MsZem
I see the sea
- Messages
- 18,495
Not really. But you can't tell who might do it based on media coverage/someone's appearance.
Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)
- Thread starter mag
- Start date
- Status
kittyjake5
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,530
Hopefully this chapter is over now. Good for Meghan!
royalcentral.co.uk
The Duchess of Sussex wins ruling in case against Mail on Sunday
The Mail on Sunday has lost its appeal against a ruling that it breached privacy and copyright by publishing extracts of a letter sent by the Duchess of Sussex to her father, Thomas Markle. Associa…
royalcentral.co.uk
MacMadame
Doing all the things
- Messages
- 58,764
I'm not surprised. Saying you realize that everything you write has the potential to be leaked is not the same thing as saying you've given up your copyright to a particular piece of writing or that this particularly leaking is legal and okay with you.
Wyliefan
Ubering juniors against my will
- Messages
- 44,153
Lilibet is adorable! And Archie is most definitely a redhead. 
www.elle.com
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Share the First Photo of Baby Lili With Archie in Holiday Card
The first look at the family of four is here just in time for the holidays.
Jimena
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 4,306
That's a great picture. The kids are just beyond adorable.
canbelto
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 8,543
Lilibet is adorable! And Archie is most definitely a redhead.
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Share the First Photo of Baby Lili With Archie in Holiday Card
The first look at the family of four is here just in time for the holidays.
She exists! (Thinking about all the "Lilibet doesn't exist" posts made in this thread.)
clairecloutier
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 14,571
I can't believe how cute Archie is. Red curls?? Adorable.
It looks like Lili may (?) be a redhead too when she gets more hair.
It looks like Lili may (?) be a redhead too when she gets more hair.
Last edited:
kittyjake5
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,530
Great photo! The kiddies are just to cute for words!
ballettmaus
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 18,668
Genetics is a funny thing. My best friend wanted to have a little redhead (her father is a redhead) as she said, they're slowly dying out. Didn't work for her but I guess, Harry's genes are very dominant in that regard!I can't believe how cute Archie is. Red curls?? Adorable.
It looks like Lili may (?) be a redhead too when she gets more hair.
Love the picture. They look very happy!
taf2002
Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
- Messages
- 28,804
Regardless of the color if she has Archie's curls that will be a plus - this coming from a stick straight hair person.Omg Archieand Lilibet
So does Lilibet have Meghan's hair?
we always want the hair we don't have.
MacMadame
Doing all the things
- Messages
- 58,764
I assume her own hair is curly too. But in a more kinky way. If the kids get a combo from both of them, that will be easier to care for.
Reminds me of Boris Becker's daughter. Red hair and curls, mother AFAIK 100% African heritage? Maybe I am wrong.
ballettmaus
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 18,668
I don't mind my curls now but as a child, I did, so she may not agree with you
taf2002
Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
- Messages
- 28,804
I saw an article today that Harry is perfectly willing to pay his own security but in the UK he won't be allowed to pay for police protection. Private protection isn't good enough because of all the death threats. He & Meghan can't go to the UK with their kids without adequate protection. I guess Charles and/or the Queen don't want them to come.
canbelto
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 8,543
Its not that they don't want them to come but police protection for a non working royal is another matter. Anne's kids and andrew' s kids also don't get police protection.
Here is some more ..
www.cnn.com
Prince Harry seeks right to pay for UK police protection when in Britain | CNN
Britain's Prince Harry is making a legal challenge to a UK government decision that prevents him from personally paying for police protection for himself and his family when they are in the UK, according to his legal representatives.
www.cnn.com
antmanb
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 12,639
I understand his concerns, but if he wins then what is to stop any rich person from demanding that they are allowed to pay for police protection, when the police are a public body, funded from taxes who are supposed to serve and protect the public? They are already hugely underfunded and if rich people are allowed to pay to have them do their bidding that seems completely wrong to me.
Princess Ann, Prince Edward they don’t have security unless they are at events. Why should there be a difference rule for Harry?
Furthermore it wasn’t he queens decision to drop the coverage.
MsZem
I see the sea
- Messages
- 18,495
Yes - police should go where they are needed, not to whomever can pay for their services. They're not private security.
Prince Harry is not the first person to have been chased by paparazzi. Of course he'd be sensitive to this given what happened to his mother, but there's nothing stopping him from bringing his family to the UK for a low-key, family vacation. They're not going to be chased by anyone at Windsor or Balmoral.
taf2002
Fluff up your tutu & dance away.....
- Messages
- 28,804
I would venture to say that the majority of private people don't have constant death threats or a very real risk of harm. It seems to me that police are needed in this case. And Harry is not a private person no matter what his family strips from him. @canbelto's point about Anne's & Andrew's kids don't apply here. First of all their kids aren't helpless babies & as far as I know they aren't being threatened. And when they were young I don't remember them being chased by paparazzi or having a million cameras shoved in their faces. It was a different time.
As for nothing stopping him from taking his family to the UK, he has made it very clear what's stopping him. It's also clear that the Queen & his own father don't want him there for the Queen's jubilee.
antmanb
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 12,639
Ordinary private people may not but i'd guess that a majority of celebrities/pop stars/actors do and they're expected to handle those types of things with private security and/or the police when criminal acts are potentially about to occur (like credible death threats). Winning a court case that allows a private individual to pay for police protection sets a very bad precedent IMO, the police don't have the time to do "extra" work protecting an individual so the public at large lose what is already not enough policing to a rich person who can afford to pay.
I don’t think it’s normal paparazzi stuff though. There are real threats .. and when you have kids too .. look at what happened with the Queen at Christmas.
Harry is citing a "security incident" that occurred as he was leaving the Diana statue unveiling. Other sources (trustworthy?) are saying that photographers tried to take his picture as he was leaving which, while annoying (and triggering for him, clearly), is not a security threat. Having police protection instead of private security wouldn't have kept photographers from taking his picture leaving a public event.
I mean, I don't know any of these people personally, but clearly the security is a huge issue for Harry and Meghan and having their police protection removed is high on their list of grievances. I am absolutely willing to believe that there have been credible threats against them, the people who hate Meghan REALLY hate her, there are a lot of crazies out there, and they have young children to protect. My personal theory is that it is all also tied up in Harry's trauma about losing his mom the way he did, and if she had had police protection instead of the al Fayeds' private security she probably wouldn't have been allowed to get in that car with a drunk driver that night. How much is paranoia shaped by past trauma and how much is legitimate security issues? I don't know. I believe him that he doesn't feel he and his family are safe, and that is tragic and must be very scary. But it makes it hard to judge what the actual threat level is, if he conflates photographers taking his picture with security threats.
But I also see that allowing private citizens to "hire" the police to protect them is problematic. I know he's framing it as he would cover the costs that would otherwise be incurred by the taxpayers, not that he wants to hire them himself, but it's semantics. I also think some see this as yet another in a long line of ways that Harry wants the privileges, but not the responsibilities, of being royal. I've said this before, but it seems to me that a lot of the conflicts here boil down to Charles and William (and the Queen) saying "well, that's not the way we do things" and thinking that's an end to it. Whereas Harry is constantly saying "well, I want to do it differently." And he's not necessarily always wrong. But he also seems incapable of picking his battles at this point.
I mean, I don't know any of these people personally, but clearly the security is a huge issue for Harry and Meghan and having their police protection removed is high on their list of grievances. I am absolutely willing to believe that there have been credible threats against them, the people who hate Meghan REALLY hate her, there are a lot of crazies out there, and they have young children to protect. My personal theory is that it is all also tied up in Harry's trauma about losing his mom the way he did, and if she had had police protection instead of the al Fayeds' private security she probably wouldn't have been allowed to get in that car with a drunk driver that night. How much is paranoia shaped by past trauma and how much is legitimate security issues? I don't know. I believe him that he doesn't feel he and his family are safe, and that is tragic and must be very scary. But it makes it hard to judge what the actual threat level is, if he conflates photographers taking his picture with security threats.
But I also see that allowing private citizens to "hire" the police to protect them is problematic. I know he's framing it as he would cover the costs that would otherwise be incurred by the taxpayers, not that he wants to hire them himself, but it's semantics. I also think some see this as yet another in a long line of ways that Harry wants the privileges, but not the responsibilities, of being royal. I've said this before, but it seems to me that a lot of the conflicts here boil down to Charles and William (and the Queen) saying "well, that's not the way we do things" and thinking that's an end to it. Whereas Harry is constantly saying "well, I want to do it differently." And he's not necessarily always wrong. But he also seems incapable of picking his battles at this point.
MsZem
I see the sea
- Messages
- 18,495
The police is not Harry's private security force. As Ant noted, credible threats can be shared with police, and private security can handle day-to-day stuff.
Harry can bring his family for a low-profile visit to see his father and grandmother. Unless he is so freaked out about security that he doesn't believe he and his family would be safe on private, well-secured royal properties. In which case, what would police protection add?
Some of the coverage specifically refers to photographers allegedly chasing Harry' car during his visit for the unveiling of Diana's statue as part of the reason for the request (see here). That's normal paparazzi stuff and has nothing to do with who he married.
William seems to have a much healthier approach to media coverage of his family, and they appear to be doing well with how much exposure the kids get. I don't think Harry's antagonistic approach is doing him any favors.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
