The new reign of King Charles III has begun

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t fault the Sussexes for wanting to become financially secure. If they hadn’t they would have still been dependent on allowances from Charles while William became independently wealthy.

One more time: William and Harry are not equals.

So then why do you people act dumbfounded that he doesn’t want all of the downsides of the same deal with none of the benefits?

Because we aren't all one person speaking. I am sure there are some benefits.

Begging your parent - and eventually your older brother - for allowances throughout your life seems really degrading.

Besides, Prince Andrew shows that idle royal hands are a dangerous thing for The Firm. Better for these people to work at a career, learn how to budget their own money, be self-sufficient, etc.

Harry can read the writing on the wall.

Princess Margaret as well. Very unhappy, unfulfilled that the Queen got a front row seat for.

I think it was right for Harry to leave. There is NO WAY I would want to spend my life in my brother’s shadow hoping for handouts simply by an accident of birth. I just wish his plan for financial independence didn’t involve tell-all books and Oprah interviews that directly play on his royal ties. I wish they had a real plan.

I don't think anyone faults them for walking away. People fault them for making whining and complaining the centerpiece of their business model. The fact of the matter is that the Sussexes haven't created independent value yet - their connection to the BRF is still the most interesting thing about them, and I am sure they just hate it.

In other news, faint insults continue - no military uniform for Harry at funerals, thank you very much, wear jacket and tie, my dear Harry, much love as you build your life overseas.

THIS THIS THIS. If all they want is independence and privacy as they claim, why don't they take it be on their merry way? That's not what they are doing.

The propaganda mission went into overdrive to be nasty to and about Meghan. I think Meghan wanted her side told in the hopes of outing the machine for being jerks and I think Harry felt the need to explain why he wanted to step away from the royal family because he owed it "to the people". They never stood a chance for a peaceful life regardless if they stayed or left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t fault the Sussexes for wanting to become financially secure. If they hadn’t they would have still been dependent on allowances from Charles while William became independently wealthy.

Except they can’t also be working royals then. And if they aren’t working royals, they don’t get HRH or security. But rather than acknowledging their choice was the reason, Meghan wants to call racism.

So they can be financially independent, but then need to stop pouting about what they chose to walk away from.

I have no doubt that there was racism in how they treated Meghan Markle. No doubt that if Harry had married a bona fide English aristocrat, they would have been treated differently had he and his English rose stated they wanted to work part time. The American biracial divorcee was just called a whiny ungrateful striver.

This is the English Royal family after all. Their bread and butter has been colonialism, very much a race based concept and reality, for centuries.

Doesnt Fergie still lives in "Royal housing" as well as her children? They show up to a couple of random things and that entitles them to the royal benefits?
Andrew still lives (with Fergie) in royal housing and he is a known pedifile and stipped of all his royals things but still seems to be included in the royal tribe.

It makes sense to still protect the son of the future king/now King of England. It didn't make sense to strip Harry of his military affiliations either. It just seemed vindictive.

*pedophile

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t fault the Sussexes for wanting to become financially secure. If they hadn’t they would have still been dependent on allowances from Charles while William became independently wealthy.

Except they can’t also be working royals then. And if they aren’t working royals, they don’t get HRH or security. But rather than acknowledging their choice was the reason, Meghan wants to call racism.

So they can be financially independent, but then need to stop pouting about what they chose to walk away from.

I have no doubt that there was racism in how they treated Meghan Markle. No doubt that if Harry had married a bona fide English aristocrat, they would have been treated differently had he and his English rose stated they wanted to work part time. The American biracial divorcee was just called a whiny ungrateful striver.

This is the English Royal family after all. Their bread and butter has been colonialism, very much a race based concept and reality, for centuries.

Doesnt Fergie still lives in "Royal housing" as well as her children? They show up to a couple of random things and that entitles them to the royal benefits?
Andrew still lives (with Fergie) in royal housing and he is a known pedifile and stipped of all his royals things but still seems to be included in the royal tribe.

It makes sense to still protect the son of the future king/now King of England. It didn't make sense to strip Harry of his military affiliations either. It just seemed vindictive.

They are like Anglican version of the mob. It's all about "family" until it's not, and if you step out of line, you're dead to them. They keep you in the fold as long as you play by their rules and there's no tolerance for wanting to take a different path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t fault the Sussexes for wanting to become financially secure. If they hadn’t they would have still been dependent on allowances from Charles while William became independently wealthy.

Except they can’t also be working royals then. And if they aren’t working royals, they don’t get HRH or security. But rather than acknowledging their choice was the reason, Meghan wants to call racism.

So they can be financially independent, but then need to stop pouting about what they chose to walk away from.

I have no doubt that there was racism in how they treated Meghan Markle. No doubt that if Harry had married a bona fide English aristocrat, they would have been treated differently had he and his English rose stated they wanted to work part time. The American biracial divorcee was just called a whiny ungrateful striver.

This is the English Royal family after all. Their bread and butter has been colonialism, very much a race based concept and reality, for centuries.

Doesnt Fergie still lives in "Royal housing" as well as her children? They show up to a couple of random things and that entitles them to the royal benefits?
Andrew still lives (with Fergie) in royal housing and he is a known pedifile and stipped of all his royals things but still seems to be included in the royal tribe.

It makes sense to still protect the son of the future king/now King of England. It didn't make sense to strip Harry of his military affiliations either. It just seemed vindictive.

Fergie and Andrew did not declare a desire for "financial independence," tell the UK press to essentially eff off, and move to the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the Queen’s service in Edinburgh, Nicola Sturgeon read a very pointed section from Ecclesiastes which states “there is a time to keep and a time to cast away.” Since the Queen selected the readings in advance, I wonder if this is her subtle message to encourage Scottish independence?

No. Isn't that read at basically all funerals? To remind people that there is a time for every season under heaven, including a time for old age and a time for death. A time to rejoice and a time to mourn. A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the Queen’s service in Edinburgh, Nicola Sturgeon read a very pointed section from Ecclesiastes which states “there is a time to keep and a time to cast away.” Since the Queen selected the readings in advance, I wonder if this is her subtle message to encourage Scottish independence?

No. Isn't that read at basically all funerals? To remind people that there is a time for every season under heaven, including a time for old age and a time for death. A time to rejoice and a time to mourn. A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.

+1 See also The Byrds’ song “Turn! Turn! Turn!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t fault the Sussexes for wanting to become financially secure. If they hadn’t they would have still been dependent on allowances from Charles while William became independently wealthy.

Except they can’t also be working royals then. And if they aren’t working royals, they don’t get HRH or security. But rather than acknowledging their choice was the reason, Meghan wants to call racism.

So they can be financially independent, but then need to stop pouting about what they chose to walk away from.

I have no doubt that there was racism in how they treated Meghan Markle. No doubt that if Harry had married a bona fide English aristocrat, they would have been treated differently had he and his English rose stated they wanted to work part time. The American biracial divorcee was just called a whiny ungrateful striver.

This is the English Royal family after all. Their bread and butter has been colonialism, very much a race based concept and reality, for centuries.

There is absolutely "doubt." There is NO precendent for a "part time working royal" who also works and earns personal income apart from being a working royal. None. So no, Meghan was not being treated differently. But it sure makes a good story on her part, doesn't it? Same with the "boo hoo my baby won't be a prince and won't have security because I'm black." Completely untrue but makes a great soundbite!

Don’t forget “they tried to roast my baby to death with a space heater and made me go back to work.”

Isnt Andrew a part timer? Fergie?

It is disingenuous to pretend race has no role in the way the RF and the media are treating her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t fault the Sussexes for wanting to become financially secure. If they hadn’t they would have still been dependent on allowances from Charles while William became independently wealthy.

Except they can’t also be working royals then. And if they aren’t working royals, they don’t get HRH or security. But rather than acknowledging their choice was the reason, Meghan wants to call racism.

So they can be financially independent, but then need to stop pouting about what they chose to walk away from.

I have no doubt that there was racism in how they treated Meghan Markle. No doubt that if Harry had married a bona fide English aristocrat, they would have been treated differently had he and his English rose stated they wanted to work part time. The American biracial divorcee was just called a whiny ungrateful striver.

This is the English Royal family after all. Their bread and butter has been colonialism, very much a race based concept and reality, for centuries.

They were driven out by the daily mail and the rest of them. I would have left too.


Doesnt Fergie still lives in "Royal housing" as well as her children? They show up to a couple of random things and that entitles them to the royal benefits?
Andrew still lives (with Fergie) in royal housing and he is a known pedifile and stipped of all his royals things but still seems to be included in the royal tribe.

