Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im curious as to when he’ll revoke Beatrice and Eugenia’s titles. I also wonder when he’ll kick the Duke of Gloucester, Prince and Princes Michael of Kent, and others out of their housing.

They are grace and favor apartments and will likely continue to be used by family until they die.

Yes. They are not going to evict a bunch of 80 year olds. I'm sure the Queen made arrangements for all of them. At the same time I'm guessing they will be the last extended family to have housing for life. It won't be that way going forward - although at the moment Andrew's kids are still in grace and favor housing. I believe Anne bought her two kids houses with money the Queen gave her, so they are technically not in Crown housing. And Lady Louise and James still live with their parents.

Anne owns her Gatcombe estate outright because the Queen gifted it to her. Her children and ex-husband all live on or near the property.

It’s 750 acres, plenty room for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im curious as to when he’ll revoke Beatrice and Eugenia’s titles. I also wonder when he’ll kick the Duke of Gloucester, Prince and Princes Michael of Kent, and others out of their housing.

They are grace and favor apartments and will likely continue to be used by family until they die.

Yes. They are not going to evict a bunch of 80 year olds. I'm sure the Queen made arrangements for all of them. At the same time I'm guessing they will be the last extended family to have housing for life. It won't be that way going forward - although at the moment Andrew's kids are still in grace and favor housing. I believe Anne bought her two kids houses with money the Queen gave her, so they are technically not in Crown housing. And Lady Louise and James still live with their parents.

Anne owns her Gatcombe estate outright because the Queen gifted it to her. Her children and ex-husband all live on or near the property.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im curious as to when he’ll revoke Beatrice and Eugenia’s titles. I also wonder when he’ll kick the Duke of Gloucester, Prince and Princes Michael of Kent, and others out of their housing.

He will do none of those things. In regards to Beatrice and Eugenie (the correct name) he literally cannot. They are princesses by birth, born the grandchildren of a sovreign through the male line.

DP. Just as a side comment, the other people PP mentions - Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent - are also princes by birth. They are also grandsons of a monarch (George V). Their titles won’t be revoked either, although they probably will be kicked out of their housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im curious as to when he’ll revoke Beatrice and Eugenia’s titles. I also wonder when he’ll kick the Duke of Gloucester, Prince and Princes Michael of Kent, and others out of their housing.

They are grace and favor apartments and will likely continue to be used by family until they die.

Yes. They are not going to evict a bunch of 80 year olds. I'm sure the Queen made arrangements for all of them. At the same time I'm guessing they will be the last extended family to have housing for life. It won't be that way going forward - although at the moment Andrew's kids are still in grace and favor housing. I believe Anne bought her two kids houses with money the Queen gave her, so they are technically not in Crown housing. And Lady Louise and James still live with their parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A tone deaf one? Looks like a 100 of his staff received notice of possible termination during the royal mourning period.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62897488.amp

Already been posted. It’s the queens old staff. Who cares? Charles should keeps his staff and the queen’s staff?

Some of us don’t live our lives on DCUM’s entertainment thread. And obviously the 100 down sized staff do care. Any competent institution should have a better process for downsizing staff so it doesn’t become a reputational risk.

Agree the timing shows really bad judgment but no one would describe The Firm as a competent organization. Just wait as these 100 staff face an 80% increase on their energy bills next month on top of UK inflation with no pay check. Cue up story of dedicated old staff eating cat food in a small flat without heat or ther staffers deciding to sell stories to pay their bills.

You would do better turning your fantasy into a fan fiction rather than posting clueless comments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im curious as to when he’ll revoke Beatrice and Eugenia’s titles. I also wonder when he’ll kick the Duke of Gloucester, Prince and Princes Michael of Kent, and others out of their housing.

They are grace and favor apartments and will likely continue to be used by family until they die.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t think of ne Commonwealth nation that plans to stay.

There are significant minorities wi th in commonwealth governments that want to stay. Also, many are grateful Britain was a far better colonial power than most and did a good job investing in infrastructure and democracy.

It is not that commonwealth citizens want nothing to do with them - many of us want to retain the cultural ties but in a grown up type way - we have grown up and left home but still want to come and visit for a cup of tea and scones.

Quite a bit of delusional white washing…….

Not delusional according to Baroness Patricia Scotland, the secretary-general of the Commonwealth Nations. Her recent comments reflect what the PP said.

I’m sure the Baroness wants to believe that other nations view their former oppressors as gentle, superiors who selflessly bestowed their wisdom on culture on their savage, barbaric regions. This head in the sand view seems common among royalists. The surprise the palace felt when Will and Kate got their butt’s kicked on their tour is a great example.

The reality is that the British were one if not thee worst influences on every country they touched. Murder, robbery, rape and complete disregard for the populations they destroyed again and again.

I doubt you have actually lived in many developing countries that were subject to colonialism. Yes colonialism sucked. But in Africa former British colonies generally were way ahead of those colonized by other European countries such as Belgium, France, and Portugal. Every thing is a matter of degree but other colonial powers made little effort to invest in education, infrastructure and local leadership but the Brits did.

Many commonwealth citizens hold fond attachments to British culture as it influences current life in many subtle ways. They do not want to throw the baby out with the baby water.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t think of ne Commonwealth nation that plans to stay.

There are significant minorities wi th in commonwealth governments that want to stay. Also, many are grateful Britain was a far better colonial power than most and did a good job investing in infrastructure and democracy.

It is not that commonwealth citizens want nothing to do with them - many of us want to retain the cultural ties but in a grown up type way - we have grown up and left home but still want to come and visit for a cup of tea and scones.

Quite a bit of delusional white washing…….

Not delusional according to Baroness Patricia Scotland, the secretary-general of the Commonwealth Nations. Her recent comments reflect what the PP said.

I’m sure the Baroness wants to believe that other nations view their former oppressors as gentle, superiors who selflessly bestowed their wisdom on culture on their savage, barbaric regions. This head in the sand view seems common among royalists. The surprise the palace felt when Will and Kate got their butt’s kicked on their tour is a great example.

The reality is that the British were one if not thee worst influences on every country they touched. Murder, robbery, rape and complete disregard for the populations they destroyed again and again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t think of ne Commonwealth nation that plans to stay.

There are significant minorities wi th in commonwealth governments that want to stay. Also, many are grateful Britain was a far better colonial power than most and did a good job investing in infrastructure and democracy.

It is not that commonwealth citizens want nothing to do with them - many of us want to retain the cultural ties but in a grown up type way - we have grown up and left home but still want to come and visit for a cup of tea and scones.

Quite a bit of delusional white washing…….

Not delusional according to Baroness Patricia Scotland, the secretary-general of the Commonwealth Nations. Her recent comments reflect what the PP said.

I’m sure the Baroness wants to believe that other nations view their former oppressors as gentle, superiors who selflessly bestowed their wisdom on culture on their savage, barbaric regions. This head in the sand view seems common among royalists. The surprise the palace felt when Will and Kate got their butt’s kicked on their tour is a great example.

The reality is that the British were one if not thee worst influences on every country they touched. Murder, robbery, rape and complete disregard for the populations they destroyed again and again.

Anonymous wrote:Lol Trevor Noah says it best.

https://twitter.com/thedailyshow/status/1570224697295634435?s=46&t=ibaJOQHTvkX4Zl2Qmobszw

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t think of ne Commonwealth nation that plans to stay.

There are significant minorities wi th in commonwealth governments that want to stay. Also, many are grateful Britain was a far better colonial power than most and did a good job investing in infrastructure and democracy.

It is not that commonwealth citizens want nothing to do with them - many of us want to retain the cultural ties but in a grown up type way - we have grown up and left home but still want to come and visit for a cup of tea and scones.

Quite a bit of delusional white washing…….

Not delusional according to Baroness Patricia Scotland, the secretary-general of the Commonwealth Nations. Her recent comments reflect what the PP said.

I’m sure the Baroness wants to believe that other nations view their former oppressors as gentle, superiors who selflessly bestowed their wisdom on culture on their savage, barbaric regions. This head in the sand view seems common among royalists. The surprise the palace felt when Will and Kate got their butt’s kicked on their tour is a great example.

The reality is that the British were one if not thee worst influences on every country they touched. Murder, robbery, rape and complete disregard for the populations they destroyed again and again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t think of ne Commonwealth nation that plans to stay.

There are significant minorities wi th in commonwealth governments that want to stay. Also, many are grateful Britain was a far better colonial power than most and did a good job investing in infrastructure and democracy.

It is not that commonwealth citizens want nothing to do with them - many of us want to retain the cultural ties but in a grown up type way - we have grown up and left home but still want to come and visit for a cup of tea and scones.

Quite a bit of delusional white washing…….

How so?

Not everyone within commonwealth countries wants to cut ties but a small majority do. Many don’t want to let go of their cultural heritage altogether.

How is this delusional?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t think of ne Commonwealth nation that plans to stay.

There are significant minorities wi th in commonwealth governments that want to stay. Also, many are grateful Britain was a far better colonial power than most and did a good job investing in infrastructure and democracy.

It is not that commonwealth citizens want nothing to do with them - many of us want to retain the cultural ties but in a grown up type way - we have grown up and left home but still want to come and visit for a cup of tea and scones.

Quite a bit of delusional white washing…….

Not delusional according to Baroness Patricia Scotland, the secretary-general of the Commonwealth Nations. Her recent comments reflect what the PP said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A tone deaf one? Looks like a 100 of his staff received notice of possible termination during the royal mourning period.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62897488.amp

Already been posted. It’s the queens old staff. Who cares? Charles should keeps his staff and the queen’s staff?

Some of us don’t live our lives on DCUM’s entertainment thread. And obviously the 100 down sized staff do care. Any competent institution should have a better process for downsizing staff so it doesn’t become a reputational risk.

Agree the timing shows really bad judgment but no one would describe The Firm as a competent organization. Just wait as these 100 staff face an 80% increase on their energy bills next month on top of UK inflation with no pay check. Cue up story of dedicated old staff eating cat food in a small flat without heat or ther staffers deciding to sell stories to pay their bills.