Do Harry and Meghan realise hardly anyone supports them?

[Spck]

So everywhere there seems to be complete negativity towards the Netflix documentary and the autobiography coming out. They seem to be universally slated as whingers.
so how much do you think this feeds back to them? It must be v easy to live in a bubble with close supporters telling them they are doing a grand job. But how much reality do you think gets through of how badly they are coming across,

Except that pololing is a hell of a lot more scientific than that.

It's just more 'woe is me' isn't it, suggesting he was only conceived as a standby organ donor.

Does he think if his mother were still alive that she wouldn't be hurt (and bloody furious) at statements like that?

Except that pololing is a hell of a lot more scientific than that.

Sorry, that was of course meant to be polling.

Because the £102m includes the reservicing of Buckingham Palace. They spent an increased amount on it this year compared to last because they needed to get things in place for the Jubilee. They took that extra money from the reserves not from the public purse.

Why?

It is impossible to gauge popularity from “likes” or thumbs down or whatever because Fanz/Haterz will just flood it.

An early example was Rage Against the Machine beating the XFactor winner to no. 1.

I said that in my post? i.e. it does include BP renovations

Of course, none of these figures include security which we aren't allowed to know for ummm... security purposes. It is mooted to be between £100million, all out the public purse.

So if you take away the renovation amount it leaves £54m which is the sovereign grant.
The 102m is what they spent, not what they received. Because they covered the extra outlay to the renovations, (needed earlier than planned for the Jubilee celebrations) out of the Palace reserves.
They receive £54m annually as sovereign grant and for 10 years they have and will receive an extra £34m (or thereabouts) for the Palace Reservicing project.

"Mooted to be...." Oh, well, that must be an accurate figure, then.

Rubbish. I'm foreign but as married with a British, support what is British. If they didn't like it, they could be leaving with gratitude. Harry turned his Spare story into a melodrama. Supportive of what?! There's nothing wrong with them. They still consume the tax payers money one way or the other. As someone mentioned why aren't you capable of having more nuanced views....

In ireland (a lot smaller than the U.K.) the costs of running the presidents office are about €5m plus another €1m in pension payments for retired presidents.

we have a population of c5m so that’s about £1.00 per person (just converted euros to pounds too for comparison)

Our president is a figure head too, but must sign legislation before it becomes legal and may refer it to the attorney general to review its constitutionality if he has concerns.

the office has set up the presidents award (a copy of the DOE awards) and represents us abroad. He is also constrained in his political opinions rather like the queen

in the absence of the monarchy you would probably need someone, most of ours have had a legal background (some were lawyers, lecturers and politicians) but you would fear a populist person like Boris Johnson getting his hands on it.

One interesting thing is the media obsession with what the polls say. That's because the Royal Family depends to a great degree on public acceptability and popularity.

This, in my opinion, creates an unseemly race to the bottom where various members are pitched against each other, like beauty contestants. Charles and Camilla are constantly below Kate and William, and I can't imagine that creates a harmonious household.

Harry and Meghan are out of it now, not living in Britain, not paid for by the public, they are not coming back, and will not raise their kids in the institution, so why do the pollsters care what the British public thinks of them? I suspect it is done to make the others seem more popular.

It's bizarre. I can bet that in 2050, there will be polls pitching the three Cambridge kids and their spouses against each other.

Charles has the right idea about slimming down. This thing needs to be stripped down to just the heirs, if only to protect the others whose function in the absence of a defined constitutional role seems to be to provide fodder for a hungry press.

Do you know what your elections cost @Ohnonevermind?

That is a very foolish attempt an argument @Blossomtoes

Why not just cancel voting altogether and save a fortune!

"Mooted to be...." Oh, well, that must be an accurate figure, then.

Do you know what the word mooted means?

It means suggested, open to question, debateable, subject to discussion.

So you saying @MarshaMelrose it must be accurate means you don't understand my point.

It certainly is not accurate, hence my used of the word 'mooted'.

I do not trust any of the polls

Posters who are paid to complete poll questions have come on here and explained how they flick through without looking at questions . Never mind sample selection and sample size . Asking a group of 65+ is going to give a very different outcome .

What matters is polling trends . And the trend is 10% drop in support each decade
Even royalists feeling triumphant at an overall 62 % approval rating is very shortsighted.
The royals need to be much more assured of supper than that. And comparing with politicians is dim witted. Politicians can be voted out - they just need one vote more than their rival in our system .

Their days are numbered . The under 35s see through the charade

I support them, as do most people I know.

Assured of supper !
What an apt typo - so many poor people NOT assured of supper while royals grin inanely at food banks

Exactly. If it's not accurate, no proof it's true, why quote it? As soon as you say a figure, you give weight to the idea it's evidentially based. And people always quote the highest figure they can find and never the mooted figure of £20 a day and a sandwich.

This

Book sales of 'spare' alone show you that

People in the uk have been manaipulated by the media for a long time

@MarshaMelrose
Why is this figure kept secret then ?

Let's see it !

Oh that's right . It's another legal 'exception' - just because ...

You prefer the crap published by the loving couple then? I have a bridge to sell.....

This thing needs to be stripped down to just the heirs, if only to protect the others whose function in the absence of a defined constitutional role seems to be to provide fodder for a hungry press

Yes I think so. The British Press don't get challenged and have no code of ethics, but the world is watching and they look more and more embarassing and ridiculous.

They don't reveal security costs for anyone: present govt ministers or retired politicians or visiting dignitaries or visiting heads of states or ambassadors. No one

OK. So everything you post on here is true with a completely checked out source. No.

There are sources out there that say it is likely to be approximately £100million. Andrew's was £3million alone. Then we look at all the members covered by security of the RF, and we add into that trips abroad, foreign tours etc... who knows? The security bill is picked up by the Met and royal visits in this country by local councils. Let alone trips abroad.

That is why I said 'mooted'. Which you don't seem to understand. I don't give weight to any idea it is evidentially based, 'mooted'... ok?

It obviously stings that it might be so expensive because I have no idea why you are labouring this so much.

Is he dim enough? You really have to ask?

Strangely I have never heard his Aunt Anne complain about her role, she was third in the batting order when born then second when her mother became Queen. However she was demoted to fourth after the subsequent births of her younger brothers and has gradually dropped down with the births of their families. I seem to recall someone asking her about it in an interview and her shrugged response was That's how it is, isn't it?