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:

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:People didn't like Kate and although she was just a young girl , she was brutally criticized because she was a commoner and not good enough for future king. However, she won everyone, including family and media. It must be tough for her but she handles it like a pro. She's been with him since their teen years, their connection is strong. She is a real asset for him.

She didn’t do anything to win anyone over. She just got relentlessly sugary press coverage. Not sure why that’s the case (other than the whole bot gate thing covered in The NY Times).

Have you forgotten the Wisteria sisters and Waity Katie years? Ot wasn’t always positive but she put in her time to get where she is now,

They tore her to shreds in Tattler just two years ago. That article was as below the belt as it gets. Someone should have told Meghan it’s not personal, they are power games, they were testing for weak spots and found plenty with Meghan and Harry.

And the topless sunbathing pics. Quite the invasion of privacy. But I think calling Fergie the "Duchess of Pork" was one of the meanest headlines. Her weight has been an issue for her so I can't imagine what she would have thought of that.

But the family responded to the topless pics and, IIRC, sued the tabloid that published them. They also responded when there were recent articles claiming Kate was anorexic. So it seems that they are willing to speak out against the media to protect their own. If the articles about Kate being anorexic warranted a response, one would think that racist articles would likewise warrant a response, especially for a family who is "very much not racist."

They also sued for saying Kate got Botox. They're pretty sue happy protecting the chosen ones.

The anorexic thing was also scrubbed entirely; that unhinged Princess Michael of Kent (yes, the one who wore a racist pin to meet Meghan) called Kate something like, "an anorexic dullard, just like his mother (Diana)"

The plastic surgeon was using Kate's image to promote his business, which he didn't have permission to do.

...Okay, and? What about all the people who *literally* make livelihoods out of bashing Meghan Markle? There is a veritable cottage industry of YouTubers, social media personalities whose entire careers consist of smearing Meghan every single day, without exaggeration.

And she didn’t know this before marrying into the BRF?

I don't think one can ever quite prepare for the vitriolic and concerted onslaught of press invasion that comes with marrying into the Royal Family. Can you genuinely magine hundreds of headlines being written about you every single day?

I think Cressdia Bonas and Chelsy Davy worked this out.

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a26379059/cressida-bonas-broke-up-with-prince-harry-will-kate-tour/

Yes and this is generally why long periods of dating are recommended so the girlfriends get a clear and accurate picture. This is why William wanted Harry to slow his roll with Meghan. This passed Harry off, but he just wanted Meghan to have a better idea what she was signing up for. And turns out William was right, because Meghan, by her own admission, had NO IDEA what she was signing up for.

I'm not defending Meghan, but it seems as though she was going to have to decide between a kids and a full understanding of what marriage to a member of the BRF entails. She was 37 when she got married; if she wanted at least two kids, tick tock (I say this as someone who had her last kid at 41).

Now if she could just get to the age where you don't give a f*ck what people say about you because you're busy living your life, we'd have a happy ending.

But she could have very easily done that if they got married quickly, had kids and then took 2-3 years to SLOWLY ease into royal life, like Kate and William did. Not seek the limelight with multiple engagements and big talk about modernizing and changing and whatnot.

This didn't happen bc Meghan didn't marry Harry to slowly ease into anything, she married him for the prime time.

You don't slowly ease into things when you're 36 and want kids.

You can slowly ease into a working royal life at any age. Especially if you tell the Firm's boss that you want to take things slow after marriage to fully learn and understand your new situation. Marry, have a kid, fly under the radar for a few years, do a couple of things here and there until people get used to you. Then work up to prime time.

They literally asked for that? BRF said no to being part-time like K/W were for the first six years of marriage. Rented a barnhouse in the Cotswolds? The rota hired a helicopter to photograph the interior of their bedroom.

No, they asked for part time to do other stuff in the meantime.

Other stuff like piloting a helicopter and joining the royal navy? Jesus. The other royals did 'other stuff'. Even Beatrice and Edo have jobs.

You are betraying your own ignorance. Beatrice and Edo are NOT working royals. They are not HRH, do not have security or salaries, and Edo and the baby do not have titles. I believe they do have a royal apartment.

Royal apartment? They live in St. James Palace. And Beatrice is a Counselor of State AND an HRH. Not exactly sure how you can be a non-working royal and run the country in absence of the King but let's split hairs here.

You really don’t see the difference between she’s doing and producing a podcast based upon your experience in the royal family? You really think Meghan would have been a happy SAHM in Wales whole Harry flew helicopters? They weren’t asking for a viable alternate arrangement. They wanted to sell themselves to Netflix and Spotify.

No, really I don't. Particularly because Fergie is living in a taxpayer funded palace estate with royal security while DIVORCED and putting out Youtube episodes + romance novels but somehow its a problem for Meghan to pay her own way and do a podcast? Is it because of the level of success?

I truly don't see the difference.

Fergie isn't doing those things while also drawing an income from the crown.

H&M wanted to have all of the benefits of the crown and HRH but not do the work for it. Now they are not taxpayer funded and doing their own work. That on its face is fine. However, they are still monetizing their royal connections by trashing the monarchy, which they still clearly want to be a part of.

Please let's elaborate - shall we?

What income from the crown? You mean the $5 million shared pot that came from the Duchy of Cornwall that went 70/30 to the Cambridges and Sussexs? That annual sum was used to fund their office staff, office apartments, household rent, personal and household security, personal staff, and clothing warddrobe...barely.

Now guess where Fergie is living and using? Andrew's crown estate paid for by taxpayers from the Duchy of Lancaster. How much is it costing to fund the Royal Lodge, where Fergie lives as a divorcee, and therefore benefits from Andrew's household rent, household security, and personal staff.

If you want to talk 'not do the work for it' living with the Queen's son on a palace estate as a divorced women and not even being welcome is the definition of that.

https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/royal-lodge-prince-andrew-sarah-ferguson-windsor-family-home-285330/

Oh, noes! “A divorced woman!” *clutches pearls*

I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make here, but Fergie’s presence at Royal Lodge costs the Duchy of Lancaster exactly…what? The cost of the food she eats?

Oh, and the Duchy of Lancaster is not the *taxpayers*. It’s the private estate of the sovereign.

If you think the money from Lancaster doesn’t come from taxes, I don’t know what to tell you.

You don’t know what to say because it doesn’t. The Duchy of Lancaster was the personal property of the Queen and has been inherited by Charles. In fact, the taxpayer funding that the Queen used to receive from the Civil List was abolished in 2011. The holdings of a separate entity, the Crown Estates, generate revenue that the King agreed to give to the government in 1760. The Sovereign does receive a % of the revenues from the Crown Estates (but even that isn’t “tax revenue”). The Duchy of Cornwall, which funds the Prince of Wales and his family, is also a private entity owned by the Heir to the throne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list#Elizabeth_II

Elizabeth II[edit]
The last British monarch to receive Civil List payments was Elizabeth II. The Civil List for her reign lasted from her accession in 1952 until its abolition in 2012. During this period the Queen, as head of state, used the Civil List to defray some of the official expenditure of the monarchy.

Only the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen Mother ever received direct funding from the Civil List.[4] The Prince of Wales and his immediate family (the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry) received their income from the Duchy of Cornwall. The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family were funded from a parliamentary annuity, the amount of which was fully refunded by the Queen to the Treasury.[5] The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) received £359,000 per year.[6]

The last two decades of the Civil List were marked by surpluses and deficits. Surpluses in the 1991–2000 Civil List caused by low inflation and the efforts of the Queen and her staff to make the Royal Household more efficient led to the accrual of a £35.3 million reserve by late 2000. Consequently, the Civil List was fixed at £7.9 million annually in 2001, the same amount as in 1991, and remained at that level until its abolition. The reserve was then used to make up the shortfall in the Civil List during the subsequent decade.[7] The Civil List Act 1972 allowed the Treasury to review the level of the payment every ten years, but only allowed for increases and not reductions.[8]

The abolition of the Civil List was announced in the spending review statement to the House of Commons on 20 October 2010 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. In its place, he said, "the Royal Household will receive a new Sovereign Support Grant linked to a portion of the revenue of the Crown Estate". The Crown Estate is a statutory corporation, run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue for HM Treasury every year (an income surplus of £210.7 million for the year ended 31 March 2010).[9] This income is received by the Crown and given to the state as a result of the agreement reached in 1760 that has been renewed at the beginning of each subsequent reign. The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 received royal assent on 18 October 2011. Under this Act, the Sovereign Grant now funds all of the official expenditure of the monarchy, not just the expenditure previously borne by the Civil List.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People didn't like Kate and although she was just a young girl , she was brutally criticized because she was a commoner and not good enough for future king. However, she won everyone, including family and media. It must be tough for her but she handles it like a pro. She's been with him since their teen years, their connection is strong. She is a real asset for him.

She didn’t do anything to win anyone over. She just got relentlessly sugary press coverage. Not sure why that’s the case (other than the whole bot gate thing covered in The NY Times).

Have you forgotten the Wisteria sisters and Waity Katie years? Ot wasn’t always positive but she put in her time to get where she is now,

They tore her to shreds in Tattler just two years ago. That article was as below the belt as it gets. Someone should have told Meghan it’s not personal, they are power games, they were testing for weak spots and found plenty with Meghan and Harry.

And the topless sunbathing pics. Quite the invasion of privacy. But I think calling Fergie the "Duchess of Pork" was one of the meanest headlines. Her weight has been an issue for her so I can't imagine what she would have thought of that.

But the family responded to the topless pics and, IIRC, sued the tabloid that published them. They also responded when there were recent articles claiming Kate was anorexic. So it seems that they are willing to speak out against the media to protect their own. If the articles about Kate being anorexic warranted a response, one would think that racist articles would likewise warrant a response, especially for a family who is "very much not racist."

They also sued for saying Kate got Botox. They're pretty sue happy protecting the chosen ones.

The anorexic thing was also scrubbed entirely; that unhinged Princess Michael of Kent (yes, the one who wore a racist pin to meet Meghan) called Kate something like, "an anorexic dullard, just like his mother (Diana)"

The plastic surgeon was using Kate's image to promote his business, which he didn't have permission to do.

...Okay, and? What about all the people who *literally* make livelihoods out of bashing Meghan Markle? There is a veritable cottage industry of YouTubers, social media personalities whose entire careers consist of smearing Meghan every single day, without exaggeration.

And she didn’t know this before marrying into the BRF?

I don't think one can ever quite prepare for the vitriolic and concerted onslaught of press invasion that comes with marrying into the Royal Family. Can you genuinely magine hundreds of headlines being written about you every single day?

I think Cressdia Bonas and Chelsy Davy worked this out.

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a26379059/cressida-bonas-broke-up-with-prince-harry-will-kate-tour/

Yes and this is generally why long periods of dating are recommended so the girlfriends get a clear and accurate picture. This is why William wanted Harry to slow his roll with Meghan. This passed Harry off, but he just wanted Meghan to have a better idea what she was signing up for. And turns out William was right, because Meghan, by her own admission, had NO IDEA what she was signing up for.

I'm not defending Meghan, but it seems as though she was going to have to decide between a kids and a full understanding of what marriage to a member of the BRF entails. She was 37 when she got married; if she wanted at least two kids, tick tock (I say this as someone who had her last kid at 41).

Now if she could just get to the age where you don't give a f*ck what people say about you because you're busy living your life, we'd have a happy ending.

But she could have very easily done that if they got married quickly, had kids and then took 2-3 years to SLOWLY ease into royal life, like Kate and William did. Not seek the limelight with multiple engagements and big talk about modernizing and changing and whatnot.

This didn't happen bc Meghan didn't marry Harry to slowly ease into anything, she married him for the prime time.

You don't slowly ease into things when you're 36 and want kids.

You can slowly ease into a working royal life at any age. Especially if you tell the Firm's boss that you want to take things slow after marriage to fully learn and understand your new situation. Marry, have a kid, fly under the radar for a few years, do a couple of things here and there until people get used to you. Then work up to prime time.

They literally asked for that? BRF said no to being part-time like K/W were for the first six years of marriage. Rented a barnhouse in the Cotswolds? The rota hired a helicopter to photograph the interior of their bedroom.

No, they asked for part time to do other stuff in the meantime.

Other stuff like piloting a helicopter and joining the royal navy? Jesus. The other royals did 'other stuff'. Even Beatrice and Edo have jobs.

You are betraying your own ignorance. Beatrice and Edo are NOT working royals. They are not HRH, do not have security or salaries, and Edo and the baby do not have titles. I believe they do have a royal apartment.

Royal apartment? They live in St. James Palace. And Beatrice is a Counselor of State AND an HRH. Not exactly sure how you can be a non-working royal and run the country in absence of the King but let's split hairs here.

