The Yorks 2 !

[jeffgoldblum]

Sorry missed end of thread !
had a slight hiccup.
anyway thread 2 ready for tomorrows new article. 😁

It's definitely moving the goalposts!

I think the whole 'champagne socialism' of the 80s and 90s was very much a way to ease the consciences of celebs and others who wanted their cake, and to eat it too. They wanted to send their children to Eton, have multiple homes, go to all the parties and eat at expensive restaurants....but still have that lovely, fuzzy, warm feeling that they were GOOD PEOPLE because they voted Labour!

There are very few avowed celebrity socialists who have sent their children to the local comp with all the local kids. Paul McCartney is one. I think the Gallagher brothers (oft-declared Labourites) sent their offspring to private schools.

And Dave Gilmour (Pink Floyd) - his privately educated twit of a son, while at Cambridge, studying history, went on a demo, climbed and defaced the cenotaph and his defence was...he didn't know what it was. So - London born and bred, highly privileged education, Cambridge history student and didn't know what the cenotaph was. OK. (Bit of a digression, but this has always made me roll my eyes - celebrity socialists/rebels, what are they like?)

It's the hypocrisy that drives me bonkers!

So Harry moves to the US. Starts a foundation in a state that only requires him to use 5% of the funds for charity. Doesn't file his charity paperwork- check out Charity Watch on Archewell. Joins the Aspen Institute to control the US First Amendment, which he describes as Bonkers. Gets booed by outraged Americans at the Pat Tindall awards. Goes to Nigeria and accepts the services of a fugitive from American justice who is wanted for six -figure fraud. Has to have massive free police calvacades in NYC including on his trips to a tattoo parlor in an upscale neighborhood. Stands around on the burnt husks of houses for photo ops. His visa is being questioned. Publicly greets Sussex Squad members and goes after Dr. Sophie yet is anti-bullying.

I m seeing a really different Harry

Andrew Lownie is not an author who is prone to make random statements without good evidence CoffeeCantata

[Btw, apologies, pls don’t think I am stalking you around the thread; it’s merely by chance that I am responding to a lot of your posts and you to mine today! It’s good being able to share different opinions in a civilised way!]

Lownie stated that he has had a lot of information removed from the book for legal reasons so it’s interesting that this paragraph wasn’t. He also said he had it on “good authority”.

Also, it’s not so wierd by their standards. I believe that Susan Barrantes was formerly the wife of Ronald Ferguson who was the then Prince Charles’s polo manager. It’s a small, tight circle.

Yes you are!

Agreed!

And as ever, the usual "confusion" around HI/HO despite the announcement direct from H&M. Is reading comprehension still being taught or am I a dinosaur?

Neither Zara nor her DH were ever working royals. Thus to assert that Zara and Mike have HI/HO is foundationally incorrect.

It will indeed be interesting to see what action KC takes now!

OK well what about KC and William running huge commercial operations which make €20 million pounds profit each annually ie The Duchies. How does that not qualify as HI/HO?

No worries, Poached! I enjoy a good discussion.

There’s just one poster I don’t engage with due to their inability to keep things civilised - they make personal attacks. I think some people will know who I mean…

hHave to go out now but look forward to catching up with the thread later.

I am not a historian. From what I have gathered, the King and the POW are given the Dutchies to pay for the expenses of their households. If run properly, the income should cover their houses, food, clothing, servants, personal travel, etc. The individuals don't actually own the Dutchies, which are attached to the tile. Posters on other threads explained that the Dutchies are expected to turn a profit since they are meant to provide for future generations.

I just finished a bio of William Marshall that talked about the financial difficulties of the eldest son of Henry II. Henry gave Dutchies to two other sons, who this had incomes, but left the eldest dependent on him, causing him to revolt. Things might have gone differently if Henry II had given Young Henry the Dutchy of Normandy.

It's also a good way to preserve your countryside. A heritage-minded Royal might preserve a forest since they can afford to do so rather than cut it down to build luxury apartments.

I think of the Dutchies as family corporations but I'm American.

You are not alone!
Harry against bullying 🤣🤣 , Harry is fully in favour of bullying as long as it’s him doing it!

You know what, at some point, you have to acknowledge that good PR can only do so much and the RF, or our eventual Republican Head of State, must raise standards, be transparent over finances and behave in a way which means they don’t have to be continually be on guard and on the defensive. Just behave with probity fhs! Why is it so hard?
Yes I agree with this, and yes, I agree that Harry has gone after the press over phone hacking publicly, which is what was needed.
I agree. If the Royal Family had to 'wargame' over 100 stories they were worried Harry was going to reveal, maybe they should learn to behave like decent human beings so they didn't have so many secrets to hide. They don't have the problems of ordinary people in terms of money, they will never be made redundant, their every whim is catered for, so why cant they just do their charity work and behave like most decent people? Is it boredom? Avarice? entitlement? Maybe all of the above?

1. Moving the goalpost.

2. Not HI/HO either.

They are, but they should be taxed as such. They are deliberately murky. They are commercial enterprises when it comes to having to charge market rent to organisations ( including the charities they support) but not when it comes to paying corporation tax. They should be one or the other. They make billions from the Duchies to run their households, so why are they also getting millions from the taxpayer? Why has it gone up to pay for the repairs to Buckingham Palace when that could have gone directly towards repairs instead of being passed through them to do whatever they want? Will it come down? If William is going to reduce his engagements to one 'cause' will the money go down? I doubt it.

Labour ( particularly under Tony Blair ) is not socialist. It is Social Democratic. They weren't set up solely as a Socialist party ( much to the chagrin of the Hard Left entryists). There are many socialist parties. Labour isn't one of them. They are definiutely not communist ( Marxist)

I don’t know enough to engage with this, but why does he think the FIRST Amendment’s bonkers? Isn’t that one of the sane ones?

I know, this is truly shocking yet everyone is harping on about Tony Blair!

It's the Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

Great article about his comment https://fee.org/articles/prince-harry-allow-me-to-explain-the-first-amendment/

They’ve completely given up on class analysis as a means of achieving political awareness, that’s for sure. They don’t even recognise the sex classes any more, and haven’t since circa 2016.

Relevance? The Royal Foundation jumped aboard to seem ‘trendy’, notably Harry.

But that’s probably for another thread.

I know! It was not only the night of the Windsor fire but the late Queen’s and Philip’s wedding anniversary too!

Andrew was very much in evidence though as I recall!

I'm just wondering what Harry has actually achieved with his phone hacking trials. The original Leveson enquiry, which was partly started because of the hacking Catherine and William endured, which was in Catherine's case far more widespread than Harry's, brought in some press standards that were severely lacking but I haven't heard that Harry's cases have changed anything. They haven't told us anything we didn't know had happened so, apart from the personal financial compensations, did Harry actually bring about any change in the press landscape?

For all his big talk of crusades I really can't think of anything he has actually changed for anyone except himself.

That was absolutely idiotic and was what made me think that rather than destroy the Monarchy, what he wants is feudalism, with the Royal Family being back to being feudal masters, able to do whatever they like while everyone else just looks on admiringly ( I mean, that's probably what its like within the Royal household if Andrew is any example). He lives in a Republic as a Monarchist and a direct descendent of the guy they kicked out. He should know better than to go anywhere near the US constitution!

If Harry and Meghan had been prepared to be Mr and Mrs Mountbatten Windsor, with no HRH, titles, official roles, no security and seated in the fourth row of royals events rather than on the balcony or at the front, then they could have exactly the same deal as Zara Tindall. But they weren't so they can't.

It is pretty clear that what Harry wants is universal approval and zero criticism from either the press or anyone else.

No, you’re right. Leveson II is still cancelled. Harry’s achieved nothing except using up a significant amount of court time and costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money. He’s supposed to pay much of it himself but, we’ll wait and see if he does.

Maybe Pa will bail him out. It seems to be what monarchs do for unused spares.