Thomas Markle rushed to hospital after a suspected stroke.

I don't think anyone is arguing H&M should have security now. Some of us are pointing out why they might have felt they needed security for Archie. Does anyone seriously believe that they could have kept their children out of the press the way they have managed in the US?

Do the children attend school or Kindergarten in America? I have no idea. It's easy to keep a toddler and baby away from cameras if they are kept pretty much at home most of the time. Do H & M take them to the regular polo matches they attend in Texas I believe? Interested to hear.

No idea.

Sorry, I meant to ask Glorianny,.

Well, don't mind me then.

I'm guessing the way the PR machine works is that we in the UK hear what M & H want us to hear ,(through Scobie).

No I am not missing the point Maddie. I said several times in my past posts that I knew Archie is not entitled to paid security.

I think it is rich for you to say that I know very little about the royals and claim I am aggressive and then you state this:

"I hope in time we will become a democratic republic. Then only the president and family would be entitled to paid for security and there would be no wider family with entitlement at all."

This statement shows that you know very little about how things work in the US with a Democratically elected head of state with "entitlement" for paid security.

As I have shown, it costs us taxpayers many times more to pay for security for our elected officials than it does for your Royal family. My point being is that, even though Archie was not entitled to security, the cost of providing it to him would cost the UK taxpayers less then it would to pay for hundreds of elected officials like it does in the US.

From this side of the pond, cost of security for the royal family seems like a bargain. We would be saving billions of dollars.

Enjoy your visit with your DD, SIL and GC!!

Joseanne

Do the children attend school or Kindergarten in America? I have no idea. It's easy to keep a toddler and baby away from cameras if they are kept pretty much at home most of the time. Do H & M take them to the regular polo matches they attend in Texas I believe? Interested to hear.

Yes they do. The start preschool at age 3 or 4. Archie has already started school. They then attend Kindergarten at 5 or 6.

Many, many celebs have managed to keep their children out of the public eye until they are teens and can chose themselves. Then, California passed a law that the paps can not photo children of celebrities. It is against the law.

www.rcfp.org/law-criminalizing-photography-celebrities-children-passed-california/

Ooops sorry I think I've got the wrong poster in the States. Should be asking imaround. My bad!

X post
Thank you.

Joseanne

X post
Thank you.

You are welcome.

As I have shown, it costs us taxpayers many times more to pay for security for our elected officials than it does for your Royal family. My point being is that, even though Archie was not entitled to security, the cost of providing it to him would cost the UK taxpayers less then it would to pay for hundreds of elected officials like it does in the US. From this side of the pond, cost of security for the royal family seems like a bargain. We would be saving billions of dollars.

This is very interesting imaround. Thank you.

Joseanne

Do the children attend school or Kindergarten in America? I have no idea. It's easy to keep a toddler and baby away from cameras if they are kept pretty much at home most of the time. Do H & M take them to the regular polo matches they attend in Texas I believe? Interested to hear.

Oh come on Joseanne even if they had kept the children in the grounds of Frogmore all the time they would have had Paps with telephoto lenses chasing them. And of course they would have been expected to trot their children out on occasions when the RF demanded it.

Thank you imaround, we are having a lovely time here in beautiful Devon. If you ever visit England, this beautiful county can be recommended.

Obviously I don’t know the ins and outs of who gets paid what in American politics but should the UK ever become a republic, then the UK would have the freedom to choose its own rules and regulations. We would almost certainly not echo what America does as the British people are a very independent and proud people. America is probably not regarded as the example Britain would wish to emulate in its manner of conducting politics in my opinion, but I say this with the greatest respect and following many wonderful and educational trips to the USA (we found our tour of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee particularly interesting and informative.)

Ooops, posted too soon. To follow up on your supposition that it would not cost very much to protect Archie, which is actually wrong as the provision of six months of protection for the family when they were living in Canada cost this country a quite inordinate amount of money due to the fact that the whole security team had to be accommodated abroad, with flights, etc. It’s totally unreasonable to expect this country to pay for a family and their children, who have abdicated from royal duties, and chosen to live abroad.
Furthermore, why should Archie be singled out to be protected since the Queen has twelve great grandchildren and only Williams’s children receive any protection at all, due to their father being in the direct line to ascend the throne. The other nine great grandchildren of the Queen receive no protection at all. Why is Archie different to these other great grandchildren of the Queen?
Incidentally, Archie’s parents have chosen to live in a country with a huge crime rate and murder rate, far, far higher than the UK. America is certainly not as safe as the the UK for anyone, let alone a great grandchild of the Queen.

Of course you would do what is best for your country when building a new government. I just do not want you to think it would be cheap. One thing I have learned is that government in any country tends to be expensive when they learn they can pay themselves with tax payers money.

One day I will get to the UK. Now that my kids are getting out on their own, travel will be easier for me and I plan to see the world. I will be sure to include Devon to my list.

And you’ll be very welcome here imaround and whichever part of the country you choose to visit, I’m sure you’ll be welcomed and you’ll love it.

Of course, I have no illusions about the cost of government, it’s expensive here too, and politicians do arrange things so that they’re in pocket. But so do the royals who are able to see and suggest changes to legislation and have done so in the past, in order to benefit themselves. At least if we were a republic we could vote for our Head of State, which currently we cannot. Democracy is important to me. However I know many people like the Queen very much and are very happy to celebrate her jubilee.

Meanwhile, back to the thread subject, I really hope Thomas Markle makes a good recovery and hopefully gets to meet his grandchildren soon.

Imaround and Maddyone perhaps the queen would say "recollections may vary". But the truth is still the truth eh?

Ew still hate that phrase.

imaround hope you make it over, i'd love to visit the US one day

Devon's a beautiful part of the country imaround one of my favourites TBH just wish we didn't live so far away from it.

VS - the US is a vast and diverse country with a huge population. Visit different regions could be similar to visiting a different country! Each one has a unique history that results in different cultural experiences. That is the beauty of the United States. You should come!

maddyone

Ooops, posted too soon. To follow up on your supposition that it would not cost very much to protect Archie, which is actually wrong as the provision of six months of protection for the family when they were living in Canada cost this country a quite inordinate amount of money due to the fact that the whole security team had to be accommodated abroad, with flights, etc. It’s totally unreasonable to expect this country to pay for a family and their children, who have abdicated from royal duties, and chosen to live abroad.
Furthermore, why should Archie be singled out to be protected since the Queen has twelve great grandchildren and only Williams’s children receive any protection at all, due to their father being in the direct line to ascend the throne. The other nine great grandchildren of the Queen receive no protection at all. Why is Archie different to these other great grandchildren of the Queen?
Incidentally, Archie’s parents have chosen to live in a country with a huge crime rate and murder rate, far, far higher than the UK. America is certainly not as safe as the the UK for anyone, let alone a great grandchild of the Queen.

I'll ask the same question if they had stayed in this country would there have been photos of the children in every tabloid and paps clamouring to snap them everywhere?
Could they have kept them out of the public view as they have done?

I think if royals/celebrities "co-operate" with the press then they are left alone more. People like the Clooneys, Adele and Ed Sheeran manage to keep their kids out of the tabloids and the Monaco family does too. The children who do seem to be getting unnecessary unfair coverage are those of Zara and Mike Tindall when they frequent country fairs and horsey events. But isn't that members of the public snapping them, not paps?

Yes of course they could Glorianny.
And that isn’t a reason to pay for their security if their parents chose to live here but be none working royals. They can afford their own security. No one gets the perks of the job without doing the work. That’s the problem of the royals, their expectation to be treated differently and in a superior manner because of their birth. I see that as a problem although I know others don’t.

I didn't mention paying for security. Just that the private lifestyle they wanted for their children might not be so easily achieved.
As for M&H cooperating I doubt that would be seen as enough. It certainly wasn't in the past with people the press chose to pursue.

Glorianny

I didn't mention paying for security. Just that the private lifestyle they wanted for their children might not be so easily achieved.
As for M&H cooperating I doubt that would be seen as enough. It certainly wasn't in the past with people the press chose to pursue.

It could if they'd just kept their heads down and didn't court publicity.

Other young Royal children are not given security, are occasionally seen in public at, perhaps, a horse event but I doubt anyone would recognise them.