Harry and Meghan quit

fandango

Legionreturns said:

Wow @fandango ...show us on the doll where Harry and Meghan hurt you. It's clearly left you scarred for life! 

Scarred indeed. From the first time I watched Suits. But I kept watching. But not because of Meghan. I thought Sarah Rafferty and Gina Torres were far more alluring.

Snags

fandango said:

Legionreturns said:

Wow @fandango ...show us on the doll where Harry and Meghan hurt you. It's clearly left you scarred for life! 

Scarred indeed. From the first time I watched Suits. But I kept watching. But not because of Meghan. I thought Sarah Rafferty and Gina Torres were far more alluring.

You didn't watch it for the plots and the quality story telling then?

fretmeister

Link to some of the court documents that goes some way to understanding their decision.

https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/mail/2020/1/10/kv913pun97mbewgk1hodcipttt1wfj?format=amp&__twitter_impression=true

Fretwired

fretmeister said:

Link to some of the court documents that goes some way to understanding their decision.

https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/mail/2020/1/10/kv913pun97mbewgk1hodcipttt1wfj?format=amp&__twitter_impression=true

Wow .. very interesting. As you say goes some way to explaining what's going on.

thecolourbox

Not impressed by the constant ginger prejudice in this thread and the wider discussions about this. I'm not ginger just bothers me the constant referring to people's appearances as a way to mock them

Sassafras

thecolourbox said:

Not impressed by the constant ginger prejudice in this thread and the wider discussions about this. I'm not ginger just bothers me the constant referring to people's appearances as a way to mock them

Until we know more about them that's all we can mock them on.

fandango

Sassafras said:

thecolourbox said:

Not impressed by the constant ginger prejudice in this thread and the wider discussions about this. I'm not ginger just bothers me the constant referring to people's appearances as a way to mock them

Until we know more about them that's all we can mock them on.

At least ”ginger” isn't religious, racist, sexist or transphobic, so its fair game, yes?

p90fool

Having heard people frothing at the mouth across the whole spectrum of opinion on the royal family and this issue in particular over the last few days I'm honestly coming to the conclusion that giving much of a shit either way about them is actually a borderline mental illness. 

Stevepage

I'm surprised to see this thread is now 5 pages long. Where as Prince Andrew being a possible nonce only gets 2 - 3 max. 

I shake my head at thee

ToneControl

Fretwired said:

Snap said:

you know what, do we really give a toss about this? Really? They seem like nice people, but I honestly couldn't give a monkey's what they do.
I read, and was surprised that most, if not all Charles' income comes from a massive property and investment portfiolio called the Duchy of Cornwall. That lands him over £21M a year, of which £5M or so goes to Harry. Wow.
Then I read that the two boys inherited around £13M from Diana.
So, it won't be much of a step to become financially independent at all.


On another line of thought - is this why the Duchy range of fruit and veg, at Waitrose, is so much more expensive? Pray tell....

Oh. and all this nonsense that hs isn't Charles' son. Get out of it, he's the bloke's double. He's got that royal family look all over him - little close together eyes and all that.

Harry has £34 million from his mum and the Spencer family and other sources.

Technically the royals are funded by the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is an independent body and the lands are not owned by the government. All the income from the Crown Estates (billions) goes to the Treasury which then gives the royal family money - the estate creates a large surplus. Charles gets income from the Dutchy of Cornwall.

Anti-monarchists say all these lands should be in public ownership and all the money raised should be spent on public services.

when I googled it, it said that the King who agreed to pay the Crown estate income to the treasury handed over the running costs of parliament / government with it

ToneControl

Grunfeld said:

Snap said:

@ICBM - on the security, I think I'm right in saying that for certain trips they have no choice but to accept a security detail and the like.

They need to have security -- it wouldn't be fair on them if they didn't. 

FWIW I think we, as tax payers, have got a duty to pay for it too.  Or at least some of it. 

If you're born into a system, and it's "our" system, then you've got no choice.  It's not like Harry can suddenly decide not to be a target.  And that aspect of his life wasn't chosen.  So, alas, I think we've got an obligation to fund it.

nah, he can get a witness protection scheme ID switch