The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #561  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:07 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
When changes are made to our US Constitution it affects *every* American and not just one person or one group of people. This is how things should be seen when it comes to the monarchy and it's titles and styles and rules and regulations.
Ideally in a perfect world this is true. But the world isn't.

Wait, the Queen pays for The Duke of York's security out of her private wealth. But if the PoW did that for the Sussex's it's wrong?
__________________

  #562  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:10 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathia_sophia View Post
I fail to see why Meghan wants her son to have HRH "now"? Why are they demanding things after they stopped being working royals by their own volution? And what is going on with this biracial talk? As far as I can see, HRH Prince was not given to Archie because he is not the grandson of a monarch, yet...not because of his heritage...
She used Archie's lack of HRH as "proof" that the royal family is racist. Since it is a provable lie, it means Meghan and Harry don't have a lot of other arguments. To avoid making it seem like she only cared about the title, she tied it to security. Another lie.
__________________

  #563  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:11 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
I said that at the beginning but nobody noticed. This started out as a fun way to play Devil's Advocate for me. An intellectual exercise with socialization in my own isolation. My only stated opinion that the Title controversy in regard to race could have been avoided easily. Somehow that's twisted into something else. Maybe it was a bad idea to give my thoughts a way out.
As an Asian, sometimes I wonder what "racist" actually means in the west (especially in US). Does racism only apply for "white" against "non-white"?

Because in my mindset (as I've been taught since young), being racist means to discriminate or have prejudice to someone/group on the basis of their race or ethnicity. An Indian can be racist towards a Chinese despite the darker skin tone just like Japanese can be racist towards Korean despite the similar skin tone. And with that in mind, if the BRF made an exemption based on the fact that Archie (and his future sister) is biracial (because of his race, not his birth order), in my Asian's mind, wouldn't it make the BRF as an institution as racist since in a way they had discriminated the other great-grandchildren who aren't biracial?
  #564  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:11 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
She used Archie's lack of HRH as "proof" that the royal family is racist. Since it is a provable lie, it means Meghan and Harry don't have a lot of other arguments. To avoid making it seem like she only cared about the title, she tied it to security. Another lie.
No from the transcript that isn't the words she used.
  #565  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:14 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Oh I can think of quite few who could. Not myself probably but Megan Whalen-Turner could easily.
I could easily dream up a good story and try to sell it to Netflix how when Harry and Meghan moved to California, with all the current political unrest and division that still exists so widely, what comes about is Harry and Meghan become so popular that California secedes from the Union and installs King Henry I and Queen Meghan and Montecito becomes the capitol of the Sovereign Kingdom of California and they all lived happily ever after. (until the politicians were needed but that'd be the sequel).
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #566  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:14 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 210
Does Andrew have who-knows-how-many million dollars? That's a real question. I remember that at the time of their marriage Sarah could not afford a wardrobe similar to Diana's exactly because he didn't have Charles' means.


It's worth noting as well that the bulk of the money Diana got (and left to William and Harry) came from her divorce settlement, so Harry is still being funded by Charles quite directly.
  #567  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:16 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
No from the transcript that isn't the words she used.
She may not have used the word but she tied his lack of title to his heritage,.
  #568  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:17 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I could easily dream up a good story and try to sell it to Netflix how when Harry and Meghan moved to California, with all the current political unrest and division that still exists so widely, what comes about is Harry and Meghan become so popular that California secedes from the Union and installs King Henry I and Queen Meghan and Montecito becomes the capitol of the Sovereign Kingdom of California and they all lived happily ever after. (until the politicians were needed but that'd be the sequel).
Is it for pre-order already? Can I buy it from Amazon?
  #569  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:20 PM
kathia_sophia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South, Portugal
Posts: 2,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
She used Archie's lack of HRH as "proof" that the royal family is racist. Since it is a provable lie, it means Meghan and Harry don't have a lot of other arguments. To avoid making it seem like she only cared about the title, she tied it to security. Another lie.
I see. This all is very confusing, because when Archie was born they clearly said that they wanted their son to be a private citizen. They are contradicting themselves. So it seems Meghan wanted Archie to be HRH Prince but it was not possible, then why didn't they let their son be titled son of a Duke? Is it really if "I don't have the cake but only a slice, then I don't want anything at all?".
__________________
♫A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams.♥
  #570  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:20 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
That's just sad. Oh well, I thought my extended family had issues.
  #571  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:24 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
They have a huge mortgage. Apparently that is something the media can look up.
Yes, that is something that is absolutely able to be looked up by the media. I am a mortgage closer by profession and any land title deeds must be recorded with the county recorder, and you can look them up by property address, APN (Assessor's Parcel Number), or even the name of the homeowner. At minimum, there would be a Bargain & Sale Deed or a Warranty Deed (they're both essentially the same thing) transferring the ownership of the property from the seller to the buyer. That deed will include the legal property description and APN. From there, it's a matter of doing a Chain of Title search to see what other deeds are on record for the property, and the Chain of Title search would pull up the Mortgage Deed (if they did take out a mortgage to purchase the property) which would show who their lender is as well as how large the mortgage was that they took in order to purchase the property.

