Harry and Meghan stepping aside

navrig2

I guess the point is that if they are genuine about getting away from the downsides of being a Royal - probably all the media attention - then they are in a quandary. Harry cannot undo something which comes from birth. He can try to dye his hair black and shave off his beard but he cannot stop being Prince Charles son (allegedly) and a distant heir to the throne. However that doesn't mean he cannot be allowed to walk away and in doing he can take what is rightfully and personally his.

Perhaps he looks at what the lifestyle did to his mother and Fergie (although I suspect she really wanted it) and has decided that he doesn't want it for his family.

morstar

Don’t mind either way what they do but the fact they have spent a load of time trademarking royal Sussex seems their independent means are based on directly exploiting being royalty.

I accept that they can charge a huge premium for any type of work they do engage in because of who they are and that is fair enough. But to directly monetise a position you are stepping away from the responsibilities of! Meh.

ballysmate

Meh, indeed.

pinno

ballysmate said:

Perhaps you would like the press to leave Andrew alone so that he could allegedly go back to shagging coerced teenagers?

Easy there Tiger...

Andrew has not been convicted of anything, until such time: innocent until proven guilty.
How much money would a person make by claiming x, y and z was perpetrated by someone of a very high profile?
Before you get on some other bandwagon, I am open to the possibility that all these allegations are true. Conversely, I am open to the allegations being false, or more probably, something in between.
Until a case is brought to a court of law, you are making the supposition.

There is a distinct difference between investigative journalism and sleaze to sell papers. What is distinctly difficult, is differentiating between what is printed to simply sell stories and what is done for the public interest.

I would add that 90% of what the tabloids print is utter cr@p.

"Corbyn: Met with Czech spies" (Sunday Mail headline). No basis whatsoever.
Now, I do not like Corbyn. He has done a disservice to the public and to British politics, but printing bollox? Is that in the public interest?
If the Daily Heil had run a campaign to stay in the EU, we would be staying in the EU.

The tabloids have the power to destroy careers, people and reputations. Often, without recourse. And even when they are wrapped on the knuckles for something, they continue to weigh up the pro's and cons of printing whatever because, chances are, this makes more money than the penalty. Worse, the damage has been done even when a penalty has been incurred and the perception the readers have of any individual that despite a court ruling, has probably been altered, 'cos sh1t sticks.

https://www.ft.com/content/54da05b2-cb96-11e7-aa33-c63fdc9b8c6c

The Tabloids: An insidious loop into vacancy.

ballysmate

I accept that Randy Andy has not been convicted of anything, in fact he hasn't been charged and AFAIK he hasn't been accused of anything illegal as no one has said yet that he was aware of any coercion in any alleged encounters.
But it does warrant some investigation don't you think?

BTW kudos on here for using the phrase Daily Heil

shortfall

Whatever the rights and wrongs in all this, it's worth remembering that she didn't fall into this by accident, she was an adult who actively CHOSE to marry a member of the royal family with all that entails. Only a hermit or a moron can have failed to notice the relationship between Harry's mother and the press or that the Windsors are tabloid fodder the world over. Harry at least has the excuse that he was born into it, his wife doesnt and her claims of naivete appear hollow at best.

rjsterry

You're in effect suggesting that people choose to marry each other after carefully and rationally assessing the options. People don't even make entirely rational decisions about what car to buy let alone who to marry. It's the easiest thing in the world to tell yourself that you'll do things differently and you won't fall into the same traps as others.

shortfall

rjsterry said:

You're in effect suggesting that people choose to marry each other after carefully and rationally assessing the options. People don't even make entirely rational decisions about what car to buy let alone who to marry. It's the easiest thing in the world to tell yourself that you'll do things differently and you won't fall into the same traps as others.

Oh come on RJS she was a twice divorced woman in her mid 30s when she got hitched to Harry not some lovestruck teen. The more cynical among us might even suggest that she was being perfectly rational when she entered into her third marriage. One thing she can't pretend is that she don't know that Diana was the most famous and photographed woman in the world and how she came to her untimely death and how much press attention she was herself likely to receive.

pblakeney

Even if she wasn't aware before hand you'd think it's something Harry might have brought up before the big day, being his Mum and all.

shortfall

pblakeney said:

Even if she wasn't aware before hand you'd think it's something Harry might have brought up before the big day, being his Mum and all.