You really don’t see the difference between she’s doing and producing a podcast based upon your experience in the royal family? You really think Meghan would have been a happy SAHM in Wales whole Harry flew helicopters? They weren’t asking for a viable alternate arrangement. They wanted to sell themselves to Netflix and Spotify.

No, really I don't. Particularly because Fergie is living in a taxpayer funded palace estate with royal security while DIVORCED and putting out Youtube episodes + romance novels but somehow its a problem for Meghan to pay her own way and do a podcast? Is it because of the level of success?

I truly don't see the difference.

Fergie isn't doing those things while also drawing an income from the crown.

H&M wanted to have all of the benefits of the crown and HRH but not do the work for it. Now they are not taxpayer funded and doing their own work. That on its face is fine. However, they are still monetizing their royal connections by trashing the monarchy, which they still clearly want to be a part of.

Please let's elaborate - shall we?

What income from the crown? You mean the $5 million shared pot that came from the Duchy of Cornwall that went 70/30 to the Cambridges and Sussexs? That annual sum was used to fund their office staff, office apartments, household rent, personal and household security, personal staff, and clothing warddrobe...barely.

Now guess where Fergie is living and using? Andrew's crown estate paid for by taxpayers from the Duchy of Lancaster. How much is it costing to fund the Royal Lodge, where Fergie lives as a divorcee, and therefore benefits from Andrew's household rent, household security, and personal staff.

If you want to talk 'not do the work for it' living with the Queen's son on a palace estate as a divorced women and not even being welcome is the definition of that.

https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/royal-lodge-prince-andrew-sarah-ferguson-windsor-family-home-285330/

5 x .3 = 1.5mm. I could live quite nicely on that. Not sure why they can’t.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People didn't like Kate and although she was just a young girl , she was brutally criticized because she was a commoner and not good enough for future king. However, she won everyone, including family and media. It must be tough for her but she handles it like a pro. She's been with him since their teen years, their connection is strong. She is a real asset for him.

She didn’t do anything to win anyone over. She just got relentlessly sugary press coverage. Not sure why that’s the case (other than the whole bot gate thing covered in The NY Times).

Have you forgotten the Wisteria sisters and Waity Katie years? Ot wasn’t always positive but she put in her time to get where she is now,

They tore her to shreds in Tattler just two years ago. That article was as below the belt as it gets. Someone should have told Meghan it’s not personal, they are power games, they were testing for weak spots and found plenty with Meghan and Harry.

And the topless sunbathing pics. Quite the invasion of privacy. But I think calling Fergie the "Duchess of Pork" was one of the meanest headlines. Her weight has been an issue for her so I can't imagine what she would have thought of that.

But the family responded to the topless pics and, IIRC, sued the tabloid that published them. They also responded when there were recent articles claiming Kate was anorexic. So it seems that they are willing to speak out against the media to protect their own. If the articles about Kate being anorexic warranted a response, one would think that racist articles would likewise warrant a response, especially for a family who is "very much not racist."

They also sued for saying Kate got Botox. They're pretty sue happy protecting the chosen ones.

The anorexic thing was also scrubbed entirely; that unhinged Princess Michael of Kent (yes, the one who wore a racist pin to meet Meghan) called Kate something like, "an anorexic dullard, just like his mother (Diana)"

The plastic surgeon was using Kate's image to promote his business, which he didn't have permission to do.

...Okay, and? What about all the people who *literally* make livelihoods out of bashing Meghan Markle? There is a veritable cottage industry of YouTubers, social media personalities whose entire careers consist of smearing Meghan every single day, without exaggeration.

And she didn’t know this before marrying into the BRF?

I don't think one can ever quite prepare for the vitriolic and concerted onslaught of press invasion that comes with marrying into the Royal Family. Can you genuinely magine hundreds of headlines being written about you every single day?

I think Cressdia Bonas and Chelsy Davy worked this out.

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a26379059/cressida-bonas-broke-up-with-prince-harry-will-kate-tour/

Yes and this is generally why long periods of dating are recommended so the girlfriends get a clear and accurate picture. This is why William wanted Harry to slow his roll with Meghan. This passed Harry off, but he just wanted Meghan to have a better idea what she was signing up for. And turns out William was right, because Meghan, by her own admission, had NO IDEA what she was signing up for.

I'm not defending Meghan, but it seems as though she was going to have to decide between a kids and a full understanding of what marriage to a member of the BRF entails. She was 37 when she got married; if she wanted at least two kids, tick tock (I say this as someone who had her last kid at 41).

Now if she could just get to the age where you don't give a f*ck what people say about you because you're busy living your life, we'd have a happy ending.

But she could have very easily done that if they got married quickly, had kids and then took 2-3 years to SLOWLY ease into royal life, like Kate and William did. Not seek the limelight with multiple engagements and big talk about modernizing and changing and whatnot.

This didn't happen bc Meghan didn't marry Harry to slowly ease into anything, she married him for the prime time.

You don't slowly ease into things when you're 36 and want kids.

You can slowly ease into a working royal life at any age. Especially if you tell the Firm's boss that you want to take things slow after marriage to fully learn and understand your new situation. Marry, have a kid, fly under the radar for a few years, do a couple of things here and there until people get used to you. Then work up to prime time.

They literally asked for that? BRF said no to being part-time like K/W were for the first six years of marriage. Rented a barnhouse in the Cotswolds? The rota hired a helicopter to photograph the interior of their bedroom.

No, they asked for part time to do other stuff in the meantime.

Other stuff like piloting a helicopter and joining the royal navy? Jesus. The other royals did 'other stuff'. Even Beatrice and Edo have jobs.

You are betraying your own ignorance. Beatrice and Edo are NOT working royals. They are not HRH, do not have security or salaries, and Edo and the baby do not have titles. I believe they do have a royal apartment.

Royal apartment? They live in St. James Palace. And Beatrice is a Counselor of State AND an HRH. Not exactly sure how you can be a non-working royal and run the country in absence of the King but let's split hairs here.

You really don’t see the difference between she’s doing and producing a podcast based upon your experience in the royal family? You really think Meghan would have been a happy SAHM in Wales whole Harry flew helicopters? They weren’t asking for a viable alternate arrangement. They wanted to sell themselves to Netflix and Spotify.

No, really I don't. Particularly because Fergie is living in a taxpayer funded palace estate with royal security while DIVORCED and putting out Youtube episodes + romance novels but somehow its a problem for Meghan to pay her own way and do a podcast? Is it because of the level of success?

I truly don't see the difference.

Fergie isn't doing those things while also drawing an income from the crown.

H&M wanted to have all of the benefits of the crown and HRH but not do the work for it. Now they are not taxpayer funded and doing their own work. That on its face is fine. However, they are still monetizing their royal connections by trashing the monarchy, which they still clearly want to be a part of.

Please let's elaborate - shall we?

What income from the crown? You mean the $5 million shared pot that came from the Duchy of Cornwall that went 70/30 to the Cambridges and Sussexs? That annual sum was used to fund their office staff, office apartments, household rent, personal and household security, personal staff, and clothing warddrobe...barely.

Now guess where Fergie is living and using? Andrew's crown estate paid for by taxpayers from the Duchy of Lancaster. How much is it costing to fund the Royal Lodge, where Fergie lives as a divorcee, and therefore benefits from Andrew's household rent, household security, and personal staff.

If you want to talk 'not do the work for it' living with the Queen's son on a palace estate as a divorced women and not even being welcome is the definition of that.

https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/royal-lodge-prince-andrew-sarah-ferguson-windsor-family-home-285330/

5 x .3 = 1.5mm. I could live quite nicely on that. Not sure why they can’t.

And that’s not counting their house or security (at the time.)

But I’m done arguing with PP who thinks the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall come from the “taxpayers.” That tells me everything I need to know.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People didn't like Kate and although she was just a young girl , she was brutally criticized because she was a commoner and not good enough for future king. However, she won everyone, including family and media. It must be tough for her but she handles it like a pro. She's been with him since their teen years, their connection is strong. She is a real asset for him.

She didn’t do anything to win anyone over. She just got relentlessly sugary press coverage. Not sure why that’s the case (other than the whole bot gate thing covered in The NY Times).

Have you forgotten the Wisteria sisters and Waity Katie years? Ot wasn’t always positive but she put in her time to get where she is now,

They tore her to shreds in Tattler just two years ago. That article was as below the belt as it gets. Someone should have told Meghan it’s not personal, they are power games, they were testing for weak spots and found plenty with Meghan and Harry.

And the topless sunbathing pics. Quite the invasion of privacy. But I think calling Fergie the "Duchess of Pork" was one of the meanest headlines. Her weight has been an issue for her so I can't imagine what she would have thought of that.

But the family responded to the topless pics and, IIRC, sued the tabloid that published them. They also responded when there were recent articles claiming Kate was anorexic. So it seems that they are willing to speak out against the media to protect their own. If the articles about Kate being anorexic warranted a response, one would think that racist articles would likewise warrant a response, especially for a family who is "very much not racist."

They also sued for saying Kate got Botox. They're pretty sue happy protecting the chosen ones.

The anorexic thing was also scrubbed entirely; that unhinged Princess Michael of Kent (yes, the one who wore a racist pin to meet Meghan) called Kate something like, "an anorexic dullard, just like his mother (Diana)"

The plastic surgeon was using Kate's image to promote his business, which he didn't have permission to do.

...Okay, and? What about all the people who *literally* make livelihoods out of bashing Meghan Markle? There is a veritable cottage industry of YouTubers, social media personalities whose entire careers consist of smearing Meghan every single day, without exaggeration.

And she didn’t know this before marrying into the BRF?

I don't think one can ever quite prepare for the vitriolic and concerted onslaught of press invasion that comes with marrying into the Royal Family. Can you genuinely magine hundreds of headlines being written about you every single day?

I think Cressdia Bonas and Chelsy Davy worked this out.

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a26379059/cressida-bonas-broke-up-with-prince-harry-will-kate-tour/

Yes and this is generally why long periods of dating are recommended so the girlfriends get a clear and accurate picture. This is why William wanted Harry to slow his roll with Meghan. This passed Harry off, but he just wanted Meghan to have a better idea what she was signing up for. And turns out William was right, because Meghan, by her own admission, had NO IDEA what she was signing up for.

I'm not defending Meghan, but it seems as though she was going to have to decide between a kids and a full understanding of what marriage to a member of the BRF entails. She was 37 when she got married; if she wanted at least two kids, tick tock (I say this as someone who had her last kid at 41).

Now if she could just get to the age where you don't give a f*ck what people say about you because you're busy living your life, we'd have a happy ending.

But she could have very easily done that if they got married quickly, had kids and then took 2-3 years to SLOWLY ease into royal life, like Kate and William did. Not seek the limelight with multiple engagements and big talk about modernizing and changing and whatnot.

This didn't happen bc Meghan didn't marry Harry to slowly ease into anything, she married him for the prime time.

You don't slowly ease into things when you're 36 and want kids.

You can slowly ease into a working royal life at any age. Especially if you tell the Firm's boss that you want to take things slow after marriage to fully learn and understand your new situation. Marry, have a kid, fly under the radar for a few years, do a couple of things here and there until people get used to you. Then work up to prime time.

They literally asked for that? BRF said no to being part-time like K/W were for the first six years of marriage. Rented a barnhouse in the Cotswolds? The rota hired a helicopter to photograph the interior of their bedroom.

No, they asked for part time to do other stuff in the meantime.

Other stuff like piloting a helicopter and joining the royal navy? Jesus. The other royals did 'other stuff'. Even Beatrice and Edo have jobs.

You are betraying your own ignorance. Beatrice and Edo are NOT working royals. They are not HRH, do not have security or salaries, and Edo and the baby do not have titles. I believe they do have a royal apartment.

Royal apartment? They live in St. James Palace. And Beatrice is a Counselor of State AND an HRH. Not exactly sure how you can be a non-working royal and run the country in absence of the King but let's split hairs here.

You really don’t see the difference between she’s doing and producing a podcast based upon your experience in the royal family? You really think Meghan would have been a happy SAHM in Wales whole Harry flew helicopters? They weren’t asking for a viable alternate arrangement. They wanted to sell themselves to Netflix and Spotify.

No, really I don't. Particularly because Fergie is living in a taxpayer funded palace estate with royal security while DIVORCED and putting out Youtube episodes + romance novels but somehow its a problem for Meghan to pay her own way and do a podcast? Is it because of the level of success?

I truly don't see the difference.

Fergie isn't doing those things while also drawing an income from the crown.

