I am confused........

In that case I am as profligate as the Sussexes. As well asmy own home, I have various other homes where I can stay when the mood takes me. My daughter lives in one, my son in another. I confess to having a second home in France.

My closest friend lives in London and has a family home in the Marches, where I am always welcome.

That amounts to 6 homes, where I can go and stay and am always welcome. Whats more, the use of most of them comes free, I do not have to pay a penny for their upkeep.

Well as they have been accused of betraying the family and many other things I would have thought it would be obvious why they wouldn't stay with them. Perhaps Harry wants to visit the UK occasionally, isn't that why people usually have second homes, somewhere to stay?

Nothing wrong with them having as many homes as they want, we’re not paying for them. But I wondered what the motive was. Whether they see themselves playing some role after the Queen dies. Cherry picking.

Germanshepherdsmum

I sincerely hope not. I wondered why they renewed the lease of Frogmore Cottage though - the family have enough room to put them up for the occasional visit.

How dare they have a property in the UK as well as one in the US. Isn't one home enough for these people??!!! Possibly not when you've grown up with the use of several castles and a couple of palaces, courtesy of granny, and a big country house and London apartments, courtesy of mummy and daddy.

I sincerely hope not. I wondered why they renewed the lease of Frogmore Cottage though - the family have enough room to put them up for the occasional visit.

It needs to be remembered that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, having decided not to be working Royals and, instead, to retire into private life, and are, as a result, without the income and perquisites that they would receive had they stayed in the UK in that royal role.

They are now faced with having to earn their own living, and as their tastes are expensive, earning enough to fund them. As both have previously made their living by regular media appearances, and seem to have few other useful professional talents other than that of being considered highly newsworthy media celebrities, they must like others in that situation be prepared to take part in such media junkets as their paymasters require.

The page grabbing life of most such celebrities, is often short and always uncertain and once they can no longer command the tabloids etc, bang goes the money.

I wonder whether the discrete visit to the UK during the Jubilee is the start of a careful campaign to make sure that if all else fails they can become working royals again.

Putting words in people's mouths again, I see.

Aye, Callistemon, and no-one who uses Gransnet can have failed to notice that is exactly what we do. But suddenly people are saying they have no knowledge of what has been going on with H&M and what people are saying.

volver

^...and discussed incessantly.^

Not in my house. Or DP's house. Or by anybody I know.

Aren't we lucky, then, that we have GN where we can chat incessantly about them all day long.

And all night too, if we want too!

?

You forgot the shrug volver!

Aye, whatever.

volver

Chestnut

until they grow up and have the same actions and even dare to go off and marry a foreign girl/boy and even then leave UK!!! Then, instead of being 'cheeky' - they become scum111
Okay, then whoever called them 'scum'?

This happens a lot on GN, maybe it happens other places too, but I've not noticed it.

Person A uses a word in a post. Someone gets inordinately and inappropriately angry about the use of that word, and fits it into a sentence in their head that Person A never said or typed. This is then used to attack Person A and imply they said something they didn't.

Explains a lot though. I'm sure there must be an academic term in psychology for this, maybe somebody knows it?

I'd say that is exactly what you're doing. No-one is getting angry, that is in your head. No-one is being attacked, that is in your head. I asked Franbern who had ever called H&M 'scum' as she said 'they become scum'. with reference to how people perceive them. A clear statement and a clear use of the word, which as far as I know has never been applied to them. You are being a drama queen in trying to apply some psychological twist to a simple query.

maddyone

The royals, including Harry and Meghan, are very rarely discussed in my house. My husband has remarked that I came eventually, to the republican point of view.
Why are Harry and Meghan disliked by many people? This is what I think, it may not be true;

The Oprah interview where they used their unique position to criticise the royal family to the whole world, which although I’m a republican, many other people love

They preach to the world at large about saving the environment, whilst simultaneously using private jets regularly

Some people think they court publicly in order to stay relevant, I’m not saying I think this, but some do

They use their royal connections to earn money ie Netflix, Spotify. As I don’t have either of these, I’m simply commenting on what I’ve heard, usually on chat programmes such as Jeremy Vine, which I often listen to

These seem to be the reasons. I’m not stating my opinion, just what I think might be the case.

We could just ignore them and not take umbrage on other people's behalf.

On the other side, I guess I am interested in why people are so invested in this.

For instance. There's lots of people who fly in jets but advocate green politics. We don't call them out on it at every opportunity though. What about William? Apparently his speech on Saturday was all about saving the planet. Wonder if he got there by helicopter? But William is the golden boy and plays by the Royal Rules, so he'll get away with murder.

Chestnut

^until they grow up and have the same actions and even dare to go off and marry a foreign girl/boy and even then leave UK!!! Then, instead of being 'cheeky' - they become scum111^
Okay, then whoever called them 'scum'?

This happens a lot on GN, maybe it happens other places too, but I've not noticed it.

Person A uses a word in a post. Someone gets inordinately and inappropriately angry about the use of that word, and fits it into a sentence in their head that Person A never said or typed. This is then used to attack Person A and imply they said something they didn't.

Explains a lot though. I'm sure there must be an academic term in psychology for this, maybe somebody knows it?

until they grow up and have the same actions and even dare to go off and marry a foreign girl/boy and even then leave UK!!! Then, instead of being 'cheeky' - they become scum111
Okay, then whoever called them 'scum'?

The royals, including Harry and Meghan, are very rarely discussed in my house. My husband has remarked that I came eventually, to the republican point of view.
Why are Harry and Meghan disliked by many people? This is what I think, it may not be true;

The Oprah interview where they used their unique position to criticise the royal family to the whole world, which although I’m a republican, many other people love

They preach to the world at large about saving the environment, whilst simultaneously using private jets regularly

Some people think they court publicly in order to stay relevant, I’m not saying I think this, but some do

They use their royal connections to earn money ie Netflix, Spotify. As I don’t have either of these, I’m simply commenting on what I’ve heard, usually on chat programmes such as Jeremy Vine, which I often listen to

These seem to be the reasons. I’m not stating my opinion, just what I think might be the case.

has accused someone (who?) of calling H&M 'scum'

No she hasn't. Another example of making up a story to fit your narrative, I'm afraid. Or else a complete inability to understand what a poster means.

Not even mentioned in my u3a Debating/discussion group.

Franbern has accused someone (who?) of calling H&M 'scum' for getting married and leaving the country. Where this misguided information comes from I don't know, but most of us are aware it's a lot more complicated than that. It is because of their behaviour and actions that they are disliked. And yes, it has been discussed incessantly on Gransnet and elsewhere.

...and discussed incessantly.

Not in my house. Or DP's house. Or by anybody I know.

Nope - I did not see, nor bother to read about any interviews with so-called celebs, with or without a title to their names.

I am as much interested in their lives as they are in mine!!!

Not living under or on any rock, just in the real world where wars, poverty, hunger, homelessness, sickness, etc. are actual reality.

Only saw this bit about Louis, when I picked up a Metro paper on the bus going to the supermarket this week. Did try to skip through all their (many) pages on the royals, to try to find any 'news'.

An interview with key unpleasant points on every front page and discussed incessantly.

Interesting that someone might think you've been living under a rock because you are not obsessing about an interview with two celebrities on US TV over a year ago...

What might be endearing in a young child is not necessarily endearing in a teenager or adult.

Franbern, you make an excellent point.