But, but, but….

Eyebrows have been raised in Royal circles at suggestions Meghan has endured “hundreds of thousands of inaccurate articles about her” – with some questioning whether the Duchess understands the difference between untrue headlines and simply negative ones.

A negative headline about perfection such as she is a wrong one, obviously!

The answer perhaps lies buried in the legal papers. In one section, about the level of “wealth and privilege” the couple enjoyed in Britain, the Duchess’s team say their public funding was “relatively nominal,” with costs for their May 2018 wedding met by the Prince of Wales and paid security only for the protection of crowds.This “was far outweighed by the tourism revenue of over one billion pounds sterling that was generated from the royal wedding … which went directly to the public purse,” claim the legal documents, which do not quote a source for the figure. Republic, the anti-monarchy campaign group has described this as “complete fiction”.

Republic is right of course. The tourism revenue doesn’t go to the public purse, that goes to whoever is selling the tourism services. Further, it’s probably that there was no extra such revenue anyway. As there wasn’t for the Olympics. Sure, lots of people came to London for said Olympics, they spent money. And lots of other people avoided London because of the Olympics and didn’t spend money. The nett being around zero.

After all, how often do we see the streets and squares of London as howling wastelands devoid of tourists?

There has even been talk of Meghan running for the White House.

Now that’s funny.

14 thoughts on “But, but, but….”

  1. The Meissen Bison

    It looks like being an entertaining autumn. The article suggests that the Sussexes, that interesting combination of bone-headed stupidity alloyed with self-regard and malevolence, will be deprecated in the UK but fêted in the US. Is it possible for any “brand” to achieve duality like that?

  2. Also, whoever Harry had married, there would have been crowds. Maybe a younger woman, a non-divorcee might have brought in more people. I’m going to guess a lot of the barmier royal lovers would have preferred a whiter woman, too.

  3. There has even been talk of Meghan running for the White House.

    Great. Given a series of unlikely but possible events she could be President of the United States and Queen of England at the same time. If the ’20s are to continue as they have begun this should be considered a likely outcome.

  4. The Meissen Bison

    Jimmers

    Fair point but you don’t find that choc being promoted in the UK.

    How much negative publicity can the Sussexes receive in UK media before your Oprahs start having doubts about using them?

  5. Harry ought to be removed now, from the line of succession. In the best interests of his little son, who is to be raised independantly and shielded from the practices and functions of royalty, probably with all the freedoms associated with a California kid, the ultimate cruelty would be a big heavy crown landing on his head in tragic circumstances. So that bairn should be put first. Harry himself has shown himself to be amenable to being owned, lock stock and barrel, to the extent that he no longer even likes Britain and the British, so he should act now to kill two birds with one stone.

  6. @PJF
    The Constitution forbids that (most fortunately). Our founding fathers were inestimably wise in forseeing just such an event.

    However, she probably is as well qualified as any of the other candidates for the Democrat Veepstakes.

  7. Mohave Greenie, what article(s) forbid it? She seems to qualify (if elected) for the position. Being married to a foreigner is fine (see Trump). There doesn’t seem to be anything about the status of the presidential spouse, nor about the president holding multiple positions.

  8. Similar good article
    Snipes at minor royals, ludicrous claims her wedding netted £1bn – but, what really comes shining through from Meghan’s latest court documents is a royally petulant sense of grievance

    The ‘Markle debacle’ has become a ‘chase for celebrity’

    Why are they in LA? Marbles said she wouldn’t return to the US while Trump was President. Yet more hypocrisy & lies

    What Meghan did not take into account was that marrying the ginger numpty only took her to a position of attention and minor relevance by virtue of his position as “spare” to the UK throne!

    They have millions of pounds lavished on them and all they can do is whine and complain, pair of spoilt brats. They should shut up and live their so called quiet lives as they claimed

    Stupid woman has now opened door for all her ex-staff to attack her in court as witnesses. Her lawyers must be tearing their hair out

    White House?
    Does Meghan Markle have her eye on the White House?
    She’d be worse than Biden or O’Bambi, but maybe better than AOC

    @philip
    +1 and all “her” celeb “friends” at wedding had never heard of her until HRH Harry invite arrived

    @Monty
    +1 Agree. William needs to be ordered to stop travelling with his children too

  9. @PJF
    Article 1, Section 9 forbids anyone holding a public office and having a title of nobility at the same time without consent of Congress.

  10. Hmmm, not sure it does. It prohibits an office holder receiving such but says nothing about someone already holding a title (or present, Emolument, Office) from becoming an office holder. Being made a Knight Grand Cross in 1943 didn’t prevent Dwight Eisenhower becoming President later.

    It’ll come down to John Roberts. Still feeling safe? [Palpatine laugh]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *