Harry's speech at the UN

[KatharineofAragon]

Just what is going on? Why does Harry think he is qualified to pronounce on various political matters in another country? Why is he invited and who cares what he thinks? Am I the only one thinking he is behaving like a total numpty?

Much like Sarah Ferguson did 25 years ago, totally criticising the Institution in books and an Oprah interview. She is living off of us now.

How do we know they are paying a commercial rent? So we know the figure? I thought Eugenie was only living in Portugal part time anyway so she needs a base in the UK.

A company he owned also miraculously won the tender to provide picnics to the public invited to an event during a Royal event a few years ago.

For goodness sake, the Royal Report which details all of the expenditure and payments and is official legally says so. Why don't you contact the Royal Households' Accountants and try and find out if it's worrying you so much?! I doubt this official report lies about a commercial rent being paid. That would be illegal.

So what if Eugenie lives part time in the UK? What's that to do with the price of fish? You are sounding odd with this line of questioning.

Oh yes, I forgot that on Peter Phillips. He would've made a lot of money on that!

Here you go OP... as you're so concerned about Frogmore cottage. If you're not happy about it, you need to contact the Treasury

Frogmore, a Grade-II listed property is owned by the Crown Estate,
The senior royal source said the rent "has been calculated by reference to market valuations for a property of that nature.
"So it's an independent valuation, so it's been market tested".
The National Audit Office and the Treasury were "satisfied" with the way the transaction had been accounted for and the "commercial return" for the Sovereign Grant, the source added.
"I can be confident in saying that this is a good deal for the Sovereign Grant and the taxpayer alike."

From visitbritain.org
"Latest Figures to Economic value of tourism 2016. Taking into account direct and indirect impacts (including aspects like the supply chain), tourism in England contributes £106 billion to the British economy (GDP) and supports 2.6 million jobs."

You are living in a fairy land if you really believe these figures are not directly linked to the existence of the Crown and that you are somehow supporting any of them directly.

😂🤣😂

You posted false facts and I corrected them and provided answers to your repeated questions.

You don't like the fact I have corrected you so you insult me. Okaaayyyyy.... not sure how that makes me bitter and twisted 🤣

From another source

Have a read, a totally different view to that with interesting facts and figures

I took a glance. Not really an objective source. No, people don't necessary choose to travel to London for a wedding where they are not invited. Silly argument.

I wonder though, if you view a site that's wishing away the monarchy as a credible source, why the strong support and attraction to H&M? Why would you write that you hope they keep their titles? Why defend them particularly in so many ways if you don't believe the rest of them should exist at all?

It's a false dichotomy, in my opinion.

"We all welcome our overseas visitors with open arms, but what they enjoy doing on holiday should never be the basis of our democracy."

No one is arguing here about this. But no one is "living off" you.

Why?
Because the RF aren't going anywhere, not in my lifetime nor my childrens I imagine, and nothing will change so why should they live by different rules to the rest of the family. That's why.
It's not an attraction to them. It's fairness.

No one is arguing here about this. But no one is "living off" you

You're splitting hairs. The Sovereign Grant this year was £86.3million, where do you imagine that money comes from?

I'm struggling to understand Roussette. Are you saying that H & M should live by the same rules as the rest of the RF? If so, surely the answer is that they chose to walk away?

From the 16.9BN in tourism revenue.

I'm struggling to understand your question. I've explained what I think many a time.

Yes, they chose to walk away. Andrew was forced to walk away. (and is still being supported by us)

That's it isn't it?

And from VAT and CGT and IHT and personal taxes and so on...

You cannot say that the Sovereign Grant is paid for solely from tourism revenue. which they made happen (no they didn't) Tourists come anyway.

I made a mistake. The Sovereign Grant this year was £102.4million not £89 million

I am American. I don't even care what they do with their titles. Keep them or give them up. But many of us roll our eyes at people trying to use titles here in the US. For example, M sending letters to members of our congress on her "Duchess" stationary, and calling them on their personal cell phones was embarrassing.
"“Much to my surprise, she called me on my private line and introduced herself as the Duchess of Sussex, which is kind of ironic,” Senator Collins.

You may wish for "fairness", but it's not even logical. They don't seem to find any value in being part of the RF. Why then would they or you believe it's of any benefit to have the titles? It would be an anathema to me to use the title if I felt the being a member of the RF was like being trapped in a zoo. Why wish that on them?

And you certainly are not fairly applying your support and judgement across all of the RF members based on your posts here.

I do hope you never find out what happens to tourism without them.

Like France you mean?

They manage perfectly well with a higher tourism income per capita than us.

Totally agree

You may wish for "fairness", but it's not even logical. They don't seem to find any value in being part of the RF. Why then would they or you believe it's of any benefit to have the titles? It would be an anathema to me to use the title if I felt the being a member of the RF was like being trapped in a zoo. Why wish that on them?
And you certainly are not fairly applying your support and judgement across all of the RF members based on your posts here

This has been answered a million times on these threads.

Yes, they can choose not to use their titles. Why should they when H's disgraced Uncle and his ex wife continue using theirs? Especially SF, 72 books written under her title and she's not even married to a member of the RF anymore!
They cannot be removed without an Act of Parliament.
Completely logical to me.

'Are you saying that H & M should live by the same rules as the rest of the RF?'

It is always a very weird argument when a poster says Fergie slagged off the RF yet still calls herself Duchess. So what, is anyone saying that is ok? No she's a grabby nightmare too.

The thing is the Sussexes wang on about being authentic, kind and compassionate yet are anything but. They imply in all their media guff that they walked away to be better people yet they have to constantly peddle their royal links for their US paycheck. They are fake. If they said call us Mr and Mrs Windsor or whatever they'd be far more 'authentic'.