It’s interesting how positive headlines about Harry coming in from the cold are being used to mask negative ones about Sarah Ferguson

[Inotherwordspleasebetrue]

This is blatant speculation but I’m beginning to think that Harry was right all along and that the Buckingham Palace press machine uses stories about the lower ranking royals royals to protect the core of the monarchy.

So, on this occasion, to distract from damaging stories about Sarah Ferguson’s e-mails and back-tracking with Epstein, especially given the Yorks recent prominent appearance at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral, my theory is that the Palace has given a tacit nod to a story about Harry coming back in from the cold, knowing that any story about Harry or Meghan will immediately hit the top slot and overshadow anything else?

Buckingham Palace must think people are very dim, or rely on the fact that they swallow this propaganda whole without questioning it?

Of course this time Harry will be happy because the headlines are favourable to him. And on a human level everyone loves a story about a reconciliation between father and son. But generally I think the British public are being played by all of this spin to cover up the type of story about financial murkiness that Andrew Lownie uncovered and wrote about in his latest book?

All of which leads me to wondering why the Royal Family and the men in grey suits are once again protecting Andrew and Sarah? Is it simply because Andrew is the King’s brother, and therefore close to the Crown, or is it because Andrew’s financial dealings are not much different to what most of them do in the RF, but just a bit more blatant and extreme?

Who knows what the truth is any more?

I imagined you wouldn't like it given your MN name. Please see above, I've linked something you might like better fingers crossed.

I'll keep dragging it out if it's OK with you 🤣

@EllesmereP
Great minds think alike!

I think you're proving the same point. Why are our Royal Family so expensive? Its not necessarily the banquets and the pomp ( the things that benefit us in terms of diplomacy etc) so what is it? Is it just their enormous staff? The numerous houses? Where does the money go?

Ahh the Guardian that totally unbiased publication. Anyway it was explained to you on the other thread the difference regarding costs, up to you if you choose to ignore it, you can always refer back to refresh your memory. Keep dragging it up by all means, whatever floats your boat.

I missed the 'other thread' - maybe you can give me a quick refresher on what the British royal family offers that justifies its costs being in a different league to other royal families? Or if you feel these figures are wrong where I can find an accurate cost benefit analysis?

He drove him to church on one occasion as instructed by KC .
What other occasions has W driven A around and did you see the frosty look W gave A at the DOK’s funeral ?

I think it must be the vast number of properties!

Thanks, will do

What was it? All I saw was 'we are a bigger population' but we still only have one Royal Family, and should only be 'supporting' 8 people to do not that much. It doesn't matter how large the population is. They don't have to go around visiting everyone! When William decides to only concentrate on homelessness or whatever he's going to do will the money go down?

There were other photos where he was chatting away quite happily. And he's driven him to church publicly at least twice.

That's not true. Google it.

Thanks. Interesting article. Still a bit light on sources and I find it interesting that in one sentence they talk about the Sovereign Grant, which is a set proportion of the taxes received from the Crown Estate given back as an alternative to the old Civil Most, and in the next sentence they say the taxpayer gave them the money.

I'm fully in agreement that royal finances need a look at and changes made but a paragraph can't really deal with the complexity of those finances adequately. Instead they start by saying it's hard to compare royal families and them produce simple paragraphs doing just that. I expect more from The Guardian, well I used to but these days they aren't the paper they were.

At least you've read it! Some just wouldn't !

I’d like to know too!

The others certainly didn’t spend £72 million on a coronation which imho was unnecessarily opulent, given the cost of living crisis, and particularly after the country had spent £162 million on the Queen’s funeral!

Most of the European monarchs who were sensible enough to abdicate and hand over the reins to their offspring, made do with a simple church surface and didn’t lumber their tax payers with a massive bill!

It would be useful to have breakdowns of official items rather than a total. For example, security is a massive expense with so many Heads of State, is it included or separate? Do we have to invite all those world leaders? Does it help us diplomatically? Do we pay for their accommodation?

If we want to lower the price of events it helps to know where the money is going or we are just whistling in the dark.

Incidentally I read recently that the King wanted a smaller coronation but the government wanted the spectacle. Does anyone know if that is true?

It's interesting - I've had a quick scan of the Guardian article and I do think they are including expenditure for the UK that is not included for other royals to distort the figures (principally the £34.5m refurb costs for Buckingham Palace) but it does still come out higher. Not enough detail in the article to know whether it's a fair comparison but I think it's a conversation we should have as a country - it's just that every time it's raised we have the same calls for stripping titles/get rid of banquets etc. We've already done these things, or we're moving towards them, and they don't actually save us any money. It's not that simple.

Security is is not included. And is thought to total very many millions

I thought Charles wanted it ..surely anyone who is willing to go behind a curtain and put a very odd looking vest on, must do!

Not sure what Meghan has done to object to except live her life outside the RF on her own terms. She and Harry seem blissfully happy

What about claiming the RF are racist? It was inflammatory and then later PH denied that it was said. What about claiming they had married before the actual wedding, which was yet another untruth.

She is now a mediocre influencer..good luck to her as she has progressed her career from being an actress in a TV cable series but she isn't a Royal.

I do think they are including expenditure for the UK that is not included for other royals to distort the figures (principally the £34.5m refurb costs for Buckingham Palace) but it does still come out higher.

Without going back on the article, I thought they mentioned Buck House refurb?

The article is 2 years old and the SG is increasing by 48% next year anyway so our royals will be well ahead in the expensive stakes

Who cares? The wedding thing is irrelevant but did get a lot of ppl going!

Some private vows in a garden is hardly crime of the century!

Sarah Ferguson has been dropped as patron for a children’s charity. This sort of story gladdens my heart.
Children’s hospice drops Sarah Ferguson as patron over Epstein emails

https://www.thetimes.com/article/c52797ae-84f4-4bf1-b9da-90c604ad7913?shareToken=df751d0dc14b87d707b70a1013faad91

No but her emails are VERY telling. She and Andrew are tight. He was close to the paedofile. Now we find very inappropriate emails from Fergie to the paedofile

that’s relevant.

That’s Jack Straw and Patricia Hewitt who were responsible.

www.gov.uk/government/news/number-10-press-briefing-morning-from-7-march-2011

The racism allegations came via Harry, probably because of his victim complex. She's making some money for the family while Harry is spending it. She has been dumped with the Royal Family's petulant man child and she still gets far more vilification than he does because apparently she has led him astray. Just like it was Wallis Simpson's fault for wholly unsuitable traitor King Edward Viii. Because a family of men who are weak, easily led and simple really epitomise the kind of family that we should hand loads of unearned influence to...

That’s a good idea.

And William would be entitled to stand for election. As would Catherine!

But long-term UK residents only, please.

And the Commonwealth Realms countries would transition to their own arrangements.