The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1141  
Old 04-21-2021, 02:27 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
A friend of mine lives in a lush 1.5 million dollar home in a nice gated community. It is nice and of course safe but he doesn't space or acreage. His neighbors can easily look into the west side of his backyard. In California one wants land space and acreage in a nice and safe neighborhood it is going to cost a pretty penny.

Of course they could have found a house the size of Frogmore Cottage (not the grounds and acreage though) for under a million dollars- but it wouldn't have had the space between homes for privacy, been close to family and/or friends, or be in a good location that is optimum for financial deals and business.
Yes, that's my point. Safety is a need, and maybe privacy is, too - though one really only needs 2-3 acres, not the eight that they currently have, to be out of earshot and eyeshot of the road and the neighbors. They could have met that need somewhere else for less than 10% of what they paid. They could easily have found a home the size of Frogmore with grounds the size of their Montecito home for under $1 million, but it wouldn't have been in Montecito and probably wouldn't have been in southern California. Their reasons for wanting to be in California, and in Montecito specifically - proximity to friends, family, and Hollywood business opportunities - are wants, not needs.

There's nothing wrong with spending $10 million or more to satisfy your wants if you can afford to, and maybe they can. But if they have that kind of money left over after paying for their needs, there's no reason anyone else should have been paying for their basic needs to begin with. And if they can't afford it while also meeting their own and their children's need for safety, they should have prioritized safety and security, not proximity to friends and fun. These are tradeoffs almost every other adult has to make at some point, and most of them don't have $20-$30 million inheritances to use as a starting point.

As an analogy, many people are born with medical conditions that mean their basic needs are going to be more expensive than most people's throughout their lives. It's no one's fault, it's just the way things are. Even if the parent knowingly chose to have a child with that condition, I don't think that means the parent is obligated to foot the bill for that condition's costs forever, regardless of the child's ability to pay for it themselves. If the child can't afford it and the parent can, then the parent should help them out. But if the child can afford it perfectly well and would just rather put their money towards other things they want but don't need, I don't think the parent owes it to them to subsidize that choice. That's even more true if those other things are extremely extravagant. Being born royal was no more Charles's fault than it was Harry's, and I don't think the fact that some (at this point, a small percentage) of Harry's higher security needs stem from his royal birth rather than his own choices obligates Charles and later William and maybe George to foot that bill in perpetuity.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1142  
Old 04-21-2021, 02:30 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
William getting more attention and, more specifically, "more power" is unfortunately beyond anyone's personal reach. It is just how hereditary monarchy works. There can be only one king and one heir presumptive at any given time and, by law, when Charles is king, William will be the heir if he is still alive and not otherwise disqualified; after that, if William outlives Charles, he will be the king and George will be the heir, again as long as neither one is disqualified (e.g. by joining the Catholic Church or contracting marriage without consent). If Harry can't grasp that basic concept, I'm afraid there is no way forward and any further discussion is pointless.

On the issue of being cut off, I also fail to see where H&M stand. On one hand, they claimed thet wanted to be financially independent and were presumably leaving full-time royal work to pursue opportunities of securing a private income (which they have indeed, e.g. with the Spotify and Netflix deals). On the other hand, Harry is frequently complaining about his father having cut him off and his having to rely on the money "his mother left him". It looks like he wants to have it both ways, which is not possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
I was supporting them the hour before the announcement came out and even then I wanted them to be half in half out at first until I realised the stunt they'd pulled and how it wouldn't work for them to do Hollywood commercial work and be working royals at the same time. I think if they were unhappy they had the right to leave but the way they did it was probably the worst way possible.

I still think things like "Together" and the Smart Works Collection were good ideas. And I've always loved the idea of Invictus and Sentebale.

Here's a piece from Vanity Fair and well, I have a few issues with it.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/202...tal-royal-rift
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Well, i guess that, if you have a rich dad, you may feel entitled to be privately funded by him in perpetuity even though you are no longer working for him or his "Firm". I suppose that is a private matter for the family and, if the rich dad is OK with that, it is none of our business. Apparently, Charles is no longer OK with it though and that is his right too.
It is not that Harry was left destitute after Charles stopped funding him in 2020. He had inherited a reasonable sum of money from Diana, QEQM and Johnie Spencer. Surely a man is his late-30s, with a large inheritance, who has just walked out of a job for life and had a very public spat with his family family, ought to be able to stand on his on two feet rather than whining about his fater having cut him off!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1143  
Old 04-21-2021, 02:42 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,400
So, Charles did want to see Harry alone..I know reports said that neither C nor W were willing to see H alone, but I’d also read this.

With all due respect, I think H should have made more of an effort and stayed an extra day; I get that M is pregnant, but his relationship with his father is important, and one more day wouldn’t have killed him.

I’m feeling a bit sad about this now, for Charles’ sake, so I’m glad he’s alone in Wales, able to mourn his papa privately and to deal with his own thoughts about everything. Hopefully father, son and brother will continue to talk...

Quote:
The Mirror’s royal editor Russell Myers today told ITV’s Lorraine Harry has a “tight schedule” and that he “has got to get back” to be with the Duchess.

He added that Charles did want to see his son – but was unable to because Harry's “schedule wouldn’t allow it”.

Russell said: “We were told last week there was a tight schedule, Meghan is heavily pregnant so he's got to get back.


"She's due in the early summer, maybe six weeks away.

"Charles did want to see him but was told the schedule wouldn't allow it."

....

Russell told Lorraine “tensions are running very, very high” - adding: “Charles and William are still very hurt I understand.

“A lot of allegations were thrown and it certainly wasn't time to be settling those at the funeral.”

He said that Charles, William, Kate Middleton and Harry “got together for a couple of hours after the funeral” – adding: “But I don't think anything was settled. It’s a long road back.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews...arry-schedule/
Reply With Quote
  #1144  
Old 04-21-2021, 02:45 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I think that security in particular was something that Harry took for granted as he has had PPOs for his entire life. So I believe he was genuinely shocked when he learned that he and his family wouldn't get it anymore, even though he should have realized that it was not realistic to expect the Met Police to protect them 24/7 in Canada. Curiously, he doesn't seem to blame the Canadians for withdrawing RCMP protection. Instead, he blames the Palace for his "change of status", which in turn prompted the Canadian decision to discontinue police protection.
Another point that does not make sense. If you are going to take such a major step as to leaving the BRF and all the perks and privlidges that come with it, one would assume that you have secured agreement on key things like security.

Expecting the British state to continue to finance their security full time without H&M working for the British people does not seem like a fair deal, and I realy cannot expect to see any UK government supporting it.

Also, does Harry really not realise that it is not the Palace or the BRF but the Home Office that decides who gets what level of security? In relation to Harry's accusations in the Oprah interview against the BRF withdrawing security, I cannot decide which of the following is true:

a) Harry really did not understand that it is the Home Office that makes decisions on royal security, and not the BRF. If this is indeed the case, he really is not very bright, and his grasp on reality is really more tenous than may appear; OR

b) Harry does really understand it all, but was just using the Oprah interview to disingenously cause damage to the BRF.

Neither option covers Harry in glory, IMO!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
Security is extremely important as Harry is the son of a future King. Since marrying a woman of color there has been an increased risk and threats against him and his family.
I do not doubt the importance of security, I just thought H&M would have the sense to agree a position with the UK government before announcing their plan.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
Daddy should've always continued to provide security.
Except it really is not for Daddy to provie security. It is Granny's government of the day that makes the decision, and the final decision rests with Granny's Home Secretary of the day!
Reply With Quote
  #1145  
Old 04-21-2021, 03:02 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 694
The homes in England which where offerd to Harry, where - to my understanding - all within allready secured royal premisies as Windsor or Kensington Palace - for the expressed reason to hold security costs down; that is also why Kensington, Buck Palace and St James are all 'Aunty heaps' - where most of the royal cousins etc. live.
Reply With Quote
  #1146  
Old 04-21-2021, 03:14 AM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 2,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Perhaps the Royal Family has been using leaks against Harry and Meghan but if so, it would have been in response to Harry and Meghan publicly complaining about them. According to the royal family's "truth," Harry and Meghan treated them unfairly. None of the recent leaks by the palace would have occurred if Harry and Meghan hadn't given the interview.
I'm curious of the grounds on which you base this categorical denial that they've used leaks prior to the interview? It's not like the British press wasn't riddled with stories courtesy of "royal sources" and "courtiers" before the interview.
__________________
"Hope is like the sun. If you only believe it when you see it you'll never make it through the night."
Our Princess

Reply With Quote
  #1147  
Old 04-21-2021, 03:19 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
I don't see how they could have made the part-time thing work if they lived in the US rather than a Commonwealth country. I don't know how workable it would have been from Canada, either, but it might have been at least theoretically possible if they (or just Harry) was willing to fly back and forth a lot. So if Canada was a blind, then that whole plan would have been one, and I don't think it was.
I think they believed that it could work, I agree that it would never have been allowed and would have been very difficult. But they thoguht that they'd be able to fly back nad forth, do engagements in the UK or go on tours, and then return to N America (which would be their real home because they or at least Meg liked it better there) and do their money making or have some private life. but I think that they did initially give the impression they were settling in Canada because it was a Commonwealth country, and they probably felt that would look better than a move straight to the USA...
If they first went to Canada, they could spin it more as "we want to go away because we want a more private life" rather than "we want to go away and make money". But I think that before long, they would have been tripping to the US and undertaking various money making projects (perhaps Meghan rather than Harry) and they'd still have (as they believed) someone else paying for security and Charles helping with money. so they would have been in a much better financial position..

As regards Harry I think that in theory yes he did want to make money but in practice he wasn't used to the idea.. and when he and Charles began to argue about the details of their departure, he wasn't really happy with being told "Yes you said you wanted to go away and earn a professional income, so Im not going to go on funding you.. you're going to have to start to earn that professional income"...
and Harry was rather aghast at suddenly finding that the money from Charles was drying up, the Canadians weren't going to pay his security.. and so he may well feel that he WAS pushed into doing the deal with Netfllix...and he had to find a house in LA, pay bills, pay security etc etc.
For what its worth, I don't think that Charles left him completely high and dry... Its been said that he gave Harry a start up portion to pay for all the expenses around a move, but he would not be paying the £2M that he usually gave him as an allowance.. and I believe that he did give H some kind of lump sum to get started in N America. But when H found that his security was being withdrawn by the Canadians, he probably asked Charles to pay it and C said that it would be very very expensive and he could not do that indefinitely and that Harry now had to realize that he was independent and make his own living.
Perhaps Charles realized that Harry was very very naive about money and that he had to make it clear that he was not willing or able to just hand out money for years and years, esp. not covering the very expensive security in the USA... and when he said this and said a firm "Sorry but no", Harry got angry and it ended with Chas not taking his calls. But Harry perhaps was very panicked becuase he hadn't realised that bills come in every month, that security guards dont work for free, that he was living in a borrowed house and had no home.. and he got unpleasant to his father when Dad said "well you wanted financial independence and this is what independence means".
Reply With Quote
  #1148  
Old 04-21-2021, 04:28 AM
PetticoatLane's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: A Small Town, United Kingdom
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
So, Charles did want to see Harry alone..I know reports said that neither C nor W were willing to see H alone, but I’d also read this.

With all due respect, I think H should have made more of an effort and stayed an extra day; I get that M is pregnant, but his relationship with his father is important, and one more day wouldn’t have killed him.

I’m feeling a bit sad about this now, for Charles’ sake, so I’m glad he’s alone in Wales, able to mourn his papa privately and to deal with his own thoughts about everything. Hopefully father, son and brother will continue to talk...




https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews...arry-schedule/
Isn't it strange that all these leaks and briefings, which we've been told on several occasions in this thread originate from the dastardly Charles/William/insert RF member name here, seem to differ so wildly? Odd one

Funding round-the-clock security in one of the most expensive places on earth would likely decimate the remaining annual profits of Duchy of Cornwall which still has to fund the official activity of the PoW, Camilla and William and Kate. From memory, I think Charles gives what's left of these funds to charity each year. Why should these charities suffer because a multi-millionaire couple with 16 bathrooms don't want to spend their own money? Utterly astonishing that they ever thought this would be a runner.
Reply With Quote
  #1149  
Old 04-21-2021, 04:41 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post

Except it really is not for Daddy to provide security. It is Granny's government of the day that makes the decision, and the final decision rests with Granny's Home Secretary of the day!
Yes, indeed - and is the government supposed to divert funding away from the National Health Service, education, policing, support for people who have lost their jobs due to the pandemic, and the million and one other areas crying out for money in order to fund security for a multi-millionaire who chose, of his own free will, to walk away from public duties? Harry wanted out. That was his choice.
Reply With Quote
  #1150  
Old 04-21-2021, 05:56 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by PetticoatLane View Post
Isn't it strange that all these leaks and briefings, which we've been told on several occasions in this thread originate from the dastardly Charles/William/insert RF member name here, seem to differ so wildly? Odd one

Funding round-the-clock security in one of the most expensive places on earth would likely decimate the remaining annual profits of Duchy of Cornwall which still has to fund the official activity of the PoW, Camilla and William and Kate. From memory, I think Charles gives what's left of these funds to charity each year. Why should these charities suffer because a multi-millionaire couple with 16 bathrooms don't want to spend their own money? Utterly astonishing that they ever thought this would be a runner.
That's why Charles is cautious about taking on royal people to work, and why Im sure that he refused ot pay the very expensive security fees for guarding people in the US. he uses the DOC funds to pay for his own and other royals' expenses and then to help the Duchy and its people as a whole and his charities... and I Suppose he saves a bit for a rainy day. But he could not go on funding Harry in the US indefintiely....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post
I'm curious of the grounds on which you base this categorical denial that they've used leaks prior to the interview? It's not like the British press wasn't riddled with stories courtesy of "royal sources" and "courtiers" before the interview.
Of course there are always "stories" based on "royal sources".. that's how a lot of royal news comes out. And sometimes they may be real leaks sometimes it may just be conjecture by journalists. But its the nature of these recent stories.. Meg and harry attacked the RF, saying that they were racists and heartless and that they had not cared for MEg or H.. They made statements that were dubious and implied that Charles had refused to help them or to talk to them. So the stories that have come out in the past month have been largely defending the RF against the attacks by Meg and H. What do they expect? They know that the RF wont make a direct statement.. but that doesn't mean that courtiers wont do something to defend themselves since they were also criticized and to defend the RF.
Reply With Quote
  #1151  
Old 04-21-2021, 06:48 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by PetticoatLane View Post
Isn't it strange that all these leaks and briefings, which we've been told on several occasions in this thread originate from the dastardly Charles/William/insert RF member name here, seem to differ so wildly? Odd one

Funding round-the-clock security in one of the most expensive places on earth would likely decimate the remaining annual profits of Duchy of Cornwall which still has to fund the official activity of the PoW, Camilla and William and Kate. From memory, I think Charles gives what's left of these funds to charity each year. Why should these charities suffer because a multi-millionaire couple with 16 bathrooms don't want to spend their own money? Utterly astonishing that they ever thought this would be a runner.

Truth, lol...if Charles and William were doing the leaking, they’re not doing s very good job of it 😆😆😆😣😌😌😌
Reply With Quote
  #1152  
Old 04-21-2021, 06:51 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice Nofret View Post
The homes in England which where offerd to Harry, where - to my understanding - all within allready secured royal premisies as Windsor or Kensington Palace - for the expressed reason to hold security costs down; that is also why Kensington, Buck Palace and St James are all 'Aunty heaps' - where most of the royal cousins etc. live.

Yes, I believe you are right. As I said before, the norm now is that cadet branches of the RF only get state security at official royal events. However, as long as they live in residences that are within "royal domains", they are also indirectly protected since the occupied royal palaces and surrounding park area have 24/7 security.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PetticoatLane View Post

Funding round-the-clock security in one of the most expensive places on earth would likely decimate the remaining annual profits of Duchy of Cornwall which still has to fund the official activity of the PoW, Camilla and William and Kate.

Isn't part of the activities of the PoW/Camilla and William/Kate also funded by the Sovereign Grant?


The Sovereign Grant is about 82 million pounds/year now (or 114 million US dollars). The (private) income from the Duchy of Cornwall stands at about 22 million pounds/year (or 30 million US dollars). On top of that, the PoW also has other private funds/investments.
Reply With Quote
  #1153  
Old 04-21-2021, 06:57 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,390
"Duchy puts up rent for struggling tenant farmers whilst Prince Harry parties in California" doesn't make good headlines and is probably one reason Charles couldn't/wouldn't go on funding an expensive *private* lifestyle indefinitely.

I see nothing wrong in the person running the family company paying for his adult childrens' life when they work for the same family company and it's part of their salary and perks. It's a bit different when one of the kids wants to take his family and leave The Firm, so their own thing and still retain the perks without the work.

As for the recent developments. It wouldn't surprise me if staff were given the OK to leak the talks in general - without getting into any details. Or if it was other non authorised people either. But also that some of the "Harry feels ambushed" "not without Meghan being involved" "not productive (again!)" is coming from their camp now he's apparently back in the US.

Personally I think they have to establish something with Harry as a baseline before they bring in Meghan who married in three years ago and they certainly don't want her Zooming in from Santa Monica and giving unhelpful snippets to the media.
Reply With Quote
  #1154  
Old 04-21-2021, 07:14 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,415
In a way Im surprised to hear taht Charles DID put a limit on what he was going to give to Harry. I had thought of him as a rather overly indulgent father and that he might feel it was better to keep on helping H, to some extent...partly out of genuine sympathy and partly because he would prefer to give him money, than to see Harry go all out commercial...
But it seems that Charles DID balk at being "the Bank of Dad" and still going on helping him. I can only conclude that Charles is a tougher father than he looks at first, and probably that he just felt that paying an allowance was one thing, but to pay for all H's security in the US was just too costly, and perhaps that Harry himself was so demanding and unpleasant that Charles felt he had to make a stand.. and that if H had left the job to make money, then he should not be asking, probably in a very demanding manner for money...
Reply With Quote
  #1155  
Old 04-21-2021, 07:25 AM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Asheville, United States
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Nothing that was posted directly to Archewell or anything but "Sussex Sources" had given it to the Telegraph among other outlets by 2.33pm just as the procession was gathering:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...l-handwritten/

Jack Royston of Newsweek then tweeted about it during the procession causing people to confuse "Meghan's wreath" with HM's tribute on the coffin. Which I'm sure was a complete coincidence.

And now Scobie has talked about it is it is clear that the Sussexes wanted that information out there during the funeral either for Meghan to "be included" in everything (ie the publicity) or maybe even as someone suggested to cause drama.

It wasn't the florists unless they were given permission to be sources. The Telegraph specifically cites "Sussex Sources". This was apparently a florist who was a personal favourite of theirs and had done their wedding and Archie's Christening without saying a word. Why would she risk loosing a famous, well paying, returning client and word getting around that she is indiscreet by suddenly announcing it against their will?

The wording that all media parroted sounds exactly like other Sussex "releases" to the media.

I have no problem with them sending a thoughtful wreath to show they care, that was a lovely gesture. I have a problem with them announcing it to the world just how thoughtful the gesture was and making it all about Meghan and not PP/HM/the family just as the funeral was getting under way, assuring she's part of the headlines on a day that has very little to do with her or them as a couple. Scobie also made sure to mention in his coverage that "Meghan and PP had a special bond and she lost a family member too!"

Also it seems that the gesture to the family and any good it might have done is completely undercut by telling the world about it -which is a big part of the current Sussex problem in general.

We didn't see the Duchess of Gloucester who was also not there send out word about the symbolic wreath she picked out complete with how she and the DoE had a very special bond because they were both Danish and she will miss him dearly etc. If it was part of a larger article on all the wreaths that would be completely different but the others were deliberately kept private.

In itself it's not a huge deal (apart from the timing) but its part of a pattern of behaviour.
Very well said!!!
Reply With Quote
  #1156  
Old 04-21-2021, 07:42 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,652
Tale as old as time: when you spoil and indulge your child and don’t teach them that they are not the center of the universe when they are 13 you will be paying for it when they are 30. Charles helped create this attitude of entitled unrealistic demanding now he must bear some of the consequences. That said parents are people to and no person should put with being treated like a permanent ATM and only get accusations and disrespect in return.

If it’s true Harry and family bring a Toxic dysfunctional atmosphere and refuse all personal accountability then Charles , Willam and the rest right to cut him off .
Reply With Quote
  #1157  
Old 04-21-2021, 07:53 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
Tale as old as time: when you spoil and indulge your child and don’t teach them that they are not the center of the universe when they are 13 you will be paying for it when they are 30. Charles helped create this attitude of entitled unrealistic demanding now he must bear some of the consequences. That said parents are people to and no person should put with being treated like a permanent ATM and only get accusations and disrespect in return.

If it’s true Harry and family bring a Toxic dysfunctional atmosphere and refuse all personal accountability then Charles , Willam and the rest right to cut him off .
I remember when H got married people were saying how Charles was being nice to Meghan and how H looked fine with his relationship with his father.. so I was a bit taken aback by the hostility that Harry seemed to show, when he was interviewed. I think that he's not happy with any of the RF but there seems to be a particular animus against his father... so is stored up anger to do with things in the past.. or simply that Charles DID over indulge him and now having been told "No" last year and told that he can't expect the same support as a "moved away" royal as he did when he was part of the Firm, that he just got really furious with the family adn esp his father and is lashing out at his dad.
Reply With Quote
  #1158  
Old 04-21-2021, 08:11 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,652
Lashing out at being told no is something a teen or maybe a young 20 year old would do. That 36 year old would do this is bizarre.
Reply With Quote
  #1159  
Old 04-21-2021, 08:21 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,415
I think that people can lash out at any age, but what is not really on is the public lashing out. If he raged at Charles in private, even cut off from him because he was angry, that would be one thing. But no matter how mad one is with one's family, most people don't make a public statement about it. They dont take an ad out in the paper saying that they're angry, they don't do an itnerview, a year after they've moved away, still showing anger.
Reply With Quote
  #1160  
Old 04-21-2021, 08:30 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Missouri, United States
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
I don't get the outrage because I don't believe that is what they said. Meghan and Harry talked about their security being suddenly pulled while they were still in Canada. They weren't talking about California. They were talking about when they were still living in Canada. Harry said he asked if the threat level for him had changed and he was told "No". I think he did expect his security to be paid for because he was born into the Royal Family. (In my opinion, comparisons with Beatrice and Eugenie don't make sense because they clearly do not have the threat level that Meghan and Harry have.) Harry went on to say that they then negotiated their lucrative contracts to pay for their expenses, including security.
Actually, it’s exactly what they said. In their little manifesto I believe the exact words they used were that they were entitled to security because they were “internationally protected people” and therefore their security should not be in question.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 62 (12 members and 50 guests)
ACO, CrownPrincessJava, duchessrachel, HighGoalHighDreams, polyesco, Queen Ester, RJC, Sandy345, solinka, Waika
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
#royalrelatives #royalgenes america baby names background story biography britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla parker bowles canada china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing cpr daisy dna doge of venice dubai duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii elizabeth ii emperor family life family tree fashion and style george vi hello! hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove hypothetical monarchs jewellery jewelry kensington palace king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names nepalese royal family plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien queen louise queen mathilde queen maxima resusci anne royal ancestry royal court royal jewels russian court dress solomon j solomon speech stuart suthida taiwan thailand uae customs united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:58 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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