California is facing a particularly vicious wildfire season this year, with thousands of acres burned and many parts of the state without electricity.
More than 50,000 people have been forced to leave their homes, including superstar basketball player LeBron James, who drove around and around with his family in his car, looking for a safe place to stay.
The area affected by one of the major fires, the Getty fire, is precisely where Meghan and Harry hope to move. Bel Air, where they were supposedly looking homes, is currently within a mandatory evacuation area.
More than 50,000 people have been forced to leave their homes, including superstar basketball player LeBron James, who drove around and around with his family in his car, looking for a safe place to stay.
The area affected by one of the major fires, the Getty fire, is precisely where Meghan and Harry hope to move. Bel Air, where they were supposedly looking homes, is currently within a mandatory evacuation area.
How would Royal security handle this?
Fast forward six weeks ahead, or even six months ahead. How would Royal security handle a mandatory evacuation?
The RaSP section of the Metropolitan Police Force is in charge with protecting the Royal Family as well as Parliamentarians or Diplomats.
It's hard enough to protect Royals when you have a limited area (their living area in London) to control, or a limited time in another area (Royal tour).
But how would they be able to protect the Sussexes against a broad selection of threats - including fires - indefinitely, in a vast area or in a country where they have no government authority?
If even LeBron James has a hard time finding a safe place for his family, what of the Harkles?
Comments
My guess, they won't have protection in America. UK taxpayers won't have it, and I can assure you that the US taxpayer isn't paying. So they'll be on their own.
I lived in So California for many years. There’s no RPO in the world that can stop those fires. I’ve been evacuated once and it’s terrifying chaos.
Also, yes, Meowwww, skipping the Captcha works fine for me as well!
Glowworm
What they would do is use that as an excuse to private jet their precious arses to nice or Belize or ibiza or someplace "safe" every year.
Probably this.
I would hope that as part of the you live in the USA, you pay for your own security team or do without. And that might be something which might get a tad primal with PH as his mother did not have RPO when she was in Paris. He wants to play the media but that was her decision.
I still don’t know how they are paying for the nonstop PR. I don’t believe conspiracy theory in general, but I do suspect they have some backers behind the scenes.
But I think full-time security in the US is going to be tricky for them. It can be had, but at a price.
They should talk to Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, whom I sure have a busy team given Facebook's controversial profile, or Bill Gates' people.
That said, those people have a lot more to spend than the Harkles do.
Who the hell was behind that?
It was also featured in the New York Times and the Times' Twitter feed - suggesting that criticism of Meghan is "colonialist."
A hell of a buzzword for a small-time actress who flies about in private jets.
I grew up in a communist county. It is so hard to watch the Western elites suppressing free speech for the sake of PC.
She would just hop on a plane, and then post-fire concoct a bunch of word salad that makes her a hero, how she went from door to door, waking people up so they could get out in time, fill in the blank nonsense. She has no compunction about making “bank” on a girl who was brutally assaulted and murdered, why would fire victims be any different?
Fundraising for the victims via the foundation.
I read that many people who evacuated did not tell the staff not to show up. Not feeling particularly soft and kindness feelings about that.
If they are protected then their protectors will have extra powers above and beyond normal bodyguards. Some will be set in stone and some won't.
It's similar to questions on whether MM will have to wait 3 to 5 years to become a British citizen (if she wants to). Does anyone really believe she will go through the same process as us plebs? Same with protection in the USA.
The British Taxpayers? The US taxpayers? Or??
One thing is for sure M&H will not be paying for their own security if they live in California. But they don't pay for their private jets either do they.
I don't think so. The York sisters - who like Harry are male-line grandchildren of the queen - do not have RPOs. This is because they are not 'working' royals. If Harry goes to live full-time in America, he could no longer be considered a 'working' royal and will lose many of his privileges, incl. RPOs.
I think they were expecting a large outpouring of sympathy from the documentary and when they got a mixture of horror that they would stand on African soil and complain about THIER lives and a sort of “well if it’s so awful, you don’t have to do it” shrugs, they now are pivoting to “well, maybe we will leave and see how you like it” self-righteousness. Maybe they really wanted to leave all along or maybe they are trying to force Charles to publicly acknowledge their value (his plans for a slimmed down monarchy would be kind of screwed if they left), but I can’t help feeling that this is one long game of chicken they are playing with the BRF that started when they demanded the split from KP and then didn’t get their own completely separate office to do whatever they wanted with no oversight whatsoever.
Too a break from the bickering.
Swampwoman, missed your question. I use bamboo knitting needles while traveling. I usually use circular needles and use a toenail clipper to cut threads. I make sure I have work " on the needle" in my little bag. I usually travel with socks or lace hat/scarf as a project. Big long metal needles would probably be a problem.
On short-term visits while still retaining the status of 'working' royal. Giving up that status and going to live in Los Angeles full-time would be entirely different. One of the York girls lived in NY and had no RPOs.
Ultimately I think at the end of the day, Harry and Archie will end up back in the UK. MM will stay in the USA. She'll probably have a private bodyguard, she probably won't listen to them very well since as we know what Meghan wants, she gets.
Also I just saw Murky Meg's video about the MP's letter. Are they really that unaware of what strings this woman is pulling behind the scenes? Or are they just afraid to be on the "wrong" side of history? I do think addressing it to Clarence House just shows that no one knows where she and Harry are really residing.
Speaking of which, The Guardian, which loves Jess Phillips and had previously been very much in the 'leave Meghan alone' camp - despite a few blips after the absurd 'documentary' published this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/30/the-treatment-of-meghan-is-racist-we-should-feel-able-to-say-so
I have the same question for the author as I have for Jess Phillips and all the other Meghanistas. What, exactly, is this 'treatment' of Meghan you so oppose? Can you give clear examples, with links to sources? Because all of this hand-wringing over the 'villificaiton' of Meghan is always very very vague. It's become one of those things people - well some people - simply assume is true because it's been said so many times. But where is the evidence? Given the Sussexes' eagerness to use the courts against the press, and the fact that Britain has very robust laws about libel and hate speech, surely they would produce the examples, if they in fact existed?
