Re: Queen Elizabeth -- Wise as Solomon?

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@Sooner wrote:
Without the Royal Family, how many would think of England as a vacation destination?

Oh please, that's just the rationale that no one can ever accurately prove ..... actually, tourism might go way up if they were gone.

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@Sooner wrote:
@wagirl wrote:
good grief--really??? How does ANYTHING regarding the royals affect our lives?? Nothing they do affects me ever!!!. I read so many posts but them---=why??? What is the big attraction??? A bunch of people getting TONS of money and what do they really do???? Seems so out of date and so archaic in the 21st centruy---just my opinion --of course!!!!
@wagirl It's not so different in the US. What about the millions we plough into NBA stars, football players, actors, the Kardashians, and so many others who don't even increase tourist trade for the US. What do they do? Isn't it all a diversion? Isn't it all our money?

How many billions do the American people shell out to support the lavish life of Brad Pitt, the Clooneys and the rest of the pack? How's that different?

@Sooner

Seriously? How do people come up with this stuff? Actors make their own strategies to develop their careers. The people making all the real money are the ones who sign their paychecks.

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@chrystaltree wrote:
Yes, the Queen understands that this is crisis and it must be resolved immediately before it spins out of control. Americans are seeing it as some type of soap opera, hence the "just let them go" but it's far more complicated than that and it's not just about Meghan and Harry. It's about the long term future and standing of the royal family. There's an antimonarchist element in the UK and they are watching this very carefully because the Andrew and Harry situations support their claims that in these modern times, the monarchy is irrelevant and bloated and not worth the massive sums of public money it takes to keep it going.

@chrystaltree

Apparentry, a lot of people are re-thinking their necessity. I recently sae a poll that says Harry is the most-liked and most popular royal. I guess that's why she doesn't want to allow him off the reservation.

violann · ‎03-10-2010

I guess my own concerns and interactions and activities and events are a little more involving for me at the moment than what's happening to another Grandma from the other side of the world !(?).

@golding76 wrote:
I knew in my bones that this marvelously balanced and strong woman would do better than simply "muddle through" her latest family challenge. She has an eye to the future of the monarchy.

This from Page Six of The New York Post:

The Queen has demanded Prince Harry and Meghan Markle strike a deal with the palace within “72 hours” to iron out the details of their stunning “Megxit,” according to a new report.

Queen Elizabeth, 93, gave the directive days before Prince Harry is set to make his first public appearance Tuesday in the wake of the couple’s shockwave decision to step back from royal life.

Following a day of meetings and phone calls over the dispute, the Queen instructed her aides Friday to “turn a crisis into an opportunity” by drafting a “workable solution” for a scaled-back role for Harry and Meghan.

The monarch hopes future royals who also desire a more modern arrangement can emulate the plan she establishes for Meghan and Harry, the Telegraph reported.
Harry, 35, will remain in the UK until a plan is ironed out, The Sun reported, noting that once he leaves, a return date is not guaranteed. He has yet to meet with his grandmother, older brother Prince William, and father Prince Charles, according to reports.

cherry · ‎03-09-2010

I have always enjoyed history and we are watching it unfold. I find it far preferable that getting mired down in all of the stuff on this side of the Atlantic, that makes me cringe, day after day..I do what little I can, to be of help to those around me

British history is fascinating for me. I admire the Queen a great deal. I can't say that about any of the people in the news over here, involved in governing..so @golding76 I think sometimes it is better to step back ,and enjoy someone that has been a rock for her nation all of her life. God save the Queen

12andcounting · ‎03-10-2010

@Infinite Mom 47 wrote:
The Queen should take away their titles, Royal money, and Frogmore house. Then H&M can truly be on their own.

@Infinite Mom 47 I agree with you 100%.

Sooner · ‎03-10-2010

@50Mickey wrote:
@mom2four0418 wrote:
@SANNA wrote:
I have read the same thing on Google news. I do not know what is true but Her Majesty is a very wise woman and certainly understands that Harry is the weakest , problem child in the family and she wouldn’t want her such grandson be somewhere very far from the family with a woman that nobody truly knows. I also think that it is difficult for him to cut the ties with his family and he is really in the tough spot. I have seen it many times in life . Usually it leads to the unhappiness or divorce or alcoholism. Hope it be resolved.
No one has any idea what the queen thinks about members of her family or their spouses.
@mom2four0418 Absolutely. My guess is that they will work out something that is amicable to The Queen, Prince Charles and Harry and Meghan. The last thing that the Queen wants is some huge break in the family with Harry and Meghan on the outside contrary to what so many seem to be hoping for. What so many seem to forget is that Harry is the beloved son of Prince Charles and the grandson the Queen. They are not going to throw him under the bus so to speak. The sky is not falling and they will work things out.

I think they would absolutely throw him under the bus before they would let his actions hurt the Royal family. Harry is not the priority. The monarch and the titles are the priority. Others have tested the waters and wound up abdicating, not marrying someone, etc. So that is the pattern when it comes to rebels.

I will be stunned if they let them market the title in a commercial way.

bikerbabe · ‎03-09-2010

If the Queen should pretty much disown H&M - take away titles, money, home, etc - what should she do with Andrew? His royal duties are taken away but last I heard he still has his title, a nice home and money. How is his conduct less egregious? Hardly a discussion here about it.

QueenDanceALot · ‎04-18-2013

@bikerbabe wrote:
If the Queen should pretty much disown H&M - take away titles, money, home, etc - what should she do with Andrew? His royal duties are taken away but last I heard he still has his title, a nice home and money. How is his conduct less egregious? Hardly a discussion here about it.

@bikerbabe

Seems to me that Andrew's behavior was MUCH more egregious, but no one here gives a flying poop. It's only about what selfish ingrates Harry & Meghan are.

Sad, sad, sad.

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@bikerbabe wrote:
If the Queen should pretty much disown H&M - take away titles, money, home, etc - what should she do with Andrew? His royal duties are taken away but last I heard he still has his title, a nice home and money. How is his conduct less egregious? Hardly a discussion here about it.

@bikerbabe

Great point, but no need to take away titles, etc. Both Edward & Sophie have careers, and so do other royals. Since Charles was making noises about the high costs of supporting all the royals, H&M could eventually help him determine a blueprint for reducing the royals' staggering budget that's covered by the taxpayers. However, I don't think it's nearly as complex as they are making it out to be.