Is it okay to put family first? (Response to royal family stuff)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree. It also illustrates exactly some of the issues surrounding this whole circus that I've been pointing out in the overall discussion.

Who put the Let Go headline on the story? I highly doubt it was the author, and frequently isn't from what I understood about print journalism. It could have been put there by some low level, cog in the wheel who once upon a time wouldn't have had the credentials and experience to be handed the task. In today's compressed journalism environment it might be considered a post that is simply a low paid body to fill a job that's not considered "vital" to news operations. Did it get put there somewhere along the line by some news aggregator organization that merely rechurns the work of others in high volume as cheaply as possible with no time or care taken as to consider how word choices impact reader understanding? Could it have been placed there by someone who simply wants to sling mud at one side or the other -- or maybe even both depending on the story, as long as it keeps attracting eyeballs, which equals $$$?

It was me. I put the Let Go headline on the story at that newspaper. :rotfl2:

Not really. I don't work in journalism. We should all be like Elsa and let it go.
 
Oh good grief, rosemary & eucalyptus-infused paint? Who needs that when there are probably hundreds of Doterra essential oils consultants who would jump at the chance at outfitting every room of the "cottage" with essential oil equipment that will infuse just about anything you want! Call today! It'll change your life! :joker:
 


Headlines often “evolve” and stories change or update. When news first breaks everyone is scrambling to publish their information “first”; then others jump on the bandwagon, which seems to be the case here. England’s news is (at least) five hours ahead of our own (sometimes we seem to lag even more). Once the dust has settled after the initial frenzy it’s not unusual to see clarifications or changes to content, etc. Yesterday’s headline was “let go”; today’s it may be “redeployed”, but in fact the story hasn’t changed.

Or maybe the headline was meant to tick off or attract people who are already upset with the Sussexes. That’s kind of the MO of the British press lately and a prime example of why Harry wants out.
 
Hopefully Frogmore Cottage will be made available to a member of the RF who would love to make it their home. The reno was very expensive. I don't see any reason to keep it in reserve as a vacation property.

You want more family members on the public tab? No thanks. Charles wants to slim down the monarchy and get rid of the third cousin expenses. Harry has actually done him a favor imho...and he is paving the way for Charlotte and Louis to be able to adjust when they have their own families.
 
And the country failed him when the allowed the British press to stalk, lie harass and ridicule him and his young family. He's what, 6th in line, they will still support their patronages, but if they want to move to have some personal privacy, all the power to them.
How are the public to control the press?

Ironically I have a daughter who has developed allergies to both as an adult.
I didn't include it in the quote but at the beginning of the article it talked about the aroma of candles in the home too, and the first thing I thought of were little lungs. If an allergy or intolerance was involved, it would be hard to get rid of that type of paint, I'd think. (Candles can go.)
 


Or maybe the headline was meant to tick off or attract people who are already upset with the Sussexes. That’s kind of the MO of the British press lately and a prime example of why Harry wants out.

That's absolutely possible.

You want more family members on the public tab? No thanks. Charles wants to slim down the monarchy and get rid of the third cousin expenses. Harry has actually done him a favor imho...and he is paving the way for Charlotte and Louis to be able to adjust when they have their own families.

The public that pays the tab would understandably feel that way. As far as whether this will turn out well in regards to Charles' plans going forward, I'm not so sure. The Queen had 4 children, all of whom have performed various roles over the years. One is (deservedly) in a timeout that hopefully is permanent. I think the earliest age at which Charles would potentially take the throne would be in his seventies, so no spring chicken. The royal duties overachiever has been Anne, who is of an age with Charles. I've always found it surprising that Charles and William wouldn't be shouldering the most, but maybe it's just something I'm ignorant about and the way it is makes sense. If Charles were to take the throne and in a few years time be incapable of a serious workload and his sister needed to slow down it falls on William, Kate, Edward, (his wife maybe, IDK). It's several years before William's children are ready to undertake assignments independently. It seems like Prince Harry would be more needed than ever over the next 25-ish years. Or maybe I just don't understand how it works.
 
You want more family members on the public tab? No thanks. Charles wants to slim down the monarchy and get rid of the third cousin expenses. Harry has actually done him a favor imho...and he is paving the way for Charlotte and Louis to be able to adjust when they have their own families.
And it is less wasteful to "save" it for their occasional vaca home? Opening, stocking, cleaning, back in storage...repeat each time they pop in. Not cheap.
 
Last edited:
How are the public to control the press?


I didn't include it in the quote but at the beginning of the article it talked about the aroma of candles in the home too, and the first thing I thought of were little lungs. If an allergy or intolerance was involved, it would be hard to get rid of that type of paint, I'd think. (Candles can go.)

I don't even know if my daughter's allergies would be bothered by them being infused in paint or not. I know she can't eat rosemary and even touching the plant we had growing caused issues. She avoids eucalyptus altogether, but I don't have a clue if that means smelling it or inhalation would cause her problems. Strange because she had no issues with either one growing up and we don't have a lot of allergies in our family history either.

