# Poor Harry



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

I'll bet he regrets marrying Meghan now, she is splitting him from his family and there is much more I'm sure. He's not to bright to cave to her demands.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I don’t follow the “royals,” but surely he has a spine! Perhaps this was their plan all along.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Guys do lots of foolish things because of women.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

He could also be the first one with the nuts to break away. To live a more normal life. Less expectations. He will never be the king, why lead such a fake and pompous life? He has enough $ from his moms death to get by. Sadly looks like Canadians may actually need to pay his security bill.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

fireweed farm said:


> He could also be the first one with the nuts to break away.


Others have done it.
He won't be the "first".



fireweed farm said:


> Sadly looks like Canadians may actually need to pay his security bill.


If they want to live a "normal life" he should pay for that himself.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

He most definitely is not the first.
Edward VIII stepped away from the throne in less than a year in the 1930s to marry an American divorced socialite and became the Duke of Windsor as his brother took the throne.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Others have done it.
> He won't be the "first".
> .


Please name someone from the core of the royal family that packed up and left. 
I can think of a couple of the queens sons ex wives.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

My family left the royal family behind back in the 1700s.
We found it liberating.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Did they ever figure out what their baby was? I been dieing to know.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Was


fireweed farm said:


> Please name someone from the core of the royal family that packed up and left.
> I can think of a couple of the queens sons ex wives.


 Wasn’t Edward VIII king ?
Seems pretty core


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Look at who her pals are....there's the answer.


----------



## CKelly78z (Jul 16, 2017)

Maybe she has "skills" that he has never experienced before ?


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

And just maybe he will pay for his,wife and children himself. I can see why they would want to leave that life. Always having to travel some place or another. Always having a camera from some one stuck in your face all the time.

 Al


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

alleyyooper said:


> And just maybe he will pay for his,wife and children himself. I can see why they would want to leave that life. Always having to travel some place or another. Always having a camera from some one stuck in your face all the time.
> 
> Al


If that was such a big problem, they would all abdicate.

They love it. She knows she can make the big money. She is all about she. He is being led by the heart strings, and he will get enough royal jelly to keep them flying in a private plane.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

HDRider said:


> If that was such a big problem, they would all abdicate.
> 
> They love it. She knows she can make the big money. She is all about she. He is being led by the heart strings, and he will get enough royal jelly to keep them flying in a private plane.


Not sure those strings are on his heart. Seth


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Or maybe like a lot of us here he simply wants to raise his kids in a simpler life.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

That life killed his mother. I think that is a pretty good reason to leave it.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

CKelly78z said:


> Maybe she has "skills" that he has never experienced before ?


We have a winner.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Why is everyone blaming Meghan? It could be that Harry doesn't want to have her or their child(ren) in the horrible spotlight that his mother endured until her death. 

Rather sexist (and disgusting) to imply she controls him with her "feminine wiles" as well.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol if her charms didn’t entice him more than any others he wouldn’t be married to her.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why is everyone blaming Meghan? It could be that Harry doesn't want to have her or their child(ren) in the horrible spotlight that his mother endured until her death.
> 
> Rather sexist (and disgusting) to imply she controls him with her "feminine wiles" as well.



I've heard interviews in the past where he has broken with tradition a few times at her insistence, the one that comes to mind at the moment was a long running bird hunt that they host. Seth


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Seth said:


> I've heard interviews in the past where he has broken with tradition a few times at her insistence, the one that comes to mind at the moment was a long running bird hunt that they host. Seth


And he should break with tradition with things that make his wife uncomfortable. She gave up much to marry him as well. It's how good relationships are made. A partnership rather than a dictatorship.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> And he should break with tradition with things that make his wife uncomfortable. She gave up much to marry him as well. It's how good relationships are made. A partnership rather than a dictatorship.


I do not believe either one of us are wrong, so you sing your song, and I will sing mine. Love ya, Pixie! Seth


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Seth said:


> I do not believe either one of us are wrong, so you sing your song, and I will sing mine. Love ya, Pixie! Seth


You don't want to hear me sing, Seth. Ever.  Back at ya!


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

All I can think when I read these post is Harper valley PTA.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

I feel sorry for any kid that loses his mother as a child. However, the boy has grown up. I don't much care if he leaves the Royal life or not. That is his decision. The Queen's uncle left the throne for a woman. Doesn't seem extraordinary. Let him be.
If Ancestry is correct, I'm more British than the Queen myself. I don't want the job either.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why is everyone blaming Meghan? It could be that Harry doesn't want to have her or their child(ren) in the horrible spotlight that his mother endured until her death.
> 
> Rather sexist (and disgusting) to imply she controls him with her "feminine wiles" as well.


