Reply to Prince Harry and Archie

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Prince Harry and Archie"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So it specifically says here that HARRY is the one that regards Archie as a private citizen and HARRY doesn't want to have public ceremonies but we're blaming Meghan. Got it. [/quote]

Oh puhlease. Harry was never private before Meghan. Be smarter PP.[/quote]

DP.  Harry is entitled/allowed to make different choices for his son than those made by Prince Charles for his sons.  Harry is allowed to have a different view of things now that he has his own child.  Did you ever see the footage of William and Harry walking in Diana's funeral procession?  I have no doubt he would make that choice for his DS.

I feel compelled to point out this misguided quote from the article:

[i]“Many people don’t understand why they are paying nearly £3m for Harry and Meghan’s house, so in terms of public relations it would be a good quid pro quo for the pair to briefly show Archie off.”[/i]

I'm not even British and I understand that the $$ being used to renovate Frogmore Cottage does not come directly from British taxpayers.  It's from the Sovereign Grant which is a percentage of the annual profits of the "Crown Estate" (properties own by the 'crown' and not the government or any individual monarch) which s intended to meet the costs of the sovereign's official expenditures. This includes the costs of the upkeep of the various royal residences, staffing, travel and state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment (thank you wikipedia).

This means that the queen gets to decide what to do with the money she gets from the 'crown' properties.  These aren't taxpayer funds, these are the queen's funds and when the next king takes the throne, they'll be his funds.  And, the renovations don't include furnishings (like curtains, beds, etc.) or upgrades to the kitchen, closets, floors, etc.  Harry and Meghan have to pay for those personally.  But, people thrive on alt-facts/misinformation and feel good when they get yet another opportunity to bash/blame Meghan.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/21/but-the-queen-is-paying-for-the-370-million-buckingham-palace-repairs-already/#7443f0b13214[/quote]

How much of British history do you know?

What you are essentially referring to is the Duchy of Lancaster. That, and many others, are the Queen's income.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Lancaster

The Crown properties and Crown Estate are very different.

How do you think they got all of these properties?

Back in the day, when you were King, in the glorious days of absolute Monarchy, you were entitled to take whatever you wanted because you were King, sent by God. Then, some other wannabe King would kill you and take everything you owned, and annex more, maybe lose France or Denmark, etc.

At some point, around 1688, Britain transitioned to a Constitutional Monarchy and had to begin to work some of this out. It has been a process. But guess what, they do not just get to own everything. They have more investments than any family would ever need, along with many of their old landed friends. Check out Grosvenor, one of the largest global real estate firms with massive holdings. Check out who owns them. These families are still raking in profits like its medieval times.

The people of England are entitled to their opinion on the monies from the Crown Estate...because the money comes out of their pockets as payments to the Crown via rents on farms, factories, many aspects of the British economy.

Meghan would be wise to pay *a little more* attention.

It's kind of like the most extreme form of white privilege, and there is a deal worked out around it. You get to keep these, but in the return you do x and y. They are not supposed to rub people's nose in their spending, for one, and the non-stop Givenchy does her no favors. [/quote]

Here's my issue with this and the press's fervent criticism of her 'non-stop Givenchy'.

A) She's representing the Queen every time she steps outside. Period. You want her to wear Mossimo x Target to events?

B) Say she spent 1 Million pounds in her first fifteen months of being a royal. She didn't because the annual report of expenses for royal households was released and Meghan is far below budget. But say she did. Why are you picking on a woman doing her job when Kate showed up in the same year wearing 1 million pounds in a single NIGHT?

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9016O-XsAMuwvR.jpg[/img]

C) Why criticize her renovation of a 4-bedroom house when Prince Edward, his wife, and just two children are living it up in a 56-room CASTLE.

[img]https://i0.wp.com/www.unofficialroyalty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/BagshotPark-DM.jpg[/img][/quote]

Those are Crown jewels there, no? That is the whole point. They have scads of jewels like that. Plus, She is the future Queen.

Edward? Right. That is also the same point. They are wealthy beyond measure. The whole family. You should see the properties they own and do *not* live in.

That is why people lose it over the Crown estate when the royal family acts contrary to the routine. The Queen was stressed about Kate's family (privately funded) vacations back in the day.She was taken to task. Anyway, if you follow popular British opinion, rather than  the media, it's obvious mistakes are being made. Expensie PR teams cannot counteract and in fact make it worse.

I just want her to get it right. [/quote]

I seriously DON'T get your point here. It's okay for the royals to maintain massively expensive castles and homes (sometimes two or more per individual families) or to wear or commission extraordinary jewels...but Meghans shoes and dresses are too much?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics