'Constitutional taboo': Canada's largest newspaper urges Trudeau to bar Prince Harry and Meghan

a reply to: MerkabaTribeEntity

Don't give up yet. I see them hopping into a truck heading for Hollywood. The porn industry can use new blood and they can use the $$$$$$$$$$

originally posted by: Boadicea
I knew it!!!

Oh the horror of it all... absolute HORROR I tell ya!

The positive for Canadians is that poutine and Archie's diaper contents are indistinguishable from each other so you can have some fun with that.

Tough decade for Canada. First Trump and now the Royals.

Maple Leaf Up, neighbors.

Cheers

🤣

So they want to earn their keep? How exactly are canadians or others picking up their tab..?

So they don't want to mooch off the crown and that's bad?

They relinquish security and free money by absconding from the rest of the royals..


I'm missing a key info keeping me from hating on them...which everyone seem to possess



It's the passerby syndrome; in this case, vitriol and hate because of others ....

Join the hate!

"This grunt all"

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Oh dear... I was all set to make a joke about leaving Archie at the women's shelters for daycare... then your comment gave me a mental image that I cannot unsee...

Now I just can't!

originally posted by: odzeandennz
🤣

So they want to earn their keep? How exactly are canadians or others picking up their tab..?

So they don't want to mooch off the crown and that's bad?

They relinquish security and free money by absconding from the rest of the royals..


I'm missing a key info keeping me from hating on them...which everyone seem to possess

Only willfully, as it has been said and written countless times in countless sources and including in this OP. Just as you have willfully judged any criticism or objections as mere "hate."

I could do a better job of defending and justifying Harry and Meghan's desire to leave royal duties than most of their defenders have been doing.

It's the passerby syndrome; in this case, vitriol and hate because of others ....

Join the hate!

"This grunt all"

Nope, there is far more to it, as has been expressed numerous ways by numerous sources. Saying "no" when someone tries to impose their will and their upkeep onto you is not hate.

Your perception says everything about you. No one else.

a reply to: Boadicea

Boadicea, one wonders if this situation isn't a broader kind of heads-up.

We may see more of the very privileged deciding they wish to live elsewhere ... and countries like Canada that are not overpopulated, are orderly, and have first-world conveniences will be sought-after destinations.

The governments, too often corrupt, will probably turn a blind eye to any problems in the hopes of financial or other reward. But the regular people, like ordinary Canadians looking at this situation, may well be less than happy if they are expected to host too many of the elite.

Cheers

a reply to: Boadicea
I don't see it. Since they are not the monarch, since they are supposed to be stepping down from being "senior royals", I think the constitutional difficulty is an imaginary one. Admittedly I'm not a Canadian.

P.S. In 1966, Primce Charles was at school in Australia, and necessarily "resident".

a reply to: Boadicea

The reason why you feel some way about adults deciding not to be puppets for the public and do their own thing by relinquishing royal privileges is justified and discussed by tabloid news papers?


Why exactly do You feel the way you do about them...?

When did this shift happen...

Jesus tap dancing christ.. Your explanation is 'people object to how they choose to live their lives' Wtf...


This seems to be the sole reasoning..

 the Prince is sixth in the line of succession – is not something that Canada can allow. It breaks an unspoken constitutional taboo

That's pretty pathetic...

On Monday, the British paper the Evening Standard reported that sources had told it that Ottawa had agreed to pay for security costs for the soon-to-arrive royal couple. When asked, Finance Minister Bill Morneau told reporters that was untrue, and that his government had not even discussed the matter

They also relinquish relinquish their need for security whilst not performing senior royal duties... Since it's a lifesty choice not official business...

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: Boadicea

Boadicea, one wonders if this situation isn't a broader kind of heads-up.

We may see more of the very privileged deciding they wish to live elsewhere ... and countries like Canada that are not overpopulated, are orderly, and have first-world conveniences will be sought-after destinations.

That is an excellent point. Especially for those who have gained some (or lots) of notoriety.

The governments, too often corrupt, will probably turn a blind eye to any problems in the hopes of financial or other reward. But the regular people, like ordinary Canadians looking at this situation, may well be less than happy if they are expected to host too many of the elite.

Especially if/when it impedes on their day-to-day life. Not just the monetary costs of security, but the logistics as well. For just one example, we all know the hassles of motorcades and closed streets for official visits... and Meghan at least has a history of keeping the riffraff at bay... Other elites may be even more self-entitled even on foreign soil!

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Boadicea
I don't see it. Since they are not the monarch, since they are supposed to be stepping down from being "senior royals", I think the constitutional difficulty is an imaginary one. Admittedly I'm not a Canadian.

I think there is room for abuse by a monarch so inclined, so I see this as a reasonable precaution for a reasonable risk. I don't believe the Queen is such a monarch, or even Harry, but I can understand Canada not wanting to set a precedent that could be exploited to the monarch's advantage.

Also, Harry's official post-transition role and titles have not yet been determined by the Queen, so there may be some uncertainty regarding how much authority Harry will actually have. Again, perhaps just wanting to err on the side of caution?

P.S. In 1966, Primce Charles was at school in Australia, and necessarily "resident".

Interesting. It may be a difference in Canada's Constitution versus Australia's Constitution... or it may be that Prince Charles was always understood to be a temporary resident rather than a permanent resident. That may be brought up and addressed by folks more knowledgeable than me -- I hope so!

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Boadicea

The reason why you feel some way about adults deciding not to be puppets for the public and do their own thing by relinquishing royal privileges...

