Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That doesn't address my comment, though. People would still visit all those places. Tourists don't go because they get an audience with the Queen. The sites would still be tourist attractions because of historic interest in the monarchy. In fact, the history of the monarchy is probably of greater visiter interest than the current BRF.

Have you ever been there yourself? You probably have no concept of it because you've not experienced it first hand. No offense. I'm British and I can tell you that MANY people go to those places, not just for the history but in the hope of spotting the Queen or other royal coming in or out in their cars.

I'm trying to figure out if this is a joke. A lot of Brits really are that provincial, so maybe. If you ever go to the continent, Patronizing Brit, you'll see that people visit lots of unoccupied castles. The prospect of seeing royalty isn't the thrill you imagine.

+100

France, Italy, Germany, Austria are all non-monarchies with great tourism industries that immediately come to mind. They're filled with immaculate castles and palaces and, guess what, tourists actually have better access to them because they aren't being occupied by leeching royals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That doesn't address my comment, though. People would still visit all those places. Tourists don't go because they get an audience with the Queen. The sites would still be tourist attractions because of historic interest in the monarchy. In fact, the history of the monarchy is probably of greater visiter interest than the current BRF.

Have you ever been there yourself? You probably have no concept of it because you've not experienced it first hand. No offense. I'm British and I can tell you that MANY people go to those places, not just for the history but in the hope of spotting the Queen or other royal coming in or out in their cars.

I'm trying to figure out if this is a joke. A lot of Brits really are that provincial, so maybe. If you ever go to the continent, Patronizing Brit, you'll see that people visit lots of unoccupied castles. The prospect of seeing royalty isn't the thrill you imagine.

+100

France, Italy, Germany, Austria are all non-monarchies with great tourism industries that immediately come to mind. They're filled with immaculate castles and palaces and, guess what, tourists actually have better access to them because they aren't being occupied by leeching royals.

Honestly I think they are dead serious and that's the sad part of it. I watched an Instagram video of Brits seeing Anne and Zara at Ascot a day or two ago and they were all hushed in awe like this was some sacred meeting. Meanwhile Anne and Zara walked past without a backwards glance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And while they are at it, the BRF itself should be abolished. What are they truly needed for anyway.

Tourism. They bring in a fortune [u](mostly Americans and Japanese) to London every year (except 2020 obvs).

I never quite understand this argument. If the BRF were abolished, how would that impact tourism? The castles, the history, all that would still be there for tourists, just like it is in other European countries. The big events where the current members of the BRF actually attract tourists only occur a few times a generation-- royal wedding, funeral, coronations. Most of the crowd at those events are Brits, not foreign tourists bringing in foreign money.

according to the BBC
"The tourist board of Great Britain, VisitBritain, says tourism to royal residences like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle brings millions of visitors - and therefore money. Some people say tourism from the monarchy brings in about £550 million."

That doesn't address my comment, though. People would still visit all those places. Tourists don't go because they get an audience with the Queen. The sites would still be tourist attractions because of historic interest in the monarchy. In fact, the history of the monarchy is probably of greater visiter interest than the current BRF.

Have you ever been there yourself? You probably have no concept of it because you've not experienced it first hand. No offense. I'm British and I can tell you that MANY people go to those places, not just for the history but in the hope of spotting the Queen or other royal coming in or out in their cars.

I'm sure that's true, but the question is would foreign tourists NOT go those places if the monarchy were abolished? Because there are two distinctions that need to be made.

1. Foreign tourists vs. British. The argument supporters of the monarchy make is that it brings money into Britain. How many of those people visiting Windsor are foreign? Half? Most? I don't know. But the financial value to Britain is from foreign tourists.

2. If the monarchy were abolished, how many of those foreign tourists would choose to visit a different country instead? Since the odds of actually catching a glimpse of the queen are so slim anyway, would they not want to visit Windsor or Buckingham Palace if the odds were zero? That seems hard to believe. The appeal of those attractions is rooted so much more in history and their beauty or artistic/architectural significance. No one goes to Notre Dame just to attend mass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That doesn't address my comment, though. People would still visit all those places. Tourists don't go because they get an audience with the Queen. The sites would still be tourist attractions because of historic interest in the monarchy. In fact, the history of the monarchy is probably of greater visiter interest than the current BRF.

Have you ever been there yourself? You probably have no concept of it because you've not experienced it first hand. No offense. I'm British and I can tell you that MANY people go to those places, not just for the history but in the hope of spotting the Queen or other royal coming in or out in their cars.

I'm trying to figure out if this is a joke. A lot of Brits really are that provincial, so maybe. If you ever go to the continent, Patronizing Brit, you'll see that people visit lots of unoccupied castles. The prospect of seeing royalty isn't the thrill you imagine.

+100

France, Italy, Germany, Austria are all non-monarchies with great tourism industries that immediately come to mind. They're filled with immaculate castles and palaces and, guess what, tourists actually have better access to them because they aren't being occupied by leeching royals.

Honestly I think they are dead serious and that's the sad part of it. I watched an Instagram video of Brits seeing Anne and Zara at Ascot a day or two ago and they were all hushed in awe like this was some sacred meeting. Meanwhile Anne and Zara walked past without a backwards glance.

And those awed Brits are not the ones whose spending can be counted in calculations of the BRF's financial benefit to the country, at least not completely. Some would choose vacation outside the country, but many would spend that money domestically anyway.

[Anonymous]

Do Brits really think that tourists visit their country to try to see the Queen.......? Approx. 99% of the people I know who visit the UK barely even have a passing interest of the royals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do Brits really think that tourists visit their country to try to see the Queen.......? Approx. 99% of the people I know who visit the UK barely even have a passing interest of the royals.

well, I don't know enough people to have this finding be statistically significant, but I do know people who want to go to London and Buckingham Palace and the Tower of London are on their list, which likely would not be if there weren't a live Queen fomenting their level of interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do Brits really think that tourists visit their country to try to see the Queen.......? Approx. 99% of the people I know who visit the UK barely even have a passing interest of the royals.

well, I don't know enough people to have this finding be statistically significant, but I do know people who want to go to London and Buckingham Palace and the Tower of London are on their list, which likely would not be if there weren't a live Queen fomenting their level of interest.

Isn’t there a pic of a young Meghan in front of Buckingham Palace? (This was years before she wrote about William and Kate’s wedding on her blog.) I wonder why she wanted to visit there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And on the clock, she comes out just in time to try to take away from the news of Kate's tremendous Early Years report.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a36762356/meghan-markle-maternity-leave-statement/

She just can't help herself!

Don't you remember? They left the RF to get some much needed privacy! LOL

That's not what they said, but nice try?

DP here and yes actually their first excuse was that they no longer wanted to be part of the Royal Rota press system. You can read their first published statement and that is basically all they mention. And wanting to make money.

So, even you admit they they were not avoiding all press, but the Royal Rota — for very specific concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn’t Charles have changed the letters patent with respect to Harry’s children not automatically becoming prince/princess upon his ascension to the throne prior to him getting married? He had decades to do this if it truly is motivated by having a slimmer monarchy.

Who cares? It’s his prerogative. Honestly H&M can’t be expecting him to be feeling magnanimous toward them after they sold out the family for ratings.

Honestly, Charles and William can’t expect Harry and Meghan not to discuss it openly if they want to use Harry and Meghan to support the monarchy while simultaneously denying them the full benefits of being a part of the monarchy. Charles wants to “slim” things down. William apparently wants to avoid as much work as possible while reveling in the benefits of being Royal. If Charles and William want to change the original job descriptions — which included a certain level of hereditary security— they shouldn’t be surprised if their revised plans lead to bolting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do Brits really think that tourists visit their country to try to see the Queen.......? Approx. 99% of the people I know who visit the UK barely even have a passing interest of the royals.

well, I don't know enough people to have this finding be statistically significant, but I do know people who want to go to London and Buckingham Palace and the Tower of London are on their list, which likely would not be if there weren't a live Queen fomenting their level of interest.

Isn’t there a pic of a young Meghan in front of Buckingham Palace? (This was years before she wrote about William and Kate’s wedding on her blog.) I wonder why she wanted to visit there.

Yeah so weird why a child would have a picture in front of a prominent international tourist destination. I wonder what the reason could POSSIBLY be. Most likely 13 year old Meghan had already begun plotting her future as the unlikely American wife of the second prince and was doing some light recon on how she would approach her target.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do Brits really think that tourists visit their country to try to see the Queen.......? Approx. 99% of the people I know who visit the UK barely even have a passing interest of the royals.

We went to Royal Ascot with a big group of Americans specifically to see the royals and were thrilled to see the Queen along with Princes Philip, Harry and Charles. They were the big draw of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

THIS, THIS, THIS. Why is this news right now and why are Harry and Meghan making it about HER? It's not about her, this was Charles' plan WAY before Meghan was in the picture. She just keeps finding more and more ways to make everything about her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many of queen elizabeths grandchildren are not princes/princesses. What is the big deal if it is the same for Charles (if Harrys kids don't get the titles)?

Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family.

Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned.

THIS, THIS, THIS. Why is this news right now and why are Harry and Meghan making it about HER? It's not about her, this was Charles' plan WAY before Meghan was in the picture. She just keeps finding more and more ways to make everything about her.

I don't think this was all part of Meghan's evil master plan, but I do think that having a smaller monarchy makes sense for Britain. They don't need tons of minor royals to provide a presence as they did in the past before social media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Illuminating thread.

I agree. Quite illuminating. Often, the most vehement “critics” are projecting wildly. Instead of offering specific criticisms of specific, verified behaviors, they resort to generalizations about perceived character flaws with little or nothing to support them. Anonymous “sources” supposedly “close” to the situation, and unsubstantiated slurs — such as “bullying “ without verified and specific information that can be supported or refuted — is just toxic swill. Murdoch and those who benefit from the infotainment that now passes for news must be very proud of what their influences have wrought along with their considerable profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do Brits really think that tourists visit their country to try to see the Queen.......? Approx. 99% of the people I know who visit the UK barely even have a passing interest of the royals.

well, I don't know enough people to have this finding be statistically significant, but I do know people who want to go to London and Buckingham Palace and the Tower of London are on their list, which likely would not be if there weren't a live Queen fomenting their level of interest.

Isn’t there a pic of a young Meghan in front of Buckingham Palace? (This was years before she wrote about William and Kate’s wedding on her blog.) I wonder why she wanted to visit there.

Yeah so weird why a child would have a picture in front of a prominent international tourist destination. I wonder what the reason could POSSIBLY be. Most likely 13 year old Meghan had already begun plotting her future as the unlikely American wife of the second prince and was doing some light recon on how she would approach her target.

No one said it was weird but you.