The Royal Family #8

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
that1 said:
The super wealthy don’t stay super wealthy by giving away gifts!

They’re all the same.

Even Buckingham Palace made headlines for trying to benefit from a fuel scheme designed to help poorer families. BP had to be told diplomatically that it might not look good

www.independent.co.uk

Queen tried to use state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace

Ministers were asked if money earmarked for schools, hospitals and low-income families could be used to meet soaring fuel bills
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

Then there was the tax dodging scandal, where the duchy of Lancaster (essentially the queens business portfolio) made some dubious investments in panama.

https://www.12ft.io/https://www.the...vate-estate-invested-offshore-paradise-papers

Then there’s the duchy of Cornwall - Prince Charles portfolio. He didn’t want to lose rents to used privilege to veto laws that allowed his tenants to buy the homes they lived in.

https://www.12ft.io/https://www.the...laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes

You could spend hours reading stories like the above. They aren’t unusual. And they are only the tip of the iceburg, I wonder how much more doesn’t get reported on.

The wealthy in this country, hoard on to it like nobodies business. Every time I see Kate in a pretty dress, I remember that the money indirectly comes from pretty awful and immoral practices. The family are less relatable and wholesome IMO when they factor in the kind of practices and abuses of power they are indirectly involved in.
Click to expand...
The worst thing is that the courts, Parliament and the Press are complicit in allowing this, and allowing it to be covered up. I doubt an elected president and their family would be allowed to do so much without scrutiny.
 
NonDairyQueen said:
The worst thing is that the courts, Parliament and the Press are complicit in allowing this, and allowing it to be covered up. I doubt an elected president and their family would be allowed to do so much without scrutiny.
Click to expand...
President Putin is elected and reportedly the richest man in the world. Compared to Trump or many royal families our royal family are relative paupers.

The Duchy of Cornwall also provides permanent rented accomodation for those on relatively low incomes, keeping that is actually a good thing.

You also obviously missed the point that any plans the Queen had to heat Buckingham Palace with fuel allowance were vetoed anyway
 
TYL159 said:
President Putin is elected and reportedly the richest man in the world. Compared to Trump or many royal families our royal family are relative paupers.

The Duchy of Cornwall also provides permanent rented accomodation for those on relatively low incomes, keeping that is actually a good thing.

You also obviously missed the point that any plans the Queen had to heat Buckingham Palace with fuel allowance were vetoed anyway
Click to expand...
President Putin is a dodgy virtual dictator. Hardly a valid comparison compared to any number of Liberal Democratc Republics. The Duchy of Cornwall has some dodgy tax affairs where Charles pays hardly any tax relative to his income from it. The Palace had a bare faced cheek asking for the Buck House money in the first place, and it's only because they were advised it would look bad that they withdrew the claim. Not that it was morally objectionable. There have been occasions where they have had work done and not paid invoices because they think people should be doing work for them for free.
 
NonDairyQueen said:
The worst thing is that the courts, Parliament and the Press are complicit in allowing this, and allowing it to be covered up. I doubt an elected president and their family would be allowed to do so much without scrutiny.
Click to expand...
That’s pretty naive. I wouldn’t say covered up anyway because we know about it and they get their hand slapped. There is scrutiny. Not in tabloids but if you read good journalistic outlets you find lots of criticism. If you look into all the elected heads of state that are not monarchs in Europe in the last couple of years you will find enough scandals that made them at least trip. They are neither better nor worse in that regard.
 
Redyellowgreen said:
That purple suit 😍😍😍 the purple colour is amazing
Click to expand...
She looks so much better with the slim pant style. And I do love it when she puts her hair back in a ponytail. Her long curls are amazing (don’t care if there are extensions or hair pieces in it) but they sometimes swamp her outfits.

Anyways888 said:
The point was Meghan didn't need to have been brought up at all. Nothing about Kate's eyebrows scream Meghan.
Click to expand...
Agree. That’s tabloids for you, everyone. They LOVE to create drama and connections where are absolutely none. Her eyebrows look like at any other evening engagements. And of course they had to bring up Meghan. It brings clicks and engagement. Fans will use it to prove Kate copies her, critics will say it’s a ridiculous claim. The tabloids use them for their own gain. There are no real sympathies for one side or the other. If it would help them to trash Kate and build up M instead they would without thinking about it twice. It’s opportunistic.
 
Last edited:
Reraciara said:
A while ago Buzzfees collected headlines and compared them to how Megan and Kate were treated by the press and its eye opening.I thunk the press treatment Megan received contributes to people's attitudes about her.

www.buzzfeednews.com

Here Are 20 Headlines Comparing Meghan Markle To Kate Middleton That Might Show Why She And Prince Harry Are Cutting Off Royal Reporters

Over the years, Meghan has been shamed for the same things for which her sister-in-law, Kate, has been praised.
www.buzzfeednews.com www.buzzfeednews.com

I understand that Kate had her own fair share of troubles but it was nothing like the level Megan still gets
Click to expand...


Ugh that buzzfeed article grinds my gears. It’s plastered all over Twitter.

For one, it isn’t objective. Its clearly set out with an objective to demonstrate how awful Meghan has it in the press. The article has been very selective as such. “Buzzfeed” isn’t exactly a highly respected or well established news source.

Secondly, Kate has spent the best part of a decade as a working royal. Prior to that she was still widely known and reported on as Wills girlfriend. So that’s what, 20 years of news coverage? Compared to less than 2 years Meghan had, as a working royal.

If you really wanted an objective comparison, you’d have to research _every_ headline then categorise it into “negative” or “positive” then maybe a neutral one for good measure.

Then you’d have to compare the percentage of favourable to less favourable headlines to decide if Kate or Meghan was treated better or worse than the other.

I’m not a fan of either, and if you want to criticise headlines then I’m all for it.

But that article is… crap. Kate has had a ton of negative headlines. Everything from “waity katey” to being called lazy.

TYL159 said:
President Putin is elected and reportedly the richest man in the world. Compared to Trump or many royal families our royal family are relative paupers.

The Duchy of Cornwall also provides permanent rented accomodation for those on relatively low incomes, keeping that is actually a good thing.

You also obviously missed the point that any plans the Queen had to heat Buckingham Palace with fuel allowance were vetoed anyway
Click to expand...

Russia and the U.K. aren’t comparable. At all. Russia is a democracy nominally only. The U.K. has a working democracy, that’s been established over centuries.

“The duchy of Cornwall helps some people, so that makes the exploitation ok”
Did you read the part in the article that demonstrated how residents weren’t happy with the set up?

If it was vetoed isn’t the point. The fact they applied at all, with the Queen being one of the richest people in the U.K., makes you wonder what else they’ve applied for successfully.

Great_Kate said:
That’s pretty naive. I wouldn’t say covered up anyway because we know about it and they get their hand slapped. There is scrutiny. Not in tabloids but if you read good journalistic outlets you find lots of criticism. If you look into all the elected heads of state that are not monarchs in Europe in the last couple of years you will find enough scandals that made them at least trip. They are neither better nor worse in that regard.
Click to expand...

It’s extremely naive to assume the press report openly on the RF. they don’t. The royal family have huge influence over law courts and in parliament. The whole judiciary system we have, refers to the head of state.

The royal family are able to cover things up very easily, if they wish to. Why do you think they are so arrogant about it? The press get given tidbits that often don’t make headlines or go much further. To make it appear like the RF are being held to account.
 
Last edited:
Also Kate got a lot of headlines about her body or about her social class (and not nice ones). She was also presented as a social-climber. She also got hunted - much more than Meghan in fact. Not saying Meghan didn't get bad headlines but I thought tactless during the Oprah's interview to say that Kate just got "rude" headlines. In any case being a woman in the spotlight can be very harsh and there shoudn't be a competition who got it worse. Tabloids will use different angles to tackle a woman, can it be racism (for women of colour), classicism, sexism, body shaming, fake rumours etc. They want to attract people to read those articles and will use whatever they could. Many women got it very bad in the press, like Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse Naomi Campbell, Michelle Obama or Kim Kardashian - the only thing they have in common is to be women.

And of course it is mentally challenging to be attacked on a daily basis and I don't deny what Meghan must have been through (and still go through today - being out of the brf is not a magical cure). I really hope things will change because it's not ok how women can be treated by the press.
 
that1 said:
Ugh that buzzfeed article grinds my gears. It’s plastered all over Twitter.

