Prince Harry

[fourteen85]

There has been talk in the press lately about him having lied on his visa form to gain entry to the USA, could he be stopped from re entering after the coronation?

[Redhelen72]

Are you honestly saying hand on heart Naomi that had she turned up - you would not have slated her?

[naomi24]

It would depend what she did.

[Redhelen72]

Wow!

[MissTerious2]

The one thing she couldn't do would be to stand on the balcony. The Royal family don't allow black people ;0)

[douglas9401]

She could have perched on a sideboard, short term at least.

[Zacs-Master]

Yes, with a lampshade sans tete

[Zacs-Master]

or even sur tete

[Zacs-Master]

Slip of the axe on the first one.

[retrocop]

High fourteen85
You have 388 answers to your question. How do you think it all panned out? :-) Did you get the answer you really wanted?

[retrocop]

//could he be stopped from re entering after the coronation?//
In theory he should have been but we now know he wasn't. (Thank God for small mercies)

[calmck]

Louis aged 5 was discretely removed from part of the service. Archie barely 4 and Lilibet 2 are too young to attend such an event. As non working royals H and M would not have been on the balcony and would not have a carriage ride. I don't think Meghan ever accepted or expected she and H would always be behind the Wales family at formal functions.

[naomi24]

They didn’t need to bring the children to the ceremony.

Louis probably needed the loo.

[Redhelen72]

Louis was removed to rest in a back room with his nanny as reported by the commentary

[MargoTester]

https://www.etonline.com/why-prince-louis-left-in-the-middle-of-king-charles-iiis-coronation-204134
All pre-planned apparently

[Zacs-Master]

c'mon we can do 400, I'm sure!

[retrocop]

//c'mon we can do 400, I'm sure!//

2years ago a certain mod would of pulled this thread long ago. How times change. I wonder why.

[andy-hughes]

MissT - // The reason I think (and I only think!) she was a willing partner is because she accepted the job, she didn't resign, and when the bubble burst she accepted hush money. //

There we have it.

I am not a bully, I was certainly not bullying naomi.

I simply took issue, as i have done many many times in the past, with her way of stating her views based on media information, as though they are facts derived from inside information.

She has now conceded that she was merely offering her opinions the same as the rest of us, and has robustly defended herself, as I would expect her to - but there was no 'bullying' involved.

You have accused me of 'lecturing' - guilty, I try not to, but I know I do sometimes.

You have also maligned my integrity - not guilty - but my point is, you are happy to challenge when something comes across that you don't agree with, but when I and others do it, you perceive it as 'bullying'.

To repeat my earlier point - we are post as we wish, we are all subject to Site Rules, we can all contact the Ed if we feel things are not right.

But to draw a line - I am not a bully, and I hope that you can take a step back and understand the legitimate challenges to an opinion couched as fact, is a perfectly normal and acceptable aspect of debate.

[Zacs-Master]

Why not start another thread about that, retro?

(nearly there.....we got this!).

[andy-hughes]

retrocop - // 2years ago a certain mod would of pulled this thread long ago. How times change. I wonder why.//

You have no idea which Mods delete which threads, or for what reason, because that is known only to the Ed and team.

But you know that, because I've told you numerous times before, yet you still peddle this piffle, for reasons of your own.

[Zacs-Master]

'I hope that you can take a step back and understand the legitimate challenges to an opinion couched as fact'

Me too.