Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The king and queen living off of tax payers money while poverty is still an issue in England. So the blood line continues and the tax payers are ripped off by the so called Royals? Are we not all equal?
And the response to that is that he certainly doesn't mind taking money from the taxpayers to fund his lifestyle as if he was king.
Let him renounce his royalty and taxpayer stipend, and donate all his inherited riches to the poor of the world. Riches taken from the poor in the first place. Then you might have something.
Like I said, talk is cheap.
He doesn't live like a king. He lives like a prince.
It is going to be a Royal Wessing, which usually means Westminster Abbey, although in Princess Diana's case it was St Paul's Cathedral.
It also means lots of pagentry, horses, soldiers, carriages with dignitaries and leaders from around the world. Prince Harry being a former Army Officer, and does some great charity work involving the military as well as heling to establish the Invictus Games.
So Trump's absence could be an embarrassment.
While it may be a royal wedding, it will *NOT* be a state function; as such there is no need nor requirement to invite foreign heads of state.
The Obamas became very close personally to both Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry over the years of that administration. In fact the Obamas were invited to spend time with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge at their home. Prince Harry worked closely with Michelle Obama on a few common issues, and even came to the United States and visited.
Just making a short list it is easy to see why at least the younger generation in RF would take to Obama. They share a common bond over a wide range of issues; LGBT rights/equality, humanitarian issues such as hunger, violence against women, and so forth.
Prince William and then Kate Middleton went out of their way to invite a transgender and gay person to their wedding (IIRC they were friends from college and or PW's military career). Prince Harry has at least on one occasion stepped in to stop gay bashing by members of a group he was with and or those under his command during time in military.
Whereas His Orangeness is a philistine, brute and quite common/coarse.
We know this is the only thing that you really wanted to say about it.
I am proud to be an American, a Hillary Clinton deplorable and yes "common".
I suggest a read of the Declaration of Independence. That is clear enough what the American forefathers thought of British Royalty. I'm with them.
Well then you likely seem to be in the minority, as Americans have been fawning over royalty since the Gilded Age and haven't really let up since.
Now for the first time since Wallis Simpson an American woman has broken into the ranks of British royalty, don't expect this story/coverage to die down anytime soon.
I’m pretty sure they live off their own family money. Their ancestors were rich as hell and agreed to let England take charge of their estate in exchange for being named the Royal Family. Something like that. I’m sure someone around here knows the details and will correct whatever part I got wrong. Anyway part of the deal was a percentage of the interest goes to prop up the family and the government keeps the rest. Plus the Queen (?) has some personal funds - likely all of them do. So they’re not exactly living off the government, their money helped create that government.
That said I don’t give a flying crap who gets invited to Harry’s wedding. Big whoop.
I’m pretty sure they live off their own family money. ..
Incorrect.
But you are correct about their inherited riches. Much of it coming from the North American slave trade and the subjugation of 100s of millions on the Indian subcontinent. Why the left in the USA chooses to ignore this, is beyond me.
But you are correct about their inherited riches. Much of it coming from the North American slave trade and the subjugation of 100s of millions on the Indian subcontinent. Why the left in the USA chooses to ignore this, is beyond me.
So how is it not their own money, in the sense they live off the interest on the estate they gave England (and occupy some of the buildings that were part of that estate). That was the deal. The live off the proceeds of their own estate, and that estate is managed by England, who takes the lion’s share of the proceeds.
I’m not trying to be snarky here, I’m just trying to understand the difference.
The left does not like the Royal family. They’ve been hated in progressive circles for years. LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
