Prince Harry and Meghan in Near Catastrophic Car Chase in NYC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody in the US gives a crap about these 2.

Apparently a few people do, enough to show up on their scooters with their phones to take a pic.

The cab photos were taken by an agency named Backgrid - you can see the photo credit. It’s best known as an agency used by “stars” themselves to drum up a little interest. Meghan’s “intercepted hiker” pictures after the coronation, with the jaunty neckerchief and Panama hat (??????? Cool, cool.) were credited to Backgrid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are much better protections for them from paparazzi in England. All they have to do is live there.

I don't think that's true now that they're not royal. One of the reports I saw about this incident mentioned that a recent court case determined Harry cannot pay for police protection while he's in England anymore, and he's appealing that decision. So they don't get the royal treatment, pun intended, which would make them even more of a target because from what I can tell British people hate Meghan even more than DCUMers.

I think it's more split. At least among young people, it's more they're not liked, but the rest of the royals are viewed in an even more negative light. Under 50 have a majority opposed to monarchy, and under 25 flat out prefer a republic

Dismantling the country from within. So liberal teaching of global citizenship is paying off splendidly, hmm?

Or saving hundreds of millions and then making hundreds of millions more once Buckingham palace becomes a tourist attraction.

This! Have tourists pay to tour bucking bam palace, the queens chambers, etc. Kensington palace, balmoral, Windsor, all of it. If they think Stonehenge is a tourist attraction wait until people realize they can take selfies in the queens chambers at Sondringham

But why are the British royals such money-makers? Because of the tabloids. It's a symbiotic-and-or-parasitic relationship. They have built each other. Unlike any other royal family in any other country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody in the US gives a crap about these 2.

Apparently a few people do, enough to show up on their scooters with their phones to take a pic.

The cab photos were taken by an agency named Backgrid - you can see the photo credit. It’s best known as an agency used by “stars” themselves to drum up a little interest. Meghan’s “intercepted hiker” pictures after the coronation, with the jaunty neckerchief and Panama hat (??????? Cool, cool.) were credited to Backgrid.

The CNN article referenced 6 cars and motorcycle(s) and scooter(s). All from one agency? I assumed more than one (or just regular people who heard and stopped by to snap a pic).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are much better protections for them from paparazzi in England. All they have to do is live there.

I don't think that's true now that they're not royal. One of the reports I saw about this incident mentioned that a recent court case determined Harry cannot pay for police protection while he's in England anymore, and he's appealing that decision. So they don't get the royal treatment, pun intended, which would make them even more of a target because from what I can tell British people hate Meghan even more than DCUMers.

I think it's more split. At least among young people, it's more they're not liked, but the rest of the royals are viewed in an even more negative light. Under 50 have a majority opposed to monarchy, and under 25 flat out prefer a republic

Dismantling the country from within. So liberal teaching of global citizenship is paying off splendidly, hmm?

Or saving hundreds of millions and then making hundreds of millions more once Buckingham palace becomes a tourist attraction.

This! Have tourists pay to tour bucking bam palace, the queens chambers, etc. Kensington palace, balmoral, Windsor, all of it. If they think Stonehenge is a tourist attraction wait until people realize they can take selfies in the queens chambers at Sondringham

Buckingham Palace is already open to the public. Sandringham is private property and as properties go, pretty unlovable, and not convenient to London. Although I imagine if a republic is declared, the royals (not the UK government) would open it to the public to make money off it. Or flog it and it'd be converted into a hotel. But not relevant to the thread's topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The story has a lot of holes in it and it makes me want to ask a lot of questions. The main one being is it even possible to have a two hour high speed chase around NYC? Anyone who's driven in NYC knows it's impossible. And I do have to ask who would spend two hours chasing after someone to take their photos? I've never heard of a paparazzi pursuing a celebrity for two hours. Two hours is, you know, a long time! And Harry and Meghan also had police protection with them the whole time? So what exactly went on?

+1 this is not the bronco on the freeway. There is also so much air monitoring over NYC that there has to be helicopter etc footage if it was really at this scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are much better protections for them from paparazzi in England. All they have to do is live there.

I don't think that's true now that they're not royal. One of the reports I saw about this incident mentioned that a recent court case determined Harry cannot pay for police protection while he's in England anymore, and he's appealing that decision. So they don't get the royal treatment, pun intended, which would make them even more of a target because from what I can tell British people hate Meghan even more than DCUMers.

I think it's more split. At least among young people, it's more they're not liked, but the rest of the royals are viewed in an even more negative light. Under 50 have a majority opposed to monarchy, and under 25 flat out prefer a republic

Dismantling the country from within. So liberal teaching of global citizenship is paying off splendidly, hmm?

Or saving hundreds of millions and then making hundreds of millions more once Buckingham palace becomes a tourist attraction.

This! Have tourists pay to tour bucking bam palace, the queens chambers, etc. Kensington palace, balmoral, Windsor, all of it. If they think Stonehenge is a tourist attraction wait until people realize they can take selfies in the queens chambers at Sondringham

A fraction of the number Versailles supports because Buckingham palace still has people living there.

[Anonymous]

I see the deranged Meghan haters have predictably jumped on this like slavering dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody in the US gives a crap about these 2.

Apparently a few people do, enough to show up on their scooters with their phones to take a pic.

The cab photos were taken by an agency named Backgrid - you can see the photo credit. It’s best known as an agency used by “stars” themselves to drum up a little interest. Meghan’s “intercepted hiker” pictures after the coronation, with the jaunty neckerchief and Panama hat (??????? Cool, cool.) were credited to Backgrid.

The CNN article referenced 6 cars and motorcycle(s) and scooter(s). All from one agency? I assumed more than one (or just regular people who heard and stopped by to snap a pic).

Six cars and motorcycles and scooters means a pap ring. The mystery is why would a pap ring be organized and so desperate to chase after the duo for two hours. There's no shortage of photo ops and the duo were just out of an award events with plenty of photographers. It's all too... neat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are much better protections for them from paparazzi in England. All they have to do is live there.

I don't think that's true now that they're not royal. One of the reports I saw about this incident mentioned that a recent court case determined Harry cannot pay for police protection while he's in England anymore, and he's appealing that decision. So they don't get the royal treatment, pun intended, which would make them even more of a target because from what I can tell British people hate Meghan even more than DCUMers.

I think it's more split. At least among young people, it's more they're not liked, but the rest of the royals are viewed in an even more negative light. Under 50 have a majority opposed to monarchy, and under 25 flat out prefer a republic

Dismantling the country from within. So liberal teaching of global citizenship is paying off splendidly, hmm?

Or saving hundreds of millions and then making hundreds of millions more once Buckingham palace becomes a tourist attraction.

This! Have tourists pay to tour bucking bam palace, the queens chambers, etc. Kensington palace, balmoral, Windsor, all of it. If they think Stonehenge is a tourist attraction wait until people realize they can take selfies in the queens chambers at Sondringham

Buckingham Palace is already open to the public. Sandringham is private property and as properties go, pretty unlovable, and not convenient to London. Although I imagine if a republic is declared, the royals (not the UK government) would open it to the public to make money off it. Or flog it and it'd be converted into a hotel. But not relevant to the thread's topic.

If a republic is declared, there is no reason to think the royals would be left with any properties to open to the public

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are much better protections for them from paparazzi in England. All they have to do is live there.

I don't think that's true now that they're not royal. One of the reports I saw about this incident mentioned that a recent court case determined Harry cannot pay for police protection while he's in England anymore, and he's appealing that decision. So they don't get the royal treatment, pun intended, which would make them even more of a target because from what I can tell British people hate Meghan even more than DCUMers.

I think it's more split. At least among young people, it's more they're not liked, but the rest of the royals are viewed in an even more negative light. Under 50 have a majority opposed to monarchy, and under 25 flat out prefer a republic

Dismantling the country from within. So liberal teaching of global citizenship is paying off splendidly, hmm?

Or saving hundreds of millions and then making hundreds of millions more once Buckingham palace becomes a tourist attraction.

This! Have tourists pay to tour bucking bam palace, the queens chambers, etc. Kensington palace, balmoral, Windsor, all of it. If they think Stonehenge is a tourist attraction wait until people realize they can take selfies in the queens chambers at Sondringham

A fraction of the number Versailles supports because Buckingham palace still has people living there.

There are some other differences. Versailles is a museum from the late 1700s and early 1800s. When the French beheaded their royalty, they got a nice museum.

When Brits are ready to behead or otherwise nationalize the wealth of the monarchy, they'll be stuck with a bunch of big expensive palaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are much better protections for them from paparazzi in England. All they have to do is live there.

I don't think that's true now that they're not royal. One of the reports I saw about this incident mentioned that a recent court case determined Harry cannot pay for police protection while he's in England anymore, and he's appealing that decision. So they don't get the royal treatment, pun intended, which would make them even more of a target because from what I can tell British people hate Meghan even more than DCUMers.

I think it's more split. At least among young people, it's more they're not liked, but the rest of the royals are viewed in an even more negative light. Under 50 have a majority opposed to monarchy, and under 25 flat out prefer a republic

Dismantling the country from within. So liberal teaching of global citizenship is paying off splendidly, hmm?

Or saving hundreds of millions and then making hundreds of millions more once Buckingham palace becomes a tourist attraction.

This! Have tourists pay to tour bucking bam palace, the queens chambers, etc. Kensington palace, balmoral, Windsor, all of it. If they think Stonehenge is a tourist attraction wait until people realize they can take selfies in the queens chambers at Sondringham

Buckingham Palace is already open to the public. Sandringham is private property and as properties go, pretty unlovable, and not convenient to London. Although I imagine if a republic is declared, the royals (not the UK government) would open it to the public to make money off it. Or flog it and it'd be converted into a hotel. But not relevant to the thread's topic.

If a republic is declared, there is no reason to think the royals would be left with any properties to open to the public

Sandringham and Balmoral are privately owned by the royals. The royals have clearly owned private assets. The crown jewels are state property, the private jewels you see the royals wear most of the time is privately owned. Same with various property. The UK becoming a republic isn't akin to tsarist Russia becoming a communist state. If a republic happens, it isn't going to confiscate all the royals' private assets just to make a point because that's not the kind of country the UK is. Some people clearly live in fantasy land. Perhaps like Megharry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are much better protections for them from paparazzi in England. All they have to do is live there.

I don't think that's true now that they're not royal. One of the reports I saw about this incident mentioned that a recent court case determined Harry cannot pay for police protection while he's in England anymore, and he's appealing that decision. So they don't get the royal treatment, pun intended, which would make them even more of a target because from what I can tell British people hate Meghan even more than DCUMers.

I think it's more split. At least among young people, it's more they're not liked, but the rest of the royals are viewed in an even more negative light. Under 50 have a majority opposed to monarchy, and under 25 flat out prefer a republic

Dismantling the country from within. So liberal teaching of global citizenship is paying off splendidly, hmm?

Or saving hundreds of millions and then making hundreds of millions more once Buckingham palace becomes a tourist attraction.

This! Have tourists pay to tour bucking bam palace, the queens chambers, etc. Kensington palace, balmoral, Windsor, all of it. If they think Stonehenge is a tourist attraction wait until people realize they can take selfies in the queens chambers at Sondringham

Buckingham Palace is already open to the public. Sandringham is private property and as properties go, pretty unlovable, and not convenient to London. Although I imagine if a republic is declared, the royals (not the UK government) would open it to the public to make money off it. Or flog it and it'd be converted into a hotel. But not relevant to the thread's topic.

If a republic is declared, there is no reason to think the royals would be left with any properties to open to the public

Sandringham and Balmoral are privately owned by the royals. The royals have clearly owned private assets. The crown jewels are state property, the private jewels you see the royals wear most of the time is privately owned. Same with various property. The UK becoming a republic isn't akin to tsarist Russia becoming a communist state. If a republic happens, it isn't going to confiscate all the royals' private assets just to make a point because that's not the kind of country the UK is. Some people clearly live in fantasy land. Perhaps like Megharry.

Yes, if the UK becomes a republic, it would be like Russia taking the wealth of the royalty. All of it. Like other penniless royals, they would all have to go live somewhere else. They wouldn't just go home and live out their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody in the US gives a crap about these 2.

Apparently a few people do, enough to show up on their scooters with their phones to take a pic.

The cab photos were taken by an agency named Backgrid - you can see the photo credit. It’s best known as an agency used by “stars” themselves to drum up a little interest. Meghan’s “intercepted hiker” pictures after the coronation, with the jaunty neckerchief and Panama hat (??????? Cool, cool.) were credited to Backgrid.

Lol. Poor girl didn’t get enough attention growing up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:they're such attention whoring liars. Nothing about this is true. I really wish they would go away. Thought they wanted peace and quiet? Nope, clearly not.

It's not funny to make sarcastic comments about their near catastrophic experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:they're such attention whoring liars. Nothing about this is true. I really wish they would go away. Thought they wanted peace and quiet? Nope, clearly not.

It's not funny to make sarcastic comments about their near catastrophic experience.

What exactly was near catastrophic?