Quite.

navrig2

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

You're in effect suggesting that people choose to marry each other after carefully and rationally assessing the options. People don't even make entirely rational decisions about what car to buy let alone who to marry. It's the easiest thing in the world to tell yourself that you'll do things differently and you won't fall into the same traps as others.

Oh come on RJS she was a twice divorced woman in her mid 30s when she got hitched to Harry not some lovestruck teen. The more cynical among us might even suggest that she was being perfectly rational when she entered into her third marriage. One thing she can't pretend is that she don't know that Diana was the most famous and photographed woman in the world and how she came to her untimely death and how much press attention she was herself likely to receive.

Once married and divorced I think you will find.

shortfall

navrig2 said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

You're in effect suggesting that people choose to marry each other after carefully and rationally assessing the options. People don't even make entirely rational decisions about what car to buy let alone who to marry. It's the easiest thing in the world to tell yourself that you'll do things differently and you won't fall into the same traps as others.

Oh come on RJS she was a twice divorced woman in her mid 30s when she got hitched to Harry not some lovestruck teen. The more cynical among us might even suggest that she was being perfectly rational when she entered into her third marriage. One thing she can't pretend is that she don't know that Diana was the most famous and photographed woman in the world and how she came to her untimely death and how much press attention she was herself likely to receive.

Once married and divorced I think you will find.

Yes I stand corrected. I think my point still stands however.

orraloon

I think the problem is that should they duck the responsibilities and 'obligation' of being Royal while still taking significant benefits (e.g. taxpayer funded personal security) then that's a crack in the facade of the relationship between Joe and Joanne Public and the royal establishment. Which is sort of predicated on the royals having a 'duty' to the nation, the public. Showing that ain't necessarily so could become problematic for all bar the devout believers.

pinno

ballysmate said:

But it does warrant some investigation don't you think?

Yes.

pinno

rjsterry said:

People don't even make entirely rational decisions about what car to buy let alone who to marry.

Yes indeed.

[Coughs]

pinno

orraloon said:

I think the problem is that should they duck the responsibilities and 'obligation' of being Royal while still taking significant benefits (e.g. taxpayer funded personal security) then that's a crack in the facade of the relationship between Joe and Joanne Public and the royal establishment. Which is sort of predicated on the royals having a 'duty' to the nation, the public. Showing that ain't necessarily so could become problematic for all bar the devout believers.

It's a difficult circle to square: they will still need personal security so they are not an easy target for some nutter and that will cost.

It would be interesting to see exactly what their income is and what 'legitimate' income and from where, they are likely to receive after splitting.

If I were them, I would try and make a complete break - lose themselves in the wilds of Canada, far from the madding press and not this split 6 months here and 6 months there.

kingstonian

If they are worth roughly a combined £35m can someone explain why they couldn’t live off the income that would generate if invested?

It does strike me as a bit cheeky that they are happy to sit back and have the taxpayer fund a hugely expensive refurb of their house and then once complete they choose to step out of royal duties. I’m fine with them stepping out of the royal world but Surely they should repay the refurb costs (and if they have £35m why did they have the state pay for it in the first place ????)

rjsterry

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

You're in effect suggesting that people choose to marry each other after carefully and rationally assessing the options. People don't even make entirely rational decisions about what car to buy let alone who to marry. It's the easiest thing in the world to tell yourself that you'll do things differently and you won't fall into the same traps as others.

Oh come on RJS she was a twice divorced woman in her mid 30s when she got hitched to Harry not some lovestruck teen. The more cynical among us might even suggest that she was being perfectly rational when she entered into her third marriage. One thing she can't pretend is that she don't know that Diana was the most famous and photographed woman in the world and how she came to her untimely death and how much press attention she was herself likely to receive.

