Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

JoChervil

jm08 wrote: »

It doesn't seem to happen in Monchito where they are living in a more or less gated community. The reason they left Canada was because they didn't have any security (withdrawn at short notice) and the tabloids had published where they were living.

Wasn't their Montecito estate trespassed many times? One trespasser was even caught twice!

JoChervil

jm08 wrote: »

They had Palace security which was withdrawn at short notice.

Not true. Canadian forces were withdrawn at the end of March informing about it in the middle of February. Hardly short notice.

Sardonicat

jm08 wrote: »

What they say they want is for the press to stop flying helicopters over their house and taking photos of them in their back garden, or using long range camera lenses to take photos of them in their house, or hiding in the bushes to get photos of them (all these things have happened). Do you not think it is reasonable to ask to be able to go for a walk with the dog without 20 or thirty paps trailing behind you, selling the photos and making money out of it?

Reminds me of Harry's mother:
Don't look at me!Look at me! Don't photograph me! Photograph me!Stop harassing me, Press! I'll be in such a place at such a time with such a man, Press!

They want it when it suits and call it harrassing when it doesn't. A dangerous game to play, as Diana found out. Harry should really know better.

JoChervil

jm08 wrote: »

Because I suspect that her father was in Mexico and there would have been security issues of Harry going there (cost etc). Meghan's mother went to Canada to meet Harry at The Invictus Games where there would have been security for him. I don't know why her father didn't do the same, maybe the parents don't get on and it would have been difficult to have them both there at the same time.

They had roughly 2 years to arrange meeting before the wedding. Her father co-paid for her first wedding, wasn't expected to pay for the second, so why bother?

seenitall

Paps follow the money, it’s a simple as that. If that pic of Brad on his bike on the way to Angie’s place will sell like hotcakes (which it will), then he never has to lift a finger to generate publicity for himself/call the paps (which he, strictly contractual obligations aside, doesn’t). Someone more B, C or Z list than A list won’t have the same privacy problems, and will maybe have to actually put some effort in to promote their momentum.

Due to Meg’s recent actions and the location chosen for their home, it’s very easy to see where she wants to position herself in the Hollywood pecking order.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

They had Palace security which was withdrawn at short notice.

No, they had security provided by the British police force and then on their behalf by the Canadian police force. They would have been informed and really should have known, that this would be withdrawn.
It didn't happen overnight

jm08

seenitall wrote: »

As opposed to... making yourself a Hollywood-based brand on Oprah’s hotline, and expecting all the peace and quiet that go with that, you mean? :pac:

I think everyone, even celebrities are allowed some privacy in their own homes. For example, I don't think its acceptable that you have to have live in darkness with the curtains drawn closed because someone is out on the road outside your house with a camera with a long range lens.

Just ask any of the other inhabitants of Hollywood hills what they think of it? They all signed this deal; their celebrity makes them enourmous amount of money, and in exchange they have to live with the press jumping out the bushes, hiring helicopters to pap their private ceremonies, and all sorts.

Its a bit more than that though. Since Harry is the grandson of the Queen, he is vulnerable to being a political hostage. He inherited that risk, he didn't ask for it.

You mostly don’t hear them complain, these are people who know who butters their bread and are hoping for more of the same, even if they are most probably not crazy about the press intrusion, to put it mildly. Only the truly entitled and those who think they’re special in some way, could think they can cherry-pick what aspects of celebrity they’ll have and which ones they will moan about. Especially the ones who know the deal in Hollywood, to a T.

They have done one interview. You don't really hear that much from them do you?

jm08

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The royal family don't control the press, especially in America.

Do you seriously think they should have uprooted Meghan's parents and hid them away from view for the rest of their lives in the far corner of some castle? :pac:

No.They could have done it for the build up to the wedding. Meghan's mother seems to have gone back to having a reasonable normal life now.

edit: probably because she didn't court the press like some of the rest of the Markle family.

