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

originally posted by: odzeandennz

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

Very odd

I think that's very much by design... I think the Daily Mail is milking this lawsuit against them from Harry and Meghan for everything it's worth. They definitely feel like they have the upper hand here, and are definitely turning the screws ever so slowly. There is much bad blood there. What I don't know is if it's directed equally toward Harry and Meghan, or one or the other. I tend to think it's Meghan (obviously).

I also think there's far more to come... and far more being sat on. Sky News recently referred to an injunction on some particular information, perhaps having to do with the supposed reason for the feud between Will and Harry, but it wasn't real clear.

What is your opinion of The Mirror? The Sun? Sky News?

I don't like to post The Times or The Telegraph, because they have a paywall. I can bypass The Times paywall, but not the Telegraph. I like the Guardian and will check there to see if they're covering a story before I use Daily Mail. But usually not. I should probably try the BBC too, but I never think of them for some reason.

Are there any other legitimate or more reputable sources you like?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Cos you only put stock in stew.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Why is any stock being put into unnamed sources?

I'm not sure which unnamed sources you are referring to... and I'm trying hard to keep clear what we know vs what we suspect or speculate...

But basically the usual reasons for people believing unnamed sources; at best, it fits with known facts and history, so its easily accepted as truth... at worst, confirmation bias -- because the message is what folks want to hear or believe... Somewhere in the middle might be that the one reporting the unnamed source has a record of being correct...

And in this case, like all such cases, there aren't enough hard facts to know the whole truth, much less satisfy the people's cravings for the dirt (or should that be "tea"?), so they'll eat up whatever comes their way.

I've personally seen many claims that I've tracked down and determined to be nothing... and then there are those I cannot confirm (nor debunk), but everything else I find sure corroborates the claim.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I'm not sure which unnamed sources you are referring to...

'A royal source has claimed'.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: odzeandennz

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

Very odd

Are there any other legitimate or more reputable sources you like?

Now you're defending tabloids... Jebus....

Use for news sources whatever happens to be your mileu.... Like the lives of other adults which have no bearing on me, I don't give 2 squirts of piss

Rutroh! This doesn't look good for Harry and Meghan:

Prince Andrew: Home Office 'recommends downgrade of security'

Some are already suggesting that this action was taken in response to Harry's announcement, but it was begun long before then:

“A review was ordered into the Met’s protection of HRH The Duke of York once it was announced he was stepping down from royal duties in November,” the Evening Standard quoted a source as saying.

“Those in charge of royal security cannot write a blank cheque for anyone who does not have a public role for the foreseeable future. Round-the-clock armed protection is very expensive. The Met is obliged to review the position to ensure it is justified,” the source was reported as saying.

It would mean the prince either having no bodyguards, or having to pay for them himself. As a member of the royal family, and a former serving member of the armed forces, the prince could be seen as a target by terrorist groups.

It does, however, have strong implications for Harry and Meghan's predicament.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Why is any stock being put into unnamed sources?

Okay, I gotcha now... and damn! You made me work for that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are referring to reports of Harry's friends being cut out by an unnamed royal source.

First, it fits with history and the friends who were not invited to the wedding. We don't know why, but we know they weren't invited.

Second, there are no sightings or pics posted publicly with his friends since the wedding indicating any such visits or gatherings.

Third, as of right now, I can only find one friend (served with Harry) who has publicly endorsed, defended or supported Harry's decision --

Prince Harry's friend backs his decision to step back from Royal duties

-- along with much praise and support for Harry from his other military buddies --

Prince Harry's Military Friends Come to His Defense

Fourth, after spending six weeks and the foreseeable future in Canada, Harry has effectively and practically been isolated from his friends and increasingly his family.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

Now you're defending tabloids... Jebus....

Jebus indeed! My goodness I didn't defend anyone. I ask you for legitimate/reputable news sites after you complained about the tabloid nature of others, and this is what you get from that question???

You just had an open invitation and opportunity to offer better sources handed to you on a (metaphorical) silver platter and threw it away. Okay.

Use for news sources whatever happens to be your mileu.... Like the lives of other adults which have no bearing on me, I don't give 2 squirts of piss

Um... okay.

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm glad you looked, the only on the record source is good with this since real friends support each other, particularly with the hard stuff.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm glad you looked, the only on the record source is good with this since real friends support each other, particularly with the hard stuff.

And that's especially true because this friend is also part of the Invictus Games, and it's clear that Harry has not let them down in any way, shape or form. Given that Harry just announced the date and location for Invictus 2021, it's clear that Harry's been working with them on this.

I admit I've been a little concerned about that. I'm glad I was worrying needlessly.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

'A royal source has claimed'.

Will this source do? straight out of the mouth or should I say from the fingers of

Megan's ex business adviser?

Yet when I heard on Wednesday that she and Harry were planning such a drastic move as stepping back from their duties as senior Royals, I was not completely surprised.
Because I know from first-hand experience that Meghan is a businesswoman first and foremost – and in purely commercial terms this is an excellent time for her to pick up where she left off, building her career as an actress and a public figure.
And if that means dragging Harry out of the Royal Family and into her world – the 'real world' as she would feel – then so be it.

Yes, her decisions to move forward in her life can seem abrupt, even ruthless, to those left behind. It's happened several times before,including to me.
I became her commercial agent, helping her obtain endorsements and sponsorship deals with leading brands.
She was razor-sharp – creative and meticulous, with a good business brain and an American entrepreneurial attitude towards life.
She certainly knew her own mind and was not afraid even then to voice her 'woke' opinions.
It wasn't just the media attention. I distinctly remember explaining as we sipped wine in London's West End that she must cope with the enormous expectations of the British public, the Royal Family and their courtiers. Her reaction was to hold up her hand and silence me.'Save it,' she said, in a steely manner I had not noticed before. 'I don't wanna hear it... this is a positive time in my life.'
I didn't know it then, but it was the beginning of the end of our friendship and professional relationship.

She is a very ambitious woman and, when it is time to move on in her life, Meghan has a way of closing the door on the past, as she did with her father, her siblings, her first husband and with me.
I thought it was disingenuous, to put it mildly, when she told Tom Bradby during their ITV interview that she had been 'naive when friends warned her against the dangers of the media'.
I am certain it has been her influence on Harry that is taking him away from his family. I don't mean to say he has no willpower of his own, but he put it well himself: 'What Meghan wants, Meghan gets.'
She wanted all the glamour and glory of being a Windsor, but I don't think she was ever truly up for taking on the daily grind that came with it.
But from what I've seen of them together, I'm certain she played a large part in the current crisis.

Gina Nelthorpe-Cowne

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: eletheia

FYI... I just sent you a link in a PM.

It wasn't on topic and I didn't want to derail my own thread -- LOL!

originally posted by: eletheia
Will this source do?

She hasn't spoken to her in 3 years so I wagering the ex-business manager isn't privy to Meghan and Harry's decisions.

But let's say it's all true. So what? Both of them are adults and should be able to do whatever they want.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

She hasn't spoken to her in 3 years so I wagering the ex-business manager isn't privy to Meghan and Harry's decisions.

That wasn't the point...... The point was the lack of loyalty and the ability

to discard friends and family at a whim...... the character flaws.

But let's say it's all true. So what? Both of them are adults and should be able to do whatever they want.

And so they can....... but cut the pretense and hypocrisy of doing it on

their own without the titles and money from the British crown. The title

alone will be guarantee of doubling their income.

The hypocrisy is mind numbing.

originally posted by: eletheia
That wasn't the point...... The point was the lack of loyalty and the ability

to discard friends and family at a whim...... the character flaws.

Yeah? And?

And so they can....... but cut the pretense and hypocrisy of doing it on

their own without the titles and money from the British crown.

You seem way too emotionally invested in what two people who you don't know happen to be doing. It's their money (Harry's income), they should be able to do whatever they want with it whenever they want.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

You seem way too emotionally invested in what two people who you don't know happening to be doing. It's their money (Harry's income), they should be able to do whatever they want with it whenever they want.

Apart from his inheritance. He is a member of the 'Royal Firm' an institution

which the British people pay for and he is being paid to do that job.

No one leaves a job and keeps taking their salary, car and all other perks

with them when they leave !!

originally posted by: eletheia
...and he is being paid to do that job.

Looks like he just quit.

a reply to: Boadicea
A constitutional monarchy just means our government pass the bills to the queen for royal approval , its a formality according to the government and is only done for tradition.

The queen according to the law doesnt have any right to block any bill unless it brings the security of the British Isles into question as far as I know , and rarely will the queen ever block the will of the government and its people.

I dont believe that at all , I still think the queen has a lot of power in our united kingdom.

Ajhhh I thought they were leaving the royal family , therefore does it really matter ?
Canada should let them in if they are standing down !

or just tell them to # off , since they wanted to go solo from royal family why arent they paying for their own security like normal people do when they need it


Well now you know how Scotland feels paying for the royals and all their security and parties and coronations and babies
and weddings.

a reply to: sapien82

Well now you know how Scotland feels paying for the royals and all their security and parties and coronations and babies and weddings.

I can't say as a I blame you. I saw that Boris Johnson just shot down the request for another Scottish Independence Referendum... I have no opinion personally because it's not my fight and not my choice. But it should be the choice of the people of Scotland.

Good luck with that

a reply to: Boadicea

hahah good luck with the royals

Scotland and Canada should always be friends since we have a long history

I will need to ask my uncle how he feels about the royals as he is a Scot living in Canada

I wouldnt let them in , but thats my personal preference