Welcome to Sky Blues Talk!

You're currently viewing the forum as a guest. Join thousands of fellow Coventry City fans today!

Register Log in

Working to Become Financially Independent

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 5849
  • Start date Start date
OffenhamSkyBlue said:
I wish there was a way of getting all broadcast and print media to agree to a news blackout on the Sussexes - see how they like that!
But i can't see the likes of the Mail and Express (in particular) signing up to that.
Click to expand...
Seriously think that it will gradually die down once they relocate overseas. Focus just even more on William & Kate and their kids.
Did people really care about who was 6 & 7th in-line to the throne before Harry was born?
 
tisza said:
Seriously think that it will gradually die down once they relocate overseas. Focus just even more on William & Kate and their kids.
Did people really care about who was 6 & 7th in-line to the throne before Harry was born?
Click to expand...

They want to use their title for commercial gain so it will not die down. That’s the irony - the big bad media will be required when they want it
 
tisza said:
Seriously think that it will gradually die down once they relocate overseas. Focus just even more on William & Kate and their kids.
Did people really care about who was 6 & 7th in-line to the throne before Harry was born?
Click to expand...
Princess Margaret was fifth, and went into exile long before she slipped down the pecking order (when Peter and Zara Philips were born)
 
Grendel said:
They want to use their title for commercial gain so it will not die down. That’s the irony - the big bad media will be required when they want it
Click to expand...
That's part of it.
But surely the value of the titles (if they keep them :) ) diminishes if they are setting themselves outside of the Royal family? They aren't anywhere bigger than the institution.
And it's going to be interesting watching the American media behave with her publicity hungry family right on their new doorstep.
 
OffenhamSkyBlue said:
Princess Margaret was fifth, and went into exile long before she slipped down the pecking order (when Peter and Zara Philips were born)
Click to expand...
There you go another 2nd in-line that had a colourful history and then faded into the background. Harry obviously struggled with it.
Maybe everyone needs to take a breath and focus on whether being 2nd in line but without a realistic chance of getting "promoted" effects Harry and his predecessors in that role.
 
tisza said:
There you go another 2nd in-line that had a colourful history and then faded into the background. Harry obviously struggled with it.
Maybe everyone needs to take a breath and focus on whether being 2nd in line but without a realistic chance of getting "promoted" effects Harry and his predecessors in that role.
Click to expand...

Well he’s not second in line. Other royals such as Princess Anne in particular do hundreds of engagements every year and a lot is low key. These two just want a luxury lifestyle funded by the taxpayer and it’s not on
 
tisza said:
There you go another 2nd in-line that had a colourful history and then faded into the background. Harry obviously struggled with it.
Maybe everyone needs to take a breath and focus on whether being 2nd in line but without a realistic chance of getting "promoted" effects Harry and his predecessors in that role.
Click to expand...
Hasn't Harry only ever been 3rd in line. Behind Charles and William?
 
Grendel said:
Well he’s not second in line. Other royals such as Princess Anne in particular do hundreds of engagements every year and a lot is low key. These two just want a luxury lifestyle funded by the taxpayer and it’s not on
Click to expand...
That's more my point.
As they get further from the throne the more they fade from the media spotlight. People don't really worry too much about what Anne's kids are up to (although i see Zara just been banned from driving :) ). can people name Edward's kids without googling?
Megan is a TV actress who is more famous for marrying Harry than her acting. She's not a Grace Kelly or some Hollywood superstar.
Even Charles doesn't get much media coverage. Him & camilla were at my sister's work before Xmas. She got her picture with them in the local paper and one in the middle pages of the Mail. There were no national TV cameras just BBC South West there for the local news.
Personally i think there's a lot of self-entitlement for the 2 of them. Big fish in their own pond. And let's see if their hands are still out for Charles's money whilst they move forward. harry isn't skint as he inherited a large sum from Diana anyway.
 
Where has this hatred come from (not that i actually give a shit about her/them)? Is it purely unconscious bias based on her racial identity? Or that she's a money-grabbing egotistical witch?
 
