Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think Meghan Markle has every right to worry about her security?

532 replies

Hardware252525252525 · 20/08/2026 22:07

I’m not a monarchist and haven’t really taken much notice of the whole saga, but obviously do know the main points.

However, the comments across Mumsnet and multiple newspapers and websites are absolutely insane and unhinged. People who don’t know them insisting she’s leaving Harry and the kids, is controlling him, that they’re skint and tge
kids will have to go to state school if Charles doesn’t pay, people saying they hope a random stranger sees her and gives her ‘some home truths’.

It is absolutely crackers and I worry about the sanity of the people who seem to really believe they know them.

OP posts:
HelenaWilson · Today 16:48

Presumably you can understand that ad-hoc requirements are different from being able to have a permanent set up you can control?

If you want security you can control, you pay for it. But in the UK, that can't be armed security.

If you have security provided by the Met Police and paid for by the taxpayer, you don't control it; they do. And they decide when or if you need it.

ShedShedShed · Today 16:48

Superhansrantowindsor · Today 16:41

Harry should have security and so should his family. He didn’t ask to be the king’s son.
I read Spare. A lot of the stupidity associated with them both is actually due to Harry imo. He has the biggest chip on his shoulder but she gets all the blame.
They are both hypocrites though.

Well, in that case then surely Andrew his kids, Edward said kdka etc should all have security too?

Benjithedog · Today 16:49

So another hysterical accusation which you can’t prove along with no argument just an insult. 😆

Hardware252525252525 · Today 16:49

moonraker0 · Today 16:41

Which is exactly why we don’t pay for Andrew anymore and rightly so. You also might want to change your title, as Meghan said herself it’s Sussex now not Markle.

No, I don’t want to change my title, don’t be ridiculous.

None of them actually do anything that justifies the cost of keeping them. Interestingly, Andrew doesn’t seem to get even a fraction of the fury directed towards him than Meghan does to her.

OP posts:
AnitaCam · Today 16:51

Hardware252525252525 · Today 16:46

Nice bit of misogyny. Which, I suspect, is also a large part of the Meghan hatred.

If you fling the word ‘ mysogyny’ at valid objections that arent in fact misogyny, you will in effect disable the word.

please take note that the word racist has been flung with similar innacuracy to such a saturation point that it is now disabled.

resorting to labels as a knee jerk reaction renders said labels impotent.

Backtoschooloncemore · Today 16:51

They will clearly be insured against the costs.

Their collective insurance only covers up to £16.2 million in costs but there is a potential £18.3 million shortfall that Harry and the others may have to pay.

carchi · Today 16:51

Hardware252525252525 · Today 13:56

Yes, it is absolutely fine to do that. What is the problem?

Well let's just say that we have different opinions about her and leave it at that.

Hardware252525252525 · Today 16:52

Superhansrantowindsor · Today 16:41

Harry should have security and so should his family. He didn’t ask to be the king’s son.
I read Spare. A lot of the stupidity associated with them both is actually due to Harry imo. He has the biggest chip on his shoulder but she gets all the blame.
They are both hypocrites though.

I agree. I think people blame Meghan for the friendly, cheeky Harry who was close to William, who they liked and they believed they knew, deciding to walk away and revealing that the happy family image didn’t reflect reality.

OP posts:
Benjithedog · Today 16:53

AnitaCam · Today 16:51

If you fling the word ‘ mysogyny’ at valid objections that arent in fact misogyny, you will in effect disable the word.

please take note that the word racist has been flung with similar innacuracy to such a saturation point that it is now disabled.

resorting to labels as a knee jerk reaction renders said labels impotent.

This 👆

Hardware252525252525 · Today 16:54

KittyTinker · Today 16:43

This is a very strange thing to say, I’m absolutely not grouping H&M in with these but I really wish that people had paid more attention to celebrities like Jimmy Savile and Garry Glitter who were hiding in plain sight. By the way I haven’t met either of them but I do feel I can have an opinion on them.

People did pay attention. There was a thread on here at the time of Savile’s death where posters were saying he was clearly committing crimes. Other posters told them that he was friends with the Royal Family and they trusted their judgement.

Do you believe that Meghan may be abusing children and defiling dead bodies? If not, then it’s not remotely similar or comparable.

OP posts:
Backtoschooloncemore · Today 16:56

EmeraldShamrock000 · Today 16:27

💯 if or when one of the family is hurt, you’ll have the 1000’s of people who are encouraging the hate offering sympathy online.
The Daily mail should be band from hounding them without a current or relevant news source over the daily obsessive BS.

The Daily Mail clearly do have a relevant piece of news to report - the fact they are owned millions in costs in a court case Harry et all took against them and lost, and that the judge has ruled that Harry et all are potentially on the hook for £34.5 million. This is not just ‘Harry’ news. This is Daily Mail’s own news too.

Benjithedog · Today 16:56

Hardware252525252525 · Today 16:54

People did pay attention. There was a thread on here at the time of Savile’s death where posters were saying he was clearly committing crimes. Other posters told them that he was friends with the Royal Family and they trusted their judgement.

Do you believe that Meghan may be abusing children and defiling dead bodies? If not, then it’s not remotely similar or comparable.

That’s right wheel out Jimmy Saville when you’ve run out of road. Are you heading back to the insults again so we can all be prepared?

Hardware252525252525 · Today 16:57

AnitaCam · Today 16:51

If you fling the word ‘ mysogyny’ at valid objections that arent in fact misogyny, you will in effect disable the word.

please take note that the word racist has been flung with similar innacuracy to such a saturation point that it is now disabled.

resorting to labels as a knee jerk reaction renders said labels impotent.

At least learn how to spell it.

OP posts:
Benjithedog · Today 16:57

Backtoschooloncemore · Today 16:56

The Daily Mail clearly do have a relevant piece of news to report - the fact they are owned millions in costs in a court case Harry et all took against them and lost, and that the judge has ruled that Harry et all are potentially on the hook for £34.5 million. This is not just ‘Harry’ news. This is Daily Mail’s own news too.

A fact that a lot people seem to forget

ShedShedShed · Today 16:57

moonraker0 · Today 16:15

Harry is not a celebrity.

As long as the British taxpayer is funding anything (£500k for electric prison vans in Albania for example) then they should get a say in it and have the right to an opinion. Unfortunately for Harry & Meghan that includes their security if we end up paying for it.

Of course he's a celebrity....

"A well-known or famous person; (now chiefly) spec. a person, esp. in entertainment or sport, who attracts interest from the general public and attention from the mass media."

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/celebrity_n?tab=meaning_and_use#9913378

Backtoschooloncemore · Today 16:58

Hardware252525252525 · Today 16:18

It’s obsessive.

You started a thread about H&M and now seem upset that people are responding to it?

Hardware252525252525 · Today 16:58

Benjithedog · Today 16:56

That’s right wheel out Jimmy Saville when you’ve run out of road. Are you heading back to the insults again so we can all be prepared?

Did you read the post I was replying to? The one that mentioned Jimmy Savile?

OP posts:
KittyTinker · Today 16:59

Hardware252525252525 · Today 16:54

People did pay attention. There was a thread on here at the time of Savile’s death where posters were saying he was clearly committing crimes. Other posters told them that he was friends with the Royal Family and they trusted their judgement.

Do you believe that Meghan may be abusing children and defiling dead bodies? If not, then it’s not remotely similar or comparable.

I clearly said I wasn’t grouping them in with these two men.

Hardware252525252525 · Today 16:59

Backtoschooloncemore · Today 16:58

You started a thread about H&M and now seem upset that people are responding to it?

I’m not upset at all.

OP posts:
Hardware252525252525 · Today 16:59

KittyTinker · Today 16:59

I clearly said I wasn’t grouping them in with these two men.

Okay. So it’s not really relevant then.

OP posts:
Blades2 · Today 17:03

Markle has enough money to buy her own personal protection.
and for a pair that left the uk to not be “famous” anymore, they sure as hell tried every avenue to continue being famous over there.

Benjithedog · Today 17:03

Hardware252525252525 · Today 16:57

At least learn how to spell it.

Another insult. Is this all you have? I suspect the answer is yes. Oh and it was you comparing Savile to Megan Markle so yes you have run out of road.

Hardware252525252525 · Today 17:03

Benjithedog · Today 17:03

Another insult. Is this all you have? I suspect the answer is yes. Oh and it was you comparing Savile to Megan Markle so yes you have run out of road.

You cannot read.

OP posts:
Benjithedog · Today 17:04

Hardware252525252525 · Today 16:59

I’m not upset at all.

That’s plainly untrue

Benjithedog · Today 17:04

Hardware252525252525 · Today 17:03

You cannot read.

Insult

Swipe left for the next trending thread