It makes sense to still protect the son of the future king/now King of England. It didn't make sense to strip Harry of his military affiliations either. It just seemed vindictive.

Fergie and Andrew did not declare a desire for "financial independence," tell the UK press to essentially eff off, and move to the US.

[Anonymous]

The nasty racist tabloids drove them out of the UK. The RF was no help at all.

MM was overshadowing KM and that was unacceptable.

I understand why they left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The nasty racist tabloids drove them out of the UK. The RF was no help at all.

MM was overshadowing KM and that was unacceptable.

I understand why they left.

Nah. Meghan just didn't want to curtsey to Kate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the Queen’s service in Edinburgh, Nicola Sturgeon read a very pointed section from Ecclesiastes which states “there is a time to keep and a time to cast away.” Since the Queen selected the readings in advance, I wonder if this is her subtle message to encourage Scottish independence?

No. Isn't that read at basically all funerals? To remind people that there is a time for every season under heaven, including a time for old age and a time for death. A time to rejoice and a time to mourn. A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.

[Anonymous]

Tuned into procession late and wondered who was the old man who could barely walk, walking next to Anne. It was Charles. He must have some serious health issues himself. William better be ready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tuned into procession late and wondered who was the old man who could barely walk, walking next to Anne. It was Charles. He must have some serious health issues himself. William better be ready.

Not only is William ready, he's already doing half the job. I wouldn't be too worried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t fault the Sussexes for wanting to become financially secure. If they hadn’t they would have still been dependent on allowances from Charles while William became independently wealthy.

Except they can’t also be working royals then. And if they aren’t working royals, they don’t get HRH or security. But rather than acknowledging their choice was the reason, Meghan wants to call racism.

So they can be financially independent, but then need to stop pouting about what they chose to walk away from.

I have no doubt that there was racism in how they treated Meghan Markle. No doubt that if Harry had married a bona fide English aristocrat, they would have been treated differently had he and his English rose stated they wanted to work part time. The American biracial divorcee was just called a whiny ungrateful striver.

This is the English Royal family after all. Their bread and butter has been colonialism, very much a race based concept and reality, for centuries.

There is absolutely "doubt." There is NO precendent for a "part time working royal" who also works and earns personal income apart from being a working royal. None. So no, Meghan was not being treated differently. But it sure makes a good story on her part, doesn't it? Same with the "boo hoo my baby won't be a prince and won't have security because I'm black." Completely untrue but makes a great soundbite!

Over 20(?) years ago Prince Edward stepped away and tried to run a production company. Prince Phillip said it was wonderful because the crown couldn’t keep paying for all the royals. I think he went back when he needed the money. He and Sophie requested their children not get the title Prince/Princess. So there was a precedent. The BRF is aging out of being able to do their “royal” duties and wanted Harry, and Meghan, to stick around to help William. They didn’t want to pay Meghan or give her security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t fault the Sussexes for wanting to become financially secure. If they hadn’t they would have still been dependent on allowances from Charles while William became independently wealthy.

Except they can’t also be working royals then. And if they aren’t working royals, they don’t get HRH or security. But rather than acknowledging their choice was the reason, Meghan wants to call racism.

So they can be financially independent, but then need to stop pouting about what they chose to walk away from.

I have no doubt that there was racism in how they treated Meghan Markle. No doubt that if Harry had married a bona fide English aristocrat, they would have been treated differently had he and his English rose stated they wanted to work part time. The American biracial divorcee was just called a whiny ungrateful striver.

This is the English Royal family after all. Their bread and butter has been colonialism, very much a race based concept and reality, for centuries.

Doesnt Fergie still lives in "Royal housing" as well as her children? They show up to a couple of random things and that entitles them to the royal benefits?
Andrew still lives (with Fergie) in royal housing and he is a known pedifile and stipped of all his royals things but still seems to be included in the royal tribe.

It makes sense to still protect the son of the future king/now King of England. It didn't make sense to strip Harry of his military affiliations either. It just seemed vindictive.

Fergie and Andrew did not declare a desire for "financial independence," tell the UK press to essentially eff off, and move to the US.

Fergie did make her own money after the divorce by being the Weight Watchers spokeswoman in the U.S.