Harry & Meghan 9: Pretending to Be Relevant

[prayawaythefundie]

4 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

LOL, if she wanted to upstage anyone I doubt she would have moved away. Moving away is exactly the opposite of what you'd do if you wanted to upstage a member of the BRF.

The theory seems to be that Meghan either didn‘t succeed in upstaging others to the extend she wanted to or that her succesful upstaging wasn‘t well received by the family.
 

Either way, I think it‘s a bit ridiculous to believe she had some „evil plan“ to marry into the royal family, steal their limelight and get eternal fame (if anyone even believes that). It seems likely to me that she underestimated some of the pressures (maybe wasn‘t that well prepared by Harry) and doesn‘t have the personality to play second fiddle all her life, be publicly criticised for everything she ever does and not say a word about it but just to the same thing the next day with a smile on her face. Who does really? I’m sure I couldn‘t do it which is, of course, the only reason I haven‘t married a prince. 😉

As for the royals‘ work: I may be sensitive for working in a profession often being accused of having an easy life („half days“, „summers off“) myself. There is a lot of work people don‘t see. It does not end when you leave the classroom and I guess it doesn‘t end when the royals get into the car.
 

I‘ve heard people say they were suprised how well informed William and Kate were about all the details of specific charities (so even short visits seem to need preparation) and in the last couple of years they have taken on projects that require ongoing planning (Earthshot Prize, Early Years) and regular meetings. Charles has been described as a workaholic. Philip has been said to have sat at his desk until late at night. Anne famously often skips lunch because she has so many appointments in one day.

I‘m not saying they work harder than everyone else and yes, they are privileged! But that doesn‘t mean they don‘t work.

Edited June 8, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[tabitha2]

So you really think all Royals live in Castles, have millions of dollars and fine jewels at their disposal and acres of land?  A houseful of servants to do everything?   Wow.  
 

No. Meghan was a C list TV actress who married a dim, damaged prince and proceeded with her besotted husband to cause unnecessary drama in a family who seemingly welcomed her, not do a hell of a lot while there , then go on Oprah to  “misremember” about being married and play the  ingenue victim complete with dewy eyes while and all the while still use her fancy new title and ties to try to advance herself while  proclaiming they wanted to be free of all that.  
 

There are real Queens and Princesses  in history who could have anything they wanted but chose to go the school, get advanced degrees and be strong forthright women whilst still being genuine, respectful and kind people. Now That’s what I consider empowering 

 

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

So many people buy into the narrative that the royals "work." Really, is it work? They get in a limo and travel to a hospital or school. They are greeted with great fanfare and adoration by the directors. They cut a ribbon or make a speech. They talk to a small child or patient. They are served amazing food and drink. They get back in their limo and return to their castle.  Their servants take care of every aspect of their personal lives. For this "work," they are receive millions of dollars, castles, land and jewlery.

They've never had to apply for this "job" and have done nothing to merit it.

Is that really work? Personally, I'd love to do "work" like this--but I'd call it privilege and incredible luck.

Exactly, that's what I was saying. She wants to empower herself. Why is this bad?  Did you want her disempowered, for some reason?

 

 

 

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, prayawaythefundie said:

As for the royals‘ work: I may be sensitive for working in a profession often being accused of having an easy life („half days“, „summers off“) myself. There is a lot of work people don‘t see. It does not end when you leave the classroom and I guess it doesn‘t end when the royals get into the car.
 

I‘ve heard people say they were suprised how well informed William and Kate were about all the details of specific charities (so even short visits seem to need preparation) and in the last couple of years they have taken on projects that require ongoing planning (Earthshot Prize, Early Years) and regular meetings. Charles has been described as a workaholic. Philip has been said to have sat at his desk until late at night. Anne famously often skips lunch because she has so many appointments in one day.

I‘m not saying they work harder than everyone else and yes, they are privileged! But that doesn‘t mean they don‘t work.

Teachers don't receive millions of dollars, castles and property in exchange for their work. Even those who accuse you of having it "easy" recognize that you aren't getting rich at your job.

Some royals *might* expend effort learning about a charity.  But they dont have to. If they dont' want to. Most likely, a staffer does all the grunt work.  The royals don't have a boss that will reprimand/fire them if they choose to watch TV instead of working on their charity. They can put forth the effort that they choose--the very opposite of real work. 

Honestly, a royal's "research" probably goes like this: The royal considers becoming a patron of a new charity. A staffer does research about the charity. The staffer tells the royal what he learns. "This group helps over 100 children a year. . . " The royal listens to the information and makes a decision. Now the royal will seem informed when he discusses the charity. Again, this is not work.

 

 

[tabitha2]

Who the hell is getting payed in Castles??  And how did I just miss the scores of people being turned off their neighborhoods and farms so Prince Edward can be payed in land? 
 

The Big picture is modern Royals answer to the press and the people. If a Royal family is seen to do nothing themselves , be ignorant or apathetic about issues that effect the nation or commonwealth or just seen to free load they can and will get “fired”… there are plenty of countries who got rid of their useless entitled royals because the people were done. It’s a very particular kind of employment but it is a job not only an individual but a whole family can lose if they misstep to often.

37 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

Teachers don't receive millions of dollars, castles and property in exchange for their work. Even those who accuse you of having it "easy" recognize that you aren't getting rich at your job.

Some royals *might* expend effort learning about a charity.  But they dont have to. If they dont' want to. Most likely, a staffer does all the grunt work.  The royals don't have a boss that will reprimand/fire them if they choose to watch TV instead of working on their charity. They can put forth the effort that they choose--the very opposite of real work. 

Honestly, a royal's "research" probably goes like this: The royal considers becoming a patron of a new charity. A staffer does research about the charity. The staffer tells the royal what he learns. "This group helps over 100 children a year. . . " The royal listens to the information and makes a decision. Now the royal will seem informed when he discusses the charity. Again, this is not work.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by tabitha2

[prayawaythefundie]

5 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

So you really think all Royals live in Castles, have millions of dollars and fine jewels at their disposal and acres of land?  A houseful of servants to do everything?   Wow.  

To be fair, many of the royals we talk about here have all that. They inherited it. I judge them not on what they own but what they do with their lives. It‘s not a crime to be born privileged. British upper class consists of numerous earls, countesses & what not who have all that and don‘t need to deal with duty, protocol and the press on a daily basis. It would be much smarter to marry one of their heirs for a luxurious and comfortable life than anyone in the top ten in line to the throne. Even Harry could have had his californian equivivalent to that if he would just shut up. The money he inherited from Diana alone would buy his family a lifestyle many of us can only dream of. 

[Jackie3]

3 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

The Big picture is modern Royals answer to the press and the people. If a Royal family is seen to do nothing themselves , be ignorant or apathetic about issues that effect the nation or commonwealth or just seen to free load they can and will get “fired”… there are plenty of countries who got rid of their useless entitled royals because the people were done. It’s a very particular kind of employment but it is a job not only an individual but a whole family can lose if they misstep to often.

4 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

The British royal family is a tourist attraction that brings a lot of money into the country. The BRF is not likely to lose their positions anytime soon, the country earns too much money from people coming to view the castles and jewels and soldiers. The BRF can do a terrible job, or they can do nothing at all, and they will still be royals.

Look at Prince Andrew. He has certainly been a terrible person, but continues to live in his 30 million pound mansion (on 21 acres!).  He's also got a ski chalet in Switzerland worth about 10M. With that kind of money, I doubt being stripped of some titles bothers him at all.  He is an enormously wealthy man as a result of his "job" as a royal, and no amount of sexual perversion has changed that. That's a pretty bad "misstep", as you call it, but there's no sign the BRF has gone anywhere.

 

Quote

So you really think all Royals live in Castles, have millions of dollars and fine jewels at their disposal and acres of land?  A houseful of servants to do everything?   Wow.  

 

The royals discussed here have all those things and more. Queen Elizabeth herself is one of the richest women in the world. 