Mrsmum

jm08 wrote: »

It doesn't seem to happen in Monchito where they are living in a more or less gated community. The reason they left Canada was because they didn't have any security (withdrawn at short notice) and the tabloids had published where they were living.

In actual fact security was hastily put together for them when they just up and left, blindsiding everyone. Security is provided to the RF by the British police force paid by the taxpayer. When M&H left as suddenly as you like, the Canadian police force obliged by providing security for them. The Canadian people were not happy paying for them. Would we be if they landed on us. Their free gratis security was never going to be paid for ever. Celebs pay for their own security, the taxpayer pays for the Royals security because the Royals live and work there. As usual H&M have no understanding of how things work and think they are so special the British taxpayer should be happy to pay for them and get nothing in return.

seenitall

jm08 wrote: »

I think everyone, even celebrities are allowed some privacy in their own homes. For example, I don't think its acceptable that you have to have live in darkness with the curtains drawn closed because someone is out on the road outside your house with a camera with a long range lens.






Its a bit more than that though. Since Harry is the grandson of the Queen, he is vulnerable to being a political hostage. He inherited that risk, he didn't ask for it.






They have done one interview. You don't really hear that much from them do you?

You may think of it what you like, That’s the situation for Hollywood A-listers and Meghan has known what the deal was along.

Well if he’s likely to have himself abducted as a hostage, then going to live in the mecca of the world’s attention where all kind of shady deals go on as a matter of course, wasn’t that wise a choice, was it? :rolleyes:

Oh you hear plenty from them! They’ve only just started on their Netflix deals and promoting the brand. The Covid situation seems to have got in the way a bit.

Mrsmum

jm08 wrote: »

No.They could have done it for the build up to the wedding. Meghan's mother seems to have gone back to having a reasonable normal life now.

edit: probably because she didn't court the press like some of the rest of the Markle family.

I have never, not once seen photos of Meghan besieged with paparazzi. Compare with especially Diana but also Kate. Sometimes in such pictures of Diana and Kate you see the photographers three deep and almost on top of them.

sligeach

I'll put this here, seeing as the mods in the Prince Philip thread have a warning that you can only say nice things there.

BBC receives 'more than 100,000 complaints' about Prince Philip coverage

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2021/0413/1209663-bbc-prince-philip/

I should have lodged a complaint to RTE about all their coverage. This is Ireland. I don't want to hear $### about that, amongst many other things, inbred and racist institution. It should be done away with and the proceeds donated to all the countries around the world where atrocities were committed in their name.

jm08

Mrsmum wrote: »

I have never, not once seen photos of Meghan besieged with paparazzi. Compare with especially Diana but also Kate. Sometimes in such pictures of Diana and Kate you see the photographers three deep and almost on top of them.

Is that not because she didn't go anywhere. She said in that interview that she left the house twice in 2 months (when some of the royal family suggested she lie low for a bit!) So, you couldn't see her beseiged because she didn't go anywhere.


The helicopter incident was over Harry's holiday cottage in the Cotswalds.



If in a public place, fair enough. But not when you are in your own back garden or in your own house.

jm08

Mrsmum wrote: »

In actual fact security was hastily put together for them when they just up and left, blindsiding everyone. Security is provided to the RF by the British police force paid by the taxpayer. When M&H left as suddenly as you like, the Canadian police force obliged by providing security for them. The Canadian people were not happy paying for them. Would we be if they landed on us. Their free gratis security was never going to be paid for ever. Celebs pay for their own security, the taxpayer pays for the Royals security because the Royals live and work there. As usual H&M have no understanding of how things work and think they are so special the British taxpayer should be happy to pay for them and get nothing in return.

According to Harry:

Metropolitan Police protection officers from London had accompanied the couple to Canada during their initial move, but the Prince said he was advised "at short notice" that they would be removed.
"By this point, courtesy of the Daily Mail, the world knew our exact location," he said.
"It dawned on me: borders are closing, the world knows where we are, it's not safe or secure. We probably need to get out."

Elsewhere (Vanity Fair) they say that Charles was covering the cost of their security initially so he must have been the one who withdrew it.

jm08

seenitall wrote: »

You may think of it what you like, That’s the situation for Hollywood A-listers and Meghan has known what the deal was along.

Well if he’s likely to have himself abducted as a hostage, then going to live in the mecca of the world’s attention where all kind of shady deals go on as a matter of course, wasn’t that wise a choice, was it? :rolleyes:

Oh you hear plenty from them! They’ve only just started on their Netflix deals and promoting the brand. The Covid situation seems to have got in the way a bit.

They have security now - $2.5m per year its costing. and they have an income to pay for it.

jm08

JoChervil wrote: »

Wasn't their Montecito estate trespassed many times? One trespasser was even caught twice!

Yes. 9 alarm activations,. Their property has only access by 1 road which is probably why they are there.

superflyninja

anewme wrote: »

This is exactly what I'm seeing on this thread.

Whatever Meghan does, she is criticised for. Not just criticised, that's to mild a word to use.

If she spoke out about the racist comments attributed to Prince Philip it would be, who does she think she is, royal protocol blah blah.

Her Father has behaved appallingly towards his own daughter and yet he gets loads of sympathy. Others even question her heritage, how can anyone be racist to her if she looks white?

I said it was strange that people supporting (and I mean that loosely) are labelled anti British, I'd see it more anti bullying.

What I find strange is so many people staunchly defending Markle, even though much of what she siad in the interview was problematic.

I dont know the RF side of things, I barely got to hear Harry's side even, all I really got to hear was Markle's side.
Many of the things she said were either incorrect or misrepresenting the truth, coupled with her very carefully chosen, vague language I think is perfectly valid grounds for criticism.
If she was bullied then that is terrible. But this reaction from her was the wrong way to combat bullying.

I actually don't care about Markle or the RF. But I dont like the kind of behaviour (IMO) she exhibited in the interview.

I dont see a great many pro Markle people willing to discuss the interview specifically.

1) Was she right to do such an interview in the first place? Throwing her husband's family under the bus to the world?
2) What she said about her private marriage ceremony was totally untrue. What sort of light does that throw on the rest of what she said? Yes its easily explained as a private ceremony that held no legal weight but she specifically didnt say that. Its like she has that soft landing built into a lot of what she said.
3) All her talk about security and withheld titles for her children. She insinuated it was racially motivated when in fact the rules were in place for a long time. The result would have been the same no matter who Harry married. Are we to believe she didnt google this or have Harry and/or the RF staff explain it all to her?
4) The racial comment/comments. Was it even racist? What context was it said under? Or is it against the law now for a white person to say anything at all about skin tone under any circumstances?
5) Vaguely and publicly pointing a racism accusation at a small group of people. That tars all of them with the racist brush.
6) She wants to get away from the media spotlight? By doing an interview broadcast worldwide with Oprah Winfrey? By signing Neflix/Spotify deals?

jm08

JoChervil wrote: »

They had roughly 2 years to arrange meeting before the wedding. Her father co-paid for her first wedding, wasn't expected to pay for the second, so why bother?

Didn't he have a heart attack and couldn't travel to the wedding?

ceadaoin.

jm08 wrote: »

Yes. 9 alarm activations,. Their property has only access by 1 road which is probably why they are there.

Alarm activations does not mean a trespasser every time though does it?

JoChervil

jm08 wrote: »

According to Harry:



Elsewhere (Vanity Fair) they say that Charles was covering the cost of their security initially so he must have been the one who withdrew it.

Again: according to Harry. And I believe they believe it, because what Meghan wants, Meghan gets, so they were expecting that they would get it anyway.

I posted links earlier in the thread about protests of Canadian citizens in January as well as information in press to the public in the middle of February, that Canadian protection will be withdrawn with the end of March. They resigned from their duties at the beginning of January, so it was hardly the surprise.