H&M wanted to have all of the benefits of the crown and HRH but not do the work for it. Now they are not taxpayer funded and doing their own work. That on its face is fine. However, they are still monetizing their royal connections by trashing the monarchy, which they still clearly want to be a part of.

Please let's elaborate - shall we?

What income from the crown? You mean the $5 million shared pot that came from the Duchy of Cornwall that went 70/30 to the Cambridges and Sussexs? That annual sum was used to fund their office staff, office apartments, household rent, personal and household security, personal staff, and clothing warddrobe...barely.

Now guess where Fergie is living and using? Andrew's crown estate paid for by taxpayers from the Duchy of Lancaster. How much is it costing to fund the Royal Lodge, where Fergie lives as a divorcee, and therefore benefits from Andrew's household rent, household security, and personal staff.

If you want to talk 'not do the work for it' living with the Queen's son on a palace estate as a divorced women and not even being welcome is the definition of that.

https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/royal-lodge-prince-andrew-sarah-ferguson-windsor-family-home-285330/

Oh, noes! “A divorced woman!” *clutches pearls*

I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make here, but Fergie’s presence at Royal Lodge costs the Duchy of Lancaster exactly…what? The cost of the food she eats?

Oh, and the Duchy of Lancaster is not the *taxpayers*. It’s the private estate of the sovereign.

If you think the money from Lancaster doesn’t come from taxes, I don’t know what to tell you.

You don’t know what to say because it doesn’t. The Duchy of Lancaster was the personal property of the Queen and has been inherited by Charles. In fact, the taxpayer funding that the Queen used to receive from the Civil List was abolished in 2011. The holdings of a separate entity, the Crown Estates, generate revenue that the King agreed to give to the government in 1760. The Sovereign does receive a % of the revenues from the Crown Estates (but even that isn’t “tax revenue”). The Duchy of Cornwall, which funds the Prince of Wales and his family, is also a private entity owned by the Heir to the throne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list#Elizabeth_II

Elizabeth II[edit]
The last British monarch to receive Civil List payments was Elizabeth II. The Civil List for her reign lasted from her accession in 1952 until its abolition in 2012. During this period the Queen, as head of state, used the Civil List to defray some of the official expenditure of the monarchy.

Only the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen Mother ever received direct funding from the Civil List.[4] The Prince of Wales and his immediate family (the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry) received their income from the Duchy of Cornwall. The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family were funded from a parliamentary annuity, the amount of which was fully refunded by the Queen to the Treasury.[5] The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) received £359,000 per year.[6]

The last two decades of the Civil List were marked by surpluses and deficits. Surpluses in the 1991–2000 Civil List caused by low inflation and the efforts of the Queen and her staff to make the Royal Household more efficient led to the accrual of a £35.3 million reserve by late 2000. Consequently, the Civil List was fixed at £7.9 million annually in 2001, the same amount as in 1991, and remained at that level until its abolition. The reserve was then used to make up the shortfall in the Civil List during the subsequent decade.[7] The Civil List Act 1972 allowed the Treasury to review the level of the payment every ten years, but only allowed for increases and not reductions.[8]

The abolition of the Civil List was announced in the spending review statement to the House of Commons on 20 October 2010 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. In its place, he said, "the Royal Household will receive a new Sovereign Support Grant linked to a portion of the revenue of the Crown Estate". The Crown Estate is a statutory corporation, run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue for HM Treasury every year (an income surplus of £210.7 million for the year ended 31 March 2010).[9] This income is received by the Crown and given to the state as a result of the agreement reached in 1760 that has been renewed at the beginning of each subsequent reign. The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 received royal assent on 18 October 2011. Under this Act, the Sovereign Grant now funds all of the official expenditure of the monarchy, not just the expenditure previously borne by the Civil List.

So you pasted a bunch of Wikipedia paragraphs and you are still clueless. The Duchy of Lancaster is a PRIVATE estate that is run as a business and generates income for the monarch. The monarch actually pays taxes on the income generated from this business, does not receive tax income.

The Crown Estate is the Royal Family Property/Real Estate assets that were put in a Public/Private trust with 75% of it’s Real Estate income going to Parliament and 25% going to the Monarch. All that income is going to maintain the Palace, the art collection, the archives, guards, staff etc. In other words repair and maintain British history and heritage.

Charles can do whatever he wants with the income generated from the Duchy of Lancaster, it’s his private money as was the Queens. They just can’t touch the capital.

[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:

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:People didn't like Kate and although she was just a young girl , she was brutally criticized because she was a commoner and not good enough for future king. However, she won everyone, including family and media. It must be tough for her but she handles it like a pro. She's been with him since their teen years, their connection is strong. She is a real asset for him.

She didn’t do anything to win anyone over. She just got relentlessly sugary press coverage. Not sure why that’s the case (other than the whole bot gate thing covered in The NY Times).

Have you forgotten the Wisteria sisters and Waity Katie years? Ot wasn’t always positive but she put in her time to get where she is now,

They tore her to shreds in Tattler just two years ago. That article was as below the belt as it gets. Someone should have told Meghan it’s not personal, they are power games, they were testing for weak spots and found plenty with Meghan and Harry.

And the topless sunbathing pics. Quite the invasion of privacy. But I think calling Fergie the "Duchess of Pork" was one of the meanest headlines. Her weight has been an issue for her so I can't imagine what she would have thought of that.

But the family responded to the topless pics and, IIRC, sued the tabloid that published them. They also responded when there were recent articles claiming Kate was anorexic. So it seems that they are willing to speak out against the media to protect their own. If the articles about Kate being anorexic warranted a response, one would think that racist articles would likewise warrant a response, especially for a family who is "very much not racist."

They also sued for saying Kate got Botox. They're pretty sue happy protecting the chosen ones.

The anorexic thing was also scrubbed entirely; that unhinged Princess Michael of Kent (yes, the one who wore a racist pin to meet Meghan) called Kate something like, "an anorexic dullard, just like his mother (Diana)"

The plastic surgeon was using Kate's image to promote his business, which he didn't have permission to do.

...Okay, and? What about all the people who *literally* make livelihoods out of bashing Meghan Markle? There is a veritable cottage industry of YouTubers, social media personalities whose entire careers consist of smearing Meghan every single day, without exaggeration.

And she didn’t know this before marrying into the BRF?

I don't think one can ever quite prepare for the vitriolic and concerted onslaught of press invasion that comes with marrying into the Royal Family. Can you genuinely magine hundreds of headlines being written about you every single day?

I think Cressdia Bonas and Chelsy Davy worked this out.

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a26379059/cressida-bonas-broke-up-with-prince-harry-will-kate-tour/

Yes and this is generally why long periods of dating are recommended so the girlfriends get a clear and accurate picture. This is why William wanted Harry to slow his roll with Meghan. This passed Harry off, but he just wanted Meghan to have a better idea what she was signing up for. And turns out William was right, because Meghan, by her own admission, had NO IDEA what she was signing up for.

I'm not defending Meghan, but it seems as though she was going to have to decide between a kids and a full understanding of what marriage to a member of the BRF entails. She was 37 when she got married; if she wanted at least two kids, tick tock (I say this as someone who had her last kid at 41).

Now if she could just get to the age where you don't give a f*ck what people say about you because you're busy living your life, we'd have a happy ending.

But she could have very easily done that if they got married quickly, had kids and then took 2-3 years to SLOWLY ease into royal life, like Kate and William did. Not seek the limelight with multiple engagements and big talk about modernizing and changing and whatnot.

This didn't happen bc Meghan didn't marry Harry to slowly ease into anything, she married him for the prime time.

You don't slowly ease into things when you're 36 and want kids.

You can slowly ease into a working royal life at any age. Especially if you tell the Firm's boss that you want to take things slow after marriage to fully learn and understand your new situation. Marry, have a kid, fly under the radar for a few years, do a couple of things here and there until people get used to you. Then work up to prime time.

They literally asked for that? BRF said no to being part-time like K/W were for the first six years of marriage. Rented a barnhouse in the Cotswolds? The rota hired a helicopter to photograph the interior of their bedroom.

No, they asked for part time to do other stuff in the meantime.

Other stuff like piloting a helicopter and joining the royal navy? Jesus. The other royals did 'other stuff'. Even Beatrice and Edo have jobs.

You are betraying your own ignorance. Beatrice and Edo are NOT working royals. They are not HRH, do not have security or salaries, and Edo and the baby do not have titles. I believe they do have a royal apartment.

Royal apartment? They live in St. James Palace. And Beatrice is a Counselor of State AND an HRH. Not exactly sure how you can be a non-working royal and run the country in absence of the King but let's split hairs here.

You really don’t see the difference between she’s doing and producing a podcast based upon your experience in the royal family? You really think Meghan would have been a happy SAHM in Wales whole Harry flew helicopters? They weren’t asking for a viable alternate arrangement. They wanted to sell themselves to Netflix and Spotify.

No, really I don't. Particularly because Fergie is living in a taxpayer funded palace estate with royal security while DIVORCED and putting out Youtube episodes + romance novels but somehow its a problem for Meghan to pay her own way and do a podcast? Is it because of the level of success?

I truly don't see the difference.

Fergie isn't doing those things while also drawing an income from the crown.

H&M wanted to have all of the benefits of the crown and HRH but not do the work for it. Now they are not taxpayer funded and doing their own work. That on its face is fine. However, they are still monetizing their royal connections by trashing the monarchy, which they still clearly want to be a part of.

Please let's elaborate - shall we?

What income from the crown? You mean the $5 million shared pot that came from the Duchy of Cornwall that went 70/30 to the Cambridges and Sussexs? That annual sum was used to fund their office staff, office apartments, household rent, personal and household security, personal staff, and clothing warddrobe...barely.

Now guess where Fergie is living and using? Andrew's crown estate paid for by taxpayers from the Duchy of Lancaster. How much is it costing to fund the Royal Lodge, where Fergie lives as a divorcee, and therefore benefits from Andrew's household rent, household security, and personal staff.

If you want to talk 'not do the work for it' living with the Queen's son on a palace estate as a divorced women and not even being welcome is the definition of that.

https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/royal-lodge-prince-andrew-sarah-ferguson-windsor-family-home-285330/

Oh, noes! “A divorced woman!” *clutches pearls*

I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make here, but Fergie’s presence at Royal Lodge costs the Duchy of Lancaster exactly…what? The cost of the food she eats?

Oh, and the Duchy of Lancaster is not the *taxpayers*. It’s the private estate of the sovereign.

If you think the money from Lancaster doesn’t come from taxes, I don’t know what to tell you.

You don’t know what to say because it doesn’t. The Duchy of Lancaster was the personal property of the Queen and has been inherited by Charles. In fact, the taxpayer funding that the Queen used to receive from the Civil List was abolished in 2011. The holdings of a separate entity, the Crown Estates, generate revenue that the King agreed to give to the government in 1760. The Sovereign does receive a % of the revenues from the Crown Estates (but even that isn’t “tax revenue”). The Duchy of Cornwall, which funds the Prince of Wales and his family, is also a private entity owned by the Heir to the throne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list#Elizabeth_II

Elizabeth II[edit]
The last British monarch to receive Civil List payments was Elizabeth II. The Civil List for her reign lasted from her accession in 1952 until its abolition in 2012. During this period the Queen, as head of state, used the Civil List to defray some of the official expenditure of the monarchy.

Only the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen Mother ever received direct funding from the Civil List.[4] The Prince of Wales and his immediate family (the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry) received their income from the Duchy of Cornwall. The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family were funded from a parliamentary annuity, the amount of which was fully refunded by the Queen to the Treasury.[5] The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) received £359,000 per year.[6]

The last two decades of the Civil List were marked by surpluses and deficits. Surpluses in the 1991–2000 Civil List caused by low inflation and the efforts of the Queen and her staff to make the Royal Household more efficient led to the accrual of a £35.3 million reserve by late 2000. Consequently, the Civil List was fixed at £7.9 million annually in 2001, the same amount as in 1991, and remained at that level until its abolition. The reserve was then used to make up the shortfall in the Civil List during the subsequent decade.[7] The Civil List Act 1972 allowed the Treasury to review the level of the payment every ten years, but only allowed for increases and not reductions.[8]

The abolition of the Civil List was announced in the spending review statement to the House of Commons on 20 October 2010 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. In its place, he said, "the Royal Household will receive a new Sovereign Support Grant linked to a portion of the revenue of the Crown Estate". The Crown Estate is a statutory corporation, run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue for HM Treasury every year (an income surplus of £210.7 million for the year ended 31 March 2010).[9] This income is received by the Crown and given to the state as a result of the agreement reached in 1760 that has been renewed at the beginning of each subsequent reign. The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 received royal assent on 18 October 2011. Under this Act, the Sovereign Grant now funds all of the official expenditure of the monarchy, not just the expenditure previously borne by the Civil List.

So you pasted a bunch of Wikipedia paragraphs and you are still clueless. The Duchy of Lancaster is a PRIVATE estate that is run as a business and generates income for the monarch. The monarch actually pays taxes on the income generated from this business, does not receive tax income.

The Crown Estate is the Royal Family Property/Real Estate assets that were put in a Public/Private trust with 75% of it’s Real Estate income going to Parliament and 25% going to the Monarch. All that income is going to maintain the Palace, the art collection, the archives, guards, staff etc. In other words repair and maintain British history and heritage.

Charles can do whatever he wants with the income generated from the Duchy of Lancaster, it’s his private money as was the Queens. They just can’t touch the capital.

Why are you scolding the immediate PP? They were pointing out that the Duchy is not funded by taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

What a moving sight of the grandchildren standing at the Queen's coffin. They bowed their heads but both Zara and William looked a bit teary eyed. Some parents were standing nearby, and Sophie, Countess of Wessex was openly crying -- maybe for both the queen and how well her younger children were comporting themselves.

[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:

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:People didn't like Kate and although she was just a young girl , she was brutally criticized because she was a commoner and not good enough for future king. However, she won everyone, including family and media. It must be tough for her but she handles it like a pro. She's been with him since their teen years, their connection is strong. She is a real asset for him.

She didn’t do anything to win anyone over. She just got relentlessly sugary press coverage. Not sure why that’s the case (other than the whole bot gate thing covered in The NY Times).

Have you forgotten the Wisteria sisters and Waity Katie years? Ot wasn’t always positive but she put in her time to get where she is now,

They tore her to shreds in Tattler just two years ago. That article was as below the belt as it gets. Someone should have told Meghan it’s not personal, they are power games, they were testing for weak spots and found plenty with Meghan and Harry.

And the topless sunbathing pics. Quite the invasion of privacy. But I think calling Fergie the "Duchess of Pork" was one of the meanest headlines. Her weight has been an issue for her so I can't imagine what she would have thought of that.

But the family responded to the topless pics and, IIRC, sued the tabloid that published them. They also responded when there were recent articles claiming Kate was anorexic. So it seems that they are willing to speak out against the media to protect their own. If the articles about Kate being anorexic warranted a response, one would think that racist articles would likewise warrant a response, especially for a family who is "very much not racist."

They also sued for saying Kate got Botox. They're pretty sue happy protecting the chosen ones.

The anorexic thing was also scrubbed entirely; that unhinged Princess Michael of Kent (yes, the one who wore a racist pin to meet Meghan) called Kate something like, "an anorexic dullard, just like his mother (Diana)"

The plastic surgeon was using Kate's image to promote his business, which he didn't have permission to do.

...Okay, and? What about all the people who *literally* make livelihoods out of bashing Meghan Markle? There is a veritable cottage industry of YouTubers, social media personalities whose entire careers consist of smearing Meghan every single day, without exaggeration.

And she didn’t know this before marrying into the BRF?

I don't think one can ever quite prepare for the vitriolic and concerted onslaught of press invasion that comes with marrying into the Royal Family. Can you genuinely magine hundreds of headlines being written about you every single day?

I think Cressdia Bonas and Chelsy Davy worked this out.

https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a26379059/cressida-bonas-broke-up-with-prince-harry-will-kate-tour/

Yes and this is generally why long periods of dating are recommended so the girlfriends get a clear and accurate picture. This is why William wanted Harry to slow his roll with Meghan. This passed Harry off, but he just wanted Meghan to have a better idea what she was signing up for. And turns out William was right, because Meghan, by her own admission, had NO IDEA what she was signing up for.

I'm not defending Meghan, but it seems as though she was going to have to decide between a kids and a full understanding of what marriage to a member of the BRF entails. She was 37 when she got married; if she wanted at least two kids, tick tock (I say this as someone who had her last kid at 41).

Now if she could just get to the age where you don't give a f*ck what people say about you because you're busy living your life, we'd have a happy ending.

But she could have very easily done that if they got married quickly, had kids and then took 2-3 years to SLOWLY ease into royal life, like Kate and William did. Not seek the limelight with multiple engagements and big talk about modernizing and changing and whatnot.

This didn't happen bc Meghan didn't marry Harry to slowly ease into anything, she married him for the prime time.

You don't slowly ease into things when you're 36 and want kids.

You can slowly ease into a working royal life at any age. Especially if you tell the Firm's boss that you want to take things slow after marriage to fully learn and understand your new situation. Marry, have a kid, fly under the radar for a few years, do a couple of things here and there until people get used to you. Then work up to prime time.

They literally asked for that? BRF said no to being part-time like K/W were for the first six years of marriage. Rented a barnhouse in the Cotswolds? The rota hired a helicopter to photograph the interior of their bedroom.

No, they asked for part time to do other stuff in the meantime.

Other stuff like piloting a helicopter and joining the royal navy? Jesus. The other royals did 'other stuff'. Even Beatrice and Edo have jobs.

You are betraying your own ignorance. Beatrice and Edo are NOT working royals. They are not HRH, do not have security or salaries, and Edo and the baby do not have titles. I believe they do have a royal apartment.

Royal apartment? They live in St. James Palace. And Beatrice is a Counselor of State AND an HRH. Not exactly sure how you can be a non-working royal and run the country in absence of the King but let's split hairs here.

You really don’t see the difference between she’s doing and producing a podcast based upon your experience in the royal family? You really think Meghan would have been a happy SAHM in Wales whole Harry flew helicopters? They weren’t asking for a viable alternate arrangement. They wanted to sell themselves to Netflix and Spotify.

No, really I don't. Particularly because Fergie is living in a taxpayer funded palace estate with royal security while DIVORCED and putting out Youtube episodes + romance novels but somehow its a problem for Meghan to pay her own way and do a podcast? Is it because of the level of success?

I truly don't see the difference.

Fergie isn't doing those things while also drawing an income from the crown.

H&M wanted to have all of the benefits of the crown and HRH but not do the work for it. Now they are not taxpayer funded and doing their own work. That on its face is fine. However, they are still monetizing their royal connections by trashing the monarchy, which they still clearly want to be a part of.

Please let's elaborate - shall we?

What income from the crown? You mean the $5 million shared pot that came from the Duchy of Cornwall that went 70/30 to the Cambridges and Sussexs? That annual sum was used to fund their office staff, office apartments, household rent, personal and household security, personal staff, and clothing warddrobe...barely.

Now guess where Fergie is living and using? Andrew's crown estate paid for by taxpayers from the Duchy of Lancaster. How much is it costing to fund the Royal Lodge, where Fergie lives as a divorcee, and therefore benefits from Andrew's household rent, household security, and personal staff.

If you want to talk 'not do the work for it' living with the Queen's son on a palace estate as a divorced women and not even being welcome is the definition of that.

https://www.womanandhome.com/life/royal-news/royal-lodge-prince-andrew-sarah-ferguson-windsor-family-home-285330/

Oh, noes! “A divorced woman!” *clutches pearls*

I’m not even sure what point you’re trying to make here, but Fergie’s presence at Royal Lodge costs the Duchy of Lancaster exactly…what? The cost of the food she eats?

Oh, and the Duchy of Lancaster is not the *taxpayers*. It’s the private estate of the sovereign.

If you think the money from Lancaster doesn’t come from taxes, I don’t know what to tell you.

You don’t know what to say because it doesn’t. The Duchy of Lancaster was the personal property of the Queen and has been inherited by Charles. In fact, the taxpayer funding that the Queen used to receive from the Civil List was abolished in 2011. The holdings of a separate entity, the Crown Estates, generate revenue that the King agreed to give to the government in 1760. The Sovereign does receive a % of the revenues from the Crown Estates (but even that isn’t “tax revenue”). The Duchy of Cornwall, which funds the Prince of Wales and his family, is also a private entity owned by the Heir to the throne.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_list#Elizabeth_II

Elizabeth II[edit]
The last British monarch to receive Civil List payments was Elizabeth II. The Civil List for her reign lasted from her accession in 1952 until its abolition in 2012. During this period the Queen, as head of state, used the Civil List to defray some of the official expenditure of the monarchy.

Only the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen Mother ever received direct funding from the Civil List.[4] The Prince of Wales and his immediate family (the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry) received their income from the Duchy of Cornwall. The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family were funded from a parliamentary annuity, the amount of which was fully refunded by the Queen to the Treasury.[5] The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) received £359,000 per year.[6]

The last two decades of the Civil List were marked by surpluses and deficits. Surpluses in the 1991–2000 Civil List caused by low inflation and the efforts of the Queen and her staff to make the Royal Household more efficient led to the accrual of a £35.3 million reserve by late 2000. Consequently, the Civil List was fixed at £7.9 million annually in 2001, the same amount as in 1991, and remained at that level until its abolition. The reserve was then used to make up the shortfall in the Civil List during the subsequent decade.[7] The Civil List Act 1972 allowed the Treasury to review the level of the payment every ten years, but only allowed for increases and not reductions.[8]

The abolition of the Civil List was announced in the spending review statement to the House of Commons on 20 October 2010 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne. In its place, he said, "the Royal Household will receive a new Sovereign Support Grant linked to a portion of the revenue of the Crown Estate". The Crown Estate is a statutory corporation, run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue for HM Treasury every year (an income surplus of £210.7 million for the year ended 31 March 2010).[9] This income is received by the Crown and given to the state as a result of the agreement reached in 1760 that has been renewed at the beginning of each subsequent reign. The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 received royal assent on 18 October 2011. Under this Act, the Sovereign Grant now funds all of the official expenditure of the monarchy, not just the expenditure previously borne by the Civil List.

So you pasted a bunch of Wikipedia paragraphs and you are still clueless. The Duchy of Lancaster is a PRIVATE estate that is run as a business and generates income for the monarch. The monarch actually pays taxes on the income generated from this business, does not receive tax income.

The Crown Estate is the Royal Family Property/Real Estate assets that were put in a Public/Private trust with 75% of it’s Real Estate income going to Parliament and 25% going to the Monarch. All that income is going to maintain the Palace, the art collection, the archives, guards, staff etc. In other words repair and maintain British history and heritage.

Charles can do whatever he wants with the income generated from the Duchy of Lancaster, it’s his private money as was the Queens. They just can’t touch the capital.

Uh, yes. That was the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a moving sight of the grandchildren standing at the Queen's coffin. They bowed their heads but both Zara and William looked a bit teary eyed. Some parents were standing nearby, and Sophie, Countess of Wessex was openly crying -- maybe for both the queen and how well her younger children were comporting themselves.

Very moving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Can’t take anything you say seriously if you think Phillip married a crown princess. Your royal know it all card has been officially revoked.

Elizabeth wasn't a crown princess when she and Phillip got married? I thought a crown prince or princess meant the heir to the throne.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can’t take anything you say seriously if you think Phillip married a crown princess. Your royal know it all card has been officially revoked.

Elizabeth wasn't a crown princess when she and Phillip got married? I thought a crown prince or princess meant the heir to the throne.

DP. Not sure why you are so hung up on this. Elizabeth was the heir apparent when she got married. Her uncle abdicated during her childhood, making her father king. She had no brothers. However the UK doesn’t refer to the first in line to the throne as the Crown Prince or Princess. I’m aware some other nations do, but I don’t ever hear that term used in reference to the British Monarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a moving sight of the grandchildren standing at the Queen's coffin. They bowed their heads but both Zara and William looked a bit teary eyed. Some parents were standing nearby, and Sophie, Countess of Wessex was openly crying -- maybe for both the queen and how well her younger children were comporting themselves.

Where is the picture?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can’t take anything you say seriously if you think Phillip married a crown princess. Your royal know it all card has been officially revoked.

Elizabeth wasn't a crown princess when she and Phillip got married? I thought a crown prince or princess meant the heir to the throne.

Not in the UK. They don’t use that construction. She was the Heiress Presumptive (as opposed to Charles, who was the Heir Apparent) because up until the moment she became Queen, her father could have had a son who would have displaced her. Now, when the laws have changed to disallow younger boys from displacing their elder sisters (like Andrew and Edward did to Anne) we are unlikely to see many Heir Presumptives again, unless the monarch is childless and the heir is a sibling or niece or nephew.

[Anonymous]

As an American, I was saddened to hear of the Queen’s death. But what really made me tear up was a close-up of her crown on her casket.

[Anonymous]

Why wouldn't the wife of the heir be invited...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn't the wife of the heir be invited...

It’s the event of the century and only 2k seats in Westminster.