Queen Elizabeth II

[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:Who gets what from the Queen in terms of inheritance? That’s what I’m dying to know!

Bulk goes to the heir. But she’ll probably have her will sealed for 100 years like Philipp did.

This. Most of the monarch’s wealth comes from the Duchy of Lancaster, which is now under Charles. And yes the details will not be released.

This is incorrect. There is monarchy’s/crown wealth and personal wealth. She has made a fortune just by breeding horses, that was just one of her side gigs. Andrew and her other kids will be well taken care of without needing to rely on Charles. That’s why Harry is hanging around too.

I didn’t say all, I said bulk and that is 100% true. The others will get peanuts in comparison to Charles. Not saying they will be destitute. The adult kids will be fine for their remaining days - they are already 70’s and 60’s. The grandkids (apart from William) will get something, but not enough to set then up for life with no need for additional income.

That’s why Anne’s kids have always worked. And Edward and Sophie have said they are raising their children with the expectation that they will need to work. Or marry well.

Anne was intelligent enough to give her kids the freedom to do what they chose with their lives. Everyone has to work, 73 year old King Charles has been flying around the country and attending engagements non stop for the past 4 days with little time to mourn his parent. That’s brutal.

He seems happy.

Not a particular fan of Charles, or of continuing the monarchy, but that’s a crass thing to say. The royal family’s job is to help the country mourn their sovereign. It must be incredibly challenging to go out with a smile on one’s face and comfort the public over the death of someone who was symbolic to them, while the family privately mourns someone who meant so much more to them.

She was also 96. I am Jewish and when someone dies, friends and family make shiva calls. When the deceased is an elderly person with a life well lived- a sad and inevitable, but not shocking or tragic death- the shiva calls are not as morbid. There are smiles, there is conversation. Charles and the family have always known this day would come, and surely that level of preparation has helped them fulfill their roles here.

He has broken out in tears on multiple occasions over the past few days, all caught on camera. So yes, while she lived a long life and they knew the end was coming, the loss of such a long personal relationship is very painful.

Yes they keep saying and showing he cried, but I have not yet seen one tear or teary eye.

If he doesn't cry in front of you than it doesn't exist eh? Well here it is...

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/king-charles-iii-cried-while-arriving-at-buckingham-palace-photo/

I see no tears.

What can I say? You aren't going to see American crying but, he is crying. Sorry your eye prescription is off.

+1 There are many men who were brought up not to cry in front of others. Shame on you for judging his grief based on the presence/absence of tears in public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For super privileged people who got to live a fairytale life, this bunch whines a lot.

That’s why they had to send the young son and his wife to exile, they can’t read the room and risk the livelihood of all involved.

[Anonymous]

Actually it’s a pretty brilliant statement. He basically flipped off the nasty petty people, reminded people that the military is not a costume ball and took the high road back to focusing on the queen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually it’s a pretty brilliant statement. He basically flipped off the nasty petty people, reminded people that the military is not a costume ball and took the high road back to focusing on the queen.

If Harry wanted to keep the focus on the Queen, he would have made no statement. I suspect he will issue a statement everyday day between now and the funeral about some slight time him or his wife

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually it’s a pretty brilliant statement. He basically flipped off the nasty petty people, reminded people that the military is not a costume ball and took the high road back to focusing on the queen.

If Harry wanted to keep the focus on the Queen, he would have made no statement. I suspect he will issue a statement everyday day between now and the funeral about some slight time him or his wife

You sound insufferably cynical.

[Anonymous]

Never Complain, Never Explain.

That is the Queen's motto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually it’s a pretty brilliant statement. He basically flipped off the nasty petty people, reminded people that the military is not a costume ball and took the high road back to focusing on the queen.

Maybe he can save some of that brilliance for the Invictus Games foundations, donations dropped 40% year on year, a real testament to his incompetence or lack of caring.

[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:Who gets what from the Queen in terms of inheritance? That’s what I’m dying to know!

Bulk goes to the heir. But she’ll probably have her will sealed for 100 years like Philipp did.

This. Most of the monarch’s wealth comes from the Duchy of Lancaster, which is now under Charles. And yes the details will not be released.

