M & H-as-I-call-him 16

[yolofish]

Well here we are, another thread for those who wish to discuss. We are not nasty, but we do call account on what is going on, and and what taxpayers pay for.

imaginary do they give 5% of their income to charity ? How is this known ?

Peridito I said they were giving up 5% of income, nothing about giving it to charity.

This is the Sovereign Grant, which is the only money they have so far committed to giving up. 95% of their income comes from PC via the Duchy of Cornwall. So far there is no indication they intend to give this up too. That could change of course.

TheNavigator.

Princess Anne is the Patron of Scottish Rugby. She is very enthusiastic and supportive of the team. Her son, Peter played for Scotland Youth teams many years ago.

Oh and yolo - thank you for the charity work you do.

alliwant what is your point? My point is that there is no sacrifice involved in taking up a free ticket to the rugby - she's jammy, not hard done to.

Your post assumes you speculate about what is fact.

That's exactly the opposite of what I said, Rocking. But never mind.

Nothingwrong I bet she’s in thermals... with those snappy pocket hand warmers dotted around, and stuffed down her boots.

I stand by nitpicking. In fact, I'll add being deliberately obtuse at times.

I don't care if we agree or disagree.

No one was saying it was in the league of MP. That was your (wrong) interpretation of it. Just like you interpreted what I wrote earlier wrong.

Yes, we know you think it spiteful. You've said it more than once. Most of us don't

And anyway humour is subjective. If someone were to say something is funnier than MP then that's up to them. You can't argue with it although I'm sure you'd give it a good try.

Mischief yep, I really can’t believe so many misunderstandings are accidental.
Going to start linking the dictionary and free online courses in reading comprehension.

Though I don’t know how to help reduce nitpicking and deliberate twisting of words 🤔

yolo and Coffee amazing work, I hope your efforts were rewarded in witnessing the positive change you brought to people’s lives.

You run through these words ! I've not nitpicked. I've disagreed clearly with points people have made.

You don't like the points I've made, and you want to be able to carry on here without any disagreement. I get it, but then you need to get a private space .

Pretending people are deliberately misreading things/ need dictionaries/are nitpicking- these are all just tactics to try to shut someone up without engaging with them. And of course, you'll get support with this in an echo chamber and it's easier than having to address the things I'm saying.

The logistics around a royal family will always be expensive, and I expect there will always be a lot of security around Harry for many reasons, not least his very public personal hands on war history. It would not look good for Britain to be stingy and then some religious nut suddenly gets at him or his family. Doesn't matter weather he lives his life with good taste or not where that is concerned. Also, for all talk of hypocrisy when flights are involved private or not, this is modern life now. Life is global and as romantic the idea of steamers and trains might be they are too slow for most purposes. So no point in hitting people who fly over the head with it when they (as we all should) demand better from entire industries (flying is small potatoes compared to say building industry or steel or whatnot). I say that as a person who haven't got a car, use trains for domestic travel and fly seldom (no Thai holidays or such).

However, that my first internal alarm bells rang when I turned on the tv to watch that wedding and the first guests I saw was Oprah and George Clooney...and then Meghan had invited no family. Nevermind being on the outs with stepsiblings, but none of her mother's side? Noone? I vividly remember the engagement interview where she said that she was not part of any celebrity scene. Hmmm well that wedding clearly showed where she wanted to go...

I also think they could have gone to meet her father before the engagement. The world is full of difficult parents (you could google Mette Marit of Norway's dad - that was handled very well). Lots of alarm bells going.

There was also that "the family she never had" remark after the first Sandringham christmas. They have some very odd dynamic and narrative they are building for each other and I think this will all end in disaster for Harry while Meghan will have her next partner all lined up soon, just in case. I just think it is a personal disaster brewing and I am sure both his brother, father and other family is quietly prepping for when they have to pick up the pieces. They must be having nightmares about recieving a phonecall a la Diana's death in the middle of the night. I have very very bad vibes regarding this whole situation.

I don't think anyone set out to make things this bad. It's just that things escalate. You start spinning a narrative and it takes on a life of its own. Meghan suddenly got more publicity and adoration than in her wildest dreams and started believing the hype, she clearly is the strong one, Harry once he let the stiff upper lip go can't keep anything on the inside (ketchup effect) and apparently noone in their vicinity is strong enough to force them to stop and THINK. Prince Charles probably has too much guilt from the Diana years to take a hard line, the Queen is canny but old. William is probably the new enforcer (filling the vacuum after Prince Philip) but is new to the role. Rocky times ahead.

I have things to say about Prince Andrew too but will move to that thread for that.

