BS: Harry and Meghan

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Jan 20 - 10:59 AM

The only reason my Canadian cousin gave up his dual US citizenship was because when he was 18 and the Vietnam-era draft was still in place he could be arrested for not having registered with the US Selective Service if he crossed the border. My aunt was a US citizen and I think all of the kids were born here; her husband had Turkish citizenship and they had to leave the US and return every year to do with visa stuff. They eventually settled in Alberta to avoid those hassles. There are many instances of dual citizenship if you look around.

The US has learned a lot about the cost of security details since 2017 when Trump was sworn in. His golfing trip count is up to 243 at a cost of $122,000,000 to the nation. General Accounting Office report information. He travels with a large family entourage, does nothing to be inconspicuous, and is probably drawing those funds in a way that enriches him (the Secret Service has to pay the market rate for the rooms they use in his resorts, his hotels, etc.) I suspect Meghan and Harry, who have a better sense of proportion, would cost a lot less.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Jan 20 - 01:07 PM

I am not interested, roll on the day that england is a republic

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Mossback
Date: 19 Jan 20 - 01:26 PM

Stilly, you beat me to it.

Sandman, roll on the day that the U.S. is a democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jan 20 - 01:56 PM

I can't remember the exact figures but wasn't the security cost of H&M's wedding less than that of the visit of the Orange one? Or did I dream that?

Hey, just realised. Maybe the couple could buy into the already market placed H&M clothing chain?:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jan 20 - 04:03 PM

Speaking of tabloidiferouslyness...the German papers have a schaudenfreude take on Harry and Meagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Jan 20 - 06:10 PM

Do you have any links, Don? I'd love to see some of that schadenfreude.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: keberoxu
Date: 19 Jan 20 - 06:56 PM

Talking of schadenfreude:
I'm not going to sit and listen to it, but
Der Spiegel has at its webpages,
besides the stories in print,
an audiofile that is just under an hour
(a broadcast thing?) , in German, about the whole deal.

The title is
"Die Sippe der Verfluchten" which Google translates as
"The Clan of the Cursed."

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: OldPossum
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 01:37 AM

Good opinion piece in the Guardian: There's a reason why the royals are demonised. But you won't read all about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 02:44 AM

Very good piece. Something I have said for years, the press need to be more accountable. Not just on trivialities like this but on the lies that affect people's lives like elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 11:50 AM

Any tabloids interviewed the corgis yet
for their opinions on all this nonsense...

Maybe one of the fat short arsed mutts is the mysterious palace insider
so often quoted by the cretin culture press...???

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 12:14 PM

I doubt Harry wished to be born into a goldfish bowl, he had no choice.
Whatever debt people may feel that he owes to society, due to his "high birth", is more than cancelled by his exemplary military duties. If he wishes to make his own way in the world good luck to him, but his escape from the goldfish bowl will be denied.
I hope I am wrong, but I suspect that in time he will regret his choices.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 12:21 PM

H & M could take the most praiseworthy option
of entering voluntary witness protection..

New identities, a false beard and wig, a new life far from the voyeuristic eyes of the world...

DISAPPEAR...


What about that secret island resort where Elvis and michael Jackson are hiding out
with all those other 'deceased' celebrities...???

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 01:36 PM

Harry may look ok in a wig but I'm not sure about meghan's false beard.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: keberoxu
Date: 23 Jan 20 - 02:34 PM

Their two pet dogs appear charming.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: leeneia
Date: 24 Jan 20 - 12:28 AM

Considering how many children Albert and Victoria had, there must be many royals who have slipped out of sight.

Think about Harry's life story - father betrayed the mother, mother died young, grandparents are so old, they might as well be great-grandparents. Maybe he wants a healthier, more normal way of life for little Archie.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 24 Jan 20 - 02:42 AM

I think he just wants to have his cake and eat it, all the wealth and privelege of his rank and none of the work.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Jan 20 - 03:45 AM

I doubt Harry wished to be born into a goldfish bowl, he had no choice. the people thqat are born in high rise tower blocks where people piss in the lifts have no choice either, but they do not generally have wealthy relatives and friends

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Jan 20 - 04:19 AM

Did anyone see the Thomas Markle interview on TV? I didn't watch it, but read the synopsis later. I'm not sure what to make of Meghan's relationship with him. She didn't appear to be too worried when he had a heart attack just before the wedding. I know she was probably frantically stressed and busy at the time, but still...

I do feel he shouldn't be bleating in front of the cameras about private stuff though. I bet the Queen cringed when she heard about it.
Meghan's mother appears to be more dignified and reserved.

But we actually know none of these people, and they could be saints or monsters behind the scenes!

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: The Sandman
Date: 24 Jan 20 - 04:25 AM

no senoufou i do not have a television, i think andrew is a monster i have a low oinion of prince philpip

Subject: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jul 25 - 01:35 PM

I don't follow or particularly care about the antics of the Royal reality TV couple but Mrs G has been telling me some very odd things about them. It seems that their kids may not be biologically hers. Is this generating any interest over there in the US?

---

Redundant threads merged. ---mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Jul 25 - 01:37 PM

(((YAWN))) !

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Helen
Date: 02 Jul 25 - 05:19 PM

I agree Doug. Let's just ignore this thread and let it fall asleep on its own.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jul 25 - 05:40 PM

It's really odd that all I am interested in is what the US view is yet the first 2 answers are from non US citizens who are not interested in that view at all. I am more than happy to let the thread die if no-one wants to answer my question but, for those who are not interested, would it not be better just to ignore it?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 02 Jul 25 - 05:57 PM

There's been rumours about mistaken parentage for Simply Ages about all sorts and conditions of Royals*. None of them have ever been proved or disproved publicly (apart from the assorted claimants to be Anastasia). For my part, I'd say extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, and that, in the case of Royals, saying nothing is not proof of anything more than an ingrained privacy reflex.

Let's wait to see what, if anything, the Left-Pondians have to say.

* Even one involving a warming pan.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jul 25 - 06:45 PM

Precisely that Majoc

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Helen
Date: 02 Jul 25 - 06:56 PM

Well DtG, you could have made that allegation up yourself. You have not attributed the allegation to anyone or quoted it from any media source. You could simply be trolling Harry and Meghan, or further proliferating the rubbish being spread on unreliable social media.

Please provide link(s) to your sources of alleged information.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jul 25 - 03:24 AM

Funny way to "ignore this thread and let it fall asleep on its own", Helen but each to their own I suppose. I did attribute the allegation though - "Mrs G has been telling me some very odd things about them". Oh, sorry, I forget that, as you have often said before, you don't read my posts. Just comment on them without reading apparently.

She probably did get it from "unreliable social media sources" but that is beside the point. I'm not interested in either them nor the conspiracy theories. My question was whether there was any interest in the US. Judging by the response from there I would guess not so maybe you should just follow your own advice and ignore the thread eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Helen
Date: 03 Jul 25 - 04:32 AM

I just thought it would help your case if you could validate the source of your information, but hearing an unvalidated verbal comment from your wife doesn't prove or disprove anything. At this stage it seems to fall squarely into the category of fake news, or social media-generated rubbish.

You can feel free to ignore me if you want DtG.

Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn!

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Jul 25 - 06:01 AM

Can't this be rolled into another thread about Hunter Biden and Trump's family, so all the nonentities related to famous people can be kept in one place?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Fred
Date: 03 Jul 25 - 06:17 AM

I'm in the "Who gives a sh*t?" camp

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jul 25 - 07:22 AM

WILL they play themselves in the new sitcom 'Harry & Meagan's first Marriage'?
'I love Meagan' and 'I married a Prince' were not green lighted.
They were approached to appear on 'Naked and Afraid' and 'The Weakest Link'.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jul 25 - 08:04 AM

But I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, Helen. The question was about interest in the US and, judging by the lack of respise from there, I believe that has been answered. First, you want the thread to die, then you want to help a case that has not been made. Why would I want to ignore you? Your logical gymnastics ard a source of great amusement :-D

Oh. BTW, it's "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

Now, how about just letting the thread die as you suggested in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jul 25 - 01:05 PM

BTW Jack - great idea. Go for it! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: robomatic
Date: 03 Jul 25 - 02:39 PM

I lump this in with tabloid fodder and People Mag as:

stuff that doesn't matter about people who don't know me

Subject: RE: BS: Harry and Meghan
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Jul 25 - 04:29 PM

Jack, this thread is the combination of two Meghan and Harry threads so at least there is only one of them.