At the end of fiscal year in March 2020 they got money from Charles estate, which maybe they used for security. I don't know.

And I think they did this interview because they expected the same money and didn't get it.

JoChervil

jm08 wrote: »

Didn't he have a heart attack and couldn't travel to the wedding?

We will never know what caused what. But the fact is she didn't introduced him to Harry and it could have made that build up of things initiated by her.

Itssoeasy

Maybe others in this thread can answer a few questions.

Am I right in thinking the protection the royal family get is provided by the metropolitan police ? I ask because it was framed as the royal family removing security but my understanding was the royal family don’t have a direct say in it.

Also, do Williams or any of the children of working royals get security specific to them or do they fall under their parents(if they are under 18) I ask because wouldn’t Archie have been protected by being a child of senior royals ? The title issue I know about.

Leg End Reject

I'd like to point out that it was a pro-Meghan poster who made the suggestion Charlotte bullied Meghan, and that the 7 or 8 children they think Meghan was left to mind were probably unruly.

Poor Meghan, if it's not the press or a racist inlaw it's those pesky kids.

end of the road

BettyS wrote: »

Harry and Meghan trashed the royal family on international television. They called the monarchy racist. Meghan then said that she wants to forgive the royal family and Philip and her had a special bond. She said that she didn’t want to make herself the centre of his death. Can you not see the contradictory nature of this. Can you not see that Harry and Meghan are entirely myopic to the hurt of others. They can only perceive the slights against them. They cannot fathom that their actions may have hurt other people

there is no contradictory nature here.
meghan recognises that her attending the funeral, even though she wouldn't be anyway due to medical advice, would bring unwanted attention on what should be a time to say goodbye to a much loved family member, and she does not want to be in any way responsible for that even though it would be the tabloids who would be responsible for focusing on her instead of the funeral.
she also had a bond with phillip, both are possible at the same time.

bubblypop wrote: »

No, given the evidence of some of the posters history of posting anti British sentiments on this site, it's an evidence based analysis of those posters.
Not all, obvs, I don't know them all, but the posts seem to be anti royal family for sure!

Megan doesn't need to say or do anything. If she wanted to leave royal life, which she did, she just had to leave. She didn't need to talk to the (terrible awful) press about her personal business. She needs to stop worrying what people think and get on with her life. Who cares what they write in the papers for God's sake!
Childish in the extreme.

that's interesting.
i have been on this forum for nearly 10 years now, in all of that time i have never come across postings that would genuinely constitute anti-british sentiments.
now, i can't say i have read every single post on the site as that would be impossible, but if people were engaged in anti-british sentiments then something would show up, and yet it hasn't, not to mention there is not a chance it would be allowed.
certainly, there have been condemnation of behaviour of thebritish state and it's institutions, and quite rightly so, but that doesn't constitute anti-britishness.

FileNotFound

end of the road wrote: »

there is no contradictory nature here.
meghan recognises that her attending the funeral, even though she wouldn't be anyway due to medical advice, would bring unwanted attention on what should be a time to say goodbye to a much loved family member, and she does not want to be in any way responsible for that even though it would be the tabloids who would be responsible for focusing on her instead of the funeral.
she also had a bond with phillip, both are possible at the same time.

People keep mentioning her attending a funeral, I really doubt she is invited to attend - end of really. Not sure who actually cares that she is in the US at the moment (Maybe Harry will miss her but thats it really).

The only people I have seen claim she is doing it for some positive reason or other such nonsense are the people who a steadfast in unwaivering support for her narrative. Same for the anyone who might complain she is not attending something she won't have been invited to.

Its very strange reading some comments in relation to this - people are really inventing narratives from nothing now.

Leg End Reject

FileNotFound wrote: »

People keep mentioning her attending a funeral, I really doubt she is invited to attend - end of really. Not sure who actually cares that she is in the US at the moment (Maybe Harry will miss her but thats it really).

The only people I have seen claim she is doing it for some positive reason or other such nonsense are the people who a steadfast in unwaivering support for her narrative. Same for the anyone who might complain she is not attending something she won't have been invited to.

Its very strange reading some comments in relation to this - people are really inventing narratives from nothing now.

It was pointed out that she wouldn't be invited, very few expected her to be there after that interview.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

that's interesting.
i have been on this forum for nearly 10 years now, in all of that time i have never come across postings that would genuinely constitute anti-british sentiments.
now, i can't say i have read every single post on the site as that would be impossible, but if people were engaged in anti-british sentiments then something would show up, and yet it hasn't, not to mention there is not a chance it would be allowed.
certainly, there have been condemnation of behaviour of thebritish state and it's institutions, and quite rightly so, but that doesn't constitute anti-britishness.

so you said. yesterday.

I have noticed plenty of anti british sentiment and I include 'the British state and its institutions' in that.
if posters are anti-british institutions, then that obviously means anti-british royal family.
If a poster is anti British royal family, they can hardly call themselves a neutral by-stander in this situation! :rolleyes:

Neyite

jm08 wrote: »

According to Harry:

Elsewhere (Vanity Fair) they say that Charles was covering the cost of their security initially so he must have been the one who withdrew it.

Charles couldn't have withdrawn their security, because it was never his to withdraw. The royals don't and never have had, a say in what security they get, it's decided by a task force based in Scotland Yard. It's also withdrawn by Scotland Yard - I've linked below to an explanation of how Royal security works.

When they moved to Canada, as per usual the Royal security liased with local law enforcement agencies, and it's the local law that decide how and what security they need.

What Charles did withdraw, was funding derived from the Duchy of Cornwall. This is given to working royals annually making up a % of their income. It supports the households of Charles & Camilla, William and Kate, and used to support Harry then Harry and Meghan and their staff It's essentially a salary for their royal duties. In March 2021 they didn't receive this because they had ceased Royal duties a year before.

Charles did supplement them for the previous year from his own personal wealth so it's kind of unfair they expected him to pay their way when you consider that Harry is substantially wealthy in his own right, as is Meghan.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Maybe others in this thread can answer a few questions.

Am I right in thinking the protection the royal family get is provided by the metropolitan police ? I ask because it was framed as the royal family removing security but my understanding was the royal family don’t have a direct say in it.

Also, do Williams or any of the children of working royals get security specific to them or do they fall under their parents(if they are under 18) I ask because wouldn’t Archie have been protected by being a child of senior royals ? The title issue I know about.

Itssoeasy, I posted some details in an earlier post that answers your questions.. here you go. Apologies for the Daily Mail link but it's the only one I found that details it fully.

ceadaoin.

I'm sure the met police weren't happy that the officers sent to Canada were treated as PAs and sent off on errands, to get coffees, sandwiches etc. I wonder if that had something to do with their decision to withdraw it?

Itssoeasy

Neyite wrote: »

Charles couldn't have withdrawn their security, because it was never his to withdraw. The royals don't and never have had, a say in what security they get, it's decided by a task force based in Scotland Yard. It's also withdrawn by Scotland Yard - I've linked below to an explanation of how Royal security works.

When they moved to Canada, as per usual the Royal security liased with local law enforcement agencies, and it's the local law that decide how and what security they need.

What Charles did withdraw, was funding derived from the Duchy of Cornwall. This is given to working royals annually making up a % of their income. It supports the households of Charles & Camilla, William and Kate, and used to support Harry then Harry and Meghan and their staff It's essentially a salary for their royal duties. In March 2021 they didn't receive this because they had ceased Royal duties a year before.

Charles did supplement them for the previous year from his own personal wealth so it's kind of unfair they expected him to pay their way when you consider that Harry is substantially wealthy in his own right, as is Meghan.



Itssoeasy, I posted some details in an earlier post that answers your questions.. here you go. Apologies for the Daily Mail link but it's the only one I found that details it fully.

Much appreciated and your first paragraph in this post confirms what I'd believed to be the case.