I know that the Royal family do not always take their children on overseas trips but I thought the idea was for these three to enjoy family life. yet I have just seen a news flash pop up that Archie will stay in Canada whilst his parents are in UK for final engagements necessitating extra protection costs
Does it matter if the next King or his wife were adulterers? His marriage was more like an arranged marriage than a love match. I doubt if he went into it with any plans of adultery. Times have changed and these days, like his sons, he would have married someone he loved not someone who was thought suitable. Fortunately, he did eventually marry who he loved and was...
If they're going to be here for a month I think they should have brought Archie with them.
1. Because it's a long time to leave him.
2. It could be the last time the Queen would see him.
She may never see him again now.
3. It would reduce the security bill by keeping him with
them.
If they weren’t so damn insular they’d stop and think why their son should should see his great grandparents as often as possible now but it’s all about them !
Why should anyone feel sorry for William and Charles? How does Harry making his own way in his life effect them? He's a grown man.
Has anyone had a thought that perhaps Megan and Harry do not want to expose Archie to potential virus on the Airplane -8 hours it takes from Vancouver to London and I certainly would not want to expose my baby to that.
That can describe lots of families but it doesn't mean one should be sorry for them when they spread their wings. I've a daughter who moved to Vancouver with two grandchildren I've yet to see -do you feel sorry for me and her brothers and sisters here in the UK? I hope not!
APG, I feel sorry for the ‘rift’ that’s happened between father, son and brother and as for flying the little one here,I’d imagine there being very little contact with joe public , lessening the chances of him getting the Coronavirus