I have family members who are making the same proclamation. My answer = "So, if I vote for Trump, you will remain in Germany?." Fantastic way to keep a loud-mouthed kraut out of the country.
Given that we here in Canada happen to be living are on the same side of the Atlantic as the US, and Canadians may get stuck with the some of the security costs if they stay in our country, I would suggest that your headline doesn't accurately the viewpoint of many Canadians who aren't excited about the potential fallout if they settle here.
That being said, I would happily put up with them if it meant 4 more years of a Trump presidency.
Theo, it may cost your government $750,000 per annum to cover their security expenses while they're in Canada, since your leadership has announced its willingness to pay. I'd have to look up US laws again to understand if little Archie is an American by birth. His mother, as I understand it, was living in Canada for several years before moving to England and marrying Harry. There are residency requirements of some kind for ex-pat US citizens whose children are born outside the country.
I saw a tweet somewhere saying this is not only an incentive to vote Trump in 2020, but to get Don. Jr. elected in 2024 (which I don't support, by the way).
I think I answered my own question. Since Ms. Markle lived with Harry in the UK for a year or more prior to Archie's birth, and prior to that, for several years in Toronto, little Archie is a British subject and not a US citizen at birth:
Unless it's in black letters on a palace circular or they're caught on tape saying it, I wouldn't give much weight to what you read in the media about what they supposedly think, feel, and are planning.
The reason to have a pied a terre in LA is that her mother lives there. (He also has a cousin there, one Freddie Windsor). Rather a luxury, though.
I don't see the point of being hostile to these two unless they pull something really sketchy. So far, what they've said is that they'd like to live in 'North America' part time, that they'd like to be free from philanthropic promotions except per their discretion, and that they'd like to forego the Civil List / Sovereign Grant in favor of their own developed sources of income. IOW, to live the way his four most proximate paternal-side cousins live.
I would suggest that your headline doesn't accurately the viewpoint of many Canadians who aren't excited about the potential fallout if they settle here.
The moderator can fill you in on how the Secret Service agents guarding Bess Truman messed up everyone's life and damaged the Missouri economy.
Well, if they wish to be advocates for "progressive" policies, including lectures about the "climate crisis," then it will be far better for them to do so as wealthy private citizens and not members of the Queen's close official family, since the British public expect their symbolic national family to be non-political.
According to headlines, many Brits consider the haste and apparent disrespect for the Queen in these doings to be "sketchy" already. That's a British problem, and not an American (USA) concern. Commonwealth citizens in Canada may take it more seriously, since this is their monarchy as well, at least symbolically.
I am in favor of commitment in marriage, and I hope this marriage survives, for their sake and for the child. The signs aren't good, but of course much of this is gossip and only the two spouses know for sure what's going on between them.
Well, if they wish to be advocates for "progressive" policies, including lectures about the "climate crisis," then it will be far better for them to do so as wealthy private citizens and not members of the Queen's close official family,
I realize the normally sensible Glenn Reynolds thinks Meghan wants to be the Queen of Woke, but is there any indication that's what the two of them have in mind? A great deal of the discussion of this feels like everyone filling in the blanks from their imagination or making use of pre-existing intellectual scaffolding. (I saw a manosphere writer whose take is that Meghan is making off with the kid).
Yeah, I saw that post about Meghan holding the kid hostage. Gossip and speculation.
Yes, there is some support for this being what they have in mind, based on their own statement that they want to become a "progressive" voice in the royal institution, and based on some of their public statements and advocacy on international tours. Maybe Harry simply wants to be a private citizen, and not just a younger son, and is in complete agreement with his wife about changing his status. I hope so. If I were Prince Charles, I'd put a suitable sum for Harry in trust, settled on Harry's child or children, with the income available to Harry but the principal not available to Meghan, no matter how this works out.
If I were Prince Charles, I'd put a suitable sum for Harry in trust, settled on Harry's child or children, with the income available to Harry but the principal not available to Meghan, no matter how this works out.
I imagine Harry already has a private income. The British papers had a slam campaign against his cousin Beatrice over the amount of air travel she did. It's a reasonable inference that she had other sources of income than her salaries. And Harry is a Spencer, not a Ferguson. The Spencer's are wealthy (though that's mostly entailed property due to go to Harry's cousin).
I'd like Charles to explain to Harry that the royal family's function is to curate the national patrimony - the Britain that was, is, and will be; the Britain that transcends the controversies of this day. Charles is interested in raw land and old buildings. I'd like Anne to explain to him that what she does is shine a spotlight on people who are doing practical things and doing them efficiently and effectively, not people who take stances. Being 'a progressive voice' isn't congruent with either object.
Seems where Harry & Meghan are to land has been decided. https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-poll-numbers-up-as-he-expands-travel-ban-to-include-british-royalty
It would be nice if Charles were to give Harry the talk Art Deco advises. But it's probably already been done, to not much effect. He is Charles's son, and I would imagine, out of love for his son, Charles will designate some of his private fortune for Harry, who already has, according to reports, something like $35-$40 million from his mother and great-grandmother. The income on that isn't sufficient to support his lifestyle unless he gives up all royal functions and travel, and even then, maybe not enough.
something like $35-$40 million from his mother and great-grandmother. The income on that isn't sufficient to support his lifestyle unless he gives up all royal functions and travel, and even then, maybe not enough.
I doubt it's anywhere near that. Nobiliary property is entailed, so there are limits to discretionary bequests. His great-great grandfather Claude Bowes-Lyon was wealthy. However, the Queen Mother wasn't the heir to the estate and he had nine children in toto. Same deal in re the Spencers. The lion's share had to go to his uncle by law and his uncle has invested $9 million in structural renovations to the residence. It's a 30,000 sq foot building, so annual upkeep is enormous. The whole pile will be going to his cousin Louis one day.
15 comments:
I have family members who are making the same proclamation. My answer = "So, if I vote for Trump, you will remain in Germany?." Fantastic way to keep a loud-mouthed kraut out of the country.
Whatever works, ur. :-)
Given that we here in Canada happen to be living are on the same side of the Atlantic as the US, and Canadians may get stuck with the some of the security costs if they stay in our country, I would suggest that your headline doesn't accurately the viewpoint of many Canadians who aren't excited about the potential fallout if they settle here.
That being said, I would happily put up with them if it meant 4 more years of a Trump presidency.
Theo, it may cost your government $750,000 per annum to cover their security expenses while they're in Canada, since your leadership has announced its willingness to pay. I'd have to look up US laws again to understand if little Archie is an American by birth. His mother, as I understand it, was living in Canada for several years before moving to England and marrying Harry. There are residency requirements of some kind for ex-pat US citizens whose children are born outside the country.
I saw a tweet somewhere saying this is not only an incentive to vote Trump in 2020, but to get Don. Jr. elected in 2024 (which I don't support, by the way).
I think I answered my own question. Since Ms. Markle lived with Harry in the UK for a year or more prior to Archie's birth, and prior to that, for several years in Toronto, little Archie is a British subject and not a US citizen at birth:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html
Unless it's in black letters on a palace circular or they're caught on tape saying it, I wouldn't give much weight to what you read in the media about what they supposedly think, feel, and are planning.
The reason to have a pied a terre in LA is that her mother lives there. (He also has a cousin there, one Freddie Windsor). Rather a luxury, though.
I don't see the point of being hostile to these two unless they pull something really sketchy. So far, what they've said is that they'd like to live in 'North America' part time, that they'd like to be free from philanthropic promotions except per their discretion, and that they'd like to forego the Civil List / Sovereign Grant in favor of their own developed sources of income. IOW, to live the way his four most proximate paternal-side cousins live.
I would suggest that your headline doesn't accurately the viewpoint of many Canadians who aren't excited about the potential fallout if they settle here.