Of course she will have been aware of all of it. You think people stop being irrational in their 30s?

shortfall

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

You're in effect suggesting that people choose to marry each other after carefully and rationally assessing the options. People don't even make entirely rational decisions about what car to buy let alone who to marry. It's the easiest thing in the world to tell yourself that you'll do things differently and you won't fall into the same traps as others.

Oh come on RJS she was a twice divorced woman in her mid 30s when she got hitched to Harry not some lovestruck teen. The more cynical among us might even suggest that she was being perfectly rational when she entered into her third marriage. One thing she can't pretend is that she don't know that Diana was the most famous and photographed woman in the world and how she came to her untimely death and how much press attention she was herself likely to receive.

Of course she will have been aware of all of it. You think people stop being irrational in their 30s?

No not at all, I'm saying if she's behaved irrationally as a grown woman of 35 with a divorce under her belt then she should've known better, and if she's cynically entered into the marriage for the money and status without wanting to enter into the other half of the bargain that involves sacrifice and public duty then she shouldn't be milking the woe is me sympathy card. Just my two cents.

orraloon

Is what happens when one's Inglish royals get involved with 'Mericans. Wallis Simpson anyone? But when the 'Merican in question happens to be blek, well bring on the Daily Heil in full force. Brexit Britain, dontcha lurve it.

rjsterry

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

You're in effect suggesting that people choose to marry each other after carefully and rationally assessing the options. People don't even make entirely rational decisions about what car to buy let alone who to marry. It's the easiest thing in the world to tell yourself that you'll do things differently and you won't fall into the same traps as others.

Oh come on RJS she was a twice divorced woman in her mid 30s when she got hitched to Harry not some lovestruck teen. The more cynical among us might even suggest that she was being perfectly rational when she entered into her third marriage. One thing she can't pretend is that she don't know that Diana was the most famous and photographed woman in the world and how she came to her untimely death and how much press attention she was herself likely to receive.

Of course she will have been aware of all of it. You think people stop being irrational in their 30s?

No not at all, I'm saying if she's behaved irrationally as a grown woman of 35 with a divorce under her belt then she should've known better, and if she's cynically entered into the marriage for the money and status without wanting to enter into the other half of the bargain that involves sacrifice and public duty then she shouldn't be milking the woe is me sympathy card. Just my two cents.

Not sure of the relevance of a previous marriage (presumably not to royalty). I got the impression from that interview where she said her friends warned her this would happen but she thought she could make it work that she realised she should have known better. She now seems to be doing something about it.

ballysmate

orraloon said:

Is what happens when one's Inglish royals get involved with 'Mericans. Wallis Simpson anyone? But when the 'Merican in question happens to be blek, well bring on the Daily Heil in full force. Brexit Britain, dontcha lurve it.

I think the main bone of contention seems to be Harry taking the we wee. Nobody has mentioned his wife's race or nationality.
Perhaps your prejudices are showing.

ballysmate

It would appear that if you are a Canadian resident for 183 days/year you pay tax on global earnings. 90 days in the UK.
As a US citizen Megan already pays tax there on her global income.
Potentially a kerching moment for tax collectors on both sides of the pond.
Calling Stevo to the thread...

shortfall

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

shortfall said:

rjsterry said:

You're in effect suggesting that people choose to marry each other after carefully and rationally assessing the options. People don't even make entirely rational decisions about what car to buy let alone who to marry. It's the easiest thing in the world to tell yourself that you'll do things differently and you won't fall into the same traps as others.

Oh come on RJS she was a twice divorced woman in her mid 30s when she got hitched to Harry not some lovestruck teen. The more cynical among us might even suggest that she was being perfectly rational when she entered into her third marriage. One thing she can't pretend is that she don't know that Diana was the most famous and photographed woman in the world and how she came to her untimely death and how much press attention she was herself likely to receive.

Of course she will have been aware of all of it. You think people stop being irrational in their 30s?

No not at all, I'm saying if she's behaved irrationally as a grown woman of 35 with a divorce under her belt then she should've known better, and if she's cynically entered into the marriage for the money and status without wanting to enter into the other half of the bargain that involves sacrifice and public duty then she shouldn't be milking the woe is me sympathy card. Just my two cents.

Not sure of the relevance of a previous marriage (presumably not to royalty). I got the impression from that interview where she said her friends warned her this would happen but she thought she could make it work that she realised she should have known better. She now seems to be doing something about it.

Who hasn't been young and stupid? I certainly have. The relevance of mentioning the previous marriage however is to illustrate that she's not some impressionable, naive, delicate ittle thing with no life experience. Au contraire, I think Eamon Holmes is nearer to the truth with his analysis.

Stevo_666

ballysmate said:

It would appear that if you are a Canadian resident for 183 days/year you pay tax on global earnings. 90 days in the UK.
As a US citizen Megan already pays tax there on her global income.
Potentially a kerching moment for tax collectors on both sides of the pond.
Calling Stevo to the thread...

In a nutshell: depending on where you're tax resident, you get a tax credit for foreign taxes against your tax bill where you are tax resident. Means you don't get a double tax bill but you will tend to get taxed at whichever rate is higher.

That said, depends whether she is a high earner or just has piles of cash. Most places tax you on income rather than capital.

Stevo_666

ballysmate said:

orraloon said:

Is what happens when one's Inglish royals get involved with 'Mericans. Wallis Simpson anyone? But when the 'Merican in question happens to be blek, well bring on the Daily Heil in full force. Brexit Britain, dontcha lurve it.

I think the main bone of contention seems to be Harry taking the we wee. Nobody has mentioned his wife's race or nationality.
Perhaps your prejudices are showing.

Not for the first time either.

orraloon

Nah pal, I'm not prejudiced against USAnians, bar the obvious orange one.

One single example of the Daily Heil's attitude to Ms Markle, in context of why allegedly (by the Daily Heil) she cannot stop cradling her bump, which is disgusting according to those non gender specific k-nobs.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

Thought this country had had enough of Experts, but hey ho. Apologies for the link to the dark web. But this sort of shite demonstrates why they might not be too happy with their situation in the dUK.

diplodicus

orraloon said:

Nah pal, I'm not prejudiced against USAnians, bar the obvious orange one.

One single example of the Daily Heil's attitude to Ms Markle, in context of why allegedly (by the Daily Heil) she cannot stop cradling her bump, which is disgusting according to those non gender specific k-nobs.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6636233/Why-Meghan-Markle-hands-bump-Experts-tackle-question.html

Thought this country had had enough of Experts, but hey ho. Apologies for the link to the dark web. But this sort of shite demonstrates why they might not be too happy with their situation in the dUK.

I clicked on that link and fark me is that a weird place or what!
I am amazed that people get paid to produce that nonsense

ballysmate

Clicked on that Loon and yes, a weird piece.
12 months old though so I can't imagine you came upon it by accident.
Perhaps you are a subscriber.
Me thinks you doth protest too much.
Got to admit that I didn't read it as it looked bollox so perhaps you could just point out the bits where MM was singled out for being an American or being black.
After all, you wouldn't want everyone else to be affected by your reading habits would you?
Perhaps you subscribing to the Mail is your idea of taking one for the team.

orraloon

Ooh, you got me there. Daily Heil subscriber. Jings, that's me outed twice in a week, first as a terrorist sympathiser by resident B3llendster now as a cryptofascist.

No it was as result of a post in similar discussion thread on YACF where a comparison has been drawn between the guttersnipe journalism approaches to the behaviours while pregnant of Ms Middleton and Ms Markle. Did a google to confirm whether the point raised was valid. First hit.

And of course it's a year old...duh.

No I wouldn't bother reading that shite, I only skimmed it, but is clearly designed to create and force differences in attitude to those 2 women in the minds of the Gullibles.

Now, see if I can spot any differences between them? One is English, white and stays schtum, the other is 'Merican, black and visible / vocal.

I ain't no royalist, but I am not happy with reading such deliberately divisive cr4p being machine fed to the masses.