The Cambridges News and Updates ( Prince William, Kate Middleton, George, Charlotte and Louis)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the one relevant to the UK

Again with that voice!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though.

No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think.

The majority of the people aren't looking to abolish the monarchy. Do you know any Brits at all? You sound like an out of touch American. You're just pissy about the Meghan and Harry situation and want to burn it all down. You don't speak for the British people with your rants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though.

No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think.

The majority of the people aren't looking to abolish the monarchy. Do you know any Brits at all? You sound like an out of touch American. You're just pissy about the Meghan and Harry situation and want to burn it all down. You don't speak for the British people with your rants.

DP. It’s just ridiculous to hear over and over again the circular argument that the BRF will exist because it always existed. When there are tons of other European countries that previously had monarchies that no longer. When they have done surveys the youngest adults in the UK do not love the monarchy the way that older ones do. In time they may grow to love the monarchy or it will be gone. But whether PP knows any brits now doesn’t have an impact one way or other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though.

No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think.

The majority of the people aren't looking to abolish the monarchy. Do you know any Brits at all? You sound like an out of touch American. You're just pissy about the Meghan and Harry situation and want to burn it all down. You don't speak for the British people with your rants.

You’re the only one on here ranting. Beheadings, really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though.

No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think.

The majority of the people aren't looking to abolish the monarchy. Do you know any Brits at all? You sound like an out of touch American. You're just pissy about the Meghan and Harry situation and want to burn it all down. You don't speak for the British people with your rants.

You’re the only one on here ranting. Beheadings, really?

I'm not that PP. You're just butt hurt about the Harry and Megan drama. Your opinions about the future of the royal family aren't based on any logic or reasoning. You sound like a nut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though.

No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think.

The majority of the people aren't looking to abolish the monarchy. Do you know any Brits at all? You sound like an out of touch American. You're just pissy about the Meghan and Harry situation and want to burn it all down. You don't speak for the British people with your rants.

You’re the only one on here ranting. Beheadings, really?

I'm not that PP. You're just butt hurt about the Harry and Megan drama. Your opinions about the future of the royal family aren't based on any logic or reasoning. You sound like a nut.

Take your meds. Lashing out at strangers isn’t healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though.

No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think.

The majority of the people aren't looking to abolish the monarchy. Do you know any Brits at all? You sound like an out of touch American. You're just pissy about the Meghan and Harry situation and want to burn it all down. You don't speak for the British people with your rants.

You’re the only one on here ranting. Beheadings, really?

I'm not that PP. You're just butt hurt about the Harry and Megan drama. Your opinions about the future of the royal family aren't based on any logic or reasoning. You sound like a nut.

Take your meds. Lashing out at strangers isn’t healthy.

Says the moron railing about the royal family. Touche.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though.

No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think.

The majority of the people aren't looking to abolish the monarchy. Do you know any Brits at all? You sound like an out of touch American. You're just pissy about the Meghan and Harry situation and want to burn it all down. You don't speak for the British people with your rants.

You’re the only one on here ranting. Beheadings, really?

I'm not that PP. You're just butt hurt about the Harry and Megan drama. Your opinions about the future of the royal family aren't based on any logic or reasoning. You sound like a nut.

Take your meds. Lashing out at strangers isn’t healthy.

You first.

[Anonymous]

Kate's new initiative is very impressive and important.
https://people.com/royals/kate-middleton-royal-foundation-centre-for-early-childhood-launch/
https://royalfoundation.com/the-duchess-of-cambridge-unveils-five-big-insights-research-early-years/

I was reading the report her team published in partnership with researchers from Harvard and LSE.
https://mk0royalfoundatcnhl0.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Ipsos-MORI-SON_report_FINAL_V2.4.pdf

Very impressive work that will leave a great legacy in the realm of mental health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kate's new initiative is very impressive and important.
https://people.com/royals/kate-middleton-royal-foundation-centre-for-early-childhood-launch/
https://royalfoundation.com/the-duchess-of-cambridge-unveils-five-big-insights-research-early-years/

I was reading the report her team published in partnership with researchers from Harvard and LSE.
https://mk0royalfoundatcnhl0.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Ipsos-MORI-SON_report_FINAL_V2.4.pdf

Very impressive work that will leave a great legacy in the realm of mental health.

LOL Kate’s new center is a dusty file cabinet and an old laptop at Kensington Palace.

[Anonymous]

A natural beauty!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though.

No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think.

The majority of the people aren't looking to abolish the monarchy. Do you know any Brits at all? You sound like an out of touch American. You're just pissy about the Meghan and Harry situation and want to burn it all down. You don't speak for the British people with your rants.

You’re the only one on here ranting. Beheadings, really?

I'm not that PP. You're just butt hurt about the Harry and Megan drama. Your opinions about the future of the royal family aren't based on any logic or reasoning. You sound like a nut.

Take your meds. Lashing out at strangers isn’t healthy.

Says the moron railing about the royal family. Touche.

No one’s railing. What kind of dumba$$ says touché after their own comment?

[Anonymous]

Tell me that you actually complain and explain without telling me:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/telegraph-deleted-kate-middleton-column-critical?origin=web-hf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though.

No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think.

The majority of the people aren't looking to abolish the monarchy. Do you know any Brits at all? You sound like an out of touch American. You're just pissy about the Meghan and Harry situation and want to burn it all down. You don't speak for the British people with your rants.

You’re the only one on here ranting. Beheadings, really?

I'm not that PP. You're just butt hurt about the Harry and Megan drama. Your opinions about the future of the royal family aren't based on any logic or reasoning. You sound like a nut.

Take your meds. Lashing out at strangers isn’t healthy.

Says the moron railing about the royal family. Touche.

No one’s railing. What kind of dumba$$ says touché after their own comment?

Ok. Says the fools whining in here about the royal family in a country they don't live in and don't pay for. You're probably some moron who has never even left the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

Comparing France to Britain is apples to oranges. Tourists aren't only visiting Versailles and palaces, they are visiting the beaches, mountains, wine making regions, medieval villages and markets, as well as Paris and all it has to offer. Britain doesn't have half of those things pretty much all it has are the castles, ruins, villages. If you take the Royals out, the tourism would suffer.