Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:11 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
No, the taxpayer funds are significant, but they go to the monarch, who gets to dole them out as s/he sees fit. Individual royals other than the monarch don't collect taxpayer money directly and have no automatic claim on them, so your question about "royal assets" is irrelevant.
Well then how does the law address what Meghan might argue:
Monarch = boss
Harry = employee
Therefore Harry owes alimony.
  #52  
Old 01-16-2020, 12:39 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Well then how does the law address what Meghan might argue:
Monarch = boss
Harry = employee
Therefore Harry owes alimony.
Harry's not an employee, in that he does not perform any particular set of duties for any particular remuneration. It's not like he receives £5000 every time he opens a new factory and £10K every time he shows up in a [snazzy|dorky] uniform for a ceremony--there's no royal pay scale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
Except the taxpayer funds are only five percent of the money Harry and Meghan receive. The rest comes from his father's duchy, which I don't think is taxpayer funds.
Only five percent of his ongoing costs are currently funded from the grant, but he does receive taxpayer-funded security above and beyond that, and recent renovations at his home (to the tune of £2.4 million) were also taxpayer-funded, among other one-off expenses. Further, the fact that there's a 5/95% split is an entirely discretionary decision between the Queen and the Prince of Wales, and one that could be revisited.
  #53  
Old 01-16-2020, 09:05 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Well then how does the law address what Meghan might argue . . .
As I understand it, the law in the UK addresses financial orders on marriage breakdown like this: the court looks at the totality of the financial circumstances of the spouses, both the assets they own individually or jointly, and their current and expected future income. Then it makes such order as seems just to it in the circumstances.

Harry's current and likely future income is important, but it's unimportant whether, or to what extent, that income is derived from taxpayer funds, from the private estates of his father or grandmother, or from other sources. The fact that Harry doesn't have an absolute right to receive the income is not so important as the fact that he is, in reality, likely to receive it, or that he can arrange his affairs so that he does receive it. If a financial settlement is ordered by the court on the basis of certain expectations and those expectation are not borne out in reality, then either party is free to apply to the court to vary the financial settlement.
  #54  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:59 PM
PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,745
And for the most part they aren't "taxpayer funds" but income from accumulated capital assets, 70% of which already goes into general government revenue.
  #55  
Old 01-17-2020, 01:04 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
Except the taxpayer funds are only five percent of the money Harry and Meghan receive. The rest comes from his father's duchy, which I don't think is taxpayer funds.
I think it's fair to treat the money that goes from the duchy to Charles as taxpayer funds, but that money goes to Charles regardless. The only taxpayer loss is that, if the money didn't go to Harry's household, Charles might take it as personal income and voluntarily pay income tax on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
And for the most part they aren't "taxpayer funds" but income from accumulated capital assets, 70% of which already goes into general government revenue.
Ehh, that's mostly just an accounting trick. Money is money. The idea that the Crown Estate paid for the monarchy was just such a strong myth that the Cameron government, when looking for a way to get the funding for the monarchy to rise automatically with inflation so that "Queen seeks pay rise!!!!" headlines would go away forever, thought that would be the easiest to get people to accept. It doesn't actually make any more sense than giving the Queen a simple grant that was indexed to inflation, and would be absurd when based on any other revenue; imagine if she got a little bit of every duty payment at Heathrow Airport.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 01-17-2020 at 01:07 AM.
  #56  
Old 01-17-2020, 02:00 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 53,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
I don't think Harry is planning on divorcing her, but I would not be surprised if they get divorced about 8 or 9 years down the road. She seems incredibly high maintenance.
This is the royal family. They're ALL high maitenance.

Hell, they've got NOTHING on their ancestors.
  #57  
Old 01-17-2020, 02:07 AM
nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 6,093
also, the current thinking is if Charles becomes king everyone who doesn't have an inheritance of their own is off the dole other than William and family so i think harry and megan seeing theres not much point in pitting up with the royal BS is getting out while the gettings good

supposedly when one of Fergie's kids asked for a bit of cash for a project she was told to "get a job" but was slipped the money to smooth things over ...
  #58  
Old 01-17-2020, 08:24 AM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
I don't think Harry is planning on divorcing her, but I would not be surprised if they get divorced about 8 or 9 years down the road. She seems incredibly high maintenance.
This is the royal family. They're ALL high maitenance.

Hell, they've got NOTHING on their ancestors.
I remember a story that Charles doesn't even put the toothpaste on the toothbrush himself because a valet or other servant does so for him. That's about as high maintenance as you can get, short of needing someone else to wipe his ass.
  #59  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:34 AM
PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I remember a story that Charles doesn't even put the toothpaste on the toothbrush himself because a valet or other servant does so for him.
Story is, I suspect, all it is. It was once related decades ago of some crusty old (non-royal) Duke, which makes me suspicious that it surfaced again applied to Charles just when he was the tabloids' Two Minutes' Hate target.
  #60  
Old 01-18-2020, 12:15 PM
StarvingButStrong's Avatar
StarvingButStrong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,847
Hmmm. On mulling this over, I think Harry does have some dastardly evil plot going on... but it's not to save money on divorcing Meghan.

He's looked things over and realized he faces an entire lifetime of doing stupid, boring, trivial duties while becoming steadily less and less important as William has more children, and they grow older, and probably marry and bear children of their own, all while QE2 becomes the first human to live to age 140.

So he's going for the big enchilada, a country of his own! He plans to take over Canada, lead them in rebellion against Great Britain, and then declare himself King Harry!

You heard it here first!
  #61  
Old 01-18-2020, 01:08 PM
Celyn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 4,783
And Canada is so BIG! Think of all the flying around they can do while lecturing ordinary people about pollution and climate change.
  #62  
Old 01-18-2020, 02:23 PM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 15,332
My personal (conspiracy) theory is that the Queen and Charles are paying them to do what they want to do - go away - as a means of distracting the press from Andrew. Heard anything about him recently? No, it's all been pushed off the front pages by the hoo-hah about Megxit. Win-win for the royals.

There's that article about Frogmore Cottage - FFS, it's a cottage. There's a much bigger house on the same estate, plus a mausoleum. It's been in the Family for centuries. If the government owns it, it's at the sufferance of some earlier monarch. Last time I was in Europe, half the historical buildings seemed to have some sort of renovations or repairs going on. Heck, the Step Pyramid in Egypt was under renovations when I was there; 4500 years and still not ready - must be a government job. The Taj Mahal a year or two ago had one of its towers undergoing maintenance, surrounded with scaffolding. Raising a fuss about some couple living in the gatehouse Kato Kaelin style instead of shacking up with his brother's family seems petty even for the tabloids.
  #63  
Old 01-18-2020, 02:30 PM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 15,332
The story about Charles and his toothpaste makes sense. Remember this is the heir to the throne since he was born in 1953. Until Diana changed the royal dynamic, the place was pretty stuffy; Charles had butlers coming out of his butlers. every detail was attended to - someone laid out his clothes, took away laundry and brought back cleaned clothes and put them away, someone set out his toiletries for morning or night, someone helped him get dressed, etc. It's what high end servants did in those days. Walking into the bathroom at night and the tub was drawn, your soaps and towel neatly laid out, toothpaste already on brush, etc. - it's hard to imagine that level of personal service in modern day North America, but if you watch a few seasons of Downton Abbey or Upstairs Downstairs it's not difficult to imagine that was the level of personal service back in the day, and the Palace was one of the last places to let go of "the day".

I kind of wonder how much of that he had to get used to doing himself in the army.
  #64  
Old 01-18-2020, 03:00 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 12,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
Remember this is the heir to the throne since he was born in 1953.
1948.

Quote:
I kind of wonder how much of that he had to get used to doing himself in the army.
He never served in the Army, but did do active duty in the RAF and Royal Navy.
  #65  
Old 01-18-2020, 03:08 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,157
They just essentially quit their jobs, and will no longer use his/her royal highness

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/18/uk/ha...rnd/index.html

Can I apply for his job?
  #66  
Old 01-18-2020, 03:46 PM
Banksiaman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I remember a story that Charles doesn't even put the toothpaste on the toothbrush himself because a valet or other servant does so for him. That's about as high maintenance as you can get, short of needing someone else to wipe his ass.
Higher maintenance
  #67  
Old 01-18-2020, 07:59 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Her family is from an area very close to Compton geographically, historically, economically, and reputationally. (Four miles, in Los Angeles terms, is nothing.) That makes it hard to dispute "almost."
Crenshaw is closer to both Santa Monica and Beverly Hills than it is to Compton.
  #68  
Old 01-18-2020, 11:01 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
Crenshaw is closer to both Santa Monica and Beverly Hills than it is to Compton.
Okay? What are the similarities between Crenshaw and either of those in terms of history, economics, crime rate, reputation, etc.? I think I've made the point several times that the Daily Mail was emphasizing similarity, not just geographic proximity.
  #69  
Old Yesterday, 03:49 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Kate, I think, had a better idea what she was signing up for, after YEARS of being the target of tabloid reporters and paparazzi; her lawyers were issuing warnings to certain newspapers way back in 2005 and again in 2007, and she pursued an invasion of privacy claim concerning certain photographs in 2010. She went ahead and signed up anyway, marrying William in 2011. What goes on behind the palace doors is of course unknown, but since her marriage she has as least appeared to be game to follow the royal routine of tours and banquets and opening gardens. Play table tennis or field hockey in high heels in front of the press? Sure, why not?

I don't think Meghan really understood what she was in for, though. Moving to a new country, getting married (to a man she'd known for less than two years), and having a baby are all extremely high-stress events by themselves; doing all that in full view of the British press must be multiple-orders-of-magnitude worse. I can certainly understand why they wanted marriage and a baby so soon, but that speed made it a lot harder for Meghan to come to grips with the reality of what life in the palace and the public eye would be like. Now that it has hit her, it's like a pan of cold dishwater in tkhe face.
The men they married may have had something to do with how each of them weathered the tempests each of them went through. The William was fifteen, and Harry twelve when Diana died. While it was surely traumatic for both of them, their disparate ages alone would almost necessarily have resulted in disparities in how they processed their loss as individuals. If William was better equipped emotionally to encourage Kate in her dealings with the tabs, that may simply be because he was less primed to see a parallel between his wife’s experiences with the paparazzi and his mother’s than Harry was to see Meghan’s parallels to Di.*

In fact, the Mail’s coverage of W & H wrt “Stiff Upper Lip” expectations is a case in point. The Mail wrote approvingly of William calling out the expectation for his little brother’s benefit as much as his own. When Harry kept up with defying those expectations, the Mail suddenly decided that it wasn’t kosher to defy, or even question them.

*Also, look! Diana was fucking a BROWN man! And now Harry is fucking a BROWN woman! You can’t persuade me that there wasn’t a racist aspect to both the presence of Dodi Fayed and the presence of Meghan Markle in the love lives of “BRITAIN’S Royals” that influenced the coverage of both.
  #70  
Old Yesterday, 04:06 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Probably not. However, I'm not familiar with Carson; does it have a history, economy, crime rate, and reputation very similar to that of Compton?
Worse, to tell you the truth, at least lately. See, the goddamned RAMS couldn’t leave well enough alone and let us keep the Los Angeles Basin NFL franchise-free and stay in fucking Missouri where they belonged, so now there’s a goddamned FOOTBALL stadium there.

Used to be a high-class neighborhood whose claim to fame was being home to the Goodyear Blimp. How the mighty have fallen.
  #71  
Old Yesterday, 05:28 AM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Okay? What are the similarities between Crenshaw and either of those in terms of history, economics, crime rate, reputation, etc.? I think I've made the point several times that the Daily Mail was emphasizing similarity, not just geographic proximity.
They aren't even moderately close to each other geographically. It's 14 miles from center to center, which is a huge difference in a metro area.

They don't share a history at all.

It's actually not nearly as easy as you'd think to compare crime rates, as Crenshaw isn't an actual city, unlike Compton.

Based on this as well as other reporting, I'm willing to attribute the motives of the Daily Mail's headline to racism.
  #72  
Old Yesterday, 08:02 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I remember a story that Charles doesn't even put the toothpaste on the toothbrush himself because a valet or other servant does so for him. That's about as high maintenance as you can get, short of needing someone else to wipe his ass.
That’s where they came up with the term “PRIVVY Council,” innit?
  #73  
Old Yesterday, 04:00 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
They aren't even moderately close to each other geographically. It's 14 miles from center to center, which is a huge difference in a metro area.
From 5400 miles away (distance London -> LA), they might as well be across the street from each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
They don't share a history at all.
Both had a very similar trajectory over the last 80 years: a large Japanese-American population giving way to a large African-American population, middle-class flight, surging gang- and drug-related violence, and recent attempts at revitalization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
It's actually not nearly as easy as you'd think to compare crime rates, as Crenshaw isn't an actual city, unlike Compton.
No, but the LAPD provides detailed online information about crimes in the various neighborhoods, which information is quoted in the Daily Mail's article above-linked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
Based on this as well as other reporting, I'm willing to attribute the motives of the Daily Mail's headline to racism.
Either racism, or pandering to racism in an effort to win readers, yes, and I've said as much. However, motive and subtext are not something the royals can easily dispute; it starts looking too much like censorship or press control. They will dispute specific facts, such as the recent "William bullies Harry" story, but the specific facts stated by the Daily Mail (Meghan grew up in Crenshaw, Crenshaw saw 47 reported crimes including at least one murder in the week before the article, Crenshaw is plagued by multiple violent street gangs, etc.) don't fit into that category. Sure, saying "Crenshaw is one of a cluster of Los Angeles boroughs famous for gangs - along with Compton, Long Beach, South Central and Inglewood" almost certainly comes from disreputable motives, but what is factually incorrect and hence disputable about it?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017