This is incorrect. There is monarchy’s/crown wealth and personal wealth. She has made a fortune just by breeding horses, that was just one of her side gigs. Andrew and her other kids will be well taken care of without needing to rely on Charles. That’s why Harry is hanging around too.

I didn’t say all, I said bulk and that is 100% true. The others will get peanuts in comparison to Charles. Not saying they will be destitute. The adult kids will be fine for their remaining days - they are already 70’s and 60’s. The grandkids (apart from William) will get something, but not enough to set then up for life with no need for additional income.

That’s why Anne’s kids have always worked. And Edward and Sophie have said they are raising their children with the expectation that they will need to work. Or marry well.

Anne was intelligent enough to give her kids the freedom to do what they chose with their lives. Everyone has to work, 73 year old King Charles has been flying around the country and attending engagements non stop for the past 4 days with little time to mourn his parent. That’s brutal.

He seems happy.

Not a particular fan of Charles, or of continuing the monarchy, but that’s a crass thing to say. The royal family’s job is to help the country mourn their sovereign. It must be incredibly challenging to go out with a smile on one’s face and comfort the public over the death of someone who was symbolic to them, while the family privately mourns someone who meant so much more to them.

She was also 96. I am Jewish and when someone dies, friends and family make shiva calls. When the deceased is an elderly person with a life well lived- a sad and inevitable, but not shocking or tragic death- the shiva calls are not as morbid. There are smiles, there is conversation. Charles and the family have always known this day would come, and surely that level of preparation has helped them fulfill their roles here.

He has broken out in tears on multiple occasions over the past few days, all caught on camera. So yes, while she lived a long life and they knew the end was coming, the loss of such a long personal relationship is very painful.

Yes they keep saying and showing he cried, but I have not yet seen one tear or teary eye.

If he doesn't cry in front of you than it doesn't exist eh? Well here it is...

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/king-charles-iii-cried-while-arriving-at-buckingham-palace-photo/

I see no tears.

What can I say? You aren't going to see American crying but, he is crying. Sorry your eye prescription is off.

Or you have an over active imagination!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the British commentators said it was a mistake not to allow Harry to wear his military uniforms since he actually earned it and hasn't disgraced it (unlike Andrew). I have to agree. I know there are “rules” but somehow those rules permit Andrew to wear his but not Harry? Andrew isn’t a working royal and was stripped of his medals due to his sexual misconduct! It just looks petty and vindictive on the part of the royals.

Yes the military rules and laws of the UK permit Andrew to wear his uniform and not Harry. What do you find so surprising? These laws have been on the books for decades, not implemented to spite Harry. Harry knows this and continues to stomp his foot like a toddler.

First of all, there is zero evidence that Harry is stomping his foot. All of this drama is being stirred up by the media and continued by people, like us, discussing it online. Second, the part that is surprising is that Andrew--a disgraced sex abuser--is permitted to wear his uniform but Harry isn't. Their circumstances are not the same.

But then again, it's all a bunch of costumes for show anyway. The fact that the royals hand out military titles and honors like candy make it pretty clear that none of it actually means anything. I guess they have to keep up the charade so that people continue to believe that they are special.

Other than the 10-minute "Vigil of the Princes" (standing around the coffin for 10 minutes) - Andrew isn't allowed to wear his either.

But he is being allowed to wear it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the British commentators said it was a mistake not to allow Harry to wear his military uniforms since he actually earned it and hasn't disgraced it (unlike Andrew). I have to agree. I know there are “rules” but somehow those rules permit Andrew to wear his but not Harry? Andrew isn’t a working royal and was stripped of his medals due to his sexual misconduct! It just looks petty and vindictive on the part of the royals.

Yes the military rules and laws of the UK permit Andrew to wear his uniform and not Harry. What do you find so surprising? These laws have been on the books for decades, not implemented to spite Harry. Harry knows this and continues to stomp his foot like a toddler.

First of all, there is zero evidence that Harry is stomping his foot. All of this drama is being stirred up by the media and continued by people, like us, discussing it online. Second, the part that is surprising is that Andrew--a disgraced sex abuser--is permitted to wear his uniform but Harry isn't. Their circumstances are not the same.

But then again, it's all a bunch of costumes for show anyway. The fact that the royals hand out military titles and honors like candy make it pretty clear that none of it actually means anything. I guess they have to keep up the charade so that people continue to believe that they are special.

Other than the 10-minute "Vigil of the Princes" (standing around the coffin for 10 minutes) - Andrew isn't allowed to wear his either.

But he is being allowed to wear it.

You will survive. And so will Harry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually it’s a pretty brilliant statement. He basically flipped off the nasty petty people, reminded people that the military is not a costume ball and took the high road back to focusing on the queen.

Maybe he can save some of that brilliance for the Invictus Games foundations, donations dropped 40% year on year, a real testament to his incompetence or lack of caring.

Invictus Games is a sham copycat of the official U.S. Department of Defense Warrior Games. UK-based journalists should spend some time digging into it. There is nothing as appalling as exploiting wounded service members to promote yourself and your "charity."

Is it even a legitimate UK charity under some sort of oversight? I think not. Per their website:

"It is UK based, but has an international remit. Whilst the Invictus Games Foundation’s head office is in the UK, following the success of the inaugural Invictus Games London 2014, and has a UK Patron, The Duke of Sussex, its work is international. Twenty nations now participate in the Invictus Games, with many more represented on our ‘We Are Invictus’ Noticeboard for international wounded, injured and sick Servicemen and women (WIS), and each year more nations approach the Foundation asking to be involved with the Invictus Games."

Nice dodge. What exactly is an international remit? Who has oversight? Where exactly does the money go? At least here in the US you can look at a charity's rating and IRS statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually it’s a pretty brilliant statement. He basically flipped off the nasty petty people, reminded people that the military is not a costume ball and took the high road back to focusing on the queen.

Maybe he can save some of that brilliance for the Invictus Games foundations, donations dropped 40% year on year, a real testament to his incompetence or lack of caring.

Invictus Games is a sham copycat of the official U.S. Department of Defense Warrior Games. UK-based journalists should spend some time digging into it. There is nothing as appalling as exploiting wounded service members to promote yourself and your "charity."

Is it even a legitimate UK charity under some sort of oversight? I think not. Per their website:

"It is UK based, but has an international remit. Whilst the Invictus Games Foundation’s head office is in the UK, following the success of the inaugural Invictus Games London 2014, and has a UK Patron, The Duke of Sussex, its work is international. Twenty nations now participate in the Invictus Games, with many more represented on our ‘We Are Invictus’ Noticeboard for international wounded, injured and sick Servicemen and women (WIS), and each year more nations approach the Foundation asking to be involved with the Invictus Games."

Nice dodge. What exactly is an international remit? Who has oversight? Where exactly does the money go? At least here in the US you can look at a charity's rating and IRS statements.

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5054988

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually it’s a pretty brilliant statement. He basically flipped off the nasty petty people, reminded people that the military is not a costume ball and took the high road back to focusing on the queen.

Maybe he can save some of that brilliance for the Invictus Games foundations, donations dropped 40% year on year, a real testament to his incompetence or lack of caring.

Invictus Games is a sham copycat of the official U.S. Department of Defense Warrior Games. UK-based journalists should spend some time digging into it. There is nothing as appalling as exploiting wounded service members to promote yourself and your "charity."

Is it even a legitimate UK charity under some sort of oversight? I think not. Per their website:

"It is UK based, but has an international remit. Whilst the Invictus Games Foundation’s head office is in the UK, following the success of the inaugural Invictus Games London 2014, and has a UK Patron, The Duke of Sussex, its work is international. Twenty nations now participate in the Invictus Games, with many more represented on our ‘We Are Invictus’ Noticeboard for international wounded, injured and sick Servicemen and women (WIS), and each year more nations approach the Foundation asking to be involved with the Invictus Games."

Nice dodge. What exactly is an international remit? Who has oversight? Where exactly does the money go? At least here in the US you can look at a charity's rating and IRS statements.

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5054988

The plot thickens. According to this, Invictus has a mere million+ income. Yet they have partnered with plenty of heavy hitters like Boeing, Microsoft, Land Rover. Are all these mega-corporations giving them checks for peanuts?

[Anonymous]

The other thing is that people here are in pure denial if they think the Queen didn't lay out detailed rules about who would be allowed to do what at her funeral. I bet this was at her direction. She was all about protocol.

[Anonymous]

They’re all fairly robotic.