Gransnet forums

Chat

Meghan and harry

(295 Posts)
bevisp1 Tue 07-Jun-22 09:02:32

Don’t know if it’s me or anyone else feels the same, seems that they didn’t have much success in coming back for the queens platinum jubilee, then suddenly they go back to USA, and now are showing photographs of Lillebet, .. in my opinion, a little too late. They hardly shown any of Archie since he was born, is it now to try and gain ‘brownie points’ and win the public over…. Don’t get me wrong whatever photos they show of the little ones are adorable, but to me a little too late…

25Avalon Sat 11-Jun-22 10:12:38

Volver I may be prejudiced against Prince Charles. Having had to help fight his plans to build 2,000 homes on green belt farming land, and seen his treatment of his tenants on the Duchy estates, I have found him to be a complete hypocrite.

Germanshepherdsmum Sat 11-Jun-22 10:11:23

He will have to keep his thoughts to himself a little more when he becomes King.

volver Sat 11-Jun-22 10:05:42

25Avalon

volver

I think it's good that Charles has spoken out about Rwanda.

Royalty especially our future king should keep out of politics. Charles is playing into the hands of the Republicans and possibly making a few more on the way.

Been thinking about this.

If Charles had commented on the level of taxation or something similar, then that's politics and he shouldn't have said anything.

As he is commenting on the proposed introduction of an inhuman action that goes completely against the characteristics of this nation, then that is what a Head of State is for. Partially. To prevent temporary governments from destroying the fabric of this nation for their own short term ends. I would expect most Republicans would understand the difference and respect his stance on this.

But never mind, you're with Farage on this. Charmer that he is.

Anniebach Sat 11-Jun-22 09:57:50

Put on public display because they were sitting with their parents watching a street parade, as were many of their second cousins.

25Avalon Sat 11-Jun-22 09:57:44

volver

I think it's good that Charles has spoken out about Rwanda.

Royalty especially our future king should keep out of politics. Charles is playing into the hands of the Republicans and possibly making a few more on the way.

nanna8 Sat 11-Jun-22 08:31:13

They all seem pretty well behaved to me. Many of my children were little so and sos at age 4 . The grandchildren were angels compared with mine but then I wasn’t around all the time.

volver Sat 11-Jun-22 08:28:49

I think it's good that Charles has spoken out about Rwanda.

Joseanne Sat 11-Jun-22 07:02:06

At least most posters try to see the good in the royal children rather than always looking for the bad. And if these very normal children do slip up on the odd occasion, for whatever reason, they can surely be forgiven instead of becoming the subject of a right royal furore.

Mollygo Fri 10-Jun-22 22:28:38

Not worth continuing. I agree, so let’s not. I simply found it odd that you were putting pictures of children on public display, whilst saying it was wrong that they were on public display (which I agree with).

volver Fri 10-Jun-22 18:59:32

Eh? This is not a conversation worth continuing.

Other than to say, I posted pictures of the world's most photographed family that had been all over the press for days. That nobody had thought of commenting on until you struck on a way of trying to paint me as the bad guy.

Mollygo Fri 10-Jun-22 18:49:27

So you didn’t post photos of children on public display, and not even your own, on social media? Sorry. I should have gone to Specsavers ?

volver Fri 10-Jun-22 16:00:08

Mollygo

V, I didn’t know some posters had said they weren’t on public display.
But surely it’s equally wrong to perpetuate the fact that they were on public display by posting photographs of them from the public display.

Anniebach, 11:31

Sorry Anniebach, got to defend myself.

I wasn't perpetuating anything. I was trying, clearly not very well, to say that posters should be thinking twice about posting things that are disprovable.

Mollygo Fri 10-Jun-22 15:54:46

V, I didn’t know some posters had said they weren’t on public display.
But surely it’s equally wrong to perpetuate the fact that they were on public display by posting photographs of them from the public display.

Anniebach Fri 10-Jun-22 14:36:14

Mollygo should they be kept at home until age 18 so they can
decide for themselves?

volver Fri 10-Jun-22 14:25:31

They were on public display,

Glad to see you agree with me Mollygo, unlike some posters who say they weren't on public display.

Mollygo Fri 10-Jun-22 14:21:23

They were on public display, but evidently some of the people who think it is wrong
are happy to perpetuate the wrongdoing by posting the pictures on social media.
Note my post without pictures.

volver Fri 10-Jun-22 11:52:27

If someone says that the children weren't on public display, and somebody else posts a picture of the children on public display....

Actually standing on a balcony in front of several thousand people, or being placed in the front row of the VIP box in their Sunday best.

No point in saying they weren't on public display. When they were on public display.

Glorianny Fri 10-Jun-22 11:52:15

No but nor do two wrongs make a right. But when the only come back possible is "They weren't" or "well others do it" you know that people are really uncomfortable about it, they just don't want to admit it!

Mollygo Fri 10-Jun-22 11:46:36

Here are the royal children on display at the weekend.
And?
Here are all the people who copied and pasted pictures of other people’s children. Does copying and spreading something you think is wrong suddenly make it right?

volver Fri 10-Jun-22 11:38:06

Why do people keep trying to deny the obvious?

Here are the royal children on display at the weekend.

Mollygo Fri 10-Jun-22 11:36:28

Glorianny, talking of lunacy, it’s now acceptable to post photographs of your dinner, your relatives in stupid poses, places you have visited, your pets, your new watering can, your children and your grandchildren. You don’t even have to be rich, so why pick on one family?

Anniebach Fri 10-Jun-22 11:31:46

The children were not put on public display, those in the parade were, by choice,

Glorianny Fri 10-Jun-22 11:22:21

I don't understand why a century after we stopped publicly displaying lunatics, years after zoos have stopped being places that display animals in cages, it is at all acceptable for one rich family to put their children on public display, simply because one of them might possibly, sometime in the distant future, become head of state.

Grany Fri 10-Jun-22 11:11:47

An SNP MP has demanded the Queen reveal whether she bankrolled Prince Andrew’s £12million sexual assault case settlement.

Tommy Sheppard wants a new law that requires the royals to be transparent about spending from their Duchy of Lancaster estate.

The Duke of York reached an out-of-court settlement with Virginia Giuffre over claims he ­sexually assaulted her when she was 17.

It has not been made public how that was funded, with press reports claiming the Queen was to help financially.

Sheppard said: “Most people would find it quite shocking if funds were used in this way, and they would want the money paid back.”

Prince Andrew lost his ­military titles and royal ­patronages in January amid a public outcry over his links to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Sheppard wants to know whether proceeds from the Duchy – the monarch’s £500million estate – were used for the Duke’s settlement.

The Privy Purse is the Queen’s private income from the Duchy and she receives around £20million a year from it.

Sovereign Grant income given to the Queen from the Crown Estate is made public while money from the Duchy is not.

But Sheppard says the Duchy, which the UK Government runs, is an “organ of the state”, not a set of private assets.

The Edinburgh East MP has written to Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a bid to make Duchy spending public. He wrote: “While the Duchy of Lancaster publishes annual accounts of how that money has been raised, it is simply handed over to the Royal Household with no further checks.

“Once in the Privy Purse, it vanishes from all public scrutiny and accountability, despite its public origin.”

He added: “This is ­especially important in light of recent ­allegations. Media
organisations have widely reported that Prince Andrew reached a settlement with Virginia Giuffre that included him paying her £12million.

“There has been wide speculation that this money came from the Queen.”

Sheppard argued the UK Government should make the Duchy income public through an Act of Parliament “similar to the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011”.

He previously wrote to Sir Michael Stevens, Keeper of the Privy Purse, about the matter.

The Keeper replied that the resources from the Duchy are part of the Queen’s personal income and “in the main” used to support other members of the Royal Family to perform official duties.

Sheppard asked whether any cash was used for the Prince Andrew case, to which the Keeper said he did not have “anything to add”.

The MP told the Record the Duchy’s response had been a “little dismissive”.

He said: “It is not the Queen’s private wealth. The Duchy of Lancaster is not private, it is part of the state. The Queen only has access to it as long as she is Queen. She can’t take it with her. It comes with the office.”

He added: “Given I have been told to take a running jump, I think we need a law.”

Asked if he suspected that Duchy funds helped pay for the settlement, he said: “Sort of, because otherwise why would you not just explicitly dismiss the question? To refuse to answer plants that suspicion.”

Prince Andrew made no admission of liability as part of the settlement and has denied Ms Giuffre’s allegations.

The Treasury said no public money was involved, which would rule out cash from the Sovereign Grant

Downing Street, Buckingham Palace and the Duchy of Lancaster have been contacted for comment.

Tommy Sheppard is backing a new transparency law for the Duchy of Lancaster, which provides the Queen with some of her income.

We need this transparency law don't we?
Public bodies should not be exempt from FOIA

Anniebach Fri 10-Jun-22 10:54:24

What is unnatural about children taken to watch a street parade