..to be furious with Harry and Meghan

[NeedToGoToBedNow]

Ok ok, we've had loads of threads. I accept their decision to want to resign from public duties - always though Harry might do that ...

BUT ... why should we pay for them? How come they get to keep Frogmore cottage, which WE the tax payer have paid for? And we have just paid over 2 million for them to renovate it???

If they want to go their seperate ways from Royal duties, FINE...... BUT , if they do that, they surely should relinquish the perks (i.e. the house, cars, money that comes with the job) and do what the rest of us do - earn their own.

(Feeling irrationally angry for some reason!!!)

That’s not particularly relevant to the point I am making though.

My point is that the CE were intended to fund the running of the county, not just the monarchy. So any suggestion that the monarch is entitled to more than the grant is bogus.

The entire income is not their personal money and was never intended as such.

Also, I thought one of the reasons George III cut the deal was because he couldn’t balance the books and was constantly in debt.

One of the many hidden costs of the monarchy is incurred by council tax payers when royals visit their town.

Local people are regularly forced to pay for a range of costs including staff planning time, policing, road closures, renovation, cleaning, food and drink, photography, floral decorations and flags
This means that a royal visit can leave local tax payers tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket: the Queen's visit to Leicester in 2012, for example, cost the city council over £85,000

Yes, but @Stoneofdestiny I f you look at the income the Royals generate through tourism, it probably outweighs the cost of security for local visits.

Makes me laugh when people talk about the queen's / Charles's private income. As if they'd earned it by the sweat of their brow rather than their ancestors looting it from the people in the first place.

Recent research published by academics at University of Glasgow has concluded that Robert Burns, despite being dead, boosts the Scottish economy annually. They state:

We have been able to put a value of over £200 million on the tourism, products, festivals and estimate an additional embedded brand value of almost £140 million which Burns brings to Scotland

We don't need a huge extended Royal Family, pampered by servants, skivvies and an army of security to keep our economy going. There are enough dead historic figures and their homes to keep the tourist dollars piling in.

No local tax payer is 'out of pocket'.

The local council decides how to spend their money.

Many local businesses will be helped by providing the food and flowers. And getting publicity. This generates income for the businesses and the tax on it goes back to the government.

Yes, but @Stoneofdestiny I f you look at the income the Royals generate through tourism, it probably outweighs the cost of security for local visits

See previous post!

No local tax payer is 'out of pocket'. The local council decides how to spend their money. Many local businesses will be helped by providing the food and flowers. And getting publicity. This generates income for the businesses and the tax on it goes back to the government

The cost on security alone runs to thousands - pre visit checks, Re routing traffic, on the day supervision etc. It's 'dead money'. Much better police were deployed solving crime for the majority of local rate payers.

Makes me laugh when people talk about the queen's / Charles's private income. As if they'd earned it by the sweat of their brow rather than their ancestors looting it from the people in the first place.

So are you envious of everyone with inherited wealth? How on Earth do you find an MP to vote for then?

My point is that the CE were intended to fund the running of the county, not just the monarchy. So any suggestion that the monarch is entitled to more than the grant is bogus

Ok? So you do agree the royals are entitled to the sovereign grant?
That is all I have been saying too. Not sure why were are debating this then.

Good for Harry - I don't blame him, he wants to protect his family, I will miss him from public life - as for 'moaning' meg - won't miss her fakeness.

His family are very well protected. He’s not doing it for any other reason than money and laziness.

I am furious. Page 26 of the Daily Mail was almost full of some story about the restoration of the power sharing executive in the part of the UK where I live- after a 3 year hiatus when we had a vacuum at Stormont where we really need leadership at this critical time in UK politics. What a waste of news space- I really wanted another page about how it's All Meghan's Fault that the 6th in line to the throne is going to live in another Commonwealth country. All while the Queen's 98 year old husband is frail, having recently been ill, the insensitive beasts. They could at least have waited until he was back striding over grouse moors and competing in carriage driving events again. Rotters.

OP - Get a grip on your own life. How can you compare the financial struggles of your own life to that of the Sussexes!? Really!?
Who the hell would want to be born into or marry into the Firm!??
No amount of money or perceived status would make me sell my soul for that mess.
Kudos to them for flipping the script and taking control of their lives and mental health.
The haters should be glad that they're planning to go it alone. They (Meghan) just can't win.

The haters should be glad that they're planning to go it alone. They (Meghan) just can't win.

None of them can win, whatever they do there’ll always be criticism, and rightly so. The whole concept of a “royal” family is wrong on every level. The “haters” are usually justified. But I don’t think they will be “going it alone”. I should imagine they’ll still cost the taxpayers. The whole lot of them disgust me.

They'll be divorced within the next five years anyway. Can't see Harry staying in L.A. which is where she wants to be. He'll get tired of being a ' brand' sooner or later.

No amount of money or perceived status would make me sell my soul for that mess.

I’m glad I’m not the only person that thinks so !

@MNHQ - to comply with your new moderating policy is this going to be moved to the Royal Family topic?

YABU at being furious over them. They are of little importance and have even less intelligence.

The sooner they both bugger off to Canada and not come back the better. At least we won't have to see them in the bloody newspaper all the time. Harry is a grade A twat for getting involved with her, but he was bloody desperate.

Can't see many charitys or causes wanting these two supporting them anymore.

Hmm because relinquishing the “perks” would mean you pay £20 less tax a month?! Nah!

@DuchessofWoke

Prince Andrew raping a trafficked teenager

Has he been accused of rape?

That's news to me too.

I realise this is an old thread, I came across it when looking for something else but was struck by 'raping a trafficked teenager', which I'm pretty sure he didn't do.