Most county recorders and tax assessors have websites with the county tax information readily available - probably at least once a week I find myself Googling some random county tax assessor's website to look up property tax information to verify we are collecting the correct amounts for escrows or that the homeowner is current on their property taxes. Property taxes are based on current property value and in California property taxes only increase when the property has had an ownership transfer, so H&M are going to have a pretty hefty property tax bill in addition to their mortgage.

All of this information is a matter of public record and I'm not sure how they can keep any of it private. There WILL be a record of the title transfer and even if they themselves didn't take ownership but instead put the ownership of the property in a trust or an LLC, there will be a mortgage deed on record too if they had one for the purchase of the property. I assume that the statements "they had to take a mortgage to buy the Montecito property" have been properly researched by interested reporters but I also am pretty sure that if I was inclined (totally 1000% not, lol), I could find the necessary information (subject property address) and confirm it myself.
  #572  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:24 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post

Wait, the Queen pays for The Duke of York's security out of her private wealth. But if the PoW did that for the Sussex's it's wrong? Okay... Why didn't she make it conditional that he help the FBI? The Duke of York's controversy is 1000 times worse than the Sussex's.
I don't think many of us have said that it would be wrong from Charles to pay for Harry's security. He gave them money to get them settled in their new life. The issue is whether Charles was a bad father because he wouldn't pay security for his 36-year old multi-millionaire son who has the funds to buy a mansion with 14 bathrooms.
  #573  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:26 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Ideally in a perfect world this is true. But the world isn't.

Wait, the Queen pays for The Duke of York's security out of her private wealth. But if the PoW did that for the Sussex's it's wrong? Okay... Why didn't she make it conditional that he help the FBI? The Duke of York's controversy is 1000 times worse than the Sussex's.
The Queen has always funded Andrew as a working royal and if she has chosen to fund his security from her private wealth, that's her prerogative.

The way it works is that the Prince of Wales has his Duchy of Cornwall income and with that he's responsible for the funding of his wife and his children and their families. *Most* of what Charles funds for William and Harry is their expenses as working royals. It is a tax deductible business expense for him. If Charles had four children, like the Queen, when he became King, he'd still fund the three younger ones while William, as Duke of Cornwall would be responsible for his own family. This is one reason when the Royal Foundation was split up and William and Harry's joint office and staff were split up, Harry's was moved to Buckingham Palace under the jurisdiction of the Queen. It was, to me, a preparation to plan for the future when Charles would be responsible for Harry but no longer for William.

What Charles does with his own personal funds is up to him and him alone. Any security paid for to guard Harry and Meghan and family would come out of his *personal* expenditures and no longer a "business expense". The Queen has no say whatsoever on Charles' finances. The Queen however, could be talked by Andrew into backing him in a scheme to colonize Mars and it'd be her own personal choice to back him on that one.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #574  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:27 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Well, exactly KrissyM. One rule for Andrew one exception for the Sussexes I suppose.
TBF, if the Sussexes also live in Windsor (just like Andrew), I think Charles would pay their security cost. The thing is, security cost in Santa Barbara is more expensive than in Windsor and although Charles is rich, but he's not THAT rich that he can pay it indefinitely.
  #575  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:28 PM
kathia_sophia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South, Portugal
Posts: 2,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
As an Asian, sometimes I wonder what "racist" actually means in the west (especially in US). Does racism only apply for "white" against "non-white"?

Because in my mindset (as I've been taught since young), being racist means to discriminate or have prejudice to someone/group on the basis of their race or ethnicity. An Indian can be racist towards a Chinese despite the darker skin tone just like Japanese can be racist towards Korean despite the similar skin tone. And with that in mind, if the BRF made an exemption based on the fact that Archie (and his future sister) is biracial (because of his race, not his birth order), in my Asian's mind, wouldn't it make the BRF as an institution as racist since in a way they had discriminated the other great-grandchildren who aren't biracial?
That makes sense. You are right about what "racist" really means. I saw a Korean program where a foreign woman (I think she was from Iran) moved to South Korea, and she explained the hard life she had there because of racism and prejudice (and she was fair-skinned). It really isn't about being "white" or "non-white", but as you pointed out, discrimination or have prejudice to someone/group on the basis of their race or ethnicity.
__________________
♫A man is not old until regrets take the place of dreams.♥
  #576  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:29 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
I've read people say that it would be wrong for him to pay for security. If the Queen is forking out cash for the son that has done more to damage the prestige of the Monarchy than the Sussex's have done then I find that incomprehensible! People talk like their interview is the worst Royal Scandal ever. I wouldn't put it in the top 100.
  #577  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:31 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Okay this is my first real 'opinion' rather than just playing devil's advocate. Putting on my CJ Cregg hat, if I was an advisor, the minute I heard The Sussex's were expecting I'd sit down with the Queen and this would be the scene...

"Ma'am, I strongly urge you to re-write the LP's to say that starting from this birth all Great-grandchildren on the Monarch are automatically granted HRH unless specifically refused by their parents,"

"Why?" Her Majesty would reasonably ask.

"Ma'am, if you don't, someone, somewhere could and likely would say that this child isn't given it because of his ethnic makeup."

Possibly Her Majesty would say "But that's untrue, and ridiculous. The rules were made in 1917."

"That's correct ma'am. However, in 1917 people of color were lynched in the US and couldn't even use the same lavatory until the late 60's. Someone will bring it up, and the only way not to have a horse in that race, is to cancel the race. This is the world we live in now."
So if I understand you correctly, you make a distinction between public perception versus facts.

Not granting Archie an HRH can be perceived by the public as racism despite the fact that the decision is actually based on rules that were set in place before the Queen was born. Furthermore, as Tatiana Marie has pointed out, these rules are not based on race (but do discriminate by gender).

The general public does not understand or even know about these rules (especially Americans) and only see that Archie, Charles' only mixed-raced grandchild, is NOT an HRH while his other grandchildren ARE, and wrongly conclude this exclusion is based on RACE.

Is this correct?
  #578  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:32 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 4,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I am not familiar with Californian Law and Santa Barbara County Police, but why was the trespasser not fined, but being let off with warning after he was caught in his first attempt? Surely, he should have been fined for breaking the law by entering a person's property without permission.

I'm likely way off with my response but this might have been an attempt this past year to keep more people out of the county jail due to COVID restrictions. Many suspects are being let out on a $1.00 bail. Also there has been a tremendous increase in the homeless population in SB Co., with people camping out in all sorts of places in the area.
  #579  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:33 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
That is correct! Perception matters more than fact for a monarchy to remain relevant in today's world.
  #580  
Old 03-14-2021, 09:36 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
The Queen has always funded Andrew as a working royal and if she has chosen to fund his security from her private wealth, that's her prerogative.

The way it works is that the Prince of Wales has his Duchy of Cornwall income and with that he's responsible for the funding of his wife and his children and their families. *Most* of what Charles funds for William and Harry is their expenses as working royals. It is a tax deductible business expense for him. If Charles had four children, like the Queen, when he became King, he'd still fund the three younger ones while William, as Duke of Cornwall would be responsible for his own family. This is one reason when the Royal Foundation was split up and William and Harry's joint office and staff were split up, Harry's was moved to Buckingham Palace under the jurisdiction of the Queen. It was, to me, a preparation to plan for the future when Charles would be responsible for Harry but no longer for William.

What Charles does with his own personal funds is up to him and him alone. Any security paid for to guard Harry and Meghan and family would come out of his *personal* expenditures and no longer a "business expense". The Queen has no say whatsoever on Charles' finances. The Queen however, could be talked by Andrew into backing him in a scheme to colonize Mars and it'd be her own personal choice to back him on that one.
Like H&M, their fans are busy desperately trying to creat a victim narrative for them. Charles, apparently, does not want to pay for H&M’s security and given that it’s his money, it’s his choice.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (0 members and 9 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication america anastasia 2020 background story biography bridal gown britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace canada china commonwealth countries countess of snowdon daisy dna doge of venice dubai duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii emperor facts family life fantasy movie fashion and style george vi hello! hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume introduction italian royal family jewellery king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess dita queen louise queen mathilde queen maxima random facts royal ancestry royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal re-enactments. royal spouse royal wedding royal wedding gown solomon j solomon speech stuart suthida taiwan thailand uae customs united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:01 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×