He wouldn't give up his royal status - not even great grand uncle Edward did that - just the role of 'working' (!) royal. I actually think he's stupid enough to do so, if Meghan convinced him - and let's face it with his 'intellect' he wouldn't take much convincing - that the horrid British press were making her life a misery and if he didn't come with her to LA she'd go without him. He seems utterly under her spell.
However, if he did do it, it would be almost as big a mistake as marrying her in the first place. He would regret it for the rest of his life, or at least until he went back to England, cap in hand, and begged the firm to take him back.
My question is......is the U.S. required to provide security for her every time she decides she would like a visit, or say, she is here for business purposes....to meet with lawyers, to meet with IRS, catch up with friends and go out to dinners with them, attend her friend Serena's tennis matches? you get my drift.
I wouldn't read too much into their strategy beyond the idea that they're posting stories safe in the knowledge that people will click to comment which means advertising $$$
https://canoe.com/life/royals/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-quit-royal-family-queen-strips-them-of-their-royal-titles/amp
I have written previously on this site why California would be so unpleasant for Harry. Not to be overlooked is the dreadful economic condition of many of the city/county governments (where many went officially bankrupt over the years). I can assure you there will be no long term free protection of MM/Harry because politicians there won't find it acceptable.
Round about 0% truth, I should think.
The queen can't 'strip' anyone of their royal titles. Only an Act of Parliament can do that.
Agree with Fairy that the Queen goes for subtle moves to indicate displeasure.
In the game of chicken, not responding is actually quite the power move. Either side however can send balloons which may or may not be sending a message during the interim between bargaining sessions. And that is why it is so difficult to play chicken with people who play it professionally.
I can’t think of any legitimate reason they could come up with for HM or Charles to justify the necessity for a second base of operations for a pair of British royals in the US. The reason “they sure don’t make it easy” probably won’t go over very well with anyone in the RF who has anything to say about it.
Meghan did not marry the Duke of Malibu or the Prince of Beverly Hills. She married a British prince. Period. She should be embracing her new country and immersing herself in it. But she hasn’t because I believe she wasn’t ever planning to live there. She wants to take the royal title and the goodies that come with it and provide nothing directly in return. She most likely thinks she is above the UK and its citizens and they should be happy and thankful she is married to Harry.
I believe staying in the UK was never part of her long-range plan starting with the minute she met Harry. She has probably been filling his empty head with this nonsense about being world changers from the start. Instead she is breaking the traditions and protocols of the RF and thumbing her nose at the prospect of being a working royal in the UK spending her days visiting homes for the elderly and animal shelters because she wants a life of an endless stream of A-list red carpet events.
She is so full of herself she thinks she can do whatever she wants. But by the time Archie is old enough for nursery school, whomever is the monarch will likely want Archie to receive a traditional British education in the UK, not at The Little Red Schoolhouse in Hollywood.
What got me is, I made SO many calls when these fires started happening right around the same time they rolled out smart-meters (which have caused fires), and asked WHY, considering they had the tech to make torrential rain 60 years ago in Vietnam to slow down enemy troops and kill crops by ceating and then seeding clouds, don't they do that now? Santanas aside (Santa Ana winds), why not do that during these ridiculous droughts? Or even mention it as a mitigating possibility? I was answered with crickets by meteorologists at all the major media channels, experts at Universities, and even Fire Chiefs, not to mention state leaders and reps. They must destroy in order to rebuild, so they're starting with uber l liberal California.
The level of evil is diabolical, and I just don't understand how they can get away with it, when solutions are obvious to me. Much like the neutered dog, I just don't get it.
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-william-kate-middleton-public-funds-671071
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/17/middletons-no-different-kardashians-claims-labour-mp/amp/#aoh=15724651544828&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s
1. UK taxpayer needs to pay for them as they are UK royals! I for one, will write my congressional representative and the President if one American government cent is spent on them. I've already written the Queen that I am embarrassed about Meghan's actions.
2. If they live here in an area where they are threatened by wildfires they can get in the evacuation line like everybody else.
3. If they are bothered by the vicious US media, then they can grow a thick skin or go back to the UK.
4. If they move with an intent to reside then Harry can apply for immigrant status and get in line with everyone else.
5. If she tries to work in Hollywood as an actress, then I expect her to join the screen actor's guild and pay the required dues this time (she previously admitted to not doing so at one point).
6. If she moves to Calif. then she can start paying the state's high-income tax on her earnings.
Although cloud seeding is a theoretical remedy, in actuality, it is for a very narrow and very limited solution if it even works when invoked. One major problem is that California does not have the means to capture large amounts of rain due to a lack of widespread reservoirs. I live in Texas now and it is covered across the state with man-made lake reservoirs (most built by the Army Core of Engineers). Here in north Texas, we receive 4 times the amount of rain So. Calif receives and we successfully capture it and use it for Dallas/Ft/ Worth. We are still building reservoirs.
The topography in So. California also not conducive to receiving a massive amount of rain (hence why we hear always of the tremendous mudslides doing such damage there).
Do we doubt that Megs will wind up back in the States eventually? I don't. But this notion that she could export Harry and Archie to California where they will set up their own Sussex West court and be feted as global humanitarians in Hollywood is a fantasy of Meghan's. What is more likely is, the BRF is about ready to boot her out on her unpadded arse. Harry loves to party in America--but he has never actually *lived* abroad. For as much noise as he makes about wanting to be a private citizen and be left alone, I don't think he's got a clue what that would actually mean. What he *wants* is all the privileges, perks and wealth of his position as a Prince (hello, jetting off to Tokyo to watch the rugby!), but he doesn't want to have any constraints placed upon his hedonism, such as photo calls or boring engagements or having to dress up in uniform and follow protocol.
To be an actual private citizen and be responsible for all one's own bills, schedule, dressing oneself, etc. is a lot more work and deprivation than I think Haz is prepared for.
I just want this to be over.
In an unrelated tidbit, I see that Megs is now claiming that *she* is the one who gave Harry the nickname 'Haz' (before he was demoted to just an initial.) Of course she is. I'm 100% certain that Harry has been 'Hazza' to his mates since Eton. Daft cow.
What a can of worms our Megsy has opened across the Pond. Hell, it's not a can; it's an aircraft carrier's worth of worms.
