and want to get on with their life...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51040751
Good on them!
Hope they thrive and remain happy.
Shame about the £600k p/a security bill though!
|
|
There is no chance they wont remain a net drain on royal or public funds. Cake and eating springs to mind.
|
>> There is no chance they wont remain a net drain on royal or public funds.
>> Cake and eating springs to mind.
>>
They basically cannot win, do you imagine for 1 second that the media, both in the US and in the UK will give them a chance at a private life. the Princess of Wales was never bothered by the press or anything after her divorce, was she?
it has always struck me that the royal family is a gilded cage job, constant attention loads of dosh but no peace until others grow up and take on their share of the spotlight, don't envy them at all.
Even if they wanted to live quietly, out of the public eye which really i doubt for this particular pair, there is no chance they will be able to
Can you imagine how attractive they are as a target whether for criminals, terrorists, loonies etc. so yes security will be a drain for the rest of their lives
|
>> They basically cannot win, do you imagine for 1 second that the media, both in
>> the US and in the UK will give them a chance at a private life.
Now? no chance.
>> the Princess of Wales was never bothered by the press or anything after her divorce,
>> was she?
His brother has made a pretty good job at managing the press.
|
>>
>> >> the Princess of Wales was never bothered by the press or anything after her
>> divorce, was she?
>>
>> His brother has made a pretty good job at managing the press.
>>
???!
..do you know something we don't?...
|
>>
>> ..do you know something we don't?...
You dont read the press then?
|
>>
>> His brother has made a pretty good job at managing the press.
>>
Yes, but different people have different skills.
Harry was so much younger when his mother died and I guess this had a very significant impact on his life, vis a vis the press and cameras.
I truly wish them well, but realise it won't be possible in the fullest sense.
|
They want to be 'self financing'.
I presume that means they want to turn up for dinner somewhere where everyone else has paid a grand or more, for some indifferent meal, to be in the same room as them?
Not for me, but who's financing all those who do splash out, the public?
|
Pretty simple, isn't it?
Do the job you are paid to do or stop taking the salary. They are not paid to be North American celebrities, they are not paid to enjoy themselves.
If they don't want the job, and I quite understand why that might be the case, then stop taking the money. They don't need to work to be financially independent, they need to work to avoid living in a gutter. The money simply stops when you stop dong the job. Just as it is for the rest of us.
He's as big a pita as his Mother.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 3 Mar 20 at 12:49
|
If he doesn't want to do the public duties stuff then he should drop off the civil list. Surely they've collectively got enough to live on from his inheritance, his great grandmother's trust and her accumulated acting etc earnings.
Security is more of a conundrum. He's vulnerable because of his birth rather than any self acquired 'celeb' status and will be for all of his life. He probably should still come under the wing of the Royal Protection Group.
|
|
Lot to be said for a bicycling monarchy. He could have an adequate "allowance" from his grand-mother. What are they for...who cares.
|
>> Lot to be said for a bicycling monarchy. He could have an adequate "allowance" from
>> his grand-mother. What are they for...who cares.
>>
What a bicycling monarchy?
|
>> What a bicycling monarchy?
>>
Dutch?
|
>> Dutch?
And/or Scandinavian.
|
>> What a bicycling monarchy?
Google>Wiki:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_monarchy
|
|
Cheers, not heard that one before.
|
|
I always thought it was Scandinavian - Make it British. Give them six Chinese made Raleigh bikes and let them sort out who gets what.
|
Prince Harry and Meghan say they'll work to become financially independent
From what I have read, I think that means living on money siphoned out of their charity.
|
Whether pro or anti royal, or an agnostic who doesn't care either way it's a life I wouldn't wish on anybody. You get lumbered with it by pure accident of birth and you like the Hotel California you can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave. Stepping aside like this pair have done may well make things worse for them as press interest in their lives is likely to increase rather than subside.
You can talk about the enormous wealth and privilege all you want, but those are by no means the be all and end all. Contentment and peace of mind trumps them.
I'm 'appy to be poor but 'umble squire, I don't envy them a bit.
|
>> Stepping aside like this pair have done may well make things
>> worse for them as press interest in their lives is likely to increase rather than
>> subside.
Particularly if they intend to make their livings by being famous. Having to worry about being popular doesn't sound like a recipe for happiness.
|
I suppose the couple have been thinking about this course of action for a while. They wouldn’t just dream it up eating toast & marmalade, with a mug of tea, in bed one wet Sunday morning.
I’d hate to be in the spotlight like them, but it’s pros and cons. Lucky them staying with friends for 6 weeks over Christmas...I’ve done the same with my pals in CA, but I get chores to do. Paint the fence, sand the deck, walk their 3 dogs, clean the house every Saturday morning. Fair exchange!
Don’t know where their money comes from to fund their lifestyle, but if I thought the taxpayer had funded the million pound plus refurb of their home, then they decide to chuff off for 6 months a year, I’d be pretty disgusted.
|
>> if I thought
>> the taxpayer had funded the million pound plus refurb of their home, then they decide
>> to chuff off for 6 months a year, I’d be pretty disgusted.
How do you feel at the moment?
|
|
Fine thanks. I’ve no idea who funded the property refurb. Possibly his Father who gets a lot of income from his duchy of Cornwall property portfolio ? But yeah, if me and other taxpayers paid for it I’d be very phished off.
|
Stuff I've read elsewhere about need for work at Buck House and other residences is that the royal places tend to be in the sort of state where estate agents would say 'in need of update'.
I'd therefore surmise while the refurb was probably tailored to needs of Harry and his wife the place needed attention anyway. If they don't need it any more it can be used for other members of the household or let commercially.
OTOH HM is of the wartime 'thrift' generation and will probably give Harry a piece of her mind over wasting money!!!
|
>> But yeah, if
>> me and other taxpayers paid for it I’d be very phished off.
You should be very phished off then. Because you did pay for it.
Edit
Despite stepping back as frontline royals, Harry and Meghan have decided to keep Frogmore Cottage. The public paid £2.4million to fund a renovation of the Grade II-listed property near Windsor Castle.3 days ago
Reality of Duke and Duchess of Sussex's 'financial independence' | Daily Mail Online
Last edited by: Duncan on Sun 12 Jan 20 at 09:53
|
|
Does the Mail say (or even know or care, rather than speculate) whether they have agreed to cough up towards it?
|
Donning my Nostradamus cap, I gaze into my xtal ball, and I see Megan and Harry becoming a divorce statistic.
(being a Nostradamus prediction, you dont have to put a timescale on it)
|
>> Donning my Nostradamus cap, I gaze into my xtal ball, and I see Megan and
>> Harry becoming a divorce statistic.
That thought crossed my mind too. It could happen to anybody in the strong willed woman (or man) v crusty old in laws trying to rule roost scenario without actual royalty being involved.
Isn't it also a statistic that children of divorced parents are themselves more likely to divorce?
|
>> ....I see Megan and Harry becoming a divorce statistic.
>>
...well, strictly that could be seen as the case whether they actually divorce or don't....
|
>> ...well, strictly
If they are looking to become independent that is something they could do. I am sure it would be very popular.
|
>> Donning my Nostradamus cap, I gaze into my xtal ball, and I see Megan and
>> Harry becoming a divorce statistic.
>>
>> (being a Nostradamus prediction, you dont have to put a timescale on it)
>>
Have the bookies published the odds yet ?
|
I'm guessing Duncan and the other Daily Mail readers are now OK with it, given that they will be paying for the Frogmore House alterations themselves...
Or was there something else to fret about too? :-)
|
>> I'm guessing Duncan and the other Daily Mail readers
A Daily Mail reader?
Well, I can quote the Mail online if that's what you mean.
But, a reader - no.
I take considerable umbrage at the thought of being considered a reader of that rag.
|
>> >> I'm guessing Duncan and the other Daily Mail readers
>>
>>
>> A Daily Mail reader?
>>
>> Well, I can quote the Mail online if that's what you mean.
>>
>> But, a reader - no.
>>
>> I take considerable umbrage at the thought of being considered a reader of that rag.
>>
Apologies for any genuine offence caused, one was just teasing.
However I was, at the time, a bit fed up with the conclusions being jumped to, including by SWMBO (who is also mortified that she may be seen as a Mail reader but has an uncanny ability to quote from it quite extensively)!! :-)
|
>>
>> Apologies for any genuine offence caused, one was just teasing.
No sweat.
My umbrage was manufactured rather than the genuine article.
|
|
...it is so difficult nowadays to get anything but Chinese umbrage, don't you find......
|
|
I can’t imagine them borrowing £2.4m from PayDay Loans. Maybe Charles will lend him the brass?
|
>> I can’t imagine them borrowing £2.4m from PayDay Loans. Maybe Charles will lend him the
>> brass?
They'l end up in a council flat in Bracknell
|
|
....that's the problem when the firm puts you on a zero-hours contract...
|
>>If he doesn't want to do the public duties stuff then he should drop off the civil list.
100%.
|
The Civil List was abolished some years back.
He gets his income for official duties via his father from income form the Duchy of Cornwall. I believe he also get a small amount from the Queen from the Sovereign Grant which he has said he will relinquish
|
I'm not sure it's been suggested that they would keep their civil list money, has it? SWMBO was getting in a lather about that earlier so maybe it is.
There is a Beeb article which claims to know where their income comes from. Not much is from it anyway.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51047186
The point I found interesting was about other "not working [for the family]" royals (e.g. Beatrice and Eugene) - no-one gets frothy over them but Harry seems to be the centre of some nasty stuff elsewhere (by all accounts. As C4P is mostly my one and only online gossip source I can only say what I see here :-) )
|
|
Re: Megxit ... There should be a referendum to decide whether they should Remain or Leave (heard on the wireless)
|
I would fight any suggestion that we should get rid of the Monarchy.
However, any member who doesn't want to be a full part of it should be cast to one side. If the ultimate result of that is that the Monarchy has run it's course and dies away, then I don't have a problem with that.
I don't mind it dying out or having increasingly less significance, I just don't want it "got rid of".
It would appear that Harry is striving to achieve as much damage to the monarchy as his appalling Mother managed, if not more. I'm sure that his Father will be very proud, though Charles probably not so much.
|
The monarchy has come to the end of the road. What do we have now, an old lady losing her mobility and marbles her (lack off) constitutional powers cruelly exposed by an attempted con trick by BoJo.
next in line is an out of date buffoon has hasn't progress much above the days of bertie wooster.
Morally they have screwing around, and behaving boorishly for years.
Time to get rid.
|
I note from another Beeb article that"Die Zeit, in Germany, says the Queen now has a "shortage of skilled workers"
Made me LOL.
|
"his Father will be very proud, though Charles probably not so much."
Haha I'm surprised a similar comment wasn't made earlier. I was thinking one up, slowly LOL
|
|
I liked Barry Humphrie's comment (in dame Edna mode): She'll make a good first wife.
|
>> It would appear that Harry is striving to achieve as much damage to the monarchy
>> as his appalling Mother managed, if not more. I'm sure that his Father will be
>> very proud, though Charles probably not so much.
Strange comment given your reaction to a similar jib at time of Harry's wedding.
|
You'll find that in English it is appropriate to use 'the'. As in "at *THE* time". I don't really know why you struggle with that so much.
Your need to score a point to one side, Harry having declared his *changed* position I see no difficulty with reassessing mine.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 9 Jan 20 at 19:10
|
>> You'll find that in English it is appropriate to use 'the'. As in "at *THE*
>> time". I don't really know why you struggle with that so much.
Whereas you seem to struggle with 'its' and 'it's'.
It really isn't difficult.
|
Serious comment - I wonder if in his mind he knows he is not truly royal blood, and feeling a bit of a fraud played into the decision.
It would have been such an easy thing to prove/disprove.
|
I think even looking at him her has some of Charles' chartacteristics so it is by no means sure even at that level.
I suppose the truth must be known for sure though.
I think ultimately my guess is that it is true. It would seem to easy to have allowed his DNA to be discovered or tested for some spurious reason that it could have been done, I'd assume. Thus I am assuming that they don't wish to address the matter.
You've got to feel for the kid over that one though. Just because his Mother was both generous and careless doesn't seem reason for him to be harassed over it.
However, I do think that his current choice, assuming that it is his, will lay him open to a whole league of issues he's never faced before. The British Government, the Courts and Monarchy may have precious little influence over the UK media, but they have none over the North American media.
|
|
But with a few notable exceptions the American/Canook media don't incessantly hound people in the public eye to try and make a headline like they do here. OK, they'll get the "Harry and Meghan spotted in a Toronto Walmart" stuff but I don't think they'll have photographers in ghillie suits at the bottom of their garden unless they're working for the DM.
|
There at least two sides to this but the majority of the coverage has been centred on the Royal aspect. The expectation has been that they are Royal and that's all that matters. The fact is that in the 21st century women are no longer property and couples need to fit into both parties' lifestyles. The idea that they have to be 100% Royal is surely out-dated. If they need to break away, in whole or in part, from the circus then they should be able to do so and the costs and other details can be sorted out later.
Princess Anne seems to manage pretty well in letting her husbands pursue independent lives. I am not even sure who the current one is. But then again they are men and aren't expected to fall into line.
At every stage the women who marry into the Family are expected to conform while the men who join have much wider freedom. Sophie (Wessex?) had to give up work, Fergie made a lot of mis-steps but the career cards were stacked against her too.
I don't think there would be nearly so much negative press if this were a "Princess Harriet" who had married a working commoner who wanted to have a degree of independent existence. Princess Margaret and the photographer bloke for example.
Give them a break.
|
>> all that matters. The fact is that in the 21st century women are no longer
>> property
I'm afraid up until 2011, in royal succession women simply didnt count, this is all about future royal consorts and "House of Windsor PLC"
Princess Anne became very unimportant indeed once the boy sprogs started to fill up the line, Her only place in life now is as an Employee of HOW PLC, so who she is married to or what they do is of no interest.
If HH wants to leave HOW PLC, fine, off you go son, and leave the pay and perks behind.
Its time HOW PLC was disbanded anyway. And the crown estate returned to the country.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 10 Jan 20 at 09:15
|
"If HH wants to leave HOW PLC, fine, off you go son, and leave the pay and perks behind."
From my limited vista this seems to me to be the biggest obsession for the public.
One of the "papers" was reporting that his "dad" may cut him off from the Duchy of Cornwall income. Spiteful or what? Many have had ups and downs with their kids but it seems pretty extreme to cut off their life support. Some might call it blackmail!
Last edited by: smokie on Fri 10 Jan 20 at 11:34
|
>>> leave the pay and perks behind." From my limited vista this seems to me to be the biggest obsession for the public.
Yes because its both perception and reality (in some percentage combination) Harry & Megan's lifestyle is funded by the public purse. Hence there is concern this financial relationship may be abused if he gets to both keep and eat cake. So it's a legit media and public interest to see how this pans out.
>>>Its time HOW PLC was disbanded anyway. And the crown estate returned to the country.
Well by and large it is mostly returned to the country given the Queen effectively lives in a tied cottage and if I understand it correctly she only receives 15% of net from the Crown Estates and is under constant public and government scrutiny. Crown Estates seem to be quite a successful company with an admirable degree of permanence and good returns on business/investments.
Far less freedom for the Queen than the plastic vacuum guy for example worth billions who can do exactly what he wants with his money.
She has far higher standards than the CEOs who milk a large salary, bonus and retirement package from a failing major company only to jump just before it goes down the pan.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Fri 10 Jan 20 at 11:55
|
|
OK Harry is closer to the succession but there seems to be a difference between what he and Meghan have in mind and the "commoner" lives of Zara Tindall and her husband.
|
>OK Harry is closer to the succession but there seems to be a difference between what he and Meghan have in mind and the "commoner" lives of Zara Tindall and her husband.
Harry's seems to be closer to just not working or being visible but still getting all the benefits.
|
>> One of the "papers" was reporting that his "dad" may cut him off from the
>> Duchy of Cornwall income. Spiteful or what? Many have had ups and downs with their
>> kids but it seems pretty extreme to cut off their life support. Some might call
>> it blackmail!
Blackmail? No. Demands with threats - possibly?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail
|
>> One of the "papers" was reporting that his "dad" may cut him off from the
>> Duchy of Cornwall income. Spiteful or what?
I wonder what that same paper would be reporting if Charles had said "No worries son, you can still have the money whatever you're doing".
Though doesn't the income go to William, anyway? It will certainly be under his control in the future.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 10 Jan 20 at 14:39
|
>If HH wants to leave HOW PLC, fine, off you go son, and leave the pay and perks behind.
Absolutely.
I understand that there is always the battle cry of resentment/jealousy over their perceived pay and benefits, most of which I have no time for, but if he is leaving the job then WTF should he get the remuneration package?
And his security should be sufficient for a 'normal life'. If he wishes to carry out public functions, with a logical need for extra security, then whoever is paying for that attendance should pay for the security; be that the Royal family or some other organisation or corporation.
>>Princess Anne became very unimportant indeed
She does do quite a lot of work with remarkably little drama or fuss.
|
>> Some photos doing the rounds at the moment.
>>
>> i.ibb.co/3y03tvg/artistformerly.jpg
>>
>> i.ibb.co/QcvWRj3/thelastalaskans.jpg
>>
>> i.ibb.co/x7jFPxB/megxit.jpg
>>
>> i.ibb.co/dgCF018/satnav.jpg
Very good.
Took me a second or so to 'get' the last one.
|
>> Very good.
>>
>> Took me a second or so to 'get' the last one.
Yeah, takes a while to click
|
This Labour leader candidate wants us to vote on the future of the royal family.
Do we really have to vote on everything these days?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51062770
|
|
A wag on the Letters page of the DT suggests a referendum on "Megxit".
|
>> A wag on the Letters page of the DT suggests a referendum on "Megxit".
Dog already beat you to it
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=27499&m=599486&v=e
|
|
Megxit memes have been trending all week....
|
"This Labour leader candidate wants us to vote on the future of the royal family."
That politician (Clive Lewis) probably wants a distraction from the internal problems of the Labour Party. He has called for unity among all the candidates (!) and is a fervent Corbyn supporter.
Given that he faces the impossible task of reconciling Corbynism with a radical overhaul, it's not surprising that a bit of republicanism and a topical diversion from matters in hand might suit him very well.
|
> That politician (Clive Lewis) probably wants a distraction from the internal problems of the Labour
>> Party. He has called for unity among all the candidates (!) and is a fervent
>> Corbyn supporter.
Or probably some attention because no one has heard of him.
|
>> Or probably some attention because no one has heard of him.
Not sure where he's got to in nomination process but he's not exactly a front runner.
|
>> >> Or probably some attention because no one has heard of him.
>>
>> Not sure where he's got to in nomination process but he's not exactly a front
>> runner.
>>
Precisely but then neither was Corbyn early on.
|
>> Precisely but then neither was Corbyn early on.
Then/now are chalk/cheese.
Corbyn was well known as a rebel speaking out on Ulster and numerous other issues. I don't think Lewis now has anything like the public recognition, or the profile amongst party members that Corbyn had in 2015.
This will be a very different contest. Last time there were three candidates Burnham, Cooper and Kendall who were a bit identikit, all in similar mould and none standing out. At time nominations were about to close nobody was a standard bearer for the left. Indeed as one of my colleagues tartly observed at time if Ted Heath had been on the ballot he'd not have been the furthest right. MPs nominated Corbyn at last lurch and on assumption he'd be token lefty and do a Dianne Abbott foundering with all hands in round one. They seemed completely blind to fact that rules had changed following Miliband's election. Neither did they foresee the impact of £1 supporter votes.
With Rebecca Long-Bailey as somebody authentically on the left and Nandy and Phillips both personable and with serious policy platforms there's a very different slate. Supporter votes will be offered but only in a short window. At £25 they're half the price I paid for Membership but there won't be people putting their dog up as member to get a chance to disrupt the party.
It's still a long time until the actual poll closes and with transferable votes and probability there'll be no winner in first round we could yet be blindsided.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 11 Jan 20 at 08:41
|
|
I was just making the point he was trying to make a bit of noise so he could get some news coverage. That's all!
|
>> This Labour leader candidate wants us to vote on the future of the royal family.
>>
>> Do we really have to vote on everything these days?
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51062770
The one lesson of the EU referendum is that those advocating change from 'status quo' need to be crystal clear what the alternative is.
What is Clive's model for a new constitution.
|
He is just an unprincipled shyster trying to make some political capital out of the Harry/Megan saga.
I would hope even Labour corbynistas would see him for what he is and vote accordingly!
|
>> He is just an unprincipled shyster trying to make some political capital out of the
>> Harry/Megan saga.
Obviously he's not your choice for the job. He won't be mine either, but he's a potential candidate with some serious ideas. Why do you think he's unprincipled?
At the moment he's struggling to get the numbers to run. I think he's foolish to go public in blaming his race for that but I wouldn't say it was impossible for it to be a factor.
Unless something changes I'll be first choice Keir Starmer, second probably Emily Thornberry. I'll think some more about the others nearer ballot time when I've seen/heard more an possibly attended hustings.
|
>> Unless something changes I'll be first choice Keir Starmer, second probably Emily Thornberry.
MAy have to revise that as Emily, like Clive Lewis, is struggling to get nominated.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/09/labour-leadership-long-bailey-phillips-and-nandy-win-backing
On that slate I'll be (1) Starmer and scratching my head over 2/3 and Nandy/Phillips.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51021024
I thought this article is interesting. Lays out the challenges for the next leader and the possible direction the campaign is going to take.
|
|
A very important aspect of the Megxit summit has been picked up by the Telegraph and Mirror; Queen has been spotted wearing a hearing aid there. That is really exciting and must be worth thousands of column inches and countless social media texts.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51163865
At first glance it would seem to be a reasonable way forward.
|
|
I can't help feeling that their problems are only just beginning.
|
But at least they will be their own personal problems.
Now if we can just stop the terminally sad from rushing out amd buying everytime the tabloid media prints a paparazzi picture it ought to settle down.
|
>> But at least they will be their own personal problems.
But they will blame everyone and everything else tho.
|
|
As did his Mother.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 18 Jan 20 at 21:20
|
|
And his mother's apologists.
|
|
Pretty impressive thread for those who feign no interest in the couple.
|
>>
>> But they will blame everyone and everything else tho.
>>
.....They're not Brexiteers are they......? :-O
(Actually, in another definition, they could possibly be seen as being so.)
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Sat 18 Jan 20 at 22:08
|
|
Harry must be the first to justify his resignation as wanting to spend less time with his family.
|
"I can't help feeling that their problems are only just beginning."
Five years max?
|
|
Very good, the papers are calling it a "hard megxit"
|
Just caught the end of a BBC report waiting for Match of the Day to start and there was some report seemingly based upon the fact that Prince Harry isn't happy with the final hard exit agreement.
It appeared to be saying that he hadn't got quite the best of both worlds as he'd wanted, though as I say I only caught the tail end.
"You've made your bed, now lie in it" would be one phrase that springs to mind.
|
Might be in relation to a speech he made today. The Beeb has the full text here
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51170948
This bit could fit the bill for what you heard. "Our hope was to continue serving the Queen, the Commonwealth, and my military associations, but without public funding. Unfortunately, that wasn't possible."
So not earth shattering I think but your lasta para sums it up.
|
Sounds like it.
He really is his Mother's son.
|
|
It seems quite sad that it's come to this, especially the split/drifting away from his family. Not something that's nice to see regardless of who they are, especially as it's all so public.
|
At least the media frenzy takes the spotlight off Prince Andrew and his alleged predilection for pumping teenagers.
Anyhoos....
m.facebook.com/ISeeYouStories/photos/a.572035576233853/2420214044749321
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 20 Jan 20 at 08:07
|
|
I'm sure that the writer of that rambling piece had a point. Not sure what it is, but I'm sure they think it was worth it typing that out.
|
>> I'm sure that the writer of that rambling piece had a point. Not sure what
>> it is, but I'm sure they think it was worth it typing that out.
Literally cannot read it; layout just doesn't work full screen on a large monitor.
|
Literally cannot read it; layout just doesn't work full screen on a large monitor.
>>
Don't worry you didn't miss anything.
|
>> Don't worry you didn't miss anything.
Came to that conclusion after struggling through first couple of lines. If it had been riveting I'd have made more effort.......
|
>> At least the media frenzy takes the spotlight off Prince Andrew
Duke and Duchess of Sussex issue legal warning over photos (in Canada )
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51197099
|
Oh dear, they really are never going to be happy, are they.
STFU, stop doing stuff and the world will lose interest. It's that simply.
Diana died by jumping into a car with a drunken driver just to stop someone taking her picture. If she'd just stood there and let them then firstly she wouldn't have died and secondly the pictures would have become so common as to be worthless for the paparazzi to try for more.
It would appear that her son has a similar outlook and is also a slow learner.
|
>> Oh dear, they really are never going to be happy, are they.
>>
>> STFU, stop doing stuff and the world will lose interest. It's that simply.
>
From that report it seems she was out walking, I'm not sure in the case what stuff she should stop doing? Stay indoors? I'm sure you don't mean that, you mean generally?
|
Correct. I didn't mean her walking the dog or any such normal things.
But I do mean his ridiculous and seemingly official statement about it. Talking about ridiculous. Make pictures of you difficult to get when people want them and you're just asking for them to try harder.
And he's going to lose the protection of the agreement between the UK media and the Royal Household.
I also meant suing a newspaper for printing a letter sent to your Father, which was given to them *by* your Father and who will now appear as a witness against you. how dumb do you have to be?
Also Harry makes the deal with, I presume, The Queen and then stands up at an unconnected occasion and uses it as a soapbox to point out that it wasn't what he wanted and nothing is his fault.
And all the other publicity attracting stuff they both insist on doing.
Honestly, it really isn't that difficult.
And now he's going to become self-supporting, I presume using his Royal-ness and his celebrity. But he doesn't want pictures.
He is making a t*** of himself.
|
>> It seems quite sad that it's come to this,
On a more positive note, I'm still enjoying the humorous photos and cartoons that are continuing to do the rounds ;)
|
So it seems the best strategy isn't to hide from the media but to let them take as many pictures as they want in the hope they will simply lose interest.
After all what newspaper is going to want to pick up the tab indefinitely just to get more pictures of Harry driving car, Megan taking kids to school, both going out for a meal somewhere modest, pushing trolley round supermarket etc etc.
But they do need to take care not to do that which may damage he Sussex brand - so no drunken brawls, public arguments, displays of gross excess etc etc. Mind you a few minor instances may be a good idea so even a major photo op will be of no real consequence.
|
>> After all what newspaper is going to want to pick up the tab indefinitely just
>> to get more pictures of Harry driving car, Megan taking kids to school, both going
>> out for a meal somewhere modest, pushing trolley round supermarket etc etc.
>>
>>
From what I understand newspaper do exactly that.
|
|
When his brother and his then fiance lived on Anglesey - they were left largely alone. There is a tale that the locals wouldn't let on exactly where they living. They felt happy enough to go to the shop in the next village and a supermarket in Menai Bridge unhindered. He visited a restaurant run by an acquaintance near RAF Valley, she turned his party away as they hadn't booked a table. She's from Macclesfield and cared little what she said. He was a regular eater there before and after he was turned away.
|
>>From what I understand newspaper do exactly that.
A paparazzi photo is worth loads of money if the photo is rare.
As soon as a photo can be obtained easily who is going to bother paying a paparazzi exorbitant sums?
Ok, they will from time to time when the subject is in the news for something, but it's nto a permanent state of affairs.
|
>> But they do need to take care not to do that which may damage he
>> Sussex brand - so no drunken brawls, public arguments, displays of gross excess etc etc.
NOt done Boris any harm
|
I could trip over his wife and have no idea she is - until a few days again. They're attracting more attention than ever.
Suing a newspaper? What a dildo. It's like quicksand. The more you struggle, the quicker you sink.
|
|
The royals have a kind of aspergers, an inability to live in or know how the real world reacts and works.
|
>> >> But they do need to take care not to do that which may damage the Sussex brand
>>BUT we do not even know officially what title to use :-(
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7909381/Palace-gaffe-Meghan-divorce-Officials-admit-blunder.html
|
Young couple continue to discover that "becoming independant" isn't quite the joy they expected.
Swift on the heels of discovering that as non-royals they can't use the name SussexRoyal (Bleedin' obvious) they now find out that as they are no longer Internationally Protected Persons, and as such Canada won't pay for their continued security and protection.
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51636835
|
And rightly so. I’m sure P Charles has enough brass to pay some heavies to keep an eye on their security.
What about gun laws in Canada? If some nutter extremist wants to do them some harm I’d like to think that my ‘private security’ has the wherewithal to prevent it.
|
|
I'd like to see their business model ex royals plan to cash in on their royal status
|
>> I'd like to see their business model ex royals plan to cash in on
>> their royal status
Quite. A pair of children who mistook people's treatment of them as Royals as an actual reflection of their abilities.
|
I'd say that decision was about as blindingly obvious as the one about them not being able to trade on the Sussex Royal status. Even the Mail readership was discussing that it didn't want to pay for their security yonks ago.
I've not seen it said anywhere that they expected their security to be taken care of.
So I suspect it was less of a surprise to them than it seems to have been to you. :-)
I don't really get why there is the bitterness against them.
|
>>I'd say that decision was about as blindingly obvious as the one about them not being able to trade on the Sussex Royal status.
So would I.
But both came as a surprise to them.
>>So I suspect it was less of a surprise to them than it seems to have been to you
Well, you're within 180 degrees of being right. So that's an improvement.
>>I don't really get why there is the bitterness against them.
I didn't know there was any. In the media you mean? I don't really keep up with that sort of stuff but I haven't noticed anything. Though I may well just have missed it.
|
|
I thought it was bit rich of Harry (aka the Earl of Dumbarton) to preach to the plebs about reducing visits to the world's most beautiful places, which no doubt he has had exclusive access to in his time as a "working royal).
|
After the Harry & Mimi Sell by date of 31st March the Canadian Government will withdraw the "free security" as they will no longer be "Royals"
Either QE2/Charles or us, as taxpayers, have a decision on who pays for covering 24x365 anywhere in the world - guesstimated at £20M give or take a few £m
|
>> Either QE2/Charles or us, as taxpayers, have a decision on who pays for covering 24x365
>> anywhere in the world - guesstimated at £20M give or take a few £m
>>
I listened to an "expert" in such protection and he listed some of the requirements.
It is obviously that all three are to be protected and that may mean three sites with Harry and Meghan in separate locations( at short notice ?) leaving sprog at home. Normally a pre visit sweep is done. How many police required for that.
Where is home now and in the future ? Redeploy police each move.
Cost of accommodation - hotel or rent property nearby plus cars for all.
Living expenses for all police.
Some shuttling of staff to from the UK for holidays or other urgent reasons.
£20M seems an underestimation.
What a can of worms !
When Charles becomes King will he chop their protection ?
|
It is NOTHING to do with taxpayers.
I detest this current fad for attempting to justify an opinion about Government spending SOLELY because "it's us taxpayers who gotta pay, innit".
|
>> I thought it was bit rich of Harry (aka the Earl of Dumbarton) to preach
>> to the plebs about reducing visits to the world's most beautiful places, which no doubt
>> he has had exclusive access to in his time as a "working royal).
So you are saying "hypocrisy"?
|
>> I thought it was bit rich of Harry (aka the Earl of Dumbarton) to preach
>> to the plebs about reducing visits to the world's most beautiful places, which no doubt
>> he has had exclusive access to in his time as a "working royal).
Yeah he doesn't want the places he is going to next ruined by the plebs.
Hypocritical little sheet.
|
Where does the £20m come from?
Say 8 guys at £100k each plus £50k for pensions and another £200k for travelling, that's £2.8m and I recon that's an over-estimate.
8 guys would allow 2 guys x 3, 8 hour shifts plus 2 spares.
|
>> 8 guys would allow 2 guys x 3, 8 hour shifts plus 2 spares.
>>
Holidays? Maternity leave? Sick leave? Training? Courses?
|
|
Difficult to work out the cost when you don't know the risk. Who are you trying to stop and what are their capabilities? Then you can work do you need US presidential security or a driver as and when? Then clearly you add in your budget to all that.
|
£20m must be based on some assumptions, otherwise it is simply a fabrication designed to create hostility and sell newspapers.
There are 8760 hours in a year (365 x 24). Each person can do (say) 40 weeks (leaving 12 for leave, pubic holidays, training, sickness) x 8 hours per day x 5 day a week = 1600 hours per annum.
So to fill a roster to give the ex-royals one person 24x7 = 5.5 people - round up to 6 to cover gaps and recruitment and admin etc.
So some more assumption:
- each gets pay of £60k pa including pension contributions
- they share a rented house at a cost of £2k per month
- the have two vehicles assigned to them at a cost of £1k per month.
- and they each do (say) 5 long haul air routes at a cost of £1k per trip.
Adding this up gives (pa) £24k rental + £12k vehicles + £30k travel + pay £360k = £426k. Lets assume I've left a few bits out and the total cost for a 1 person 24 x 7 security cover is £500k.
Even if a team of 3 were emploed 24 x 7 it would still be £1.5m pa - not even close to £20m.
|
|
According to bbc news they’ve headed south into the USA. Whether it’s a road trip or just kipping on friends settees I don’t know. Did they outstay their welcome and not do alloted household chores at their friends gaff ?
|
Cringe & Ginge intend to travel the world seeking their fortune - this involves security being organised & available anytime any place...............
A divorce would be cheaper for the taxpayer.
|
>> A divorce would be cheaper for the taxpayer.
>>
There are a number of options which would be cheaper for the taxpayer...
|
Young Couple Dont Want Public Handouts Anymore - Zero
