It's official: Harry is not allowed access to the highest level of security in the U.K.
Prince Harry Loses One of His Many Court Cases
|by Anonymous||reply 151||May 28, 2023 11:57 AM|
I guess last week's stunt didnt help
|by Anonymous||reply 1||May 23, 2023 10:29 AM|
Well, they played the racism card and that didn’t work. Maybe they need to play the discrimination against gingers card?
|by Anonymous||reply 2||May 23, 2023 10:32 AM|
Surely they haven't got any cards left?! 😕
|by Anonymous||reply 3||May 23, 2023 10:39 AM|
Victims never run out of imaginary cards
|by Anonymous||reply 4||May 23, 2023 10:40 AM|
BREAKING: Prince Harry loses second high court challenge over security.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||May 23, 2023 10:44 AM|
He lost any right to protection when he stepped away from being a working royal. The other minor royals manage without it. The idea of paying the Met to provide a private service is ludicrous and arrogant.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||May 23, 2023 11:00 AM|
I'm trying to figure out how the timing overlaps with the near catastrophe. Did it occur pre-hearing so the incident was orchestrated to demonstrate their vulnerability? Or did Harry already know the outcome and the low speed chase was performative childish spite (See what could happen! Waagh!!!)
|by Anonymous||reply 7||May 23, 2023 11:01 AM|
[quote]The idea of paying the Met to provide a private service is ludicrous and arrogant.
"Ludicrous and arrogant" is the Sussex brand.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||May 23, 2023 11:04 AM|
[quote]Or did Harry already know the outcome and the low speed chase was performative childish spite (See what could happen! Waagh!!!)
Participants are notified of the outcome in advance of publication; my guess is that Harry arranged for the "near catastrophic" theatrics wth full knowledge of the decision.
Honestly, who would do something like that?
|by Anonymous||reply 9||May 23, 2023 11:15 AM|
Hasn’t his visa expired yet?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||May 23, 2023 11:17 AM|
Bystanders could have been injured by his stunt
Police resources were pulled away from actual problems.
Anyone else would be charged.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||May 23, 2023 11:18 AM|
R10 no he's a man of the world and you are welcome to him
|by Anonymous||reply 12||May 23, 2023 11:21 AM|
Whatever the eventual outcome, the stunt was performed for the benefit of their idiot supporters (everyone else clocked it as a pathetic pretense).
If he had won, they would have nodded their heads in satisfaction: We deserved it, and we’ve been vindicated.
If he had lost, it demonstrated that the High Court has sentenced Harry and Meghan to DEATH! (cue Sarah Bernhardt)
|by Anonymous||reply 13||May 23, 2023 11:24 AM|
The S.S. Harkle is sinking fast now. Watch for the rats to abandon ship.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||May 23, 2023 11:24 AM|
Yea he wouldn't have been magnanimous if he'd somehow won the case, more like "Look at the needless danger you've exposed my family to for 3 years!"
|by Anonymous||reply 15||May 23, 2023 11:37 AM|
I don’t even see how he thought he could win this case. Were his lawyers just pushing to see how far they could move the needle? Why should Harry be able to rent police officers? How does that benefit anyone other than Harry?
|by Anonymous||reply 16||May 23, 2023 11:45 AM|
It doesn't, R16, but Harry and Meghan don't care about anyone other than themselves.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||May 23, 2023 11:47 AM|
Pay for your own security, leeches.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||May 23, 2023 11:49 AM|
They don’t want to be in the RF yet they keep their titles and expect the same security Royals get? What’s with these two? She’s truly influenced him to be a whiny victim. He was looking for the mum he missed out on and she was looking for someone with clout, money and needy she could manipulate.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||May 23, 2023 11:52 AM|
Half in half out of luck
|by Anonymous||reply 20||May 23, 2023 11:54 AM|
[quote] It doesn't, [R16], but Harry and Meghan don't care about anyone other than themselves.
I guess I’m wondering why their lawyers gave them the hope that police security was a possibility. Anyone can see that this would have set a precedence that British police couldn’t handle. Was it all about the $$ for the lawyers?
|by Anonymous||reply 21||May 23, 2023 12:07 PM|
There's no such thing as a "working" royal. None of these people WORK. They inherited and (as Charles has repeatedly done) grifted their money. And the money they inherited was not WORKED for, either - at least, not by them.
They make a few public appearances here and there to keep up appearances. Big whoop. Not one of them has ever gone out of their way to help anyone other than themselves.
Now, I am very interested in English history and that includes the history of the royals going back to the dark ages. And I could understand why QE11 was popular - i.e., because of WW11. That's basically it. But this is a different world and KC111 is a crochety old fussbudget who cares more about a leaking pen than any of his poor subjects. And he really doesn't care about Harry - he's the reason Harry is so screwed up.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||May 23, 2023 12:36 PM|
That would be a shame if this causes him to be in a bad mood tonight when his wife receives her award.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||May 23, 2023 12:40 PM|
Maybe he will decide to sue this set of lawyers with another set of lawyers for allowing him to think he might win this case, R21.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||May 23, 2023 12:45 PM|
I burst out laughing when I read r24. Then I realized that's something that would probably cross his mind and I laughed harder.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||May 23, 2023 12:48 PM|
Oh, dear, R22. Where does one begin with that silly diatribe?
Pay attention, and I'll begin... there hasn't been an eleventh Queen Elizabeth, nor a one hundred and eleventh King Charles. There's no such thing as World War Eleven, either.
Queen Elizabeth II was popular for far more than contributing to the second World War effort. She was above politics, as King Charles is. The Monarch is head of the British state, amongst others, head of the Church of England, head of the Armed Forces, and head of the Commonwealth.
The Royal family also shine a light on charities, recognising and acknowledging good work, which sometimes leads to rewards and public celebration of the individuals' achievements.
In times of crisis, the King can lead by example or offer words of comfort or reassurance. The Queen did exactly that during the COVID-19 pandemic - it was televised and watched by 23.97 million people, making it the second most popular broadcast in 2020.
If that's nothing to you, then so be it, but you're in the tiniest of minorities.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||May 23, 2023 1:19 PM|
R22 is exactly correct.
I don’t understand the argument that the Windsor’s “bring in tourism.” Like, WHO goes there to get a glimpse of the “divine-by-birth royals?”
The Windsor/ Saxe-Coburg/Gotha House was the self-promoting yellow-journalism model before Fox News/Hearst. It was brilliant while it lasted with its self-promotion and “palace-intrigue” publications. The Daily Mail continues the effort but their reporting is so obscenely skewered it’s become a joke.
I totally understand Harry and Meghan’s effort to expose “The Firm’s” machinations - not that I don’t think they are grifters as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||May 23, 2023 1:21 PM|
Surely Harry is screwed up because he's a drug addict? That was [italic]his[/italic] choice, not his father's.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||May 23, 2023 1:23 PM|
R22. I assume you’re American? Your post is so cliched and so little based in reality.
You can certainly question the utility of what a constitutional monarch or any ceremonial head of state does, and some of the lesser royals do have a cushy life, but you obviously have not given a second of realistic thought to what it would be like to be Elizabeth II or Charles III. It’s not a few appearances here and there. It’s usually multiple appearances a day. Hours of taking to strangers and facing the risk they any Ill/advised statement you make will go around world. It’s having to go on television in front of millions—-most people find that slightly. stressful. It’s being shot at on public. It’s having to have security your whole life. It’s having your appearance, private life, and personality served up for criticism and comments by millions. And it lasts from the time you’re a teenager until you’re in your 90s.
Yes , it beats living on the street, but if you honestly envy their lives you’re just being embarrassingly simple-minded.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||May 23, 2023 1:43 PM|
R27. What exactly are Harry and Meghan exposing other than themselves, their own greed, their own stupidity, and their own antiquated view of royalism?
|by Anonymous||reply 30||May 23, 2023 1:49 PM|
I love how they never show the top of this muppet’s head because he’s bald and too autistic to make it look presentable. The lens flare on his book cover…I still can’t decide if it’s so pathetic it’s funny or if it’s just pathetic.
Anyhow, hope he gets run off the road and is smushed the like the parasite he is. Megan is an American so hope she’s safe, however.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||May 23, 2023 1:54 PM|
R22 R27 not defending him but Charles was probably less pissed with a leaky pen and more bothered his mother had just died and he was on constant display.
The "working" royals don't just show up here and there, they make between 250 - 400 appearances a year, meaning they have to be "on" and read-up even about things they don't know about.
And HM was much more popular for reasons you don't give her credit for. She was old school, don't complain and just get on with business, even when you don't feel like it. She was charming and graceful, providing a sense of constancy in times when the world has changed at the speed of light.
And they bring in millions in tourism and good-will deals alone. You do get they are diplomats who encourage and promote British interests with foreign powers? You didn't think those state banquets were just for fun?
|by Anonymous||reply 32||May 23, 2023 2:17 PM|
R29 said it better than I can
|by Anonymous||reply 33||May 23, 2023 2:19 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 34||May 23, 2023 2:25 PM|
[quote]The Monarch is head of the British state,
And not necessary to the functioning of the government. If they abolished the monarchy tomorrow…things would function normally. They’re pretty much just figureheads at this point.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||May 23, 2023 2:26 PM|
R35. Again, are you American? You do realise that pretty much every country in Europe has a separate figurehead head of state? If the monarchy were abolished, the outcome would not be to create an American style president who is both head of government and head of state. A separate head of state positon would be created to replace the monarch. And that positon would have its own expenses, including the expenses of elections, and he or she would probably use many of the same palaces the royal family now use to receive guests and host functions.
Everyone knows the government itself will go on. I don’t understand the point of your observation. It’s parochially American.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||May 23, 2023 2:38 PM|
Aw, sweetie, r36.
It’s called a republic.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||May 23, 2023 2:41 PM|
R36. If you don’ want to come off as an idiot, you might want to specify what “it” is, sweetie.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||May 23, 2023 2:45 PM|
There is actually a definition of the term working royal, r22: a member of the royal family who represents the monarch in his or her official official duties. In other words, a working royal is a member of the royal family who performs official state functions and represents the British state, particularly in its diplomatic relations but also in some constitutional functions.
[quote]A working royal is a member of the royal family who represents the Queen at official engagements.
[quote]They perform duties on behalf of the monarch such as attending meetings with international dignitaries, hosting state dinners, and going to parliamentary and constitutional events.
[quote[Other roles include opening buildings, handing out honours and going on international visits and tours.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||May 23, 2023 2:47 PM|
Aw sweetie r37.
Many republics have a ceremonial, non-partisan head of state, primarily those that are parliamentary democracies.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||May 23, 2023 2:48 PM|
Ludicrous and Arrogant...the new cologne from D&G.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||May 23, 2023 2:49 PM|
And yet the young people, you know, the future of the UK, would like to abolish the monarchy, r40. It’s the old people who want to keep them. And, unlike you, King Charles knows that the family is on thin ice.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||May 23, 2023 2:50 PM|
Let's play a game. Let's consider all the countries in the world and see which are the most politically stable and economically fair, without an extreme degree of political polarisation or tendency to authoritarianism and which countries are heavily polarised. Let's consider their political systems, e.g. if they have a parliament, a prime minister and an independent head of state (whether a monarch or a ceremonial president) or if they have an executive president, and see if that has any correlation with the quality of democracy in that country.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||May 23, 2023 2:55 PM|
Aw sweetie r42. The "younger generation" is almost always invariably less supportive of the monarchy. The same question asked in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, etc. would have given similar results. Then they grow up and realise, actually, it's a system that works for Britain and they wouldn't want to tamper with it.
Moreover, the actual intensity of support for abolishing the monarchy and having an elected, ceremonial president is very low. It's not an issue people care about or even really think about.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||May 23, 2023 2:58 PM|
So working royals don't actually work, but Harry and Meghan wanted the full perks of being working royals who don't actually work but only half-time. OK.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||May 23, 2023 2:58 PM|
This might help answer your query, R43.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||May 23, 2023 2:59 PM|
Here's the best answer to those who think they're so clever by pointing to the "younger generation" wanting to abolish the monarchy. Johnny Rotten, he who sneered the anti-establishment anthem "God Save the Queen" back in 1976 when he was a 21 year old, releasing a tender tribute to the Queen on her death many decades later.
From "God save the queen/The fascist regime/She's not a human being" to "Rest in Peace Queen Elizabeth II/Send her victorious."
|by Anonymous||reply 47||May 23, 2023 3:05 PM|
R45 what would you call attending, speaking, being aware of the work and greeting strangers 300+ times per year as well as endless briefings and meetings? Sounds like work to me
|by Anonymous||reply 48||May 23, 2023 3:08 PM|
I think he was being ironic about Harry and Meghan, r48.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||May 23, 2023 3:11 PM|
It's amazing to consider that Mr. Harry Mountbatten-Windsor-Windsor of Montecito, CA, USA and his lawyers thought they could pay for police protection. It would mean that any person with wealth could do the same.
Completely out of touch with the lives of ordinary people. Consumed with privilege and self-importance.
Makes one more republican by the minute.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||May 23, 2023 3:25 PM|
First, my apologies for not keeping up. I’m stuck on wondering why H&M would attempt to evade the paps by leading them on a chase, dangerous or otherwise. For the stunt to work we’d have to accept the premise, which is that they were so averse to being photographed that they had no choice but to attempt to outrun their pursuers at some risk to themselves.
It just makes no sense. Park the car, emerge, wave and smile, and go on with your life.
Okay. I return you now to issues surrounding constitutional monarchies. My biggest worry over all this has been how the Corgis are faring.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||May 23, 2023 3:33 PM|
I'm an American and I'll pile on r22, too.
If anybody thinks that the emotional, mental and physical labor of being "on" for 250-400 personal appearances a year isn't work, you don't know what work is.
You've got to be attentive, polite, react again to the same remark hundreds of people have already said to you, listen like nobody's business, be attentive every moment. There is a 4 letter word for that- WORK.
And you better look and sound pretty damn good doing it, too because, unlike when I perform my job, nobody is there at the ready with a cell phone camera every second hoping for a verbal or physical gaffe.
And I write this as somebody who has performed every job from cleaning toilets, bartending, factory work and professional desk jobs.
Except for exchanging their wealth for my relatively meager pennies, I wouldn't give up my anonymous life among the poor and obscure for theirs, no way, no how.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||May 23, 2023 3:50 PM|
Here's an example of what a "working royal" does:
[quote]The Princess Royal visited Canada to mark the 175th anniversary of the 8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise’s)
[quote]The Princess Royal visits Canada
[quote]Friday 19 May
[quote]On the first day of the visit in Canada, The Princess Royal had an Audience with The Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, Her Honour Ms. Brenda Murphy, and Hon. Blaine Higgs MLA, Premier of New Brunswick, Government House.
[quote]Her Royal Highness, Honorary Deputy Commissioner of The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, then visited "J" Division Headquarters in Fredericton, where she also attended a Reception on the occasion of their One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary.
[quote]At the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Memorial, The Princess laid a wreath.
[quote]In Moncton, Her Royal Highness attended a Civil Reception and visited Vitalité Health Network's Veterans' Health Centre.
[quote]In the evening, The Princess, in her role as Colonel-in-Chief of 8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise’s) attended a concert to celebrate the 175th anniversary of the Regiment.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||May 23, 2023 3:51 PM|
This is another example of the kind of thing a "working royal" does:
[quote]The Duke of Edinburgh visits Germany in support of The Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award
[quote]Published 23 May 2023
[quote]As Patron of The Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award, His Royal Highness is visiting Berlin to celebrate young people who have successfully participated in the scheme.
[quote]The Duke of Edinburgh was welcomed to Germany by the UK Ambassador to Germany, Her Excellency Mrs Jill Gallard, before joining a lunch with members of the Bundestag at the British Embassy.
[quote]At Schule am Schillerpark School, His Royal Highness joined the Minister of Education Bettina Stark-Watzinger and Senator of Education Katharina Günther-Wünsch to meet young people at the school who a participating in the The Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award.
[quote]Active in more than 130 countries, currently over 3,000 young people are participating in the scheme in Germany.
[quote]During the visit to the school, The Duke was shown a display of DofE implementation at the school, and paid a visit to the ‘Waffle Stand’ – a student enterprise founded by young people working towards their Award.
[quote]His Royal Highness, accompanied by Vanessa Masing, National Director of the Award in Germany, joined in a Roundtable Discussion.
[quote]At James-Simon-Galerie, The Duke attended a Duke of Edinburgh’s Bronze, Silver and Gold Award Ceremony.
[quote]His Royal Highness also presented the Founder’s Medal of the DofE International Award Foundation to Klaus Vogel, DofE Founder in Germany and National Director from 1995 – 2020.
[quote]The event finished with The Duke signed the Golden Book of Berlin – which also recently signed by The King and Queen during their state visit to Germany in March.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||May 23, 2023 3:58 PM|
R42 Elected Ceremonial Presidents always get dragged into politics when the shit hits the fan for a Government.
Unless a Monarch does something heinous there will never be a referendum, they've become unpopular in the UK with politicians and the public anyhow.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||May 23, 2023 4:13 PM|
R52 nor me, I value my privacy too much and actually being in a job where I need to be attentive and interested in others leaves me drained by 5pm. I'm lucky I don't have hundreds of excited people gawking at me and whispering to each other
|by Anonymous||reply 56||May 23, 2023 4:19 PM|
R22 just to add, holding in a fart for over 4 hours because you are never left alone for 10 sexonds is some of the hardest work you'll find!
|by Anonymous||reply 57||May 23, 2023 4:21 PM|
R42 claims young people don't support the monarchy, but the poll reported by the Guardian actually showed they did by a significant majority, hence the desperate 'nearly 4 in 10 don't' headline
|by Anonymous||reply 58||May 23, 2023 5:17 PM|
R54, I wouldn't mind sampling some of the Canadian bacon she inspected:
|by Anonymous||reply 59||May 23, 2023 5:26 PM|
Ignore all these comments and get the REAL truth from the Duchess herself on my new show on CNN.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||May 23, 2023 6:22 PM|
No surprise. Although now Prince Harry has it on record he tried to pay for his & family’s security and was thwarted by the Tory government. Gives him good reason not to set foot in your shabby little formerly Great Britain.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||May 23, 2023 6:42 PM|
R61. Is it possible for private persons to hire the police force in your country, dear?
|by Anonymous||reply 62||May 23, 2023 6:47 PM|
I'm just devastated I won't get to visit my beloved in-laws on Shutter Island !
|by Anonymous||reply 63||May 23, 2023 6:52 PM|
R62 My country doesn't have a parasitical tax supported ruling class based on a DNA lottery. Jealous doll?
|by Anonymous||reply 64||May 23, 2023 6:54 PM|
Pray explain how the UK government has prevented Harry from hiring and paying for commercially available security services, r61.
I know that judges and the Supreme Court in your country are political appointments, but you should be aware that in countries like the UK - and every democracy other than the US - judicial appointments are independent and non-partisan. Your implication that the High Court is doing the bidding of the government ridiculous.
And the more you throw the word Tory around as though you think you're saying something insightful and clever, the more you stupid you sound.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||May 23, 2023 6:55 PM|
Yet you demand that the parasite Harry avail himself of public and state services in the UK, r84, which only exist thanks to the taxpayer, to serve the taxpayer.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||May 23, 2023 6:58 PM|
Obviously r66 is addressed to r64.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||May 23, 2023 6:58 PM|
R65, the confused prince thinks that the government should provide him (and her and theirs) with security according to their wishes and allow them to pay the government back?
What's wrong with this?
The Markles do not qualify for government security and are free to pay for their own security directly, rather than pretend their are a special class of person. They are not. Their demand to have government support for their security in any way is unwarranted, where security is uninvolved since they are private people.
As they keep squealing.
Perhaps what they need is to spend their money on better security, at least when not in the UK. When in the UK the present, defensible private security arrangements, apparently, have worked fine.
If you don't get that, you're not going to get it.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||May 23, 2023 7:01 PM|
According to this ruling, Harry can’t pay for his security. It been said that he can’t get security because he is a non~working Royal. Andrew, a known nonce, who is also a non~working Royal has security. Who’s paying for it? Apparently Grand Fenwick 2.0 has no problem paying for pedos but if you marry a wog you've crossed a "moral" line. Ridiculous lot you Brits.😁
|by Anonymous||reply 69||May 23, 2023 7:05 PM|
[quote]Let's play a game. Let's consider all the countries in the world and see which are the most politically stable and economically fair, without an extreme degree of political polarisation or tendency to authoritarianism and which countries are heavily polarised. Let's consider their political systems, e.g. if they have a parliament, a prime minister and an independent head of state (whether a monarch or a ceremonial president) or if they have an executive president, and see if that has any correlation with the quality of democracy in that country.
Sure…let’s play. There absolutely no difference between Finland and Iceland vs. Denmark, Sweden and Norway.
France and Germany are no less stable or fair than Spain.
In fact…if you really want to play this game…the UK post Brexit is far less stable, economically fair and more polarized than the majority of their European neighbors who gave up on their monarchy.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||May 23, 2023 7:09 PM|
R64. My country doesn’t ask me to serve my country for life based on a genetic lottery, doll.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||May 23, 2023 7:12 PM|
To say thata man who earns his own living. Supports his own family. Wants to PAY for his own security, is a "parasite" but that his nearly 20 relatives who do no such thing and make you pay for them are "working royals" verifies how batshit crazy you royalassts are. Hopeless suckers .
|by Anonymous||reply 72||May 23, 2023 7:17 PM|
^^^They live in the UK. He does not
|by Anonymous||reply 73||May 23, 2023 7:19 PM|
and they work in the UK.. tip generously 😁
|by Anonymous||reply 74||May 23, 2023 7:23 PM|
R70, all the countries you mention have ceremonial heads of state, not an executive head of state (an executive president, as in the US).
|by Anonymous||reply 75||May 23, 2023 7:26 PM|
R71 Your last name is Heifer not Windsor, tiny
|by Anonymous||reply 76||May 23, 2023 7:26 PM|
[quote] And yet the young people, you know, the future of the UK, would like to abolish the monarchy, [R40]. It’s the old people who want to keep them.
R42, young people always want to overturn the old order. Then they get older and become part of it.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||May 23, 2023 7:26 PM|
R72. Haha. Nice try. Harry wants tte privilege of hiring the police force based solely on his birth. No one else on In the UK or almost any other country gets that privilege. He is the most extreme birth right 16th century royalist asshole imaginable.
The working members of the royal family do get protection because they perform state functions. The same protection would have to be provided if elected officials performed the head of state role. You can’t ask hereditary monarchs and their family to appear publicly on behalf of the state and not protect them.
It’s best Harry remain in the US where a sizeable minority of the population believes in birthright privileges regardless of public service. The UK is a modern democracy in which that idea is outmoded
|by Anonymous||reply 78||May 23, 2023 7:31 PM|
R69, Andrew has private security. Andrew also lives in the UK. Harry can pay for his own private security on the rare occasions when he's in the UK. If he stays with his father, he and his family will be covered by Charles' security anyhow.
Stop lying and saying he's not allowed to pay for his own security. He can. What is not possible is for him to pay privately to use the national police force. Just like he can't pay privately for law enforcement in the US.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||May 23, 2023 7:31 PM|
R74 tip generously !
£86.3million is bloody generous tip. Better get extra cheese.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||May 23, 2023 7:34 PM|
No they become complacent dotty royalass twits like R77
|by Anonymous||reply 81||May 23, 2023 7:36 PM|
R70, Brexit was complete bullshit. In times of stress and hardship, when the country could be falling apart, the royal family act as a national unifier and help keep us together.
Can you specify which EU countries that gave up their monarchies you are referring to?
|by Anonymous||reply 82||May 23, 2023 7:37 PM|
[quote] Let's play a game. Let's consider all the countries in the world and see which are the most politically stable and economically fair, without an extreme degree of political polarisation or tendency to authoritarianism and which countries are heavily polarised. Let's consider their political systems, e.g. if they have a parliament, a prime minister and an independent head of state (whether a monarch or a ceremonial president) or if they have an executive president, and see if that has any correlation with the quality of democracy in that country.
R43, I agree. And you don’t even need to play a game, you can just look at the form of government which the US, UK and France pressed West Germany to accept when the German Constitutional Assembly was constructing the country’s new democratic institutions. Even France and The US discouraged the adoption their own system of an “elected king” with powerful constitutional powers and the legitimacy conferred by being directly elected. Instead, Germany was encouraged to adopt the UK parliamentary model, headed by an apolitical Head Of State with strictly limited, clearly defined powers. It’s a system which has worked fairly well for western Europe’s most stable democracies (the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium).
|by Anonymous||reply 83||May 23, 2023 7:38 PM|
It's funny how r81 always likes his own posts.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||May 23, 2023 7:38 PM|
Wrong. He has been denied the option to pay for his security. The important case is the one coming up where he fights to retain funded security. Paying for his own security meant he didn't have to liase with the BRF. Now if he wins the second case the BRF have full input and can leak his security details.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||May 23, 2023 7:38 PM|
Journalists and Royal Reporters have stated Kensington Palace was behind a majority of the leaks about Harry. If William can leak details which then incited a mass hatred including death tbreats do you think he will keep the Sussex security private.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||May 23, 2023 7:42 PM|
According to Royalist "logic" : If Prince Harry when he and his family are in the UK, wants the same taxpayer provided security as the rest of his family he's a scrounger. But if Prince Harry wants to pay for the same security he's still a scrounger? Makes perfect sense.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||May 23, 2023 7:44 PM|
And death threats were made today on Richard Edens twitter about Harry by commentors. With people stating they will laugh at Harry's death. At least if it does happen the BRF are on record as being to blame.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||May 23, 2023 7:44 PM|
"royal family act as a national unifier and help keep us together"
Perhaps this was true under Elizabeth. Under Charles the royals are major point of division especially in the commonwealth.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||May 23, 2023 7:47 PM|
R88, do you know what "death threat" even means? Fool.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||May 23, 2023 7:48 PM|
R87. If you support Harry I guess it would be hard to follow the logic
People performing state business = you get state funded security
Privileged assholes performing no state functions that want to hire the police force as their own bodyguards = you get nothing
|by Anonymous||reply 91||May 23, 2023 7:50 PM|
[quote] According to Royalist "logic" : If Prince Harry when he and his family are in the UK, wants the same taxpayer provided security as the rest of his family he's a scrounger. But if Prince Harry wants to pay for the same security he's still a scrounger? Makes perfect sense.
Like Prince Harry, I play no significant role in the monarchy of the United Kingdom. I’m not a working royal or a government official. I will be visiting the United States later in the summer. Can anyone (r86 perhaps?) tell me how much I would have to pay for Secret Service protection for a few weeks? What’s the going rate?
|by Anonymous||reply 92||May 23, 2023 7:58 PM|
r64 If you live in America then actually largely yes you do to a great extent. Don't kid yourself that America isn't a plutocracy with a hoarding 1% class. Instead of monarchy you have the less honest opium of the american dream.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||May 23, 2023 8:01 PM|
r69 The ruling does not stop him hiring security. It stops him hiring currently serving police officers with royal protection powers.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||May 23, 2023 8:03 PM|
[quote] If you live in America then actually largely yes you do to a great extent. Don't kid yourself that America isn't a plutocracy with a hoarding 1% class. Instead of monarchy you have the less honest opium of the american dream.
R93, That’s why they call it the American Dream. - Because you have to be asleep to believe it.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||May 23, 2023 8:05 PM|
[quote]all the countries you mention have ceremonial heads of state, not an executive head of state (an executive president, as in the US).
They’re not monarchies…and that’s what I’m addressing.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||May 23, 2023 8:08 PM|
R44 Yup! During the 60s and 70s, boomers were much more anti-establishment and anti-monarchy, now they are largest supporters of the monarchy. As you get older, you become slightly more conservative and appreciate continuity and tradition.
Apparently, Harry is allowed to continue a case for having some tax
|by Anonymous||reply 97||May 23, 2023 8:09 PM|
It stops him having access to Met databases which all royals have as it allows royals to know current threats etc. This is fundamental. And today's death threats on a Royal Reporters twitter account is a prime example. The Met will know who is behind the accounts. Harry's team won't. It is a genuine increase in risk to life. This case also highlights something that the BRF and uk media are currently trying to hide. The BRF pulled Diana's security. She didn't refuse it. It's huge and being ignored.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||May 23, 2023 8:10 PM|
[quote] It stops him having access to Met databases which all royals have as it allows royals to know current threats etc. This is fundamental. And today's death threats on a Royal Reporters twitter account is a prime example. The Met will know who is behind the accounts. Harry's team won't. It is a genuine increase in risk to life. This case also highlights something that the BRF and uk media are currently tryi
If death threats are being made against Prince Harry, then like any other British person, he has the absolute right to report them to the police, and expect them to be investigated and action taken by the Crown Prosecution Service. If he is unhappy at the action taken, then he can complain to the Police Complaints Commission and seek remedy.
What he is asking is to have the absolute right to hire the Met Police as if they were a private firm. They are not.
Harry chose to withdraw from public life and become a private citizen. It takes a huge sense of entitlement to then expect to be able to call on a state institution as if it were his own private staff. No serious nation would allow that.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||May 23, 2023 8:16 PM|
Why would anyone think a private citizen could hire a public police force? Do any of Harry’s supported care to explain how that would be acceptable?
|by Anonymous||reply 100||May 23, 2023 8:21 PM|
Harry being kidnapped would be a disaster for Great Britain and any terrorist organisation could leverage his release against 'polotical prisoners' etc. They should secure that he's not a risk...not fir his sake only. He didn't ask to be born a Royal.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||May 23, 2023 8:24 PM|
R85 - R89 posted by the same deranged Markle fanbitch. I advise all of you to put this crazy cunt on ignore so she'll eventually end up talking to herself.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||May 23, 2023 8:24 PM|
R101. Lots of people have innate circumstances that increase their risk of kidnapping. They don’t get to privatise the police force.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||May 23, 2023 8:31 PM|
[QUOTE]Harry being kidnapped would be a disaster for Great Britain and any terrorist organisation could leverage his release against 'polotical prisoners' etc. They should secure that he's not a risk...not fiir his sake only. He didn't ask to be born a Royal.
No. Not really. It would be an O'Henry "Ransom of Red Chief" scenario. But since the Harkles' fans are ignorant, poorly read, and generally ignorant of educational initiatives or history, keep on keeping on.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||May 23, 2023 8:38 PM|
Harry being kidnapped would indeed be a disaster . . . for the kidnapper. Imagine having to deal with this whining fuckwit.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||May 23, 2023 8:39 PM|
Does r87 have some kind of brain impediment? It's astonishing how fucking stupid this poster is. Harry can pay for whatever private security service he wants in the UK. He cannot pay for the national police force to provide security for him because it is not for hire to private individuals for that purpose.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||May 23, 2023 8:49 PM|
R87, the High Court of England is an independent court, not a "royalist" faction.
Harry has no problem with the concept of monarchy.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||May 23, 2023 8:51 PM|
R102, every time I read one of that twit's posts, I get visions of him punching furiously at his phone, getting redder and redder in the face and having heart palpitations.
Hey, nutcase Harrymegstan, take it easy, you're going to bust a blood vessel with that level of deranged anger. Try breathing exercises.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||May 23, 2023 8:54 PM|
Suck it, Harry.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||May 23, 2023 8:58 PM|
To the Markles: Give up your titles.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||May 23, 2023 8:58 PM|
This is near catastrophic!
|by Anonymous||reply 111||May 23, 2023 8:59 PM|
lQUOTE]Surely Harry is screwed up because he's a drug addict? That was his choice, not his father's.
Seriously? Like his father didn't publicly cheat on his mother? Like his mother didn't die horribly? Like he wasn't used as a prop in his mother's Imitation of Life type funeral?
You act like Harry is a drug addict out of nowhere. His father had plenty to do with it and it's obvious he doesn't give a shit. The only thing Charles ever cared about was that old nag Camilla.
The royal family are grifters who serve no purpose. Currently 45 percent of the British want to get rid of them and that number will only grow.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||May 23, 2023 9:04 PM|
Anyone who thought Harry had a chance at winning this case is an idiot. The MET is a government agency administered by the Home Office. It is not a private organization that is for hire nor can a Judge seeks to administer for an organization whose decisions and operations are understandably top secret.
Harry is allowed to continue with a review of the Home Office's decision to strip him of tax-payer security which will likely still have the same outcome. Andrew, for example, no longer gets MET protection, rather the King has been paying for private bodyguards. But it's Harry's money to waste and now he also has to pay back the government, so...have fun Harry.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||May 23, 2023 10:17 PM|
[quote]Seriously? Like his father didn't publicly cheat on his mother? Like his mother didn't die horribly? Like he wasn't used as a prop in his mother's Imitation of Life type funeral?
and all the same challenges were on William as well ...
|by Anonymous||reply 114||May 23, 2023 11:35 PM|
R95 Because you have to be asleep to believe it.
Like believing the GREAT in Great Britain.😂
|by Anonymous||reply 115||May 23, 2023 11:52 PM|
Don't forget the Dumb Prince still has 5 civil cases outstanding - all in a country he doesn't even live in. He's the worst kind of vexatious litigant imaginable - an angry man-child with masses of cash to burn, unlimited spare time and a vengeful wife.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||May 24, 2023 12:08 AM|
You must be a thick Brit. Yank politicians may fuck us over but we can vote them out as was done with Trump. It takes a uniquely servile people like you Brits to grovel to one unelected family that has buggered you royally for hundreds of years. Are the drag and silly hats worth it?
|by Anonymous||reply 117||May 24, 2023 12:12 AM|
Aside from the shrew he married, who does he need protection from?
|by Anonymous||reply 118||May 24, 2023 12:19 AM|
Thick Yank at r117, the royal family aren't politicians. We have elected politicians, and we can even change our prime minister without having to wait for a general election if he/she starts causing too much trouble (we've had 3 prime ministers in the past year alone).
And, however shit our electoral system is (which it is, but that's unrelated to the royal family), it's not as shit as the American, where the only way someone can become president is to have the financial backing of billionaires.
All you achieve with your posts is to demonstrate what a complete fucking moron you are.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||May 24, 2023 12:40 AM|
Hey, twerp at r117, we can throw out our prime ministers in the middle of their term for doing something as anodyne as violating Covid lockdown rules and then get the police to investigate. What happens when your presidents are involved in wrongdoing?
|by Anonymous||reply 120||May 24, 2023 12:50 AM|
Bless your heart, r117. It can’t be easy being you.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||May 24, 2023 12:56 AM|
With seemingly great foresight, I blocked r117 months ago for all his nonsense.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||May 24, 2023 1:02 AM|
Confused at R98 - the Royal family didn't pull Diana's security - she did after Bashir lied to her and her scumbag brother claiming her security agents were spying on her. R112 as you're an American, you don't really have a dog in this fight. Find another hobby.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||May 24, 2023 1:33 AM|
[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]
|by Anonymous||reply 124||May 24, 2023 1:33 AM|
Harry gave London Mayor Sadiq Kahn a heart attack.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||May 24, 2023 1:37 AM|
I don't get why Sussex stans are losing their shit over this. Harry is going to get protection in the UK. If he's at the 3 royal events he's ever going to be invited to going forward he'll be protected by virtue of being there, if he's at a publicity event the people paying him can foot the bill. This just states the somewhat reasonable fact that if you're some rich asshole visiting from overseas you can't pay for some of the only actually armed police in the UK to follow you round.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||May 24, 2023 1:43 AM|
R119 Written like a true royalass. Your beloved Charlie is billionaire x 3 and if you don't realize everything the BRF does is political. You've just verified your stupidity. Only you can't vote him out or put him in jail. Guess you can only chop off his empty head.Brilliant system. No wonder the Americans were so jealous they couldn't wait to dump it in the rubbish bin of history where it belongs.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||May 24, 2023 1:44 AM|
R126 this was NEVER about wanting police protection. Harry wants his IPP status back. Looks like Suella Braverman has no intention of giving it back to him.
|by Anonymous||reply 128||May 24, 2023 1:49 AM|
R124 The BRF parasites aren't even pretending anymore. They're just mowing you simps down in the streets.. BTW how many died in Harry & Meghan's "reckless" motorcade?
They should be more like Duchess of Edinburgh Sophie, wife to the 12th in line to the throne whose police escort hit and killed an 81 year old woman! Waiting for you dolts in denial.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||May 24, 2023 1:51 AM|
R125 He's a muzzie we don't care.
|by Anonymous||reply 130||May 24, 2023 1:53 AM|
'Meghan's building up to something big' | Tom Bower says Meghan Markle has 'secret publicity plans'.
'What I see happening at the moment is the crumbling of the magic and mystery of Prince Harry. The whole beginning really of the end of his reputation.'
|by Anonymous||reply 131||May 24, 2023 1:56 AM|
r129 So Harry wanted the police so he can also run people over in the street?
|by Anonymous||reply 132||May 24, 2023 2:02 AM|
R131 River off cottaging tonite or are you waiting for your ham to cool?
|by Anonymous||reply 133||May 24, 2023 2:04 AM|
R118 Speaking of shrews, here's one. With another sincere performance winning over the the lil darkies with her authentic kindness. Our new White Peoples Princess charm appears to be lost on that creature. You know how that lot is. Say no more.
|by Anonymous||reply 134||May 24, 2023 2:20 AM|
Who is the fucking lunatic on this thread? I just hope they are on meth or something, imagine meeting that idiot in a real life situation.
|by Anonymous||reply 135||May 24, 2023 5:56 AM|
Yet, r129, Harry wants to pay from his own pocket for that very same police force to escort him on his visits to the United Kingdom! Why is he insisting on being able to use this reckless service?
|by Anonymous||reply 136||May 24, 2023 6:00 AM|
The way this has gone is weird. Harry didn't initially say anything about paying for his own security when he began legal proceedings against the Home Office; this only became a thing when there was a bit of an uproar about the cost and it was all, 'oh, I'll pay myself. Now it's turned into the big thing itself.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||May 24, 2023 8:24 AM|
He had his first case to claim RAVEC were unfair in their decision, and he tacked on the "I said I would pay for it" crap, to which the Home Office said "oh no you didn't and anyway it isn't possible" Then his "publicist" put out a statement that he said at Sandringham that he would pay for it himself and not tax payers. After that , the Daily Mail wrote an article accusing him of PR spin, he is also suing the Mail over said article. He is still in the process of suing over the original " no ta payer funded security" decision.
This whole affair was a temper tantrum, and yet it has cost the UK a lot of money.
|by Anonymous||reply 138||May 24, 2023 9:10 AM|
What a waste of time and money, he should have more faith in his private security and stop bothering the police
|by Anonymous||reply 139||May 24, 2023 9:29 AM|
Thanx R131 for the Bower clip. Harry Horribilis, indeed!
|by Anonymous||reply 140||May 24, 2023 9:42 AM|
Except if he wins his next court case about IPP status (Internationally Protected Person), then he gets security in whatever country he travels to, at the expense of the taxpayers of that country.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||May 24, 2023 12:31 PM|
R131 is anybody else not able to view this video? It keeps asking me to type answers multiple times and still no video.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||May 24, 2023 12:57 PM|
Harry's next court case isn't about gaining IPP, because the Home Office has no such power to grant any such thing - the Home Office only represents Britain (i.e., "home") and can't make a designation like that for the rest of the globe.
Harry's two other court cases on this particular topic are 1) the Home Office used faulty reasoning in stripping him of his armed police protection when he threw his toys out of the pram and left - there was an initial hearing on this in which the Court threw out three of Harry's five causes of action (one of which was "immediacy in the line of succession", so much for IPP), and allowed him to go forward on two surrounding how he was informed and the legitimacy of the RAVEC committee that made the decision. The next hearing on this hasn't been held yet.
2) Harry must have known he was going to lose this case, because a couple of weeks into the hearing he filed yet another case challenging the Home Office's decision not to allow him to pay for such armed police security. How that ties in with the one he just lost, which clearly refused to let Harry go forward with exactly this issue, I'm not sure. That one is recently filed, so no submissions or hearings, I think, have yet been made.
Harry can also appeal this week's judgement. I doubt the Appeal Court will even agree to hear it. If he tries to appeal, he's a fool with lawyers who are mercilessly milking him for money.
Any barrister worth the name, let alone one with QC after her name, should have told Harry that courts are extremely reluctant to set precedents, and that he had little to no chance of getting the court to set one to cater to his petulant arrogance and desperate longing to be the equal of his big bro. If the appeal got heard, Harry would lose that, too.
The lawyers are the real winners here. I wonder if they're honest with Harry, who is thicker than mince, about the real odds on these kinds of cases.
It's one thing to sue the Mirror for phone hacking. It's quite another to try to get British courts to set a precedent for any rich bastard claiming he has the right to pull the Met's understaffed troops off the streets for his private benefit, because, look, nonworking royal Prince Harry got it!
And . . .
|by Anonymous||reply 143||May 24, 2023 1:13 PM|
R142 - I saw it when it was first released but then couldn't access it again.
But it makes it abundantly clear that the whole thing was an overhyped farce.
BILD makes the DM look like the Financial Times. It was BILD some years ago that claimed it had been sent and seen a fragment of the alleged sex tape of Meghan rimming some dude. It claimed the owner of the tape was in Canada and looking to sell the tape. A few days later, Harry was photographed going into BILD's office in Berlin, and then the whole thing quietly faded.
Make of that what you will.
But re Harry's apparently having found he can use the courts as another outlet for his toxic rage, if he doesn't watch out, one of these days he's going to be labelled a "frivolous litigant" and be denied access at all.
It never ceases to amaze me how unaware the Sussexes are of how stupid they look.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||May 24, 2023 1:22 PM|
R134 Obviously the Sussexes need to take lessons on connecting with children from Her Royal Highness Catherine The People's Princess as they are universally loathed especially by the wee ones.
|by Anonymous||reply 145||May 24, 2023 5:16 PM|
^ So what those brats are American and were paid by Scobie.
|by Anonymous||reply 146||May 24, 2023 5:17 PM|
R144 The UK Government publish a list of Vexatious litigants, it would be embarrassing if he was added to that.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||May 24, 2023 6:14 PM|
Perhaps someday the perpetually surprised frauen will stop bleating about the IPP class.
|by Anonymous||reply 148||May 24, 2023 11:07 PM|
For working royals, life it is about r29 and r32 have posted . For the monarch, there's all that, plus all those red boxes full of documents to pore over and absorb so that they can advise and warn, if need be.
In terms of diplomacy, it seems much better to have a politically neutral head of state exercising soft power than a politician who also represents a political party that most people - inside and outside of the UK - don't identify with.
Look at Apartheid in South Africa: the late QEII was able to form a friendship with Nelson Mandela and use her soft power to influence the SA government against utilising a racist system most people had come to acknowledge was wrong and unfair.
Yes, it is against the concept of equality to have someone regarded as monarch, but when they use that position to work for the greater good of the oppressed and suffering, who can complain?
|by Anonymous||reply 149||May 24, 2023 11:40 PM|
An elected Head of State would have less training and more baggage. At least with the Royals you pretty much know what you are getting, including a full life history.
|by Anonymous||reply 150||May 24, 2023 11:52 PM|
Dimbo needs to go away. The latest stunt - and PR statement - was laughable.
|by Anonymous||reply 151||May 28, 2023 11:57 AM|