Harry and Meghan 15

[Jackie3]

The haters are just unhappy that Harry married a biracial woman. They don't think that's good enough for him. That's the only thing that explains this level of hate. Especially since Andrew doesn't seem to bother anyone very much!

One day, this will be used as an example of mob-style racism in the psychology books. Similar to backlash against Kamala Harris. In fact, the things they say about Meghan (bullying, rude to staff, ambituous) are said about Kamala. Apparently it's bad for Black women to be ambitious. 

Even worse is the tide of ugliness against two tiny biracial children and one Black senior citizen. Poor Doria is a target because she is disenfranchised (ie, hated) in three ways: for being a woman, being Black and being old.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Jackie3

[Gobsmacked]

On 3/12/2023 at 7:01 AM, just_ordinary said:

This whole security thing is completely played up to be honest.
They haven’t used the place but for maybe two weeks since they left. If they only always stay a couple of days they simply don’t need it. There are numerous guest accommodations for high ranking guests or family members in Windsor, BP or KP (or Sandringham and Balmoral but they don’t apply here). All under good security. It’s not as if they have to book into a public hotel.

I will say though- if I were the RF I would most definitely not trust them at the moment to not film and record. So I would put them into Frogmore when they come over. It would just not be theirs anymore to come and go as they choose but an accommodation they get by my choosing. But I would also put W&K into the Castle because little P/P in a castle make great pictures for PR and Andrew into Adeleide Cottage. Preferably I would put him into a far far away little accommodation (North Scotland?) but I get why you want him to be close and under surveillance. This idiot would get into real trouble quicker than you can enjoy having him out of your hair.

Of course they will have the same tight security as his other family members for every outing concerning the coronation. They will get protection in general just got the one that H wishes for. But they won’t be chased down the street by a horde of paparazzi either. 

The north of Scotland certainly does not need or want Andrew. Maybe St Kilda. No one lives there permanently these days. He could look after geese or something. 

On 5/19/2023 at 5:50 AM, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

I can kinda see driving around trying to avoid revealing where they were staying. Because it's not just where they were staying but probably a friend who would then be subjected to prying and harassment any time H&M went to nyc for ever after. There seems to be quite a few credible stories of their friends and neighbors having a lot of privacy invasion and some neighbors selling them out. 

I once read a story about Daniel Radcliffe wearing the same outfit over and over so the paparazzi photographs became worthless. That's what I would do. Or buy those weird scarves and vests that have crazy reflective holographic stuff that flashes back and ruins pictures. 

But it would be very hard to protect my friends' privacy. I think I would feel very guilty if my friends were harassed over me.

I agree but they should have stayed in the blacked out car, stayed at nearest police station then either booked a hotel or kindly asked the police to drive them to the friends house in an unmarked police vehicle.  

[Jackie3]

22 minutes ago, Gobsmacked said:

I will say though- if I were the RF I would most definitely not trust them at the moment to not film and record.

Have Harry and Meghan secretly recorded the BRF in the past? 

[just_ordinary]

@Gobsmacked I know. No one wants Andrew and I feel bad for wishing him up North. It’s more because it would feel like an extra punishment for him (they sadly do have an unfortunate preference for the south of England) and not in any way to punish the Scotland or the North in general! No one deserve this … person.

Edited May 22, 2023 by just_ordinary

[rosamundi]

32 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

@Gobsmacked I know. No one wants Andrew and I feel bad for wishing him up North. It’s more because it would feel like an extra punishment for him (they sadly do have an unfortunate preference for the south of England) and not in any way to punish the Scotland or the North in general! No one deserve this … person.

St Helena is still a British Overseas Territory. He could live out all his Napoleon fantasies. Hopefully the wallpaper isn't poisonous any more.

[Jackie3]

8 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

@Gobsmacked I know. No one wants Andrew and I feel bad for wishing him up North. It’s more because it would feel like an extra punishment for him (they sadly do have an unfortunate preference for the south of England) and not in any way to punish the Scotland or the North in general! No one deserve this … person.

Andrew is a man of vast wealth. No one can "send" him anywhere. This is not the 1700's, the king is not that powerful. Andrew can live where he wants to in England.

(Obv not on royals grounds without permission)

[Gobsmacked]

19 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Have Harry and Meghan secretly recorded the BRF in the past? 

It’s thought that they did at the queens jubilee. Meghan def had something under her wide coat collar. She was pictured fiddling with it. 

[Coconut Flan]

They've shown unauthorized photos that they took in Buckingham Palace.

[rosamundi]

On 5/18/2023 at 11:18 PM, Manda said:

Reportedly one of H&M's team was driving recklessly and pulled over by police.

if that's true, then the Sussexes should get rid of that team member. I know I'm stating the obvious but your security team is supposed to keep you safe, not put you in danger by driving recklessly, especially if there is chaos happening outside the vehicle.

It must have been a particularly frightening experience for Doria.

[Jackie3]

3 hours ago, Gobsmacked said:

It’s thought that they did at the queens jubilee. Meghan def had something under her wide coat collar. She was pictured fiddling with it. 

So there's no proof? There's just "fiddling with her collar" rumors? 

Honestly, it sounds like a lynch mob looking for an excuse to lynch. 

Was this footage used in the netflix doc?  

The Daily Mail and other rags have hacked their phone, followed them around, stalked them. And your focus is on Meghan fiddling with her collar? 

You sound like the are a supported of the tabloids and their illegal shenanigans!

 

2 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

They've shown unauthorized photos that they took in Buckingham Palace.

The media takes unauthorized pictures of them all the time. The media contributed to his mother's death, in their scramble to take unauthorized pictures. The media's passion for unauthoirzed pictures has ruled their lives. 

And you are concerned about a 60-second video?

That photo was not of the Queen. It was not of the Cambridge. It was a video of themselves, holding hands, lasting 60 seconds.

Imagine a world where you have to ask the Queen for permission to take a video of yourself!

At that point, I'm sure they were pretty angry. They'd had endures years of abuse in the press. The Queen and Charles had pulled their security (while allowing Andrew to keep his). They were in danger from the crazies.  They were getting ready to flee the country.  

I can see saying, "Screw it" to "royal protocol" at that point, and taking a video. Especially because they needed millions a year to pay for security for the rest of their lives. I'd sell that video too, under those circumstances, sell it to the highest bidder. Who wouldn't do that, to protect their kids and spouse?

BTW, it's also a breach of royal protocol to hang around with sex traffickers. Which breach upsets you more? Prince Andrew still has his security.  But let's complain about the 60 second video of a young couple holding hands--it's terrible!

Edited May 22, 2023 by Jackie3

[louisa05]

18 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

So there's no proof? There's just "fiddling with her collar" rumors? 

Honestly, it sounds like a lynch mob looking for an excuse to lynch. 

Was this footage used in the netflix doc?  

The Daily Mail and other rags have hacked their phone, followed them around, stalked them. And your focus is on Meghan fiddling with her collar? 

You sound like the are a supported of the tabloids and their illegal shenanigans!

 

The media takes unauthorized pictures of them all the time. The media contributed to his mother's death, in their scramble to take unauthorized pictures. The media's passion for unauthoirzed pictures has ruled their lives. 

And you are concerned about a 60-second video?

That photo was not of the Queen. It was not of the Cambridge. It was a video of themselves, holding hands, lasting 60 seconds.

Imagine a world where you have to ask the Queen for permission to take a video of yourself!

At that point, I'm sure they were pretty angry. They'd had endures years of abuse in the press. The Queen and Charles had pulled their security (while allowing Andrew to keep his). They were in danger from the crazies.  They were getting ready to flee the country.  

I can see saying, "Screw it" to "royal protocol" at that point, and taking a video. Especially because they needed millions a year to pay for security for the rest of their lives. I'd sell that video too, under those circumstances, sell it to the highest bidder. Who wouldn't do that, to protect their kids and spouse?

BTW, it's also a breach of royal protocol to hang around with sex traffickers. Which breach upsets you more? Prince Andrew still has his security.  But let's complain about the 60 second video of a young couple holding hands--it's terrible!

Or it’s bad form to film something for profit in someone else’s home without their knowledge. Could be that. 

[Coconut Flan]

It could be security for the monarch when filming is done in areas where filminging is never allowed for anyone.  It does take some brazen to knowingly film where it's never done.  My kids don't film in my house without asking and I'm a simple private citizen.  It's somewhere between baldfaced rude and reckless.  

[viii]

Yeah, people need to stop assuming that Meghan filmed something or was wearing wires. We have ZERO evidence of that. I mean, nothing would surprise me, but it's not gospel fact that she was wearing a wire, simply because she fiddled with her collar several times. 

[Coconut Flan]

Shot down.  Leave the job, lose the perks.

https://apnews.com/article/prince-harry-police-protection-uk-565e4a2f542f2f64cd343656324f11b0

I worked with a guy where he and his wife kept using her bank card after she was let go by the bank.  He did a lot of the same whining as Harry.  If we pay the bill, we should be able to keep and use the card.  It isn't an identical situation, but the mindset is almost identical.  

The photos they took in Buckingham Palace were used by them in their Netflix bit.  

[rosamundi]

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

Shot down.  Leave the job, lose the perks.

https://apnews.com/article/prince-harry-police-protection-uk-565e4a2f542f2f64cd343656324f11b0

I worked with a guy where he and his wife kept using her bank card after she was let go by the bank.  He did a lot of the same whining as Harry.  If we pay the bill, we should be able to keep and use the card.  It isn't an identical situation, but the mindset is almost identical.  

The photos they took in Buckingham Palace were used by them in their Netflix bit.  

I don't even know why Harry thought the police would be available for private hire as police. Any of that sort of work which individual officers do (as a second job, say) is done outside of their role as police officers, and out of uniform. The idea that anyone could just buy access to the police force as his private security is not credible.

Edited May 23, 2023 by rosamundi

[louisa05]

2 hours ago, viii said:

Yeah, people need to stop assuming that Meghan filmed something or was wearing wires. We have ZERO evidence of that. I mean, nothing would surprise me, but it's not gospel fact that she was wearing a wire, simply because she fiddled with her collar several times. 

I agree with this. There are  two things that are so stupid. One is  the notion that they’re secretly wearing cameras and recording stuff. I naively assumed that given there was no report of footage obtained in such a way was in the Netflix documentary, that ridiculous idea would go away. And Netflix was not going to air footage obtained that way. 
 

The second is the fake pregnancy/surrogacy/fake children crap. Not only is it ridiculous. It’s also something the kids will see and hear when they’re older and that’s just wrong. 

[Jackie3]

On 5/23/2023 at 2:37 PM, louisa05 said:

The second is the fake pregnancy/surrogacy/fake children crap. Not only is it ridiculous. It’s also something the kids will see and hear when they’re older and that’s just wrong. 

People who say stuff like that don't care about hurting Archie and Lilly. If they cared about that, they wouldn't be calling their mom a narcissist, making up names for her, insulting their dad, or calling him names.

Very few people care about those little kids at all. You know how I can tell? There's tons of people online cooing over Princess Charlotte holding her dad's hand, or Louis doing something cute. OTOH, we saw adorable footage of Archie playing his mom a "song" on his drum, and saying lots of cute stuff. I haven't seen anyone tweeting about how adorable he was/

That's how we know this is about racism. Those kids are innocent. They are too young to have made any choices, good or bad If they are being ignored, it's because they are *biracial heirs to the throne.*

Why do they say that Archie and Lilly don't exist? Because it's wishful thinking. They want those two kids o go away. They resent that they have a permanent connection to the British throne.

 

On 5/23/2023 at 12:26 PM, Coconut Flan said:

Shot down.  Leave the job, lose the perks.

 

Like Prince Andrew! Oh, wait, he still has  security. His brother is paying for it.

Asking to pay for something is not really a "royal perk" anyway." None of the other royals have this "perk". They have their security handed to them, free of charge.

This result shuts down the royal's claim that Harry refused security.  That's clearly a lie the BRF was spreading.

Charles could pay for the security, as he pays for his nonce brother. He won't. That's fine, but it means he won't see his son or his grandkids for a long, long time

Charles must not care much about seeing his grandchildren. What an empty vessel he is.

Sorry you are mad about Harry leaving his "job." Protecting his family from abuse was more important. T

hey seem to have an amazing life in CA though. Amazing house, great friends, interesting work, beautiful kids, great weather, good health--they are living the dream.

[Coconut Flan]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12115663/Judge-refuses-Prince-Harrys-latest-challenge-against-Home-Office.html

£500,000 possible bill for Harry and £300,000 he may have wasted of UK funds on his fantasy entitled court case.  ::smh::  That's if the DM is in the ballpark.

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12115663/Judge-refuses-Prince-Harrys-latest-challenge-against-Home-Office.html

£500,000 possible bill for Harry and £300,000 he may have wasted of UK funds on his fantasy entitled court case.  ::smh::  That's if the DM is in the ballpark.

That's chump change to him. (Sorry to disappoint those who get pleasure from thinking he's upset).

I don't think he expected to win this one. I think he was proving that he had never refused security. Mission accomplished.

Harry may get his hatred of the media from Charles. Back when the princes were young men, a hot mic picked up Charles ranting about the media just prior to a photo shoot at a ski resort.

Quote

"I hate doing this," he muttered under his breath and, "Bloody people," as he smiled wryly, apparently blissfully unaware that microphones on the ground in front of him were picking up every murmur.

I mean, really. For 100 million a year, he can't take a break in his holiday and talk to the press?

Edited May 25, 2023 by Jackie3

[Coconut Flan]

Oh my.  Here's the lesson.  M&H can't just use the paps like servants.  

https://www.avclub.com/harry-and-meghan-hollywood-lawyer-smackdown-backgrid-1850472390

[klein_roeschen]

4 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Oh my.  Here's the lesson.  M&H can't just use the paps like servants.  

https://www.avclub.com/harry-and-meghan-hollywood-lawyer-smackdown-backgrid-1850472390

Well, you can't be a world known and beloved celebrity today and tomorrow being a nobody living your private bliss and switch these roles as you liked.

[Jackie3]

9 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Oh my.  Here's the lesson.  M&H can't just use the paps like servants.  

https://www.avclub.com/harry-and-meghan-hollywood-lawyer-smackdown-backgrid-1850472390

OMG, it's a demand letter. Have you not heard of a demand letter? You have to use language like that. It's the first step in a process.

Harry and Meghan have high quality legal advice and I'm sure they consulted them after the chase. Their actions are based on solid legal advice.

As for "using people". . . no words about Andrew? He "used" young girls. 

Edited May 27, 2023 by Jackie3

[Coconut Flan]

Things can be legal and still be stupid. 

[Manda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=474LvoLH5so

[Gobsmacked]

11 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Things can be legal and still be stupid. 

The Rodriguii bathe wild geese in their tub. Would this be legal?🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