Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1515516518520521732

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭Kyokushin Grappler


    They can't do that. They were part of the Trump Resistance.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    I'm not referring to the children (who were not invited anyway by their grandfather). As a parent of these kids I'd resent very much glorifying the woman who made their grandmother's life a misery. Diana was abused by the royal family. I'm sure she made the best of it, but they destroyed her life by using her like a brooding mare to induct some decent genes into the royal family. Bear in mind, the royal family didn't think Camilla was good enough to marry Charles. Its no thanks to the royal family that Diana seemed happy (though I don't know how you would know that). According to her son William, she suffered from paranoia.

    Other world leaders either have their own protection (i.e., Biden has 300 secret service people looking after his security here in Ireland). A lot of those attending the coronation (royalty around Europe, Michael D. Higgins) would not carry such a risk as Harry does. Most will probably stay in their own embassies that have security anyway. Bearing in mind that the Met have said that there have been very credible threats to their lives, why would they want to put themselves at risk. Don't forget, Harry's family pulled H&M's security at short notice by Harry's father & brother at short notice in Canada (Harry was told by one of the security people that they were told to leave - Charles/William didn't have the bottle to tell him themselves. I'd imagine Harry might have a bit of a trust issue when it comes to security when left in the hands of his family. Now that they have other spares (George, Charlotte etc), Harry doesn't want to be William's scape goat anymore, so is dispensible.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,387 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    The official role of every Princess of Wales in history has been to be a brood mare. That is what their status is based on. You produce the hrit and the spare(s) put on your fancy frock tiara and jewels at public functions, smile, wave and say nothing . In exchange you get luxury and status as Queen/Dowager Queen in later life and you can pursue whatever relationship you chose with whomsoever you chose in private, just like your husband. It's a job, always has been - a PR role and branding exercise. It has never been anything else. Anybody who still believes otherwise is utterly gullible .



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,964 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison




  • Registered Users Posts: 40,137 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    It's a shame the kids will grow up completely estranged from their cousins and extended family (on both sides) really.

    Blessing in this disguise, further away from the freak show the better.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    Implying his cousins (children btw) are freaks? Lovely. Since it is a feakshow then I'd imagine coronating the head of that show is the freakiest show of the lot. It's also a show Harry, for all his guff, is confirmed to be attending.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,137 ✭✭✭✭Boggles




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    Thanks for clarification. Royal kids fine (until they become indoctrinated adults). Royal adults freaks (except Harry who escaped but weirdly still goes back to the freakshows).



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,137 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    It's an opulent celebration at the tax payers expense of a man who believes he was chosen by God to rule the peasantry.

    Cult and a freakshow. It's an absolute fact.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,137 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    No idea. The OPs point was about his young children.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    So many trains of thought on why he is attending. Does he have stockholm syndrome since he was raised in a life of privilege which warped/abused him via institutional abuse and he is still frustratingly beholden to it all? Has he been enlightened and has a messiah complex and feels compelled to save his "unconscious bias" family from themselves and the Corrie is the last chance saloon for forcing a public apology/acknowledgement? Is he a wound collector and is going to drum up more material for commercial gigs? Is he actually seperated from Meghan and looks at it as a chance to ingratiate himself back ahead of a divorce with fleeting public appearances done solely for the "Brand" and their commercial interests? Does he need to go because if he doesn't then it can have consequences for his status, peerage, titles etc. if he doesn't literally bend the knee to the new monarch and the woman who turned his old bedroom into her dressing room? It is easy to see how people on YouTube can create content using such arm chair psychology and personal musings. It's easy to see how the gossip/tabloid rags can conjure up such narratives using "insiders" and "royal experts" as sources to convey credibility. It being all done to generate click baitey articles such as them making a list of "demands" and there being a transatlantic tit-for-tat negotiations (Acknowledge Archies birthday! Seccuridy! We want a balcony appearance! Charles puts his foot down! etc.). All media BS. In reality, since things like this are prepped and planned to the nth degree, I think it was confirmed behind the scenes months ago that Harry would be there and would be alone. They would have both been invited. A show the face job for him sitting second row again like at the Jubilee. A glorified mass and off he goes back overseas to his wife and kids (albeit doing a pit stop at court beforehand).



  • Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    😂

    Diana was the only person possibly in history, to ignore the reality of it being a business transaction. She totally bought into it being a Disney fairytale. Now granted she was barely an adult at the time, but she's grown up around that life, her dad an Earl, she had her own title and their own family tiara. She's seen how it works from babyhood, seen marriages of convenience and alliances created purely for wealth or connections. Her older sister was even auditioned for the POW role until she got enough sense to nope out of it. There had to have been family discussions about the implications of marrying into the royal family. It would have been very much a business discussion around the dinner table.

    She may have been very young, idealistic and naive but even with all of that, she had a hell of a lot more of an idea of what marrying a UK prince would entail than Meghan ever did (or appears to ever will have) And when Diana did mature, she was rather spectacular in how she understood her PR power and could outwit all those grey-suit schemers in BP with a single photo - her sitting at the Taj Mahal, or remove the stigma people who suffered Aids endured in a single swoop. She charmed everyone she met and changed lives when she lent her name and face to worthy causes and yet was nasty enough to make harassment calls to Carling's wife. She didn't have a problem with the Carling marriage being "a bit crowded". But she got away with that because she gave the press content on a daily basis and banked the favours.



  • Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    Royal security is organised by RAVEC. They are an inter-agency committee that decides the level of security for each royal.

    There were two main reasons his security was removed. One, he confirmed he was no longer a working royal, so his level of security was stepped down to match other non working royals like the York sisters. And secondly, there was the issue of having UK police officers minding Harry if he was staying permanently in Canada which was problematic for both RAVEC and Canadian Police.

    Imagine if he'd moved to Ireland. How happy would we be getting turfed out of our local by a UK policeman so Harry could have a peaceful drink? Could they even legally do that? And if they can't legally do the job to it's fullest extent because they have no legal jurisdiction, is there a potential liability there for RAVEC? Or does the Irish state pay for a team of serving Gardai to mind him, his wife and each of the kids and Doria when she comes to visit for the rest of his life? And how well would that go down with Irish taxpayers. Canada didn't ask them to move so why should they provide state protection for them?

    RAVEC decided to pull security, not the RF. Harry assumed that Daddy would just pay for it instead. Dad told him to use his own pocket money. Harry also assumed you can just rent UK policemen to be your security. Police forces are not available for private rental. He doesn't want private security. He wants police to do it. He wants them to have full royal protection from the moment they land in the UK. The DOJ's position in the lawsuit is that he'll get the same as every non-working royal, and that level depends on a risk assessment of the level of threat.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,964 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    I actually think H&M have surpassed the RF in terms of freak show levels - there’s no sign of their moaning ending - at least Charles and Camilla will hopefully be non entities, Andy will begrudgingly slither away into Frogmore cottage and be never heard from again and the British public will bide their time until William and Kate take over in about 10 years time or sooner, providing a much more stable and popular platform for a much more modern RF



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,964 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    I wouldn’t be surprised if he consciously upped his security threat level deliberately by speaking and writing about how many Taliban he killed, thus guaranteeing him lifetime police protection - if he didn’t do this deliberately then he’s some idiot leaving himself an obvious target for all sorts of terrorist groups- he was likely on some list somewhere anyway, but he rose to the top of that list with his autobiography - and that’s his doing, no one else’s- he’s deliberately placed his family in harms way.



  • Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    Exactly. He's not really helping himself.

    I dunno about you but if there was that level of threat against my wife and kids stemming from the title of Prince, I'd be keeping a low profile and the last thing I would do is insist on those same problematic titles for my kids.

    And if there was that level of threat, RAVEC are not going to let any possibility of the son of the king or his family be at any risk on UK soil. These guys have MI5 and MI6 intelligence. There's a whiff of paranoia at Harry's claims of death threats.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,964 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison


    Yeah it’s nearly like he’s inviting it. His comments though in interviews where he says “I didn’t ask to be royal, I was born royal” is kind of telling though- he believes all the trappings associated with royalty should be his- money, property, staff etc - regardless of whether he actually does any work. He’s demanding the elements that were associated with his previous life as a working royal.

    He got a big wake up call when he left the RF and found that the trappings associated with his past RF working life don’t automatically travel with you.

    Edward VIII pizzed off to France with Mrs Simpson and led a privileged but empty life, surviving off an allowance. I don’t think he was half the trouble Harry has become- Harry had money, inherited from his mother and no doubt the queen also left him a few Bob- he needs to put up and shut up- for a guy that hates RF life so much, he’s done nothing but b1tch about how he no longer has the trappings of that wealth and how he’s been demoted - like what did you think was going to happen Harry when you put 2 fingers up to everyone?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Only the present encumbents (his father and brother) are 'abusing' him. From all accounts, he got on very well with his grandparents on the Windsor side and proud of that. Why should he be deprived of his own history and heritage? And why should his children be deprived of their heritage.

    Harry will always be Prince Harry, the direct decendent of the Kings and Queens of England and Scotland. Nothing anyone can do about that! That is who he is.

    Fairplay to Harry, he is courageous to attend the cornation bearing in mind how the British press will do their best to humiliate him when he does come.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,638 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    But Harry needs the "abuse" to stay relevant and keep his book deals flowing.

    Hazza can't afford the family actually forgetting him. And its a shame he has dragged his kids away from their cousins and into the celebrity culture of America.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    All you need to know is that in the 'divorce settlement statement, the agreement was that Harry would retain his security (look it up). Harry's father and brother pulled it at short notice and didn't even have the bottle to tell him themselves and let one of their security people tell them.

    Charles is well able to pay for Andrew's security, so why not his son and their young family. Certainly, they should not be pulling it at short notice and then telling the British press where they were staying.

    As for the security of other members of the royal family. All of them have homes in the various palaces so they have protection anyway including the non-working royals, the York girls and the Kents (cousins of QEII). All Anne's family have homes on her estate (including her ex-husband), so don't give me that nonsense that non-working royals don't get security. And up to the age of 18, royals are entitled to security - for example, when one of the York girls went on a gap year, she had a protection officer with her. Harry's children should be entitled to security.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Doesn't matter what their title is - they are still the grandchildren of KCIII and great grandchildren of QEII.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Part of that committee (chief constables) have stated that there is a very credible threat to Prince Harry & his family. I think there might be a court case about it at the moment. Lets see how that turns out. (From what I recall, Simon Case, Williams former private secretary and now disgraced Cabinet Secretary was instrumental in his security being pulled).



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,177 ✭✭✭Be right back


    Of which neither has/had a relationship with either grandchild.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    Why can't multi millionaire Harry pay for his kids security? Just like any other celebrity. I presume he has been doing this for a few years now without a problem. He can buy a mansion so why not continue to pay out of his own pocket for security? He's making millions beyond his own inheritance. Right? Meghan had 5 million, reportedly. Or perhaps in being a Prince of the realm the standard security A list celebs in the US happily employ without problem or ego simply isn't good enough for him and Harry feels entitled to things like outriders and armed guards, things he was long used to because, lets be honest, nothing can inflate an ego like being given the full VVIP treatment. Just a thought. Reality bites. He moaned about having 24/7 security in Spare when growing up. He is the master of his own destiny now, free to have whatever level of security he can afford.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Mrs Simpson was divorced* and thats why he had to abdicate. Look how times have changed. Two divorcees King and Queen.

    *The real reason why he was forced to abdicate was because he was too cosy with the Nazis.

    I actually don't think he thinks about the trappings of being a royal because in all fairness, its a horrible life. He couldn't blow his nose and it would be all over the papers. He has done 38 years of that, so deserves some respect for that.

    He isn't demanding anything for when he was a 'working royal' - he is prepared to pay for himself and his family. How stupid of Charles to evict a paying tenant who had refurbed Frogmore so now that there is no income for it. I wonder did Charles pay back the £2.4 million Harry spent on refurbing it? He is prepared to pay for his UK security now that he has the funds, so I don't know how or why you would complain about that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,276 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    They weren't paying tenants. Part of the deal of paying back the taxpayer funds used for refurbishment (and I wouldn't be shocked if Charles stumped up that for them too) was that they didn't pay rent. Oh no, they won't be able pay nothing to leave a property sitting empty for years just in case they decide to leave their 16 bathroom mansion and pop back for a quick visit. Isnt life terrible for them!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,744 ✭✭✭Karppi


    It really is like a trip to a parallel universe to read some of the posts of late

    Harry and Meghan took their "freedom flight", carefully documenting it on video for future use in a reality tv series they already had under their belt. Freedom also meant no protection via RAVEC, as they had stood down as working royals. The response was classic "I want my cake and eat it" behaviour from H&M. If you don't want to be at risk, don't go on about Taliban headcount. That's just stupidity; alternatively, you could just try pinning a target on your back to achieve the full effect. Was any thought given to the possible risk he'd also brought upon his children? Does he live in a bubble where extremists don't exist?

    RAVEC decides who gets what security. Let's leave them to do their job, can we? They'll take account of the threat and risk assessment, and respond accordingly. By the way, you can't hire a Met Police Prot officer.

    The Canadians withdrew security when they were in Canada.

    Harry was facing a huge dilemma about attending the coronation. Meghan would not be welcome and she really wouldn't want to be at the centre of the likely reaction from the Brits. Their "celebrity" status depends on their association with the RF. Please, cut the umbilical cord. I hope KC will be resolute in his dealings with Harry. He's torn, of course, as we all are in relation to family relations. But I sense that William, and Catherine, are stronger. How the Princess of Wales stayed dignified and serene on that walkabout with H&M after the funeral, I'll never know. But she did. She's worth a thousand fold in comparison with Meghan (In fact, it's bordering on an insult to speak about Catherine and Meghan in the same sentence. Never has there been two different people. One dedicated to others, one entirely self-serving)

    Harry has brought all of this on himself; aided and abetted by Meghan. I don't think it will be long before Meghan sheds Harry - she has form in this area. But things are delicately balanced at the moment for Meghan. Expect some plot to be hatched by her in the next few weeks. it will likely come from the Planet Zog, in an alternative dimension, aka Montecito

    IMO, Harry is a lamb being led to slaughter. It's a bit late for Easter, but these things can happen



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,022 ✭✭✭JoChervil


    Frankly, I wouldn't go if I was invited. I can't imagine curtsy to anyone. Or I would go and do not curtsy.

    I think this custom should be abolished. I would curtsy to someone, if it was a way of respectful greeting EXCHANGED. But one sided? Never.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,478 ✭✭✭valoren


    Cartoonist Peter Brooks.




Advertisement