[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Actually I agree it is a sickening extravagance but I still believe too many today expect to have everything now rather than work for it over time. Free further education, high salary, own home, nice car, all mod cons, holidays abroad etc. It’s all now, now, now.

Many of the previous generations neither had or expected any of that. Just like now there were the haves and the have nots whilst others saved and worked two or more jobs to own their own homes, cars etc. This generation are not victims.

There is no concept of time now, nothing gets easier with age there is no money to save at the end of the month I wrk 4 12hr night shifts 4 off.. I live in a council house I live frugally don't run a car, don't smoke or drink and I have jack left at the end of the month.... Where is this utopia for 40 somethings?

We are ALL victims!

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

There is no concept of time now, nothing gets easier with age there is no money to save at the end of the month I wrk 4 12hr night shifts 4 off.. I live in a council house I live frugally don't run a car, don't smoke or drink and I have jack left at the end of the month.... Where is this utopia for 40 somethings?

We are ALL victims!

Ther is no utopia - except for the few. Most have to work for what they have whether they own their own homes or not. If they have the advantage of a uni education, even with student debt, they are in a better position than many but it seems all they do is moan. That’s because they aspire for too much too soon in my opinion.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Ther is no utopia - except for the few. Most have to work for what they have whether they own their own homes or not. If they have the advantage of a uni education, even with student debt, they are in a better position than many but it seems all they do is moan. That’s because they aspire for too much too soon in my opinion.

Thanks for stating the obvious.
Explain how they're in a better position? and in my situation ...what can I aspire to brillo?
You've got all the answers for the young people what about old twonks like me living hand to mouth, what does the oracle suggest for me?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Thanks for stating the obvious.
Explain how they're in a better position? and in my situation ...what can I aspire to brillo?
You've got all the answers for the young people what about old twonks like me living hand to mouth, what does the oracle suggest for me?

Aspire to a better paying job?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Aspire to a better paying job?

Oh gee Cherie why didn't I think of that?

Thanks

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Aspire to a better paying job?

Someone get Cherie to the job centre, stat, she'll solve unemployment before lunch.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Oh gee Cherie why didn't I think of that?

Thanks

You kinda invited it

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Someone get Cherie to the job centre, stat, she'll solve unemployment before lunch..

Kizzy asked a question and I answered I wasn't speaking for the nation

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Kizzy asked a question and I answered I wasn't speaking for the nation

No you were mocking me Cherie, thanks for your suggestion . Noted

My point in relation to the 56k dress stands.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

No you were mocking me Cherie, thanks for your suggestion . Noted

My point in relation to the 56k dress stands.

No I wasn't mocking you Kizzy I was responding to what you posted, it seems obvious to me that if you are literally living hand to mouth that you would look around for a better paid job,you are well educated you don't need to be in a job that doesn't pay a living wage working ridiculously long shifts.


With regard to the dress, no one has argued that it isn't extravagant (if that is what it cost), the likelihood is she will never have to pay for another outfit as designers will be falling over themselves for her to wear their designs like the coat she wore for the announcement which was on the more affordable end of the scale

http://time.com/5037870/meghan-markl...agement-photo/

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Sticks

This is no ordinary male, he is a royal and she is a divorcee. We had this issue in 1936, do people ever learn? If we must have this anachronistic obsolete system of governance then we have to do it properly

What about Charles and Camilla? they are both second hand goods in your world and Charles will be King, Harry is a minor Royal in terms of ever getting his bottom on the throne

[Kazanne]

I like Harry and I like Megan fair play to them ,she looks lovely in her 'posh' frocks ,who cares how much her clothes cost ,she earns her money so don't see a problem,Kate also always looks lovely and stylish.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No I wasn't mocking you Kizzy I was responding to what you posted, it seems obvious to me that if you are literally living hand to mouth that you would look around for a better paid job,you are well educated you don't need to be in a job that doesn't pay a living wage working ridiculously long shifts.


With regard to the dress, no one has argued that it is extravagant (if that is what it cost), the likelihood is she will never have to pay for another outfit as designers will be falling over themselves for her to wear their designs like the coat she wore for the announcement which was on the more affordable end of the scale

http://time.com/5037870/meghan-markl...agement-photo/

I'm aware of what I could do Cherie, yet if you can try look at my situation as an analogy I was painting a picture of the working lives of many across Britain... the JAMS, the ones who homelessness is 3 payslips away.

That is not just a reality for young adults but all adults on 'minimum' wage.
Sorry for being unnecessarily blunt this morning.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

What about Charles and Camilla? they are both second hand goods in your world and Charles will be King, Harry is a minor Royal in terms of ever getting his bottom on the throne

H's a man though.......... seems only women can be second hand goods

[bots]

thankfully, we don't live in a communist country where you can work your socks off and others feel entitled to a share of our own money.

Megan was an actress in a top show before she took up with Harry. How many actresses have we seen walking down the red carpet at events wearing stunning dresses. The majority of peoples reaction to that is not, she should have helped the poor rather than wear that dress, its wow, doesn't she look stunning.

If we dress everyone up in sack cloth, where is the enjoyment and fun in the world, where has the inspiration to succeed gone to.

There should be plenty people on here that can remember the amazing boost that Diana brought to the fashion industry. She single handed brought the fashion industry back to life inspiring a generation.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

thankfully, we don't live in a communist country where you can work your socks off and others feel entitled to a share of our own money.

Megan was an actress in a top show before she took up with Harry. How many actresses have we seen walking down the red carpet at events wearing stunning dresses. The majority of peoples reaction to that is not, she should have helped the poor rather than wear that dress, its wow, doesn't she look stunning.

If we dress everyone up in sack cloth, where is the enjoyment and fun in the world, where has the inspiration to succeed gone to.

There should be plenty people on here that can remember the amazing boost that Diana brought to the fashion industry. She single handed brought the fashion industry back to life inspiring a generation.

Yes. Very well said.
I am sure we all try to look our best for special occasions, whatever we can afford. There is no law about us all having to spend a set amount on clothes, we are all different and can spend our money on what we prefer.
We also have no clue as to if these richer people do actually give to the poor and keep quiet about it.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

thankfully, we don't live in a communist country where you can work your socks off and others feel entitled to a share of our own money.

Megan was an actress in a top show before she took up with Harry. How many actresses have we seen walking down the red carpet at events wearing stunning dresses. The majority of peoples reaction to that is not, she should have helped the poor rather than wear that dress, its wow, doesn't she look stunning.

If we dress everyone up in sack cloth, where is the enjoyment and fun in the world, where has the inspiration to succeed gone to.

There should be plenty people on here that can remember the amazing boost that Diana brought to the fashion industry. She single handed brought the fashion industry back to life inspiring a generation.

Good post.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

What has that to do with the royal family and what they represent as figureheads for the United Kingdom?
Try to maintain the thread topic otherwise it whole thing derails and makes little to no sense.

Firstly, don't be so bloody rude! My comment was COMPLETELY in context with the thread.

If it's the Ralph & Russo dress you're referring to, they are British designers. Like Kate, I imagine that Meghan will raise the profile of British designers across the world in much the same way that Princess Diana, and indeed the Queen have always done. This gives British fashion houses publicity they couldn't buy, demand goes up, more jobs are created... it's simple really.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

thankfully, we don't live in a communist country where you can work your socks off and others feel entitled to a share of our own money.

Megan was an actress in a top show before she took up with Harry. How many actresses have we seen walking down the red carpet at events wearing stunning dresses. The majority of peoples reaction to that is not, she should have helped the poor rather than wear that dress, its wow, doesn't she look stunning.

If we dress everyone up in sack cloth, where is the enjoyment and fun in the world, where has the inspiration to succeed gone to.

There should be plenty people on here that can remember the amazing boost that Diana brought to the fashion industry. She single handed brought the fashion industry back to life inspiring a generation.

Brilliant

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Firstly, don't be so bloody rude! My comment was COMPLETELY in context with the thread.

If it's the Ralph & Russo dress you're referring to, they are British designers. Like Kate, I imagine that Meghan will raise the profile of British designers across the world in much the same way that Princess Diana, and indeed the Queen have always done. This gives British fashion houses publicity they couldn't buy, demand goes up, more jobs are created... it's simple really.

Where was I rude to you? You're the one swearing :/ More jobs are created where, do you thing the polyester recreations will be made here?... LOL.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Where was I rude to you? You're the one swearing :/ More jobs are created where, do you thing the polyester recreations will be made here?... LOL.

It's undeniable that the royals make a mint for the British fashion industry. Also, there are lots of up and coming young British designers who make their clothes in the UK, and the royals tend to support young British designers. Lots of department stores - John Lewis, Debenhams - are stocking more British-made clothes... But beside all that, Meghan Markle is a woman of independent means, she may well have bought the dress herself. Who are we to police who spends how much and on what?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's undeniable that the royals make a mint for the British fashion industry. Also, there are lots of up and coming young British designers who make their clothes in the UK, and the royals tend to support young British designers. Lots of department stores - John Lewis, Debenhams - are stocking more British-made clothes... But beside all that, Meghan Markle is a woman of independent means, she may well have bought the dress herself. Who are we to police who spends how much and on what?

John Lewis is owned by the Chinese...And Debenhams in Leeds by an Islamic bank... Where is the inclusion of young British designers in these stores.. It might help for you to show me who the UK based designers are making UK produced clothes for the royals, I've looked but I don't see any.

She may have bought the dress herself, that wasn't my initial issue was it? I'm not policing anyone, just raising a philosophical argument surrounding the benefits of demonstrations of extreme wealth like this in the current economic climate for most in the UK.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

John Lewis is owned by the Chinese...And Debenhams in Leeds by an Islamic bank... Where is the inclusion of young British designers in these stores.. It might help for you to show me who the UK based designers are making UK produced clothes for the royals, I've looked but I don't see any.

She may have bought the dress herself, that wasn't my initial issue was it? I'm not policing anyone, just raising a philosophical argument surrounding the benefits of demonstrations of extreme wealth like this in the current economic climate for most in the UK.

John Lewis is a partnership, well known for the fact that its employees are shareholders.
The Chinese refused to give John Lewis it's rights to the trademark on its name, the same as many other well known British shops, so perhaps China have a load of British sounding shops whose names they have nicked.

The building that Debenhams trade in is owned by the bank, not the actual business.
Debenhams are their tenants.

[Kizzy]

As with most things in the UK they only have the image of being British, but they are quintessentially not.... Bit like the royals
As a PLC it's not a solely UK concern nor do we own the infrastructure it is housed in.

What we are being sold is a facade of 'Britishness' that just does not exist.

[Sticks]

Originally Posted by James

The Church of England didn't allow divorced people to marry in church in 1936, unlike now.

I think it might have been more than the church of England's rules about divorce's marrying back in 1936, although there was that issue with Princess Margaret and Group Captain Peter Townsend. In 1952 whereby the Church of England refused to countenance marriage to a divorced man.

According to Wikipedia

Simpson was perceived to be politically and socially unsuitable as a prospective queen consort because of her two failed marriages. It was widely assumed by the Establishment that she was driven by love of money or position rather than love for the King.

Meghan is divorced

There is an ex out there, so what kind of tabloid stories will surface from this ex? What kind of pictures are out there which could cause scandal and embarrassment to the Royal Family?

This is why, usual convention was that brides came from European royals as they would be drilled in the art of discretion and the avoidance of scandal

They tried bringing in two commoners, Diana and Sarah, and they were unmitigated disasters.

I still don't understand how Kate managed to get through, what were the courtiers thinking of, and around the time she was getting married I believe I also pointed that out, that bringing in commoners seldom worked!

For the moment with regards to Kate, they may have got lucky, but that was one large risk, especially with the Duke of Cambridge, the second in line to the throne.

Getting back to HRH Prince Harry, it seems incredulous, given what went before with Princess Margaret and Edward VIII that an American divorcee was allowed anywhere near him.

If we are to have this outdated and anachronistic system, then we should do it properly. There is still time for the old way of doing things to reassert itself, and for someone with less chance for scandal and political embarrassment to be substituted for this particular choice of bride.