Harry and Meghan
Discussion
Mort7 said:
Echo66 said:
So the RF is no different to any other family then. Who knew.
They are quite different. They lead opulent, privileged and entitled lives at the expense of the taxpayer. Their side of the deal is that they should remain beyond reproach in all aspects of their lives, be apolitical, keep their opinions to themselves, and act as an example to the rest of us. They have failed to do that. Echo66 said:
Harry had no additional protection out anywhere.....
Plenty of reports say otherwise. Here are two picked at random:-https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/armed-guards-for-har...
More facile gossip from newspapers, no doubt. It really is surprising just how many of them have an axe to grind. I wonder why?
Echo66 said:
Many people come back to an opulent lifestyle, so what, thats life.
Few have five cottages on a royal estate converted into one massive home at a cost of £2.4 million to the taxpayer, despite plans to move to Africa at a later date - presumably also at taxpayers' expense.I'm intrigued to know - do you know Harry? Did you perhaps serve alongside him and therefore have inside information that the newspapers don't have access to, or are you simply an ardent Royalist?
The total cost is less than a quid per person per year!
You may envy their "opulent" lifestyle but I can honestly say I would want to swap lives with any of them. I value my freedom to do as I please. I don't want to work at 53, so f
k working until you're dead! Echo66 said:
Lots of pro-Harry stuff.
So a Royalist then. Fair enough, but I'll beg to differ.98elise said:
You may envy their "opulent" lifestyle.....
I don't. I simply feel that some of the younger members of the royal family behave like reality TV "celebrities".Edited to add:-
98elise said:
How does their money come from the taxpayer? They get a % of the crown estate income, and that doesn't include Harry and Megan IIRC.
Sorry, missed that somehow. Explanation from the BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48746609Edited by Mort7 on Wednesday 31st July 22:57
Echo66 said:
Mort7 said:
Echo66 said:
So the RF is no different to any other family then. Who knew.
They are quite different. They lead opulent, privileged and entitled lives at the expense of the taxpayer. Their side of the deal is that they should remain beyond reproach in all aspects of their lives, be apolitical, keep their opinions to themselves, and act as an example to the rest of us. They have failed to do that. Echo66 said:
Harry had no additional protection out anywhere.....
Plenty of reports say otherwise. Here are two picked at random:-https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/armed-guards-for-har...
More facile gossip from newspapers, no doubt. It really is surprising just how many of them have an axe to grind. I wonder why?
Echo66 said:
Many people come back to an opulent lifestyle, so what, thats life.
Few have five cottages on a royal estate converted into one massive home at a cost of £2.4 million to the taxpayer, despite plans to move to Africa at a later date - presumably also at taxpayers' expense.I'm intrigued to know - do you know Harry? Did you perhaps serve alongside him and therefore have inside information that the newspapers don't have access to, or are you simply an ardent Royalist?
SInce when did the taxpayer pay for anything apart from security & rightly so. There are endless sources showing the Duchy is a very profitable organisation & self funding, profits etc more than pay for Chuck & the two princess.
No I don't know Harry personally but I do know ppl who have worked with him both on tour & in private through the likes of Invictus. Its easy to criticise someone based on spurious crap in tabloids esp if you haven't done a tenth of the things he or anyone in a similar privileged position does for the benefit of other people. He's one of the few royals who really does earn his keep.
The majority of criticism (& this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, more the shabby journalism) comes from ardent republicans or whining socialist types with an envy streak cos other ppl have a bit more wedge than they do.
i am a republican (definitely not a socialist) but am one as I believe in a meritocracy and the RF is the antithesis of this. This country should be about the very best rising to the very top and that will never happen with a monarchy insitu. I wouldn’t care how much of my tax goes to them as in principal I don’t think it’s right in the 21st century to have one family lifted over others just by virtue of history. To me think I sets a bad example to people to see one family demonstrate conspicuous wealth they haven’t earned and get everything in life at the click of a finger. People say that they work but it’s not exactly coal mining is it and every job they go to they travel first class with a team of people waiting on them hand and foot.
CustardOnChips said:
Who gives a fk.
No one is forcing anyone to follow what they do. Just ignore it.
No, but of course we are paying for a sizeable chunk of it! k. No one is forcing anyone to follow what they do. Just ignore it.
And it is hard to avoid the media thrusting the latest round of them telling us how it is / should be, from an unfathomable position of wealth, opulence and privilege.
Personally if I have to pay toward such people’s lives, welfare, security, housing, etc etc, I’d prefer to not have their
ish opinions banded about every morning by the media. As you say, no one gives a st what they think. There’s two ways for it to be dealt with, media blackout, in which case they’ll stop all their PR bullst and we won’t hear about it, or they could just STFU and get on with their lives like most of the other Royals do, quietly and with a little class in most cases. poo at Paul's said:
No, but of course we are paying for a sizeable chunk of it!
And it is hard to avoid the media thrusting the latest round of them telling us how it is / should be, from an unfathomable position of wealth, opulence and privilege.
Personally if I have to pay toward such people’s lives, welfare, security, housing, etc etc, I’d prefer to not have theirish opinions banded about every morning by the media. As you say, no one gives a st what they think. There’s two ways for it to be dealt with, media blackout, in which case they’ll stop all their PR bullst and we won’t hear about it, or they could just STFU and get on with their lives like most of the other Royals do, quietly and with a little class in most cases.
Quite. I’m no socialist but I am a republican as a matter of principle. And it is hard to avoid the media thrusting the latest round of them telling us how it is / should be, from an unfathomable position of wealth, opulence and privilege.
Personally if I have to pay toward such people’s lives, welfare, security, housing, etc etc, I’d prefer to not have their
ish opinions banded about every morning by the media. As you say, no one gives a st what they think. There’s two ways for it to be dealt with, media blackout, in which case they’ll stop all their PR bullst and we won’t hear about it, or they could just STFU and get on with their lives like most of the other Royals do, quietly and with a little class in most cases. Who on Earth does either of them think that he/she is that he/she feels the need or has the right to preach to us or set us an example? And why do so many fellow citizens think it is right?
The bloody deference in this country will be the death of us. Harry may or May not be a fine chap but I don’t need to pay his opinions any more mind than those of any other ex-officer, and I have absolutely no interest in the twittering of a second or third string luvvie on matters unrelated to acting.
poo at Paul's said:
No, but of course we are paying for a sizeable chunk of it!
And it is hard to avoid the media thrusting the latest round of them telling us how it is / should be, from an unfathomable position of wealth, opulence and privilege.
Personally if I have to pay toward such people’s lives, welfare, security, housing, etc etc, I’d prefer to not have theirish opinions banded about every morning by the media. As you say, no one gives a st what they think. There’s two ways for it to be dealt with, media blackout, in which case they’ll stop all their PR bullst and we won’t hear about it, or they could just STFU and get on with their lives like most of the other Royals do, quietly and with a little class in most cases.
We pay for lots of things I personally don't agree with. That, unfortunately is the way things are. I tend to worry about the things I can't control. In th grand scheme of things, what the RF costs the tax payer isn't very much. And it is hard to avoid the media thrusting the latest round of them telling us how it is / should be, from an unfathomable position of wealth, opulence and privilege.
Personally if I have to pay toward such people’s lives, welfare, security, housing, etc etc, I’d prefer to not have their
ish opinions banded about every morning by the media. As you say, no one gives a st what they think. There’s two ways for it to be dealt with, media blackout, in which case they’ll stop all their PR bullst and we won’t hear about it, or they could just STFU and get on with their lives like most of the other Royals do, quietly and with a little class in most cases. I presume the pair of them are in the media trying to raise awarnes for what they consider to be worth causes? Where is th harm in that?
I tend to listen to 5 live in the morning and can't remember the last time I had their opinions aired on a morning. Maybe you ar looking for t so you can be offended by it. Or you need to re-evluate your choice of media outlet.
Anything published by the gutter press is often unfounded, however this continual coverage of a 3rd rate very minor actress and her hubby is just boring, as are their "statement" actions. Who the hell gives a damn if they have only 2 kids, or if the support some unknown charity (NB not a charity, an offshore company, no doubt to fund the "american wife" syndrome!!!)
Their nicknames, which I recently saw, label them correctly, namely Ginge and Cringe........
Their nicknames, which I recently saw, label them correctly, namely Ginge and Cringe........
There seems to be a distinct female bias to everything she is doing.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/31/meghan-markle-launc...
https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/31/meghan-markle-launc...
CustardOnChips said:
poo at Paul's said:
No, but of course we are paying for a sizeable chunk of it!
And it is hard to avoid the media thrusting the latest round of them telling us how it is / should be, from an unfathomable position of wealth, opulence and privilege.
Personally if I have to pay toward such people’s lives, welfare, security, housing, etc etc, I’d prefer to not have theirish opinions banded about every morning by the media. As you say, no one gives a st what they think. There’s two ways for it to be dealt with, media blackout, in which case they’ll stop all their PR bullst and we won’t hear about it, or they could just STFU and get on with their lives like most of the other Royals do, quietly and with a little class in most cases.
We pay for lots of things I personally don't agree with. That, unfortunately is the way things are. I tend to worry about the things I can't control. In th grand scheme of things, what the RF costs the tax payer isn't very much. And it is hard to avoid the media thrusting the latest round of them telling us how it is / should be, from an unfathomable position of wealth, opulence and privilege.
Personally if I have to pay toward such people’s lives, welfare, security, housing, etc etc, I’d prefer to not have their
ish opinions banded about every morning by the media. As you say, no one gives a st what they think. There’s two ways for it to be dealt with, media blackout, in which case they’ll stop all their PR bullst and we won’t hear about it, or they could just STFU and get on with their lives like most of the other Royals do, quietly and with a little class in most cases. I presume the pair of them are in the media trying to raise awarnes for what they consider to be worth causes? Where is th harm in that?
I tend to listen to 5 live in the morning and can't remember the last time I had their opinions aired on a morning. Maybe you ar looking for t so you can be offended by it. Or you need to re-evluate your choice of media outlet.
What's ironic is that he gave his "we're only having two kids for the sake of the environment" speech while attending the Climate Change Conference in Sicily.
That's the conference that has seen numerous celebrities and rich folks arrive on the island in 114 private jets and various super yachts.
That's the conference that has seen numerous celebrities and rich folks arrive on the island in 114 private jets and various super yachts.
Cold said:
What's ironic is that he gave his "we're only having two kids for the sake of the environment" speech while attending the Climate Change Conference in Sicily.
That's the conference that has seen numerous celebrities and rich folks arrive on the island in 114 private jets and various super yachts.
Link to story here from the Cimate Protesters Block Roads thread - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7307197/P...That's the conference that has seen numerous celebrities and rich folks arrive on the island in 114 private jets and various super yachts.
Hypocritical nonsense that will undo any good work he has done. What a twonk!
You listen to 5 live and have yet to realise Campbell is one of the most smug, arrogant cretins ever to sit behind a mike, the amount of times I turn him off as he rams his own leftist crap down my throat!
Agreed we all have different opinions and expectation of media and the like and indeed of Royals.
I am not entirely happy with the way they are going along, she seems to have changed him beyond recognition, and that is sad, he was a relatively easygoing, carefree chap who now seems to feel the need to distance himself from his brother a bit and just because he is married to start getting into causes he was never into before, because of her no doubt. She is typical Hollywood, trying to be something new, and making small errors, but typical Hollywood nonetheless.
I would rather they did their jobs as royals, smiled, were pleasant, toured dutifully, did business behind the scenes, made us proud, than start getting into personal causes too much.
They have not been married long, are not established and probably are being pushed by over eager PR people pushing them in and out of things. Which is probably why they are being a little kept at arms length by those in the family that truly matter.
I know their position is different in that they will never be true throne royalty, but neither were Anne, Edward, Andrew. All o fwhich have different but useful contributions to make, for bad or worse!
Agreed we all have different opinions and expectation of media and the like and indeed of Royals.
I am not entirely happy with the way they are going along, she seems to have changed him beyond recognition, and that is sad, he was a relatively easygoing, carefree chap who now seems to feel the need to distance himself from his brother a bit and just because he is married to start getting into causes he was never into before, because of her no doubt. She is typical Hollywood, trying to be something new, and making small errors, but typical Hollywood nonetheless.
I would rather they did their jobs as royals, smiled, were pleasant, toured dutifully, did business behind the scenes, made us proud, than start getting into personal causes too much.
They have not been married long, are not established and probably are being pushed by over eager PR people pushing them in and out of things. Which is probably why they are being a little kept at arms length by those in the family that truly matter.
I know their position is different in that they will never be true throne royalty, but neither were Anne, Edward, Andrew. All o fwhich have different but useful contributions to make, for bad or worse!
Cold said:
What's ironic is that he gave his "we're only having two kids for the sake of the environment" speech while attending the Climate Change Conference in Sicily.
That's the conference that has seen numerous celebrities and rich folks arrive on the island in 114 private jets and various super yachts.
Considering the amount of flights the royal family make, won't he be saving the planet even more by sticking at one child.That's the conference that has seen numerous celebrities and rich folks arrive on the island in 114 private jets and various super yachts.
Frank7 said:
epicfail said:
Ann of Cleeves?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (R) Representative for the 14th District of New York’s Congressional District ?
ETA, Sorry, didn’t see that Shakermaker had already made the connection,
but what’s she done that’s so bad to bring out the haters?
Edited by Frank7 on Wednesday 31st July 17:13
[quote=Steviesam
I spent the day with the pair of them, in a private, off duty family get together. You couldn't meet nicer, funnier and considerate people.
[/quote]
I don't believe that for a moment & should it be true then this forum is about the last place you should have publicised it. Him & Her but mostly Her would not be best pleased I'm sure.
I spent the day with the pair of them, in a private, off duty family get together. You couldn't meet nicer, funnier and considerate people.
[/quote]
I don't believe that for a moment & should it be true then this forum is about the last place you should have publicised it. Him & Her but mostly Her would not be best pleased I'm sure.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff