William & Kate

[Jackie3]

3 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

You are an even shittier person than I thought clearly taking joy in peoples family businesses suffering. 

It never made sense to me, that Party Pieces could yield profits to afford this. Imagine what it costs to buy, furnish and maintain a home like this. The numbers just don't add up.

I do love the name of the town, though. Bucklebury! It has such English country charm.

 

Edited August 20, 2022 by Jackie3

[viii]

Amazon has unfortunately crushed a lot of small businesses. 

#shoplocal 

[prayawaythefundie]

Adelaide Cottage and Lambrook School have been confirmed: 

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-william-and-kate-moving-from-kensington-palace-to-windsor-with-louis-harry-and-charlotte-all-starting-new-school/355810

[Giraffe]

I’m not doxxing anyone but…has anyone ever seen Jackie3 & MM in the same room at the same time? Asking for a friend. 😏

Edited August 22, 2022 by Giraffe

[prayawaythefundie]

15 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

I’m not doxxing anyone but…has anyone ever seen Jackie3 & MM in the same room at the same time? Asking for a friend. 😏

I don‘t think Meghan would appreciate  @Jackie3‘s posts as she is not exactly making her look good. You don‘t get to chose your admirers.

[louisa05]

56 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

I don‘t think Meghan would appreciate  @Jackie3‘s posts as she is not exactly making her look good. You don‘t get to chose your admirers.

The Sussexes have intentionally met a “Sussex Squad” member who posts nasty stuff about William, Catherine and their children regularly. They called one to thank her for her “support”. That one posts death wishes for his grandmother, father and the entire Cambridge family.  Their standards are low. 

[viii]

25 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

The Sussexes have intentionally met a “Sussex Squad” member who posts nasty stuff about William, Catherine and their children regularly. They called one to thank her for her “support”. That one posts death wishes for his grandmother, father and the entire Cambridge family.  Their standards are low. 

You have got to be joking. I know the bar is low but that's really vile. Do you have proof?

[prayawaythefundie]

1 hour ago, viii said:

You have got to be joking. I know the bar is low but that's really vile. Do you have proof?

From a quick read of the article below it looks like they thanked someone for raising a good amount of money for one of their charitable causes and it turned out that this person was linked to an online hating account. They were then urged to address that but didn‘t. This seems to have occured about two years ago. 

Article: https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1350472/meghan-markle-prince-harry-sussex-squad-time100-video-royal-family-news-spt/amp

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[Jackie3]

On 8/22/2022 at 5:17 AM, prayawaythefundie said:

Adelaide Cottage and Lambrook School have been confirmed: 

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-william-and-kate-moving-from-kensington-palace-to-windsor-with-louis-harry-and-charlotte-all-starting-new-school/355810

Apparently, Adelaide "Cottage" has a second house attached to it. The second house is for staff. It's not the humble abode the press is making it out to be. And their nanny is not far away.

Imagine having a second house just for staff! 

Quote

Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, said he believed the couple were likely to make use of an additional home next to Adelaide Cottage for their staff.

In a statement, he said: "Adelaide Cottage is a huge house by any standards, and it's attached to another home which we can assume will be for servants and staff.

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Jackie3

[prayawaythefundie]

6 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Apparently, Adelaide "Cottage" has a second house attached to it. The second house is for staff. It's not the humble abode the press is making it out to be. And their nanny is not far away.

Not news. Has been discussed here. Catch up with your reading. 😉

Edited August 26, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[Coconut Flan]

Yes, do read up.  I provided a photo of the annex.

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

Yes, do read up.  I provided a photo of the annex.

OK, thank you! I'll check the thread! How great you got a photo of the annex.

[catlady]

18 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

 

Imagine having a second house just for staff! 

 

Yay!  Jackie3’s back!!  I missed you, honey!  Who else would have brought to our attention the fact that rich people have staff and provide housing for them!   I never knew that!!  Wow, live-in staff!  That’s fancy!  I *CAN’T* imagine that, because I never knew that existed!  Thank you, Jackie3!  I feel educated now!!!!!!

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, catlady said:

 Who else would have brought to our attention the fact that rich people have staff and provide housing for them!  

The Cambridges just renovated their Kensington home, at a cost of 4.5 million pounds to the taxpayer (and the true cost was actually much higher)

Now they need another home? After spending 4.5 million pounds to fix up their last place? Bear in mind, half the British public can't afford to heat their homes. No wonder people are angry. Something's wrong there.

Plus another entire house for their servants? It's almost unbelievable. I've know wealthy people who have one or two live-in servants. But an entire houseful of servants, wow.

Even if they rent it with "private funds", the British public is still paying for the security for a fourth house.

[tabitha2]

Why are you so concerned about other peoples money?  Is any of the Royal reconstruction money or anything else they receive coming out of your pocket?  Mind your business and let the British mind theirs.  

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

The Cambridges just renovated their Kensington home, at a cost of 4.5 million pounds to the taxpayer (and the true cost was actually much higher)

Now they need another home? After spending 4.5 million pounds to fix up their last place? Bear in mind, half the British public can't afford to heat their homes. No wonder people are angry. Something's wrong there.

Plus another entire house for their servants? It's almost unbelievable. I've know wealthy people who have one or two live-in servants. But an entire houseful of servants, wow.

Even if they rent it with "private funds", the British public is still paying for the security for a fourth house.

They funded the decorating and personal renovations themselves. The publicly funded part was updating wiring, removing asbestos and lead, and repairs of literal war damage. All necessary to maintain a historic property. This was all done a decade ago, too, not last week. 

[catlady]

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

The Cambridges just renovated their Kensington home, at a cost of 4.5 million pounds to the taxpayer (and the true cost was actually much higher)

Now they need another home? After spending 4.5 million pounds to fix up their last place? Bear in mind, half the British public can't afford to heat their homes. No wonder people are angry. Something's wrong there.

Plus another entire house for their servants? It's almost unbelievable. I've know wealthy people who have one or two live-in servants. But an entire houseful of servants, wow.

Even if they rent it with "private funds", the British public is still paying for the security for a fourth house.

You know I adore you, because you’re fucking amazing and the most spectacular human being to ever walk this earth, but what *IS* your point?

[viii]

Let’s be honest though - personally funding things doesn’t mean much. None of them earned their money. 

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, viii said:

Let’s be honest though - personally funding things doesn’t mean much. None of them earned their money. 

Exactly. None of them worked for that money. 

3 hours ago, louisa05 said:

They funded the decorating and personal renovations themselves.

"Funded it themselves"? Wills' vast wealth largely comes from the British taxpayer too. It's not like he earned that money.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Jackie3

[prayawaythefundie]

2 hours ago, viii said:

Let’s be honest though - personally funding things doesn’t mean much. None of them earned their money. 

The difference is that using your own money, whether you worked shifts for it or inherited it, means less of a financial a burden on the public. 
 

ETA: I would like to point out that, while there absolutely is a point in discussing the royals being overpaid, I‘m starting to take offence at the constant mantra of being paid out of taxes = not earning your money / not working. That‘s a slap in the face for everyone working in public service. Yes, I‘m personally affected. My salary is taxpayer-funded and I work for it.

Edited August 27, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[FluffySnowball]

22 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

The difference is that using your own money, whether you worked shifts for it or inherited it, means less of a financial a burden on the public. 
 

ETA: I would like to point out that, while there absolutely is a point in discussing the royals being overpaid, I‘m starting to take offence at the constant mantra of being paid out of taxes = not earning your money / not working. That‘s a slap in the face for everyone working in public service. Yes, I‘m personally affected. My salary is taxpayer-funded and I work for it.

With all due respect, that’s nonsense. No one in their right mind compares public servants to the BRF just cause they all are “taxpayer funded”. There’s such a vast difference everyone is aware of, a comparison makes no sense. The RBF looks back at a legacy of centuries of exploitation, theft, and oppression that caused their wealth to accumulate. Civil servants don’t have such a sinister history - and hence not nearly the amount of money and properties. 
 

ETA: to me, inheriting isn’t the problem, never rightfully working for the wealth at their disposal is. And the wealth the BRF has comes from slavery, colonialism, and exploitation among others, and has never been deserved, neither in history nor now. That’s where I see the problem. Slaves and peasants died at times horrible deaths so that the queen and her princes, princesses, dukes and duchesses can place their bums on cozy pillows so to speak. 

Edited August 27, 2022 by FluffySnowball

[prayawaythefundie]

9 minutes ago, FluffySnowball said:

With all due respect, that’s nonsense. No one in their right mind compares public servants to the BRF just cause they all are “taxpayer funded”. There’s such a vast difference everyone is aware of, a comparison makes no sense. The RBF looks back at a legacy of centuries of exploitation, theft, and oppression that caused their wealth to accumulate. Civil servants don’t have such a sinister history - and hence not nearly the amount of money and properties. 

Then criticize that! There may be a vast difference in people minds (from the attitude I get in my private life towards my job and how it‘s financed, I doubt it though) but they don‘t express it in their language. Say their wealth comes from slavery and exploitation, if that‘s it the problem! People don‘t though. Go back on these threads and count how many times it literally is „but they get their money from the taxpayers“.

[FluffySnowball]

5 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Then criticize that! There may be a vast difference in people minds (from the attitude I get in my private life towards my job and how it‘s financed, I doubt it though) but they don‘t express it in their language. Say their wealth comes from slavery and exploitation, if that‘s it the problem! People don‘t though. Go back on these threads and count how many times it literally is „but they get their money from the taxpayers“.

I criticize it, not sure what your problem is with what I wrote 🤷🏻‍♀️ But I can’t influence how other people word their opinions. This, however, is mine. 

[prayawaythefundie]

2 minutes ago, FluffySnowball said:

I criticize it, not sure what your problem is with what I wrote 🤷🏻‍♀️ But I can’t influence how other people word their opinions. This, however, is mine. 

No, you are not responsible for other people‘s wordings but you defended them, saying my take on it was nonsense. I was trying to show you how it isn‘t because others here do constantly use the wrong (in my opionion) aspect to criticize. My originial message wasn‘t directed at you and I did not mean to say that you personally use that wording but if you challenge what I say, you have to expect me to show how I‘m not imagening things just because you don‘t do them. 

[FluffySnowball]

22 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

No, you are not responsible for other people‘s wordings but you defended them, saying my take on it was nonsense. I was trying to show you how it isn‘t because others here do constantly use the wrong (in my opionion) aspect to criticize. My originial message wasn‘t directed at you and I did not mean to say that you personally use that wording but if you challenge what I say, you have to expect me to show how I‘m not imagening things just because you don‘t do them. 

Ah, I see and get what you meant now. I’m not calling your anecdotal evidence into question and - though I admittedly don’t want to read through the entire thread - have no reason to doubt your observation. If that’s what you experience, I’m sorry cause it seems unfair to you in my opinion. No wonder it enrages you. 
All that being said, it isn’t my personal observation and when I think of conversations I’ve had with people, they wouldn’t take such a naive stance like “royals are taxpayer funded just like public servants”. There is an awareness of the historical aspects of how the BRF got so rich in my circle - granted, most of my friends are very politically left, as am I, so a blind veneration of money and power isn’t really our thing. Also, while my circle of friends includes people from commonwealth countries, it happens not to include people from Britain itself. Maybe that makes some difference? I don’t know…