Mallory

I read somewhere recently that if you have a family member with Alzheimer’s disease, and you want full-time round-the-clock care at home, that it takes five people. Taking into consideration, eight hours a day each, two days off per week, holidays, and vacation time for 365/7. Five people!

spouse of scouse

You beat me to it. The only other media reporting this latest bit of titillating 'information' are the likes of the Daily Mail (surprise surprise!) and the Scum the Sun.

spouse of scouse

The couple appeared at a JP Morgan event in Miami.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51421246b

Jerseygirl

flew there on a private jet. Hypocrite after his preachings a few months ago. Hope they are earning enough to relieve people of the tax burden of providing 24/7 security.

caretaker

Every little bit helps. Hope they are earning lots, they probably command a decent price for speaking engagements. I had to erase a dozen lines explaining why people so pitiful they feel the need to slam celebs with no influence over them should make an effort to get a life. There's a whole Harry and Meghan thread in TIO devoted to putting them down for all those petty, jealous people.

Jerseygirl

Thought I would get a rise out of someone on this quiet Saturday morning.

christmasoompa

So you're calling people who are criticising public figures 'petty', 'jealous' and 'pitiful', and saying they should get a life for commenting on people who have no influence over them? Ah, the irony.

scot47

Why should Canadians shell out for exiled British princeling.

dbd33

Because he's making Canada famous.

caretaker

Close; what I said was "people so pitiful they feel the need to slam celebs with no influence over them should make an effort to get a life"
The irony isn't apparent to me, (or do you mean hypocrisy) but if I've attacked celebrities who have no influence over me, then it would be ironic. I pointed out that Prince Andrew could be in trouble if the girls involved in Epstein's Virgin Islands party were found to be under 18 at the time, but also pointed out that the New York events were legal as the age of consent is lower there. I'm extremely critical of President Trump and his gang of liars, but I consider him a threat to me and the world at large. I may have said some things about Nickleback as well.
Edit- forgot Stephen Harper; also a direct threat

Former Lancastrian

Seriously do any of us really give a crap or care about them. Sure he's a Prince and she is the wife and unemployed actress of a Prince. They might be moving to Canada to do whatever it is they might do. I highly doubt that any of us who post on here will interact or even see them when they are here. As a Canadian taxpayer then yes there is concern about who should be footing the security bill involved but some PR guru or member of the Liberal Govt will eventually come out and say that the costs divided up by the population is a matter of mere pennies to each taxpayer.
Im sure if she has any concerns or needs advice then she will most likely reach out to Donna (Paulsen) although I am sure if she created a BE profile most of us would help her.

spouse of scouse

They're not permitted to use the SussexRoyal brand.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51593708

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are to stop using their "SussexRoyal" brand from spring 2020.

The couple had been in discussions with aides and senior royals about using the name following their decision this year to step back from royal duties.

But a spokesperson for the couple said it was agreed the word "royal" could not be used due to government rules.

Applications to trademark the SussexRoyal brand have also been withdrawn.

BEVS

I am not jealous or petty I hope & I am pretty sure you don't think I am. My issue isn't over whether they go on to make successful celeb lives overseas or otherwise and earn a gazzillion mega bucks in the process. It is about something else which is not of celebs at all. It is about something more constitutional and fundamental. Standards.

As they wish to be independent of the UK Royal combine then that is fine. No quibble on that front. For me it was the half in / half out approach & then deliberately seeking to trade on a status, without seemingly looking for agreement or consent to do so & whilst not actually doing the job that the status brings. Rather , as I wrote elsewhere, as though it was felt there was an entitlment to the perks of a job whilst actually disdaining and not doing the job - at all.

For me the UK Royalty is a very important , non-political, constitution that has influences worldwide. With that comes protocols , standards and a certain amount of enshrined law , for want of a better word, to ensure that uncle tom cobbly and all does not seek to misrepresent nor trade on that.

If this young couple wish to live away from all of that, and that is their absolute right to seek that if that is in their hearts, then they should do so & it seems that they have been free to do so, despite money having been spent on placing them on a good footing for the job at hand. ( People lost their certain employment over the Frogmore House thing. UK tax payers are still funding 24/7 security atm & a royal , especially high profile Harry, will take a whole lot of security .)

What they should not do though is seek to grasp or clasp the coat-tails or wisps of the institution that they wish to distance themselves from. IMO of course. Independence means just that. They have his father who will fund them privately. They will work towards their celeb status. Meanwhile I would ask of them that they do not seek to make $ gain from that which they have chosen to eschew. The Royal status that they do not want. To that effect I am pleased that they may not use the brand name they chose before consulting with those whose brand it actually was by way of the work and time those people put in. I have noted the churlish comment on their brand name web page and it made me sad. It dis-values his family and the very people that have supported him all through his years as though they are nothing. They are not. They are his dear family.

On the subject of private jets. I really do not care. In many ways a shared /leased private jet is better for the environment that a multiple jumbo airline or ship sea trips or using multiple plastic bags without thought or buying huge amounts of cheap slave labour designer clothes , shoes , anything. It is not about the money privately spent on this , it is about the impact on the environment. Odds are a royal family member or a celeb with a huge high profile that speaks out or attends a green event will be doing far more to raise awareness and monies for good environmental practices than the cost of their travel . Certainly more than us average Joe Soaps or not so average Joe Soaps who spend on our enjoyments and maybe do little to nothing to offset that at all.

Anyway, you guys got the pair of them for the time being. You foot the bills, not the UK and let us all wish them well that they don't cost any one tax payer anything very shortly.

scilly

I agree with almost everything you've said


There are reports online that they are looking at a mansion in Malibu.

dave_j

Hot news.. Exclusive...
"Harry cuts toenails"
But wait, wait.... ... ... ... more news coming in....
"Clippings put in bin".....
And.....
"The big toenail needed two clips"
Wow, earth shattering or what..