Gaah, after all these months of silently looking at things brewing and following discussions I feel my own ketchup effect in action...

(Also, by all means dress expensively as a royal. High glam is good for "business" and as long as that couture is made by skilled and properly paid adults, bring it on!)

Lol, rocking, bless you if you genuinely believe what you just typed
Goes to show that no matter the lenghts some posters go to to oblige you and believe your posts are in good faith, it's all fruitless.

imaginary - thank you ,I misunderstood .

Goes to show that no matter the lenghts some posters go to to oblige you and believe your posts are in good faith, it's all fruitless.

Yet posters continue to engage.

It drains the thread.

talking about having 7 years of therapy smacks of trying to recover some of the sympathy and support that he has lost in this past month.

Why is that relevant to bankers / finance folk that they were speaking to?

The thread might focus more on H&M if there were fewer posts about nitpicking ,moaning ,obtuseness ,need for dictionaries ,twisting of words,whether saying pythonesque is the same as saying something is in the same league as MP ,whether a post is convoluted or not .

Oh and no weird posts that talk about "obliging" posters .

I would love to hear from Meghan (and perhaps one day we will), what part of being royal was so terribly, unfairly different from her expectations that she couldn't endure more than 18 months. She had ample opportunity to ask Kate and Sophie what their day to day lives were like and what restrictions they found. Her own friends warned her about the tabloids. She was given lovely patronages that matched her own interests - theatre! Dogs!
What is her version of what went wrong and why it was all so unendurable?

Really good point February It’s his USP at the moment, reinforces why he had to leave the RD, I.e. for the sake of his MH. Mental health is very topical right now and it distinguishes him from being a stereotypical rich, spoilt prince.

Him being Diana’s son will give him clout amongst people of a certain age - those 5 years older and more then him and beyond who remember the shock of Diana’s death.

I’m interested in them supposedly having stayed at Serena’s. I thought Serena’s husband had been allegedly throwing shade? Perhaps he really didn’t mean MM then, or perhaps they didn’t stay there.

The 'family she never had' comment is telling, now, because of the swiftness of the move from that to the notion that life with said family is 'stifling' and too oppressive to bear. Either the RF misrepresented themselves, or Meghan did. There was certainly a misjudgment somewhere for it to turn so quickly.

Who knows Feb
He doesn’t have anything else to offer other than himself.
He’s pretty irrelevant outside the RF.

We’ll be hearing about his balding pattern next, I suppose, and so on and so on until he’s trying to get a free bus ticket with a woe-some tale of athletes’ foot.

M and H are looking not so much like Great uncle David and Wallis, (the one sided lurve affair) but a re run of the very unpopular Fergie and Andy pay per view show.... the “grabdication”, as a witty guardian journo put it.

“grabdication”

Ouch grin]

Oh no, my bracket... is what I meant.

I think the rest of the family wouldn't play re the narrative they were spinning about themselves, Meghan realised there would always be a hierarchy and she'd never be at the very top. Personal chemistry with William and Catherine didn't develop (she probebly tried to charm William a bit too much, William wouldn't play and Kate didn't enjoy seing it). Charles probably liked seing Harry happy, Camilla having been through the wringer herself probably has a very very well developed bullshit radar though. The York princesses are close with Harry's ex. Lots of opportunity for family tension...

Haitch had no real responsibility in the RF, unlike William and Charles, so him giving up being a senior role is hardly that shocking.

He and MM wanted freedom from authority and the ability to make private money as well as the validation and adulation that comes from being royal. They didn't want either or. That's why they wanted to keep their titles. And while they only have a short window to maximise their opportunities and set up their profitability as Spring is Coming.

Yolo and Coffee
Agree with all you said about tax too, Coffee. Exactly the same problems with globetrotting philanthropy as there are with the more mundane kinds of philanthropy too- like David Cameron’s Big Society kind of encouraging volunteering while the funding to the public sector in general and local councils is slashed. It takes away protections. Makes a few people feel good while it leaves many more under-served or without any support or services.

Who wants to give money to and raise profile for all the many unsexy, unglamorous, unphotogenic causes? The people and issues in abject need of help but which don’t get the ‘profile’. Old people, prisoners, the non-cute animals and insects, the stigmatised health conditions? The boring, the obscure, the complex, the hard to understand, the politically inconvenient to change sort of stuff? The stuff that would require governments, corporations and individuals to behave differently or to their financial detriment.
Who wants to take that kind of hard to do stuff on as their big philanthropic cause? Nobody. That’s why we need efficient democratic governments, good regulation, robust taxation systems, globally, that work to support the people who need them.