Harry & Meghan 10: Even Less Relevant to the BRF

[tabitha2]

Oh.I  Am sure the couple will try to sue him as they do but I don’t think it will work out for them  well. 

[Jackie3]

16 hours ago, zee_four said:

I just can't have a conversation with someone who thinks short distance helicopter rides are not only comparable but worse than flying in private jets much longer distances, especially when one is for work and the latter is for pleasure. 


 

According to the BBC, flying private is far worse than flying commercial

Quote

But this varies considerably depending on size, occupancy levels and efficiency. Private jets generally produce significantly more emissions per passenger than commercial flights.

If only the leaders at COP26 had taken commercial planes, they'd have saved a ton of carbon emissions.

Quote

"A huge amount of fuel is used during takeoff and landing of a plane, no matter how many people you have on board. So an already polluting mode of transport (commercial aviation) becomes even worse (with private jets)," said Dr Debbie Hopkins, an expert in decarbonising transport at University of Oxford.

However, for the royals, it was "work." So I guess that makes it OK to be a hypocrite. It's also "work" when they fly to Sandringham and Balmoral, and when they travel north to open a childcare center or new business. Jumping out of a plane, shaking a few hands, and having a snack is "work"--so destroying the environment is OK.

[Jackie3]

Bower did a hate-book on Prince Charles just a few years ago. It has the same muckracking tone. Here's a review that was written back then.

Quote

"This year's accused is Prince Charles. A handy summary of the charges against him can be obtained by turning to 'Charles, Prince of Wales' in the book's index, and then looking under 'Character'.

"The categories listed are: refusal to accept blame; self-doubt; disloyalty; victims of; dislike of criticism/dissenting views; scapegoats; self-pity; intolerance/bad temper; sense of superiority; grudges; selfishness; resentment of Diana; derogatory comments about Diana; on himself; discourteousness.

Not a single redeeming characteristic is allowed a look-in."

Everything under Charles' name in the index was a bad thing!  A biased, one-sided book.  I find Charles to be a hypocrite, but I doubt he's 100% bad.

In a few years, Bower will write a nasty book about Wills. He's already started criticizing him. Here's what he had to say about a tour Wills made recently:

Quote

Speaking on Sky News, Mr Bower said: “I think that’s one of the sad things about William.

“When he came back from the disastrous tour in the Caribbean, he made various statements, which the Queen would never have made, about the Commonwealth.”

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Jackie3

[AmazonGrace]

So he's an equal opportunity hater and hates on privileged white males too? 

[samurai_sarah]

So, this is happening: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11038943/Prince-Harry-wins-bid-bring-High-Court-challenge-against-Home-Office-police-protection.html

To summarise for anyone who doesn't want to give the Fail clicks: Harry is allowed to sue the Home Office, because they've decided not to allow him to pay for police protection in the UK. His argument is that he requires police protection in the UK, since his security team doesn't have jurisdiction and access to intelligence in the UK, making his family unsafe.

[Jackie3]

6 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

So he's an equal opportunity hater and hates on privileged white males too? 

Exactly. He goes where the money is. 

[LilaMae]

4 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

So, this is happening: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11038943/Prince-Harry-wins-bid-bring-High-Court-challenge-against-Home-Office-police-protection.html

To summarise for anyone who doesn't want to give the Fail clicks: Harry is allowed to sue the Home Office, because they've decided not to allow him to pay for police protection in the UK. His argument is that he requires police protection in the UK, since his security team doesn't have jurisdiction and access to intelligence in the UK, making his family unsafe.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/22/prince-harry-case-against-home-office-can-proceed-high-court-judge-rules

Guardian link for those who would prefer! 

The judgement states that some of the points presented are "arguable", so they can go ahead, but others have been rejected. The parts that were rejected include a part saying that Harry should have been told who the members of RAVEC were (the committee who organise royal security). 

 

I did like this bit-  "Mr Justice Swift added: 'As all who are familiar with judicial review claims will know, a conclusion at the permission stage that a case is arguable is some distance from a conclusion that that the case will succeed at final hearing.' "

 

[Jackie3]

5 hours ago, samurai_sarah said:

So, this is happening: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11038943/Prince-Harry-wins-bid-bring-High-Court-challenge-against-Home-Office-police-protection.html

To summarise for anyone who doesn't want to give the Fail clicks: Harry is allowed to sue the Home Office, because they've decided not to allow him to pay for police protection in the UK. His argument is that he requires police protection in the UK, since his security team doesn't have jurisdiction and access to intelligence in the UK, making his family unsafe.

The Queen still pays for Prince Andrew's security. Rape doesn't bother her, so she keeps paying out for Andrew. Marrying a biracial woman who won't tolerate racism--that bothers her a lot, though. So she punishes Harry by taking away what she can.

It's a strange way for a 96-year old grandma to act. These are her final acts? They are hardly loving.  It's similar to a father pulling college funds because his kid chose a philosophy major.

I wonder how she'll feel if little Archie or Lilibet is harmed as a result.

It's great Harry repaid the funds for Frogmore Cottage. Even back in the 80's that cottage was considered in terrible disrepair. Stephen Barry actually wrote about that in his book about the royals, circa 1985. It must have been far worse 40 years later,  especially since estate workers (servants!!!) were living there. Nonetheless, he repaid the money, which is what a responsible adult would do.

It's a shame Wills doesn't show the same level of independence and self-sufficiency. This whole thing makes Wills and Kate look so bad. They've never offered to pay for their own UK security, though they can well afford it. They just take and take.

I wonder who has the better life? Harry has the fun of working with Spotify and Netflix, and speaking his own truth as he wishes.

Wills has to obey the edicts of a 96-year old woman, getting scolded when he disobeys (like recently, when he flew with his whole family in a helicopter, after she told him it was too dangerous). Kate has to wear a hat when the Queen does, or don certain colors at various royal occasions. Ugh.

W&K can't ever say what they think, outside the family circle. In a way, they are trapped in their gilded cages.  In contrast, while Harry will never have a normal life, he now has far greater freedom than Wills ever will.

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Jackie3

[prayawaythefundie]

@Jackie3 You have outdone yourself with your latest post. It‘s so muddled and ludicrous, I can‘t even respond. I‘m laughing too hard. 😂 What a load of nonsense.

[louisa05]

Harry has fun working for Netflix and Spotify????? 

This is adorable considering that they've produced one short podcast episode and nothing else. It seems that Harry is having fun NOT working for Netflix and Spotify. 

 

[EmCatlyn]

So, I started wondering, as we often do with various Fundies, what if one of them (in this case Harry or Meghan) started reading and maybe even posting in this group or any of the others devoted to the British Royals?  What do you think would make them angriest? What are some things they might agree with and even applaud?

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

So, I started wondering, as we often do with various Fundies, what if one of them (in this case Harry or Meghan) started reading and maybe even posting in this group or any of the others devoted to the British Royals?  What do you think would make them angriest? What are some things they might agree with and even applaud?

It's an interesting question.

I imagine all of them (Harry, Wills, wives, etc) would shake their heads at the huge conclusions made with so little evidence. "Kate desperately wanted to marry. . . " "The Queen is mad about. . . " "Harry was Diana's spoiled little boy. . . " "Louis is spoiled because. . . " 

They'd be like, how would YOU know?

[tabitha2]

The hypocrisy!  You called the Queen a racist who had no problem with rape. You called the Cambridges prisoners and you claim Harry has such a fun happy life now. So how would YOU know? 
 

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

The hypocrisy!  You called the Queen a racist who had no problem with rape. You called the Cambridges prisoners and you claim Harry has such a fun happy life now. So how would YOU know? 
 

I don't.

I do know she pays Andrew's security but does not pay Harry's. Neither is a working royal.

Edited July 23, 2022 by Jackie3

[viii]

Well, I think they’d like me 😎

[AmazonGrace]

Well I dare say I know more about Harry's life than he knows about mine, so if he starts complaining I've got that going for me.

[louisa05]

12 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I don't.

I do know she pays Andrew's security but does not pay Harry's. Neither is a working royal.

Andrew lives in a secluded place near Windsor. He no longer travels or does much at all.  Harry hops all over the planet so he can get his picture taken (in spite of his deep fear of cameras). Andrew’s security is likely less personnel  and much cheaper. And paranoia has never been among his many faiults so I doubt he’s as demanding as Harry. Plus security in the L.A celebrity adjacent area is likely much more expensive. 
 

And finally, Andrew is her son. Be mad at Charles about Harry’s. 

[tabitha2]

 All Andrew is ever likely to do for the foreseeable future is visit his mom and ride with her and attend the occasional private family event. But he requires  some security nonetheless as  We have seen more than once Royals can be held hostage surprisingly easily   and their homes be got into  well. Andrew has put  huge targets on himself. Naturally she knows this much and as his mother wants to protect him in that regard.

Edited July 23, 2022 by tabitha2

[AmazonGrace]

I imagine if somebody did something to hurt Andrew the investigation and potential criminal trials and punishments would cost a pretty penny, regardless of the fact that he is a miserable worm. Might be cheaper to give him a couple of guys in suits.

[Jackie3]

12 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Andrew lives in a secluded place near Windsor. He no longer travels or does much at all.  Harry hops all over the planet so he can get his picture taken (in spite of his deep fear of cameras). 
 

The Queen pays for security for royals who travel a lot (Wills and Kate).

The Queen pays for security for royals who don't' travel a lot (the three little Cambridges).

The Queen pays for security for rapists (Andrew).

 

The Queen does NOT pay for security for royals who get offended by some harmless little racism.

 

The Queen's prejudice's are showing. She gladly pays for an unrepentant rapist.  But she says "no" to her  baby grandchildren and their parents. That says a lot.

She won't even let them pay for UK security by themselves. These are two small children whose parents are widely hated, so they are an obvious target. The Queen is denying protection to a baby and a toddler, even when it won't cost her a penny. Take your chances, kids, she is saying.

It's pretty foolish from a PR standpoint. What if something happened to little Archie and Lillibet?--the Queen's stance will make her look pretty bad.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

12 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

 Andrew has put  huge targets on himself. Naturally she knows this much and as his mother wants to protect him in that regard.

Little Archie has targets on him too. Naturally, his mother wants to protect him.

Why does one little boy get protection and the other doesn't ?

The 3-year old is a lot cuter than the pedophile 62-year old, and far more innocent.

Andrew can pay for his own protection. He doesn't need his elderly mama to do it for him.

Archie cannot pay, and his parents aren't allowed to.

 

On 7/21/2022 at 12:29 AM, rosamundi said:

Are you describing Tom Bower as a white boomer from LA? This is quite strange because he was born in London and his parents were Jewish refugees from Prague. He's British, and has never lived in LA as far as I can tell. He currently lives in London.

LOL, I know he is from the UK. My comments wouldn't make sense otherwise. I went back to edit it, but it was too late. I figured it would be clear it was a typo.

[Jackie3]

On 7/21/2022 at 9:52 AM, viii said:

 I will say though that it seems very clear now that Meghan is difficult AF. 

She's in good company, then.

Anne is difficult AF

Andrew is difficult AF

Margaret was difficult AF

Philip was difficult AF

Gotta agree, though. When she wouldn't laugh at racist jokes, that was PRETTY OBNOXIOUS  of her.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Jackie3

[EmCatlyn]

15 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Andrew lives in a secluded place near Windsor. He no longer travels or does much at all.  Harry hops all over the planet so he can get his picture taken (in spite of his deep fear of cameras). Andrew’s security is likely less personnel  and much cheaper. And paranoia has never been among his many faiults so I doubt he’s as demanding as Harry. Plus security in the L.A celebrity adjacent area is likely much more expensive. 
 

And finally, Andrew is her son. Be mad at Charles about Harry’s. 

My understanding is that Andrew is just getting private security.  Harry wants police protection, which is not for hire.  That is a different issue, and not up to the Queen.

As for paying for Harry’s security, my understanding is that Harry has stated that he can afford it and has even offered to cover the extra cost of police protection (which is not for hire  ).  So why should the queen or Prince Charles pay for it?

I would guess that if Harry were really broke, Charles would make him an allowance and/or pay for some security, but he might (reasonably) expect Harry and Meghan to live in Frogmore Cottage and not do a lot of traveling. 

[tabitha2]

Sorry but Archie and Lil are not more important or special or in danger than Any of the other very small children and infants or teens  in the Queens family. Real talk Harry pays for them to have regular security in California and if they travel to the UK for Official reasons usually they are with Charles, Camilla Etc and will be surrounded by security by default.
 

If they just want to go as private citizens that’s completely on them. Then they are no different or special than the Phillips or Tindalls whom the Queen does not pay for for at all and who also have babies and young children.
 

 In reality there are disturbed delusional people who might well target Andrews small grandchildren in perverted sense of justice and none of them have a bit of security. Louise is a beautiful fairly notable teenage girl and stalking by obsessed people a real issue we have seen frequently… She only gets security when out with her parents on the job. In fact none of the Wessex family get daily security. Anne does not either and she has been in real danger before.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by tabitha2

[Coconut Flan]

10 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

The Queen's prejudice's are showing. She gladly pays for an unrepentant rapist.  But she says "no" to her  baby grandchildren and their parents. That says a lot.

The Queen doesn't pick who gets what security.  She doesn't personally pay for it either.  Take your wrath out on the people who make the rules and the decisions.