I'd be looking for paints with low/no VOCs and call it good.
 
That's absolutely possible.



The public that pays the tab would understandably feel that way. As far as whether this will turn out well in regards to Charles' plans going forward, I'm not so sure. The Queen had 4 children, all of whom have performed various roles over the years. One is (deservedly) in a timeout that hopefully is permanent. I think the earliest age at which Charles would potentially take the throne would be in his seventies, so no spring chicken. The royal duties overachiever has been Anne, who is of an age with Charles. I've always found it surprising that Charles and William wouldn't be shouldering the most, but maybe it's just something I'm ignorant about and the way it is makes sense. If Charles were to take the throne and in a few years time be incapable of a serious workload and his sister needed to slow down it falls on William, Kate, Edward, (his wife maybe, IDK). It's several years before William's children are ready to undertake assignments independently. It seems like Prince Harry would be more needed than ever over the next 25-ish years. Or maybe I just don't understand how it works.

My thoughts (and it will offend some people here) are maybe by that time, Harry or even Meghan may help out a little and pick up a few things here and there (per diem work, let’s say). Or cut down on the amount of patronages, I don’t know....They each seem to focus on what they are most interested in and even William and Kate have hinted at possibly doing more time for less organizations.
 
My thoughts (and it will offend some people here) are maybe by that time, Harry or even Meghan may help out a little and pick up a few things here and there (per diem work, let’s say). Or cut down on the amount of patronages, I don’t know....They each seem to focus on what they are most interested in and even William and Kate have hinted at possibly doing more time for less organizations.

Quite possibly that's either part of the plan or the inevitable result of the march of time/societal changes. For all I know some of the causes that the Queen was once a patron for either don't exist anymore or are a mere shell of themselves and exist in little more than name only because the Queen is still technically their patron. Not surprising when she and her spouse are in their nineties and she's been on the thrown more than six decades.

For organizations that have been royal approved or whatever the technical term would be, it would be kind of tricky to suddenly be out just because there's no one in the family interested to step forward. Awkward.
 
I was thinking of our morning discussion looking at the headlines on Google today about the Frogmore Cottage staff. They run the gamut from "axed" to "laid off" to "let go" to "redeployed" to "moved out" to "reassigned" to "sacked" to "transferred" to "released" to "cut" to "gone" and more! Geez!!

I also noticed this in an article from around the time they moved into Frogmore after renovations were mostly done:

Given the amount of room the Duke and Duchess have at Frogmore Cottage and because Markle is heavily pregnant, we wondered if they have a royal staff to help them with their household. It looks, however, apart from their security data, and Markle’s mother, Doria Ragland, who will split her time between Los Angeles and Frogmore – they live entirely alone on the property. An insider explained: They have no servants, butlers or a resident chef. It’s a very limited operation and that’s what they want.”

Now, however:

"two of the staff employed at Frogmore--a house manager and a cleaner-- have been moved to Windsor Castle. Other staff like a chef and maids who were employed part-time were told they will no longer be needed."

There can, obviously, often be a big discrepancy with what is reported.

I also came across this - a photograph of staff employed at the Frogmore House (the main residence on the estate) from 1861:

https://www.rct.uk/collection/2101408/groupnbspportrait-of-staff-at-frogmore-house
 
Oh boy, I did not think I was going to spend my spare time today studying up on the monarchy’s finances, but here I am. :laughing:

An introduction/refresher course as to how the money flows for anyone who needs it:

https://fullfact.org/economy/frogmore-cottage/
The takeaway: The article made it clear that taxpayers did not pay anything more because of the renovations than they would’ve paid anyway. And whether taxpayers “paid” anything is subjective. The money used to pay for the Frogmore renovations can technically be considered taxpayer funds in the sense that it came from a pool that included taxpayers’ money. However, the monarchy also contributes its profits to that pool before getting 25% of their contribution returned to them. The monarchy has always put in more than it’s drawn back out. For the 2018-19 year, the Crown contributed £343.5m and got back £82m in return. So yes, the money used to renovate Frogmore did come from the government Treasury, but people are failing to account for the fact that the Treasury only had that money because the monarchy gave it to them in the first place. The £2.4m used to renovate Frogmore originated from monarchy profits. For comparison, Buckingham Palace is slated to get a £369m refurbishment.

If anyone wishes to go further down the rabbit hole of royal finances:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48746609
One thing that struck me is that Prince Philip (understandably) retired from public duties a few years ago. He maintains royal residence, an office, private secretary, and a £359k annuity while continuing to participate in charitable causes. It seems like the precedent has already been set for the type of role Harry hopes to move into.

The more I learn about this, the less of a scandal I see.
 
Last edited:
It will be interesting to see if the Queen strips them of their titles, money and ability to cash in on the Royal family. Looks like they’ve already shuttered Frogmore.

