Prince Harry and Archie

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny thing I find about Kate (and William's) focus on mental health and early childhood support -- one of the great fields were everything is 'immaterial'. There's no concrete data or facts to judge them by so they can skate by periodically releasing a statement or picture on the subject without any actual work done on the subject. I mean they could do something like raise $5M a year so that every child in Britain receives a book on their first birthday but they won't. That would take accountability.

Unlike say Camilla's focus on domestic violence where she finances actual shelters and 1,000s of ready kits for women who've suffered abuse or Charles's Prince's Trust which provides actual jobs to at-risk youth and has for decades, or Harry's focus on soldiers and the Invictus Games -- where he's brought together 38 countries and representative teams with wounded veterans.

Clear actions with tangible results matter.

so...they should do nothing about mental health? not support community centers that help young people? not help set up a phone call hotline? your logic is, um... not logical....

I think they should do more than they're doing. Occasionally dropping by a community center for a photo op and trying to steal your brother's work with SHOUT UK (check the pictures -- only Meghan and Harry actually did walk-throughs and in-person meetings with SHOUT in Fall 2018 / Kate wasn't even in the video) is not enough.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion but, you should know, your opinion doesn't really matter. Seems the Queen and the POW is fine with Kate's level of engagement. For your own mental health, you should move on, maybe doing some of your own fundraising for mental health.

As this thread points out - a lot of us have opinions on this and *shocker* share the opinion that Kate is lazy. What are you -- on her staff? We can talk about it as much as we want.

^.^

Dp I read an interesting article on how we are judging who is working harder. Is it by engagement or by day. For example, sometimes a count of engagements doesn't require any time devoted to the event. So, if you do a lot of these it can look like you are working harder versus where the visits are longer and more in depth. This can take time and therefore may seem that they do less. So, by "days worked" Princess Anne comes in as number 1, Edward is number 2, Charles is number 2. But Charles comes in first if you count engagements. Overall , I think the critical pps are being too hard on Kate especially since she has had three babies in five years. Perhaps it is a bit of jealousy?

It is an interesting read: http://writeroyalty.com

[Anonymous]

How much you want to bet that Amal Clooney or Some other celebrity that has befriended Meghan in the last 3 years ends up the god parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much you want to bet that Amal Clooney or Some other celebrity that has befriended Meghan in the last 3 years ends up the god parents?

I doubt it. Amal isn’t even Episcopalian. (She’s Druze.) They will likely pick a non-royal, non-celeb couple. Perhaps an old service buddy of Harry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it specifically says here that HARRY is the one that regards Archie as a private citizen and HARRY doesn't want to have public ceremonies but we're blaming Meghan. Got it.

Oh puhlease. Harry was never private before Meghan. Be smarter PP.

DP. Harry is entitled/allowed to make different choices for his son than those made by Prince Charles for his sons. Harry is allowed to have a different view of things now that he has his own child. Did you ever see the footage of William and Harry walking in Diana's funeral procession? I have no doubt he would make that choice for his DS.

I feel compelled to point out this misguided quote from the article:

“Many people don’t understand why they are paying nearly £3m for Harry and Meghan’s house, so in terms of public relations it would be a good quid pro quo for the pair to briefly show Archie off.”

I'm not even British and I understand that the $$ being used to renovate Frogmore Cottage does not come directly from British taxpayers. It's from the Sovereign Grant which is a percentage of the annual profits of the "Crown Estate" (properties own by the 'crown' and not the government or any individual monarch) which s intended to meet the costs of the sovereign's official expenditures. This includes the costs of the upkeep of the various royal residences, staffing, travel and state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment (thank you wikipedia).

This means that the queen gets to decide what to do with the money she gets from the 'crown' properties. These aren't taxpayer funds, these are the queen's funds and when the next king takes the throne, they'll be his funds. And, the renovations don't include furnishings (like curtains, beds, etc.) or upgrades to the kitchen, closets, floors, etc. Harry and Meghan have to pay for those personally. But, people thrive on alt-facts/misinformation and feel good when they get yet another opportunity to bash/blame Meghan.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/21/but-the-queen-is-paying-for-the-370-million-buckingham-palace-repairs-already/#7443f0b13214

How much of British history do you know?

What you are essentially referring to is the Duchy of Lancaster. That, and many others, are the Queen's income.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Lancaster

The Crown properties and Crown Estate are very different.

How do you think they got all of these properties?

Back in the day, when you were King, in the glorious days of absolute Monarchy, you were entitled to take whatever you wanted because you were King, sent by God. Then, some other wannabe King would kill you and take everything you owned, and annex more, maybe lose France or Denmark, etc.

At some point, around 1688, Britain transitioned to a Constitutional Monarchy and had to begin to work some of this out. It has been a process. But guess what, they do not just get to own everything. They have more investments than any family would ever need, along with many of their old landed friends. Check out Grosvenor, one of the largest global real estate firms with massive holdings. Check out who owns them. These families are still raking in profits like its medieval times.

The people of England are entitled to their opinion on the monies from the Crown Estate...because the money comes out of their pockets as payments to the Crown via rents on farms, factories, many aspects of the British economy.

Meghan would be wise to pay *a little more* attention.

It's kind of like the most extreme form of white privilege, and there is a deal worked out around it. You get to keep these, but in the return you do x and y. They are not supposed to rub people's nose in their spending, for one, and the non-stop Givenchy does her no favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it specifically says here that HARRY is the one that regards Archie as a private citizen and HARRY doesn't want to have public ceremonies but we're blaming Meghan. Got it.

Oh puhlease. Harry was never private before Meghan. Be smarter PP.

DP. Harry is entitled/allowed to make different choices for his son than those made by Prince Charles for his sons. Harry is allowed to have a different view of things now that he has his own child. Did you ever see the footage of William and Harry walking in Diana's funeral procession? I have no doubt he would make that choice for his DS.

I feel compelled to point out this misguided quote from the article:

“Many people don’t understand why they are paying nearly £3m for Harry and Meghan’s house, so in terms of public relations it would be a good quid pro quo for the pair to briefly show Archie off.”

I'm not even British and I understand that the $$ being used to renovate Frogmore Cottage does not come directly from British taxpayers. It's from the Sovereign Grant which is a percentage of the annual profits of the "Crown Estate" (properties own by the 'crown' and not the government or any individual monarch) which s intended to meet the costs of the sovereign's official expenditures. This includes the costs of the upkeep of the various royal residences, staffing, travel and state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment (thank you wikipedia).

This means that the queen gets to decide what to do with the money she gets from the 'crown' properties. These aren't taxpayer funds, these are the queen's funds and when the next king takes the throne, they'll be his funds. And, the renovations don't include furnishings (like curtains, beds, etc.) or upgrades to the kitchen, closets, floors, etc. Harry and Meghan have to pay for those personally. But, people thrive on alt-facts/misinformation and feel good when they get yet another opportunity to bash/blame Meghan.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/21/but-the-queen-is-paying-for-the-370-million-buckingham-palace-repairs-already/#7443f0b13214

How much of British history do you know?

What you are essentially referring to is the Duchy of Lancaster. That, and many others, are the Queen's income.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Lancaster

The Crown properties and Crown Estate are very different.

How do you think they got all of these properties?

Back in the day, when you were King, in the glorious days of absolute Monarchy, you were entitled to take whatever you wanted because you were King, sent by God. Then, some other wannabe King would kill you and take everything you owned, and annex more, maybe lose France or Denmark, etc.

At some point, around 1688, Britain transitioned to a Constitutional Monarchy and had to begin to work some of this out. It has been a process. But guess what, they do not just get to own everything. They have more investments than any family would ever need, along with many of their old landed friends. Check out Grosvenor, one of the largest global real estate firms with massive holdings. Check out who owns them. These families are still raking in profits like its medieval times.

The people of England are entitled to their opinion on the monies from the Crown Estate...because the money comes out of their pockets as payments to the Crown via rents on farms, factories, many aspects of the British economy.

Meghan would be wise to pay *a little more* attention.

It's kind of like the most extreme form of white privilege, and there is a deal worked out around it. You get to keep these, but in the return you do x and y. They are not supposed to rub people's nose in their spending, for one, and the non-stop Givenchy does her no favors.

Here's my issue with this and the press's fervent criticism of her 'non-stop Givenchy'.

A) She's representing the Queen every time she steps outside. Period. You want her to wear Mossimo x Target to events?

B) Say she spent 1 Million pounds in her first fifteen months of being a royal. She didn't because the annual report of expenses for royal households was released and Meghan is far below budget. But say she did. Why are you picking on a woman doing her job when Kate showed up in the same year wearing 1 million pounds in a single NIGHT?



C) Why criticize her renovation of a 4-bedroom house when Prince Edward, his wife, and just two children are living it up in a 56-room CASTLE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it specifically says here that HARRY is the one that regards Archie as a private citizen and HARRY doesn't want to have public ceremonies but we're blaming Meghan. Got it.

Oh puhlease. Harry was never private before Meghan. Be smarter PP.

DP. Harry is entitled/allowed to make different choices for his son than those made by Prince Charles for his sons. Harry is allowed to have a different view of things now that he has his own child. Did you ever see the footage of William and Harry walking in Diana's funeral procession? I have no doubt he would make that choice for his DS.

I feel compelled to point out this misguided quote from the article:

“Many people don’t understand why they are paying nearly £3m for Harry and Meghan’s house, so in terms of public relations it would be a good quid pro quo for the pair to briefly show Archie off.”

I'm not even British and I understand that the $$ being used to renovate Frogmore Cottage does not come directly from British taxpayers. It's from the Sovereign Grant which is a percentage of the annual profits of the "Crown Estate" (properties own by the 'crown' and not the government or any individual monarch) which s intended to meet the costs of the sovereign's official expenditures. This includes the costs of the upkeep of the various royal residences, staffing, travel and state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment (thank you wikipedia).

This means that the queen gets to decide what to do with the money she gets from the 'crown' properties. These aren't taxpayer funds, these are the queen's funds and when the next king takes the throne, they'll be his funds. And, the renovations don't include furnishings (like curtains, beds, etc.) or upgrades to the kitchen, closets, floors, etc. Harry and Meghan have to pay for those personally. But, people thrive on alt-facts/misinformation and feel good when they get yet another opportunity to bash/blame Meghan.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/21/but-the-queen-is-paying-for-the-370-million-buckingham-palace-repairs-already/#7443f0b13214

How much of British history do you know?

What you are essentially referring to is the Duchy of Lancaster. That, and many others, are the Queen's income.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Lancaster

The Crown properties and Crown Estate are very different.

How do you think they got all of these properties?

Back in the day, when you were King, in the glorious days of absolute Monarchy, you were entitled to take whatever you wanted because you were King, sent by God. Then, some other wannabe King would kill you and take everything you owned, and annex more, maybe lose France or Denmark, etc.

At some point, around 1688, Britain transitioned to a Constitutional Monarchy and had to begin to work some of this out. It has been a process. But guess what, they do not just get to own everything. They have more investments than any family would ever need, along with many of their old landed friends. Check out Grosvenor, one of the largest global real estate firms with massive holdings. Check out who owns them. These families are still raking in profits like its medieval times.

The people of England are entitled to their opinion on the monies from the Crown Estate...because the money comes out of their pockets as payments to the Crown via rents on farms, factories, many aspects of the British economy.

Meghan would be wise to pay *a little more* attention.

It's kind of like the most extreme form of white privilege, and there is a deal worked out around it. You get to keep these, but in the return you do x and y. They are not supposed to rub people's nose in their spending, for one, and the non-stop Givenchy does her no favors.

