Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

-Short Attention Span Theater-

Prince Charles Will Reportedly Cover Part of Harry and Meghan's Security Costs after Trump Refuses

2020-04-05

[SPUTNIKNEWS] The bombshell decision by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to lay down their royal duties and move to Los Angeles
Like Lavern and Shirley did...
unsurprisingly inflicted some additional security costs, and according to the US president’s recent Twitter rant, he was not about to pay for the couple’s protection in their newly found home.
He's not paying for mine. Why should he pay for theirs? They're just private citizens now.
Prince Charles could reportedly cover half of his son Prince Harry’s and his wife Meghan Markle’s security costs in the US, a royal insider told the Daily Mail.
That's mighty nice of him.
The Prince of Wales, who has just recovered from coronavirus, would pay a “private contribution” of up to £2 million ($2,5 million) every year towards the Sussexes’ living in the United States, and the source believes that this money would be used for the family’s protection, which is estimated to cost around $5 million annually.
That's an awful lot of protection. Maybe they should shop around.
The royal insider still noted that this type of financial aid could be a significant blow to the 71-year-old monarch’s budget.

Dear Prince Charles is no monarch — that’s his mother. Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, is merely the heir apparent, the longest in that role in the history of the English monarchy. Quite possibly that will be as far as he gets.

Posted by:Fred

#19 Princess Charles probably paid for his ex-wife’s security as well. We saw how that turned out.

Posted by: Airandee 2020-04-05 19:52

#18 Prince Harry and Meghan Markle should get jobs and pay for their own protection. Or buy a Glock

Posted by: Texhooey 2020-04-05 16:54

#17 Meghan and Harry responded to Trump that they didn't expect US to pay, they could pay themselves. Apparently Charles didn't get the memo or they are just living off the parents while pretending to be independent like so many other kids their age.

Posted by: ruprecht 2020-04-05 15:11

#16 More like defender of the Druids.

Posted by: Alaska Paul 2020-04-05 13:22

#15 Good to see the deadbeat royals actually pick up a check.

Posted by: Regular joe 2020-04-05 13:11

#14 The monarchy takes care of their own. Even with an abdicating king and an American divorcé. In other words. Buy off the problem. Reinforce bad behavior.

Posted by: Alaska Paul 2020-04-05 12:52

#13 Why can't they just live in Chicago ?

Harry Markle will be one of the few white men to walk the streets unharmed.

Posted by: Dron66046 2020-04-05 12:13

#12 #5 "Defender of Faith"
Which faith would that be?

You're hip to the irony.

It was the addled Prince Chuck who decided, by his lonesome, to change his title from "Defender of the Faith" to the idiotic "Defender of Faith." To avoid offending the Bradford Grooming Club and other members of the faith.

Posted by: Lex 2020-04-05 12:00

#11 All these events. Enabling stupid.

Posted by: Alaska Paul 2020-04-05 11:55

#10 Anything to keep Meggie Markup out of England.

I thought we all agreed that Canada would take her.

Posted by: SteveS 2020-04-05 11:38

#9 Anything to keep Meggie Markup out of England.

Posted by: Mercutio 2020-04-05 11:02

#8 WOKE poster children. They must be protected.

Posted by: Besoeker 2020-04-05 09:25

#7 i am unclear why us paying for them was ever an option.

not our circus, not our monkeys

Posted by: Bob Grorong1136 2020-04-05 09:22

#6 #2 Well, he is the dad.

Uh huh. You sure?

Posted by: Frank G 2020-04-05 08:34

#5 "Defender of Faith"

Which faith would that be?

Posted by: AlanC 2020-04-05 07:23

#4 James Hewitt picking up the other half?

Posted by: BrerRabbit 2020-04-05 07:10

#3 Montaigne, "On Education," to Madame Diane de Foix, Comtesse de Gurson:
"I have never known a father refuse to acknowledge his son, however scabby or hunchbacked the boy may be. Yet this is not to say that he does not perceive these defects - unless he is completely besotted by paternal affection for his son - but the fact remains that it is his own son..."

Posted by: Lex 2020-04-05 04:51

#2 Well, he is the dad. Now matter what your kid does - he's still your kid.

Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-04-05 02:30

#1 "Defender of Faith"
Supplier of Dosh

Posted by: Lex 2020-04-05 00:49

00:00