In the meanwhile, dirty PR is at work and is wreaking havoc in spreading lies, sowing division and drumming up a false narrative about them. Such a media campaign is destructive znd the effects will linger.
What can the BRF do, even if they have seen the light as to her agenda and methods? W&K can't deny the stories being spread about Kate phoning Meghan and fully supporting her and them being hugely harmed if M&H should relocate to the USA ... not without looking bad and fuelling the flames of gossip and dirty PR. But, if they say nothing, they validate the false narrative.
What the BRF needs is a respectable biographer with access to real information to publish the whole truth (and it would help if a disgusted member of staff secretly taped M&H to expose them). So much damaging stuff about Meghan has already been uncovered but she is brazen in simply ignoring it (playing the victim of bullies for heavens sake!) and there are too many people going along with this.
Will the BRF survive? Yes. They survived the Charles/Diana scandal, the Fergie scandal, an abdication, and so much else.
In the meanwhile, M&H do not have the experience, knowledge nor credentials and connections (to the real power brokers) to make themselves billionaires through their Foundation. As for their PR ... is Hillary Clinton president? Does Fiona Mcilwham have a stellar career in the foreign service?
I'm curious. If Meghan and Prince Andrew both become even greater issues than they are now, at around the same time, AND something dramatic happens with Brexit and maybe a second Scottish referendum, would this be the greatest crisis period the Queen has ever faced in her reign? Because at the moment, events are certainly developing in parallel.
Yes the crisis of the Wales' marriage in the 1990s involved the immediate heir to the throne, vastly outranking Harry, but there wasn't a question of his fitness to be king, and the nation wasn't facing political and potentially constitutional crisis. We had some dramatic financial crises but we hadn't had a decade of Austerity. It all feels like a perfect storm brewing. I know there's too many 'ifs' here, but alarm bells are ringing.
That book about the finances of the BRF is coming out soon and people are reacting to excerpts with overwhelmingly negative comments, especially that George Osborne made changes as chancellor that increased their income enormously, under the public's radar at the time. Remember after the run of crises in the '90s the Queen was forced to give up Britannia and made unprecedented tax concessions. What's building up now feels far worse.
I must say it's remarkable that Meghan manages to be as destructive a loose cannon as Diana, despite the huge difference in royal seniority. Goodness knows what Diana would have made of her. Maybe they would have exhausted themselves, each trying to outwit the other to secure the most attention and fuss.
Thanks very much for the link r.e. the Labour MP. Politicians from all sides are such brazen liars and demagogues nowadays that it takes a memory like yours to show just how two faced and hypocritical they really are in order to win votes and rely on short term memories.
It's a great example of how the modern info vomit that is the internet is so useful to them. So much stuff is printed every day it's so hard to remember all their dodgy positions!
saw this article - thought i'd share it
Apologies if this has already been posted but it's the first time I've come across it.
https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/mail/2019/10/24/meghan-markle-claims-mail-suppressed-key-parts-of-her-letter-to-her-father-about-exploitation-by-british-tabloids-6g6m2
+10,000
I don't know anything about your second post, so have no comments.
I do think little Miss Meghan is throwing up yet another trial balloon. Harry and Meg don't have the money to live how they'd like to live in SoCal, and people there would be bored with them PDQ. They'd be the flavor of the day for about a week and a half, and then the attention would go elsewhere.
I've said from the beginning, the Markler mistakingly believes celebrity is larger than royalty. Fool!
CatEyes
Re Law concerning the children and grandchildren
I don't have the citation but when the law was put on the books (early early 1700's), no one was living that long for people to consider adding it.
I suspect the lawyer thinking is that there would be a good case for them keeping Archie in the UK even thought the law does not specifically mention great grandkids as there is a logical sense to it and that once Her Majesty passes, the law would be apply.
What about the I can just pick up my stuff and mosey on back to SoCal where I'm wanted? I think that M is playing a game of chicken with the BRF about her leaving and what she would like from them to exit.
WARNING!! Sick buckets needed.
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a29642147/meghan-markle-holly-lynch-press-attacks/
While I'm here - need to say that I agree that they will NOT move to California.
They'll go there for their jollies but a permanent move - never!
Meghan has personally rung the MP who is mainly associated with this to thank her. Bang goes political neutrality. Less than two months before a general election. For God's sake, just what will it take to get the BRF to do something?
IRS question:
If there was taxpayer funded protection, would that be a taxable event to her?
Heh. I'd be in real trouble if they requested I actually knit something!
Most likely scenario for Smeg+1 evacuation is a private jet out of Santa Monica airport or LAX.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7632649/STEPHEN-GLOVER-cynical-MPs-claim-sisterly-solidarity-Meghan-Markle.html
From the letter:
"newspapers have ‘cast aspersions on her character’ and published ‘distasteful and misleading’ stories ‘concerning you [that’s Meghan], your character and your family’.
Quoting from the article: (I did not quote the entire article, but the highlights.)
"Unfortunately, in what is admittedly a short letter whose leading signatory is the Labour MP Holly Lynch, not a single instance of the media’s alleged persecution of the Duchess is produced.
"Wouldn’t it have been helpful if the missive had at least hinted at what is meant by the charge that newspapers are ‘seeking to tear down a woman for no apparent reason’?
"If only one illustration of what sounds like bullying bordering on intimidation had been cited, we would at least have the basis for a sensible debate. But nothing whatsoever is offered."
"There is one wild and unsubstantiated accusation in it which tops all the others. It is that ‘some of these stories’ — naturally, no examples are given — have ‘outdated, colonial undertones’."
"MPs are getting at something else. They are implying, without quite daring to say as much, that news-papers’ criticisms of the Duchess of Sussex are partly motivated by racism."
"the deeper motivation behind the letter is, of course, political. As I say, most signatories are Labour. And it is Jeremy Corbyn’s intention to bring newspapers under a measure of state control.
"Although details have not yet been revealed, the Labour leader spoke four years ago of the need for a ‘multiplicity of ownership’ in the Press. That might imply confiscation."
"Last year he warned news-papers that ‘change is coming’. A Labour administration could set in train a second Leveson Inquiry into newspapers. He has questioned Press freedom by claiming titles are ‘controlled by billionaire tax exiles’."
"If the Press is to be curbed, it is necessary to demonstrate that it has overstepped the bounds of decency and ignored people’s privacy."
"It is even more regrettable that Meghan should have thanked Holly Lynch for her support. She has done what no member of the Royal Family should ever do by entering the political arena — whether deliberately or inadvertently I can’t say — and given comfort to the enemies of a free Press."
Smeg has made no secret of her political leanings. We are seeing on this side of the Atlantic moves to limit free speech and freedom of the press. This is dangerous. Smeg and by implication Harry want a return to groveling press coverage with only glowing articles written and anything unflattering off limits.
@Royal Fan: gifts are taxable in the US. The laws get rather arcane, however, with the baby shower, multiple trips on private jets, accommodations, she's likely over the threshold.
There is another law, the Hague Convention which might come into play if MM/Harry takes off with Archie. It is an international compact with about 98 countries that have agreed to which helps a custodial party if the opposing party flees with the child into one of the other member countries. This law would require the child to be returned to the original jurisdiction and the court decide the further action to be taken. So it seems that this would support Charles' position if he is the reigning Monarch,
I agree with most here that it would be foolish (stupid in my book) if they attempt to live here. Harry has less sense or brains than I give him credit for if he lets Meg manipulate him to leave the UK. Maybe then the Queen would act.
https://www.ibtimes.com/meghan-markle-called-witch-prince-harry-under-her-spell-netizens-react-2856355
Some negative press coming about about Meg influencing Hazz!
"Abbyh questioned about tax payer provided security being taxable income"
That's an interesting question.
From the article, "Six Pakistani ministers walked out of the British High Commission reception, reportedly annoyed at their place at the gathering."
Were the Pakistani ministers unhappy that they, the Pakistani ministers, were not accorded more deference, a higher place at the gathering, or were the ministers annoyed about the presence of the Duke and Duchess?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/30/the-treatment-of-meghan-is-racist-we-should-feel-able-to-say-so
Again, no apparent awareness of her many failings that have nothing to do with that issue. Or that she self-identified as Caucasian until she needed to do otherwise. Infuriatingly, no comments allowed. And many readers will be infuriated. Recently they used other article that did allow comments, to make their feelings known.
All this is doing is to ratchet up the tension and sense of grievance felt by the general public who take note of the royals. Also adds to the backlash against what is seen as virtue signalling, especially against the MPs who agreed to be listed in that letter. Backlashes often end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. BRF take note.
https://graziadaily.co.uk/celebrity/news/meghan-markle-racist-abuse-mps/
>>>>>>I can’t help but think this [MPs'] letter would have been so much more powerful had it swapped out ‘colonial undertones’ for ‘racist abuse.’
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say the undertones of many of the articles written about Meghan are tinged with racial prejudice. Prince Harry himself called out the racist coverage Meghan Markle was already facing back in 2016 when confirming her as his girlfriend for the first time. The statement made his view quite clear;
'His girlfriend Meghan Markle, has been subject to a wave of abuse and harassment... the smear on the front page of a national newspaper; the racial undertones of comment pieces and the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls and web article comments.
If our own MPs can’t boldly call out racism in the press, then what hope do we have of the situation changing?>>>>>>>>
What evidence does the author offer as to the criticism being racist? Why only that Harry said so (2nd para of extract).
I don't know about the taxation (I probably ought to just ask my accountant who is used to my coming out of left field questions sometimes).
I was thinking of it as a benefit issue like club membership, driver who takes you places, some kind of costly "benefit" that is not a normal job perc: taxpayers paying for something which she/they would otherwise have to pay for themselves could be viewed as not a gift but more like taxable income?
For example, when someone sells a house short because they are underwater (meaning that they sold the house for $80K but the mortgage owed is $100 = short $20K). The house seller gets a 1099 from the bank for $20K reported as income to the IRS (that money which the bank is writing off is the same as income to the seller that would otherwise to the bank and therefore taxable).
About the race part, that's just jumping on the bandwagon and regurgitation of Harry's SA statement. It doesn't go into the details at all. And race seems to be part of the reason that the women have signed, because it seems like they want to take a stand against something "worthwhile" and we're what apart from brexit could be interesting and decided to do this. This seems like very kitty party politics to me.
That's also brings me to the misogyny part. The wen seem to imply that they ate supporting mm because she is woman who is being wronged and these women, who have some power, will not be afraid to stand up for her. Firstly, the mm issue is not completely rooted in misogyny. She is actually greedy, machiavellian, partly crazy, narcissistic etc etc and she happens to be a woman at the same time. Yes it's easy to bash her, as opposed to the once beloved, now wronged, prince but that is diluting the essence of the more pressing issue - she hates the family and is using them.
This is by and large a family issue, she wants their money, their fame their influence for herself. Harry is a means to an end. And all of the issues could be solved with some level headedness from the BRF, with the media playing side-chick. The Mp letter now brings the govt into it directly and that's forcing the Brfs hand. Mm and pH don't have constitutional powers, but this letter shows that they have influence?? So the Mps supporting them is meant to show that the general public supports them? Women Mps are supposed to represent the underdog and so indirectly means the Sussexes are the underdogs and downtrodden?
This mess is turning into an extremely unpleasant national crisis, at least that's the direction it's being steered towards. With no other purpose that just because.
https://www.fox13news.com/news/polk-sheriff-confirms-cyberbullying-investigation-involving-meghan-markle-half-sister-samantha
https://people.com/royals/the-special-meaning-behind-meghan-markles-two-new-gold-rings/
I have a close relative who is a narcissist and a compulsive shopping disorder is part of her characteristics. It just would not occur to a narcissist that perhaps helping out a relative (even if you do not like that person) may be more important than buying another ring (or even making a donation to a local community centre or animal shelter.
And it seems to be infectious ... Brexit, a parliament that bickers without achieving anything, the Queen dragged into the mess, poverty a reality, a general election looming ... and 70-odd female MPs devote their time and energy into sending an unprecedented letter of support to a foreign entitled nobody (despite all her hustling) who keeps buying more rings (and accusing the media of racism in that letter)?
Agree that these women MP are stirring the pot. Interesting to find out in a table of comparison what these women have acheived prior to this letter. The letter comes out amidst the panic of Brexit and the ensuing voting. Perhaps they are looking to win more female votes?
If the fires are as perilous as it seems, synthetic wigs are an absolute hazard. Look what happened to Michael Jacksons hair when a spark flew on it. That being said I used to admire Whitney Houstons hair until I read somewhere that she had to shave off her natural hair as a bald scalp was easier to fix a wig on!!!
I feel in natural disasters the RPOs will be out of their league. They seem to be trained against crowd control and people attacks. So in these huge fires, it will be ''Every man for himself''. No idea where they get trained, but firefighting skills can't be one of them. More like emergency evacuation. No idea if helicopters need aviation clearance and if they are allowed to fly over fires. Also surely the sick,needy and animals get first priority, not the priveledged and wealthy.
Gifts are NOT taxable income to the recipient though. That I do know. Gift taxes are paid by the donor if the gift doesn't qualify for an exclusion. The annual dollar value exclusion for this year is $15000. There are some others, see link.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes
"To all those getting up their follower numbers by slagging off Megan Markle. I prefer my Royals taking on the press and talking of strains of mental health and motherhood than, you know.... hanging out with rich rapists."
That's how low her bar is. Prince Andrew. Words fail me.
But the $15K IRS limit is the amount an individual or entity can give to a single individual without triggering the gift tax provision. IF the giver (not the recipient) is subject to the US tax code, and the amount given to one person in one tax year exceeds $15K, then the giver has to pay gift tax, not the recipient of the gift. As the link I posted from the IRS indicates, it's possible a donor and a recipient could agree to some other arrangement but the recipient/donee is never obligated to pay federal taxes of any kind on gifts and gifts aren't considered income. Interest earned by an invested monetary gift, sure. Profits made if a gift as sold, sure (capital gains not income tax most likely.) Even inheritances aren't taxable to the beneficiary. Estate taxes come from the estate.
Here is the quote from the IRS: "The donor is generally responsible for paying the gift tax. Under special arrangements the donee may agree to pay the tax instead. Please visit with your tax professional if you are considering this type of arrangement."
The link defines a gift as "Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full consideration (measured in money or money's worth) is not received in return."
If the US government provides security, I doubt they will consider it a gift and tax themselves! :)
After all, the letter was not written until the Family had subtly indicated its displeasure.
Wow...I can't even....I hope she gets some pretty negative blow back for that ridiculous statement. This is an MP? WTH is wrong with these people?
So in addition to celebs, MPs, we now have the head of the CoE voicing his support for MM & H. Really? With all that is going on in the UK and the world?
I think I am in a parallel universe. Nothing seems to make sense.
Join the club, I've felt that way for a couple of years now. I couldn't believe the Archbishop had the nerve to say that they have the "right" to take a break and that they aren't "superhuman." Like they somehow work SO much, that they are deserving of a 6 week break. Does he not realize how horrible that sounds when people in the UK are working two jobs just to get by? Is HE that out of touch? I just couldn't believe it.
In my day to day life, ive honestly never met anyone who supports or even likes Mm. Infact, I've never even heard her or her husband being discussed in any social scenario. So why is this two bit nothing, obvious gold digger envoking such protective insticts in politicians, celebrities and the Archbishop of Canterbury for God's sake??
Pe: her publishing a wedding pic with AOC a few days before his public support seemed too bizzare a coincidence. (And a coincidence it obviously wasn't)
"According to the Mayo Clinic, people with [NPD] view any and all forms of critique as personal attacks, take advantage of others to get what they want, and get overwhelmed with sadness when things don't play out in a way that suggests they're superior to others."
I had to chuckle, it's just so *accurate!*
"Usually, narcissistic behaviors begin in a person's teenage years and can stem from receiving misplaced yet excessive praise or criticism from a parent over an extended period of time. Such words and actions can skew the teen's view of reality."
Seems Thomas might be the root of his daughter's issues after all...just not in the way she claims!
What you're seeing is this trend towards celebrity culture. Doesn't surprise me that the Welby jumps in. His twitter page header is a photo of him and presumably his wife surrounded by little Indian children (or Sri Lankan?) He's the humanitarian of the Meghan Markle type, photos surrounded by poor kids from developing countries. If you look at his Twitter, it looks as if he received his diploma in the art of self-promotion from the same school Meghan attended. It's peppered with photos of himself always in the center and retweets of people quoting him. Might seem normal, until you take a look at Pope Francis's twitter page. It's just tweets that are like mini prayers or thoughts of the day (I'm agnostic, so not promoting one religious denomination over the other). I can imagine, Meghan batted her eyelashes at him, looked up with her doe eyes, giggled and clapped her hands at his jokes, touched his arm and back, and stroked his ego about how close she feels to God now because of his wonderful, amazing pastorship. For a man like him who goes on about how the CoE needs to evangelize and renew the flagging attendance, he probably felt reenergised in his mission.
(here comes sarcasm)
Also, Jesus's Sermon of the Mount as updated for the people of today by Justin Welby upon meeting Meghan Megdalene,
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are the rich funded by taxpayer dollars, for they shall maintain control of the earth until the meek inherit it.
Blessed are the the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the merciless who cut off their fathers for one mistake, for they shall only be surrounded by positive
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. And if they aren't, they can hire the best, most expensive pit-bull attorneys possible and sue the pants off the people they feel have wronged them.
Blessed are the peacemakers for they are the children of God.
Blessed are the light-shiners, for they are the children of Instagram. #blessed #TBT #nomakeupselfie #gratitude #fitspo #nofilter #cleaneating #thrivingnotsurviving #squadgoals
/endsarcasm (please don't take this as offensive for those who are Christians)
https://en.businesstimes.cn/articles/121147/20191031/meghan-markle-disliked-for-her-insincerity-and-hypocrisy-not-her-race-royal-watchers-say.htm
Gifts are generally not taxable to the recipient IF the gift giver paid the taxes. However, if the giver did not pay the taxes, then the gift may be taxable to the recipient. There is a $15,000 annual limit on gifts from one source and a lifetime limit of several million.
Bearing that in mind, I am not surprised at all about the letter from the 72 female MPs. It's a handy way to increase their woke credentials,and garner approval from said chattering class. The same with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Though in his case, the level of hypocrisy is astounding. This is the prelate who allowed the Church of England to own a large amount of shares in a payday loan company called Wonga. The financial watchdogs finally closed Wonga down, but not before it had ruined the lives of countless poor people. He seems more concerned about the Harkles getting a six week "break" than he was about the poorest people in the UK who were borrowing money to pay rent and bills.
As for whether the Harkles will move to the USA, here's something to consider. Because Archie is close (hereditary-wise) to a direct line to the throne, until he reaches 18 he cannot be taken to another country to live permanently without the Queen's permission. This is why Diana couldn't move to the States, the Queen wouldn't let her take William and Harry and she would not go without them.
"Our MPs are, almost without exception, straight-jacketed by political correctness. They cannot open their mouths without their peers jumping on anything suspect which does not fit the standards of the liberal and/or left wing chattering class. Even our Conservative MPs maintain this habit."
Oh, I agree completely. Media is the same, with a few exceptions. As I said above, I'm a Labour supporter but I detest shallow virtue signalling gestures like this. And as you say, the women who 'signed' this letter did so for their own reasons, like all of Meghan's 'celeb friends'. They don't actually care about her.
Speaking of which, where are all the other 'celeb friends'? Where's Serena? Oprah? And above all, where are the Clooneys? George seemes to think of himself as some sort of expert voice on the subject of media intrusion? He couldn't shut up about his great friend Meghan last year, yet we've not heard a word from him or his wife in ages. Interesting.
What's also interesting - or maybe not, I don't really know the norms in such matters - is that the MPs' letter wasn't actually signed by any of the women. Does this suggest hastiness?
"Because Archie is close (hereditary-wise) to a direct line to the throne, until he reaches 18 he cannot be taken to another country to live permanently without the Queen's permission. This is why Diana couldn't move to the States, the Queen wouldn't let her take William and Harry and she would not go without them."
I'm not sure if this applies to great-granchildren. As for Diana, I don't think she ever expressed any real desire to go to the US, and in any case, her sons were the heir and the 3rd in line, so no way would she have been allowed to take them outside of the UK, particularly as she was divorced and Charles had them 50% of the time. It might be different if the parents of the untitled 7th in line both decided to relocate to the US together. I doubt the queen would be bothered to intervene, even if she had the right to do so.
“(The Queen)...called the couple to her private quarters immediately after the documentary aired. In a shocking showdown, she told them to ‘get a grip’ and stop claiming they’d single-handedly modernized the monarchy. She told Meghan it might be okay to be so open in hippy-dippy Hollywood, but royals keep their private feelings just that — private.
They spilled their guts like no royal since Princess Diana’s shocking ‘There were three of us in this marriage’ TV interview in 1995 about Prince Charles’ cheating with Camilla Parker Bowles. But they came across as whiners and hypocrites — and Her Majesty was outraged.
Her Majesty called their bluff! She told them that she was delighted with their decision and couldn’t wait for them to leave
She stripped them of their royal titles, their newly renovated home, Frogmore Cottage — and about $15 million in financial support! Then the queen removed a photo of the couple that had a prominent spot in her audience room in Buckingham Palace. Meghan’s royal fairy tale just exploded in her face.
Instead of apologizing and begging forgiveness, Harry and Meghan dug their heels in, insisting they wanted out of the royal fishbowl. They demanded a six-week break to chill out — and see what America has to offer them.
Her Majesty exploded! I’m told she retorted, ‘Six weeks? You can make it permanent!’ She said everyone, including herself, had bent over backwards to help Meghan adjust to royal life. And if they couldn’t cope, she’d be delighted to see them go — for good!
Meghan clearly masterminded this publicity stunt — and the queen retaliated.”
Thoughts?
Yes this is my experience too, talking with colleagues, listening to people on public transport and especially at the hairdressers, where women don't hold back. Moreover it cuts across class and you can see this by the fact that the comments are uniformly negative in the Telegraph, Guardian and Daily Mail, that I read every day.
Which leads me to think that these women MPs will experience a fair amount of criticism on the doorstep during this election campaign. Brexit and the state of our public services are infinitely more important obviously, but I think this will get many women at a more visceral level. These MPs spending their time defending someone like MM when 'ordinary' women can't afford childcare, can't get their children into their local schools and are struggling to look after elderly relatives due to the social care crisis. People are even dying because councils can't afford to mend the holes in the road. Oh yes, the general public will add this letter to their long list of grievances, and for women especially, it will be surprisingly high on that list.
Also, it's not just what is written in the press. Photos and film tell us a great deal. Women will have observed Meghan's manipulative body language, the discernible detachment and unfamiliarity with Archie from both of them, the lack of respect as shown by the failure to even dress and groom themselves properly for their royal duties and the way Harry is fading away in front of our eyes.
Moreover Meghan turned the wedding, birth announcement and christening into farce. For the rest of us, these are the most precious milestones in life and we would want everyone to celebrate and be happy. They are not meant to be power plays or opportunities to do a bit of merchandising and PR.
All of these things we feel in our bones. That something is deeply wrong and that it should be sorted out. We don't need the press to tell us this and we are not puppets of the press. We can see clearly enough who the puppets are this week.
And to repeat: the queen cannot 'strip' any member of her family of their titles. That would require an Act of Parliament. And it would take something a lot more serious than a tacky documentary to persuade parliament to strip the son of the future king of his dukedom.
Not to mention that the royals are supposed to stand aloof from politics. Even if Meghan wanted to thank Holly Lynch for the 'solidarity', surely a more appropriate way would be to have one of her many flunkies write a thank-you note, rather than call a sitting MP in person?
I can't think of any major royal story that's been broken by the American press recently, certainly not by a dodgy site like Radar.
In any case, this story is total and complete nonsense. As I've said many times, there is simply no way for the queen to 'strip' titles. It just cannot happen. This 'story' makes it sound like the queen is an employer annoyed at the behaviour of a few junior employees. That alone makes it clear to me that whoever wrote it has no clue how the royals operate.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/gifts-from-foreign-person
So far as the lifetime limits go---those apply to the giver, not the recipient. And you are correct the limit is high. According the the link below, "In 2018, a taxpayer does not pay gift tax until they have given away over $11.2 million in their lifetime ($5.49 million in 2017)." Many gifts are excluded from the lifetime calculation as well. And the calculation applied only to gifts that exceeded the annual limit of $15K per person.
https://blog.taxact.com/gift-tax-do-i-have-to-pay-gift-tax-when-someone-gives-me-money/
**********
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are the rich funded by taxpayer dollars, for they shall maintain control of the earth until the meek inherit it.
Blessed are the the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the merciless who cut off their fathers for one mistake, for they shall only be surrounded by positive
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. And if they aren't, they can hire the best, most expensive pit-bull attorneys possible and sue the pants off the people they feel have wronged them.
Blessed are the peacemakers for they are the children of God.
Blessed are the light-shiners, for they are the children of Instagram. #blessed #TBT #nomakeupselfie #gratitude #fitspo #nofilter #cleaneating #thrivingnotsurviving #squadgoals
/endsarcasm (please don't take this as offensive for those who are Christians)
*************
Since the beginning of mankind (which is way too far back in history for Millennials like #theWokeWhingers to care about . . Meg and Harry's frames of reference seem to begin circa 1997--the death of Diana and also the heyday of 'Friends' and Meg's style aesthetic . . there have been two institutional forces in opposition to one another, even when they claim to be working together to serve the people: 'Kings' and 'The Church'. Before Harry's great-great ancestor Henry VIII forcibly broke with Rome so that he could marry his mistress, it was accepted that the Pope was the last word for what was right and proper conduct for the rulers of 'Christian' countries under his banner. Henry turned that on its head. There have been a lot of corrupt Popes, though, too, of course. Corruption from within the Church and at all ranks of the clergy is what prompted my spiritual forebear Martin Luther to break with Rome. Jane Austen (the daughter of a parson) was brutal in skewering the clergy class as materialistic and clueless buffoons sycophantic to the nobility to whom they owed their 'livings'. So when I read this drivel in support of the grifting American charlatan duchess from the leading clergyman in all of the United Kingdom, I am reminded strenuously of 'Mr. Collins', the clerical clown who'd sold his soul for favors from his patroness, "Lady Catherine de Burgh."
Mr. Collins is a comedic creation for the ages, but there is zero that's funny about a man of God (so-called) with the highest calling in the land, and a spiritual advisor to the sovereign and the crown family coming out so far up the backside of a selfish and deceitful woman who in my (non-professional) opinion has no soul.
Shame on you, Archbishop Welby. Shame. Perhaps we can't expect any better from a bunch of self-appointed #woke 'feminist' hypocrites in Parliament--watch, U.S. Congresswomen will shortly follow suit, no doubt--but I expected better of *you*. My disappointment is off the charts.
Whatever. Thomas a Becket is rolling in his grave. Justin Welby is not worthy of the office he holds. He should be above all of this. If he felt compelled to speak, I'd say condemnation of the Sussexes' destructive and blatantly non-Christian behavior would be more appropriate. If the likes of the Archbishop of Canterbury is praising the Markle, can we doubt that we are in the end of days?
Once again, it goes to the idea that MM is *the most powerful woman in the world*... holding the RF hostage and silencing an entire Synod of religious people.
That is the head scratcher, innit.
However, to conclude that whatever Meg says happened *must* have happened because no one has spoken out to say otherwise is erroneous logic. Nobody from the queen on down is speaking the truth about Meghan and that's why this situation is so profoundly frustrating.
Of course there are helicopters. Perhaps if we could peruse the synod agenda for that day the large hole created by the *host*'s absence may be accounted for. I'm just wondering why the Archbishop would go to such lengths to upend his schedule for a long-standing engagement to travel at no small inconvenience to baptize a child in secret when the Queen herself declined to attend?
HM has attended all the other christenings except for Louis's when she was demonstrably ill. If the Archbishop of Canterbury can fly from York to Windsor for the day, one supposes that the Queen could have arranged to come to the christening from Balmoral in lieu of the 'tea party' she was hosting. HM sent a clear message by her non-attendance that Meg and Harry's baby was not a sovereign priority for her. I doubt she would have compelled the Archbishop to be there when she was not. The whole thing is very reeky.
I know (and agree) that it is suggested that Meghan has (almost wrote 'suffer' lol) Narcissistic Personality Disorder but a case could be made she has BiPolar Disorder; hence the getting up at 5am writing demands to staff, her manic actions/looks, her alleged depressive allegations. What do you think Nutters?
Hi CatEyes. You are right about NPD. Meghan most likely has a profound case of NPD, and it’s certainly possible there are overtones of Borderline Personality Disorder mixed in. She checks off all the boxes for NPD without question. I’d bet a year of my income she’s a profound narc who found a vulnerable and not-so-bright prince who was getting desperate for a wife and family like William’s.
Meghan presented herself as the reincarnation of Diana, Love bombed him, likely mirrored his behavior, and banged his brains out until she was pregnant, or the IVF took, or the surrogate was preggers. Take you pick of those last three.
I’d make a huge wager in favor of NPD if the UK betting houses ever had that bet, but even if the RF had her diagnosed, it might not come to light until a divorce, which would make the McCartney-Mills divorce look like a Wednesday night prayer meeting. In a divorce, narcissists go nuclear and have a scorched earth approach, but what Meghan will not admit is that the RF has bigger nukes and an arsenal of flame-throwing lawyers on hand.
>>>I know (and agree) that it is suggested that Meghan has (almost wrote 'suffer' lol) Narcissistic Personality Disorder but a case could be made she has BiPolar Disorder; hence the getting up at 5am writing demands to staff, her manic actions/looks, her alleged depressive allegations. What do you think Nutters?<<<
It's my understanding that a lot of psychiatric conditions exist in multiples and not singly. So a person could have NPD and BPD or bipolarity or ADD/HD concurrently.
Meg's extremely erratic presentation--veering wildly between pulled-together and unkempt or manic/depressed could be bipolarity--which is a condition which an awful lot of 'creatives' suffer from, particularly actresses who have been working and hypersexualized since a young age. Most of not all of the performers who came up through the Disney stable are now as adult women struggling with mental health/substance abuse issues and many have also alleged being victims of sexual abuse when they were young teens. (Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera; Demi Lovato; Amanda Bynes, et. al . .the numbers are really stunning. Of course a lot of what makes a young person an attractive and engaging performer--energy, vitality, love for the spotlight, thirst for performing--can, when tilted to the dark side, lead to mental problems.
Meg was not in this cohort as a young girl, but I'd say she sought out this kind of world from young adulthood on. I suspect that she was probably sexualized young, if not outright abuse, given the circles her parents ran in, in the lower-rent rungs of the Hollywood cesspool. Meg seems to have learned early, as a teen, how much she could manipulate men with her sexuality, and early sexual abuse is a classic trigger for this kind of Lolita/nympho complex and calculating approach to sexuality which she's got.
She may have other underlying mental conditions besides being a Narc, but it seems to me that she was a lot more functional/less obviously compromised when she was a hustling starlet vs. now. This public unraveling over the last year or so could be long dormant psychiatric conditions surfacing with the increased scrutiny she's under in her current position. But people that knew her from the earliest Suits days have said that she's always been a volatile and entitlist B*tch to anyone she deemed beneath her in some way or not useful.
I do suspect both Rachel and Harry of longstanding and regular use of controlled substances. That wreaks havoc with brain chemistry, energy and mood. If she's manic, it's very possible that she's coked up.
In the event of a Sussex divorce, I think all the dirty little secrets around Archie are going to come out. After Diana & Charles divorced, she stayed on in KP, though the Royal Family was justifiably nervous about what was going to happen if she continued to see Dodi Fayed and what it would mean for the mother of the future King to be remarried to a Muslim. But even though Dodi had houses all over the world, he was British. His family empire was UK-based. Diana likely would not have left Britain permanently. If Meg really wants to make a complete break with life in Britain, Archie is going to be an inevitable discussion point, and any other spawn she may try to foist off on us before then. She's really backed herself into a corner with hiding the surrogacy and parading her sham belly for all to see for all those months. Were she to bugger off to L.A. sans her tot and be seen to be 'forced to abandon her child', I smell another doozy of a victim narrative coming.
It is on account of this innocent baby that I hate her. I have hated very few people in my life. Strong dislike and/or moral disagreement usually suffices except for world dictators and abusers of children and animals. Nothing smells right about the Archie situation and, of what little we have seen of the interactions of the Suxxits with the baby, it looks like a form of child abuse to me. All in the service of Meg's profoundly self-centered narrative.
All the rest of it: the overspending, the lying about her celebrity friends, the blatant disregard for the Queen and protocol, the coming between William and Harry--these things are irritating and sad--but Archie feels like a human tragedy in the making. This is a child's life and well-being at stake here--all so Megs can merch baby clothing and pass herself off as the Mother of the Year? Beyond disgusting.
Prince Charles-Edward, Duke of Albany 1884-1954 (later reigning Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) along with Prince Ernest-Augustus II, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale 1845-1923 were deprived their Peerage titles in 1917 for bearing arms against the United Kingdom in World War I under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917.
The Queen could issue letters patent to revoke the title. She did so upon Diane's and Fergie's divorces. They were later styled Diana, Princes of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York. Their previous titles were Diana, The Prince of Wales and Sarah, The Duchess of York. Both lost their HRH designation and the The. What the Queen grants, she can also revoke.
And MM is NOT a princess. Foreign nationals, that is someone who is not a British subject, cannot be a princess.
No offense to any practicing Catholics here, or any religious group. My comment was in the context of an historical situation which seems to be repeating itself as we look on. It's distasteful enough that members of Parliament are breaching the long-held divide of neutrality between the monarchy and politics; it is wildly inappropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury seemingly trying to curry favor with the popular media by jumping on the Meghan train. Meg is a pop culture figure who is both polarizing and transitory. Rev. Welby has been entrusted with the stewardship of a 1000+ year old sacred institution. It's so disappointing that he seems to be prioritizing trending on Twitter and gaining 'Likes' from Meg's ersatz friends. He ought to be praying with the Queen over the state of her realm and offering her comfort, not throwing more petrol on the fire. I am sure that the Queen never approved or urged him to make such a public defense of Rachel. He's going his own way, independent of the monarch, which the Archbishop of Canterbury should be--answerable only to God--and yet, this is nothing like Thomas Becket contending with *his* monarch over sinful behavior. The media being 'mean' to Markle . . what a hill to die on. But this is a man who has professed that he doesn't even believe in God. Elizabeth Regina is herself a very devout woman; wonder what she makes of this?
I feel sad for Elizabeth; over 70 years of impeccable devotion to duty, she has really given the job and her people all over the world her all. The situation within her own house and her country is now, I fear, worse than the Suez crisis; worse than Charles and Diana and Annis Horribilus 1992. In the twilight of her reign, things have really fallen apart, and Meghan Markle and her extraordinary, cheesy zeitgeist are hastening that process.
Since you are a believer, I'm sure you are familiar with the verse, "All men have fallen short of the glory of God." That goes for you, me, church leaders, kings, queens, princes, presidents, the lot. Martin Luther was a demonstrable anti-Semite. Nobody is perfect. What I dislike so about Meghan is that she's so transparent in her badness; she doesn't even make the slightest effort to be a good person.
I was aghast that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the female MP's had come out in support for Meghan. As an American, I am ashamed of how she has acted in the BRF and is the most ungrateful awful excuse of a woman. I feel bad for Archie considering his parents are saying such worrisome things. I wonder if the Queen, Charles or William is concerned about Archie's welfare. If my sister/brother said and acted so distraught I would physically go and see how the child was. What could be going on behind the scenes?
I am astounded that the female MP's wrote that letter. I agree with the points you Nutters here comment on the situation. I find it almost against National Interest to use colonialism in their disdain. Meghan is actually, in my opinion, urinating on the goodwill, gifts, and generosity the UK public and the Queen has given her. I say strip her of grace and favor, and titles. Cut off her funds and ignore her henceforth.
Well, she has identified herself as a Princess of the United Kingdom. I think it was on Archie's certificate of birth. I would like Nutters to tell me if it is so. She sure doesn't act like a Princess tho!