I’m sure your right.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

fireweed farm said:


> Please name someone from the core of the royal family that packed up and left.


"Royal scandal: American socialite Wallis Simpson marries Britain's *Prince Edward*. On June 3, 1937, the Duke of Windsor, Prince Edward married American divorcee Wallis Warfield Simpson, for whom he had abdicated the British throne. It was called the “romance of the century." "


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> Why is everyone blaming Meghan?


Because most people are realistic.



> Rather *sexist (and disgusting)* to imply she controls him with her "feminine wiles" as well.


That also describes always taking the female's side without really knowing the facts.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Royal scandal: American socialite Wallis Simpson marries Britain's *Prince Edward*. On June 3, 1937, the Duke of Windsor, Prince Edward married American divorcee Wallis Warfield Simpson, for whom he had abdicated the British throne. It was called the “romance of the century." "


Who?


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

fireweed farm said:


> Who?


Edward VIII later Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor (Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David; 23 June 1894 – 28 May 1972) was King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Empire, and Emperor of India, from 20 January 1936 until his abdication on 11 December of that year.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

fireweed farm said:


> Who?


I already answered that.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

HDRider said:


> If that was such a big problem, they would all abdicate.
> 
> They love it. She knows she can make the big money. She is all about she. He is being led by the heart strings, and he will get enough royal jelly to keep them flying in a private plane.


Classic HD. Using generalizations. Using THEY as if a particular group must share hive mind. Be that royals or others with diff opinions than yourself. *Apparently, they did not love it. *


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I already answered that.


Definitely google grasping, but yes you did. 
Always find it bizarre that as much as Americans claim to dislike the idea of the royal family, they sure seem to care about it, drama and all, more than anyone in Canada I know incl friends who have moved here recently from the UK, from my experience of course. Top story news.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because most people are realistic.
> 
> 
> 
> That also describes always taking the female's side without really knowing the facts.


Where did I always take the "female's" side in this thread? Can you point it out, please?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

fireweed farm said:


> Definitely google grasping, but yes you did.
> Always find it bizarre that as much as Americans claim to dislike the idea of the royal family, they sure seem to care about it, drama and all, more than anyone in Canada I know incl friends who have moved here recently from the UK, from my experience of course. Top story news.


I don't have an opinion on the royals as I don't keep up with them.
I just thought it was interesting Harry could have went off and done his own thing on his own long ago if the royal life wasn't his gig.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> I don't have an opinion on the royals as I don't keep up with them.
> I just thought it was interesting Harry could have went off and done his own thing on his own long ago if the royal life wasn't his gig.


Might just be because he now has a child that he wants to provide the best life for.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> *Where did I* always take the "female's" side in this thread? Can you point it out, please?


Where did I say "in this thread"?
Can you point it out, please?

(I already pointed it out when I quoted your post)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

fireweed farm said:


> Always find it bizarre that as much as Americans claim to dislike the idea of the royal family, they sure seem to care about it, drama and all, more than anyone in Canada I know incl friends who have moved here recently from the UK, from my experience of course


I don't "care" about them at all. 
I just happen to read lots of things and tend to remember many of the things I read.

I didn't have to Google it to know Harry's not "the first".
I knew it before Google existed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

fireweed farm said:


> *Using THEY* as if a particular group must share hive mind.






> farm said: ↑
> Always find it bizarre that as much as Americans claim to dislike the idea of the royal family, *they* sure seem to care about it, drama and all, more than anyone in Canada I know incl friends who have moved here recently from the UK, from my experience of course


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Princess Diana did her job well. She delivered an heir and a spare. The problem, it seems, is that the spare has indicated for a very long time that he isn't overly interested in a restrictive job with no room for advancement. 


Prince Harry has always indicated he wasn't really cut out for royal life and he was happiest when he was in the military.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> That life killed his mother.


A stupid driver killed his mother.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Seems odd that when Megan married him everybody accused her of marrying just to get into the royal life and now they’re blaming her for getting out of it


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

fireweed farm said:


> Classic HD. Using generalizations. Using THEY as if a particular group must share hive mind. Be that royals or others with diff opinions than yourself. *Apparently, they did not love it. *


She didn't relish a selfless role, and opted for the selfish one.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> She didn't relish a selfless role, and opted for the selfish one.


 Not really. She has been doing charitable work for years. Even has her own charity set up before meeting Harry.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Not really. She has been doing charitable work for years. Even has her own charity set up before meeting Harry.


Probably a good tax move


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Just fun to discuss on HT


Cheap thrills are the best.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

HDRider said:


> She didn't relish a selfless role, and opted for the selfish one.


Selfishly visiting a homeless shelter in the roughest part of Vancouver just yesterday.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

fireweed farm said:


> Selfishly visiting a homeless shelter in the roughest part of Vancouver just yesterday.


She is an actress.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

muleskinner2 said:


> His mother was a tramp. She got what she deserved.



Don't know about the first part, but I strongly disagree with the second part. Seth


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I don’t keep up with the Royals much. 
Can anybody tell me why they would call princess Diana a tramp?
I thought it was her husband that was fooling around with his current wife during the marriage to Diana


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

whiterock said:


> I feel sorry for any kid that loses his mother as a child. However, the boy has grown up. I don't much care if he leaves the Royal life or not. That is his decision. The Queen's uncle left the throne for a woman. Doesn't seem extraordinary. Let him be.
> If Ancestry is correct, I'm more British than the Queen myself. I don't want the job either.


I thought the royal families of Europe were pretty much all of German Decent?


----------



## dyrne (Feb 22, 2015)

They are almost all of German ancestry but so is almost all of southern England as well. This was true of the Russian Tsars as well. Harry is rumored to not be a royal by blood anyway and honestly if you look at side by sides of him, his brother and Prince Charles it does look like a pretty stark difference.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yes and with stories like that I can understand why he wouldn’t want to be in the limelight anymore than necessary


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t keep up with the Royals much.
> Can anybody tell me why they would call princess Diana a tramp?
> I thought it was her husband that was fooling around with his current wife during the marriage to Diana


For her it was the horse trainer/instructor. 
I heard he taught her pony riding.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> Do you include Prince Charles in that judgement too?


He is just as bad as she was. That don't make it ok.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t keep up with the Royals much.
> Can anybody tell me why they would call princess Diana a tramp?
> I thought it was her husband that was fooling around with his current wife during the marriage to Diana


Her horse riding instructor, one of her bodyguards, and an army officer who was a friend of the family. At least those were the one she mentioned when she gave a interview to some magazine.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> When you get married you give your word, as in forsaking all others. So by sleeping around on your spouse you are dishonoring your family, and you are a liar.


I totally and completely agree. But he did it long before she did and I don’t think it made her deserve a horrible death.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> When you get married you give your word, as in forsaking all others. So by sleeping around on your spouse you are dishonoring your family, and you are a liar.


I don’t remember , was that in her vows ?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Lisa in WA said:


> I totally and completely agree. But he did it long before she did and I don’t think it made her deserve a horrible death.


Who did it first don't have anything to do with it. She got into the car knowing the driver was drunk. No sympathy from me.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lisa in WA said:


> I totally and completely agree. But he did it long before she did and I don’t think it made her deserve a horrible death.


 Were they separated when she started seeking companionship ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

muleskinner2 said:


> She got into the car knowing the driver was drunk.


How was she supposed to know what the driver had been doing?



> On 31 August 1997, Diana died in a car crash in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in Paris while the driver was fleeing the paparazzi.[236] The crash also resulted in the deaths of her companion Dodi Fayed and *the driver, Henri Paul, who was the acting security manager of the Hôtel Ritz Paris*.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> I didn't get an invite to the wedding, so I don't know.


 So you’re mad at her for breaking a Vow that you don’t know she made??


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

I've been lurking on this post more for my own amusement than anything else, but WOW y'all will argue over anything!  Can we agree that people who did some good at some point in their life, and also did some bad in their life, died in an accident. And that Harry pretty much has the right to do what he wants to do--even if what he wants to do is to be lead around by the ... nose, or if he just doesn't want to be part of the royal entourage.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

First cleanup.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> So you’re mad at her for breaking a Vow that you don’t know she made??


I'm not mad at her. I don't think enough of her to get mad at her.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

gleepish said:


> I've been lurking on this post more for my own amusement than anything else, but WOW y'all will argue over anything!  Can we agree that people who did some good at some point in their life, and also did some bad in their life, died in an accident. And that Harry pretty much has the right to do what he wants to do--even if what he wants to do is to be lead around by the ... nose, or if he just doesn't want to be part of the royal entourage.


