Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here’s a PSA for everyone triggered by Meghan’s experience with racism.

Racism manifests itself in different ways in different environments. The most telling thing is that even all the wealth and privilege in the world cannot protect you from it.

Oprah is one of the wealthiest women in the world. Yet, even she was kicked out of a high end store in Paris because of her skin color.

Meghan Markle is literally a princess and she still had to deal with racist press. The most egregious was the BBC comparing her newborn to a monkey.

These experiences are relevant because success, wealth and power are often considered the solution to fighting racism. This underscores the need for greater societal change.

"The BBC" did NOT compare Meghan's newborn to a monkey. An idiot BBC presenter posted the cartoon on his own personal Twitter account, faced immediate and significant backlash by several prominent media personalities, and was promptly fired from the BBC specifically for this behavior. They were clear about it. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

To say that this an example of systematic racist treatment of Meghan "in the British media" is disingenuous and false. Obviously, she has an interest in pushing this narrative, but using this example is off base. And I'm a WOC.

There’s also the straight outta Compton and the “niggling feeling” (I understand that it’s an actual word but quoting a random person as an excuse to have that on the front page is clearly a dog whistle). How many incidents until it counts as systematic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

The brilliant thing about your quote is that the money Charles' controls is from the Duchy of Cornwall. Did you know that Cornwall is the poorest county in the U.K. with the worst outcomes for income? They're so poor that the EU sends them humanitarian aid. All their money is siphoned off into $40 million a year to fund Charles, his four palaces, and the two palaces for W/K.

Over a quarter of children lived in poverty in Cornwall in 2016, and the county also has the one of the highest homelessness rates in the country.

http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

You've convinced me. Against this new information, Prince Charles should DEFINITELY pay for lifelong security anywhere in the world for his nonworking royal son.

Or maybe Charles should follow his son’s example and get a real job?

Maybe his brother should too...

Maybe the monarchy should die with the queen. I predict much of the commonwealth will reject the monarchy after her reign ends. It’s only a matter of time before England does too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What comes to mind for me right now is this scene, written by Hollywood years ago because it is SO TRUE that no matter how rich, light skinned or powerful/famous you may think you are —- racism doesn’t GAF.

Black Celebs Racislly Profiled
https://www.theroot.com/celebs-whove-been-racially-profiled-1790868366


Famous AAs Overcoming Racism
https://historyplex.com/famous-african-american-people

Everybody in the room spat in your Coke”: black celebrities tell their first experience with racism
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/2/14/14599396/black-celebrities-racism

Names that come to mind?
Dorothy Dandridge
Ray Charles
Oprah Winfrey
Barack & Michelle Obama
Megan Markle

Remember when all the black peoples started talking to their friends about being racially profiled and how we just don’t talk about it?

It’s not up for debate — and sometimes honestly it just ain’t up for discussion either.

I’m white, and I would trade my position in life for those of the above contemporary individuals immediately. I’m sure bad, unfair things related to race have happened to them (just as bad unfair things have happened to all of us), but that sort of racism is enormously outweighed by their privilege.

Also, Crash sucked. Some of you have terrible judgment, and it shows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

It’s not reserved for working royals. There are two different pots of money. The Queen for example has money as part of the sovereign grant and her own personal inheritance which she can do whatever she wants with it. Same with Charles and everyone else. That’s how William has given money to his ILs to purchase properties and how Andrew supported his daughters prior to their marriages (they both work but don’t make enough to live the lifestyle they were). Ultimately, it’s Charles decision if he wants to give them money or not but all of the things they have done to monetize their celebrity are pretty foreseeable so don’t really feel bad for the royals either. The money is a means of control.

Why do any posters think they should be able to dictate how the BRF spend their money? Quite frankly, it’s not your money. You don’t get to control how other people choose to spend their money. Are you guys this presumptuous and obnoxious irl? If the Queen or Charles don’t want to spend their money on a grown adult man who doesn’t want to pay for things himself, that’s their right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

It’s not reserved for working royals. There are two different pots of money. The Queen for example has money as part of the sovereign grant and her own personal inheritance which she can do whatever she wants with it. Same with Charles and everyone else. That’s how William has given money to his ILs to purchase properties and how Andrew supported his daughters prior to their marriages (they both work but don’t make enough to live the lifestyle they were). Ultimately, it’s Charles decision if he wants to give them money or not but all of the things they have done to monetize their celebrity are pretty foreseeable so don’t really feel bad for the royals either. The money is a means of control.

Why do any posters think they should be able to dictate how the BRF spend their money? Quite frankly, it’s not your money. You don’t get to control how other people choose to spend their money. Are you guys this presumptuous and obnoxious irl? If the Queen or Charles don’t want to spend their money on a grown adult man who doesn’t want to pay for things himself, that’s their right.

Living apart from the royal family is expensive and probably eye-wateringly so. Meghan and Harry don't have enough star quality to keep their lifestyle that they have become accustomed to going for the long-haul. Couple this with their burning of family bridges and it's brokesville for them both. Worse, if William or Charles strip them of their titles they have nothing to fall back on. Who wants to hire the artist formerly known as Prince Harry? Nobody. Netflix is only going to pay if they produce and so far ...nada.

Family connections gone...tenuous at best
Titles - precarious
Finances - burning through it quickly
Fame - infamous grifters which is ok I guess? For awhile.

Prediction - Meghan is going to go the way of Fergie and be a spokesperson for Weight Watchers in the near future to make ends meet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

It’s not reserved for working royals. There are two different pots of money. The Queen for example has money as part of the sovereign grant and her own personal inheritance which she can do whatever she wants with it. Same with Charles and everyone else. That’s how William has given money to his ILs to purchase properties and how Andrew supported his daughters prior to their marriages (they both work but don’t make enough to live the lifestyle they were). Ultimately, it’s Charles decision if he wants to give them money or not but all of the things they have done to monetize their celebrity are pretty foreseeable so don’t really feel bad for the royals either. The money is a means of control.

Why do any posters think they should be able to dictate how the BRF spend their money? Quite frankly, it’s not your money. You don’t get to control how other people choose to spend their money. Are you guys this presumptuous and obnoxious irl? If the Queen or Charles don’t want to spend their money on a grown adult man who doesn’t want to pay for things himself, that’s their right.

Living apart from the royal family is expensive and probably eye-wateringly so. Meghan and Harry don't have enough star quality to keep their lifestyle that they have become accustomed to going for the long-haul. Couple this with their burning of family bridges and it's brokesville for them both. Worse, if William or Charles strip them of their titles they have nothing to fall back on. Who wants to hire the artist formerly known as Prince Harry? Nobody. Netflix is only going to pay if they produce and so far ...nada.

Family connections gone...tenuous at best
Titles - precarious
Finances - burning through it quickly
Fame - infamous grifters which is ok I guess? For awhile.

Prediction - Meghan is going to go the way of Fergie and be a spokesperson for Weight Watchers in the near future to make ends meet.

LOL You wish.

You do know that productions take time right? Netflix gave the Obama's a deal in 2018. They didn't release their first film, which they bought wholesale, until 2020. They just started releasing their own content in late 2020/early 2021.

Meanwhile Harry and Meghan have brought on an Oscar winner to lead their production team and announced their first original production to release in 2022 so they're right on track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

The brilliant thing about your quote is that the money Charles' controls is from the Duchy of Cornwall. Did you know that Cornwall is the poorest county in the U.K. with the worst outcomes for income? They're so poor that the EU sends them humanitarian aid. All their money is siphoned off into $40 million a year to fund Charles, his four palaces, and the two palaces for W/K.

Over a quarter of children lived in poverty in Cornwall in 2016, and the county also has the one of the highest homelessness rates in the country.

http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

You've convinced me. Against this new information, Prince Charles should DEFINITELY pay for lifelong security anywhere in the world for his nonworking royal son.

Or maybe Charles should follow his son’s example and get a real job?

Maybe his brother should too...

Maybe the monarchy should die with the queen. I predict much of the commonwealth will reject the monarchy after her reign ends. It’s only a matter of time before England does too.

That's the plan. Charles and Williams are the clean up batters for the monarchy. They will carry it into obscurity like most European countries. The only monarchies we will have will be in Africa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

It’s not reserved for working royals. There are two different pots of money. The Queen for example has money as part of the sovereign grant and her own personal inheritance which she can do whatever she wants with it. Same with Charles and everyone else. That’s how William has given money to his ILs to purchase properties and how Andrew supported his daughters prior to their marriages (they both work but don’t make enough to live the lifestyle they were). Ultimately, it’s Charles decision if he wants to give them money or not but all of the things they have done to monetize their celebrity are pretty foreseeable so don’t really feel bad for the royals either. The money is a means of control.

Why do any posters think they should be able to dictate how the BRF spend their money? Quite frankly, it’s not your money. You don’t get to control how other people choose to spend their money. Are you guys this presumptuous and obnoxious irl? If the Queen or Charles don’t want to spend their money on a grown adult man who doesn’t want to pay for things himself, that’s their right.

Living apart from the royal family is expensive and probably eye-wateringly so. Meghan and Harry don't have enough star quality to keep their lifestyle that they have become accustomed to going for the long-haul. Couple this with their burning of family bridges and it's brokesville for them both. Worse, if William or Charles strip them of their titles they have nothing to fall back on. Who wants to hire the artist formerly known as Prince Harry? Nobody. Netflix is only going to pay if they produce and so far ...nada.

Family connections gone...tenuous at best
Titles - precarious
Finances - burning through it quickly
Fame - infamous grifters which is ok I guess? For awhile.

Prediction - Meghan is going to go the way of Fergie and be a spokesperson for Weight Watchers in the near future to make ends meet.

LOL You wish.

You do know that productions take time right? Netflix gave the Obama's a deal in 2018. They didn't release their first film, which they bought wholesale, until 2020. They just started releasing their own content in late 2020/early 2021.

Meanwhile Harry and Meghan have brought on an Oscar winner to lead their production team and announced their first original production to release in 2022 so they're right on track.

Nothing like exploiting injured Commonwealth soldiers to make money.

[Anonymous]

When y’all start up a new continuation thread, just call it the “I hate Meghan and Harry thread”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

The brilliant thing about your quote is that the money Charles' controls is from the Duchy of Cornwall. Did you know that Cornwall is the poorest county in the U.K. with the worst outcomes for income? They're so poor that the EU sends them humanitarian aid. All their money is siphoned off into $40 million a year to fund Charles, his four palaces, and the two palaces for W/K.

Over a quarter of children lived in poverty in Cornwall in 2016, and the county also has the one of the highest homelessness rates in the country.

http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

You've convinced me. Against this new information, Prince Charles should DEFINITELY pay for lifelong security anywhere in the world for his nonworking royal son.

Or maybe Charles should follow his son’s example and get a real job?

Maybe his brother should too...

Maybe the monarchy should die with the queen. I predict much of the commonwealth will reject the monarchy after her reign ends. It’s only a matter of time before England does too.

Charles’ “real job” consists of his royal duties. That was Harry’s real job too before he left. He has no one to blame but himself for believing that he would or should continue to get the $$$ and benefits of the job without actually doing the job. That’s not how jobs work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

The brilliant thing about your quote is that the money Charles' controls is from the Duchy of Cornwall. Did you know that Cornwall is the poorest county in the U.K. with the worst outcomes for income? They're so poor that the EU sends them humanitarian aid. All their money is siphoned off into $40 million a year to fund Charles, his four palaces, and the two palaces for W/K.

Over a quarter of children lived in poverty in Cornwall in 2016, and the county also has the one of the highest homelessness rates in the country.

http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

You've convinced me. Against this new information, Prince Charles should DEFINITELY pay for lifelong security anywhere in the world for his nonworking royal son.

Or maybe Charles should follow his son’s example and get a real job?

Maybe his brother should too...

Maybe the monarchy should die with the queen. I predict much of the commonwealth will reject the monarchy after her reign ends. It’s only a matter of time before England does too.

Charles’ “real job” consists of his royal duties. That was Harry’s real job too before he left. He has no one to blame but himself for believing that he would or should continue to get the $$$ and benefits of the job without actually doing the job. That’s not how jobs work.

zWell that's not true. People leave and retire from jobs everyday and walk away with pensions, health care, lifetime insurance, severance packages, you name it. Harry has been working for the BRF since birth, plus two tours in Afghanistan, so he put in 30plus years of service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

The brilliant thing about your quote is that the money Charles' controls is from the Duchy of Cornwall. Did you know that Cornwall is the poorest county in the U.K. with the worst outcomes for income? They're so poor that the EU sends them humanitarian aid. All their money is siphoned off into $40 million a year to fund Charles, his four palaces, and the two palaces for W/K.

Over a quarter of children lived in poverty in Cornwall in 2016, and the county also has the one of the highest homelessness rates in the country.

http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

You've convinced me. Against this new information, Prince Charles should DEFINITELY pay for lifelong security anywhere in the world for his nonworking royal son.

Or maybe Charles should follow his son’s example and get a real job?

Maybe his brother should too...

Maybe the monarchy should die with the queen. I predict much of the commonwealth will reject the monarchy after her reign ends. It’s only a matter of time before England does too.

Charles’ “real job” consists of his royal duties. That was Harry’s real job too before he left. He has no one to blame but himself for believing that he would or should continue to get the $$$ and benefits of the job without actually doing the job. That’s not how jobs work.

zWell that's not true. People leave and retire from jobs everyday and walk away with pensions, health care, lifetime insurance, severance packages, you name it. Harry has been working for the BRF since birth, plus two tours in Afghanistan, so he put in 30plus years of service.

That’s not how it works in the BRF. Sorry if you don’t like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

The brilliant thing about your quote is that the money Charles' controls is from the Duchy of Cornwall. Did you know that Cornwall is the poorest county in the U.K. with the worst outcomes for income? They're so poor that the EU sends them humanitarian aid. All their money is siphoned off into $40 million a year to fund Charles, his four palaces, and the two palaces for W/K.

Over a quarter of children lived in poverty in Cornwall in 2016, and the county also has the one of the highest homelessness rates in the country.

http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

You've convinced me. Against this new information, Prince Charles should DEFINITELY pay for lifelong security anywhere in the world for his nonworking royal son.

Or maybe Charles should follow his son’s example and get a real job?

Maybe his brother should too...

Maybe the monarchy should die with the queen. I predict much of the commonwealth will reject the monarchy after her reign ends. It’s only a matter of time before England does too.

Charles’ “real job” consists of his royal duties. That was Harry’s real job too before he left. He has no one to blame but himself for believing that he would or should continue to get the $$$ and benefits of the job without actually doing the job. That’s not how jobs work.

zWell that's not true. People leave and retire from jobs everyday and walk away with pensions, health care, lifetime insurance, severance packages, you name it. Harry has been working for the BRF since birth, plus two tours in Afghanistan, so he put in 30plus years of service.

Where do you live that all jobs have pensions and benefits even after you quit? Wouldn’t it be nice for workers if that were true? Sadly it’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

The brilliant thing about your quote is that the money Charles' controls is from the Duchy of Cornwall. Did you know that Cornwall is the poorest county in the U.K. with the worst outcomes for income? They're so poor that the EU sends them humanitarian aid. All their money is siphoned off into $40 million a year to fund Charles, his four palaces, and the two palaces for W/K.

Over a quarter of children lived in poverty in Cornwall in 2016, and the county also has the one of the highest homelessness rates in the country.

http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

You've convinced me. Against this new information, Prince Charles should DEFINITELY pay for lifelong security anywhere in the world for his nonworking royal son.

Or maybe Charles should follow his son’s example and get a real job?

Maybe his brother should too...

Maybe the monarchy should die with the queen. I predict much of the commonwealth will reject the monarchy after her reign ends. It’s only a matter of time before England does too.

Charles’ “real job” consists of his royal duties. That was Harry’s real job too before he left. He has no one to blame but himself for believing that he would or should continue to get the $$$ and benefits of the job without actually doing the job. That’s not how jobs work.

zWell that's not true. People leave and retire from jobs everyday and walk away with pensions, health care, lifetime insurance, severance packages, you name it. Harry has been working for the BRF since birth, plus two tours in Afghanistan, so he put in 30plus years of service.

That’s not how it works in the BRF. Sorry if you don’t like it.

Right? Not to mention PP is crediting Harry for working as an infant. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You’re acting as if the money that Charles controls is his money that he earned. That’s not the case at all.

It’s money that’s been inherited over generations. The queen didn’t earn it. Charles didn’t earn it. It is earmarked for the family. Harry complaining about being cut off from his family trust is no more “mooching” than Charles or the queen are. It’s theirs by birth. Cutting off Harry’s access at a time when he had a young son and needed security was incredibly spiteful. His family turned their backs on him when he needed them the most. As is often said on this site: They showed him who they are and he believed them.

Judging by his success in the past year alone, he will never put himself in such a position again. Good for him. Good for his growing family.

That money is reserved for working members of the royal family. It's not theirs by birthright. Harry comes across incredibly entitled when he's tantruming about being denied "his" money. Paying for the security of a nonworking royal on ANOTHER CONTINENT? You must be joking.

It's almost as bad as Meghan bleating about Archie not "being titled the way other grandchildren are." What? Girl, did no one explain to you how the family works? There is no equal treatment across grandchildren. And there AREN'T any "other grandchildren", not really. Charles, the heir to the throne, has two children. There's William, who will be king. And there's Harry, who won't be king. The future king's children are princes. The children of someone who is not a future king are not. What part of it is not gettable? Or did they figure it would play better to the American audiences to imply that Archie was "stripped" of his title because of his mixed race origin?

The brilliant thing about your quote is that the money Charles' controls is from the Duchy of Cornwall. Did you know that Cornwall is the poorest county in the U.K. with the worst outcomes for income? They're so poor that the EU sends them humanitarian aid. All their money is siphoned off into $40 million a year to fund Charles, his four palaces, and the two palaces for W/K.

Over a quarter of children lived in poverty in Cornwall in 2016, and the county also has the one of the highest homelessness rates in the country.

http://inequalitybriefing.org/graphics/briefing_43_UK_regions_poorest_North_Europe.pdf

You've convinced me. Against this new information, Prince Charles should DEFINITELY pay for lifelong security anywhere in the world for his nonworking royal son.

Or maybe Charles should follow his son’s example and get a real job?

Maybe his brother should too...

Maybe the monarchy should die with the queen. I predict much of the commonwealth will reject the monarchy after her reign ends. It’s only a matter of time before England does too.

Charles’ “real job” consists of his royal duties. That was Harry’s real job too before he left. He has no one to blame but himself for believing that he would or should continue to get the $$$ and benefits of the job without actually doing the job. That’s not how jobs work.

zWell that's not true. People leave and retire from jobs everyday and walk away with pensions, health care, lifetime insurance, severance packages, you name it. Harry has been working for the BRF since birth, plus two tours in Afghanistan, so he put in 30plus years of service.

Where do you live that all jobs have pensions and benefits even after you quit? Wouldn’t it be nice for workers if that were true? Sadly it’s not.

It works for me. Sorry you have shitty employment perks.