1 hour ago, kamahele said:

So exactly what mistake did Harry make in marrying an independent woman and self made millionaire? Should he have married and entitled aristocrat?

Well let her put her hand in her pocket,sure she's all for women's rights.

Just asking here, but, in the big scheme of things, does it really matter?

14 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It's irrelevant if I have met him. What is relevant is that the tax I pay funds his lifestyle and therefore I am entitled to an opinion on him ceasing to carry out his duties as a Royal.

His income (and that of Prince Charles and The Duke of Cambridge) comes from the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall. Prince Charles, as Duke of Cornwall, already pays tax (voluntarily) at the top rate on that income, The Duke of Sussex (Harry) and Prince Charles and The Duke of Cambridge (Prince William) do not receive any money from the Sovereign Grant (used to be called the Civil List) which is money paid to the Monarch to fund the Monarchy. Monies used to refurbish homes and so on may have been given by the Queen from her own funds, on which I believe she voluntarily pays tax. Both The Queen and Prince Charles are of course extremely wealthy, with large estates, but those estates are held in trust and can not be sold off. In Prince Charles's case he receives 15% of the revenues of his estate, on which hw pays tax, and the balance goes to the Exchequer. I believe a similar arrangement is in place for the Crown Estates. 

 

The point is that whilst they are all financially "very secure", stinking rich, whatever phrase you choose to use, they are not funded by public taxation; The Duchy of Cornwall and The Crown Estate contribute far more to the Exchequer than they cost the Exchequer.

 

As for the costs of security - well he is the grandson of the Queen, and will in time be the son of The King, and then probably the brother of the next King. That is a fact, because of his birth. Whether he lives in London or North America, those costs will continue throughout his life.

 

I am of course, writing from the point of view of a supporter of the monarchy. By all means advocate a different means of selecting the head of state. But perhaps think carefully, both on grounds of cost and who you could end up with - Presidents Blair or Major anyone? Let's not even look at the financial transparency and orange hued and porn star littered style of the  current incumbent in Canada's southern neighbour!

For the easily triggered, caution, this is satire:

 

“Young family faces criticism after choosing to no longer live off welfare”

 

 

https://m.betootaadvocate.com/world-news/young-family-faces-criticism-after-choosing-to-no-longer-live-off-welfare/

29 minutes ago, JAG said:

he is the grandson of the Queen,

where does the red hair come from

10 minutes ago, whimsicalmike said:

where does the red hair come from

James Hewitt

15 minutes ago, whimsicalmike said:

where does the red hair come from

The Spencer side of the family (Diana Spencer)

1 hour ago, JAG said:

His income (and that of Prince Charles and The Duke of Cambridge) comes from the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall. Prince Charles, as Duke of Cornwall, already pays tax (voluntarily) at the top rate on that income, The Duke of Sussex (Harry) and Prince Charles and The Duke of Cambridge (Prince William) do not receive any money from the Sovereign Grant (used to be called the Civil List) which is money paid to the Monarch to fund the Monarchy. Monies used to refurbish homes and so on may have been given by the Queen from her own funds, on which I believe she voluntarily pays tax. Both The Queen and Prince Charles are of course extremely wealthy, with large estates, but those estates are held in trust and can not be sold off. In Prince Charles's case he receives 15% of the revenues of his estate, on which hw pays tax, and the balance goes to the Exchequer. I believe a similar arrangement is in place for the Crown Estates. 

 

The point is that whilst they are all financially "very secure", stinking rich, whatever phrase you choose to use, they are not funded by public taxation; The Duchy of Cornwall and The Crown Estate contribute far more to the Exchequer than they cost the Exchequer.

 

As for the costs of security - well he is the grandson of the Queen, and will in time be the son of The King, and then probably the brother of the next King. That is a fact, because of his birth. Whether he lives in London or North America, those costs will continue throughout his life.

 

I am of course, writing from the point of view of a supporter of the monarchy. By all means advocate a different means of selecting the head of state. But perhaps think carefully, both on grounds of cost and who you could end up with - Presidents Blair or Major anyone? Let's not even look at the financial transparency and orange hued and porn star littered style of the  current incumbent in Canada's southern neighbour!

Thanks for that.

I support having the queen/ king as head of state as don't want to pay for yet another useless politician.

I only want the monarch and up to 3 heirs ( and partners ) to be recognised as "royal".

 

The rest of the mob can go get a real job, or be supported by the monarch. Not a penny to be paid for anything like security from taxpayer for them. Cops should be catching crims not guarding that <deleted> mob. If they want security pay for it themselves. Anyway, they won't be parading around in public like they are special any more.

38 minutes ago, whimsicalmike said:

where does the red hair come from

Arch republican Kevin McGuire made reference to 'something we can't talk about for legal reasons' during Sky's Press Preview this morning. I wasn't entirely sure what he was alluding to.

Edited January 9, 20206 yr by evadgib

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Thanks for that.

I support having the queen/ king as head of state as don't want to pay for yet another useless politician.

I only want the monarch and up to 3 heirs ( and partners ) to be recognised as "royal".

 

The rest of the mob can go get a real job, or be supported by the monarch. Not a penny to be paid for anything like security from taxpayer for them. Cops should be catching crims not guarding that <deleted> mob. If they want security pay for it themselves. Anyway, they won't be parading around in public like they are special any more.

Prince Charles is said to have that in hand when he takes over.

4 hours ago, samran said:

Ah the misogynists and the conspiracy theorists out the gate early on this one...

 

 

 

The flashing claws and savage jaws, of the Cat Queens of Thaivisa, are indeed a sight to behold.

 

 

Edited January 9, 20206 yr by Enoon

3 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

I agree. If I never heard another word about Harry I would be happier and that would make the world a better place.

And without Trump the world would be safe and beautiful.

This was on the cards awhile back, when Markle clashed repeatedly with Kate leading to a problem between the brothers.

It was said then that Harry would be sent off to either South Africa or Australia as the tension/problem had to be diffused and Markle was getting to much press attention in the UK.

good on them, a great decision for their lives. At least they will not expect the State to provide everything for them and they can love fairly 'normal' existence, left alone I hope by a poisonous and lying media.  I wish them well. 

1 hour ago, whimsicalmike said:

where does the red hair come from

 

1 hour ago, colinneil said:

James Hewitt

 

1 hour ago, CharlieH said:

The Spencer side of the family (Diana Spencer)

 

45 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Arch republican Kevin McGuire made reference to 'something we can't talk about for legal reasons' during Sky's Press Preview this morning. I wasn't entirely sure what he was alluding to.

 

I believe that Diana Princess of Wales met and had an affair with Hewitt after Prince Harry was born - which rather puts the boot into that particular scandal; and yes, there is a regressive "red head" gene in the Spencer family.

 

Mind you by all accounts there was plenty of scandal around - she had a fairly energetic social life at the end of and after her marriage - coppers, surgeons, rugby internationals and so on...

 

Of course the press have turned on him, both the tabloids and the broadsheets. He makes no secret that he blames them for his mothers death. Whilst not perhaps entirely true, the reptiles will never let that alone!

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Wallis 2.0

Gromit 2.0

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

It's irrelevant if I have met him. What is relevant is that the tax I pay funds his lifestyle and therefore I am entitled to an opinion on him ceasing to carry out his duties as a Royal.

Calm down, your taxes are hardly involved in his financing. He is financed by his own inheritance from his  mother,  by money, from the Ducky of Cornwall Estate which his Father gives to him, and from a stipend from the Queen. And now I guess from his wife's own not inconsiderable wealth from acting.   The only place your taxes get involved is when he attends formal functions as a Royal and that will not happen as much in the future, so you can relax.  

7 minutes ago, JAG said:

I believe that Diana Princess of Wales met and had an affair with Hewitt after Prince Harry was born - which rather puts the boot into that particular scandal; and yes, there is a regressive "red head" gene in the Spencer family.

 

Mind you by all accounts there was plenty of scandal around - she had a fairly energetic social life at the end of and after her marriage - coppers, surgeons, rugby internationals and so on...

She knew Hewitt before Harry was born. Whether she had an affair with him or not is open to speculation. It was clear that from a very early stage in the relationship, Charles wasn't doing anything for her.

 

Just look at the photos of father and son. Hewitt or Prince Charles?

1 minute ago, DannyCarlton said:

She knew Hewitt before Harry was born. Whether she had an affair with him or not is open to speculation. It was clear that from a very early stage in the relationship, Charles wasn't doing anything for her.

 

Just look at the photos of father and son. Hewitt or Prince Charles?

I remember reading somewhere (sorry can't remember where) a quasi forensic investigation into all these comparisons - which debunked that theory, and actually linked his physog to that of his grandfather - and before the conspiracy enthusiasts get a rush of blood to the head there is no suggestion that Prince Phillip was actually his father!

2 hours ago, JAG said:

His income (and that of Prince Charles and The Duke of Cambridge) comes from the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall. Prince Charles, as Duke of Cornwall, already pays tax (voluntarily) at the top rate on that income, The Duke of Sussex (Harry) and Prince Charles and The Duke of Cambridge (Prince William) do not receive any money from the Sovereign Grant (used to be called the Civil List) which is money paid to the Monarch to fund the Monarchy. Monies used to refurbish homes and so on may have been given by the Queen from her own funds, on which I believe she voluntarily pays tax. Both The Queen and Prince Charles are of course extremely wealthy, with large estates, but those estates are held in trust and can not be sold off. In Prince Charles's case he receives 15% of the revenues of his estate, on which hw pays tax, and the balance goes to the Exchequer. I believe a similar arrangement is in place for the Crown Estates. 

