Thomas Markle rushed to hospital after a suspected stroke.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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

X post
Thank you.

You are welcome.

X post
Thank you.

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

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/

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!!

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).

Well, don't mind me then.

Sorry, I meant to ask Glorianny,.

No idea.

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.

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?

I agree, Maddy.
I don't think the public should pay for any of them, really.
Someone asked why Archie would need security.

I was just pointing out that the level of animosity Harry and Meghan stir up could be a valid reason.
I imagine that gransnet is fairly mild prepared to the extremes some would go to.

MissA just to be clear, I most certainly do not revile H+M. However I have no misunderstandings about what they and other royals are entitled to in Britain. I know H+M are none working royals and therefore have no entitlement to paid for security. That’s my point, not that I dislike them. Some are arguing that we should continue to pay for security for them. I’m saying they don’t qualify for it, according to the rules, not according to my opinion.

imaround

It is not a moot point Maddie because you made an opinion and accused Megan of being liar based on something that never happened. The name was announced on Instagram and they never stated they refused a title. Is it a good chance that the media said it? Yes. But so far, as I have shown, they themselves never did. Quite a few number of people have opinions about someone they do not know based on a racist, xenophobic media and are accusing Megan of being a liar when I have yet to see evidence thay she is.

Also, you may want to be careful what you wish for. The Secret Service provides 24/7 security to the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania including children, plus the residents and Number One Observatory Circle, including any children.

We also pay for all 535 members of Congress get security via the Capital Police. www.house.gov/the-house-explained/legislative-branch-partners/u-s-capitol-police.

Makes something like paying for little Archie to have security seem cheap now doesn't it

A little overly aggressive response I think. I may be careful what I wish for. Really?

Now I realise from your post that you live in America and therefore that explains why you know so little about how royalty works in the UK. I believe that America fought a war many years ago to rid America of the British royals. Yes? Well I certainly would like my country to become a fully democratic country without an unelected Head of State.

You also miss the point again. Archie is NOT ENTITLED to have security paid for by the British public because his parents have abdicated from royal duties and chosen to live in a country where it is not the British public’s responsibility to provide security. If M+H choose to pay for their own security, that’s entirely up to them. Frankly, given the number of school shootings in America, I would have thought their children would be much safer in Britain.

None of that is a big deal, in my opinion, but they are reviled by some, as is seen on these threads.

I presume there are other people with far more extreme views than those expressed here.

Beatrice and Eugenie are grandchildren of the Queen, Archie is
grandson of the next King.

Harry has played this card so often, he said in an interview his
mother was murdered because she was with a man who was not white, seems he forgot she was with Hasnet Khan for two
years. Harry was protected in Afghanistan by Gurkhas.

Archie will be offered a title when his grandfather is king, it will
be his parents choice to take it. Sophie and Edward chose to
wait for their daughter to reach 18 and decide for herself.

If Harry and Megan had done as the rest of the family did re
the press they wouldn’t have come under so much criticism .

Baby due, couple leave hospital after the birth, smile for the
cameras, acknowledge the waiting crowd , home.
Not those two, Harry made an announcement that there would be no announcement, then made an announcement and the press were summoned to Windsor to see the couple with the
baby. He tried to play the press but should have done what the
rest of his family did. He is so dramatic.

The system is set up for us to chose, yes. But we have the DNC and RNC who have their hands in the pot. It is a slight of hand trick mostly.

Take Hillary and Bernie for example.

That's interesting imaroundI knew former presidents were protected but didn't know their children were until they are 16.
Of course you do get to choose most of those people. The RF just get it as a birthright.

I went and searched for the cost to provide security for the Royal Family. Could not find anything other than a media report that the Royal Family does not disclose what it cost but it is estimated that it is around 100 million pounds a year.

They seem like a bargain.

And, it would seem, that members of congress can afford their own security details right?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth