Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Æthelthryth the Texan

More Royal drama

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Patty Joanna said:

"The decision I have made for my wife and I to step back...."

:::calling the grammar police:::

I don’t know....on the epic Ugly American thread some from Australia claim that their countrymen are poor at spelling. Perhaps the Brits suck at grammar???😜

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

I don’t know....on the epic Ugly American thread some from Australia claim that their countrymen are poor at spelling. Perhaps the Brits suck at grammar???😜

I guess I should call the bobbies.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to put this thread in a time capsule to be opened in 5-10 years and compare the expectations and the prognostications -- both from this board and from the world at large -- with the reality at that time.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patty Joanna said:

It would be interesting to put this thread in a time capsule to be opened in 5-10 years and compare the expectations and the prognostications -- both from this board and from the world at large -- with the reality at that time.

 

oooh, I would love to do that! But I don't dare to start as I already have been accused of hate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t hate my son but I can make a call “Good decision” or “Bad decision”—and be right or wrong as time bears it out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished skimming and reading all 17 pages of this thread! Had to catch up after all the mentions of this thread on another one. Whew! Very interesting discussion which proves to me once again that there are many brilliant, thoughtful, principled, and learned minds here. 🙂 

But you know what stands out to me, unfortunately? Boardies being mean to other boardies. Over what? A discussion about Royals? I don't get it.

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 5
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Patty Joanna said:

"The decision I have made for my wife and I to step back...."

:::calling the grammar police:::

 

And the patriarch patrol... this doesn’t seem like a statement representative of a modern relationship, such as they claim to seek. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

 

And the patriarch patrol... this doesn’t seem like a statement representative of a modern relationship, such as they claim to seek. 

I read that through the lens of my relationship, granted, but do you know how many times I’ve begged my husband to pretend he’s the one calling the shots to take the heat and give me some plausible deniability?  I feel like that’s pretty common in marriage, especially when the husband is less sensitive to social pressure than the wife (my husband couldn’t care less and I want people to like me and not be mean, sooooo....).

It jusf wouldn’t surprise me at all if these two did something similar, especially after all the drama.  Make it look like his decision even if it was mutual or she was the one who cried uncle first.

Edited by Arctic Mama
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

I read that through the lens of my relationship, granted, but do you know how many times I’ve begged my husband to pretend he’s the one calling the shots to take the heat and give me some plausible deniability?  I feel like that’s pretty common in marriage, especially when the husband is less sensitive to social pressure than the wife (my husband couldn’t care less and I want people to like me and not be mean, sooooo....).

It jusf wouldn’t surprise me at all if these two did something similar, especially after all the drama.  Make it look like his decision even if it was mutual or she was the one who cried uncle first.

 

I get what you’re saying - my dh and I grant each other a similar get out of jail free privilege when one of us would like to decline something and needs an unimpeachable out. I think it particularly pricked my ears in this case because their whole stated approach has been to modernize things, and this seems somehow contrary to that.     

I appreciate the nobility of it, Harry shielding his wife (nobility as in lay your coat over a mud patch, not nobility as in Royal). To me, though, it seems counter to their previous claims. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add, I don’t mean to meanly poke at them, letting the door hit them on the way out. Seems like they’ve successfully negotiated their way mostly out. I just think, oh, Harry, be careful what you say and how you say it, because whether you like it or not, the world - for at least a little longer - is still watching. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Seasider too said:

 

And the patriarch patrol... this doesn’t seem like a statement representative of a modern relationship, such as they claim to seek. 

Well like it or not, I don’t imagine Meghan could have made a decision about whether to remain a Royal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, StellaM said:

So, that's my best answer to your (hopefully not rhetorical) question.  It probably makes more sense to consider it as discussion of the above themes, not that it makes it more edifying 😞

Yes, definitely. And I like frank and spirited discussion! I was thinking more of the personal comments that were made.

FWIW, I think you are one who is owed an apology, not the other way around.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

I suppose in one way, it's not really a conversation about the Royals.

It's a conversation about race, class, colonialism and imperialism, with the Sussex pair acting as prompts for a very wide set of perspectives, both positive and negative.

And then there's an overlay of call-out culture.

And an environment that allows posters who loathe other posters re other politcal or personal issues to argue directly with those people, in a way that runs counter to non-digital life.

In real life, you avoid the people who you dislike, or whose politics you find abhorrent, or who push your buttons. 

And  there were buttons, and plenty of 'em.  

I only managed that less-than graceful apology on the second last page of the thread, and that was only because I had someone to process with, and I'm well aware the limitations of that apology.

So, that's my best answer to your (hopefully not rhetorical) question.  It probably makes more sense to consider it as discussion of the above themes, not that it makes it more edifying 😞

 

 

Agreed.  I have so many feelings about distribution of wealth....my ideas on solutions are not like anyone here though.....and no one person in a Royal Institution is responsible for it or capable of changing it. 
 

Earlier someone said humans like feeling like they have more than others. I am sickened by that thought and thought about it for days....I am confident I don’t feel that way.  I am pleased when I have enough to live with dignity and when I have a similar amount to my peers. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Seasider too said:

 

And the patriarch patrol... this doesn’t seem like a statement representative of a modern relationship, such as they claim to seek. 

I think if he had used the term we, half of the online commenters would have gone nuts and declared that he was just being controlled by his wife. They will be trashed by some no matter what they say. I prefer to see it as a way for a spouse to shield his wife and child however he can, a man who probably went thru his own version of hell after his mom died, no matter how rich or royal he was/is. I also think Harry is a favorite of his grandma, so things won’t be as heated within the family.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shuffling back and forth won’t be an option once a kid is in school. Is homeschooling in the future? 😂😂😂😂

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

Shuffling back and forth won’t be an option once a kid is in school. Is homeschooling in the future? 😂😂😂😂

In that case, I really AM going to call the grammar police.  😂

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

Shuffling back and forth won’t be an option once a kid is in school. Is homeschooling in the future? 😂😂😂😂

IMO I'm guessing Boarding School will be the solution.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beth S said:

IMO I'm guessing Boarding School will be the solution.


I realize boarding schools are very much an upper class and certain cultural things. I have a friend from NZ and putting teenagers into a boarding situation was just “normal thing to do.” I don’t know. It’s not a cultural thing here for most even rich parents that we know.  Yet writing this I fully realize there are tons of boarding schools in USA who have no shortage of students. 

Edited by Roadrunner
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Seasider too said:

I should add, I don’t mean to meanly poke at them, letting the door hit them on the way out. Seems like they’ve successfully negotiated their way mostly out. I just think, oh, Harry, be careful what you say and how you say it, because whether you like it or not, the world - for at least a little longer - is still watching. 

Another reason I think he should watch what he says bc I don't think they are going to last.  I think when one person in a relationship gives up a lot for another person, it's hard to reach a balance after that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

Another reason I think he should watch what he says bc I don't think they are going to last.  I think when one person in a relationship gives up a lot for another person, it's hard to reach a balance after that.

 

Which one do you suppose is getting the short end of the stick here?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patty Joanna said:

In that case, I really AM going to call the grammar police.  😂

Call the Queen! He is supposed to speak the “Queen’s English”, right?? I am sad that the Instagram and Twitter world unravels the truth about how poor an education many elite have when they take a stand and send out unmonitored and unedited messages (hmmm... wiki says that he is an Etonian, I give up!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Which one do you suppose is getting the short end of the stick here?

I don't think it's about who is getting the short end of the stick, but he is completely changing the way he thought his life would be and I think that's a lot for anyone to handle.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

I don't think it's about who is getting the short end of the stick, but he is completely changing the way he thought his life would be and I think that's a lot for anyone to handle.


I agree, especially if he was happy with what he had. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

I don't think it's about who is getting the short end of the stick, but he is completely changing the way he thought his life would be and I think that's a lot for anyone to handle.

 

Do you suppose she hasn't also made changes in what she envisioned? It seems to me they have BOTH made some pretty significant compromises here. I also have no idea what he envisioned for himself.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sneezyone said:

 

Do you suppose she hasn't also made changes in what she envisioned?

I am not sure I understand your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Do you suppose she hasn't also made changes in what she envisioned? It seems to me they have BOTH made some pretty significant compromises here. I also have no idea what he envisioned for himself.

I don't see any compromises on her part at all.

And by envisioned I am talking about the fact that he was born into a royal family, and I would think he envisioned  himself being a royal his entire live, living in England and continuing doing whatever royals do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

I am not sure I understand your question.

 

Your update answered my question.

Edited by Sneezyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

I don't see any compromises on her part at all.

And by envisioned I am talking about the fact that he was born into a royal family, and I would think he envisioned  himself being a royal his entire live, living in England and continuing doing whatever royals do.


It’s all a speculation. 
 

he might actually be happy not playing a second fiddle to his brother. He might not be “Royal” but he now has freedom and all the privileges. And they might chose to split the time evenly between the continents once things calm down. When you have that sort of money and freedom, you can pretty much do as you please, unlike us, who have to scrape to put together enough for plane tickets. 🙂 
 

I don’t know. Much of what the royal family does seems like silly pageantry to me.  No insult intended. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

It's clearly all pageantry - what's there to be insulted about ?!  

I mean, a single person - the Queen - holds a particular constitional place, with (limited) power she is bound not to use. But the rest ?! Of course it's just performance + etiquette.

Not meaning to argue...  There was an interesting scene in The Crown (which I know is complete 100% documentary, validated by endless and faultless research...haha) -- where (I think it was) Queen Mary talked to the future Queen Elizabeth about what was the purpose of the monarchy; why all the etiquette and formality and public service and so on...  (a paraphrase) "Part of what we do and why we do it is to show what life *could* be--beautiful, ordered, generous.  We embody the aspiration."  

I thought that the nugget of truth that was in that was interesting.  Queen Mary and the young Queen Elizabeth were in a time where every last thought that came across one's mind didn't end up on Twitter, and when there were "rules" about what was spoken about and what was not...so that purpose has largely been undone.  But I thought it was an interesting comment.  And continuing with this last thought...Queen Elizabeth has surely had to navigate enormous societal and cultural sea-change during her reign...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I don't mean to laugh, but 'embody the aspiration' ? That's hilarious.

Yes, life can be lovely with unearned wealth at one's disposal, I'm sure! Less lovely when you're digging down the back of the sofa for a pound coin to buy milk.

Liz has seen a lot, that's for sure. I have to say, I like her stoicism, and that she clearly places value on the concept of duty.  Old-fashioned values, I guess, these days. 

She's the most consistent public figure in my life. Popes have come and gone, Presidents, Prime Ministers...but Liz has been around for all my years. I have a sneaking affection for her on the basis of that. I'll be sad in a way, to see her go. Even as I continue to long for the abolition of her institution.

 

 

 

Maybe there is something that can still be aspirational, even without wealth...  Things like civility, good manners are not costly.  Making a best effort with what one has, that's dignified.  I am in a funny world where a few of my friends are stinking rich and others are in great need (and often the two of them get together and work things out)...but in both cases, each does the best they can to bring beauty to their world, to exhibit generosity as they are able.  That's more what I was thinking of as at least *part* of the aspiration...and it was what came across in the little speech on The Crown.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

It's clearly all pageantry - what's there to be insulted about ?!  

I mean, a single person - the Queen - holds a particular constitional place, with (limited) power she is bound not to use. But the rest ?! Of course it's just performance + etiquette.


right, so when people think he is giving up so much. I don’t know that he is. He is trading his role in a staged spectacle for something he can create/decide for himself. What he makes out of this opportunity is up to him, but given his money and connections, the sky is the limit. So maybe the choice of his wife was a good one since she clearly isn’t afraid of experimentation. Had he married a young little British aristocrat, he wold be forever stuck on that balcony waving hands (using this as a metaphor here).  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

It's a kind of dignity (one often trotted out to comfort the poor in lieu of systemic change...not that I'm suggesting you personally are doing that!)

I don't think the Royal Family embodies it, particularly.

Maybe not.  I thought it was an interesting statement of purpose though, and that it was even considered a purpose was interesting.  And that was in a different time, too.  

If you compare the royalty and the movie stars of "then" with the royalty and the celebrities of "now" I think there are some interesting parallels, and maybe something Americans can relate to more.  "Stars" sort of embodied glamour and very often had developed some talent along the way (dancing, singing, even speaking) and so on, where "celebrities" are pretty much famous for being famous and are hardly any kind of example of an aspirational life. 

One of the things that really struck me when we were reading The Little House on the Prairie books (which we hated after book 2) is that even the dirt poor have a yearning for beauty and are willing to do ridiculous things to gain a little bit of it. There is the Ingalls family, living in a dirt hole.  When they make their butter, it is pure white and not very appetizing--so they boiled carrot peelings in milk and added the yellowed milk to the butter to make it more beautiful--and the carrot peelings were an extra yummy treat.  To do all this, they had to do a lot of work--gardening, extra layers of churning and so on--but the beauty mattered enough to them that they did it.  That is aspirational to me, too (but that doesn't mean I want to be poor!! or live in a dirt hole, either).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I literally don't give two hoots for Harry Windsor, man who thought it was funny to dress up as Nazi, and his choices in life.

I just want my front pages back with actual news, and not Royal mewling.


They will be replaced by Kardashians soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Roadrunner said:


They will be replaced by Kardashians soon. 

I actually laughed out loud imagining the meetings going on among the Kardashians PR and marketing teams

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 4:01 PM, StellaM said:

The gnashing of teeth now seems mostly over the increased cost of security, and who pays.

Not all Canadians are keen to do so, apparently, and fair enough.

It's not really a top news story anymore. Things are left at something like, "details being worked out by "savvy" government officials," which will likely end up being our taxes will pay for over-priced security. What else is new? 🤪

Anyone know if Harry is still some number "in line to the throne?"  Or did he give up this in the deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Argh, still on the front page! 

'costly fight for Royal Sussex brand'

Someone make it stop, lol

That's just nuts. I guess the media is tired of covering the weather, issues in Iran, and any local news.

We have a teacher's strike on now, and new public transportation that cost millions over budget and doesn't work reliably at all. So much more "interesting" than royals. And besides, they are on the other side of our country. 😁

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StellaM said:

 

Don't think you can give that up.

Isn't he 6 or 7 or somesuch ?

Harry was the "spare" as long as he and William were kids because if anything had happened to William, then, Harry would succeed Charles as King. All that became a moot point when William married and had 3 kids of his own. Now, William's kids are in line to the throne. Which means that Harry would live the rest of his adult life cashing in on his popularity as Diana's lost little son and being a smiling side-kick to William-the-heir which leaves the wife of Harry in an even less significant position in the pecking order. Which is why they are making the smart move by unhooking their futures from that institution, moving out as "freelancers" and making as much money and positive media limelight for themselves by using what was freely bequeathed to them (Sussex Royal, popularity with the wedding beamed into a billion TV sets etc.). They can still invoke Diana left-right-and-center and call Harry a troubled son of the lovely Queen of the People, Meghan as the modern-day-hounded-Diana who smartly stepped back from the hounding and hobnob with all of Diana's celebrity friends like Elton John. They don't have to take second place to William and Kate in the society where they will move in the future.

As for the rumors that whoever is generating that the royal family was racist and did not like Meghan: The royals allowed her to bring her cultural flavor to the wedding, the future King himself walked her down the aisle, her book for the poor people was heavily promoted by the Royals, her mother was honored and welcomed by the Queen. I saw that as a modern, warm and wonderful way of integrating with non-white races.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SereneHome said:

I don't see any compromises on her part at all.

 

She gave up a lucrative acting career, a certain amount of freedom of movement, the ability to speak her mind and likely lost some friends along the way (that last part is pure speculation on my part).

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Roadrunner said:


It’s all a speculation. 
 

he might actually be happy not playing a second fiddle to his brother. He might not be “Royal” but he now has freedom and all the privileges. And they might chose to split the time evenly between the continents once things calm down. When you have that sort of money and freedom, you can pretty much do as you please, unlike us, who have to scrape to put together enough for plane tickets. 🙂 
 

I don’t know. Much of what the royal family does seems like silly pageantry to me.  No insult intended. 

May be....who really knows, right? 🙂

It's just he could have decided to step away before he met her.   Or may be he always wanted to step away and she gave me the "way out" But I am a cynic and I think that she didn't get the "princess" life she anticipated and she was the one who wanted out.

I don't blame her, I don't think any of us, celebrities, presidents, everyone else included, can really truly know what's it's like to be part of the England's royal family.

But my opinion is simply that when one party in the relationship (any relationship) makes dramatic changes , it shifts the balance and it's not easy to handle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patty Joanna said:

Maybe not.  I thought it was an interesting statement of purpose though, and that it was even considered a purpose was interesting.  And that was in a different time, too.  

If you compare the royalty and the movie stars of "then" with the royalty and the celebrities of "now" I think there are some interesting parallels, and maybe something Americans can relate to more.  "Stars" sort of embodied glamour and very often had developed some talent along the way (dancing, singing, even speaking) and so on, where "celebrities" are pretty much famous for being famous and are hardly any kind of example of an aspirational life. 

One of the things that really struck me when we were reading The Little House on the Prairie books (which we hated after book 2) is that even the dirt poor have a yearning for beauty and are willing to do ridiculous things to gain a little bit of it. There is the Ingalls family, living in a dirt hole.  When they make their butter, it is pure white and not very appetizing--so they boiled carrot peelings in milk and added the yellowed milk to the butter to make it more beautiful--and the carrot peelings were an extra yummy treat.  To do all this, they had to do a lot of work--gardening, extra layers of churning and so on--but the beauty mattered enough to them that they did it.  That is aspirational to me, too (but that doesn't mean I want to be poor!! or live in a dirt hole, either).

 

So I just finished reading a book about 19th century China and women were told "that Lady does not have ugliness in her life and only through pain will she gain beauty". Yearning for beauty is probably at the core of human nature

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2020 at 3:20 PM, TechWife said:

 

She gave up a lucrative acting career, a certain amount of freedom of movement, the ability to speak her mind and likely lost some friends along the way (that last part is pure speculation on my part).

 

wasn't that lucrative - by Hollywood standards.  most people had never heard of her, let alone the cable show she was on.  lucrative are actresses who make in a single move what she made over the course of her career.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

wasn't that lucrative - by Hollywood standards.  most people had never heard of her, let alone the cable show she was on.  lucrative are actresses who make in a single move what she made over the course of her career.  

By the average person's standards, it was lucrative. By Hollywood standards, she had steady work and a resumé for future work. There was considerable opportunity lost for her to grow her career in entertainment/media, whether through acting or related work. She lost a lot of opportunity that likely can't be calculated at this point.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TechWife said:

By the average person's standards, it was lucrative. By Hollywood standards, she had steady work and a resumé for future work. There was considerable opportunity lost for her to grow her career in entertainment/media, whether through acting or related work. She lost a lot of opportunity that likely can't be calculated at this point.

Exactly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mathnerd said:

Looks like this couple or the British govt has to foot the bill for security in Canada: my news feed says 80,000 Canadians do not want their tax dollars spent on this couple in a petition they signed. 

http://angusreid.org/harry-meghan-canada-monarchy/

That's a weird article, and not factual. There is no decision made by the Canadian government yet. CBC news is a more accurate source for information.  

To be honest, it took a lot of searching on the CBC website to even find an updated article about Harry and Meghan, and the one I found didn't even have a photo. It was relating the issues with paparazzi camping out at the couple's doorstep and local BC privacy laws.  We don't have a culture of big celebrity hype in Canada. 

So as soon as people stop paying these photographers for their photos, the sooner they will leave Vancouver Island. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mathnerd said:

Looks like this couple or the British govt has to foot the bill for security in Canada: my news feed says 80,000 Canadians do not want their tax dollars spent on this couple in a petition they signed. 

http://angusreid.org/harry-meghan-canada-monarchy/

To my knowledge this decision has not been made yet. 


I wish we were not a part of the commonwealth, I feel VERY strongly that the monarchy ought to be totally dismantled. However, the fact remains that we are at the moment under the crown and if their family members live here (or visit here) we bear a significant burden of the cost. When Will and Kate last visited Canada, for I think it was about a week, it cost the RCMP alone upwards of 2 Million dollars to cover their security and travel safety. Then there’s our per capita amount we pay the crown - I think at last check, Canada pays 1.23 per capita to the Queen. Brits pay an average of $1.30 if I remember. So, the crown receives as much money almost from us as she does from her own British citizens. THAT makes me angry. Paying for security for M & H wouldn’t surprise me, and it’s not even ranking on the list of “Things That Upset Me About the Royals” and I suspect that paying for their security as they live a quiet life on the west coast, will cost MUCH less than we pay for them and other royals to visit here occasionally. 

I also suspect that once they live here, they’ll be forgotten about fairly quickly for the most part. We don’t tend to have a big obsession with famous peeps here in Canada. *shrug*

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wintermom said:

That's a weird article, and not factual. There is no decision made by the Canadian government yet. CBC news is a more accurate source for information.  

To be honest, it took a lot of searching on the CBC website to even find an updated article about Harry and Meghan, and the one I found didn't even have a photo. It was relating the issues with paparazzi camping out at the couple's doorstep and local BC privacy laws.  We don't have a culture of big celebrity hype in Canada. 

So as soon as people stop paying these photographers for their photos, the sooner they will leave Vancouver Island. 

I went on google to check if this was authentic news or not and could find one article mentioning this news:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pagesix.com/2020/01/22/80k-canadians-sign-petition-for-prince-harry-meghan-markle-to-pay-for-their-security/amp/
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mathnerd said:

I went on google to check if this was authentic news or not and could find one article mentioning this news:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pagesix.com/2020/01/22/80k-canadians-sign-petition-for-prince-harry-meghan-markle-to-pay-for-their-security/amp/
 

Maybe your google technique is flawed. Try going to the BBC news website, the CBC news website, or a reputable news source. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...