OffenhamSkyBlue said:
Where has this hatred come from (not that i actually give a shit about her/them)? Is it purely unconscious bias based on her racial identity? Or that she's a money-grabbing egotistical witch?
Click to expand...
The hatred was there right from the start when they started dating.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 
.
e9a77694c09afeb8710d235e45b4cf0c.jpg


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 
We the taxpaying public paid for the update of the Sussex's home to the tune of several million pounds. Now they're pissing off.
I couldn't give a toss about the pair of them.
 
Alan Dugdales Moustache said:
We the taxpaying public paid for the update of the Sussex's home to the tune of several million pounds.
Click to expand...
Keep seeing this mentioned but does anyone know why this was paid for by the taxpayer and not from the Sovereign Grant? I thought that was supposed to cover property maintenance.
 
Was some marketing guru on sky news who claims they'll make 500m in the 1st year alone.
 
Nothing compared to the £370m the taxpayer will part with for Buckingham Palace refurbishments.
 
Sick Boy said:
Nothing compared to the £370m the taxpayer will part with for Buckingham Palace refurbishments.
Click to expand...

That’s irrelevant really as it’s a national state building.
 
Sick Boy said:
It’s an absurd amount for the taxpayer to be paying considering their wealth.
Click to expand...

They don’t own it and actually are hardly ever there
 
Grendel said:
They don’t own it and actually are hardly ever there
Click to expand...

I’m sure the Queen herself spends the majority of her time there and I still maintain it’s absurd that the taxpayer has to pay such a large sum for the repairs, and how much are they spending on the repairs themselves?
Surely if it’s a publicly funded building the whole place should be opened up to attend all year round with free admission?
 
Sick Boy said:
I’m sure the Queen herself spends the majority of her time there and I still maintain it’s absurd that the taxpayer has to pay such a large sum for the repairs, and how much are they spending on the repairs themselves?
Surely if it’s a publicly funded building the whole place should be opened up to attend all year round with free admission?
Click to expand...

She hardly spends any time there at all. It’s just a front. It wasn’t even originally a royal residence and I suspect given the choice they would refuse to occupy rather than repair it.

It’s a show palace for events and it has offices for staff but it’s primary function is to display the trooping of the colour and attract tourists to see it.

I’m pretty certain a lot of it is not habitable
 
clint van damme said:
He's now denying he said it even though he did say it in a radio interview.
His leadership bid hasn't exactly got off to a flyer.
Click to expand...

He’s not going to get the nominations so I think he’s just throwing stuff hoping something gets him attention now.

To be fair to him, I think looking at the constitution as a whole (HoL, royals, bill of rights etc) is needed and I think the Tories are planning some stuff. But all this “ask the people” stuff is vague nonsense to avoid coming up with a popular policy. And Brexit should’ve shown us direct democracy isn’t always a smart idea.
 
Grendel said:
She hardly spends any time there at all. It’s just a front. It wasn’t even originally a royal residence and I suspect given the choice they would refuse to occupy rather than repair it.

It’s a show palace for events and it has offices for staff but it’s primary function is to display the trooping of the colour and attract tourists to see it.

I’m pretty certain a lot of it is not habitable
Click to expand...

From what I’ve read she spends most Monday-Fridays there in the private quarters.
 
stupot07 said:
.
e9a77694c09afeb8710d235e45b4cf0c.jpg


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Heard about this one on 5Live this morning. But some commentator said that everyone loved Meghan when they were dating, and to the wedding and beyond. It was only when they they started displaying self-destructive behaviour and that not in keeping with royal protocol that the proles turned against her.
 
I have nothing against the royals personally but Megan knew what she was getting into before marrying ginge and let’s face it she wasn’t shy around the press prior to this. They can have their cake and eat it with the expectation of the royal purse and property and not due royal duties. Either one or the other in my opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Sentiment
Replies
22
Views
1K
Speedie's Head
S
spwaverley4916
    • Like
    • Sad
    • Love
"The other side of promotion to the Premiership for me"
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
chiefdave
chiefdave
stupot07
    • Like
Guardian PL preview no 7: Coventry City
Replies
2
Views
926
fingers_crossed
fingers_crossed
F
    • Like
What needs to change?
Replies
18
Views
913
stupot07
stupot07
F
Brandon Thomas-Asante
4 5 6
Replies
209
Views
16K
StrettoBoy
StrettoBoy

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom