The absolute state of the Daily Mail (re Meghan Markle)

[Hithere12]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7298013/Meghan-Markles-organic-baby-shawl-used-swaddle-Archie-workers-earning-37-PENCE-hour.html

This is there top story. Meghan is using a cheap shawl & DM have found the factory it was made in.

She’s been criticised non stop for her spending, uses something cheap and the DM visit the sweatshop it was made in! I’m sorry but we are all guilty of this, very few people I’m sure track down where everything they buy is made and how much the staff are paid.

It’s just getting ridiculous how they’ll find literally anything to criticise.

If the DM want to expose sweat shops (something they care little about usually) they have the resources and man power to do so but they don’t give a shit they just want to go after Meghan.

@separatelives That came from the sovereign grant, which isn't exactly taxpayers' money. The Queen gets something like £65m a year and the 2.5m came out of it. So if it hadn't gone on Frogmore (which had been earmarked for renovation even before Harry decided to live there) it would've gone on something else royal.

And Frogmore isn't that exactly his home - it belongs to the Queen.

@LaurieMarlow that's just not true though -I am not royalist but was tolerant of royalty. When Meghan arrived I was a fan. She brought diversity and something different. She has been a let down - there is no humility. How do you defend the extravagance of that baby shower?

The Vogue piece?

Of course Frogmore isn't his home. My point is where do you draw the line. Why shouldn't cutbacks affect a royal. The sovereign grant is all taxpayers money too.The royal family cost approx £365 million a year all told.

“She has been a let down - there is no humility. How do you defend the extravagance of that baby shower?“

She didn’t pay for it. And rich people have extravagant parties. Who knew?

“£2.4 million of taxpayers funds for Frogmore renovations.”

Significantly less than the Cambridges spent on Kensington Palace. Wasn’t that closer to 6m? And there was Amner- with the tennis court being moved a foot to the left or whatever it was......

It would have been cheaper to knock the 'cottage' down and rebuilt from scratch. It wasn't of architectural merit and very run down.
But hey, who's counting, it's only money and what's 3 million in the scheme of things.

The sovereign grant is all taxpayers money

It isn't. The Queen surrenders the profit of the Crown Estates to the government and the Sovereign Grant is paid back to her out of that. Other costs like security are met by taxpayers though.

Really, it's all out there if you google.

You can kinda see why in USA politicians wives are advised to keep it zipped and operate on the down low.

Is the monarchy in the habit of knocking down listed residences?

Weren`t the crown estates just robbed from others if you go far enough back in history.

@BertrandRussell she is not just a rich person though- she married into the Royal family. Her wealth and status is because she is royal.

You think Amal would have offered the jet if she wasn't? She was given a seat at the table and has served herself first. That is the let down to me.

The Royal Family spends fucktons of money- who knew?

Oh, except for the Queen- she devotes her life to smoothing and reusing Christmas wrapping paper....

How do you defend the extravagance of that baby shower?

I said this upthread. Do you really think the rest of the royals are strangers to any of the following?

Private jets
Presents
Famous friends
Fancy hotels

Really? Think about it.

So I can’t see why a royalist would have a problem.

“You think Amal would have offered the jet if she wasn't?”
Well, presumably. They’ve been friends a while.
“She was given a seat at the table and has served herself first”
I have no idea what this means.

I think it’s accurate to call the Crown Estates public but not tax payer money.

It does not belong to Elizabeth Windsor.

Well, presumably. They’ve been friends a while.

How do we know that?
The impression the press gives (yes, I know, probably all crap but it's the only insight I have into the royal family and their doings) is that they became friends post the relationship with Harry, not pre.

"It isn't. The Queen surrenders the profit of the Crown Estates to the government and the Sovereign Grant is paid back to her out of that. Other costs like security are met by taxpayers though.*
The thing is, they only have rights to the sovereign grant as long as there is a monachy, it isn't there's to keep. If the RF was abolished tomorrow the entire profits would revert back to us. Why do people try and insist the RF aren't taxpayer funded. If course they bloody well are.

I actually love Salma Hayek though, bright and funny as fuck. And has been doing humanitarian work for years.

Well then campaign to abolish the entire monarchy @separatelives!

There’ve been some good ‘uns in this thread. My favourite is “she only goes to Wimbledon to watch Serena” Closely followed by her friends needing to have a press approved qualifying period before they can throw her a party......

I didn’t follow that. Why isn’t she allowed to be friends with Amal again?

“Why do people try and insist the RF aren't taxpayer funded. If course they bloody well are.”
Yep.

But they all are. Meghan is not a special case.

“I didn’t follow that. Why isn’t she allowed to be friends with Amal again?”

I think because the press say the friendship post dates her relationship with Harry.

@BertrandRussell wondering why you have such adoration? Genuine question.

There are positive and negatives to everyone. I had hoped Meghan would have done a bit more than party in couture and tell me who I should admire. What do you see?