49 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Can you put in a link to where you say "they will still cost taxpayers GBP5m a year plus almost another million for security"?

 

 

One of many: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/18/the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-to-drop-hrh-titles:

 

“The Metropolitan police spends around £600,000 a year protecting the Sussex family.” Add to that the costs incurred by numerous other security agencies.

 

As you should have read almost everywhere, they will stop getting money direct from the Sovereign Grant but Charles will pay them 2.5m/yr each out of “his” pocket – but that's public money too, when you think about it - as several other posters have pointed out.

UK could save close to half a billion per year by doing away with the lot of them. I'm happy to suggest lots of ways to do that………..

Will somebody tell Harry to stop whining before such support as he currently has disappears entirely ?

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

He wasn't "using" tax payers money anyway. He has his own money, Prince Charles gives him an allowance and he also has his Army pension.

Are you joking? 

Where do you think these royals got their money from???? From heaven? 

The only money he should be entitled is his Pension. Same as you or me. 

He's not anything special as all royals who are not the brightest candle on the cake. 

If they would have a 8hrs Job they would not have time and money to spend with underage girls or prostitutes as we know from Andy. Who knows if there are more of these royals involved. 

7 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

He wasn't "using" tax payers money anyway. He has his own money, Prince Charles gives him an allowance and he also has his Army pension.

Are you joking? 

Where do you think these royals got their money from???? From heaven? 

The only money he should be entitled is his Pension. Same as you or me. 

He's not anything special as all royals who are not the brightest candle on the cake. 

If they would have a 8hrs Job they would not have time and money to spend with underage girls or prostitutes as we know from Andy. Who knows if there are more of these royals involved.

a Military Pension! after only 10 years in? - only possible if he was Invalided out...

14 minutes ago, tifino said:

a Military Pension! after only 10 years in? - only possible if he was Invalided out...

I don't know in what age He's entitled to get it. 

Anyway he should look for a job as anybody. 

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I'd say William and Kate are looking better by the day. I guess that's the one positive to come from all this, the debacle of Harry and Markle has really highlighted what a great job William and Kate are doing.

 

I used to be big on the Royal family but not so much these days. I find it outdated and a bit silly.

 

I have nothing to say about William and Kate and they are doing a decent job for those into that kind of stuff.

2 hours ago, spinner2020 said:

One of many: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/18/the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-to-drop-hrh-titles:

 

“The Metropolitan police spends around £600,000 a year protecting the Sussex family.” Add to that the costs incurred by numerous other security agencies.

 

As you should have read almost everywhere, they will stop getting money direct from the Sovereign Grant but Charles will pay them 2.5m/yr each out of “his” pocket – but that's public money too, when you think about it - as several other posters have pointed out.

UK could save close to half a billion per year by doing away with the lot of them. I'm happy to suggest lots of ways to do that………..

I have wandered around the security bill for Harry and Megan and "experts" have come up with various amounts using the term perhaps as much as, could possibly be, maybe this amount along with will Canada or the UK split the bill or one country takes all.

 

TBH I don't think anyone can come up with a figure until they know the requirements of the security detail. How many security staff will be needed will depend on how many public appearances they will make during a year, how many vehicles, sets of communication they will need, will the guards be armed etc. I think in the first year there will be an overkill (sorry about that) until Canada and the UK work it through and at the end of the first year they will need to review it.

 

About 45,800,000 results (0.47 seconds) 

 

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/if-harry-and-meghan-moved-to-vancouver-how-much-would-security-cost-1.4773837

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7902651/Taxpayers-look-set-paying-7-6million-year-security-bill-Harry-Meghan.html

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-security-in-canada-for-meghan-harry-could-cost-over-10-million/

3 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

Do you honestly think that wasn't money stolen from the British people?

 

In Victorian times the monarchy was bankrupt.  It was propped up by the British tax payer, and the tax payer was never repaid.

What a load of rubbish. 

 

Try Googling the Civil list for some history of the royal finances.

 

Here is your starter for 5 points.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family

 

Until 1760 the monarch met all official expenses from hereditary revenues, which included the profits of the Crown Estate (the royal property portfolio). King George III agreed to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown in return for the Civil List. Under this arrangement the Crown Estate remained the property of the sovereign,[2] but the hereditary revenues of the crown were placed at the disposal of the House of Commons.[1] The Civil List was paid from public funds and was intended to support the exercise of the monarch's duties as head of state of the United Kingdom. This arrangement persisted from 1760 until 2012. In modern times, the Government's profits from the Crown Estate always significantly exceeded the Civil List.[3] Under the Civil List arrangements the royal family faced criticism for the lack of transparency surrounding Royal finances.[5] The National Audit Office was not entitled to audit the Royal Household.[6]

 

And there is much much more on that link alone.

55 minutes ago, tifino said:

a Military Pension! after only 10 years in? - only possible if he was Invalided out...

Not so. All members of the Armed forces are entitled to a military pension.

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pensions-and-compensation-for-veterans

 

A world class pension scheme for your military service
When a member of the armed forces reaches their retirement age, they receive one of the most generous pensions available in the UK. This fairly reflects the unique sacrifice they have provided their country throughout their career.

All members of the armed forces are automatically enrolled into the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. Unlike all other public schemes, members pay 0% in contributions each month. The scheme is unfunded and paid from the public purse.

 

What pension he will get depends on his substantive rank at the time of his retirement, the amount of pensionable service. IIRC he would get 10/22nds of the 22 year pension payable at a certain age, for other ranks it used to be age 50 when I had completed my 22 years service but if you completed 22 years you were paid a pension at age 40 at the completion of your engagement.

 

I believe that officers have a different pension scheme.

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Well let the courts decide, and I can assure you that your leftie luvvie rag will be reporting on it too.

 

Frankly I find the whole debacle of her and her trashy family infighting most unbecoming for a Royal. As is her hypocritical posturing on climate change while globe trotting on private jets, but each to their own.

the royals have done such a great job of 'unbecoming to be a royal'

The Queen having offshore accounts and avoiding tax

Prince John being hidden away for years

Edward and mrs simpson, also his association with Hitler

Princess Margarett and captain peter townsend, and anthony armstrong jones

Charles having an affair with another women the whole time he was married to Diana

Andrew divorced and tangled up in sex allegations, ex wifes money troubles

Anne divorced and within months was married again to a man who had always been in the background/

Mark Phillips love child while still married to Anne'

what could Meghan do to tarnish the royal family further, good luck to her and Harry

 

42 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Not so. All members of the Armed forces are  2 years service to entitled to a military pension.

 

amazing! a minimum period of Service to meet minimum Vesting period of just 2 year; and prorata % of 22 years. 

That'll bring him some pocket money! 

But what happens once he domiciles in Canada? I knew of an RN type who retired, but lost it (his Pension) when he migrated lateron to Australia!

10 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Do any of those "journalists" have to be anywhere near her? Or do they make it up in their offices or maybe in a pub?

Some used to know her personally like Piers Morgan before she became famous for marrying H, she cut them off as soon as she started ladder climbing and they have rubbished her, not surprisingly.

7 minutes ago, tifino said:

amazing! a minimum period of Service to meet minimum Vesting period of just 2 year; and prorata % of 22 years. 

That'll bring him some pocket money! 

But what happens once he domiciles in Canada? I knew of an RN type who retired, but lost it (his Pension) when he migrated lateron to Australia!

53 minutes ago, billd766 said:
Not so. All members of the Armed forces are  2 years service to entitled to a military pension.

That is not what I wrote in post #41.

 

How strange. I have been getting my RAF pension since 1984 and I still get it today.

 

I have been registered ass living offshore since 1999.

 

It may be a Canada thing but he should be able to get it no matter where he lives in the world

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

53 minutes ago, billd766 said:
Not so. All members of the Armed forces are  2 years service to entitled to a military pension.

That is not what I wrote in post #41.

 

How strange. I have been getting my RAF pension since 1984 and I still get it today.

 

I have been registered ass living offshore since 1999.

 

It may be a Canada thing but he should be able to get it no matter where he lives in the world

I began part paraphrasing what I found in:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/819610/20150312_AFPS15_YPSE_FINAL.pdf 

 

interesting stuff how it's worked out. 

