Forums Forums National News Harry and Meghan

a) that report has been disputed DD. , doesn't surprise me, as the press as per usual like to make money from other people tragedies, and we lap it up.

b ) Andrew had not been proven guilty of anything. ... plus Virginia Roberts testimony amongst the thousands of documents released, actually states when she went to Naomi Campbell's birthday party and followed on to London in March of 2001, they landed at Luton Airport. She met Andrew a day or so later... Now . First of all the photos showing her at Naomi Campbell's birthday party she was wearing the exact same clothes as in the picture with Andrew, same hair, same jewellery. She also states that she was 'so excited' to get her first passport in April 2001.
So can anyone tell me how a plane can land at Luton, and passengers allowed through passport control, into the country without a passport ? Legal guardians for 15yrs and under in the US. She was 17yrs old.

Do you think the British Tax payer should pay for their security over there ? HRH QE II also has jurisdiction over any Royal Children until they become 18 yrs of age. That could lead to difficulties if M & H split (which I'm inclined to think they will at some point. )

On second thoughts, Casper, I think the association with Meghan family might be shit load more likely to diminish their earning potential. The latest, after her half brother threatened his partner with a gun to her head, she (the partner) physically attacked him, Meghans father's first wife has said not tt allow him to see his grandchild because he's cruel and she had to go shop lifting to feed their children, and Meghan's nephew has in the last few weeks been picked up for walking the streets naked. Her half sister is being investigated for poisonous posts on social media.
Where's Enid Blyton when we need her ?

Its a good question because gut instinct is "why should we?" but it isn't Harry's actions that have put them at risk and needing security, that is our fault so I'm happy to pay. If the split didn't happen we would be paying anyway so its not costing us anything extra.

Don't jump ahead as to what Harry's status and role will be, the MSM are guessing.

I find it amusing that many called them a financial leech on society and now they are trying to become financially independent of the state he is getting even more earache. He would be better following the Queen's and Princess Anne's example .... never justify what you have done.

Harry was William's spare and this role was to disappear as George and Charlotte became old enough to take on royal duties. This has been Charles' plan for many years which was backed by William.

Archie is not a royal which may have influenced Harry's choices.

Where did Harry get his name from? He is neither Harry nor Harold, he is Henry.

Perhaps Chuck has a sense of humour, Harry Monmouth, Shakespeares character Henry VI,

I think it's the thinly disguised racism apparent in the press that has driven the unhappy couple to bugger off out of it.

If you are a fan of these royals and read the Mail, the Express, the Borisgraph or the Sun then you may like to reflect that it is your support of these rags that has damaged the Royal Fam, and cancel your subscription. It really is possible to survive without reading poisonous nasty articles every day. Thousands more discover this daily!

The Royal Family are hardly pure-breds and we have had a Black Queen in the past whose bloodline follows through to the current Royal Family.

I thought it was the old-fashioned idea of an actress was partly the problem but then I realised it makes no difference, its the toxic MSM that is the problem.

I read Sir Elt has jumped into the fracas, stating he knew nothing about the move until it was published( I mean I'am so important they should have told me) I then get to thinking how all these so called celebrities and royal arse lickers will decide who to back, the deciding factor will be who gives out the honours,

Diggingdeeper, side-tracking slightly, thanks for that mention of the black Queen - I knew nothing about it and have been reading up online. Always something new to learn about the twists and turns of the Royal Family's incredibly complicated line!

You keep going on about 'toxic' MSM... what is it ? I don't know , I just thought it was a drug to relieve arthritis. Not everyone gets their news from the same source, and it is ' news with a question mark' , because nobody has the full picture to give out.

Don't get too excited about a Black Queen, Greenwood.

There were many, but which one are you thinking of DD.?
The Genealogy line goes back to Abraham the one mentioned in the Old Testament, and beyond.

Fish raised a topic on that a while back. He saw it when in Ireland.

http://www.giveshare.org/israel/grimaldi.html

It is the first time I have used the term. If you had been part of the MSM, that would have been a good example of what I mean. Creating disparaging commentary out of things that aren't fact yet presenting it as fact.

I just thought MSM meant Mail, Sun, Mirror - or am I barking up the wrong tabloid? Not what you'd call excited Granny, just interested. Wife of George III, possibly, as far as I can tell from what I've read. Even just going back as far as Athelstan, the blood royal is a very elaborate cocktail.

Generally MSM means main-stream-media, ie newspapers, radio and television.

"Guessing" and "toxic" are different words meaning two completely different things.

.