[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

He's the first royal to totally jack it in since it became a "celebrity thing" rather than an "official thing"...

Edward VIII and Wallace Simpson were "celebrities" - she was even an American divorced actress!

[jet]

Originally Posted by Cherie

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/royal...cid=spartanntp

oh dear

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have issued a warning over continued harassment by paparazzi photographers as they start their new life in Canada out of the spotlight.
It comes after images of Meghan were published in the media showing her taking a stroll through a public park on Vancouver Island.
The duchess can be seen smiling as she walks along with Archie and her two dogs.

Lawyers for the couple claim these were taken without her consent - and that the photographer was hiding in the bushes and spying on her.
They also claim there were previous attempts to photograph them inside their home using long range lenses and that paparazzi were permanently camped outside their home

They were never going to have the same protection in Canada as they did in the UK, and when they move to LA it will be even worse. They complained about press intrusion in this country when there was none to move to a country where the same protections aren't in place.

As I've said over the last few days, Harry's 'protection' excuse makes no sense, and here is proof of that.

[jet]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

To be fair though Jet - these are Harry's words. He is very much his own man in his last speech went against the Palace statement to some extent - I know you have researched and are likely to believe the Royal Correspondents and their views - but they are only the mouth piece of whichever Palace they tend to represent and are biased in their reporting too.

The truth is, we will never know the full and true reasons behind the decision to quit Royal life

Quite true Annie, but remember Royal correspondents can't tell untruths or they wouldn't be trusted go - betweens anymore. They are rarely critical of 'the other Palace' in my experience and are pretty fair. That's why I seek them out - there is no point in reading sensationalism or gossip when you can read stuff that at least has considered views and is as near as you are going to get to the truth.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

'If you don't see things from my perspective, you have a problem.'

Charming.

I don't think you can claim compassion when you're essentially using these people as tools to beat Meghan with.

At the end of the day, the documentary was about Harry and Meghan, it wouldn't have been made and if it had, people wouldn't have watched it. What they did was put a focus on Harry and Meghan because that's what people tuned in to see but they also shone light on the plight of these people and now people have heard their stories when they wouldn't have cared before.

It's the same with any documentary about humanitarian issues, there's always a notable figure or celebrity at the forefront to get people to tune in.

Just excuses, and weak ones.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Edward VIII and Wallace Simpson were "celebrities" - she was even an American divorced actress!

Edward VIII was King, a massive difference.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

Of course they are worth more, but really, Harry says what he wants us to hear, are you that naive? It might be the truth, it might not, it might be somewhere in between....and you need to stop reading cheap rags and listening to gossip mongers, I don't.

And you decide to quote a correspondent (of which there are many with different and varying accounts) that allows you to believe what you want to believe. That's naive.

I don't read rags but you do listen to the gossip mongers. Calling them "correspondents" doesn't change it.

[Twosugars]

Not "respected royal correspondents" again

Do they publish in the Daily Hail btw?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

But he never left, did he? He could have gone off to his beloved S. Africa with Chelsy Davy (who came from there) when she turned him down because she didn't want to become part of the royal family and was going back home.
How do you know Meghan didn't coerce him into leaving, how do you know he isn't just doing it because she wants it? Maybe she did, maybe she didn't, but you are the one who goes on and on about factual evidence and Harry saying something isn't it.

I haven't come in here claiming to have "factual evidence". You're clutching straws.

I'm simply taking into account what has been said by Harry... about himself. Not what's been said by those claiming to read his mind.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Our hope was to continue serving the queen, the Commonwealth and my military associations without public funding. Sadly that wasn’t possible,” the prince, the sixth-in-line to the throne,

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUKKBN1ZI0TF

In his own words he didn't particularly want to give up all things Royal, just the bits he didn't want to do

How selfish of him to want to still serve the Queen, the commonwealth and his military associations without public funding!

[arista]

Harry and Her
are angry at this Photo.
It was taken by a Canadian Photographer
using a long lens
he then sold a copy to the Sun.

Some Expert Suggested
they Build High Walls around their location
or even more Photos will be taken from Miles away.
Special Camera Lens.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

She looked quite happy having itaken....smiling at the cameras. She’s sending a message...it’s so obvious.

Smiling at the camera, taken with a long lens? Really?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

And you decide to quote a correspondent (of which there are many with different and varying accounts) that allows you to believe what you want to believe. That's naive.

I don't read rags but you do listen to the gossip mongers. Calling them "correspondents" doesn't change it.

If you don't read rags how do you know whats in them? Thats quite a trick.
I haven't a clue what they say apart from seeing headlines on a shop stand.

Calling royal correspondents just gossip mongers is naive in the extreme. You really don't know how the whole thing works, do you?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

How selfish of him to want to still serve the Queen, the commonwealth and his military associations without public funding!

There is much more to it than that, which you would know if you didn't rely on rags for your info.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Smiling at the camera, taken with a long lens? Really?

Long lens or not she’s staring directly at the camera...How lucky and coincidental was that...

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

There is much more to it than that, which you would know if you didn't rely on rags for your info.

I don't read the rags.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Long lens or not she’s staring directly at the camera...How lucky and coincidental was that...

When someone is photographed looking ahead from a fair distance infront you get that result. It's not coincidence, it's just the way it is.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I don't read the rags.

Where do you get your impressions and views from then? Social media, twitter?
You don't often post anything of substance, which is fine, but don't criticise and insult others for looking deeper into issues that interest them.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

If you don't read rags how do you know whats in them? Thats quite a trick.
I haven't a clue what they say apart from seeing headlines on a shop stand.

Calling royal correspondents just gossip mongers is naive in the extreme. You really don't know how the whole thing works, do you?

People post articles on this forum all the time. I see them. I generally don't bother to buy, read or believe them. Not a trick, a basic fact.

What's naive is treating correspondents like impartial unbiased reporters. They're not.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

People post articles on this forum all the time. I see them. I generally don't bother to buy, read or believe them. Not a trick, a basic fact.

What's naive is treating correspondents like impartial unbiased reporters. They're not.

Where did I say they were? You won't get nearer the truth anywhere else though....nearly everything they have revealed about Harry and Meghan (like the William feud as one example) has turned out to be true.
I could cite hundreds of other examples over the years, but hey ho, they are just gossip mongers to you.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by jet

Where do you get your impressions and views from then? Social media, twitter?
You don't often post anything of substance, which is fine, but don't criticise and insult others for looking deeper into issues that interest them.

I dont see you posting any articles. How come? Scared to have your sources revealed?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

Where do you get your impressions and views from then? Social media, twitter?
You don't often post anything of substance, which is fine, but don't criticise and insult others for looking deeper into issues that interest them.

Saying you believe Meghan is the antichrist because a correspondent said so is not "looking deeper into issues". A laughable comment.

I don't really care if you think what I post has substance or not tbh. I'm not here to please you.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jet

I could cite hundreds of other examples over the years

You could, but we both know you won't.

Originally Posted by jet

but hey ho, they are just gossip mongers to you.

Yes they are.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by arista

Harry and Her
are angry at this Photo.
It was taken by a Canadian Photographer
using a long lens
he then sold a copy to the Sun.

Some Expert Suggested
they Build High Walls around their location
or even more Photos will be taken from Miles away.
Special Camera Lens.

What did they expect.... They have created more public interest by doing what they are doing. Maybe it will die down...but I doubt it not for a long time.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

What did they expect.... They have created more public interest by doing what they are doing. Maybe it will die down...but I doubt it not for a long time.

It will die down, and it's more likely to die down somewhere like Canada than it is over here.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

When someone is photographed looking ahead from a fair distance infront you get that result. It's not coincidence, it's just the way it is.

...yes of course...it’s the way it is. Whatever was between her and the long distance camera certainly put a huge smile on her face...surprised the camera didn’t pick that up