Yeh, hope UK/Canadian Veteran agreements work for Harry

9 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Squidgy gate, pedo second son, Fergie's cash for access to pedo second son, third son a serial failure, 3 of 4 kids' marriages ending in divorce - but Meghan's behaviour is unbecoming? Frankly, she is a rank amateur when it comes to unbecoming behaviour in that family. 

I don't usually pay much attention to royal stories. But what really irritates me about the Harry and Meghan story is the way some are pulling out the race card. They're saying Meghan has been treated worse than Kate thingy, simply because Meghan is a 'woman of colour'. Her treatment by the tabloids has been harsh, but it has nothing to do with her mixed heritage!

 

She joined the royal family having been a US TV star, divorced from a US film director, having a feuding family with a sister and father continually going public, while also preaching on climate change while using private jets - it's no wonder the tabloids have a field day!

 

But no, the lefties and those with a chip on their shoulder decide it must be because she's black ????

 

Great example of this on QT last week: 

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/laurence-fox-question-time-meghan-racism-a4336741.html

 

 

13 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Some used to know her personally like Piers Morgan before she became famous for marrying H, she cut them off as soon as she started ladder climbing and they have rubbished her, not surprisingly.

Anybody who cuts themselves off from the slimy reptilian Piers Morgan should be warmly congratulated by all and sundry. 

 

However it appears that you put famous for marrying H before "started ladder climbing". Where do you go on the ladder (If ladder climbing is your sad thing) after marrying a prince?

10 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I don't usually pay much attention to royal stories. But what really irritates me about the Harry and Meghan story is the way some are pulling out the race card. They're saying Meghan has been treated worse than Kate thingy, simply because Meghan is a 'woman of colour'. Her treatment by the tabloids has been harsh, but it has nothing to do with her mixed heritage!

 

She joined the royal family having been a US TV star, divorced from a US film director, having a feuding family with a sister and father continually going public, while also preaching on climate change while using private jets - it's no wonder the tabloids have a field day!

 

But no, the lefties and those with a chip on their shoulder decide it must be because she's black ????

 

Great example of this on QT last week: 

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/laurence-fox-question-time-meghan-racism-a4336741.html

 

 

The woman in the audience is an ex BBC employee and University lecturer on race. Is it any wonder she dismissed Fox's comments because he's a "white priviliged male". Can you imagine the uproar if Fox had reversed her comment and said "what worries me about your comment is that you're a non-wealthy black woman"? He'd have been destroyed for such a racist/sexist comment and rightly so.

 

Classic double standard from the Woke hypocrites. I'm glad that Fox called this muppet out as the racist/sexist that she is. 

 

 

Absolutely spot on.

 

These woke nutters trying to shut down debate by throwing the word 'racist' around every time a white person questions or criticizes the behaviour of a non white person devalues the meaning of the word and causes people to shrug their shoulders when they hear it. It's like the boy who cried wolf.

On 1/20/2020 at 8:23 AM, JonnyF said:

No need to panic, I don't think losing the HRH title will stop her.

 

Markle will still be providing plenty of hypocrisy, complaining, preaching, family dramas, court cases, virtue signalling and general 'wokeness' to keep the tabloids going for a while ????.

Wait till the papparazzi get a shot of her topless on a beach somewhere. ????????????

16 hours ago, billd766 said:

53 minutes ago, billd766 said:
Not so. All members of the Armed forces are  2 years service to entitled to a military pension.

That is not what I wrote in post #41.

 

How strange. I have been getting my RAF pension since 1984 and I still get it today.

 

I have been registered ass living offshore since 1999.

 

It may be a Canada thing but he should be able to get it no matter where he lives in the world

Remove the second s from here, "registered ass living" and replace it with "registered as living"

 

I have no doubt that some posters prefer the original.

When lucky people manage to feel unhappy, I'd say they deserve very little attention    

Meghan breaks everything in her path watch out Harry. 

On 1/21/2020 at 8:42 AM, Nigel Garvie said:

the slimy reptilian Piers Morgan

 

Could you clarify, please, for those of us less well informed.  We know that senior members of the English royal family are reptilians (and to be specific "blood-drinking, flesh-eating, shape-shifting extraterrestrial reptilian humanoids").  No less an authority than Time magazine confirms it.

 

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1860871_1860876_1861029,00.html

 

Are we to assume that these reptilians are not slimy, and so are a different species of reptilian from Piers Moron?