 

The point is that whilst they are all financially "very secure", stinking rich, whatever phrase you choose to use, they are not funded by public taxation; The Duchy of Cornwall and The Crown Estate contribute far more to the Exchequer than they cost the Exchequer.

 

As for the costs of security - well he is the grandson of the Queen, and will in time be the son of The King, and then probably the brother of the next King. That is a fact, because of his birth. Whether he lives in London or North America, those costs will continue throughout his life.

 

I am of course, writing from the point of view of a supporter of the monarchy. By all means advocate a different means of selecting the head of state. But perhaps think carefully, both on grounds of cost and who you could end up with - Presidents Blair or Major anyone? Let's not even look at the financial transparency and orange hued and porn star littered style of the  current incumbent in Canada's southern neighbour!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/07/01/the-royal-family-is-getting-increasingly-expensive-for-uk-taxpayers-infographic/#1073fe5914a4

 

In a nutshell, the UK government makes a payment called the Sovereign Grant to the Royal Household every year, with its value determined by how much money "The Crown Estate" - an extensive real estate portfolio - brings in. That total added up to £82 million (including an extra grant covering restoration costs at Buckingham Palace) and the monarchy spent £67 million on official duties including travel as well as other costs such as staff and property maintenance. That last point is the primary reason the Royal Family is getting so expensive.

 

Essentially, taxpayers money goes to the government which then goes to the Queen, then the Queen gives it to Prince Harry for things such as 2.4 million pound "cottage" (mansion) renovations.

 

 

So while the sovereign grant (taxpayers money) doesn't go directly to Harry, he gets a portion of it via the Queen. So he's happy to receive the money, but doesn't want to do the duties. 

 

I'm happy with the UK Monarchy on the whole and don't support a change to the head of state, but Harry needs to sort himself out.  

That's wonderful news. Finally the Brits have something else to talk about and not only Brexit. And this one could even unite the Leavers with the Remainers. Exiting times. ???? 

14 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

Calm down, your taxes are hardly involved in his financing. He is financed by his own inheritance from his  mother,  by money, from the Ducky of Cornwall Estate which his Father gives to him, and from a stipend from the Queen. And now I guess from his wife's own not inconsiderable wealth from acting.   The only place your taxes get involved is when he attends formal functions as a Royal and that will not happen as much in the future, so you can relax.  

A stipend from the Queen. A portion of which comes from the Sovereign Grant. Which comes from taxpayers money.

 

In simple terms, if you give your wife money and she then gives it to her parents to build a house, you haven't contributed anything towards the house? OKaayyyyy.

5 hours ago, jaiyen said:

She is typical Yank, wants everything her way. He should never have been allowed to marry her. She has dragged down the Royal family and is now taking away a decent bloke to be her lap dog. Let them go and never come back.  I would love to know what Prince Phillip thinks of her !

He's not a decent bloke. He's a typical spoiled brat progressive stooge. She is a sjw woke joke. 

He will regret the day he met mee ghan a woman with a history of breaking up with everyone, her family, former husband and now breaking her husband away from his family. These people belong in history books and fairy tales, not in the 21st century.

5 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

He's not a decent bloke. He's a typical spoiled brat progressive stooge. She is a sjw woke joke. 

You know them well then?

Edited January 9, 20206 yr by samran

Good job. Now if only they could get the other two freeloaders to follow them the better off we'll be.

 

I for one am sick and tired of seeing their mugs every time I look at a newspaper.

3 hours ago, moe666 said:

Too bad they are not Thai then you guys could have a real good go at them. Never heard so much <deleted> about two people you have never met and never will.

We don't need to meet 'em. They're rammed down our throats by the media every day of the week.

43 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

A stipend from the Queen. A portion of which comes from the Sovereign Grant. Which comes from taxpayers money.

 

In simple terms, if you give your wife money and she then gives it to her parents to build a house, you haven't contributed anything towards the house? OKaayyyyy.

Not so, that SG fund is protected and used only for official duties,  he will lose that as a detached Royal. The amount given to Harry for his private use by the Queens, is her own money from her own wealth.

4 hours ago, cmsally said:

Fair enough if they want to leave and live a private life. However it looks as though they want to keep the expensive security detail paid for by the British taxpayer, the expensive just renovated house in Windsor etc. Looking as though they want the best of both worlds, having ones cake etc...

I had a bet on with my Canadian friend predicting this would fall apart. It has I admit been astoundingly fast and ironically they might end up in Canada. She now owes me lunch!

 

There is nothing that Harry can do about his birth, he didn’t volunteer to be a Royal. So it’s not fair or reasonable to deny him taxpayer funded security, even if he decides to fly solo. Something similar happened to his mother, and it didn’t work out well.

 

You have one life, and Harry has the same right to lead it as he likes as the rest of us. Better to bow out now than be miserable for the rest of his days.

I prefer a lady who worked her ass off to the aristocrat wannabee's leaching off her bro in law.