Here's my issue with this and the press's fervent criticism of her 'non-stop Givenchy'.

A) She's representing the Queen every time she steps outside. Period. You want her to wear Mossimo x Target to events?

B) Say she spent 1 Million pounds in her first fifteen months of being a royal. She didn't because the annual report of expenses for royal households was released and Meghan is far below budget. But say she did. Why are you picking on a woman doing her job when Kate showed up in the same year wearing 1 million pounds in a single NIGHT?



C) Why criticize her renovation of a 4-bedroom house when Prince Edward, his wife, and just two children are living it up in a 56-room CASTLE.

Those are Crown jewels there, no? That is the whole point. They have scads of jewels like that. Plus, She is the future Queen.

Edward? Right. That is also the same point. They are wealthy beyond measure. The whole family. You should see the properties they own and do *not* live in.

That is why people lose it over the Crown estate when the royal family acts contrary to the routine. The Queen was stressed about Kate's family (privately funded) vacations back in the day.She was taken to task. Anyway, if you follow popular British opinion, rather than the media, it's obvious mistakes are being made. Expensie PR teams cannot counteract and in fact make it worse.

I just want her to get it right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it specifically says here that HARRY is the one that regards Archie as a private citizen and HARRY doesn't want to have public ceremonies but we're blaming Meghan. Got it.

Oh puhlease. Harry was never private before Meghan. Be smarter PP.

DP. Harry is entitled/allowed to make different choices for his son than those made by Prince Charles for his sons. Harry is allowed to have a different view of things now that he has his own child. Did you ever see the footage of William and Harry walking in Diana's funeral procession? I have no doubt he would make that choice for his DS.

I feel compelled to point out this misguided quote from the article:

“Many people don’t understand why they are paying nearly £3m for Harry and Meghan’s house, so in terms of public relations it would be a good quid pro quo for the pair to briefly show Archie off.”

I'm not even British and I understand that the $$ being used to renovate Frogmore Cottage does not come directly from British taxpayers. It's from the Sovereign Grant which is a percentage of the annual profits of the "Crown Estate" (properties own by the 'crown' and not the government or any individual monarch) which s intended to meet the costs of the sovereign's official expenditures. This includes the costs of the upkeep of the various royal residences, staffing, travel and state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment (thank you wikipedia).

This means that the queen gets to decide what to do with the money she gets from the 'crown' properties. These aren't taxpayer funds, these are the queen's funds and when the next king takes the throne, they'll be his funds. And, the renovations don't include furnishings (like curtains, beds, etc.) or upgrades to the kitchen, closets, floors, etc. Harry and Meghan have to pay for those personally. But, people thrive on alt-facts/misinformation and feel good when they get yet another opportunity to bash/blame Meghan.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/21/but-the-queen-is-paying-for-the-370-million-buckingham-palace-repairs-already/#7443f0b13214

How much of British history do you know?

What you are essentially referring to is the Duchy of Lancaster. That, and many others, are the Queen's income.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Lancaster

The Crown properties and Crown Estate are very different.

How do you think they got all of these properties?

Back in the day, when you were King, in the glorious days of absolute Monarchy, you were entitled to take whatever you wanted because you were King, sent by God. Then, some other wannabe King would kill you and take everything you owned, and annex more, maybe lose France or Denmark, etc.

At some point, around 1688, Britain transitioned to a Constitutional Monarchy and had to begin to work some of this out. It has been a process. But guess what, they do not just get to own everything. They have more investments than any family would ever need, along with many of their old landed friends. Check out Grosvenor, one of the largest global real estate firms with massive holdings. Check out who owns them. These families are still raking in profits like its medieval times.

The people of England are entitled to their opinion on the monies from the Crown Estate...because the money comes out of their pockets as payments to the Crown via rents on farms, factories, many aspects of the British economy.

Meghan would be wise to pay *a little more* attention.

It's kind of like the most extreme form of white privilege, and there is a deal worked out around it. You get to keep these, but in the return you do x and y. They are not supposed to rub people's nose in their spending, for one, and the non-stop Givenchy does her no favors.

Here's my issue with this and the press's fervent criticism of her 'non-stop Givenchy'.

A) She's representing the Queen every time she steps outside. Period. You want her to wear Mossimo x Target to events?

B) Say she spent 1 Million pounds in her first fifteen months of being a royal. She didn't because the annual report of expenses for royal households was released and Meghan is far below budget. But say she did. Why are you picking on a woman doing her job when Kate showed up in the same year wearing 1 million pounds in a single NIGHT?



C) Why criticize her renovation of a 4-bedroom house when Prince Edward, his wife, and just two children are living it up in a 56-room CASTLE.

Those are Crown jewels there, no? That is the whole point. They have scads of jewels like that. Plus, She is the future Queen.

Edward? Right. That is also the same point. They are wealthy beyond measure. The whole family. You should see the properties they own and do *not* live in.

That is why people lose it over the Crown estate when the royal family acts contrary to the routine. The Queen was stressed about Kate's family (privately funded) vacations back in the day.She was taken to task. Anyway, if you follow popular British opinion, rather than the media, it's obvious mistakes are being made. Expensie PR teams cannot counteract and in fact make it worse.

I just want her to get it right.

I seriously DON'T get your point here. It's okay for the royals to maintain massively expensive castles and homes (sometimes two or more per individual families) or to wear or commission extraordinary jewels...but Meghans shoes and dresses are too much?

[Anonymous]

New poster but heres the point - Meghans engagement dress, that she only wore for pics and likely will never wear again, cost $75,000. Her baby shower was extravagant, no matter who paid for it. and these are only 2 examples...

shes new, shes an outsider and instead of easing into the lavish and extraordinary spending of a royal she seems to have jumped right in - whether its right or wrong, the optics look bad. People say she was "rich" before but come on - her house in Toronto looked like a shack and if her entire net worth as a B-list actress was $5 mill that would last about 3 years in LA unless she kept working to sustain her "sayonara zara" lifestyle (which, as an aside was a tacky theme for a party).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


New poster but heres the point - Meghans engagement dress, that she only wore for pics and likely will never wear again, cost $75,000. Her baby shower was extravagant, no matter who paid for it. and these are only 2 examples...

shes new, shes an outsider and instead of easing into the lavish and extraordinary spending of a royal she seems to have jumped right in - whether its right or wrong, the optics look bad. People say she was "rich" before but come on - her house in Toronto looked like a shack and if her entire net worth as a B-list actress was $5 mill that would last about 3 years in LA unless she kept working to sustain her "sayonara zara" lifestyle (which, as an aside was a tacky theme for a party).

People are willing for forgive the dresses to some extent, especially of she tones it down over time, but they want to see pictures of the baby. If he is a totally private citizen, then they want her to seriously resculpt / eliminate her official wardrobe spending, (is she even required to do events?) independent foundation, separate household supported by the crown, etc. The issue is that she wants to insert them as a power couple and have a foundation, with a household supported by the crown, but not tow. the royal line. Anyway, I feel like I am fighting others battles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


New poster but heres the point - Meghans engagement dress, that she only wore for pics and likely will never wear again, cost $75,000. Her baby shower was extravagant, no matter who paid for it. and these are only 2 examples...

shes new, shes an outsider and instead of easing into the lavish and extraordinary spending of a royal she seems to have jumped right in - whether its right or wrong, the optics look bad. People say she was "rich" before but come on - her house in Toronto looked like a shack and if her entire net worth as a B-list actress was $5 mill that would last about 3 years in LA unless she kept working to sustain her "sayonara zara" lifestyle (which, as an aside was a tacky theme for a party).

People are willing for forgive the dresses to some extent, especially of she tones it down over time, but they want to see pictures of the baby. If he is a totally private citizen, then they want her to seriously resculpt / eliminate her official wardrobe spending, (is she even required to do events?) independent foundation, separate household supported by the crown, etc. The issue is that she wants to insert them as a power couple and have a foundation, with a household supported by the crown, but not tow. the royal line. Anyway, I feel like I am fighting others battles.

You're demanding access to a baby now? Maybe have the thought that Meghan and Harry don't want Archie exposed to the press's hatred so soon, especially since he'll spend his entire life in the public eye.

No one is crying for pictures of Lena, Savannah, Isla, or Mia. And the ONLY pictures they got of Lena at her christening in March 2019 were the back of her head. I'm so sick of double standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


New poster but heres the point - Meghans engagement dress, that she only wore for pics and likely will never wear again, cost $75,000. Her baby shower was extravagant, no matter who paid for it. and these are only 2 examples...

shes new, shes an outsider and instead of easing into the lavish and extraordinary spending of a royal she seems to have jumped right in - whether its right or wrong, the optics look bad. People say she was "rich" before but come on - her house in Toronto looked like a shack and if her entire net worth as a B-list actress was $5 mill that would last about 3 years in LA unless she kept working to sustain her "sayonara zara" lifestyle (which, as an aside was a tacky theme for a party).

People are willing for forgive the dresses to some extent, especially of she tones it down over time, but they want to see pictures of the baby. If he is a totally private citizen, then they want her to seriously resculpt / eliminate her official wardrobe spending, (is she even required to do events?) independent foundation, separate household supported by the crown, etc. The issue is that she wants to insert them as a power couple and have a foundation, with a household supported by the crown, but not tow. the royal line. Anyway, I feel like I am fighting others battles.

You're demanding access to a baby now? Maybe have the thought that Meghan and Harry don't want Archie exposed to the press's hatred so soon, especially since he'll spend his entire life in the public eye.

No one is crying for pictures of Lena, Savannah, Isla, or Mia. And the ONLY pictures they got of Lena at her christening in March 2019 were the back of her head. I'm so sick of double standards.

Who?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


New poster but heres the point - Meghans engagement dress, that she only wore for pics and likely will never wear again, cost $75,000. Her baby shower was extravagant, no matter who paid for it. and these are only 2 examples...

shes new, shes an outsider and instead of easing into the lavish and extraordinary spending of a royal she seems to have jumped right in - whether its right or wrong, the optics look bad. People say she was "rich" before but come on - her house in Toronto looked like a shack and if her entire net worth as a B-list actress was $5 mill that would last about 3 years in LA unless she kept working to sustain her "sayonara zara" lifestyle (which, as an aside was a tacky theme for a party).

People are willing for forgive the dresses to some extent, especially of she tones it down over time, but they want to see pictures of the baby. If he is a totally private citizen, then they want her to seriously resculpt / eliminate her official wardrobe spending, (is she even required to do events?) independent foundation, separate household supported by the crown, etc. The issue is that she wants to insert them as a power couple and have a foundation, with a household supported by the crown, but not tow. the royal line. Anyway, I feel like I am fighting others battles.

You're demanding access to a baby now? Maybe have the thought that Meghan and Harry don't want Archie exposed to the press's hatred so soon, especially since he'll spend his entire life in the public eye.

No one is crying for pictures of Lena, Savannah, Isla, or Mia. And the ONLY pictures they got of Lena at her christening in March 2019 were the back of her head. I'm so sick of double standards.

Who?

Exactly.

They have the same relevancy to the royal family as Archie and no titles. Yet you don’t know who they are.

[Anonymous]

No one is crying for pics bc no one cares about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is crying for pics bc no one cares about them.

So you admit that do care about this particular child? Hmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is crying for pics bc no one cares about them.

So you admit that do care about this particular child? Hmmm.

I’m saying I dgaf about the other people. They aren’t constantly shoving Pr pieces in our faces. Harry and William I do “care” about in that I am interested.