will be like how the family handles everything, just a measly attempt that satisfies no one. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The Markles statements are hysterically funny, coming from people who have all divorced multiple times, and have no room to talk about lying or making promises.    That's pretty funny that Markle senior who has been called a deadbeat parent by the first wife, is talking about keeping promises.     Don't get me started on Samantha who claims to have virtually raised Meghan, and the truth is said to be very different, and they barely knew each other.     Anything that keeps that pack of jackals in the news, and makes a payday possible is all they want.      I'm hoping that Great Britain keeps Samantha on the fixated persons list, and adds the rest of the clan, and I hope Canada has something equivalent, or bans the whole bunch from coming in the country.     

Whatever happens, I hope Harry and Meghan are happy, healthy, and good parents, and live the best life they can.     

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

If anyone here has a subscription to The London Times, there is a story published with a Sunday (of course) dateline that I would love to read, but am too cheap to subscribe.

Paywalls!  Aargh!

The headline, and I'm paraphrasing:  Wills:  I've had my arm around him all my life.  I can't do it any more".  I'm sure there are contextual nuances that I couldn't read.

Regarding the bolded: This doesn’t necessarily work with everything behind a paywall, but you can read at least some things if you set your browser to Private, Incognito, or whatever synonym they use for private browsing. Then enter the URL for the article or whatever it is. I got blocked from reading a certain Twitter account through what I believe is a misunderstanding, but if I use that method above I can still read it. However, though I’ve tried multiple browsers, I can’t read paywalled articles from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser about my favorite TV show, Hawaii Five-0; I can just read the weekly blog about the episodes & the show, which isn’t behind their paywall.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, PikaScrewChu said:

So I can't find it now but people experiencing homelessness are referred to sleeping rough/rough sleepers in the UK.

I've spent the day catching up on all the news. I give it 5 years before the Sussexes pull a Sophie Wessex or Fergie oopsie. The British Royal Family isn't exactly known for training their members on how to handle life outside of the Firm. Now that it's rumored to be a "Get it done immediately" deal I figure it will be like how the family handles everything, just a measly attempt that satisfies no one. 

Regarding the bolded: I used the “sleeping rough” phrase in another post further upthread. I got it from Prince William, who used it during a sort of interview/chat with legendary British TV Cooking Show Hostess Mary Berry, when he & his wife Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, were the guests on her recent BBC Christmas Special.

They began talking about how his (& Harry’s) late mother, Diana, would take them to various places, where they might experience things that weren’t normally among those which a British Royal might have/have had before Diana joined the family; & how she did that so that both her children would realize that many people outside their palaces’ & castles’ gates lived vastly different lives than they were lucky enough to live.

Mary Berry asked if William talked to his kids about those kinds of things like his mother talked to him (& Harry) about them. He said yes; like when he takes them (George & Charlotte) to school, his kids may see someone sleeping rough on the streets (a homeless person, in UK English) & ask about it, so he’ll talk to them/they’ll talk about the situation.

I tried to Google that individual clip from the Mary Berry special & couldn’t find it. But I did find entries for items about Prince William, & his wife Catherine, “sleeping rough” on the streets as part of fundraising events for homeless-related charities 1 is or both are Royal Patrons of. Prince William seems to have done this multiple times, Catherine at least once. I don’t know how recently.

Edited by BW Manilowe · Reason: To add comments.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, RunningMarket said:

57 Canadians were killed in a plane crash. We definitely have more pressing matters on our minds. (This is not to say that we can't think about and/or care about both.) Also, "bone-chillingly cold" is hysterical given that many major Canadian cities are currently warmer than places in the continental US.

57 citizens but 136 people traveling to Canada when you add in the permanent residents and students. People are in shock and mourning. The condescending tone of the article was particularly annoying given how the shooting came about.

A good reply:

I think most Canadians are pretty chill about the idea of the Sussexes living in Canada.  There is a good sense of being able to separate the ceremonial from the political.

Edited by statsgirl
  • Like 7
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post

I have never been a fan of Meghan's, but haven't been very critical because of the appalling treatment of her by the tabloids.  So much racist, sexist mouth-foaming vitriol that I never wanted to pile on.  However, I find this move by Harry and Meghan to be truly awful.  I can understand the need to find a way to deal with the negative aspect of their lives, but it appears that they want to be free of the responsibilities of the job, but nowhere do I see anything about living a simpler life that they can fund for themselves.

By the standards of ordinary people, they are very rich, but to maintain their current standard of living would likely soon bankrupt them.  No more taxpayer money should go to them.  The talk of becoming able to support themselves independently would seem to require them to do things that I would find unseemly.  The world does not need another Kardashian type family.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Suzn said:

I have never been a fan of Meghan's, but haven't been very critical because of the appalling treatment of her by the tabloids. By the standards of ordinary people, they are very rich, but to maintain their current standard of living would likely soon bankrupt them.  No more taxpayer money should go to them.  The talk of becoming able to support themselves independently would seem to require them to do things that I would find unseemly.  The world does not need another Kardashian type family.

Harry is not ‘ordinary’, he’s the son of a billionaire whose father has always provided for his expenses, allowing him to live well above the level that his own substantial fortune would allow.  When he speaks of becoming financially independent, he’s referring to the income he receives for being a working royal from the Sovereign Grant which was only around 5% of his income anyway.  Like a lot of children of billionaires, his father will undoubtedly continue to support him.

There is no chance that Harry and Meghan are going to sink to Kardashianesque levels, but they may well accept payment for giving speeches or other public appearances which they could not have done while being full time royals, but they’re not going to do stuff that would be demeaning to the monarchy.  There won’t be any tell all’s; I expect them to never discuss the current situation in any depth; they’ll have a couple of stock meaningless phrases they’ll utter and then on to other things.

  • Like 20

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Brookside said:

Prisoner of War?

That was what first popped to my mind as well, but no, Prince of Wales. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

 There is a bigger chance they will be left alone as long as they live quietly (for incredibly rich people).

Exactly.  From what I understand they've been staying with the Mulroney's.  Because of the Royal Wedding  I know which Mulroney they mean but I couldn't tell you where they live - and don't really care.  Being rich and well known in Canada doesn't automatically mean you are being dogged by the media 24/7 and everyone assumes they have a right to be privy to every detail of your life.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

I know the Swedish royal house doesn't have the same meaning to Americans as the British one does, but Princess Madeleine, daughter of King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, has been living in Miami, Florida, with her family since 2018. Before that, they lived in London. Her husband is American-British, and they moved because of his work. I think they have three children. According to this article, King Gustaf recently pared down the Swedish royal house as it's been reported the British want to do. Her children and her brother's children are no longer members of the royal house. Only their older sister, who is the Crown Princess, and her children remain in the royal house since they are in direct line to the thrown.

https://royalcentral.co.uk/europe/sweden/princess-madeleine-attends-swedish-churchs-10th-anniversary-in-florida-132947/

  • Like 14
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

I know the Swedish royal house doesn't have the same meaning to Americans as the British one does, but Princess Madeleine, daughter of King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, has been living in Miami, Florida, with her family since 2018. Before that, they lived in London. Her husband is American-British, and they moved because of his work. I think they have three children. According to this article, King Gustaf recently pared down the Swedish royal house as it's been reported the British want to do. Her children and her brother's children are no longer members of the royal house. Only their older sister, who is the Crown Princess, and her children remain in the royal house since they are in direct line to the thrown.

https://royalcentral.co.uk/europe/sweden/princess-madeleine-attends-swedish-churchs-10th-anniversary-in-florida-132947/

I thought they were in New York?   Or is that another Scandavian Royal Family?

It can be done.   The Dutch Royal Family go out all the time with no big deal.    As long as Meghan and Harry are somewhat circumspect in their lives, they will be fine.    I don't see them doing the attention getting stunts anyway.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

I thought they were in New York?   Or is that another Scandavian Royal Family?

It can be done.   The Dutch Royal Family go out all the time with no big deal.    As long as Meghan and Harry are somewhat circumspect in their lives, they will be fine.    I don't see them doing the attention getting stunts anyway.

According to this article, royalty from Yugoslavia and Belguim both lived in New York at one time. It's in the last paragraph.

"Other royals to come to America include Prince Dimitri of Yugoslavia, who lived in New York for 18 years, and Belgian Prince Amedeo, who lived in New York with his wife Elisabetta “Lili” before moving back to Belgium and then Switzerland. One thing is for sure: Princess Madeleine's winters just got a whole lot nicer."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/swedens-princess-madeleine-moving-florida-1132834

  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Giant Misfit

Don't get snippy in your responses with other members' opinions with which you do not agree.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size