Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
susieice

Prince Harry and Meghan Stepping Down

237 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

itsnotoutthere

P.s. Can I have my money back that was spent on the wedding?

"Thanks for the lavish wedding guys.......I'm outta here"

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Looking more like Wallis and Edward VIII every day, some blamed it on the "Shanghai Squeeze", not sure what Meghan is bringing to the party !

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere

Yes, can't help the feeling that the reality of being a Princess didn't quite match up to her fantasy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Yes, can't help the feeling that the reality of being a Princess didn't quite match up to her fantasy.

Who knows what the reality is, but it is a significant embarrassment to the "firm". 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crikey

Meghan's an actress so you'd have thought she'd enjoy all the attention of the camera clicking paparazzi..:D

As for Harry, I think he blames them for "hounding" his neurotic mother to her death in a high-speed car smash, hence his current attempt to sue papers who say anything he doesn't like.

Or perhaps he thinks he's too high-and-mighty for him and Meg to be the centre of attraction for "common" journalists.

He's naïve in the extreme to think he can take on the powerful Press..

 ‘Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets" - Napoleon Bonaparte 

"Give me 26 lead soldiers [the keys on a printing press] and I will conquer the world"- Benjamin Franklin

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere

I think they are turning into the Beckhams

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

P.s. Can I have my money back that was spent on the wedding?

"Thanks for the lavish wedding guys.......I'm outta here"

Sending it to you now.

Total taxpayer money spent on wedding: £0.00

Your share of this: £0.00

Fee for my time @£40/hr or part thereof: - £40

Refund due: - £40.

Please contact me for ways to pay. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
itsnotoutthere
20 hours ago, Setton said:

Sending it to you now.

Total taxpayer money spent on wedding: £0.00

Your share of this: £0.00

Fee for my time @£40/hr or part thereof: - £40

Refund due: - £40.

Please contact me for ways to pay. 

"The royal wedding is expected to cost in excess of $45 million (£32 million), most of which is allotted for security."

https://www.businessinsider.com/royal-wedding-cost-meghan-markle-prince-harry-2018-4?r=US&IR=T

By security im assuming they mean the the police, not privately fund bodyguards

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

By security im assuming they mean the the police, not privately fund bodyguards

Just like any other public event then. Otherwise, I'll have my refund for all the security needed during your pro-brexit demonstrations. 

Share this post


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

Just like any other public event then. Otherwise, I'll have my refund for all the security needed during your pro-brexit demonstrations. 

Deduct it from the fee for the anti-brexit demonstrations and im quids in.:tu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
42 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Deduct it from the fee for the anti-brexit demonstrations and im quids in.:tu:

Hmm. Not from what I saw in March last year. At least 40 riot vans on standby and dozens of AR vehicles. Never saw that during any of the anti-brexit protests. 

Obviously, I'll also be charging you for the added security needed for MPs following your rhetoric. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still Waters

Meanwhile, some more royal family news.

Quote

The Queen has been hit with the news of another divorce in her family – less than a week after her grandson announced that he too was to separate from his wife.

The Earl of Snowdon, the son of Princess Margaret and Anthony Armstrong-Jones, is to divorce his wife, Serena.

Lord Snowdon is nephew to The Queen and married Serena Armstrong-Jones, Countess of Snowdon, in 1993.

The news comes less than a week after The Queen’s grandson, Peter Phillips, announced that he was to divorce his wife, Autumn.

https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/breaking-more-sorrow-for-the-queen-as-her-nephew-announces-he-is-to-divorce-137783/

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

That's the George s side of the family, they'd say... 

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
9 minutes ago, susieice said:

"Market" being the operative word. The greed is almost palpable.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Has Big Bet stopped shielding the paedophile yet? No? Must be too busy doing important things like telling some idiot boy and his missus off for trying to make living based off the cards dealt to them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

My word, are people in Australia still worked up about this? Ok, you can remove the Union Flag from the corner of your flag if it'll make you happy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
11 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

My word, are people in Australia still worked up about this? Ok, you can remove the Union Flag from the corner of your flag if it'll make you happy. 

Why yes, we do get upset over our head of state protecting an accused paedophile. But we’re odd like that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eldorado

Statement from the Happy Couple, for those interested:

"We are pleased to now be able to share with you an update on many of the details agreed at a meeting of The Royal Family in January 2020, which outlines The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s new roles, taking effect Spring 2020.

"We had hoped to be allowed to share these details with you sooner (to mitigate any confusion and subsequent misreporting), but the facts below should help provide some clarification around this transition and the steps for the future."

Full statement at Yahoo News: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-put-150100997.html

Edited by Eldorado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
10 minutes ago, Eldorado said:

"We are pleased to now be able to share with you an update on many of the details agreed at a meeting of The Royal Family in January 2020,

Just how sinister does that sound. Like the Corleone Family, or the Kray Family. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rupert bear

They're made for life. That's fine. 

He loses his title but the attention seeker he married will do her level best to ensure those Yankee bucks keep rolling in. When the last pop of champagne bubbles die she'll divorce and parasite off the next fool. 

Or maybe just retire in opulence. 

They're a pair of clowns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
On 2/19/2020 at 12:57 AM, susieice said:

This issue needs to be clarified a little. The Queen has no authority to forbid the brandname "Sussex Royal" or any other brand- and/or trade name, exempt this very brand/trade name has been registered by the Royal House or any of its sub divisions or straw men as copyright holders already.

The registration of brand/trade names is subject to international trademark laws and its boards only. Brand/trademarks are territorial and can be filed in each country where protection is sought, under the consideration the name hasnt be registered already in the country its planned to get registered.

Example A: if "Sussex Royal" is registered in the UK only, I by myself can get a registration of the name in my home country (if it isnt registered here already), which isnt the UK, and sell products and services under this brand exclusively but I`m not allowed to sell products and services under this brand in the UK or any other country where is is registered but in all countries where it isnt registered.

Example B: "Sussex Royal" isnt registered at all so I can get it registered in, e.g., the UK, Germany and Denmark if I want. Means, I can and sell products and services under this brand exclusively in these countries and in all other countries non-exclusively if its not registered there.

Edited by toast
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
susieice

Most people are blaming Meghan for trying to commercialize her new connection to the royal family.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8037283/Tom-Bower-Good-Morning-Britain-debate-Sussex-Royal-title-Meghan-Harry.html

The Queen has reached the point where she just wants the departure over and done.

https://www.iheart.com/content/2020-02-24-the-queen-wants-meghan-markle-prince-harrys-departure-over-and-done/

Royal biographer Sally Bedell Smith also spoke toVanity Fair about Queen Elizabeth's decision to forbid Harry and Meghan from calling themselves "royal" for commercial purposes. According to Bedell, the long-reigning monarch "drew the line on exploiting their royal connection for profit. I think in the process she has showed the sort of flexibility and adherence to standards that strengthen the monarchy."

Despite the Queen's fears that the Sussexes' would ultimately exploit their connection to the Royal Family for profit, Meghan reportedly told friends she and Harry wanted to "protect the royal name, not profit off it." One friend told The Daily Mail: “It’s not like they want to be in the business of selling T-shirts and pencils."

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/02/harry-meghan-royal-decision-queen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
2 hours ago, susieice said:

Most people are blaming Meghan for trying to commercialize her new connection to the royal family.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8037283/Tom-Bower-Good-Morning-Britain-debate-Sussex-Royal-title-Meghan-Harry.html

The Queen has reached the point where she just wants the departure over and done.

https://www.iheart.com/content/2020-02-24-the-queen-wants-meghan-markle-prince-harrys-departure-over-and-done/

Royal biographer Sally Bedell Smith also spoke toVanity Fair about Queen Elizabeth's decision to forbid Harry and Meghan from calling themselves "royal" for commercial purposes. According to Bedell, the long-reigning monarch "drew the line on exploiting their royal connection for profit. I think in the process she has showed the sort of flexibility and adherence to standards that strengthen the monarchy."

Despite the Queen's fears that the Sussexes' would ultimately exploit their connection to the Royal Family for profit, Meghan reportedly told friends she and Harry wanted to "protect the royal name, not profit off it." One friend told The Daily Mail: “It’s not like they want to be in the business of selling T-shirts and pencils."

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/02/harry-meghan-royal-decision-queen

Big Bet should protect the Royal Name by not shielding a potential sexual predator and statutory rapist.

Edited by Sir Wearer of Hats
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.