British Expats
Page 3 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Maple Leaf (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/)
-   -   Go for it Harry marry Meghan. (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/go-harry-marry-meghan-887683/)

Lorna at Vicenza Nov 28th 2017 4:56 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Good luck to them. Bloody hard enough these days to sustain any marriage let alone one that will be in full view of the press, criticised, scrutinised and analysed.

Being papped might seem glamorous at first, but I'm sure it gets very tiring very quickly.

Oakvillian Nov 28th 2017 5:06 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12390405)
Pardon... so all those hangers on who receive the dole from the civil list, and the grace and favour homes, and the cash ladled out to the family itself and the police who'll be out if force to keep the riff raff at arms length, all paid for by Charles et al from their own pockets? I don't think so.

But it is a touchy subject and one recognised by the note on the card.
Surely not this tired old chestnut again. I'm no huge royalist, but there have been countless reports and studies that very clearly demonstrate that the net financial benefit to the UK of all the royalty stuff (including, presumably, the thousands of tourists who will be spending their hard-earned in Windsor next May as they hope for a glimpse of the Ginger One and his new bride) far outweighs the cost of the Civil List etc.

Shard Nov 28th 2017 5:12 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Originally Posted by Lorna at Vicenza (Post 12390472)
Good luck to them. Bloody hard enough these days to sustain any marriage let alone one that will be in full view of the press, criticised, scrutinised and analysed.

Being papped might seem glamorous at first, but I'm sure it gets very tiring very quickly.
They have age (and a bit of experience) on their side, so I think they will be fine.

Shard Nov 28th 2017 5:16 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 12390484)
Surely not this tired old chestnut again. I'm no huge royalist, but there have been countless reports and studies that very clearly demonstrate that the net financial benefit to the UK of all the royalty stuff (including, presumably, the thousands of tourists who will be spending their hard-earned in Windsor next May as they hope for a glimpse of the Ginger One and his new bride) far outweighs the cost of the Civil List etc.
Some polished chesnuts, perhaps?

Oakvillian Nov 28th 2017 5:32 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12390495)
Some polished chesnuts, perhaps?
Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Even the notoriously anti-monarchist Independent was a bit sniffy about some dodgy maths by anti-monarchist campaign groups such as Republic a couple of years ago. The general consensus, as far as there is such a thing, seems to be more or less in line with the Huffington Post's report here Royals Vs Republicans: Does The Royal Family Really Pay For Itself? which suggests that the net economic benefit in 2015 was somewhere in the region of 750 million pounds.

Shard Nov 28th 2017 5:40 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 12390511)
Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Even the notoriously anti-monarchist Independent was a bit sniffy about some dodgy maths by anti-monarchist campaign groups such as Republic a couple of years ago. The general consensus, as far as there is such a thing, seems to be more or less in line with the Huffington Post's report here Royals Vs Republicans: Does The Royal Family Really Pay For Itself? which suggests that the net economic benefit in 2015 was somewhere in the region of 750 million pounds.
I'm not particularly anti-monarchist, but I am highly dubious about any attempt to gauge their economic value. As you know, it all depends on the assumptions made, and the highly inexact science of asking tourists and tat-purchasers on their motives.

Jingsamichty Nov 28th 2017 5:55 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
I saw an article today which suggests they may move into a 7.5 million pound house after they get married.

Would it kill them to show a bit of understanding that, for 95% of the population who pay for their lifestyle, life is pretty damned hard? Do they really NEED to live the pampered lives they do?

Anyway, the very best of luck to them as individuals, and hell mend them all as an institution.

dave_j Nov 28th 2017 6:18 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 12390484)
Surely not this tired old chestnut again. I'm no huge royalist, but there have been countless reports and studies that very clearly demonstrate that the net financial benefit to the UK of all the royalty stuff (including, presumably, the thousands of tourists who will be spending their hard-earned in Windsor next May as they hope for a glimpse of the Ginger One and his new bride) far outweighs the cost of the Civil List etc.
Can you ever imagine a study being published that would indicate that the royals are ripping off the country? And those supposed benefits, it's a little like goodwill valuation when selling a business, unquantifiable but maximised to suit the purpose.

Shard Nov 28th 2017 6:25 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 12390523)
I saw an article today which suggests they may move into a 7.5 million pound house after they get married.

Would it kill them to show a bit of understanding that, for 95% of the population who pay for their lifestyle, life is pretty damned hard? Do they really NEED to live the pampered lives they do?

Anyway, the very best of luck to them as individuals, and hell mend them all as an institution.
If it's in London, 7.5 MN is not that grand a place, considering their status.

Jingsamichty Nov 28th 2017 7:15 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12390540)
If it's in London, 7.5 MN is not that grand a place, considering their status.
Not London, but the Cotswolds.

Why should they assume that luxury is a default status?

christmasoompa Nov 28th 2017 7:27 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 12390523)
Do they really NEED to live the pampered lives they do?
I'll stick with my life thanks, theirs is about as far from a pampered life as I can imagine. All the palaces and money in the world couldn't make up for the job they do and the life they lead IMO.

Novocastrian Nov 28th 2017 8:46 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Originally Posted by christmasoompa (Post 12390578)
I'll stick with my life thanks, theirs is about as far from a pampered life as I can imagine. All the palaces and money in the world couldn't make up for the job they do and the life they lead IMO.
I suppose that's a quote from Robert Mugabe? Or perhaps Grace?

Jingsamichty Nov 28th 2017 9:27 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Originally Posted by Shard (Post 12390540)
If it's in London, 7.5 MN is not that grand a place, considering their status.
Oh - remember that they will also be given a substantial multi-bedroom central London "apartment" on top of their main country residence.

Most of us realise that Downton Abbey is just a TV programme. But for some it is still a way of life, and WE pay for it!!!!

Oink Nov 28th 2017 9:33 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 12390662)
Oh - remember that they will also be given a substantial multi-bedroom central London "apartment" on top of their main country residence.

Most of us realise that Downton Abbey is just a TV programme. But for some it is still a way of life, and WE pay for it!!!!
I think the British people would be for more willing to splash the cash on a house for them if it was somewhere like Pitcairn Island or the Tibetan plateau so we never have to see or hear about them ever again. :thumbup:

BritInParis Nov 28th 2017 9:37 am
Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 
Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12390405)
Pardon... so all those hangers on who receive the dole from the civil list, and the grace and favour homes, and the cash ladled out to the family itself and the police who'll be out if force to keep the riff raff at arms length, all paid for by Charles et al from their own pockets? I don't think so.

But it is a touchy subject and one recognised by the note on the card.
Good going given that the Civil List was abolished in 2011.


All times are GMT -12. The time now is 8:17 am.
Page 3 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.