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:

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.

They also don’t really do anything but manage to stay on the payroll. Why the exception.

They didn't make a pronouncement that they wanted to leave. Nobody said you had to do a certain amount of work to be considered a "working" royal. You just couldn't quit.

Uh yes the Queen did.

Death isn't quiting

Read the quote above and then reread my statement. It has zero to do with the queen dying but rather dictating how much visibility presence they had to have. Which is why they couldn’t step back and had to completely quit.

[Anonymous]

There is a good reason you can't represent the Queen as a working royal and sell yourself to Netflix/Spotify/etc. at the same time. Its a huge conflict of interest and can easily be perceived as company's paying for access to the royal family.

Its kind of like the Emoluments Clause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a good reason you can't represent the Queen as a working royal and sell yourself to Netflix/Spotify/etc. at the same time. Its a huge conflict of interest and can easily be perceived as company's paying for access to the royal family.

Its kind of like the Emoluments Clause.

Well, obviously this is no longer a thing in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a good reason you can't represent the Queen as a working royal and sell yourself to Netflix/Spotify/etc. at the same time. Its a huge conflict of interest and can easily be perceived as company's paying for access to the royal family.

Its kind of like the Emoluments Clause.

Well, obviously this is no longer a thing in the US.

For people named Trump, I agree. I was just giving it as an example of the same theory. The Royals can't accept money because it could be perceived as paying for access/influence.

[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.

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.

Not comparable. When Edward and Sophie had jobs, they weren't ALSO working royals. They also didn't ask for permanent security in a foreign country. M&H wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

They were ABSOLUTELY willing to financially support Meghan and Harry and give them security if they stayed in the UK as full time working royals. Not only were they willing, that is what the Royal family wanted.

This was before they left…

“When she was pregnant with Archie in the fall of 2018, she said, she was told by palace officials and family members that Archie should not be given the title of prince—which meant he would not receive a royal security detail either. “There’s no explanation,” she said when Oprah pressed for details. Later in the interview Harry said that there had been a suggestion that Meghan continue her acting career to make money for the family, implying that the royal institution had made efforts to cut their funding in multiple ways.”

“It was while they were in Vancouver, Harry said in the interview, that they were told on “short notice” that their royal security detail would be cut off—even as they were still in the process of finalizing their exit, with the intention of continuing to serve the queen. ““

The UK Personal Protection system is not set up to function long term outside the UK, beyond finite trips. It was Harry's foolish and incorrect assumption that he could leave the UK and keep his protection officers in Canada/the US...forever? They were told on "short notice" that they would lose protection because H&M gave very "short notice" that they were not planning to return to the UK!

As for the title of prince, for the 800th time, per the Letters Patent, only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (George, at that time) was eligible for Prince/HRH status. An exception was made for all of William's children so the children would not have different titles/styles. This would have been true regardless of whom Harry married, and was not a personal affront to Meghan. Harry 1000% knew this and he either didn't explain it well to Meghan or she didn't care that she was lying.

And the Sussex kids would have become eligible to claim the prince/princess titles once Charles became king because now they would be the grandchildren of the monarch. Meghan doubled down on this and claimed that they were told Archie would never be a prince.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

They also don’t really do anything but manage to stay on the payroll. Why the exception.

They didn't make a pronouncement that they wanted to leave. Nobody said you had to do a certain amount of work to be considered a "working" royal. You just couldn't quit.

Uh yes the Queen did.

Death isn't quiting

No, pp meant the queen gave them a date - or demanded they set one - for when they were officially off the books.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Not comparable. When Edward and Sophie had jobs, they weren't ALSO working royals. They also didn't ask for permanent security in a foreign country. M&H wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

They were ABSOLUTELY willing to financially support Meghan and Harry and give them security if they stayed in the UK as full time working royals. Not only were they willing, that is what the Royal family wanted.

This was before they left…

“When she was pregnant with Archie in the fall of 2018, she said, she was told by palace officials and family members that Archie should not be given the title of prince—which meant he would not receive a royal security detail either. “There’s no explanation,” she said when Oprah pressed for details. Later in the interview Harry said that there had been a suggestion that Meghan continue her acting career to make money for the family, implying that the royal institution had made efforts to cut their funding in multiple ways.”

“It was while they were in Vancouver, Harry said in the interview, that they were told on “short notice” that their royal security detail would be cut off—even as they were still in the process of finalizing their exit, with the intention of continuing to serve the queen. ““

The UK Personal Protection system is not set up to function long term outside the UK, beyond finite trips. It was Harry's foolish and incorrect assumption that he could leave the UK and keep his protection officers in Canada/the US...forever? They were told on "short notice" that they would lose protection because H&M gave very "short notice" that they were not planning to return to the UK!

As for the title of prince, for the 800th time, per the Letters Patent, only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (George, at that time) was eligible for Prince/HRH status. An exception was made for all of William's children so the children would not have different titles/styles. This would have been true regardless of whom Harry married, and was not a personal affront to Meghan. Harry 1000% knew this and he either didn't explain it well to Meghan or she didn't care that she was lying.

And the Sussex kids would have become eligible to claim the prince/princess titles once Charles became king because now they would be the grandchildren of the monarch. Meghan doubled down on this and claimed that they were told Archie would never be a prince.

Do you think it was all just too complicated for her to understand? It seems easy enough to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Not comparable. When Edward and Sophie had jobs, they weren't ALSO working royals. They also didn't ask for permanent security in a foreign country. M&H wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

They were ABSOLUTELY willing to financially support Meghan and Harry and give them security if they stayed in the UK as full time working royals. Not only were they willing, that is what the Royal family wanted.

This was before they left…

“When she was pregnant with Archie in the fall of 2018, she said, she was told by palace officials and family members that Archie should not be given the title of prince—which meant he would not receive a royal security detail either. “There’s no explanation,” she said when Oprah pressed for details. Later in the interview Harry said that there had been a suggestion that Meghan continue her acting career to make money for the family, implying that the royal institution had made efforts to cut their funding in multiple ways.”

“It was while they were in Vancouver, Harry said in the interview, that they were told on “short notice” that their royal security detail would be cut off—even as they were still in the process of finalizing their exit, with the intention of continuing to serve the queen. ““

The UK Personal Protection system is not set up to function long term outside the UK, beyond finite trips. It was Harry's foolish and incorrect assumption that he could leave the UK and keep his protection officers in Canada/the US...forever? They were told on "short notice" that they would lose protection because H&M gave very "short notice" that they were not planning to return to the UK!

As for the title of prince, for the 800th time, per the Letters Patent, only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (George, at that time) was eligible for Prince/HRH status. An exception was made for all of William's children so the children would not have different titles/styles. This would have been true regardless of whom Harry married, and was not a personal affront to Meghan. Harry 1000% knew this and he either didn't explain it well to Meghan or she didn't care that she was lying.

And the Sussex kids would have become eligible to claim the prince/princess titles once Charles became king because now they would be the grandchildren of the monarch. Meghan doubled down on this and claimed that they were told Archie would never be a prince.

Do you think it was all just too complicated for her to understand? It seems easy enough to me.

Nah, it was a deliberate misrepresentation.

[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: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.

They haven’t stopped whining since they quit.

And the machine still keeps churning BS. It goes both ways.

But the machine holds the power, and money, and property, and titles, and all the strings.

Yeah the bullying machine is relentless. No escaping it even in California.

[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: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.

They haven’t stopped whining since they quit.

And the machine still keeps churning BS. It goes both ways.

But the machine holds the power, and money, and property, and titles, and all the strings.

Yeah the bullying machine is relentless. No escaping it even in California.

Who’s bullying them in California?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s give Charles a chance. He just might surprise us.

Re: the monarchy - That’s up to the Brits. It’s their history/tradition. It’s also a big driver of their economy in terms of tourism. I’m sure that plays into the equation.

The monarchy isn’t. The buildings are. And before you ask - places like Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle are heavily outranked in terms of tourism popularity and dollars by unoccupied buildings like Hampton Court Palace and the Tower of London.

Kind of like how Versailles is the number one tourist attraction in France and hasn’t seen a King in 500 years.

No. It’s not the buildings that drive the economy. The monarchy is very tied into how the government makes money. It’s not only tourism.

[Anonymous]

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 Anne and Prince Edward seem to do that just fine.

Ann has the same dedication to duty as her mother and works harder than you ever would.

[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.

And we thank the red banners for doing so

[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.

That’s not what Scottish PMs are saying but you seem more astute.

[Anonymous]

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 Anne and Prince Edward seem to do that just fine.

Ann has the same dedication to duty as her mother and works harder than you ever would.

I never said she didnt but she is beholden to King Charles, just like her siblings