Harry & Meghan 9: Pretending to Be Relevant

[Jackie3]

16 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

The respective governments do. QEII owns only two homes herself

Only two, the poor thing? Here are the two you probably mean:

 

However, I think you have forgotten four more that the Queen owns:

Holyrood Palace in Scotland, Balmoral Castle, Sandringham and Hillsborough in Ireland. So six in all. Some she owns privately, some she owns as the sovereign, but they are still all hers.

The Queen herself may not feel rich, though. She actually applied for funds to heat her castles--from a poverty group that was giving money to low-income homes! Luckily, they denied her. I think they gave the funds to someone who wasn't getting $30 million a year.

Quote

. . . 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 .

Why would I blame them? For what?

Yes, the Queen's other children certainly own "nice homes." Princess Anne, for example. Her "nice home" is Gatcombe Park. The Crown paid for it to be renovated when she moved in. It was originally 730 acres, but got divided when she divorced. It has a lake, a working farm, an airstrip, stables, etc. It's large enough to hold a horse show with over 40,000 spectators each year. I think my own home is nice, but I could never have 40,000 visitors at once. Yes, Princess Anne does have a "nice home."

 

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

But Only Balmoral and Sandringham are hers to sell, refurbish or turn into the worlds most elaborate Burger Kings if she wanted. No one can tell her what to do with them. Those others she gets because of her position which means the really Crown owns them not her. They are opened to the public and managed by independent charities. 
 

So? The Queen bought her daughter a home, not a castle or palace just a suitable home. Rich parents do that, middle class and people with not much money help their kids. And Anne has turned her home into a profitable venue for event Racing and huge craft fairs thus putting all that land to use for something people really enjoy.  
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314446/amp/The-Queen-pleads-poverty-help-Buckingham-Palace-heating-bill.html

 

Sounds an awful lot like she was foolishly listening to aids and advisors and they all should have known better. It was all done n clumsy optics way But really they weren’t wrong:it is fact is that huge tourist attraction BP really really needed repairs and energy conserving up grades simply for the safety and comfort of staff, tourists and the family. The place was literally falling apart and The money that was eventually granted for work was absolutely a must. 
 

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

Only two, the poor thing? Here are the two you probably mean:

 

However, I think you have forgotten four more that the Queen owns:

Holyrood Palace in Scotland, Balmoral Castle, Sandringham and Hillsborough in Ireland. So six in all. Some she owns privately, some she owns as the sovereign, but they are still all hers.

The Queen herself may not feel rich, though. She actually applied for funds to heat her castles--from a poverty group that was giving money to low-income homes! Luckily, they denied her. I think they gave the funds to someone who wasn't getting $30 million a year.

Why would I blame them? For what?

Yes, the Queen's other children certainly own "nice homes." Princess Anne, for example. Her "nice home" is Gatcombe Park. The Crown paid for it to be renovated when she moved in. It was originally 730 acres, but got divided when she divorced. It has a lake, a working farm, an airstrip, stables, etc. It's large enough to hold a horse show with over 40,000 spectators each year. I think my own home is nice, but I could never have 40,000 visitors at once. Yes, Princess Anne does have a "nice home."

 

 

 

 

 

[Jackie3]

The woman is worth $500 million. She can buy all the homes she wants. I can't feel sorry that these are the only two she has:

 

 

I reserve my pity for the pensioners living in deplorable conditions (the ones whose heating money she was after). She should have sold her golden piano to pay the bills, though honestly, I don't think much of someone who can't get along on $30 million a year.

Nothing wrong with helping your kids, but those are huge mansions, not "nice houses." That's not "helping" your kid, that's gifting them a huge asset. Why are you trying to normalize the royal's vast wealth? It's a losing battle. There's nothing normal about the way they live.

Quote

It was all done n clumsy optics way But really they weren’t wrong:it is fact is that huge tourist attraction BP really really needed repairs and energy conserving up grades simply for the safety and comfort of staff, tourists and the family. The place was literally falling apart and The money that was eventually granted for work was absolutely a must. 

You don't think it's wrong?  You are OK with a woman worth $500  million taking heating money intended for the poor? Can't agree with you there.  

It's more than clumsy. It's avaricious and gross. 

Edited June 10, 2022 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

I don’t recall any asking you to feel sorry for her… but proclaiming she has all these palaces and castles to do with as she wishes is incorrect and ignorant. 
 

FYI There are over 300 people in the UK richer than the Queen and a Dozen wealthier monarchs the world over and again lot of what is counted as her wealth is actually crown property.  Just saying she rich but not unlimited by any means. 

[EmCatlyn]

On 6/4/2022 at 7:39 PM, Jackie3 said:

Again, I don't think women should shame other women about their clothes. The fact she's a queen doesn't make it OK to do so.

I can't imagine being a grown woman and choosing my clothes based on what another woman thinks. Meghan and Kate are grown women and can wear what they want to wear.

Mostly I agree that people should wear what they want to wear, and I certainly supported Meghan wearing whatever she wanted on her own wedding (though I personally don’t think white is appropriate for second weddings).  However, if you are at an event honoring your husband’s grandmother, you might respect her preferences, even if she isn’t queen.

That being said, I doubt the queen looked at Meghan’s shoulders and was offended.  If it was brought to her notice her response was probably more of an, “Oh well!” 

[prayawaythefundie]

Buckingham palace has a rat problem. Still looks nice. That does not add anything to the discussion about the queen being too rich, I just felt like throwing it in here. Now go ahead everyone. 🤣

[EmCatlyn]

On 6/8/2022 at 8:49 AM, tabitha2 said:

The Cambridges aside I am surprised Eugenie did not bring August at the very least. 

Do we know that Eugenie wasn’t there?

[EmCatlyn]

On 6/8/2022 at 1:32 PM, 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.

As for "What Meghan wants she gets" -- good for her! I am all about female empowerment. That's far better than putting up and shutting up, like fundie women. Sort of surprised anyone would consider that a bad thing. I thought the stereotype of the pushy, ambitious woman had disappeared by now.

Upstaging takes many different forms.  You don’t have to be in the same country to “upstage” or be upstaged by others, especially nowadays with the all the internet news and social media.

My impression is not so much that Meghan wants to upstage as that she “doesn’t want to be upstaged.”  The problem then is with the competitiveness of all her public appearances, actions and statements.  This behavior is pretty normal for Hollywood celebrities, but it struck a wrong note among the Royals.

I am big on empowering women, and I don’t fault Meghan for her assertiveness.  However, anyone who thinks she should get whatever she wants is awfully entitled and anyone who thinks his wife should get whatever she wants from others is both entitled and besotted.

That being said, I believe Meghan and Harry were right to leave the “Working Royal” job when they did because it was clearly a bad fit for them. I just think they, and everyone else, should move past it.  If they don’t want to be royal, they shouldn’t try to market their royal connections.

I was pleased that they made their Jubilee visit a quiet one.  It was the right thing to do and I respect that.  

[viii]

8 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I was pleased that they made their Jubilee visit a quiet one.  It was the right thing to do and I respect that.  

They were in a lose/lose situation either way. If they had done more events, people would have accused them of trying to upstage the celebrations. As it is, people are cackling about how they were “snubbed”, even though they likely attended the events they said they would and minded their own business for the rest of it. 

[Jackie3]

11 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

 Just saying she rich but not unlimited by any means. 

$500 million. She is worth $500 million.

She gets $104 million a year from the government.  https://www.royal.uk/financial-reports-2020-21  Plus an additional $22 million a year from the Privy Purse. Plus a vast income from her own investments.

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

The government deems that she needs such an amount and her service to the country worth it. No one works for free you know. 
 

Anyway Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster is 31 and worth a cool 10 Billion.  Do you think he deserves castigation for being obscenely wealthy as well? Because he doesn’t do anything for the Country unlike The Queen. 

[anjulibai]

I think there should be no billionaires. Or $500 millionaires, for that matter. Obscene wealth should not exist.

[tabitha2]

Please. If some distant relative left you an obscene amount of wealth you would refuse it I am so sure   
 

Pretty much Everyone loves and wants more money either out materialistic human greed or charitable beneficent possibilities. Having great wealth certainly shows a persons true colors. 

47 minutes ago, anjulibai said:

I think there should be no billionaires. Or $500 millionaires, for that matter. Obscene wealth should not exist.

 

 

 

[Jackie3]

11 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

The government deems that she needs such an amount and her service to the country worth it. No one works for free you know. 
 

Anyway Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster is 31 and worth a cool 10 Billion.  Do you think he deserves castigation for being obscenely wealthy as well? Because he doesn’t do anything for the Country unlike The Queen. 

No one is castigating anyone. But she is worth $500 million, is given many millions more each year, and owns massive castles.

Edited June 11, 2022 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

She owns Sandringham which is not a castle and Balmoral which was bought almost 200 years ago. 

[Ozlsn]

On 6/10/2022 at 2:37 PM, prayawaythefundie said:

Buckingham palace has a rat problem. Still looks nice. That does not add anything to the discussion about the queen being too rich, I just felt like throwing it in here. Now go ahead everyone. 🤣

Those corgis are obviously not earning their keep!

[just_ordinary]

BP is and will in the future be the official residence of the UK’s head of state. All Crown properties belong to the state in the end. So like in every other state, the public has to fund those buildings and it’s upkeep via tax. That wouldn’t change if they decide to become a republic. 
I don’t excuse trying to apply for certain financial help schemes. If it’s done on behalf of public property (aka Crown property) that’s one thing. She wouldn’t apply herself but the trust and the trust is part of the state/government. If she would apply for her own properties it certainly leaves a bad taste. But it depends. Applying to a scheme that generally supports more energy efficiency? Cool. Applying to a scheme to ease the burden of energy costs for people that struggle? Absolutely not cool. 
In the end, the family is insanely rich. Still not even in the top tier but still it’s insane. And they should know better than to complain about money. No one gets so rich without some shady practices. They are lucky some of them were done hundreds if years ago. 
What makes it extra complicated is that there are at least three income streams for her. Her private wealth and investments (which probably earn her more money per second than I do in a year), the money she gets as part of her job (publicly founded) and the massive tax return she gets from the Duchy of Lancaster -which has to stay in the royal system I think. So yes to a new royal Bentley that belongs to the Crown, but no to the racing Maserati that belongs to Elizabeth. It might not matter in the day to day reality because she can drive both but it makes a difference on paper/legally. 
In the end I am not exactly sorry for them. They could give us a big F U and just stop. They would still be rich and even might be able to get some Crown Properties back (or art, jewels….). But I also don’t fault them for being rich and trying to stay rich. It is what it is. If we set out to criticise rich leeches the Royal Families are not exactly the first ones on my personal list.

[Jackie3]

7 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

She owns Sandringham which is not a castle and Balmoral which was bought almost 200 years ago. 

With $500 million, she can buy all the homes she wants. 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think $500 million is a huge, vast fortune. You don't.

[tabitha2]

Yeah it is a vast fortune. But there are many people both commoners and Royals with fortune that make her look middle class LOL a and she is not an extravagant  luxury loving. person in her private life  just the opposite.  She was forced into position she was not born for by her foolish love struck uncle and it’s always been said would have been happier an obscure minor Royal in the country surrounded by horses and dogs. 

[EmCatlyn]

Quote

Reports from multiple other outlets claim Harry, 37, and Markle, 40, wanted their personal photographer to take happy snaps of the Queen and Lilibet — but were shut down. According to one anonymous source, they were told: “No chance. It was a private family event,” the Sun originally reported. That leaker also claimed the Queen’s minders were worried that Harry and Markle would leak the photos to US television networks.

However, a source with knowledge of the situation told The Post that claim is bunk.

“They just enjoyed a private and intimate visit with the Queen,” the source said, adding that Harry and Markle didn’t even bother asking for photos as the 96-year-old monarch wasn’t feeling well.“

NY Post, 6/7/22

Personally, I can see why the queen would not have wanted photographs, especially if she wasn’t feeling well and not dressed for pictures, but I can’t believe that Harry and  Meghan didn’t ask for at least a couple of private cellphone pictures, for Lilibet to look at one day.  I know I would have.

I can also believe that they originally asked to bring a professional photographer and were told, “no.”  The queen’s health aside, the concern the Sussexes will “market” their relationship with the queen is a real one.

[Jackie3]

9 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Yeah it is a vast fortune.

A vast fortune she didn't earn.

Quote

She was forced into position she was not born for by her foolish love struck uncle and it’s always been said would have been happier an obscure minor Royal in the country surrounded by horses and dogs. 

If she hates it so much, she could abdicate an any time. Her son is ready and waiting. She chooses to stay on the throne. She seems to love it. I'd have passed it on to my son long ago. It's just ego and pride. She should let go, like Ruth Bader Ginsberg should have. 

Edited June 12, 2022 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

You need to listen to your own words and let it go dear

 

Its called duty. She made an oath to God and the country she would serve.  That may mean shit to you though. 

Edited June 12, 2022 by tabitha2

[Four is Enough]

Of all the recent royals, EII has stepped up to do what she said she'd do better than anyone. Namby pamby Edward VII was led around by his penis and so was Charles. Elizabeth has worked and worked to be, if nothing else, an inspiration to the people. Like her mother and father, she has striven to be there for her people. She has seemingly learned her job by working it.. and the british people seem to love her for it. 

[prayawaythefundie]

2 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

Namby pamby Edward VII was led around by his penis and so was Charles.

But were they really? It‘s not like countless affairs kept them from their duty. Both of them fell for one woman and have been (from the looks of it) faithful to her for years / decades. Diana is said to have had way more extramarital partners (not judging, just saying), yet is so often painted as the sole victim of that whole marriage disaster. Both Edward and Charles wanted to marry the woman they loved. Is that too much to ask? 
 

Yes, Elizabeth is the epitome of duty but she got to marry for love and keep the throne. 

Edited June 12, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[tabitha2]

Edward could still have been King If he had agreed to a morganatic( Wallis not bring officially acknowledged as Queen)marriage like the government had  proposed.