It was “, 'a bit naughty' to imply Archie 'couldn't be a prince because of the possible colour of his skin' when it was due to strict rules,...”

[RickiTarr]

Hugo Vickers made me laugh with his phrasing. So British to say “a bit naughty”.

Also, seriously high lights how many people don’t understand the rules or can’t explain the rules well, and no American has a hope of grasping our quaint & complicated rules and institutions, really.

Sorry, it’s the Daily Fail, but funny.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9340545/Why-Meghan-Markle-bit-naughty-referring-Archies-skin-colour-prince-discussion.html

Hmm depends. I worked for the family firm. I had to make an appointment to see the senior partner if it was an important or difficult matter. The senior partner was my uncle. If it was a 2 minute thing then no appointment was necessary.

Even in this family, an anticipatory list of targets for the chop might be beyond the pale!

True enough However so much about Charles's "slimming down" is supposition, and if it was such a big thing to him I'd have thought we'd have heard him mention it - after all he bangs on endlessly about his other pet causes

Roussette also agree with you about the Queen's disgusting display re Andrew. For a woman reputed to have such iron self control and whose every move is planned, that was no accident - it was both deliberate and deeply unpleasant, and, as you said, a tipping point for some of us

I just want to point out that no-one was taking away Harry’s existing security.

ImAncient.... the Queen fought to keep his protection apparently.

No idea why. He is a non working Royal like Harry.

Puzzled

Yes, it was weird wasn't it? What I didn't understand was... it would have made no difference if he hadn't have gone to Church with her. It wasn't a special day at all. No one would have noticed. So there was a special point being made by the Queen, and I didn't like it.

I couldn't process why she would be doing this.

I’m shocked but not surprised. If he doesn’t work he shouldn’t get protection.

About the curtsy, no one died did they? Meghan did it and continued to do so. You can only be mad if they refused to do it after people explained to them. I don’t curtsy at every millionaires I meet. But I understand how people feel Queen Elizabeth is part of God’s plan to lead the country and we should curtsy out of respect. But it hard to separate that and family.

Maybe she thought he should repent of his sins

These are very busy people

Agree with what you say about circular conversations, but I’m going to draw the line there! these are not people who are finishing a long day at work with commute/supermarket/cooking/laundry/brownies/homework!

Prince Andrew receives funding for his protection from the privy purse ie the Queens own money.

MrsT
Maybe! But he had a big grin plastered on his face on the way in, I remember the pics, so I doubt he was feeling very repentful.

(is there such a word as 'repentful', no idea, but you know what I mean!)

Haz and Megs were left for dead - literally - they were bunking with a Hollywood celeb while they hustled for their supper.

Surely the most ridiculous post of the thread so far.

Ahhh... that old chestnut.. 'the Queen's own money' !!

@ImAncient

Hmm depends. I worked for the family firm. I had to make an appointment to see the senior partner if it was an important or difficult matter. The senior partner was my uncle. If it was a 2 minute thing then no appointment was necessary.

I assume you know where each other will be and likely work in the same building? With the RF they could be all over the place or having uninterruptable meetings. A lot of the time she will be scheduled down to the minute, going from one meeting to the next. So if you have spoken to a courtier who says "she's in with president x for another two hours and is meant to be in with Y straight after. But as you've spoken to me I will push Y back 5 minutes so you can see her" it makes a bit more sense.

I mean Prince Andrew is police protected and no longer a working royal. Say no more.

@Roussette

ImAncient.... the Queen fought to keep his protection apparently.

No idea why. He is a non working Royal like Harry.

Only reasonable explanation is guilt. The stories about Epstein have been around for years and Andrew has done plenty of other dodgy things that have brought the family into ill repute. She has consistently rewarded him.

Like you, this is what has turned me into a republican. On balance her attitude towards Andrew has done more harm than good.

@Roussette

Ahhh... that old chestnut.. 'the Queen's own money' !!

When you want to take my posts and make sarcastic comments on them, please have the decency to tag me in, or I might miss them and you won’t have the pleasure of my response.

Money that the Queen can do with whatever the *uck she likes. Better?

@merrymouse

These are very busy people

Agree with what you say about circular conversations, but I’m going to draw the line there! these are not people who are finishing a long day at work with commute/supermarket/cooking/laundry/brownies/homework!

It's a different kind of busy (and I would prefer yours!). But their time would be scheduled so you wouldn't know when people have time free unless you ask.

In your example you would know not to interrupt while they are at the supermarket. You could interrupt at the other times I would snarl at anyone who interrupts Browie baking though.

Prince Andrew receives funding for his protection from the privy purse ie the Queens own money

That's possible in theory, yes, but remember this is a woman who tried to dip into funds for the diasadvantaged to pay for palace heating
Is it really likely she'd miss a chance to pass the cost onto the public if there's the slightest chance of doing so?

@Iamdobby63

Genuinely sorry for not doing an @ at you.

When I am commenting literally two posts after someone, I don't always do it.
Personally I hate @ because of the emails as a result and I follow threads and see anything directed at me by my posts being quoted or it's just after I have posted.

I will try and remember to @ you every time. Can't promise I will remember though

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Prince Andrew receives funding for his protection from the privy purse ie the Queens own money

That's possible in theory, yes, but remember this is a woman who tried to dip into funds for the diasadvantaged to pay for palace heating
Is it really likely she'd miss a chance to pass the cost onto the public if there's the slightest chance of doing so?

I’m simply pointing out that his security is paid from those funds and not how others are paid as had been claimed.

So if Charles disagrees with the Queen paying for PA's security, he can't do anything about that can he. PC is well known for slimming down the royals, but he was trying to create a role for Harry whose relevance was slipping fast. William has 3 children. Prince George is now who Harry used to be and Harry is now Prince Edward (ie. kind of a bit irrelevant but can either work for a living as a royal and have security when he works as a royal, but not he rest of the time.

It is consistent that Charles wants to be accountable to the public. He wanted H&M to stay here for their security as Charles could create a higher profile role for Harry then he should have and provide security.

Harry didn't want to do that. Prince Charles is being consistent.

[quote Roussette]@Iamdobby63

Genuinely sorry for not doing an @ at you.

When I am commenting literally two posts after someone, I don't always do it.
Personally I hate @ because of the emails as a result and I follow threads and see anything directed at me by my posts being quoted or it's just after I have posted.

I will try and remember to @ you every time. Can't promise I will remember though[/quote]
Thank you.

The stories about Epstein have been around for years and Andrew has done plenty of other dodgy things that have brought the family into ill repute. She has consistently rewarded him

All this is very true - I spent some time listing his ghastlier choices on a previous thread - and wasn't it just after he was shunted out of the ridiculous "Special Trade Envoy" position that HM rewarded him with some major gong?

I wouldn't quite say that guilt's the only reason for wanting him protected though ... there's also the chance they don't want folk who might ask awkward questions getting too near him

Binglebong I was a solicitor so yes at times needed to make appointments in case with a client or in court for example so I understand the need to make appointments in some circumstances. That’s what I was trying to say but probably not very well.