A very explosive interview and some points which come as no surprise to myself.
The Racist comment for one, as I have believed for sometime that there was a racist element within ‘The Family’. In this I query, where are the ‘persons of colour’ within the employment of The Family, for I am not aware of one, let alone others.
I am also not surprised about the comment that Prince Charles stopped communicating with Harry.
That is just The Family, for I feel it would have been even worse within the area of what I call ‘the grey suits’ for, I feel, this area is much worse than The Family in how they treat persons who are classed as outsiders.
By The Family, not fully accepting, as I have said before, is a great opportunity lost, but not unexpected.
This interview is indeed a massive bombshell and one from which The Family, may never recover.
I am also not surprised, even before the revelations that Meghan had had ‘suicidal thoughts’, which she took the The Families HR Department, one which is not good, especially with regards to the alleged abuse to members of some of Harry and Meghan’s staff, where it appears the HR Department took no action.
Same Difference is thrilled to report that one of our editor’s favourite DisAbled comedians, Lost Voice Guy (Lee Ridley) has just won Britain’s Got Talent 2018.
This us the moment we have been wishing for for the last two months, ever since we heard he was on the show. But, he’s not a singer, and everyone knows singers usually win BGT- unless dancers are lucky- so we didn’t dare to hope it might actually happen!!
Yet happen it has. Here’s his winning routine:
And here’s his winner’s speech- with a joke thrown in, of course:
Same Difference wouldn’t be Same Difference unless we also gave a shout out and sincere well done to the runner up, Robert White, who has Asperger’s. Here is his final routine:
Why you really shouldn’t touch a Queen’s Guard on your summer vacation: He’ll pull a gun on you
The Queen’s Guard outside of Royal palaces in the United Kingdom are famous for their stoicism in the face of tourists’ taunts, but even they have their limits.
One visitor to Windsor Castle put one hand over that line — and saw the other end of a rifle in return.
The tourist can be seen in a YouTube video hamming it up alongside the red-coated guard in his tall black hat as he marches along the palace. It’s a typical tourist video of some idiot trying to make the guards break into a smile or mess up their routine. But then the man touches the guard’s soldier and he bellows, “Get back from the Queen’s Guard!” and he levels the rifle-style bayonet in the visitor’s face.
The tourist can be seen scampering away as his friends burst out in laughter.
The guard, upper lip stiff as ever, keeps calm and carries on his march.
The ministry of defence backed the guard up, saying members of the public should show respect, the Daily Mail reports.
The Queen’s Guard were installed after the Restoration and Charles II ascent to the throne in 1660.
Though their presence is a historic symbol, they do have real powers. They can detain troublesome tourists, and raising their gun is said to be a “final warning.” ……..’
Two hundred Crown Estate properties are being sold to raise millions of pounds for the Treasury and help bankroll the royal family
Dozens of people have been kicked out of Royal homes after being told they would have to buy them at inflated prices, the Mirror can reveal.
Families later discovered their homes had been flogged off for tens of thousands of pounds less than the price they were asked to stump up – or face eviction.
Two hundred Crown Estate properties are being sold from £100,000 to more than £300,000 each to raise millions of pounds for the Treasury and help bankroll the royal family.
The vast Crown Estate is worth more than £9 billion and made record profits last year. Most goes to the Treasury but 15% goes to the Royal Family through the Sovereign Grant which rose more than 5% to £40 million this year.
Details of the how the Royal Family spent the cash will be released this week and the Mirror can reveal how their earnings have been boosted by the decision last year to sell off one in four of the estate’s rural homes.
Crown Estate tenants David and Christine Allen were evicted from their house in Holbeach, Lincolnshire, after 18 years when they were unable to find £115,000 that the Crown Estate wanted from them to buy it.
Christine, 54, broke down in tears when the Mirror revealed it was eventually sold for £100,000.
She said: “It has been very traumatic. We lived there for 18 years and were very happy. I miss my garden and I miss my grandchildren coming round to visit all the time. We’ve had to move further away from them.”
Carolyn Perryman, 38, left her home in Dunster, Somerset, after she received an eviction notice.
She said: “We were told that if we wanted to buy it it would cost around £300,000. That’s what they said the estate agents had valued it at.
“But it was not in good condition. The windows rattled, there was a huge crack in the hallway and the roof leaked.
“I complained about the condition of the property for more than a year but nothing was ever done about it.”
The house later sold for £275,000, according to Land Registry documents.
One disabled tenant Anne-Marie Jasper, in Thurluxton, Somerset, claims she was asked to pay nearly £50,000 more for her cottage than a local estate agent believes it is worth.
She said: “I have been here nearly 15 years and have spent a lot of money dealing with problems with the property like damp.
“But I was happy to do so because I thought I was here for the long term. It was a complete wreck when I moved in 2001.
“Now I have been told I need to pay £320,000 for the property. But a local estate agent has valued it at just £275,000.
“It’s totally out of my reach now. I had an accident five years ago. I’m unable to work and and registered disabled.”
Emma Brookes was forced out of her house in Dunster after four years and spending thousands of pounds on the property that she thought she was in long-term.
Emma said: “We were given first refusal at £230,000. We had been there for four years.
“We had spent quite a lot of money doing to garden up. It was in an atrocious state. I had inherited some money from my grandmother and we spent practically all of it on the garden.
“We were very happy there and had no intention of moving. We were gutted by there was nothing we could do about it. We couldn’t afford to buy it.”
The property later sold for £5,000 less than Emma was asked to pay.
But there are other more extreme cases.
Campaign group Forced Out found one property that was turned down by a tenant for £275,000 before being sold on the open market for £215,000.
The Mirror has been able to find both the asking price and the eventual selling price of 12 Crown Estate properties and in all but two cases they sold for less than expected.
One property in Somerset went on sale for £310,000 before it was sold for £270,000, a second went on the market for £275,000 but sold for £33,000 less while a third fetched £115,000, £10,000 less than the initial asking price.
Ken Jones, Director of The Crown Estate’s Rural and Coastal Portfolio, said: “Where we have completed sales to tenants, we are confident that this has reflected a fair market price.
“Any valuation, can only ever be an estimate until the property has been marketed and sold.
“Tenants looking to purchase have been advised to seek their own valuations and indeed, anyone seeking a mortgage would have been required by their mortgage provider to have an independent valuation done.
“Where tenants made improvements which increased a property’s value, we have compensated them for their expense.”
Although the the Queen does not own her 775-room home Buckingham Palace, she is worth an estimated £340 million and her private property portfolio includes Balmoral Castle and the Sandringham Estate.
A Crown Estate spokesman added: “The Treasury and Buckingham Palace have no role in management decisions as The Crown Estate is an independent commercial business established by an Act of Parliament.”
But, in a letter obtained by the Mirror, Chancellor George Osborne admitted he had the power to block the sell-off of 200 homes – but washed his hands as it was a “commercial decision” by the estate to “enhance its performance”.
In a cruel twist, the Tories clinched victory in last month’s election promising to expand the “right to buy” – where council tenants get the option of buying their homes with a discount of up to 70% – to housing associations. …………..’
Downing Street, we are told, wants to ‘re-set’ the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood after the referendum. UK ministers apparently want an atmosphere of ‘co-operation; to exist between the two governments.
Well, that’s great but it only seems to be going one way. Just take a look at what Nicola Sturgeon has decided to do over the funding over the Royal Family. Under the Smith Commission proposals, Scotland is going to get control over all Crown Estate assets north of the border. At the moment, the Crown Estates profits are used to fund the Royal Family.
So, if the Crown Estate loses a chunk of its assets, it will lose a chunk of its profits and the Queen will lose out. Scotland will simply be taking the money that currently goes to pay for the Royal Family and spending it on whatever it likes. Scottish ministers could have decided to be conciliatory and to agree to send the same amount south to pay for the Queen as comes out of their Crown Estate profits – about £2 million. But they decided to metaphorically stick two fingers up at the Royal Family, the Treasury and Downing Street and say, No, we will spend on it whatever we like, if you want to fund the Queen, take it out of general taxation.
It is also worth bearing in mind the timing of this announcement. Ms Sturgeon is due to meet the Queen on Wednesday for her first formal appointment as Scotland’s First Minister. This decision to snub the Royal Family financially may cause some embarrassment for aides on both sides ahead of the meeting, but it is not being done to curry favour with the Queen. It is being done to appeal to the now almost 100,000 SNP members who still harbour grievances over the referendum and want Ms Sturgeon to show an aggressive approach when dealing with the British State.
She is certainly doing that and, what’s more, echoes of the old Ms Sturgeon are starting to emerge. Despite all her talk of running Scotland by consensus, she was one of the SNP MSPs who boycotted a visit of the Queen to Holyrood in 2003. She also refused to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen when first elected as an MSP in 1999, preferring instead to swear allegiance to the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. In the short time she has been in charge of the Scottish Government she has effectively declared war on Scottish landowners and picked a fight with the Queen.
Anyone who doesn’t quite know which side of the fence she was coming from, should certainly be aware of it now. Downing Street officials may be keen to ‘re-set’ the relationship between Westminster and Holyrood. However, if they are not careful, they will find that Ms Sturgeon has already done it for them. …………’
A majority of the public does not want Camilla to become queen if Prince Charles succeeds to the throne, a poll for the Daily Mail reveals today.
And the nation is completely split on whether Charles should become king at all.
Only 43 per cent believe he should ascend to the throne compared with an almost identical number saying he should stand aside in favour of his elder son Prince William.
William and Prince Harry are the most popular members of the Royal Family, closely followed by the Queen and the Duchess of Cambridge.
Scroll down for video
Prince Andrew languishes at the bottom of the popularity table, with his brother Edward not far ahead. Camilla and Andrew are the only two royals who are more disliked than liked, according to the poll.
Despite courtiers’ efforts to have Camilla accepted into the nation’s hearts, 55 per cent are against the Duchess of Cornwall becoming queen when her husband becomes king.
This is down from 73 per cent opposition at the time of her wedding to Charles in April 2005, but shows she has yet to win over most of the country.
However, she is no longer regarded as the main culprit for the break-up of Charles’s marriage to Princess Diana. The prince himself is held most to blame by 39 per cent, followed by Diana on 13 per cent and Camilla on 12 per cent.
There is still great affection for Diana, who died in a Paris car crash 18 years ago, with a substantial majority saying she would have made a better queen than Camilla.
Intriguingly, the younger generation is most attached to her even though many of them were not old enough to remember her when she was alive. Among 18 to 24-year-olds, two out of three would have preferred Diana to be queen, while only 3 per cent backed Camilla.
Charles’s wedding to Camilla divided the country at the time, and ten years on people remain uncertain about its wider significance for the Royal Family. Fifteen per cent said the marriage had strengthened the monarchy but 24 per cent believed it had weakened it; just over half felt it had no impact.
Camilla, 67, was once reviled as the woman whose love affair with Charles, 66, destroyed his relationship with Diana, who was 36 when she died in 1997.
PASS THE CROWN, CHARLES: FOUR IN TEN SAY WILLIAM SHOULD BE KING
Four out of ten people say Prince Charles should give up his right to be king so the crown passes straight to William.
Britain is evenly split on the question of whether Charles should succeed to the throne when the Queen dies, the poll reveals.
William has the female vote, with 43 per cent of women saying he should be the next monarch compared to 37 per cent of men.
Young people are also much more likely to favour the Duke of Cambridge as king, with 53 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds urging his father to step aside.
But 43 per cent of the public back Charles to take over from his mother, with a clear majority of over-55s wanting him as Britain’s next monarch.
The findings suggest that support for the Prince of Wales to wear the crown may actually have dipped slightly in the past decade.
In 2005 a survey found that 53 per cent of people thought he should be king despite his marriage to Camilla, and 43 per cent said he should not.
Senior officials at Clarence House have nurtured the duchess’s image with carefully chosen public appearances. She has won widespread praise for her charity work, dedication to attending royal functions around the country and emergence as a style icon for older women.
The Duchess of Cornwall is patron or president of 85 charities, and has undertaken nearly 1,700 royal engagements in Britain and more than 600 abroad since 2005.
Yet the survey reveals how Camilla’s past continues to affect how she is perceived. Just over a third said they had grown to like her more over the past decade, and nearly two-thirds thought Charles was happier with her than he ever was with Diana.
But only a quarter felt the Duchess of Cornwall had been a good influence on the Royal Family, and a similar proportion argued that her marriage to the prince had ‘stained’ the royals’ reputation.
Four in ten say Charles should give up his right to be king so the crown passes straight to William. Among those aged 18 to 24, that figure rises to 53 per cent.
But overall 43 per cent of the public back Charles to take over from his mother, with a clear majority of over-55s wanting him as the next monarch.
Support for the monarchy itself remains very high, with the 88-year-old Queen and the younger royals – William, Harry and Kate – hugely popular.
By contrast, Prince Andrew was least popular, with only 30 per cent liking him. Charles, Prince Philip and Princess Anne were ranked in the middle.
Only 19 per cent would back turning Britain into a republic, although the figure rises to 36 per cent in Scotland, perhaps a by-product of the SNP’s unsuccessful independence campaign last year. Charles, who is said to favour a ‘slimmed down’ monarchy, will be buoyed by the finding that 56 per believe that the royals should be reduced to the Queen’s immediate family only.
By law Camilla will automatically become Queen Consort when Charles is king, but privately officials continue to debate whether she should use a lesser title to avoid controversy.
The official position has been that she intends to be known as Princess Consort, but in recent years Camilla and Charles have dropped a number of hints that they would like her to be queen.
Asked in 2010 whether his wife would take the title, Charles replied: ‘We’ll see, won’t we? That could be.’
The duchess herself says ‘You never know’ when she faces questions about whether she will become queen.
POPULAR PRINCES: WILLIAM AND HARRY ARE THE MOST-LIKED ROYALS
Princes William and Harry are the most popular members of the royal family, the survey found.
Nearly eight out of ten people said they ‘liked’ the princes, with the Duchess of Cambridge and the Queen receiving similarly high ratings.
Women were significantly more likely to approve of the younger royals – 84 per cent said they were fans of Prince Harry compared to 75 per cent of men.
By contrast, Prince Andrew was the least popular of the royals, with only 30 per cent of respondents saying they liked him.
Prince Charles, his father Prince Philip and his sister Princess Anne were ranked in the middle.
Camilla divided opinions most sharply. Thirty-four per cent of people said they liked her, but 38 per cent disliked her.
The survey did not ask people what they thought of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s son Prince George, who is now nearly two.
He may cause a turn of the tide and the majority of the country could then want a Republic. This would leave the door open for Mr Blair to become President, not a prospect I would relish, as he created many problems for the country when he was Prime Minister, although he does not believe so.