Meghan and Harry’s Instagram story of his last event was set to “This Is The One,” which includes the line “I’d like to leave the country for a month of Sundays, burn the town where I was born.” 🙄
 
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. After her first birth, I saw multiple online articles and even heard a discussion on the radio questioning why her body looked the way it did.

And it’s not at all a “quick photo” when she first has to get glam with full hair and make up. Heck, there was some story at the time talking about how her dress had to be made in half a dozen sizes because there was no way to predict what size she would be immediately after giving birth, so I guess we can include a dress fitting into the list of things she had to do to prepare for that “quick” photo op. Personally, as a new mom, I would’ve preferred to spend that time bonding with and admiring my brand new baby.
There was also plenty of support for her, and low key bullying on Kate for choosing to do it. There was a whole hashtag over Meghan keeping it real and what pressure Kate was putting in new mothers by appearing so glamorous.

If they did pony up to cover a share of the expenses then I would say they do have some argument for maintaining partial ownership of the property (in whatever way “ownership” is handled with these royal properties).
I would call that rent for the time they have spent there. It is like having a work vehicle, you dont get to keep it after you quit.

You want more family members on the public tab? No thanks. Charles wants to slim down the monarchy and get rid of the third cousin expenses. Harry has actually done him a favor imho...and he is paving the way for Charlotte and Louis to be able to adjust when they have their own families.
I doubt Charles ever meant the sole sibling of the future king.

One thing that struck me is that Prince Philip (understandably) retired from public duties a few years ago. He maintains royal residence, an office, private secretary, and a £359k annuity while continuing to participate in charitable causes. It seems like the precedent has already been set for the type of role Harry hopes to move into.

I think a retirement package for a person in their 90s after nearly lifelong service is somewhat different.

TipsyTraveler I realize that by chance I have quoted you several times here, I didnt want it to come across as me picking on you, I hadnt even realized until I was responding that it was the same poster I had quoted 😁
 
You’re really reaching for a reason to feel insulted. Snub to his mom??? Harry adored his mom and does much to honor her constantly. Just because MM wanted some privacy does not mean she did this to spite a long deceased mother of the man she loves. Maybe Diana wasn’t huge on the hospital steps thing either. I actually felt bad for Kate after Charlotte’s birth that she had to take the time to look unrealistically fabulous seven hours after labor when she really looked like she wanted to fall asleep. I think Meghan sent a much more real message by recovering rather than Kate did. Not knocking Kate. Just saying it was almost mean to ask that of her.

I think that this "tradition" is ridiculous. I could barely walk to the bathroom 7 hours after giving birth. It is unreasonable to assume that Meghan was somehow snubbing Diana because she did not get dressed up and show off hours after her baby was born. We don't know what kind of labor and birth that she had. Maybe she was not feeling well enough to do so. Not everyone can pop a baby out and get up and go about your day.
 
I would call that rent for the time they have spent there. It is like having a work vehicle, you dont get to keep it after you quit.
I don’t know that it’s that cut and dried. For one, the cottage was supposedly a gift. Was paying rent ever laid out as a stipulation of that gift? And if they fronted their own money for fixtures and other design elements within the home then they’ve theoretically improved the value of that house above what it would have been without their investment. Was this a gift from employer to employee contingent on continued employment? Or was this a gift from a grandmother to her grandson completely separate from their working relationship? Does Philip get to keep living in royal housing post-retirement because that’s a perk of his retirement benefits, or because he’s the Queen’s husband? Will William and Kate be billed for renovations or asked to pay back-rent should they decide to move out of one of their royal residences? (I believe they have two.)


I think a retirement package for a person in their 90s after nearly lifelong service is somewhat different.
Philip was given the title of Prince in 1957 and retired from royal duties in 2017 = 50 years.

Harry has held the title of Prince for 35 years.

Harry should get 70% of whatever Philip’s retirement package was. Problem solved. ;)
 
I don’t know that it’s that cut and dried. For one, the cottage was supposedly a gift. Was paying rent ever laid out as a stipulation of that gift? And if they fronted their own money for fixtures and other design elements within the home then they’ve theoretically improved the value of that house above what it would have been without their investment. Was this a gift from employer to employee contingent on continued employment? Or was this a gift from a grandmother to her grandson completely separate from their working relationship? Does Philip get to keep living in royal housing post-retirement because that’s a perk of his retirement benefits, or because he’s the Queen’s husband? Will William and Kate be billed for renovations or asked to pay back-rent should they decide to move out of one of their royal residences? (I believe they have two.)



Philip was given the title of Prince in 1957 and retired from royal duties in 2017 = 50 years.

Harry has held the title of Prince for 35 years.

Harry should get 70% of whatever Philip’s retirement package was. Problem solved. ;)
A "gift" of a residence from the Queen means you may live there. If circumstances change, or she changes her mind, your residence may change. Her decision, end of story.

On the other hand, it's very different in the US. if your Grammy gifts you (legally) her 80's era condo in Boca, it's yours!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top