When the stakes are this high doesn't it make more sense to hear our story from us?

[Believeinyou]

what stakes? what are they on about?

Another example - I don't necessarily like the outcome of a general election. There is a difference between asking for a recount of a specific ballot, and saying the entire system of balloting is rigged.

No, there is not a review of the decision that Harry's security should be decided on each specific occasion.

There is a judicial review of the way those decisions are arrived at - because the assumption is that ANY possible unfairness in the system should be reviewed. There is no assumption that the system in wrong, or the decision is wrong.

@Sigma33 I haven't asked about general elections either. I have asked whether there is currently a review concerning in some way Harry's entitlement to security protection in the UK.

If you don't have the mental capacity to understand, there is nothing I can do to explain.

"concerns in some way"? Yes.

But you said he had been "granted a review into his entitlement to protection in the UK", which as myself and @Sigma33 have been trying to explain to you, is not the case. The review is into the procedure by which the decision was made, not in the decision itself.

But going by your responses above, it's clear you are being deliberately obtuse, for reason I don't understand.

@Sigma33 so there is a review concerning in some way Harry's entitlement into security protection in the UK?

I agree with you completely that there is no assumption that the system or the particular decision is wrong but that it is right that any possible unfairness in the system is reviewed.

I'm parroting you there not to mock but because I suspect (though am not certain) that is what the High Court decided and you are describing it. I note also that Harry was advised that the outcome might not be the one he desires. I'm paraphrasing there but that is the general gist.

Harry might have made an unwise decision and might spend a lot of money. But it is his decision and his money. It doesn't make any odds to me. I don't know why it makes any odds to anyone else. I suppose someone might say he is taking up court time that could be devoted to some other issue. But since the High Court has allowed the question to be asked they must have considered this a matter which needs resolution and that this is the best way to achieve that.

If the High Court has decided there is some merit in proceedings then it's not for us to argue but to sit back and watch.

If he loses, and he might well do, then the issue will be solved and unless he can appeal to a higher court (and he might not be able to) then he will have egg on his face which should make people who don't like him and Meghan happy.

If he succeeds, however unlikely that outcome, then the unfairness in the system can be altered.

@IcedPurple it's all right. I have established there is a review that in some way concerns Harry's entitlement to security protection in the UK.

I have explained in my reply to @Sigma33 that I agree that it might be rash of Harry to pursue this action and there is no guarantee (which in legalspeak usually means none) of the outcome he desires, but that the High Court considered his argument to be of some merit. It will probably resolve the matter for once and for all.

It was unkind of @Sigma33 to have questioned my mental capacity since I don't remember insulting them. Also irrelevant to wander down the alleys of GCSEs and general elections. I don't know what that was about but I understand that sometimes people get overwrought on the subject of Harry and Meghan and so I forgive the rudeness and diversions.

Let all three of us sit back and enjoy the outcome rather than arguing about it..

This is quite a good article on it (for the Guardian):

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/22/prince-harry-case-against-home-office-can-proceed-high-court-judge-rules

Judicial Reviews are kind of strange pieces of court action. They challenge the process, not decisions and outcomes. I've seen lost actions cost the unsuccessful appellant in the ballpark of £450k if they are ordered to pay all costs. I know Harry is rich but he must be hemorrhaging money now.

He may 'win' though, i.e. have the decision made again more transparently.

@poefaced oh thread police!

More lies. The photo of the press hounding them in the trailer is from a film premiere from before they even met.

www.lbc.co.uk/news/harry-meghan-netflix-paparazzi/?fbclid=IwAR12LPdBKemTWHJrncQLdUvw8YeK3icpUnrersLoBfHtp967Wmh7DdW9y2s

That did make me LOL.

I highly doubt M&H had any hand in producing the trailer.

BUT - the same happened in their Oprah interview with fake headlines shown in a filler part. There does seem to be a common theme with these two of exaggerations and embellishments being lumped in with their narrative. Again, this is very Hollywood/American who are more used to ‘scenes included for dramatic effect’ rather than the UK market. But these 2 are very much for an American market now.

I don’t think they would have been aware. It’s like when a newspaper uses a general stock photo when talking about a subject.

They might not have been aware, but does it not then beg the question that there is no footage of them being "hounded"?

Diana wasn't prepared for the life as a senior royal, even though she was aristocracy and grew up around the royals

See I don’t believe this at all. Most of us don’t realise just how much growing up in those circles makes a person understand from childhood what’s expected of the aristocracy. I think she conveniently claimed she was a lamb led to the slaughter when she needed to leverage her power as a newly single woman. She, and her family, knew fine well what royal life meant. They were close personal friends of the RF

TBH I don’t agree. This is not like the abdication of Edward VIII. Harry is the brother of a future king and will pale into obscurity before long. I couldn’t name George VI’s siblings or what they did and didn’t do, but I’m sure it will have been news at the time. These two buggering off across the pond has materially no effect whatsoever on the history of the RF, they aren’t far up enough the line of succession and haven’t been missed it seems

Why on earth OP didn't you label this as connected to the Royals and then some of us wouldn't have wasted our time on the thread! Who cares, really in these troubled times!

Fourth response showed who it was about. How long does it take to back click? If clicking wasted your time, how much more have you wasted writing a comment?

But that’s even worse, the OP didn’t even to refer to what on earth she was son about in her OP.

That happens all the time. I often click on threads and discover its about something totally uninteresting to me do I just back click. Literally takes 3 seconds. I don't scroll down the page and start typing when I havent got yime to waste. Like being on MN isn't wasting time anyway!

My DC are mixed race and lots of people openly discussed what they might look like when they’re born when I was pregnant. Never for one minute occurred to me that it was racist. But again, it’s the American culture class - attitudes to race relations are very different to that of the UK.

I agree with this - sadly (for her and her US fans) I think they thought there would be a MM takeover of the Royal Family.

Yes, titles are often vague, but the opening post shouldn't be a vague. Cryptic quotes with no context are annoying. You shouldn't have to read lots of posts to figure out what the OP is on about.

I don’t think they would have been aware. It’s like when a newspaper uses a general stock photo when talking about a subject.

They may not have been aware, but I don't think it's quite like a newspaper using a stock photo. The whole trailer is personal photographs from throughout their relationship, the clear implication is that this photo is to do with them as well, not that it's just there to illustrate what photographers look like.

I find myself feeling a little dirty for having an opinion on this - and since I have a Netflix subscription I will find it hard to resist.
I have managed to stop myself looking at car crashes though.

Their audience has been US only ever since they landed in LA.

Americans understand very little of anywhere outside of their own country (and often their own state) and can often rely on stereotypes. I lived in the US for a while and you’d be amazed how many people who were otherwise very intelligent would say things like “Your English is very good” and “Do you have grass in Britain?”. They aren’t taught world history or geography and I only ever met a few who knew what the UK actually was made up of.

but the do know the RF and have visions of a stuffy 18-century style institution and some I met even thought the RF ‘rule’ the UK. M&H very much rely on this misunderstanding to communicate with their US audienceZ