Petty royal family

[Anonymous]

I was reading an article today about the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry in the UK that is presently ongoing. Its seems so petty to me that the British government, likely due to the sentiments of King Charles, is refusing security for the Sussexes. I have no dog in this fight - I think the Sussexes are highly privileged and overexposed but also have little use for the other royals, too. But considering so many celebrities with far less toxicity surrounding them have security, the many meaningful threats that have been revealed, and how much money the Brits spend on their “working” royals, this just seems bullheaded and very heartless. Am I off here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was reading an article today about the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry in the UK that is presently ongoing. Its seems so petty to me that the British government, likely due to the sentiments of King Charles, is refusing security for the Sussexes. I have no dog in this fight - I think the Sussexes are highly privileged and overexposed but also have little use for the other royals, too. But considering so many celebrities with far less toxicity surrounding them have security, the many meaningful threats that have been revealed, and how much money the Brits spend on their “working” royals, this just seems bullheaded and very heartless. Am I off here?

Those celebs pay for their own security, no?

[Anonymous]

Explain how you think the British taxpayers would feel about paying for fancy security for an ex-Royal and his family who not only left their duties to live and work in America, but also openly criticize the monarchy.

[Anonymous]

Why should the taxpayers pay for their security? They have a LOT of money they didn’t earn; they can pay for it themselves.

[Anonymous]

we're talking about this AGAIN after the royal family shared its holiday picture?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should the taxpayers pay for their security? They have a LOT of money they didn’t earn; they can pay for it themselves.

[phone].

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure, barring the late Queen, this family is best known for its pettiness. The King and son William are easy to anger, hold grudges and irrational. I think it's sad but Harry should cut them off since he is persona non grata, why return for more abuse? If you want to go there, get your own security and be at peace. I wouldn't go and leave myself open to the violent agenda driven paparazzi.

[Anonymous]

100% petty but in no way unexpected. It’s incredibly complicated for them to justify their taxpayer costs at all. These types of things will happen for as long as the BRF exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:we're talking about this AGAIN after the royal family shared its holiday picture?!

That has absolutely nothing to do with the subject here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Explain how you think the British taxpayers would feel about paying for fancy security for an ex-Royal and his family who not only left their duties to live and work in America, but also openly criticize the monarchy.

Yes, it’s no longer appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Explain how you think the British taxpayers would feel about paying for fancy security for an ex-Royal and his family who not only left their duties to live and work in America, but also openly criticize the monarchy.

It’s about as ridiculous as American taxpayers covering the cost of security for the President’s adult children. Harry is the son of the monarch and should be given protection in the UK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain how you think the British taxpayers would feel about paying for fancy security for an ex-Royal and his family who not only left their duties to live and work in America, but also openly criticize the monarchy.

It’s about as ridiculous as American taxpayers covering the cost of security for the President’s adult children. Harry is the son of the monarch and should be given protection in the UK.

He is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Explain how you think the British taxpayers would feel about paying for fancy security for an ex-Royal and his family who not only left their duties to live and work in America, but also openly criticize the monarchy.

Charles has a few bucks and could afford to protect his own son.

He has loads of money that is not from tax payers.

[Anonymous]

Charles and William are ugly grumbling old men and don’t want Harry and his popular wife to suck up their air time.

All Charles cares about is Camilla and being King and he doesn’t want anyone else taking the spotlight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain how you think the British taxpayers would feel about paying for fancy security for an ex-Royal and his family who not only left their duties to live and work in America, but also openly criticize the monarchy.

It’s about as ridiculous as American taxpayers covering the cost of security for the President’s adult children. Harry is the son of the monarch and should be given protection in the UK.

agreed. especially if that was the queen's wish.