First mistake (or willful misrepresentation). I have no problem whatsoever with any adult doing for themselves and by themselves. Absolutely none. But that's not what Harry and Meghan want. The issues are around what they expect and demand from others, as well as how they have gone about it.

... is justified and discussed by tabloid news papers?

Yes. It's called freedom of the press in these parts.

Why exactly do You feel the way you do about them...?

When did this shift happen...

Jesus tap dancing christ.. Your explanation is 'people object to how they choose to live their lives' Wtf...


This seems to be the sole reasoning.

Well, good thing I've corrected you, because it's not even close.

Again, it's not about what Harry and Meghan want to do for themselves and by themselves, but what they are demanding and expecting others to do for them.

Further, in accordance with the OP, this also seems to be the objection of the Canadians, as well as their concerns about what royalty living on their soil could impose upon them.

It's great that you're all "Team Harry and Meghan," but throwing others under the bus (or the royal thumb so to speak) for their benefit is exactly the problem!!! People (and sovereign nations, as Canada is) have rights to self-determination also. It's not just "whatever Harry and Meghan want, Harry and Meghan get, and everyone else be damned!"

Listen, I will tell you all again. Constitution, pffftt. Edward the 8th, a king, was forced to abdicate. He could not enter Britain (even though he snook in a couple of times) he married an American and after he abdicated he lived the same lifestyle a King has. He lived in the Bahamas and France and his safety was never in question. So guess who payed for that lifestyle and protection. It wasn't Canada or America.
Stop blowing it out of all proportions.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Listen, I will tell you all again.

Oh dear... but okay.

Constitution, pffftt.

Got it. You have no respect for anyone's Constitution, no respect for anyone's sovereignty, no respect for anyone's rights. Whatever Harry and Meghan want, Harry and Meghan gets, and anyone hurt in the process be damned!!!

Which is EXACTLY why such Constitutional, legal and moral exceptions are established.

Harry and Meghan and this kind of support is personifying and exemplifying royal abuse of power and authority. It confirms everyone's worst fears and suspicions.

Edward the 8th, a king, was forced to abdicate.

No. He voluntarily abdicated. Yes, there was pressure to do so from the Church of England and the people, in that he could not marry Wallis Simpson as King, but he was not forced to do so. He chose Wallis over the crown.

He could not enter Britain...

...without the new King's permission, but only after Edward got himself mixed up with the Nazis, and a plot was discovered to return Edward to the throne as a puppet king for the Nazis.

...he married an American and after he abdicated he lived the same lifestyle a King has. He lived in the Bahamas and France and his safety was never in question.

He was still a royal, having been made a Duke by the new King, and subsequently Governor of the Bahamas, so he was still a working royal eligible for protection.

Stop blowing it out of all proportions.

Big sigh... I'm not blowing anything out of proportion, I'm not the one raising these concerns, I'm not the one who wrote their Constitutions, I'm not the one demanding protection on someone else's dime.

If you want to play dumb, okay. But these are legitimate issues being raised by affected parties and reported in many places. It is what it is.

Again, it's not about what Harry and Meghan want to do for themselves and by themselves, but what they are demanding and expecting others to do for them.

They haven't asked me (possibly you) to do anything for them, nor the Canadian people or government... As stated by the... Canadian government...

I there's a difference between an issue and a manufactured issue . And when it's the latter, the validity and logic and explanations always fall flat...

a reply to: odzeandennz

Okay. You can keeping making your case... and others will keep making their case... and we'll find out how it plays out together, eh?

originally posted by: Boadicea

Prince Harry manages a smile at Buckingham Palace as he makes his first public appearance since Megxit

Thanks for that I'm still not convinced there was one grouping, three adults

(0ne being Harry) and a group of children. All the children and two of the adults

are wearing (what I call the photograph smile ) but NOT Harry........


What I did find on that link was what I have posted on another thread saying I had

seen it somewhere but didn't have a link so I'll just put it here for fact.

Prince Harry's friends say he became 'cut off' from them when Meghan became pregnant
Harry's friends expressed concern after he 'cut off' contact with them while Meghan was pregnant.

Many 'no longer having his phone number', according to People Magazine in the US.

The Duke of Sussex stopped contacting many of his old friends some six months into his wife's pregnancy, creating a feeling of 'resentment' among the group, a royal source has claimed

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: odzeandennz

Okay. You can keeping making your case... and others will keep making their case... and we'll find out how it plays out together, eh?

Agreed.

Never has the daily mail and express, both nasty tabloids, been referenced so much as 'sources'...

Very odd

a reply to: eletheia

Harry's friends expressed concern after he 'cut off' contact with them while Meghan was pregnant.

Many 'no longer having his phone number', according to People Magazine in the US.

The Duke of Sussex stopped contacting many of his old friends some six months into his wife's pregnancy

I saw that too, and it's very sad. Most men want and even need male camaraderie. Wives and girlfriends do not give or provide the same type of relating and friendship. It's an atmosphere where they can let loose and not worry about the niceties of life. Early in our marriage, and every so often even today, my husband will get a little too crude or a little too something, and I have to remind my husband that I'm not one of the guys or or one of his crew! I'm not going to deny my husband that level of interaction... I just don't want to be part of it!

And I think it's healthy. Just like women's relationships are healthy, relating on the level we are comfortable and comes naturally. I cannot help but wonder how much Harry's mental/emotional woes are compounded by this newly imposed isolation. From his brother, his family as a whole, his friends and comrades-in-arms... I don't think is what Harry signed up for. And I really don't think he wants to give it up.

Why is any stock being put into unnamed sources?