Cycling UK Forum

Revealed today they are having to struggle by on £10m inheritance from his Mum after he was cut off from taxpayer money when he quit his job.

Something else you may not know / have forgotten is that Diana's "Last Will and Testament" was, as is perfectly legal, arranged to minimise inheritance tax etc., but her untimely death buggered all that up. (Not a legal expression, BTW) The Rt Hon Sir John Major KG CH, at the time of her death the recently defeated ex-PM, was put in charge of sorting things out and was able to use a perfectly legal way of amending her will to suit the changed circumstances. ie Wills and Harry got more of her £££ and less went to the taxman.

Psamathe wrote:But, all the jobs I resigned from in the past also meant they stopped paying me once I'd left. So why should a Price quit and expect to keep getting paid after quitting. And with just £10m in the bank.

But did any of those jobs mean you were at a higher risk of kidnapping, assassination and all that sort of thing which meant you had to hire bodyguards? If so, wouldn't you have negotiated that as part of a "parachute" package when taking up the job? And when did Harry ever have to chance to do that?

And she apparently said she never actually did any research as to what marrying into the Royal Family might mean ... kind of beggars belief (the "look before you leap" saying and she didn't).

Two things there: first, she pointed out that she'd been living in Canada for years (where her TV show was filmed), where they are also the Royal Family, so she thought she knew some of it but was unprepared for how viciously the UK press treat them over here; and second, I think a lot of what they complain about wasn't public knowledge. For example, would you have known her access to healthcare would be controlled by a palace manager? Would you have known her passport and driving licence would be taken off her?

I just can't find the words (but as a republican I suppose I'd be less likely to react in a positive manner).

I'm a moderate republican too, but I don't understand why you're blaming and insulting her and saying nothing about the palace organisation that appears to be some sort of unhealthy mix of institutionally sexist, racist and stuck in the past.

But I hope they've arrested this Kate person who made Megan cry; making a Duchess cry shock horror. With trivia like that no wonder it's been reported as US perceiving it as UK's Kardashians.

Yeah, it's a bit disappointing that that trivial non-story is being featured so much, including in the above post.

A whole week to wait for the next edition of Private Eye but that will give time for Flunkey to get the griff on Brenda and Brian and for Lord Gnome to think up a tasteless cover pic, always assuming something else doesn't happen in the meantime.

Whether or not we like the monarchy, the story is hardly trivial.

1. The press and the monarchy are looking racist, not to mention the entire country;
2. The way we have a head of state is open for debate.

Oldjohnw wrote:Whether or not we like the monarchy, the story is hardly trivial.

No-one said it was. Only the bit about who made who cry when, which is not in itself interesting, but it is interesting how the story became public knowledge and possibly reversed to better fit the "Hurricane Meghan" narrative.

mjr wrote:

Oldjohnw wrote:Whether or not we like the monarchy, the story is hardly trivial.

No-one said it was. Only the bit about who made who cry when, which is not in itself interesting, but it is interesting how the story became public knowledge and possibly reversed to better fit the "Hurricane Meghan" narrative.

No but there are a number of posts which suggest it is just a bit of a yawn. And the bit where the story was reversed is hardly trivial given it was a blatant lie by the press to confirm their other lies.

Oldjohnw wrote:Whether or not we like the monarchy, the story is hardly trivial.

1. The press and the monarchy are looking racist, not to mention the entire country;
2. The way we have a head of state is open for debate.

Indeed. Racism is obviously the big worry. We've seen it mushrooming across the Atlantic in recent months. But that's not to say it's not happening here. I think we all have a duty, whatever our ethnic grouping, to take note and to counter this ugliness as needed.

No-one can with perfect candour declare that they've never had a racist thought in their head. I can't. I'm not proud to have to admit that.

Another concern is the 'Prince Andrew' business. Yes I know he's not been charged with any offence, but suspicions abound. And it does seem that Bucky H are doing their damnedest to shield him. Unlike Meghan, the 'outsider'. Double standards?

I'm going to take a good look at the republicans' website...

Oldjohnw wrote:

mjr wrote:

Oldjohnw wrote:Whether or not we like the monarchy, the story is hardly trivial.

No-one said it was. Only the bit about who made who cry when, which is not in itself interesting, but it is interesting how the story became public knowledge and possibly reversed to better fit the "Hurricane Meghan" narrative.

No but there are a number of posts which suggest it is just a bit of a yawn.

For me one issue is that we are only seeing one side, sometimes 2nd hand reports and without the context of alleged questions (which can make a massive difference when PR people are trying to cover every potential aspect).

Ian

Psamathe wrote:For me one issue is that we are only seeing one side, sometimes 2nd hand reports and without the context of alleged questions (which can make a massive difference when PR people are trying to cover every potential aspect).

Yes, the Royal Family can't really win on it. To turn round and deny any racism ever is firstly unrealistic and secondly won't play well in the court of public opinion. But we don't really know what happened, we have heard 'Meghan's truth' and we don't really know any other.

And then there is the definition of racism. There are academics who will tell you all white people are racist (see Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility). This forum is mainly, and this thread, possibly almost exclusively, is older, white men - you (and me) are all racists by DiAngelo's theory.

And we just don't know what any comment was. All expectant parents, family and maybe even friends wonder who unborn children are going to take after? A grandfather's red hair? A mother's green eyes? A mixed race woman with a white husband tells how this been with her children in an article in today - as she says, it would be weird not to have wondered.

The British half of me could not care less about the monarchy and the French half views them with amusement as I do Prince Rainier of Monaco.
Token figureheads for tourism.

661-Pete wrote:

Oldjohnw wrote:Whether or not we like the monarchy, the story is hardly trivial.

1. The press and the monarchy are looking racist, not to mention the entire country;
2. The way we have a head of state is open for debate.

Indeed. Racism is obviously the big worry. We've seen it mushrooming across the Atlantic in recent months. But that's not to say it's not happening here. I think we all have a duty, whatever our ethnic grouping, to take note and to counter this ugliness as needed.

"Clarification" from the Society of Editors:
https://www.societyofeditors.org/soe_news/statement-of-clarification/

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote:

661-Pete wrote:

Oldjohnw wrote:Whether or not we like the monarchy, the story is hardly trivial.

1. The press and the monarchy are looking racist, not to mention the entire country;
2. The way we have a head of state is open for debate.

Indeed. Racism is obviously the big worry. We've seen it mushrooming across the Atlantic in recent months. But that's not to say it's not happening here. I think we all have a duty, whatever our ethnic grouping, to take note and to counter this ugliness as needed.

"Clarification" from the Society of Editors:
https://www.societyofeditors.org/soe_news/statement-of-clarification/

Jonathan

Wow! Now that’s what I call a U-Turn! And rightly so.

Jdsk wrote:"Clarification" from the Society of Editors:
https://www.societyofeditors.org/soe_news/statement-of-clarification/

I'd never heard of this "Society of Editors" or whatever. But I looked at that 'statement' for all its mealy-mouthed worth - or lack of. Then I looked at one or two articles in the Grauniad which explained a bit!

I think it's more than the monarchy that needs looking into!

661-Pete wrote:

Jdsk wrote:"Clarification" from the Society of Editors:
https://www.societyofeditors.org/soe_news/statement-of-clarification/

I'd never heard of this "Society of Editors" or whatever. But I looked at that 'statement' for all its mealy-mouthed worth - or lack of. Then I looked at one or two articles in the Grauniad which explained a bit!

I think it's more than the monarchy that needs looking into!

Today the chair of this outfit has resigned. Not a moment too soon.

Did not watch, but the fall-out verges on the amusing. Elderly, rich, white imperialists racist? Well what a surprise. Racism fuelled if not led by the tabloids? Shock, horror. Older people more likely to be racist? Surely not? Nothing to do with fact that older people more likely to vote Conservative and to have voted Brexit?
As a socialist I have no sympathy with any of the Family, but I do not doubt this element of the woman's self-serving sob story.