[prayawaythefundie]

15 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

The BRF can do a terrible job, or they can do nothing at all, and they will still be royals.

Look at Prince Andrew. He has certainly been a terrible person, but continues to live in his 30 million pound mansion (on 21 acres!).  He's also got a ski chalet in Switzerland worth about 10M. With that kind of money, I doubt being stripped of some titles bothers him at all.  He is an enormously wealthy man as a result of his "job" as a royal, and no amount of sexual perversion has changed that. That's a pretty bad "misstep", as you call it, but there's no sign the BRF has gone anywhere.

No, Andrew is rich because he was born into an incredibly wealthy family. That‘s true for all offspring of rich people. They don‘t have to work or behave to be rich. Some of them do though and I don‘t see how it‘s fair to say „but you COULD be lazy and do horrible things and still be rich so f**** you!“ to them.

Do you feel Harry & Meghan work harder for their money and privileged life than the working members of the BRF at the moment?

Edited June 9, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[Jackie3]

23 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

No, Andrew is rich because he was born into an incredibly wealthy family. That‘s true for all offspring of rich people. They don‘t have to work or behave to be rich. Some of them do though and I don‘t see how it‘s fair to say „but you COULD be lazy and do horrible things and still be rich so f**** you!“ to them.

Do you feel Harry & Meghan work harder for their money and privileged life than the working members of the BRF at the moment?

Prince Andrew's wealth is not the same as a private citizen who inherited wealth. Far from it. His wealth is intertwined with his status as a royal. Through the years, the royal family has used their status as "heads of state" to increase their wealth and to hide it from public knowledge.

The Crown has vast financial advantages over commoners. The Royal Household gets about $30 million per year from the government, for it's household expenses, simple because they are the royal household.  $30 million! The Royals are also exempt from all income, inheritance and capital gains taxes. (the Royals voluntarily pay some taxes, on part of their money, to avoid pissing off commoners. But it is clear they decide how much tax they will pay, and the amount is usually kept private)

In other words, Andrew's wealthy because he's royal. He's not just a wealthy person who happens to be royal.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Jackie3

[prayawaythefundie]

37 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

The Crown has vast financial advantages over commoners. The Royal Household gets about $30 million per year from the government, for it's household expenses, simple because they are the royal household.

That‘s working royals only though and not even all of them. Correct me if I‘m wrong but I think only the queen and Charles get paid actual taxpayer‘s money regularly. With their money they then pay other working members who are considered appendages (for lack of a better word) to their households. That would be Anne & the Wessexes for HM and the Cambridges for Charles for example. It once used to include Harry btw. That‘s what he was whining about on Oprah: He stopped working and Charles wouldn‘t pay him any longer. 
 

Now I don‘t like Andrew still receiving money & assets from the queen either but technically he is not „still being paid“ for not working and doing terrible things by public funding. His very rich mom still supports him because he is her (some say favourite) son and in a capitalistic system she can do that with her money as any rich person can with their money, no matter how that money was earned. We can hate it but it‘s very common among the rich.

I would still love you to answer my question about the Sussexes. 😊

Edited June 9, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[Jackie3]

33 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

I would still love you to answer my question about the Sussexes. 😊

Oh, sorry. I don't know enough about how Harry and Meghan spend their days, and where their money comes from. I know Harry inherited money from his mother, but that's about all I know. So I really couldn't say.

I honestly don't think that Kate, William and the other members actually "work." It's not work the way I know it. It's not caring for patients, or checking customers out behind a register, or taking an order in a restaurant. It's the kind of "work" that other people would consider a fantastic vacation.  They call themselves "working royals" to keep the public from getting pissed off, but their idea of work is outrageous luxury.

Even assuming they do their own prep work (which I doubt), is reading up on a charity really work? I'll read up on a charity before donating, but it never occurred to me to call this "work." Is riding in a luxurious town car "work"? Is being feted by hospital administrators "work"? Accepting flowers from little children? Giving a short speech written by a staffer? Attending a garden party? Who would consider any of this work?

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Correct me if I‘m wrong but I think only the queen and Charles get paid actual taxpayer‘s money regularly. With their money they then pay other working members who are considered appendages (for lack of a better word) to their households.

For a long time, the "working royals" received a salary Icalled an annuity) from the government. This was only changed ten years ago, perhaps because it looked bad to pay people huge sums of money, when their "work" involved opening a hospital or making a tour of Norway. So they changed it so the Queen was "paying" them, but the Queen gets her money from the government, so it's really semantics. Bear in mind, these people  often also own vast ancestral homes on many acres, which are also worth a lot of money. 

All of this is very different from your average rich person in the US. The average rich person is required to pay taxes, for example. If they don't find a way around it, they must pay inheritance, capital gains and income taxes, or go to jail. The Crown don't have to bother with taxes

Edited June 9, 2022 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

4 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

The royals discussed here have all those things and more. Queen Elizabeth herself is one of the richest women in the world. 

Factually speaking Even the reigning monarchs don’t own all that land, jewels or castles. The respective governments do. QEII owns only two homes herself and those have been the family for well over a century and Charles Duchy of Cornwall is a passed down inheritance so blame some some medieval dudes for that. Her other children rent nice homes but certainly not castles . The rest of her extended family either rents rooms from her in One of the palaces or lives in places they can pay for with their respective inheritances. 
 

They have personal jewels but only QEII has any amount that’s hers with most of is the gifts of 50 plus years and If the ladies in her family need items for events they have to borrow it at her discretion.  
 

The Government’s and the dependance public opinion if people of the current countries with monarchs at least European ones strictly limit who exactly they pay for or not, what they can do, what choices they make, where they can travel to, Etc.  And there are several IE.Spain  that might not make it even another 25 years. 

[prayawaythefundie]

6 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

And there are several IE.Spain  that might not make it even another 25 years. 

Off topic but I‘m kinda suprised about the Spanish monarchy being so fragile, I know there have been huge scandals involving the former king and a princess‘s husband but I perceive Felipe & Letizia to be dutiful and I have just seen some documentary where they were mentioned to be a very cheap European monarchy in comparison. I don‘t really follow them. Could you give me some short insight into why they have popularity issues at the moment, please?

[tabitha2]

To put it bluntly the Spanish abolished monarchy already and then the new king Juan Carlos was hand picked by dictator Franco to be his successor acting as head of a constitutional monarchy. That was enough to make people weary as is  but JC proceeded to be corrupt, dishonest  and adulterous and with one of his kids the same plus  the turbulent tense political situation with The Basque separatists and the economy  have made the public Question the need to pay for the House of Bourbon  at all. 
 

In my opinion King Felipe is determined to change that image and rehabilitate them by demonstrating a warm and close family that are in touch with the needs and concerns of the people in a way the public has not known. His stunning elegant wife and potential of a exquisite young woman as future Queen is very appealing of course. But he and they can’t slip up anymore I believe.

[DalmatianCat]

Back to taxes…does Harry have to pay taxes now that he’s not a working royal? Does he have to pay taxes in England and the US? Can’t even imagine the nightmare getting all that sorted must be for his accountants!

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, DalmatianCat said:

Back to taxes…does Harry have to pay taxes now that he’s not a working royal? Does he have to pay taxes in England and the US? Can’t even imagine the nightmare getting all that sorted must be for his accountants!

The family pays taxes. The Queen agreed to that in 1993.   He would have already been paying before he left. 
I read not long ago that the UK does not make ex-pats pay taxes but the source may have been unreliable. 

[Coconut Flan]

The US and California will definitely assess Harry and Meghan's income.  California will also assess property taxes.

[Four is Enough]

I can see people saying that opening a hospital or making a state visit is not work... but really?

Being polite to everyone, monitoring your children, accepting criticism or boos.. with never a chance to let  your hair down for a few minutes.. that would be like torture to me.

[SoSoNosy]

Having to go full makeup and hair, pantyhose and heels, and be charming to the press, five hours after having a baby.  That's torture.

[tabitha2]

But then you have the option to get as much rest as you want with no worries about bills, cooking , child care or job worries.  That’s worth a few minutes of making nice for the press in my opinion. 

[louisa05]

2 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

But then you have the option to get as much rest as you want with no worries about bills, cooking , child care or job worries.  That’s worth a few minutes of making nice for the press in my opinion. 

Well, and she didn't have to "be charming". She just had to smile and get her picture taken. For less than five minutes. She never spoke to the press once with any of the babies. William casually did. He didn't have to. 

She also chose to go home that quickly and did not do that when George was born. It was the next day with him. People have turned that into something it isn't. Basically, when Anne had Peter in a hospital (first gen of royal babies to be born in hospitals), the press was around. So when they left the hospital, they paused for some photos. No requirement. Just an organic thing that happened. No time placed on it and no interviews. Somehow, because Kate left the hospital early with Charlotte and Louis, everyone decided that royal women were required to show up on the steps within a few hours. Not so. Lady Louise Windsor was born early and remained in the hospital for several weeks, photos were taken when they brought her home. 

And Meghan and Harry's production when Archie was born was way more than any previous royal mother. Two minutes on the steps with some flashbulbs is way less. 

 

 

[SoSoNosy]

With George they came out of the hospital and walked over to the press; they both answered questions, then went back into the hospital (maybe to wait for the car to get there).

 

[louisa05]

25 minutes ago, SoSoNosy said:

With George they came out of the hospital and walked over to the press; they both answered questions, then went back into the hospital (maybe to wait for the car to get there).

 

They went back in and got him in the car seat. Same with all three. One baby it was chilly and the photo opp was super quick. Either Charlotte or Louis. 

[Topaz]

1 hour ago, louisa05 said:

 Somehow, because Kate left the hospital early with Charlotte and Louis, everyone decided that royal women were required to show up on the steps within a few hours. Not so. Lady Louise Windsor was born early and remained in the hospital for several weeks, photos were taken when they brought her home. 

 

 

So because a premature baby, born by emergency caesarean section didn’t show up on the hospital steps a few hours after she was born that invalidates the custom? You can’t measure the custom for a straightforward birth against that kind of situation. 
 

When I was born in 1981 my mother had a week in hospital followed by a week in a nursing home. 
When my friends have had babies in recent years they have left hospital very quickly, sometimes on the same day for a straightforward birth especially with a second or third child where the parents are more confident. 
So it’s unsurprising that there were differences between Peter and Charlotte/Louis with regards to when they left hospital.

[louisa05]

3 hours ago, Topaz said:

So because a premature baby, born by emergency caesarean section didn’t show up on the hospital steps a few hours after she was born that invalidates the custom? You can’t measure the custom for a straightforward birth against that kind of situation. 
 

When I was born in 1981 my mother had a week in hospital followed by a week in a nursing home. 
When my friends have had babies in recent years they have left hospital very quickly, sometimes on the same day for a straightforward birth especially with a second or third child where the parents are more confident. 
So it’s unsurprising that there were differences between Peter and Charlotte/Louis with regards to when they left hospital.

There isn't really a custom. This has been done out of convenience more than anything else. And the photos have not been a few hours after birth, they are when they leave the hospital. I'm not sure how you don't see the difference. Kate stayed overnight after George was born. They didn't come out a few hours later for photos, then go back in, then leave the next day. They took the photos the next day when they left the hospital. With her two younger children, she left hours later, so the photos were taken then as that is when they left the hospital. Diana was there a few days with her babies as was the Duchess of York. Photos were taken when they left the hospital not a few hours after birth. 

It also has never been required, thus, Meghan and Harry chose a different time for a photo call. The criticism of H&M around Archie's birth had nothing to do with that, either. If they had followed the plan they gave the press and not lied about the timing, there would have been no complaints. There were no complaints when they announced prior to his birth that they would not do a photo call as they left the hospital, but would do it a day later.