[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

But same could be said about the royal family in general,they all preach whilst flaunting their wealth and privilege in everyone's faces. William and Kate do the same.

The Royals often travel on scheduled flights...and unlike Meghan and Harry do not lecture us on Climate Change etc etc etc...
They all have wealth but they don't really flaunt it.....however when you get someone like Harry who does not really have to work another day of his life...lecture people to quit their jobs if they are not happy is someone not in touch with reality.
You don't get that from William and Kate...

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by jet

What is now being said is that 'Special' security (not Met police) has been put in place to 'reassure' Harry - and the taxpayers will foot the bill.

Whilst with the Royal Family they will automatically get the Royal Protection anyway....it was all an excuse for them not to come over.
However I think this is one event they cannot talk their way out of...either that or its a massive opportunity for their Netflix Documentry...despite them being banned from certain tings.
I also read about the Special Security being funded by the Taxpayers...unbelievable!!!

[Cherie]

The Duke of Sussex, 37, claimed a newspaper report about his security undermined his charity work and caused "serious harm" to his reputation. But a High Court judge has rejected the Duke's request, saying: "Ultimately, this is an issue of fact."

Prince Harry is suing the publishers of the Mail on Sunday over a report that he "tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret". He claimed that the story harmed his reputation to "constitute an attack on his honesty and integrity and undermine his fitness to be involved both in charitable and philanthropic work".

He also claimed the article has caused "serious damage to his reputation and substantial hurt, embarrassment, and distress which is continuing."

The Mail on Sunday published the articles about his ongoing battle with the British government for police security for him and his family when they are in the UK.

The Duke is claiming "damages including aggravated damages" for libel.


How many law suits has Harry got going now

[The Slim Reaper]

If you're mad about tax payer money paying for security and not for the rest of them to be born into ridiculousness, then that is a weird take to have. If you believe it, you believe it, but the priorities appear a little skewed.

[bots]

i dont have a problem with them getting protection, i do have a problem with us paying for it. I bet that will cause a huge stink

[bots]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

If you're mad about tax payer money paying for security and not for the rest of them to be born into ridiculousness, then that is a weird take to have. If you believe it, you believe it, but the priorities appear a little skewed.

they stepped down from that crap, it was their own choice. I dont think non working royals should get it for free either

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

If you're mad about tax payer money paying for security and not for the rest of them to be born into ridiculousness, then that is a weird take to have. If you believe it, you believe it, but the priorities appear a little skewed.

They don't live here anymore and they no longer represent the Royal Family as working Royals....why the hell should we be paying for them??

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

They don't live here anymore and they no longer represent the Royal Family as working Royals....why the hell should we be paying for them??

Because Harry is still the Queen's grandson & Charles' son .

[bots]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Because Harry is still the Queen's grandson & Charles' son .

that doesn't mean the public should pay for it. They dont have a god given right to free protection

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

that doesn't mean the public should pay for it. They dont have a god given right to free protection

Well tbh the tax payer argument has been used before with the royal family in general, some people still think it's unfair that tax payers must pay for events concerning them.

Even in the political world it happens, many think it was an insult that that tax payers had to contribute to Margaret Thatcher's funeral bill and I'm in agreement.

[Jordan.]

Paying for Meghan's protection is the least the British public can do after making her feel so unwelcome, you love to see it.

[jet]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Because Harry is still the Queen's grandson & Charles' son .

None of Princess Anne’s, Prince Andrew’s and Prince Edward’s children - all grandchildren of the Queen, have taxpayer security.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rotection.html

All the WORKING Royals who don't get full protection demanded by Harry and Meghan: Members of The Firm like Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie Wessex don't have 24/7 security despite hundreds of engagements a year

Queen,Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, Camilla, Prince William and Kate all get 24/7 police protection
Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie are guarded only when on official duties and engagements
Queen's granddaughters Zara Tindall, Princess Beatrice and Eugenie do not have state-funded security

Prince Andrew lost his protection after stepping down and Princess Diana famously jettisoned hers in 1993
Harry's assumption that taxpayers would pay for their security after the Sussexes left UK has been criticised

[jet]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Paying for Meghan's protection is the least the British public can do after making her feel so unwelcome, you love to see it.

I'll just quote Sheriff's earlier response to you, if he doesn't mind:

"Are you a meghan super fan aged about twelve?
Because you reply’s are just super cringe"

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by jet

None of Princess Anne’s, Prince Andrew’s and Prince Edward’s children - all grandchildren of the Queen, have taxpayer security.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rotection.html

All the WORKING Royals who don't get full protection demanded by Harry and Meghan: Members of The Firm like Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie Wessex don't have 24/7 security despite hundreds of engagements a year

Queen,Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, Camilla, Prince William and Kate all get 24/7 police protection
Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie are guarded only when on official duties and engagements
Queen's granddaughters Zara Tindall, Princess Beatrice and Eugenie do not have state-funded security

Prince Andrew lost his protection after stepping down and Princess Diana famously jettisoned hers in 1993
Harry's assumption that taxpayers would pay for their security after the Sussexes left UK has been criticised

So full of their own importance, like Harry being a confident of the Queen, bet all her grandkids were delighted to hear he is the favored once, sounded like a load of nonsense invented for his netflix doc to make himself more interesting than he actually is

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Paying for Meghan's protection is the least the British public can do after making her feel so unwelcome, you love to see it.

Well let’s just wait and see what sort of ‘Welcome’ she actually gets

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by jet

I'll just quote Sheriff's earlier response to you, if he doesn't mind:

"Are you a meghan super fan aged about twelve?
Because you reply’s are just super cringe"

[jet]

Originally Posted by Cherie

So full of their own importance, like Harry being a confident of the Queen, bet all her grandkids were delighted to hear he is the favored once, sounded like a load of nonsense invented for his netflix doc to make himself more interesting than he actually is

Yes, he is such a favoured grandchild that the Queen gave him exactly 13 minutes of her time before he was ushered out. There was no ‘tea’ with him and Meghan, as he claimed. Woko Moano wasn’t in attendance.
You are dead right. All nonsense for Netflix and the American public.

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by jet

I'll just quote Sheriff's earlier response to you, if he doesn't mind:

"Are you a meghan super fan aged about twelve?
Because you reply’s are just super cringe"

Yes we all know you and your gang like getting nasty and personal

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Yes we all know you and your gang like getting nasty and personal

That was your gang I think you will find….

[jet]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art....html#comments

Harry feeling the heat? Prince goes semi-shirtless to get some sunscreen at California polo match as Palace aides 'hatch plan to STOP the Sussexes taking Netflix crew into Queen's Platinum Jubilee events'

It came as the Queen said he and Meghan cannot stand on the balcony for Trooping the Colour on June 2
And palace aides are forming a plan to stop Netflix crews from filming in palace throughout the celebrations
It is understood that courtiers have said Netflix cameras will not be allowed in Royal properties including Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.
However the film crew could mix with crowds and shadow the couple while they are in VIP areas at public events for the Jubilee.
They may also try to join the couple inside other key locations, such as St Paul's Cathedral, during the four days of celebrations…..

[bots]

netflix need to be a bit careful. They are already going out of favour with the british public, and this could really damage their ongoing subscriptions if they dont behave themselves

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by jet

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art....html#comments

Harry feeling the heat? Prince goes semi-shirtless to get some sunscreen at California polo match as Palace aides 'hatch plan to STOP the Sussexes taking Netflix crew into Queen's Platinum Jubilee events'

It came as the Queen said he and Meghan cannot stand on the balcony for Trooping the Colour on June 2
And palace aides are forming a plan to stop Netflix crews from filming in palace throughout the celebrations
It is understood that courtiers have said Netflix cameras will not be allowed in Royal properties including Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.
However the film crew could mix with crowds and shadow the couple while they are in VIP areas at public events for the Jubilee.
They may also try to join the couple inside other key locations, such as St Paul's Cathedral, during the four days of celebrations…..

Hes getting fat, look at his man boobs.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Yes we all know you and your gang like getting nasty and personal

No gangs on here, the simple fact is, you being a fan of meghan and Harry means. You are in the minority on here.

Not many are willing to show support for two untrustworthy liars

But you continue to post gushing posts that are embarrassing to read.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by jet

None of Princess Anne’s, Prince Andrew’s and Prince Edward’s children - all grandchildren of the Queen, have taxpayer security.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rotection.html

All the WORKING Royals who don't get full protection demanded by Harry and Meghan: Members of The Firm like Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie Wessex don't have 24/7 security despite hundreds of engagements a year

Queen,Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, Camilla, Prince William and Kate all get 24/7 police protection
Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sophie are guarded only when on official duties and engagements
Queen's granddaughters Zara Tindall, Princess Beatrice and Eugenie do not have state-funded security

Prince Andrew lost his protection after stepping down and Princess Diana famously jettisoned hers in 1993
Harry's assumption that taxpayers would pay for their security after the Sussexes left UK has been criticised

How did you feel when tax payers had to pay for Thatcher's funeral???.

[Swan]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

How did you feel when tax payers had to pay for Thatcher's funeral???.

It's very fair to say both isn't right. Harry and Megan shouldn't be getting taxpayers money for anything, nor should Thatcher's funeral be paid for by it.