Fighting, this ain't fighting. For us this is a civil conversation.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> So you’re mad at her for breaking a Vow that you don’t know she made??


 You insulted her for breaching a vow That you don’t know she made ?


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

muleskinner2 said:


> Fighting, this ain't fighting. For us this is a civil conversation.


ok..maybe I should have said bickering. LOL


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

muleskinner2 said:


> Fighting, this ain't fighting. For us this is a civil conversation.


You may want to review the GC rules.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

WR is there a rule about how many cleanups you are allowed to do ? By posts or cleanups ?


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Folks,

Please remember the first tenet of HT is "Be Nice".

We had to do the first clean up of this thread and lost about half of it to petty bickering , hiss n spit and attacks on other members opinions, none of which are within site limits of conduct. All of us, including those who choose to pick and poke at specific members know who they are.

If you know that you and a specific poster seldom agree and you cannot respond to them civilly without open or thinly veiled contempt, try being the bigger poster and ignore them and move on to a discussion you can participate in without all the contention.

Posters don't like to see threads heavily moderated and we mods do not enjoy having to heavily clean a thread during the two major clean ups we do before locking or deleting a thread due to massive "school yard squabbling" to maintain the host site limits, but we do as we are required to.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

So one clean up then a lock and clean ?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> So one clean up then a lock and clean ?


One cleanup and closed if it has to be done again.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

I had no idea the royal family was so popular.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I could really care less what a couple of people, who I will never meet and lives across the Atlantic ocean, do. We all make choices. Some good and some bad. Then we live with it.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> WR is there a rule about how many cleanups you are allowed to do ? By posts or cleanups ?


We don't have to do any cleanups before we lock a thread.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

If I were young enough I have a few more bad choices I would work on.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Britain is the inventor of one of the world’s great innovations in government: a monarchy that reigns but does not rule. Canada took that system and improved it, by pushing it one step further. The Canadian monarchy is virtual; it neither rules nor resides. Our royals don’t live here. They reign from a distance. Close to our hearts, far from our hearths.

And that is why, in response to the sudden announcement of a vague and evolving plan for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – Prince Harry and Meghan – to move to Canada while remaining part of the Royal Family, the Trudeau government’s response should be simple and succinct: No.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...why-members-of-the-royal-family-cant-live-in/


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

They would be welcome here as we have no leader at all.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SRSLADE said:


> They would be welcome here as we have no leader at all.


Lucky for us they said they will not move here while we have the MAGA man. We should be safe for at least 5 more years.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

The abdication of King Edward so that he could marry Wallis was played out as having to do with a great romance that could not be because she was a divorcee and as the head of the Church of England, Edward, could not marry a divorcee. The reality was that Britain could not tolerate a King who was a fascist and not only did he and Wallis support Hitler but they were friends with him and all the other top Nazis. This was a political move and thankfully it worked.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

wr said:


> You may want to review the GC rules.


You can't know how little I care about your silly rules.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Why shouldn’t Harry want to live a more peaceful life and go from full time work to part time work? Wouldn’t we all given the chance at age 35? And contrary to the news media now putting all the blame on Meghan, Harry has been talking about this move even before he met her. And given the vile way that they have been treated in the press I think it is a good idea.

Harry has been on public display since he was born and a Royal servant to the Queen, the monarchy, the Commonwealth and the British military all of his adult life. He has completed all of his duties, patronages and more including serving in the war in Afghanistan (Apache commander and gunner) and creating the INVICTUS games for wounded soldiers and veterans. Not to mention that they both support many varied charities in many countries.

He deserves his own life or at least a part of it and that is the point. The Queen knew all about their plans and told Harry that he had to make the arrangement with Charles but to wait until January. 

The press release was made early by Harry and Meghan as there was already a leak to the SUN and they were about to publish. So once again the leaks and media have created a crisis that actually does not exist just to beat down on Harry and Meghan.

Harry and Meghan have said that they will spend half their time in the UK and half in North America. They are not abandoning everything just stepping back from the constant hatred. Just calling this Megixt shows the level of hatred and prejudice she has had to endure.

Canada is a good choice for them. The Royal family is part of Canada as well as the other 52 countries of the Commonwealth ( 2.5 billion people). They could go anywhere there. Canada has 37.5 million people so much more likely that they can find peace and quiet here. Australia would also be a good choice. And not to mention that Canadians and Australians really do tend to mind their own business and other than for hockey and rugby stars they don't really do the crazy fan thing as in other countries.

If they choose to live on Vancouver Island then they have chosen one of the most beautiful places in the world. They will have to file for immigration and receive permanent residency (and later citizenship if they choose) if they intend to make Canada a permanent part of their lives. Only the Queen does not require a passport or any documentation to come to Canada or stay as long as she wants.

The Queen and the Royals are our tradition just as the US has its traditions. We are proud of our history. Paying for part of their security is not as big a deal as some would like to make it. When any Royals visit Canada we already pay for everything especially security - just as in the US security for the presidents and their families is paid for by the tax payer - forever as well.

When asked the vast majority of Canadians simply say they are welcome and hope that this will get them away from all the harassment for at least part of the time.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

The other reason this is really another non-story is that Harry is not important in the line of succession. 

Charles is the direct and only immediate heir to Queen Elizabeth. Prince William, his oldest son, is his direct heir. 

William’s oldest son George is his direct heir. Second in line is William's daughter Charlotte. Third in line is the youngest son, Louis. 

As soon as George has children they become the next immediate heirs. 

Harry is no longer even a consideration in the line of succession to become King unless Charles, William, George, Charlotte and Louis all die now or before any of these nephews and nieces have kids of their own. This is always a possibility as other members of the royal family have been killed or blown up (in recent history) by the IRA.

Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward are the Queen’s other children. They and their children had/have as little importance to the line of succession as does Harry and his children.

Princess Margaret was Queen Elizabeth's younger sister and she had no importance in the line of succession and was quite the rich gad-about playgirl - did not do much work for the monarchy.

The young Royals are work horses for the monarchy and especially for tourism. They are hugely rich and privileged. Lucky them. But at least they give back. Charles funds enormous work and apprenticeships and has risen the people in his Duchy to amazing income and education standards.

Charles wants to remove all the Royals from receiving public funds as he realizes that they are all so wealthy in their own right that they do not need this and that it would be a great public relations move on the part of the monarchy.


----------



## IlliniosGal (Jun 3, 2019)

emdeengee said:


> The abdication of King Edward so that he could marry Wallis was played out as having to do with a great romance that could not be because she was a divorcee and as the head of the Church of England, Edward, could not marry a divorcee. The reality was that Britain could not tolerate a King who was a fascist and not only did he and Wallis support Hitler but they were friends with him and all the other top Nazis. This was a political move and thankfully it worked.


Yes, everyone seems to forget that Edward and Willis were big supporters of Hitler.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> They would be welcome here as we have no leader at all.


We aren't supposed to have "leaders".
A constitutional republic is a form of government in which a *representative* is elected by the people.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

It's beyond me why they even have a Monarchy over there.

With more and more "royals" being born . . . and marrying . . . and having more "royals", and each "royal" has to have a fancy mansion, it sure has to be a drain on the taxpayers.

But the thing is, even if Harry "walks away", you don't have to worry about him having to make it on his own. Grandma (or Dad when the time comes) will make sure he is cared for. I don't think you have to worry about Harry and the kids on food stamps.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IlliniosGal said:


> Yes, everyone seems to forget that Edward and Willis were big supporters of Hitler.


Aside from the historical trivia standpoint, why does that matter?


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

An interesting paradox all around.

The royal family really serves no purpose any more, yet are more revered than the actual leader of UK.lot of tradition and pomp with it all, some want things updated, some want things remain tradtitional.

Not living in that society and all it’s hard for me to really ‘judge’ the issue.

If they want a tad more normal life for themselves, and they aren’t really in the mainstream of king and queen anyhow, can understand that I guess.

Paul


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Aside from the historical trivia standpoint, why does that matter?


Why do you care about someone pointing out a FASCIST.
*Fascism* is a form of government that is a type of one-party dictatorship. *Fascists* are against democracy. They work for a totalitarian one-party state. This aim is to prepare the nation for armed conflict, and to respond to economic difficulties. *Fascism* puts nation and often race above the individual.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

But for the grace of GOD go we.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Sounds like a great new thread topic.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

Where would we be if the Duke of Windsor hadn't given us the Windsor knot for our neckties? Much more symmetrical than a Half-Windsor, and more appealing than a Four in Hand. Fashion is so important in our lives you know. I don't think I've tied a tie more than once since I retired, and that was for a friend's funeral, he was picky about funeral dress.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> Why do you care about someone pointing out a FASCIST.


Because it really has nothing to do with this topic.



SRSLADE said:


> *Fascism* is a form of government that is a type of *one-party dictatorship*.


Exactly like what today's Democrats want.
But again, not relevant to this topic.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Some of poor harry's family were FASCIST.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Topic police? New subcategory of grammar police?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

I find one part of the topic factual and the other part gossipy.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Ok. Fine with me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> Some of poor harry's family were FASCIST.


More trivia not really related to him and the current situation.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

I think Harry and his wife will do just fine.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

SRSLADE said:


> I think Harry and his wife will do just fine.


Well when you got about 40 million things are usually fine.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

I most certainly don't have a dog in this fight. But I am happy the taxpayers of UK might save a little money. I am all for Harry and family to pay their own way and do as they please.

I would also encourage the majority pf the royal family to follow suit!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I most certainly don't have a dog in this fight. But I am happy the taxpayers of UK might save a little money. I am all for Harry and family to pay their own way and do as they please.
> 
> I would also encourage the majority pf the royal family to follow suit!


I think many would feel the same way but the royal family generates a lot of money for the UK in tourism revenue. I read that Princess Charlotte, one of Prince William's children, generated $4.3 billion for the UK economy after her birth, her older brother generated slightly less. 

There is also something known as 'the Duchess effect' and the wives are expected to showcase UK designers as often as possible. As a rule, what they wear sells out and it's my understanding, there are websites dealing with what each woman wears at public functions, right down to the earrings. 

Prince Harry is somewhat of a fan favorite, likely because he's a lot less restrained than his brother and I've read that his departure could impact tourism substantially.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> I think many would feel the same way but the royal family generates a lot of money for the UK in tourism revenue. I read that Princess Charlotte, one of Prince William's children, generated $4.3 billion for the UK economy after her birth, her older brother generated slightly less.
> 
> There is also something known as 'the Duchess effect' and the wives are expected to showcase UK designers as often as possible. As a rule, what they wear sells out and it's my understanding, there are websites dealing with what each woman wears at public functions, right down to the earrings.
> 
> Prince Harry is somewhat of a fan favorite, likely because he's a lot less restrained than his brother and I've read that his departure could impact tourism substantially.


Maybe I should start charging for my bon fires. They are legendary.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Well if it can generate $4.3 billion it must be legendary!
Heck I’d come see that and I’ve seen enough forest fires to hold me the rest of my life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mreynolds said:


> Maybe I should start charging for my bon fires.


That would probably work out better than trying to model the latest designer clothes. 
You'd look pretty silly in some of the hats they wear.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

Seems I remember they were thinking about moving to Africa at one time? Hey, I admire a man that puts his wife and child above his birth family. I wouldn't want a husband who didn't have the balls to stand up for me or a man who is afraid to make his own decisions in life. Granted my husband's not royalty but he's pretty royal to me. I wish the couple the best and I'm glad to see he didn't wait until he was old like his dad to finally go for the woman he really wanted in the first place.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Well if it can generate $4.3 billion it must be legendary!
> Heck I’d come see that and I’ve seen enough forest fires to hold me the rest of my life.


News generates tourism and tourism generates the purchase of consumer goods, those that are caught up in these things and can't visit the country, shop online. I believe I read that the companies that made the blanket and hat the baby wore on the steps of the hospital sold out within minutes and since then, the clothes the child wears is much the same. 

The women have so much style influence that Prince William's wife was seen wearing a fedora and women are rushing to ditch their fascinators in favor of the new trend. 

It's my understanding that both royal weddings were also a huge boost for the UK economy. 

When the royal women have an outing, the palace releases statements indicating what designer they wore, etc.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

It is not just the people in the Royal family who generate tourism but also the traditions, ceremonies and buildings and gardens. Over 2 million tourists visit the Tower of London each year and 15 million visit Buckingham Palace. Millions more visit all the other palaces. 

And then of course there is the Changing of the Guard ceremony which is one of the most popular attractions in the world. Even the one we have in Canada draws millions each year.

When in Britain tourists also visit all the other national treasures and museums. There are 10 Royal Gardens open to the public and they are spectacular if you have an interest in rare plants.