For one, it isn’t objective. Its clearly set out with an objective to demonstrate how awful Meghan has it in the press. The article has been very selective as such. “Buzzfeed” isn’t exactly a highly respected or well established news source.

Secondly, Kate has spent the best part of a decade as a working royal. Prior to that she was still widely known and reported on as Wills girlfriend. So that’s what, 20 years of news coverage? Compared to less than 2 years Meghan had, as a working royal.

If you really wanted an objective comparison, you’d have to research _every_ headline then categorise it into “negative” or “positive” then maybe a neutral one for good measure.

Then you’d have to compare the percentage of favourable to less favourable headlines to decide if Kate or Meghan was treated better or worse than the other.

I’m not a fan of either, and if you want to criticise headlines then I’m all for it.

But that article is… crap. Kate has had a ton of negative headlines. Everything from “waity katey” to being called lazy.



Russia and the U.K. aren’t comparable. At all. Russia is a democracy nominally only. The U.K. has a working democracy, that’s been established over centuries.

“The duchy of Cornwall helps some people, so that makes the exploitation ok”
Did you read the part in the article that demonstrated how residents weren’t happy with the set up?

If it was vetoed isn’t the point. The fact they applied at all, with the Queen being one of the richest people in the U.K., makes you wonder what else they’ve applied for successfully.



It’s extremely naive to assume the press report openly on the RF. they don’t. The royal family have huge influence over law courts and in parliament. The whole judiciary system we have, refers to the head of state.

The royal family are able to cover things up very easily, if they wish to. Why do you think they are so arrogant about it? The press get given tidbits that often don’t make headlines or go much further. To make it appear like the RF are being held to account.
Click to expand...
If some residents weren't happy and had enough income and savings to buy their own property they could move out of a Duchy property and give it to someone on a lower income who actually needed it then
 
TYL159 said:
If some residents weren't happy and had enough income and savings to buy their own property they could move out of a Duchy property and give it to someone on a lower income who actually needed it then
Click to expand...

I think you’re confusing right to buy in this circumstance with the commonly used right to buy people in social housing use. It’s not quite the same. Charlie isn’t running a charitable cause here. And people should never be forced from their homes because of someone’s greed IMO.

The article doesn’t go into full details but from what I can tell, they own the properties they just don’t own the free holds. They have to pay rent to the duchy of Cornwall in lieu of ownership - aka a leasehold.

They can’t sell it, because of issues with the leasehold as a direct result of the restrictions. And less tangibley this is impacting on the value of the home.

The issue here isn’t necessarily just that Charlie isn’t selling the freehold, it’s that he’s using “a secretive procedure to vet three parliamentary acts” and essentially getting preferential treatment.

If that isn’t corrupt I don’t know what is. You have a man who is already hugely wealthy and influential, happily exploiting the plebs for financial gain.
 
Last edited:
I like the name. Google says the name has Italian origins:

Sienna- Latin. From the Italian city of Siena, which gave its name to a reddish shade of brown. The name itself is possibly influenced by the word sienna, meaning "orange-red".

I wonder if the child has the same red hair as it's mother and grandmother.
 
Last edited:
Another Royal wedding but it doesn’t look like the BRF sent anyone to represent them - isn’t it usually Edward and Sophie?

https://www.12ft.io/https://www.dai...lfriend-Italian-writer-Rebecca-Bettarini.html
 
@thegirlscout yes, that would have been a prime Wessex job. But I actually don’t think any bigger European houses went. Maybe because his claim is a bit weak? Maybe because it’s still a touchy subject? I always wonder why some ex-European royals make the cut (the Greek for example) and some don’t. It seems there are no ties between the abolished Russian royals (or any nobility) to their counterparts. Which isn’t completely surprising. German abolished nobility stay among themselves and only the ones that are closely related to reigning monarchies turn up at bigger events internationally. Which iIrc is true for all the abolished nobles. And I think many countries have been kinder to their aristocracy after stripping them than Russia.

I like Sienna well enough. It’s neither out there nor was it obvious. I love their way of announcement. And I (for several personal reasons) love the name Elizabeth.
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top