Prince Harry and Archie

[Anonymous]

I do think there is a problem here with pp who doesn't see the distinction between things that are immensely valuable that are owned by the Queen, and, in some cases, the Crown (which are two different things), that have "investment" value (real estate, gems) and depreciating assets, like a designer evening gown. A $75,000 designer evening gown is probably the best example of a depreciating asset. It's effectively worthless after having been worn once. Same deal with a fortune spent on a baby shower.

People still get upset about renovations to the palaces, because those are paid for by the sovereign grant and 3 million pounds is a lot of money for a renovation. Renovating an old house is expensive, but to the average person, it sounds like they're installing gold toilets or something.

I think that Meghan, having been exposed to Hollywood wealth (which is more about surface appearances and celebrating the cost), doesn't understand the distinction, either. If you haven't grown up in that world, it may not make sense, or seem hypocritical, for a woman who owns a gazillion-dollar art collection to be worried about not appearing to spend too much on clothes, but its a real thing. It's the appearance part that matters -- the Queen has everything she wears custom made. No one has any idea how much it all costs, and that's the point. Just like no one has any idea how much those custom McQueens that Kate wears cost. Meghan's (rookie) mistake was wearing something that could be easily priced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

no title = no direct access to crown estate. they can still be funded through the queens discretionary spending, which is what maintains the majority of the non working royals.

for the poster who wrote 2 residences per family.... try 12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Same.

[Anonymous]

no title = no direct access to crown estate. they can still be funded through the queens discretionary spending, which is what maintains the majority of the non working royals.

(sigh) you are incorrect. The only 'title' with direct access to the Sovereign Grant is the current monarch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

no title = no direct access to crown estate. they can still be funded through the queens discretionary spending, which is what maintains the majority of the non working royals.

(sigh) you are incorrect. The only 'title' with direct access to the Sovereign Grant is the current monarch.

...managed by a large team with tons of accountants. but it is intended for the upkeep of the working royals... that's what i meant. not that they each have an atm card.

[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.

Still a stupid twit, I see. I am not talking about Duchy of Lancaster revenues. Using your own authoritative source, wikipedia, you'd learn the Sovereign Grant is a different source of funds. The Sovereign Grant revenues are NOT from the Duchy of Lancaster. The Sovereign Grant is NOT funded by taxpayers. So what if the people renting Crown properties don't like what the 'corporation' is doing with their rent payments? Don't like what your landlord is doing with his money (like Trump), don't live in his properties. Likewise, taxpayers have no standing to opine on how the monarch decides to use the funds from the Sovereign Grant because it is not funded by tax dollars. In fact, the monarch only gets a percentage of the profits from the Crown estate. The rest goes to the government treasury.

BTW, the history of the 'crown estates' and 'crown properties' have no bearing on this discussion. What is pertinent are the incorrect claims British taxpayers are funding the Frogmore Cottage renovations. If you're going to opine, at least get your facts straight.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Government in exchange for relief from the responsibility to fund the Civil Government.[6] These revenues thus proceed directly to Her Majesty's Treasury, for the benefit of the British nation.

[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.

Still a stupid twit, I see. I am not talking about Duchy of Lancaster revenues. Using your own authoritative source, wikipedia, you'd learn the Sovereign Grant is a different source of funds. The Sovereign Grant revenues are NOT from the Duchy of Lancaster. The Sovereign Grant is NOT funded by taxpayers. So what if the people renting Crown properties don't like what the 'corporation' is doing with their rent payments? Don't like what your landlord is doing with his money (like Trump), don't live in his properties. Likewise, taxpayers have no standing to opine on how the monarch decides to use the funds from the Sovereign Grant because it is not funded by tax dollars. In fact, the monarch only gets a percentage of the profits from the Crown estate. The rest goes to the government treasury.

BTW, the history of the 'crown estates' and 'crown properties' have no bearing on this discussion. What is pertinent are the incorrect claims British taxpayers are funding the Frogmore Cottage renovations. If you're going to opine, at least get your facts straight.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Government in exchange for relief from the responsibility to fund the Civil Government.[6] These revenues thus proceed directly to Her Majesty's Treasury, for the benefit of the British nation.

Please work on your reading comprehension. Of course they are very different sources, as was stated.

[Anonymous]

^^ You, again, missed the entire point but I FIFY

and the people of England are not entitled to their opinion on the monies from the Crown Estate..because the money does not comes out of their pockets but from payments to the Crown via rents on farms, factories, many aspects of the British economy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ You, again, missed the entire point but I FIFY

and the people of England are not entitled to their opinion on the monies from the Crown Estate..because the money does not comes out of their pockets but from payments to the Crown via rents on farms, factories, many aspects of the British economy

lol.