If you don't think that what the Royals wear is followed by people all over the world you are mistaken. It does make a lot of money for a lot of people. The white bathrobe that Prince George wore when he met President Obama sold out in just a few minutes after the photo was released and the hundreds of thousands of orders made the manufacturer very happy and rich.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

They just announced that Harry and family are no longer working members of the royal family. They now also financial independent of the government.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Looks like they may be our (Washington state’s) new neighbors up in Vancouver. 
Canada is such a nice place. I don’t know why anyone from there would leave.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> They just announced that Harry and family are no longer working members of the royal family. They now also financial independent of the government.


The article I read said this will take effect in the spring.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

SRSLADE said:


> They would be welcome here as we have no leader at all.


LOL; Where does this fellow live? We have a leader, and he seems to be kicking butts,


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

wr said:


> The article I read said this will take effect in the spring.



I just checked on a British forum that I participate in, and they do not mention a ''spring'' time line. They also mentioned paying back money spent to refurbish a home.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I did find a mention of the spring thing but that is not far away and the Queen has already dropped their royal monikers.

Either way they will get to live the lives they want. I don't see them dropping their charitable work.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

painterswife said:


> I did find a mention of the spring thing but that is not far away and the Queen has already dropped their royal monikers.
> 
> Either way they will get to live the lives they want. I don't see them dropping their charitable work.


Apparently Meghan has her eye on a 27 million dollar abode
Harry's going broke.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Apparently Meghan has her eye on a 27 million dollar abode
> Harry's going broke.


I saw that. It is a really nice location. I rented an apartment right across the street from there years ago. I personally don't not think they would choose that place. Too accessible from both the water and the park down the street. It is only 4 blocks from my sisters home.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Wanda said:


> I just checked on a British forum that I participate in, and they do not mention a ''spring'' time line. They also mentioned paying back money spent to refurbish a home.


I got it from the CBC news which linked the following:

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0

As far as name changes it seems that they lose the HRH part because they aren't working royals but will retain their other titles.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> they lose the HRH


So now he's Harry, formerly known as Prince...


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

Ya get to dress up in all those clothes and shoes and sweaters and handbags and uniforms and swords, and medals, but you don't get to wear the crown? Pfffft……..

geo


----------



## Ronney (Nov 26, 2004)

It would appear that it is the Queen who has laid down the law. They will lose the use of public funds in spring, have to drop their HRH titles but retain the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and pay back the 2.4million pounds (my keyboard doesn't have a pounds symbol, how odd) of public funds used to renovate Frogmore Cottage. Fair enough because there is no having the cake and eating it too. Both of them have extensive private funds and they will get work not because of what they are but because of who they are. And that may wane too when they are no longer so much in the public eye and therefore not so saleable - when people start to say "who?"

Cheers,
Ronnie


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

I expect if the awful tabloid press from the UK arrive here in BC to badger the royals, they will get screamed down by our special breed of protesters.

I also expect that if taxpayers here need to pay their security and that number is higher than the actual value of the royals being here, other protesters will get loud and perhaps push them back to England. 

We have a culture of protesters here that get heard!


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I know that the fairy tale was that Diana was poor Cinderella being chosen by the rich Prince but the reality was that she was from the second richest family in Britain - the Spencers. Only the Royal family is richer and owns more land. When her father died she inherited a fortune and also received a fortune in settlement for her divorce from Charles. When she died the boys inherited from her. I have no financial worries for Harry. And Meghan always earned her way as an actress.

When they take landed immigrant status they can both work just like anyone else if they choose. Harry is ex military and went through the full officers training as Sandhurst. He is a fully qualified Apache helicopter pilot which he flew in the Afghanistan war. Lots of pilots needed in Canada. Not to mention he has had one of the finest educations money and status can give you.

And Canada does have an immigration category for those who bring a lot of money, innovation, experience and thus jobs to the country. Most of the immigrants from Hong Kong and China came/come here under this category.


----------



## Witch's Broom (Dec 23, 2017)

I'm not a fan of royalty (AT ALL), and there's been rumblings over the possibility of Canadian taxpayers footing the bill for the couple, and that has me seeing red!

As it stands, $43 Million (A YEAR) is the estimate on what it costs Canada to support the royal family while on Canadian soil.

My words to the couple, _welcome to Canada, and you can pay your own way._


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

emdeengee said:


> I know that the fairy tale was that Diana was poor Cinderella being chosen by the rich Prince but the reality was that she was from the second richest family in Britain - the Spencers. Only the Royal family is richer and owns more land. When her father died she inherited a fortune and also received a fortune in settlement for her divorce from Charles. When she died the boys inherited from her. I have no financial worries for Harry. And Meghan always earned her way as an actress.
> 
> When they take landed immigrant status they can both work just like anyone else if they choose. Harry is ex military and went through the full officers training as Sandhurst. He is a fully qualified Apache helicopter pilot which he flew in the Afghanistan war. Lots of pilots needed in Canada. Not to mention he has had one of the finest educations money and status can give you.
> 
> And Canada does have an immigration category for those who bring a lot of money, innovation, experience and thus jobs to the country. Most of the immigrants from Hong Kong and China came/come here under this category.



Why would they be immigrants? Doesn't the queen own Canada?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Maude said:


> I'm not a fan of royalty (AT ALL), and there's been rumblings over the possibility of Canadian taxpayers footing the bill for the couple, and that has me seeing red!
> 
> As it stands, $43 Million (A YEAR) is the estimate on what it costs Canada to support the royal family while on Canadian soil.
> 
> My words to the couple, _welcome to Canada, and you can pay your own way._


I feel the same way about our "royalty" in congress and senate. Somehow we just keep paying them anyway and they never seem to do anything.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

No, the Queen does not own Canada. Ours is a Parliamentary Democracy with a constitutional monarch. This means the sovereign has powers limited by the country's constitution. 

Constitutional monarchy differs from absolute (in which a monarch holds absolute power) in that constitutional monarchs are bound to exercise their powers and authorities within the limits prescribed within an established legal framework. Constitutional monarchies range from countries such as Monaco, Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain where the constitution grants substantial discretionary powers to the sovereign, to countries such as the United Kingdom, Spain, Belgium, Sweden and Japan where the monarch retains no formal authority.

Queen Elizabeth can come to Canada any time she wants and can stay as long as she wants but no one else can. You need a visitor or work visa or to be granted immigrant or refugee status.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

This is what confuses me.


*Search Results*
*Featured snippet from the web*
The land of *Canada* is solely owned by *Queen* Elizabeth II who is also the head of state. ... *Canadians* can only *own* an interest in an estate. Of the land owned by the *Queen*, 50% is administered by the provincial government and the rest by the federal government.Jun 11, 2019



  




www.worldatlas.com › articles › who-owns-all-the-land-in-canada

*Who Owns All the Land in Canada? - WorldAtlas.com*


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Must tell the kids - Queen Elizabeth will pay half of their estate tax! I wonder if this applies to mortgages? Kidding. 

Tricky politically and legally and depends on how pedantic you want to be.

Crown land also known as royal domain is a territorial area belonging to the monarch, who personifies the Crown. It is the equivalent of an entailed estate and passes with the monarchy, being inseparable from it. Today, in Commonwealth realms such as Canada and Australia, crown land is considered public land and is apart from the monarch's private estate.

The Queen of Canada holds the legal title to all the “Crown Lands”. That makes up 89% of Canada. Currently Elizabeth is both Queen of the UK and Queen of Canada, but those are separate positions and could diverge in the future. So Elizabeth, who is the Queen of the UK, has title to 89% of Canada. But she owns it because she is also the Queen of Canada. The ownership has nothing to do with the title of Queen of the UK.

The idea of “owning” that land is tricky too. Canada inherited much of its legal tradition from the UK, and the UK evolved for a long time without the concept of a corporation. In the US, for example, the government is a corporation - a legal person - that can own property, enter into contracts, sue and be sued, etc. In the UK, Canada, etc. the government can’t do those things. Only a natural person can. So the “legal formula” that is followed is that the monarch owns all the government property, the monarch enters into contracts, the monarch can sue or be sued. The government does all these things as the Queen’s agent.

It is important to understand that even though the documents may say that Elizabeth Queen of Canada owns the land, the land is not Elizabeth’s personal property. It is owned by Elizabeth on behalf of the people of Canada. Imagine you and some other friends formed a legal partnership in order to run a business. One of your partners might purchase some property and hold legal title to it on behalf of the partnership. It would be well understood that it is not his property to do with as he pleases, but that he holds it for the benefit of all the partners. The same principals operate here.

So in a strictly literal sense, Elizabeth owns 89% of Canada. In a practical sense that 89% is owned by the Canadian government. Elizabeth’s name is on the deed but she has no control over it.


----------

