Harry and Meghan to resign

arknor said:
try mumsnet see what their view is on this topic and report back to us. could actually be interesting to see if their view is a polar opposite based on them being womens.
Click to expand...


You think a lot of the women on mumsnet doesn't read the tabloids? I do know far more women that don't see her as this evil ball busting, money grabbing bitch compared to men I know. I realise this forum is probably 80%+ men but some of the comments are ridiculous.
 
BowdonUK said:
I was watching this twitter video earlier:


She's so self centred and harry as bought in to her sob story "its everyone elses fault".. No Meghan, it really is you!

Some of my American friends are calling her MeGain.
Click to expand...


That is a terrible edit, you'd need to see the clip without the sudden zoom in on her face to judge the situation properly. For all we know that expression on her face is when Harry introduces her or prompts her to greet the others.

Really don't get all the fuss over this anyway, if they want to live in Canada away from the gutter tabloid press here then fair play to them. The life of a royal isn't all roses and I'm sure Harry would be a lot more vocal on many issues including the way we treat our armed forces if he was allowed to.
 
So according to today’s summit with the Queen, it’s looking likely that both of them will be stripped of their titles. Queen made a statement and called them Harry and Meghan lol.

Mind you this is from the scumbag daily mail paper. I just saw the headline but didn’t bother reading it
 
Moley said:
The difference is that Middleton hasn't actually done anything to be accused of doing wrong. She's not gone headline hunting or sought self-promotion. She's sat back and learnt the Royal way of operating - which is quiet, understated without any personal gain - whereas our Hollywood raised Duchess of Sussex doesn't work that way and doesn't want to change. It's a natural conflict that was always going to surface imho.
Click to expand...

Guff, they have both been pretty similar.
 
Yas786 said:
So according to today’s summit with the Queen, it’s looking likely that both of them will be stripped of their titles. Queen made a statement and called them Harry and Meghan lol.

Mind you this is from the scumbag daily mail paper. I just saw the headline but didn’t bother reading it
Click to expand...

If that’s the case she’s done them a favour.
 
Puzzled said:
That is a terrible edit, you'd need to see the clip without the sudden zoom in on her face to judge the situation properly. For all we know that expression on her face is when Harry introduces her or prompts her to greet the others.

Really don't get all the fuss over this anyway, if they want to live in Canada away from the gutter tabloid press here then fair play to them. The life of a royal isn't all roses and I'm sure Harry would be a lot more vocal on many issues including the way we treat our armed forces if he was allowed to.
Click to expand...

Yep I'd want to see the proceeding minute or more to get this clip in context.
 
The more I read of this the more it sounds like a parody of Brexit, Harry and Megane being unhappy with life in the Royal Family and wanting more freedom, the Queen being shocked with them wanting to leave, negotiations about a future relationship, a transition period... All it needs is for the queen to stonewall them ever really leaving and subtly threaten their future finances if they don't agree to surrender all of the freedoms they had hoped to gain and abide by her rules going forward.
 
Last edited:
stuie said:
Huh? What argument? Think you quoted the wrong post here
Click to expand...

No, I didn't:

stuie said:
[..] Stepping down doing his own thing and taking less money out the tax payers pot (maybe not now but in the future) is a good thing and good on them. [..]
Click to expand...

The Queen voluntarily pays 100% income tax on most of her income, i.e. she gives it all to "the tax payers". She's then given a tax rebate of 15% of that amount she's paid, which has to cover all the expenses of being head of state. Prince Harry is given money by the Queen from that 15%.

So you argument is that the Queen "takes money from the tax payers pot" because she pays lots in voluntary excess income tax and gets 15% of that overpayment back (which also has to cover the expenses she incurs as head of state, so she doesn't even get that much of her own money back).

So if you believe your own argument, you should be happy to send me £1000 if I send you £150 of it back and you spend that £150 on expenses for my benefit. By your argument, that would be you getting money from me. So why haven't you contacted me to echange bank details yet? I'm offering you free money, according to your own argument. Why aren't you interested? Don't you believe your own argument?

Yes, I'm aware that "we" could kill them all and steal all their stuff. But that's a different thing and not what you were arguing in favour of.
 
"The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch"

It's more like saying that your parents house is your house. It is, but at the same time it isn't, they just give you a tenner pocket money every week and let you live there.
 
Puzzled said:
[..] Really don't get all the fuss over this anyway, if they want to live in Canada away from the gutter tabloid press here then fair play to them. The life of a royal isn't all roses and I'm sure Harry would be a lot more vocal on many issues including the way we treat our armed forces if he was allowed to.
Click to expand...

And that would be fine...if he wasn't a prince. But he is and he's not abdicating.

We have a carefully constructed system here in which the royal family are absolutely apolitical and absolutely discreet. It's why we didn't have a revolution and a period of terror following it. It's the only way the system can work - the monarchy has to serve the country and only the country. If any of them use their status for business or (far worse) politics of any kind, the system will fail.

It wouldn't be an insurmountable problem if Harry Windsor and Meghan Markle enter politics and/or business, not even if his grandma discreetly funds them, maybe not even if she makes few calls to help them. It would be a problem if Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex do so. That will ruin our carefully constucted and adequately functional system of government.

If they want out, they have to be out. Edward and Mrs Simpson style, if that's even possible nowadays.
 
Yas786 said:
So according to today’s summit with the Queen, it’s looking likely that both of them will be stripped of their titles. Queen made a statement and called them Harry and Meghan lol. [..]
Click to expand...

I don't think that necessarily means anything. She's his grandma, so it's not surprising she calls him and his wife by their personal names. Was she wearing her queen hat or her grandma hat? No way of telling.
 
Yas786 said:
So according to today’s summit with the Queen, it’s looking likely that both of them will be stripped of their titles.
Click to expand...

Yikes. That would put a nasty dent in their 'Sussex Royal' brand. But it seems unlikely.

In a statement, the Queen said the talks at Sandringham, which also involved the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge, had been "very constructive".

"My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan's desire to create a new life as a young family," she said.

"Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family."

She said it had been agreed there would be "a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK" after Harry and Meghan "made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives".

...This is a remarkably candid and informal, almost personal, statement from the Queen.

Her regret over Harry and Meghan's move is obvious - she would have preferred them to stay in their current roles.

But she also makes clear that they are still royals and that they will be valued in the family as they become a more independent couple.

...Historian Robert Lacey told the BBC Radio 4's PM programme the Queen's statement following the meeting was unusually personal, with several references to "my family" and "my grandson".

"It is remarkably hands-on. I mean it may have been processed through officials but this is the Queen, speaking to her people and speaking about her family, and I think coming right through it is the concern she feels," he said.
Click to expand...

(Source).
 
3lo0kl.jpg
 
Yas786 said:
So according to today’s summit with the Queen, it’s looking likely that both of them will be stripped of their titles. Queen made a statement and called them Harry and Meghan lol.
Click to expand...

Yikes! Not sure they want that.

I was wondering how that might play out - for example they apparently admire how Zara and her husband have made money independently both private income and cashing in with corporate stuff... obvs she doesn't have any aristocratic/Royal title or "HRH" style so free reign to do whatever.

Andrews Daughters have "HRH" and aren't publicly funded but only have private income/don't cash in on the name/"HRH" with sponsorship deals etc..

I did wonder if they'd perhaps remain "Duke and Duchess" but lose the "HRH"... he'd be "His Grace" like any regular Duke instead of "His Royal Highness" as per a Royal Duke/Prince. Like there isn't anything stopping the UK's aristocrats whether Dukes, Earls or whatever from cashing in on their names/titles, holding board seats at large companies etc..etc..

Harry could probs get a few million a year from public speaking (something like 500k a speech estimated), hold a few non-exec director roles at large corporates for a fat fee and only a day or half a day a month time commitment. Likewise Megan can get speaking fees (estimated less than Harry) and get back into acting - IIRC wasn't there some clip where Harry is chatting to the head of Disney??? No doubt there are corporate sponsorship opportunities, TV appearances/shows....

It would be seriously amusing if they sign up for reality TV (obviously perhaps billed as a "documentary").

Plenty of opportunities for them to make some serous $$$$
 
dowie said:
Harry could ... hold a few non-exec director roles at large corporates for a fat fee and only a day or half a day a month time commitment.
Click to expand...
What do they get in return?

I often wonder why large corps are prepared to pay a good wage to famous people for a tiny monthly commitment.

Is it just so they can say, "We've got Prince Harry on the payroll, don't you know"...?

It does seem to be the norm tho that ex-PMs and other "celebs" get these high-paying, ultra-low effort jobs, practically thrown at their feet. I just wonder what's in it for the business.
 
Also, I wonder if that bloke (a Reading fan)who lost his "sussexroyal" instagram handle when the company took it from him and handed it to the couple might be able to get it back?

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle...-sussexroyal-sussex-reading-fan-handle-504284
The driving instructor, who lives in Worthing, West Sussex, named @SussexRoyal after his beloved Reading FC, who are known as the Royals.

To Mr Keiley, 55, @SussexRoyal made perfect sense. Except now it's gone.

The last time he signed into the app, he found Instagram had changed his handle to @_SussexRoyal_, and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were using the original.
Click to expand...
 
FoxEye said:
What do they get in return?

I often wonder why large corps are prepared to pay a good wage to famous people for a tiny monthly commitment.

Is it just so they can say, "We've got Prince Harry on the payroll, don't you know"...?

It does seem to be the norm tho that ex-PMs and other "celebs" get these high-paying, ultra-low effort jobs, practically thrown at their feet. I just wonder what's in it for the business.
Click to expand...

Well it varies - supposedly connections/advice etc... though a friend of mine had a high profile individual on the board at their company and they ended up getting rid - apparently this individual used to turn up and just waffle/chat **** but never actually offered anything of value, nothing translated into anything useful... just treated board meetings as a bit of a jolly/chat about past glories, throw in useless anecdotes. It seems like ultimately it was just a fancy/high profile person to put on the website, can look good to some extent but at a cost of a six figure sum annually it can be silly if not getting anything else from it.

At the lower end you'll find tech startups will put academics on the board or as advisors, often in return for a stake etc.. but again what they add can vary considerably... still it looks good for investors for some former MSc or PhD students launching their latest dweeb-learning-block-chain-social-insert-buzzword venture to have "Prof X" as their advisor or board member and for him/her to be an expert in that field etc... and of course Prof X knows that [buzzword] is blowing up so might as well accept the stake just on the off chance as sometimes these former students do actually strike gold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom