Harry and Meghan

[Petrus1983]

wolfracesonic said:

She is coming across in a whole new light in this affair, sort of Don Vito crossed with Harold Shand, ‘The Sussex’s? I’ve st them’.

Makes me re-question the Diana conspiracies

[Dont like rolls]

Halmyre said:

Dont like rolls said:

HRM or her delegated, you bend, kneel etc to the office/country NOT the person.

Maybe if you had a smattering of knowledge you would know that, blame your teachers not the Royal person

I think most people went to a school that had better things to teach them than how to defer to royalty.

There you go again, you do not show "defer" to the Royals, you show deference to the Crown, eg your country.
Maybe learn about your own country before you have a cheap shot at its structure ?

[smn159]

popeyewhite said:

smn159 said:

We don't know that they are though, do we?

Sunday Post - "The royal family may cost us a mint – but they bring in much more"

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-...

So the big earners are

Income from the Crown Estates
Tourists
The Crown on Netflix

All cited as justifications for a hugely expensive Royal Family, but none really affected if we decide not to bother with King William and Queen Kate take national ownership of the Crown Estates

[Dont like rolls]

smn159 said:

So the big earners are

Income from the Crown Estates
Tourists
The Crown on Netflix

All cited as justifications for a hugely expensive Royal Family, but none really affected if we decide not to bother with King William and Queen Kate take national ownership of the Crown Estates

Kate would not be the Queen.

[kev1974]

wolfracesonic said:

Anyway, doesn’t Sussex Royal sound like some sort of rare breed chicken?

[Sway]

Dont like rolls said:

smn159 said:

So the big earners are

Income from the Crown Estates
Tourists
The Crown on Netflix

All cited as justifications for a hugely expensive Royal Family, but none really affected if we decide not to bother with King William and Queen Kate take national ownership of the Crown Estates

Kate would not be the Queen.

Why not? She's not been married previously, and is the wife of the man who will be king.

[p1stonhead]

Sway said:

Dont like rolls said:

smn159 said:

So the big earners are

Income from the Crown Estates
Tourists
The Crown on Netflix

All cited as justifications for a hugely expensive Royal Family, but none really affected if we decide not to bother with King William and Queen Kate take national ownership of the Crown Estates

Kate would not be the Queen.

Why not? She's not been married previously, and is the wife of the man who will be king.

Why isn’t Philip King?

Genuine question. I assume it’s the same?

[Rewe]

Sway said:

Dont like rolls said:

smn159 said:

So the big earners are

Income from the Crown Estates
Tourists
The Crown on Netflix

All cited as justifications for a hugely expensive Royal Family, but none really affected if we decide not to bother with King William and Queen Kate take national ownership of the Crown Estates

Kate would not be the Queen.

Why not? She's not been married previously, and is the wife of the man who will be king.

She will be Queen. Queen consort rather than regent, but Queen nevertheless.

[Sway]

p1stonhead said:

Sway said:

Dont like rolls said:

smn159 said:

So the big earners are

Income from the Crown Estates
Tourists
The Crown on Netflix

All cited as justifications for a hugely expensive Royal Family, but none really affected if we decide not to bother with King William and Queen Kate take national ownership of the Crown Estates

Kate would not be the Queen.

Why not? She's not been married previously, and is the wife of the man who will be king.

Why isn’t Philip King?

Genuine question. I assume it’s the same?

There's no such role as "King consort" - by default a king is above a queen. Hence he's a Prince.

Camilla won't be queen as it's been agreed she won't be (depending on who you ask is either because she's been divorced, or because of the nation's love of Diana).

Katie will be Queen. It's the "typical" title for the wife of the king and none of the potential barriers apply.

[Halb]

smn159 said:

We don't know that they are though, do we? Tourism is usually cited as being entirely down to the Royals, as if no-one would visit London if the Queen wasn't home. The other 'benefit' touted is that Charles or whoever occasionally schmoozes some Saudi's into buying some more missiles that we have no way of knowing whether they would have bought or not.

There's really no way to test whether they are an asset to or a drag on the country.

Quite, they are not an asset to tourism, probably more of a hindrance, there's been enough links to show that in this thread. And even if a person was rapacious enough to think money is a reason to keep a constitution, 'getting rid' doesn't mean they'll all be shoved into a box, they could still be kept around like other euro royals. The 'they bring benefit' mantra has no merit as an-argument.

Edited by Halb on Wednesday 19th February 19:11

[Halb]

Lord Marylebone said:

There is probably no point in telling you this as you will likely just rubbish it without due consideration, but wealthy and powerful families exert absolutely massive pressure on their own children to toe the line, and to follow the rules of the family. Do as you are told, do what is expected of you and don't answer back.

Even if you come from an totally unknown family that has millions in the bank, it is practically like the days of arranged marriages, your parents will try to tell you what girlfriends are suitable or unsuitable, and have a steer on what sort of wedding you will have.

My guess is, and I could be wrong, that Harry managed to convince or argue his family round to the fact that he was marrying Meghan come hell or high water, but there is no doubt he will have been railroaded into having the wedding that would be expected of a Royal family member of his level.

Only once he was married and formally had someone he loved and trusted in life to share his issues with, that he decided he could finally leave 'The Firm'.

Speculation on my part of course, but it all seems entirely plausible to me.

THat seems plausible, from how things operate. Conjecture, but sure.

[Halb]

smn159 said:

So the big earners are
Income from the Crown Estates
Tourists
The Crown on Netflix
All cited as justifications for a hugely expensive Royal Family, but none really affected if we decide not to bother with King William and Queen Kate take national ownership of the Crown Estates

There's no need to 'take ownership', they are already nationally owned, they never were private property. When the monarch decided to give up direct control to parliament and hand over what paid for it, they sneakily kept two duchies, because at the time the monarch still did have extensive power, power which was only truly gone when George five tried to meddle on parliamentary business in the last tweenies but one and was told he could not. From that point on, their power was pretty much invested in defending what they still had, viciously.
If the publicly owned houses were fully opened up the tourism would most likely increase.

[Earthdweller]

p1stonhead said:

Why isn’t Philip King?

Genuine question. I assume it’s the same?

Because King outranks Queen

The Queen is the monarch and cannot be outranked .. hence Philip is a prince

[Halb]

Best piece on the board.

[Earthdweller]

Halb said:

Best piece on the board.

Andrew is the nave

[Davos123]

popeyewhite said:

Sunday Post - "The royal family may cost us a mint – but they bring in much more"

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-...

Articles like this are meaningless unless they attempt to quantify the opportunity cost. I'd love to see someone really project the money that could be made off Royal assets if they were returned to the State or sold off. I refuse to believe that we couldn't become more tourist friendly by making these places proper attractions. Sure, Buckingham Palace won't have the Queen in it any more, but as a trade off you actually get to go inside.

edit: they're counting money earned on a series about Queen Victoria FFS. She's been dead a while, that series would have been made regardless of whether we had an existing Royal Family.

Edited by Davos123 on Wednesday 19th February 19:36

[Halmyre]

Dont like rolls said:

Halmyre said:

Dont like rolls said:

HRM or her delegated, you bend, kneel etc to the office/country NOT the person.

Maybe if you had a smattering of knowledge you would know that, blame your teachers not the Royal person

I think most people went to a school that had better things to teach them than how to defer to royalty.

There you go again, you do not show "defer" to the Royals, you show deference to the Crown, eg your country.
Maybe learn about your own country before you have a cheap shot at its structure ?

Just exactly how do you show deference to the country?

[Sway]

Davos123 said:

popeyewhite said:

Sunday Post - "The royal family may cost us a mint – but they bring in much more"

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-...

Articles like this are meaningless unless they attempt to quantify the opportunity cost. I'd love to see someone really project the money that could be made off Royal assets if they were returned to the State or sold off. I refuse to believe that we couldn't become more tourist friendly by making these places proper attractions. Sure, Buckingham Palace won't have the Queen in it any more, but as a trade off you actually get to go inside.

edit: they're counting money earned on a series about Queen Victoria FFS. She's been dead a while, that series would have been made regardless of whether we had an existing Royal Family.

Edited by Davos123 on Wednesday 19th February 19:36

And what isn't counted is the benefits provided such as the ones my employer directly experienced last year through Prince Charles attending an event...

Lots of millions in revenue, a good few millions in profit and a decent chunk of net inward balance of payments. All clearly and directly related to him attending. All completely 'off the record' in any assessment of the 'cost benefit analysis' anyone can do for the Royals.

[aeropilot]

Sway said:

Dont like rolls said:

smn159 said:

So the big earners are

Income from the Crown Estates
Tourists
The Crown on Netflix

All cited as justifications for a hugely expensive Royal Family, but none really affected if we decide not to bother with King William and Queen Kate take national ownership of the Crown Estates

Kate would not be the Queen.

Why not? She's not been married previously, and is the wife of the man who will be king.

Exactly, just as the current Queen's mother became Queen when George VI became King.

[Dicky Knee]

Halb said:

smn159 said:

So the big earners are
Income from the Crown Estates
Tourists
The Crown on Netflix
All cited as justifications for a hugely expensive Royal Family, but none really affected if we decide not to bother with King William and Queen Kate take national ownership of the Crown Estates

There's no need to 'take ownership', they are already nationally owned, they never were private property. When the monarch decided to give up direct control to parliament and hand over what paid for it, they sneakily kept two duchies, because at the time the monarch still did have extensive power, power which was only truly gone when George five tried to meddle on parliamentary business in the last tweenies but one and was told he could not. From that point on, their power was pretty much invested in defending what they still had, viciously.
If the publicly owned houses were fully opened up the tourism would most likely increase.

Who would replace the Queen/King as Head of State? Public vote? remembering that the public voted for Boaty Mc Boatface over the RSS Sir Richard Attenborough. President Michael MacIntyre? President Harry Kane? President Basil Brush? Or just leave it to the professionals and let the politicians decide. President Tony Blair, President Theresa May?

And Australia, Canada, NZ? Big constitutional change there as well.