Dman
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Messages
- 15,827
- City
- Midwest
- Country
- United States
It would make sense not to use her so it can't be media fodder. Typical of Charles to do this.
It would make sense not to use her so it can't be media fodder. Typical of Charles to do this.
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Why? Some people can connect. others just think Ok 2 small children ramping around.. like most children. Nothing special there.People can connect when they see small children romping about their home though, and an emotional connection is easier when you can see the way the children react to their parents and sibling and their surroundings. I and others can still remember that video with Charles, Diana and young William and little Harry at KP.
As for the media unfairly attacking one brother while leaving the other alone, isn't that just what you are doing, Iluvbertie,with your remarks about Harry? Comparing one unfavourably against the other?
Funny because it's nothing new (from 2009).
Charles paid sister-in-law £400,000 to refurbish his holiday cottages | Daily Mail Online
It's not a secret (see from 28.00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMSN37hMnhQ
It's Richard Kay again
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...1-2-million--helped-cover-adultery-years.html
It's nor suprising from you (imo of course).
Damn, i love August ...
And of course not surprising from you
Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Yes, the quiet month of August!
If the contract is for private work paid for by Charles personally - it's no ones business but his own whom he employs.
If it's a company and there are no rules dictating the contract must go out for tender prior to selection, again, up to him. In such a case, why look elsewhere when you already have a source with a good historical record behind them?
Seriously I don't get the fuss with Charles employing the Duchess' sister, okay i can see why people may not approve in some ways, but we have known this for years so to bring it up now like its new its poor journalism.
I think the difference between the Queen employing her cousin and Charles employing Annabel is that the Queen's events tend to be private ones that she is paying for personally, Charles' is using Annabel for his company using what are technically company funds. I guess to some people its like letting your florist sister do flowers for your wedding (the Queen) or flowers or your office every day and charging your company (Charles).
That being said if Annabel does the job well and there have been no complaints over ten years then whats the fuss!!
Charles doesn't hold the duchy in trust for future generations.I'm not critizing Charles at all, but IMO there is a difference. Yes its Charles' money but its for the estate he holds in trust for future generations so in that way IMO its not unfair to have the potential conflict of interest pointed out. But I don't think its an issue personally.
I'm not critizing Charles at all, but IMO there is a difference. Yes its Charles' money but its for the estate he holds in trust for future generations so in that way IMO its not unfair to have the potential conflict of interest pointed out. But I don't think its an issue personally.
Its not For the estate, its From the estate. He is the owner, and its income in simply in trust to protect it. What happens if George when POW was a drunk gambler who decided to sell off properties to feed his habit? There goes his income, and his kids. Charles instead is owner, meaning he has full control of profits to fund his life. But he isn't allowed to sell it, meaning the income continues for generations. Its like a trust fund that doesn't end.
Instead of spending it on lavish parties and vacations, along with supporting him, Camailla, Harry and the Cambridges, he is creating new business. He is increasing revenue for generations to come. Maybe he just should spend it on islands, horses and booze as long as he doesn't employ family.