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.
Um, because I dislike Meghan (and all malignant narcissists).
Right, but the ultimate narcissist, (i.e. "Queen" Elizabeth), you support, which is why your statements can't be taken seriously. The British tax payers are forced to fund her lifestyle (even though her networth is estimated to be in the billions). Again, your dislike of Meghan's "narcissism," is not adding up, if you have no dislike of the monarchy and what it ultimately represents.
Well, I don't like the monarchy. The "Queen," has a lot of resources/land, but hordes everything for herself and immediate heirs. Why is she not sharing those resources w/ the general public? Also, why do British tax payers have to fund her family's privileged lifestyle, when they have more than enough resources at their disposal to buy whatever they need and want.
Instead of disliking Meghan, why not redirect your focus on the systems and institutions that create wide-spread socioeconomic inequalities...
The Royals have very little spent on them compared to the US President and US politicians, and the same is true of EU leaders and politicians.
Most income comes from the Crown Estate (which is not the private property of the monarch or run by the monarch) and not the taxpayer and the majority of income spent is in relation to the upkeep of properties owned by the nation (not the Monarch) including the Royal Palaces, some of which are open to the public and generate money. All Crown Estate profits go to Treasury for the benefit of the nation as a whole. As for the Sovereign Grant it only accounts for around a quarter of the Royal estates running costs.
Prince Charles's income mainly comes from the Duchy of Cornwall and not tax payers money and Prince Charles pays taxes like anyone else, as does the Queen.
The RAF aircraft used by Royalty are shared with the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers.
There is the prospect for some future reform, in which only the immediate working Royal family are given titles and Prince Charles is supportive of this.
This would mean the stripping of Harry and Meghan of their titles, as they are not working Royals and no titles for their children as they are not immediate family.
I think this is fair enough, and it should be noted that Prince Edwards children do not have titles, nor do Princess Anne's children, so the idea that Archie should automatically receive a title is nonsense, and also has nothing to do with race.
Princess Anne's children have job outside of the Royal family, as do Prince Andrew's children, as will Prince Edwards children, and they do not rely on taxpayers.
Prince William and Harry both served in the military, and William also had a job as a helicopter air ambulance pilot prior to talking up a permanent Royal role.
Last edited by Brave New World; 03-14-2021 at 08:47 AM..
Um, because I dislike Meghan (and all malignant narcissists).
According to both Harry and Markle, the Queen has been extremely supportive and nice to them.
The alleged racism was also nothing to do with the Queen or Prince Philip.
In terms of what has been alleged, they suggest someone inquired as to how dark the baby would be, which given the fact that Markle isn't even black (at best she looks tanned) and Harry is a pale ginger wouldn't be very dark at all.
They also alleged that Archie would not be given a royal title due to racism, which once again is nonsense.
Archie is white for a start and secondly as has already been pointed out titles are not given to great grandchildren, indeed most of the Queen's grand children don't have titles.
Princess Anne's children Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips don't have titles, whilst Prince Edwards children merely have reduced titles in relation to Viscount and Lady.
There are plans to reform the 'Royals', and to only allow immediate family members who are working royals to hold titles, something which seems very sensible.
As for the security, if Harry and Meghan want to pay for security, then Britain will provide it, however why should hard working British taxpayers pay for armed British police to fly to California to protect none working former Royals, who according to recent media reports are now worth over £100 million ($140 million USD).
It also should be noted that British police have no legal powers in the US, and the Armed Royalty Security would not be able to carry guns on guard duties in the US. Foreign Armed close protection officers are only allowed to carry guns on agreed visits by world leaders and royalty and not as some type of permanent guarding duty, and this includes the US Secret Service overseas.
In relation to hiring armed private US security why should Britain pay for it in relation to former non-working royals.
The fact that these two were playing the racism card to Oprah Winfrey who is worth $2.7 billion USD and is a neighbour in California beggars belief.
Poor Meghan, poor Harry and poor Oprah, having to deal with all those hardships in life.
Do they not realise how patronising there comments seem to ordinary people, who now by and large dislike them and want them stripped of their titles according to recent polls.
The narcissism, entitlement and privilege that these two have displayed is stomach churning.
The Royals have very little spent on them compared to the US President and US politicians, and the same is true of EU leaders and politicians.
In what world is the U.S. President comparable on any level to the British monarchy?
The President receives a salary of around $400K/year and has their security and immediate family's security paid for by U.S. Tax payers. Additionally, their housing and food expenses are paid for at the Whitehouse and their travel expenses are also covered. But let's be honest, the President has bona fide job duties (which includes serving as chief of state, chief executive, chief administrator, chief diplomat, commander in chief, chief legislator, and party chief) and is voted in by the American public, every four years. Some wealthy Presidents have actually elected to forgo receiving any compensation.
Quote:
Most income comes from the Crown Estate (which is not run or owned by the Queen) and not the taxpayer and the majority of income spent is in relation to the upkeep of properties owned by the nation including the Royal Palaces, some of which are open to the public and generate money.
No money should come from taxpayers whatsoever to fund Elizabeth and her heirs' lifestyles. Also, human beings shouldn't bow to other human beings, because we are all mere mortals and not superior to anyone, simply by birthright.
Quote:
This would mean the stripping of Harry and Meghan of their titles, as they are not working Royals and no titles for their children as they are not immediate family.
I personally think it's best for them not to have any titles or be linked in any capacity to the monarchy at this point, because it is a stifling and deplorable institution. As far as I'm concerned, the best gift that Harry and Meghan gave Archie was a chance to grow up with some semblance of normalcy, far removed from the British tabloids and wicked British monarchy.
In what world is the U.S. President comparable on any level to the British monarchy?
The President receives a salary of around $400K/year and has their security and immediate family's security paid for by U.S. Tax payers. Additionally, their housing and food expenses are paid for at the Whitehouse and their travel expenses are also covered. But let's be honest, the President has bona fide job duties (which includes serving as chief of state, chief executive, chief administrator, chief diplomat, commander in chief, chief legislator, and party chief) and is voted in by the American public, every four years. Some wealthy Presidents have actually elected to forgo receiving any compensation.
The Monarch is Head of State, Head of the Armed Forces (Commander in Chief), Head of the Church of England, Head of the Commonwealth and has an important role in Government. Indeed she has regular meetings with the Prime Minister and is required to scrutinise and sign documents (red boxes) every day.
The Queen is the major UK representative on the world stage, and the Queen hosts State visits and does numerous other such work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gia_inNova
No money should come from taxpayers whatsoever to fund Elizabeth and her heirs' lifestyles. Also, human beings shouldn't bow to other human beings, because we are all mere mortals and not superior to anyone, simply by birthright.
I personally think it's best for them not to have any titles or be linked in any capacity to the monarchy at this point, because it is a stifling and deplorable institution. As far as I'm concerned, the best gift that Harry and Meghan gave Archie was a chance to grow up with some semblance of normalcy, far removed from the British tabloids and wicked British monarchy.
I think the term you personally, fairly much sums up your post.
You are entitled to your view, however it's unlikely to change anything, the Monarchy has survived the Magna Carta,, Civil War, the Restoration, The Glorious Revolution and numerous events and reforms, and is an important part of British history and culture.
The oath of of allegiance for the armed forces and other uniformed bodies in the UK is the following -
I... swear by Almighty God (do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the (admirals / generals/ air officers) and officers set over me. (So help me God.)
Listen, if you were pregnant , married to a Prince and living in a castle, so miserable that you thought of suicide, just wait until the American media, people get done with you. What a spoiled brat.
Piers Morgan is right, you can't compare Meghan to Diana. Diana was 19 when she got to the Royals, Meghan is a 39 yr old divorcee! Not innocent at all.
Not a fan. Loved Diana , however.
The Monarch is Head of State, Head of the Armed Forces (Commander in Chief), Head of the Church of England, Head of the Commonwealth and has an important role in Government. Indeed she has regular meetings with the Prime Minister and is required to scrutinise and sign documents (red boxes) every day.
The Queen is the major UK representative on the world stage, and the Queen hosts State visits and does numerous other such work.
The head of the British government, is the Prime Minister. Your "Queen" serves as a symbol of the country. Your very "symbol," is rooted in socio-economic inequality. It's not hard to figure out why the class system, is a quintessential element of British life.
There is no comparison between your "Queen" and the U.S. President, on any level.
Quote:
You are entitled to your view, however it's unlikely to change anything, the Monarchy has survived the Magna Carta,, Civil War, the Restoration, The Glorious Revolution and numerous events and reforms, and is an important part of British history and culture.
You're correct. Nothing will change because the British public have been brainwashed to believe that there should be a monarchy in place. That's your nation, but the values that the British hold dear, in terms of supporting a monarchy that is appointed by birthright, are not the values that America holds dear.
Meghan made a grave mistake by marrying into that family. It's good that she course corrected very quickly and left Britain...
The head of the British government, is the Prime Minister. Your "Queen" serves as a symbol of the country. Your very "symbol," is rooted in socio-economic inequality. It's not hard to figure out why the class system, is a quintessential element of British life.
There is no comparison between your "Queen" and the U.S. President, on any level.
You're correct. Nothing will change because the British public have been brainwashed to believe that there should be a monarchy in place. That's your nation, but the values that the British hold dear, in terms of supporting a monarchy that is appointed by birthright, are not the values that America holds dear.
Meghan made a grave mistake by marrying into that family. It's good that she course corrected very quickly and left Britain...
You sound like you have quite the axe to grind. Why should you care so much about the values the British hold dear? Perhaps worry about your own American values and whether or not you practice what you preach.
Are they still re-running the 2 hour commercial for Megan and Oprah? I certainly didn't waste time watching that little show, but I'm having a wonderful time following the discussions about it.
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.
