Harry & Megan to step back from Public life

Status
Not open for further replies.

craven50

Old-Salt
There have been a number of news stories from marketing companies tooting their own horn with respect to calculating "brand value" in connection with the Sussexes and anything connected with that story. It's their own attempting at using the situation to advertise themselves. I haven't been posting them as overall it's just people speculating and pulling numbers of of their arses.

There is one thing that is interesting in that story though, and it's the calculations that "the Monarchy" costs Canada $62 million per year. That's the cost of the Governor General and the provincial Lieutenant Governors and their offices, not payments to Her Majesty. Canada would be paying at least that much per year to fulfil those functions with or without a monarchy.

A quick google shows multiple news sites saying the UK spends £67 million per year on the monarchy, and the UK gets far more diplomatic and global PR mileage out of them than Canada does out of our spending. For example, how many people reading this could name the Canadian GG without googling it?

It's an interesting perspective.
£64 million! Err? Bloody hell where does that come from?
 
£64 million! Err? Bloody hell where does that come from?
£67 million. Here's one example that came up:

Most of the cost is apparently for property maintenance of historic buildings, which would have to be maintained anyway. Costs are up by 40% this year because of work that needs to be done on Buckingham Palace and certain other properties. Buck House is mainly used for public receptions, diplomatic events, and other things connected with the operation of the UK government, but because Her Majesty has an apartment in the back it gets counted as part of the cost of having a monarchy. It's all about "branding" and having a monarch in residence adds to the glamour of what is fundamentally a banquet hall and offices.
 
I, among others, moderate this bit and am happy to confirm that your posts were fine. Much as I hate to contradict the Wise One.
In that case I'm happy to respond to SH's post, and others, which I had previously refrained from doing out of deference to this being CA. Thank you for the clarification.
Finally, I am only a Moderator on the Military Modelling forum, not the rest of the site.
Just about your limit.
You are the one pictured in uniform wearing what purports to be French Parachute Wings. If you don't want comments about them, don't wear them.
Things may well have changed, but when I was in the Army people generally did what they were told and what was expected of them.

At that time, and certainly for two decades before that, those who had passed foreign courses which awarded wings, daggers, or any other insignia were not only eligible to wear them when DS at recruit training depots, RMAS, etc, but were expected and generally directed to do so at least for pass out parades and when in SD, Blues, etc.

That apparently no longer applies, but I doubt if even in today's Army it's left up to individuals to decide what they will or won't wear based on what a handful of uninformed cretins may think about their wearing them two or three decades later.
 
ou are only seeing it as contradictory because you are being a bit thick.
No, I'm seeing it as contradictory because it is, to the point of absurdity, as well as totally misinformed.

"Misinformed" is actually rather generous, as outright untruths and deliberate gross distortions would be more accurate:
Your potted history of interesting monarchs was presented as a warning of what might come in the future but the monarch is no longer the absolute ruler, rendering all that a bit pointless.
Most were not "absolute rulers" any more than they are now - their powers under the constitution were / are identical.
Your rather hysterical contention that “everything changed” with Charles’ “carbuncle” comment is patently untrue. Charles got the Chelsea Barracks plans changed because it looked like a pile of poo and he was mates with the Qataris, of course Richard Rogers called it unconstitutional- he was the guy who’s hideous design was hoofed.
No, it's not "patently untrue" but 100% correct. It wasn't Charles job to decide what was "hideous" or not, any more than it is yours (or mine) although we're fully entitled to express our opinions and to lodge any objections. Planning permission had been already granted by those whose job it was to approve it or not, based on their responsibilities, expertise and authority and on any objections raised.

Charles abused his authority by using his influence behind their backs, just as he tried to do with abolishing the Human Rights Act and the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Totally wrong as an abuse of power and totally unconstitutional.


Charles could no doubt have similarly influenced the project behind closed doors so it was indicative of his passion for good architecture that he stuck his head above the parapet and spoke as he did.
You don't appear to have a clue what happened despite it being public knowledge and spelt out beyond any possible doubt.

His public objections were rejected by the planning committee who approved the plans. He then went "behind closed doors" with the black spider letters - he didn't "stick his head above the parapet" at all, but did everything he could to try to hide what he had done.
And no, he didn’t change much- developers naturally want to maximise profits and their architects facilitate this. Planners who should arbitrate for all our benefit are often overawed and toothless in the face of powerful and wealthy developers.
Like the rest of your rant, totally untrue. The plans had received far more scrutiny than normal, all public, and they'd been approved after two and a half years of vetting. Rather than not being changed "much" they were changed completely.
You didn’t explain how you thought Charles’ opinions on the Human Rights Act and Safety at Work Act changed anything? I suspect you were the type who was getting all frothy-mouthed about the “black spider” letters, then realised on their release that, actually, he made some good points.
His attempt to have the Acts, which had widespread support across the political spectrum, revoked were rebuffed. The idea that this proves how weak and ineffective the monarchy is so its a good thing is, frankly, moronic if you're in favour of having a monarchy that has a purpose - unless your argument is that their only purpose is to have no purpose.

And your suspicions, like your facts, are totally incorrect. Like anyone else, you're fully entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
 
Sooo, let’s talk about bizarre contradictions. It seems that in the world of John G some countries’ monarchs aren’t, “someone who's not chosen by anyone but just given it from the day they've born because of their parentage,”
No, that's not in "the world of John G" but in the real world.

Primo genitur is the British and largely Western version of succession for the monarchy, but it's far from the norm in the rest of the world.

Just because you're unaware of that doesn't make it bizarre, it just makes you ignorant.
The Thai monarchy is far more interfering in matters of state and the media than ours. Some guys who live in Thailand were crapping themselves because someone posted a pisstake about the king’s odd behaviour. That’s verging on dictatorship.
Why on Earth would a fine upstanding fellow like you, with a logical (as you see it) antipathy towards the hereditary principle and interfering monarchy move to a country known for it’s wacko king and unsavoury sex tourism?
Mmmm.
I don't know how to spell it out any more clearly than I have, repeatedly, but I have no "antipathy towards the hereditary principle and interfering monarchy". This is an outright lie - one of many.

Different countries have different cultures and different systems and in my view a monarchy, hereditary or otherwise, can be and is the best current solution for some. My point is simply that for the UK the monarchy as it is now is not only a pointless anachronism but is becoming a hurdle to progress and reform, whether that's architecturally, climate change, or with human rights and health and safety.

FWIW my decision to move to Thailand had as little to do with the monarchy and any reputation for sex tourism as most people's decisions to move to the UK have to do with the UK's monarchy or a British proclivity for paedophilia.
 
Those class warriors who think that eliminating the monarchy will somehow eliminate the British class system at a single stroke are deluding themselves. (snip) Proposing to overthrow the monarchy is just a way for the politically marginal to try to maintain the illusion of being relevant despite their previous hobby horse of international socialism having proven to be politically and intellectually bankrupt.
I've not noticed anyone doing that, here or anywhere else. Maybe you could give a link to any?
There are plenty of countries which share the same monarch who have little to no class system to speak of, ...
Name any.

Irrelevant to the question of the monarchy in the UK but this is absolute nonsense, like your previous post that "If you were living in a Commonwealth country then you might have been aware that it is no longer a primogeniture monarchy" when the change in the law has made the complete reverse the case, making it an absolute primogenitur monarchy.
 
But the mother of the future king, and also ex-wife of the future king before him, does? Your "line" doesn't seem to be based on very much in the way of consistency or rational thought.

As I pointed out earlier, your assumption that the Princess of Wales'es security was withdrawn was incorrect. She rejected it apart from very limited circumstances.
 
So, if they get kidnapped, the UK will simply display a stern resolve as the various bits of them are posted back to us in instalments?
Well it would stop their pictures appearing everywhere despite their stated desire for privacy. Every cloud and all that.
 
Well it would stop their pictures appearing everywhere despite their stated desire for privacy. Every cloud and all that.
That's one thing I can't work out.

Want to be private but there independently funded lifestyle will dictate that they are less private than before...

An interview with US Tele?

She now wants to intervene in the presidential election?

Maybe she could run for election.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
You are only seeing it as contradictory because you are being a bit thick. Your potted history of interesting monarchs was presented as a warning of what might come in the future but the monarch is no longer the absolute ruler, rendering all that a bit pointless. We can enjoy history and our link with the past without the danger of having a loopy king ceding Somerset to the Innuit. Or indeed, being in receipt of a large hot object in one’s fundament- something which I imagine is dear to your heart- because it is more myth than fact.
Your rather hysterical contention that “everything changed” with Charles’ “carbuncle” comment is patently untrue. Charles got the Chelsea Barracks plans changed because it looked like a pile of poo and he was mates with the Qataris, of course Richard Rogers called it unconstitutional- he was the guy who’s hideous design was hoofed. Charles could no doubt have similarly influenced the project behind closed doors so it was indicative of his passion for good architecture that he stuck his head above the parapet and spoke as he did. And no, he didn’t change much- developers naturally want to maximise profits and their architects facilitate this. Planners who should arbitrate for all our benefit are often overawed and toothless in the face of powerful and wealthy developers. I wish Chas had had a chat with the Oxford College who built the horrible student accommodation blocks blighting the view across Port Meadow.
You didn’t explain how you thought Charles’ opinions on the Human Rights Act and Safety at Work Act changed anything? I suspect you were the type who was getting all frothy-mouthed about the “black spider” letters, then realised on their release that, actually, he made some good points.


Sooo, let’s talk about bizarre contradictions. It seems that in the world of John G some countries’ monarchs aren’t, “someone who's not chosen by anyone but just given it from the day they've born because of their parentage,”
The Thai monarchy is far more interfering in matters of state and the media than ours. Some guys who live in Thailand were crapping themselves because someone posted a pisstake about the king’s odd behaviour. That’s verging on dictatorship.
Why on Earth would a fine upstanding fellow like you, with a logical (as you see it) antipathy towards the hereditary principle and interfering monarchy move to a country known for it’s wacko king and unsavoury sex tourism?
Mmmm.

Oh, by the way, I didn’t “edit” your post, I took the relevant quote from it. The omission of the remainder in no way changed the idiotic context of what you said.
I agree with you entirely about our monarchy being better than any model of republic seen so far.



Except the architecture thing for Charles applies only to London. Have you see Poundbury? An overweening, overbearing, intrusive architectural eyesore, sprawling across the Dorset landscape and visible for miles around. It now dwarfs Dorchester, which nestled in a fold of land by the river. Truly a monstrous carbuncle that no one else could have built because permission would never have been granted.

One for another thread, maybe.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
But the mother of the future king, and also ex-wife of the future king before him, does? Your "line" doesn't seem to be based on very much in the way of consistency or rational thought.
It doesn't mean that the decision regarding Diana was the correct one, and it was also a very different world when Diana was around.

The test is not what was done twenty plus years ago but how much undue pressure can be applied to the UK or reputational damage caused in the case of kidnap or assassination - I would argue that it would be considerable in the case of Harry and Archie and not inconsequential in the case of Meghan, at least as long as she's still married to Harry.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
I notice this thread, which previously had some interesting points, gentle banter and the odd funny amid the pro/anti views, has now degenerated into a series of mind-numbingly boring epistles with "look at meee !" as the major subject..
I blame short duration ROP.

Have fun.
 
That's one thing I can't work out.

Want to be private but there independently funded lifestyle will dictate that they are less private than before...

An interview with US Tele?

She now wants to intervene in the presidential election?

Maybe she could run for election.
We shouldn't kid ourselves that a thing that comes out of their mouths is anywhere near the truth.

My personal opinion is that Meghan has had ambitions above her station since birth and became moderately successful at that in Canada having befriended a number of media 'stars' and some politicians.

Harry was the gift from god. Ginger, emotionally fragile, mentally fragile, single and a free ticket to every important person in the western world.
 
I notice this thread, which previously had some interesting points, gentle banter and the odd funny amid the pro/anti views, has now degenerated into a series of mind-numbingly boring epistles with "look at meee !" as the major subject..
I blame short duration ROP.

Have fun.
Plus long, copious quotes.

I dread the arrival of the harsh fonts.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
We shouldn't kid ourselves that a thing that comes out of their mouths is anywhere near the truth.

My personal opinion is that Meghan has had ambitions above her station since birth and became moderately successful at that in Canada having befriended a number of media 'stars' and some politicians.

Harry was the gift from god. Ginger, emotionally fragile, mentally fragile, single and a free ticket to every important person in the western world.
Sadly that's looking to be an accurate summary.
 

smeg-head

ADC
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
In that case I'm happy to respond to SH's post, and others, which I had previously refrained from doing out of deference to this being CA. Thank you for the clarification.
Just about your limit.
Things may well have changed, but when I was in the Army people generally did what they were told and what was expected of them.

At that time, and certainly for two decades before that, those who had passed foreign courses which awarded wings, daggers, or any other insignia were not only eligible to wear them when DS at recruit training depots, RMAS, etc, but were expected and generally directed to do so at least for pass out parades and when in SD, Blues, etc.

That apparently no longer applies, but I doubt if even in today's Army it's left up to individuals to decide what they will or won't wear based on what a handful of uninformed cretins may think about their wearing them two or three decades later.
Usual @John G answer, "everyone is an uninformed cretin except him". No wonder you got shoved off at the high port as soon as the Army could. Have you ever thought mate, that you could be wrong occasionally? It's a concept that real soldiers accept!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top