The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1101  
Old 04-20-2021, 09:11 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
Daddy has personal funding independent of the British tax payer.
The couple made it clear that they wished to step back not leave but they were met with resistance and repeated roadblocks. No one probably thought they were serious. With their backs against the wall they opted to leave for their well-being.
Whatever the scenario, Harry was born into his position- by virtue of being alive there are risks and threats. Security should've been provided.
Harry also has personal funding independent of the British taxpayer, he admitted that he didn't want to spend it. Charles was also born into his position, as was Beatrice and Eugenie and other members of the family who don't have 24 hour security.

Many people all over the world are at risk and living under threats: refugees, abused spouses, people who live in high crime areas, etc. Few have rich daddies to pick up the bill for round the clock security. Harry and Meghan could have chosen a smaller house where security would not have been as expensive. I understand she wasn't happy in the UK and wanted to move, but there are many people who would be happier somewhere else. I'd love to live closer to my family but my husband and I can't afford to quit our jobs and demand that our parents financially support us.

As a taxpayer, I can understand why the British public didn't want to pick up the bill and I can understand why Charles did not want to do it. Especially when they have enough money to buy mansions with 16 bathrooms.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1102  
Old 04-20-2021, 09:12 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Perhaps if they had "stepped back" and remained in the UK and just cut down their working duties, it would have been more feasible for Charles to assent to provide security. If they lived at Frogmore Cottage quietly, they'd have built in security. They actually "walked out", moved thousands of miles away to a country where its being said that the sign of the US getting back to somewhat "normal" after a pandemic is daily mass shootings and tensions are high in cities all over the country. They've provided a 14 million dollar mansion for themselves in a prime, elite neighborhood. If they can afford that, they can afford their own security.

When you walk away from a job that pays the bills, you don't blame the company when you can't meet your rent and buy groceries because you've not found another job yet. You only can have what you can afford. That's a lesson the majority of us learn as we step out on our own two feet into adulthood.
Harry is not one of the Queen's distant cousins that opted to be a senior royal then wanted to step back. He is the 2nd son of a future King and had lived his entire life in the public spotlight. He's always had security and should have it because of WHO he is - not because of where he is located.
__________________

__________________
Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt. ---Phaedrus
Reply With Quote
  #1103  
Old 04-20-2021, 09:26 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
Harry is not one of the Queen's distant cousins that opted to be a senior royal then wanted to step back. He is the 2nd son of a future King and had lived his entire life in the public spotlight. He's always had security and should have it because of WHO he is - not because of where he is located.
Then by your rationalization, Beatrice and Eugenie should have taxpayer funded security too as granddaughters of the Queen. Andrew, however, has opted to pay for private security for his daughters (whether he still does or not, I don't know). Charles has decided that he's not going to privately fund Harry's security and that's his prerogative. Harry's protection detail that he's always had since birth was provided by the Metropolitan Police and funded by the British taxpayers. The Met Police didn't deem Harry's security in the US as feasible and neither did the Canadian government when he resided there. Perhaps you think the US government should provide security as he's at risk on *their* soil? I don't think so.

If Harry picks and chooses his location and his lifestyle and can afford a very expensive home in a very expensive neighborhood, it stands to reason he can afford his own protection detail.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1104  
Old 04-20-2021, 09:29 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 543
Quote:
Several people in his family had periods of active service in the military, including Andrew, the present Duke of Kent, Philip, and even the future King George VI.
I believe Alexander Earl of Ulster also served.

Quote:
Harry is not one of the Queen's distant cousins that opted to be a senior royal then wanted to step back. He is the 2nd son of a future King and had lived his entire life in the public spotlight.
When Harry left, he was 6th in line. When they were born, Beatrice and Eugenie were 5th and 6th (if i have my maths right); they're very well known too – and they don't have tax-payer security, and seem to do ok.
Reply With Quote
  #1105  
Old 04-20-2021, 09:31 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Harry also has personal funding independent of the British taxpayer, he admitted that he didn't want to spend it. Charles was also born into his position, as was Beatrice and Eugenie and other members of the family who don't have 24 hour security.
Charles has security 24/7. Beatrice and Eugenie don't- neither ladies were senior members of the royal family, neither ladies had risk and threats equivalent to Prince Harry.
Moreover, Beatrice and Eugenie's status is exactly what H&M wanted. To be able to work and support themselves independently while still being able to support their charities. However they were blatantly told no- that it was all in or all out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Many people all over the world are at risk and living under threats: refugees, abused spouses, people who live in high crime areas, etc. Few have rich daddies to pick up the bill for round the clock security. Harry and Meghan could have chosen a smaller house where security would not have been as expensive. I understand she wasn't happy in the UK and wanted to move, but there are many people who would be happier somewhere else. I'd love to live closer to my family but my husband and I can't afford to quit our jobs and demand that our parents financially support us.
They're many factors that went to choosing their Montecito mansion-location, job, accessibility, proximity to family and friends, access to resources..etc.
Sure they could've had a nice home in Billings, Montana for a fraction of the price of their Montecito mansion but would it have been practical...no.
The beauty if mansions is that they provide more protection than smaller homes and safety and protection is what H&M needs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
As a taxpayer, I can understand why the British public didn't want to pick up the bill and I can understand why Charles did not want to do it. Especially when they have enough money to buy mansions with 16 bathrooms.
The British taxpayer shouldn't foot the couple's security bill if they are not serving the British public. If they had gotten their wish to be part-time royals ala Beatrice and Eugenie then yes they could have. However, like I have been saying- Harry is the son of a British future monarch who has alot more funds and private wealth. Harry didn't ask to be born- Charles should've provided security.
__________________
Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt. ---Phaedrus
Reply With Quote
  #1106  
Old 04-20-2021, 09:34 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Harry also has personal funding independent of the British taxpayer, he admitted that he didn't want to spend it. Charles was also born into his position, as was Beatrice and Eugenie and other members of the family who don't have 24 hour security.

Many people all over the world are at risk and living under threats: refugees, abused spouses, people who live in high crime areas, etc. Few have rich daddies to pick up the bill for round the clock security. Harry and Meghan could have chosen a smaller house where security would not have been as expensive. I understand she wasn't happy in the UK and wanted to move, but there are many people who would be happier somewhere else. I'd love to live closer to my family but my husband and I can't afford to quit our jobs and demand that our parents financially support us.

As a taxpayer, I can understand why the British public didn't want to pick up the bill and I can understand why Charles did not want to do it. Especially when they have enough money to buy mansions with 16 bathrooms.

Excellent post and they could have certainly opted for a smaller home in a gated community while residing in a less pricey region of Southern California. Montecito is in one of the U.S.A.'s most expensive zip codes.https://www.businessinsider.com/the-...ornia-94027-27 They could have chosen to stay in Los Angeles, Orange or even Ventura County which would have kept them very close to Ms. Ragland and other friends/colleagues. They did not need to reside in one of my state's most expensive and exclusive communities. That was their choice to buy there. And no it is not required in my home state of California to purchase a "mansion" in order to have safe and secure housing. It is possible to own a gated property with smaller square footage that would provide ample room for a family.



Prince Harry's Uncle Edward and Aunt Anne are the children of the current reigning monarch. They perform official domestic and foreign royal duties but no longer have the full time security that they once had. They only receive it when performing official duties.



Yes Prince Harry did serve honorably overseas for two tours in Afghanistan, however he has chosen to leave with his family and reside outside of the UK. To demand that his father or the British, Canadian or American taxpayers to fund his security was an unreasonable request IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #1107  
Old 04-20-2021, 09:40 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
Charles has security 24/7. Beatrice and Eugenie don't- neither ladies were senior members of the royal family, neither ladies had risk and threats equivalent to Prince Harry.
Moreover, Beatrice and Eugenie's status is exactly what H&M wanted. To be able to work and support themselves independently while still being able to support their charities. However they were blatantly told no- that it was all in or all out.
Beatrice and Eugenie are not part-time working royals. They support charities in a private capacity - so they are all out but they didn't have a choice.

Quote:
They're many factors that went to choosing their Montecito mansion-location, job, accessibility, proximity to family and friends, access to resources..etc.
Sure they could've had a nice home in Billings, Montana for a fraction of the price of their Montecito mansion but would it have been practical...no.
The beauty if mansions is that they provide more protection than smaller homes and safety and protection is what H&M needs.
I don't care why they chose that home, the issue is whether they can afford it. If they can pay their own security, they should

Quote:
The British taxpayer shouldn't foot the couple's security bill if they are not serving the British public. If they had gotten their wish to be part-time royals ala Beatrice and Eugenie then yes they could have. However, like I have been saying- Harry is the son of a British future monarch who has alot more funds and private wealth. Harry didn't ask to be born- Charles should've provided security.
I'm guessing you don't have adult children - no one asks to be born. But most of us have to pay our own bills.
Reply With Quote
  #1108  
Old 04-20-2021, 09:41 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
Harry is not one of the Queen's distant cousins that opted to be a senior royal then wanted to step back. He is the 2nd son of a future King and had lived his entire life in the public spotlight. He's always had security and should have it because of WHO he is - not because of where he is located.

The Queen's own children, other than the PoW, only have public security when attending official royal functions. Why should one of the Queen's grandsons who is not in direct line to the throne be treated differently from his uncles and aunt?
Reply With Quote
  #1109  
Old 04-20-2021, 09:45 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Then by your rationalization, Beatrice and Eugenie should have taxpayer funded security too as granddaughters of the Queen. Andrew, however, has opted to pay for private security for his daughters (whether he still does or not, I don't know). Charles has decided that he's not going to privately fund Harry's security and that's his prerogative. Harry's protection detail that he's always had since birth was provided by the Metropolitan Police and funded by the British taxpayers. The Met Police didn't deem Harry's security in the US as feasible and neither did the Canadian government when he resided there. Perhaps you think the US government should provide security as he's at risk on *their* soil? I don't think so.

If Harry picks and chooses his location and his lifestyle and can afford a very expensive home in a very expensive neighborhood, it stands to reason he can afford his own protection detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Then by your rationalization, Beatrice and Eugenie should have taxpayer funded security too as granddaughters of the Queen. Andrew, however, has opted to pay for private security for his daughters (whether he still does or not, I don't know).
Beatrice and Eugenie never lived all their lives as senior royals. They're father is not expected to become- it's never been published that they have received death threats. If their father, the Duke of York can understand that his children needs security and be willing to pay for it despite the fact that the York Princesses are both adults and make their own money- how much more so should the PoW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Charles has decided that he's not going to privately fund Harry's security and that's his prerogative. Harry's protection detail that he's always had since birth was provided by the Metropolitan Police and funded by the British taxpayers. The Met Police didn't deem Harry's security in the US as feasible and neither did the Canadian government when he resided there.
If the MetPo and Canadian government didn't see it feasible which is their prerogative- Charles should've stepped up and provided it especially as this new lifestyle change was new to Harry. His security and that of his family is one thing he should not have to worry about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Perhaps you think the US government should provide security as he's at risk on *their* soil? I don't think so.
Obviously not and no one would agree to that. If the son of the Emir of Qatar is living privately here in the US- either the Emir and/or the Qatari government should foot the security bill, same thing if Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway decides to live in the US- his security should be taken care of by either the Norwegian government or his grandfather or father...I hope you get the picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
If Harry picks and chooses his location and his lifestyle and can afford a very expensive home in a very expensive neighborhood, it stands to reason he can afford his own protection detail.
Thank goodness he could have since his father wasn't going to!
__________________
Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt. ---Phaedrus
Reply With Quote
  #1110  
Old 04-20-2021, 09:59 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Excellent post and they could have certainly opted for a smaller home in a gated community while residing in a less pricey region of Southern California. Montecito is in one of the U.S.A.'s most expensive zip codes.https://www.businessinsider.com/the-...ornia-94027-27 They could have chosen to stay in Los Angeles, Orange or even Ventura County which would have kept them very close to Ms. Ragland and other friends/colleagues. They did not need to reside in one of my state's most expensive and exclusive communities. That was their choice to buy there. And no it is not required in my home state of California to purchase a "mansion" in order to have safe and secure housing. It is possible to own a gated property with smaller square footage that would provide ample room for a family.



Prince Harry's Uncle Edward and Aunt Anne are the children of the current reigning monarch. They perform official domestic and foreign royal duties but no longer have the full time security that they once had. They only receive it when performing official duties.



Yes Prince Harry did serve honorably overseas for two tours in Afghanistan, however he has chosen to leave with his family and reside outside of the UK. To demand that his father or the British, Canadian or American taxpayers to fund his security was an unreasonable request IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Excellent post and they could have certainly opted for a smaller home in a gated community while residing in a less pricey region of Southern California. Montecito is in one of the U.S.A.'s most expensive zip codes.https://www.businessinsider.com/the-...ornia-94027-27 They could have chosen to stay in Los Angeles, Orange or even Ventura County which would have kept them very close to Ms. Ragland and other friends/colleagues. They did not need to reside in one of my state's most expensive and exclusive communities. That was their choice to buy there. And no it is not required in my home state of California to purchase a "mansion" in order to have safe and secure housing. It is possible to own a gated property with smaller square footage that would provide ample room for a family.



Prince Harry's Uncle Edward and Aunt Anne are the children of the current reigning monarch. They perform official domestic and foreign royal duties but no longer have the full time security that they once had. They only receive it when performing official duties.



Yes Prince Harry did serve honorably overseas for two tours in Afghanistan, however he has chosen to leave with his family and reside outside of the UK. To demand that his father or the British, Canadian or American taxpayers to fund his security was an unreasonable request IMHO.
A gated community? Um no...think of the security breaches that could happen. For ex. paparazzi paying off one of the neighbors so they can spy on the couple's activity, or pretending to be guests of neighbors so they can fly drones around and get pictures and videos of Archie's birthday party or the like.
California real estate ain't cheap. Moreover, we all know their is a correlation with pricy zipcodes and safety. The most expensive zipcodes are in fact the safest zipcodes...low crime rates and more privacy.
__________________
Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt. ---Phaedrus
Reply With Quote
  #1111  
Old 04-20-2021, 10:01 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
Obviously not and no one would agree to that. If the son of the Emir of Qatar is living privately here in the US- either the Emir and/or the Qatari government should foot the security bill, same thing if Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway decides to live in the US- his security should be taken care of by either the Norwegian government or his grandfather or father...I hope you get the picture.

Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives in Florida and Sweden doesn't pay for her security. When she was single and lived in Sweden as the youngest daughter of the King, she didn't have full-time security either, but was provided security only when performing official royal duties. That is the norm in most Royal Houses nowadays.


Honestly I can't even imagine how British police for example would operate in the United States outside their national jurisdiction. Would that be even legally possible ? Or are you suggesting that the British taxpayer should pay for private security for the Sussexes in the US?
Reply With Quote
  #1112  
Old 04-20-2021, 10:06 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal

I'm guessing you don't have adult children - no one asks to be born. But most of us have to pay our own bills.
No I don't have adult children. However, I cannot imagine not providing them with something fundamental especially if I am capable of doing so.
__________________
Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt. ---Phaedrus
Reply With Quote
  #1113  
Old 04-20-2021, 10:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
A gated community? Um no...think of the security breaches that could happen. For ex. paparazzi paying off one of the neighbors so they can spy on the couple's activity, or pretending to be guests of neighbors so they can fly drones around and get pictures and videos of Archie's birthday party or the like.
California real estate ain't cheap. Moreover, we all know their is a correlation with pricy zipcodes and safety. The most expensive zipcodes are in fact the safest zipcodes...low crime rates and more privacy.

Alisa-I am a lifelong resident of the Golden State. I am well aware that "California real estate ain't cheap." However they chose to live in one of the state's most expensive zip codes. There are plenty of properties in less pricey areas with very, very safe communities which are actually closer to Doria.

As to gated communities in CA, yes you can be paparazzi free too ie: Cota de Caza in south Orange Co. which would give them close access to the beach and they'd be closer to Doria.


They chose to purchase a residence in a one of the nation's most expensive communities but want others (Charles, British/American taxpayers) to fund their security. Really????
Reply With Quote
  #1114  
Old 04-20-2021, 10:09 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
Beatrice and Eugenie never lived all their lives as senior royals. They're father is not expected to become- it's never been published that they have received death threats. If their father, the Duke of York can understand that his children needs security and be willing to pay for it despite the fact that the York Princesses are both adults and make their own money- how much more so should the PoW.



If the MetPo and Canadian government didn't see it feasible which is their prerogative- Charles should've stepped up and provided it especially as this new lifestyle change was new to Harry. His security and that of his family is one thing he should not have to worry about.



Obviously not and no one would agree to that. If the son of the Emir of Qatar is living privately here in the US- either the Emir and/or the Qatari government should foot the security bill, same thing if Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway decides to live in the US- his security should be taken care of by either the Norwegian government or his grandfather or father...I hope you get the picture.


Thank goodness he could have since his father wasn't going to!
Let's look at this from another angle. When you work for a huge corporation or a firm and have the use of an expense account, all travel costs covered and a nice company car and even, perhaps, a corporation funded penthouse, when you quit that job and walk away from it, should that corporation continue to provide those things for you because you've *always* had them? I don't think so. Not in the real world.

This is basically the situation that Harry has found himself in. As the "Firm" and the family are so tightly meshed together, its possible that Harry grew up expecting things in his life such as funded security because he's never actually had to be without it. It's expected that if he leaves the family "Firm", he'll also lose the perks that comes with being part of that family "Firm". That's the end results of wanting a "private" life "financially independent" and establishing a lifestyle of his own choosing.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1115  
Old 04-20-2021, 10:13 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
No I don't have adult children. However, I cannot imagine not providing them with something fundamental especially if I am capable of doing so.
By that logic, the Queen should be supporting Prince Charles and the Queen Mother should have supported the Queen while she was alive. People need a lot of fundamental things and sometimes have parents who can pay for them, but most of us pay for ourselves-especially if we choose to leave the family business and live a very expensive lifestyle.
Reply With Quote
  #1116  
Old 04-20-2021, 10:21 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives in Florida and Sweden doesn't pay for her security. When she was single and lived in Sweden as the youngest daughter of the King, she didn't have full-time security either, but was provided security only when performing official royal duties. That is the norm in most Royal Houses nowadays.


Honestly I can't even imagine how British police for example would operate in the United States outside their national jurisdiction. Would that be even legally possible ? Or are you suggesting that the British taxpayer should pay for private security for the Sussexes in the US?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives in Florida and Sweden doesn't pay for her security. When she was single and lived in Sweden as the youngest daughter of the King, she didn't have full-time security either, but was provided security only when performing official royal duties. That is the norm in most Royal Houses nowadays.
Madeleine did have full time security in some capacity. Obviously, living at the royal residence there were palace guards but when she was out shopping in Stockholm or having dinner with Louise Gotlieb she always had at least one body guard with her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Honestly I can't even imagine how British police for example would operate in the United States outside their national jurisdiction. Would that be even legally possible ? Or are you suggesting that the British taxpayer should pay for private security for the Sussexes in the US?
No that's not what I mean, sorry I wasn't clear. I meant for home country- government of the royal or parent to provide security in the form of hiring US body guards or employing a US security company to provide security for their child. For ex.the Emir of Qatar would personally hire a US security company to provide security for his son while he is living in the US.
__________________
Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt. ---Phaedrus
Reply With Quote
  #1117  
Old 04-20-2021, 10:23 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
By that logic, the Queen should be supporting Prince Charles and the Queen Mother should have supported the Queen while she was alive. People need a lot of fundamental things and sometimes have parents who can pay for them, but most of us pay for ourselves-especially if we choose to leave the family business and live a very expensive lifestyle.
Reminds me of what, to me, was the most important advice on parenting I ever got. (My kids are now all in their 40s and on their own and standing on their own two feet) "The job of a parent is to become unnecessary to the child".

An adult child should never have to depend on a parent for fundamental needs of their lives.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1118  
Old 04-20-2021, 10:29 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Let's look at this from another angle. When you work for a huge corporation or a firm and have the use of an expense account, all travel costs covered and a nice company car and even, perhaps, a corporation funded penthouse, when you quit that job and walk away from it, should that corporation continue to provide those things for you because you've *always* had them? I don't think so. Not in the real world.



This is basically the situation that Harry has found himself in. As the "Firm" and the family are so tightly meshed together, its possible that Harry grew up expecting things in his life such as funded security because he's never actually had to be without it. It's expected that if he leaves the family "Firm", he'll also lose the perks that comes with being part of that family "Firm". That's the end results of wanting a "private" life "financially independent" and establishing a lifestyle of his own choosing.


Exactly.

I do think that it is possible that Harry might have been able to negotiate a nicer exit package so to speak had he and Meghan handled their exit in a professional manner. Charles might have been inclined to be a bit more supportive on a temporary basis. Putting up your website wish list stated as fact was a bad idea IMO. What a way to get things off on the wrong foot.
Reply With Quote
  #1119  
Old 04-20-2021, 10:31 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,069
Apparently Harry arrived back in California today. His car was spotted leaving the airport shortly after an American Airline plane landed around 1.30 pm and arrived at his house in Montecito around 4 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #1120  
Old 04-20-2021, 10:48 PM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
By that logic, the Queen should be supporting Prince Charles and the Queen Mother should have supported the Queen while she was alive. People need a lot of fundamental things and sometimes have parents who can pay for them, but most of us pay for ourselves-especially if we choose to leave the family business and live a very expensive lifestyle.
If the Queen had infinite amounts more money than Charles and he was going through some transition in his life which required more funds then yes..she should've supported him. It's the same logic why parents sometimes offer for their new college graduate to move back home while they get on their feet. It's a transition and they are in a position to and can help. Harry has never had to worry about security before for himself plus his growing family. Charles should've stepped in and provided some assistance or come up with some arrangement.
__________________

__________________
Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt. ---Phaedrus
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 65 (10 members and 55 guests)
ACO, HighGoalHighDreams, JuliSt, Kristen, Queen Ester, Sandy345, Silverpot, solinka
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021 Jacknch Current Events Archive 2203 04-06-2021 12:08 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi american american history ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism british british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen camilla carolin china chinese clarence house commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs doll dresses duke of sussex earl of snowdon family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf history hochberg house of windsor imperial household italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery jewelry king edward vii line of succession list of rulers luxembourg maxima meghan markle monarchy nepal nepalese royal jewels pless prince constantijn princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn walailak princess of orange princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal jewels royalty of taiwan serbian royal family spain sussex swedish queen taiwan thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:20 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×