The moderator can fill you in on how the Secret Service agents guarding Bess Truman messed up everyone's life and damaged the Missouri economy.
Well, if they wish to be advocates for "progressive" policies, including lectures about the "climate crisis," then it will be far better for them to do so as wealthy private citizens and not members of the Queen's close official family, since the British public expect their symbolic national family to be non-political.
According to headlines, many Brits consider the haste and apparent disrespect for the Queen in these doings to be "sketchy" already. That's a British problem, and not an American (USA) concern. Commonwealth citizens in Canada may take it more seriously, since this is their monarchy as well, at least symbolically.
I am in favor of commitment in marriage, and I hope this marriage survives, for their sake and for the child. The signs aren't good, but of course much of this is gossip and only the two spouses know for sure what's going on between them.
Well, if they wish to be advocates for "progressive" policies, including lectures about the "climate crisis," then it will be far better for them to do so as wealthy private citizens and not members of the Queen's close official family,
I realize the normally sensible Glenn Reynolds thinks Meghan wants to be the Queen of Woke, but is there any indication that's what the two of them have in mind? A great deal of the discussion of this feels like everyone filling in the blanks from their imagination or making use of pre-existing intellectual scaffolding. (I saw a manosphere writer whose take is that Meghan is making off with the kid).
Yeah, I saw that post about Meghan holding the kid hostage. Gossip and speculation.
Yes, there is some support for this being what they have in mind, based on their own statement that they want to become a "progressive" voice in the royal institution, and based on some of their public statements and advocacy on international tours. Maybe Harry simply wants to be a private citizen, and not just a younger son, and is in complete agreement with his wife about changing his status. I hope so. If I were Prince Charles, I'd put a suitable sum for Harry in trust, settled on Harry's child or children, with the income available to Harry but the principal not available to Meghan, no matter how this works out.
If I were Prince Charles, I'd put a suitable sum for Harry in trust, settled on Harry's child or children, with the income available to Harry but the principal not available to Meghan, no matter how this works out.
I imagine Harry already has a private income. The British papers had a slam campaign against his cousin Beatrice over the amount of air travel she did. It's a reasonable inference that she had other sources of income than her salaries. And Harry is a Spencer, not a Ferguson. The Spencer's are wealthy (though that's mostly entailed property due to go to Harry's cousin).
I'd like Charles to explain to Harry that the royal family's function is to curate the national patrimony - the Britain that was, is, and will be; the Britain that transcends the controversies of this day. Charles is interested in raw land and old buildings. I'd like Anne to explain to him that what she does is shine a spotlight on people who are doing practical things and doing them efficiently and effectively, not people who take stances. Being 'a progressive voice' isn't congruent with either object.
Here's a thought: should Harry have a complete set of Sam Kinison videos?
Seems where Harry & Meghan are to land has been decided. https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-poll-numbers-up-as-he-expands-travel-ban-to-include-british-royalty
Oh, the Babylon Bee is so funny!
It would be nice if Charles were to give Harry the talk Art Deco advises. But it's probably already been done, to not much effect. He is Charles's son, and I would imagine, out of love for his son, Charles will designate some of his private fortune for Harry, who already has, according to reports, something like $35-$40 million from his mother and great-grandmother. The income on that isn't sufficient to support his lifestyle unless he gives up all royal functions and travel, and even then, maybe not enough.
something like $35-$40 million from his mother and great-grandmother. The income on that isn't sufficient to support his lifestyle unless he gives up all royal functions and travel, and even then, maybe not enough.
I doubt it's anywhere near that. Nobiliary property is entailed, so there are limits to discretionary bequests. His great-great grandfather Claude Bowes-Lyon was wealthy. However, the Queen Mother wasn't the heir to the estate and he had nine children in toto. Same deal in re the Spencers. The lion's share had to go to his uncle by law and his uncle has invested $9 million in structural renovations to the residence. It's a 30,000 sq foot building, so annual upkeep is enormous. The whole pile will be going to his cousin Louis one day.
x
Post a Comment