|
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12811948)
A ridiculous idea, It's not a popularity contest, it's a hereditary line. Like it or not, the crown goes to Charles. I think he's all right. He certainly was ahead of the curve on enviromental issues and he's as dedicated a public servant as his mother. Willian, well, by that stage they ought to be phased out.
It would be a very sad day if the monarchy was ever phased out. its so deeply woven into what makes Britain the country it is. In addition I think the monarch is a great safety net in these uncertain times where there is potential of an extreme government rising to power, that may sound far fetched, but is not total fantasy either.. . |
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 12812011)
I think the monarch is a great safety net in these uncertain times where there is potential of an extreme government rising to power, that may sound far fetched, but is not total fantasy either.. .
|
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12811826)
Who bows and scrapes to them? When have you ever had to?
I can't see why anyone would want to fawn over them, but I feel the same way over those that fawn over celebrities too. Each to their own and all that. Do you also have a problem with, for example, the children of Bill and Melinda Gates and other similar children that have simply been born to parents that offered them an advantage over most of society? |
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Originally Posted by Teaandtoday5
(Post 12811989)
Surely all the bowing and scraping is the point? Where’s the fun if they’re just the same as everyone else? :p
|
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 12812020)
Isn't the Cummings government already an extreme one? Brexit, immigration ban, looming trade war with the EU, prospect of poisoned foods from the US forcing UK farmers into bankruptcy, moves against press freedom and the judiciary, what's the Queen done about all that?
|
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Looks like Canada will be pulling the plug on paying for security end of March.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/har...ChTaTygzqXjTuo "the Government of Canada intends to cease contributing to those costs "in the coming weeks," says the office of Public Safety Minister Bill Blair, as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex cease their activities as working members of the Royal Family on March 31." |
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Originally Posted by Jsmth321
(Post 12812983)
Looks like Canada will be pulling the plug on paying for security end of March.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/har...ChTaTygzqXjTuo "the Government of Canada intends to cease contributing to those costs "in the coming weeks," says the office of Public Safety Minister Bill Blair, as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex cease their activities as working members of the Royal Family on March 31." |
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12813025)
A good decison.
|
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12813025)
A good decison.
|
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
I think that the decision not to continue to support them as Internationally Protected Persons after they step down from being active members of the Royal Family is a great one .... and shows that politicians might sometimes listen to the public!
An ex-Met police officer with security experience estimated last week that the costs for full 24/7 security at the the standard that they have been receiving would be between £10 million and £25 million per YEAR. The costs go up if they are not all in the same place, and so security is needed in several places. Yesterday for example, Harry was in Edinburgh, she was in London, and Archie was ....... where???? They're going to have to earn a heck of a lot of money to pay for it. One thing I like about having the Royal Family, and the Govenor-General here and in some other countries of the Commonwealth, is that there is an apolitical Head of State who attends state functions. I well remember at the Pope's inauguration some years ago the fuss that Americans made about where their President of the day was seated, was it an insult to be where he was sitting or not, did it mean relations with Italy were improving or getting worse, should they make a diplomatic complaint, etc etc. The member of the Royal Family doing the duty just turned up, sat down where he was directed, and made no complaint (out loud anyway) to who was next, behind or in front, just chatted. In other words, his or her attendance didn't turn into a big deal that threatened to overshadow the event they were attending. |
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Originally Posted by scilly
(Post 12813049)
I think that the decision not to continue to support them as Internationally Protected Persons after they step down from being active members of the Royal Family is a great one .... and shows that politicians might sometimes listen to the public!
An ex-Met police officer with security experience estimated last week that the costs for full 24/7 security at the the standard that they have been receiving would be between £10 million and £25 million per YEAR. The costs go up if they are not all in the same place, and so security is needed in several places. Yesterday for example, Harry was in Edinburgh, she was in London, and Archie was ....... where???? They're going to have to earn a heck of a lot of money to pay for it. One thing I like about having the Royal Family, and the Govenor-General here and in some other countries of the Commonwealth, is that there is an apolitical Head of State who attends state functions. I well remember at the Pope's inauguration some years ago the fuss that Americans made about where their President of the day was seated, was it an insult to be where he was sitting or not, did it mean relations with Italy were improving or getting worse, should they make a diplomatic complaint, etc etc. The member of the Royal Family doing the duty just turned up, sat down where he was directed, and made no complaint (out loud anyway) to who was next, behind or in front, just chatted. In other words, his or her attendance didn't turn into a big deal that threatened to overshadow the event they were attending. |
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Originally Posted by scilly
(Post 12813049)
One thing I like about having the Royal Family, and the Governor-General here and in some other countries of the Commonwealth, is that there is an apolitical Head of State who attends state functions.
. He'd be a great look for a governor general , especially with all his background, except he no longer wishes to have these types of official duties.
Originally Posted by Caretaker
There are multiple solutions to security for Harry and Meghan, and it will be solved.
|
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Originally Posted by caretaker
(Post 12813053)
Trump likes to get attention by being late as well. There are multiple solutions to security for Harry and Meghan, and it will be solved.
He loved India last week because they did just that! I doubt very much that he would do anything like attend the inauguration of a pope of the crowning of a king or queen, even in England! Gawd, can't you just see him pushing his way to the front in Westminster Abbey :rofl: |
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Originally Posted by scilly
(Post 12813049)
I think that the decision not to continue to support them as Internationally Protected Persons after they step down from being active members of the Royal Family is a great one .... and shows that politicians might sometimes listen to the public!
An ex-Met police officer with security experience estimated last week that the costs for full 24/7 security at the the standard that they have been receiving would be between £10 million and £25 million per YEAR. The costs go up if they are not all in the same place, and so security is needed in several places. Yesterday for example, Harry was in Edinburgh, she was in London, and Archie was ....... where???? They're going to have to earn a heck of a lot of money to pay for it. One thing I like about having the Royal Family, and the Govenor-General here and in some other countries of the Commonwealth, is that there is an apolitical Head of State who attends state functions. I well remember at the Pope's inauguration some years ago the fuss that Americans made about where their President of the day was seated, was it an insult to be where he was sitting or not, did it mean relations with Italy were improving or getting worse, should they make a diplomatic complaint, etc etc. The member of the Royal Family doing the duty just turned up, sat down where he was directed, and made no complaint (out loud anyway) to who was next, behind or in front, just chatted. In other words, his or her attendance didn't turn into a big deal that threatened to overshadow the event they were attending. |
Re: Prince Harry and Meghan ......
Originally Posted by Jerseygirl
(Post 12813269)
How did you know she was in London? I haven’t seen a reference to that anywhere. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she makes some excuse to stay away from the UK...ie Coronavirus.
I saw 2 or 3 media articles on line, large photo showing Harry in Edinburgh or arriving in Edinburgh, with an inset of Meghan saying "Inset, Meghan in London". I admit that I did not read the Meghan bit any further, just assumed that it meant she was in London at the same time. It has been said that she is due in London in early March when she will be undertaking visits to her private and Royal-appointed charities. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 8:50 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.