General Chat

Re distances ........

OH had lived over here for about 5 months before we got married, so he had made friends and got used to distances.

About 3 weeks after we got back after our wedding, he said "we're going out for dinner on Saturday evening to say farewell to so-and-so who are returning to to the UK."

Fine ............. until he told me the restaurant was 80 miles away :-0

It took about an house along the highway ......... and turned out to be the kind of place where you took your own bottle of booze in a brown paper bag and hid it under the table. The servers sold you any necessary dilutant (Coke, 7-Up, or whatever) at a high price, and they sat on the table. Wine also went under the table.

The food was good though!


You do get used to it though, and it becomes normal to drive much further than in the UK.

We thought nothing of driving over 520 km (ca 325 miles) each way to spend ta long weekend at our cabin in the wilderness.

Allan .............. our drive to the cabin was a little like yours. Get out of Vancouver city limits onto the highway east. Turn left at Hope 200 km away, drive straight north for about 450 km, turn right for 60 km.


We get the surprise in reverse, of course ........................ on our trips home, we always allowed much longer to get from A to B ;-)

Was my home town really only about 9 miles from the Manchester city centre?

I agree millions of pictures of the babies isn't on....but.....if they'd just shown one official picture for the Christening etc that would have been enough for most people.

Rose to your point on distance...the first time we drove my mother to Quebec for a holiday she thought we'd spread it out over a couple of days whereas it was just a good days drive for us :-)

Rose, your comments re distances made me chuckle as I remember my father, on what turned out to be one of the last times that I saw him, asking whether I had prepared a road map for our journey to Leonora.

I had just been appointed to a regional post based in Leonora in the North Eastern Goldfields of WA and was preparing to move there from Perth.

My comment was, 'I don't need one. I just hit the Great Eastern Highway into Kalgoorlie, turn left at the lights, go past the Hospital and take the first road on the right and travel 220 kms to Leonora'

Leonora was about eight hundred kms from where we were staying in Perth.

Admittedly that was over thirty years ago and at that time there was only the one set of traffic lights in Kalgoorlie. Now there about twenty :-D

Let's be honest, the UK media are pretty hopeless on UK geography, so there's not much hope for anywhere else...

Sylvia, We don't hear much news from Canada here. Very little from anywhere really on the main news unless there's a disaster of some sort. I think that accounts for the lack of knowledge on precisely where Vancouver Island is. I'm not good on Canadian geography myself, except that I know where Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are and that only because they are where family came from or went to.

The same might be said for my knowledge of Aus', in miles from Sydney to Melbourne for instance, and how far from or close to family the fires are ( thanks to Google maps I do know).

On this small island it's perhaps a bit hard to comprehend that one place in the US or Canada or Aus, can be as far apart as Lands End to Fort William and still look 'close' on a map :-)

He also said Harry and Meghan are turning the royal family "into a Walmart with a crown on it" over their decision to break away from the monarchy.
In part of an interview released a day after Buckingham Palace issued a statement on Harry and Meghan's future, Mr Markle said the couple were "cheapening" the institution.

Why don't this man stop bleating about *Its me* why don't he say he feels sad and protective of Meghan his daughter &Harry feel they need to break away and that he want his daughter to feel at ease within the RF and he wished the media would lay low to give them both a chance to be at ease with the public..hes very selfish and shows no sympathy for his daughter.

In fairness if you look back the public has only seen royal babies at various stages in their lives and don't recall seeing odd moments of William and Harry many months went by with out a pic of them ,,, ,Andrews ,, Annes,and Edwards have grown up without seeing a picture of them for a long time ....infact I don't recall Edwards children being on public view as small babies or toddlers and its not a royal duty to play to the demand of the publics wants or feel they are entitled to,


I'm sure we'll see picture of the liitle man as and when times are right when theres a nice change in him.

I do wonder, if they had been less secretive, issued more photos of the baby themselves in the first place there would have been less of the photo grabbing.

Long lenes aren't needed as such as there some very smart shirt buttons or a logo on a hat that snap well at close range.

:-D :-D :-D.

I know it must be horrible that as a couple they cant freely take the baby out for a walk in park or go normal shopping but its not going to end because they have moved countries,,,,,and keep threating to sue may back fire in that some media will move onto someone else,,,,,,,other than that, wear a mask and hoodie.

The recent Canadian drops in she did and released pictures for were arranged by her group of experts she has in tow now...so they could easily make sure of the timing if that were the case.

There are many celebs big and small....in my own street there's a minor TV star nearby others...a friend has a cottage near Goldie Hawn
/Kurt Russell....they all just live their lives and no one cares........the only way Harry and Meghan can make their millions is by selling themselves in one form or another so by default there will be public interest and when there's interest there are pictures....wait until TMZ start stalking them....

Long lens photography will happen when you're in a big green forest and no one can really stop anyone else being there.....try living in a big city it'll only be worse.

Every sympathy,,,,,,,,,but I am so fed up of the repeated --he lost mum at a young age,,,,,,,,so have many other kids,fathers aswell,some in horrible vile ways more so than a car accident and probally now adults and had no after care at all,possibly because they couldn't afford it,no public funding,.
Harry and Wiillam had privileged access to all manner of after care and adjustment and if they needed ongoing care it was a stones throw away.
The Royal didnt do a very good job in seeing the then boys were looked at more closely,,,,,,,,,but stiff upper lip came first....


They know full well every given chance someone will snap them,,part and parcel of of the postion they are in...…..the baby is a different matter and as a minor is not up for public grabs regardless,,,,so hope any wannbe out to make a quick buck snaps him gets sued to the hilt.

Rose ..

it didn't have to be the same exact time, as long as something appeared around the same time as the publicity for the other event ......... at least that was the rationale for the suggestion as I understood it.

Don't forget, Vancouver Island is 8 hours behind the US

.............. and I do wish the UK press would get it right. They are living on Vancouver Island, near the city of Victoria. Vancouver Island is one of the larger islands in the world.

It is not Vancouver, which is a city on the mainland, about 30 sea miles away!

The lack of geographical knowledge drives me crazy!!

William and Kate are riding a high right now ........ and yes, a lovely dress!!!!

Sylvia, given the time difference I am not really convinced that Meghan sat down and worked out that someone could be taking a photo of her at precisely the same time that William and Kate were at an event? They certainly weren't upstaged from the look of it (it was on the news, nice dress!). But even if it was intentional it doesn't really matter I don't think, the event itself was important to those there...what I am saying ( badly) is however something is perceived it's results that count lol.

Rose ............

I agree with you

I believe that the majority of people do understand that "celebrities" of whatever sort, whether that be royalty, A-list Hollywood actors, the Kardashians, etc etc are entitled to their privacy.

But there is also a market for "look what he/she is doing now" sort of photos ........ and the paparazzi earn lots of money for getting those photos. Many of those paparazzi seem to be free lancers, getting "the" shot then selling to the highest bidder from the media. But there are also newspapers and magazines that have their own photographers and reporters staking out a "person of the moment".

That's serving an interest .............. and one presumably that the people engaged in it would say is legit.

Is it?? I don't know.


But what I do see is that it is very difficult to control some photographers/media, particularly when someone turns around and uses the press when they want to.

Notice that you don't see bad intrusive photos of the other senior members of the Royal Family, even William and Kate seem to be "not of interest" since those sunbathing photos on their honeymoon .............. but then, they let photos be taken when they are in a public place, such as at a polo match or watching horse events at Gatcombe Park.

Nor do you now see really intrusive photos of some of the true Hollywood stars, or people like George Clooney and his wife ............ why?


The problem is that Harry and Meghan are the "news" of the moment to a lot of people ............ though it is nowhere near the top of the news on the Canadian TV stations that I see (Global and CBC), nor above the fold on the front page of the Canadian newspapers that I see.

It will settle down ............ when they get a permanent home instead of living apparently rent-free in a mansion seemingly owned by a mysterious Russian billionaire (the Canadian Frank Giustra having convinced people that he does not own that house).

The sad part for Harry, who really does need peace for his mental stress, is that he is married to a woman for whom publicity was necessary for her progression in the arena where she worked. Like so many B-list actors, she used the media as her publicity.

How do you stop that?

So far the 2 occasions when she has appeared in public in BC in the last 2-3 weeks have both somehow coincided with an event in England involving some member/s of the Royal Family that had been previously advertised. She seemingly spent less than 5 minutes visiting one of the places last week.

A nice little bit of upstaging, or accidental????


I still see the fact that the photos of Meghan with Archie and the dogs were taken in a public place, albeit from a distance with telephoto lens, as being largely her fault for being out there. You cannot stop people taking photos ................ and I'm quite sure there are/were other visitors to the park who may have taken photos on their iPads, etc ......... and those could be sold!

Remember the furor at Wimbledon last year when her protection officers were stopping people from taking photographs of her?

If they follow that route here or in the US, the officers are more likely to be told where to go!

I should imagine there's a whole (mental) difference between being photographed as a 'Royal', and being photographed as a woman, in casual clothes, who hasn't quite grasped how baby carriers work - (edit) but it transpires, those photographs were taken by paparazzi in the bushes! How would anyone else like their pictures taken secretly, then bought by trash media outlets?
All four of them have spoken about mental health awareness.
William and Kate have no choice in their position - Harry and Meghan do.

Thought long and hard about posting that. Take it or leave it.

Caroline and Sylvia I am not aware of any petition here re not paying for security when H & M are in Canada ( or when they are over here for that matter) no doubt someone will set one up if they feel that strongly if they haven't already.

I think there's a bigger question bubbling under here, well for me several

The first being to what extent 'we', the public, expect any public figure, be it Royalty, semi Royalty, actors, celebs, business people etc, who use publicity and the media for their purposes ( promotion etc) to also then have no private life and privacy when they want it, ie isn't everyone entitled as a person to separate their public life from their private life? Without having to sacrifice one or the other?

The press would say, this story is in the public interest, and yes that would be true of the Prince Andrew/Epstein association as Epstein was a convicted felon, it would be true of Harry leaving the UK and dropping his HRH etc and the discussions around that, it would be true of all the various scandals where someone in the public eye has commited crimes. But Is it in the "public interest" to snap photos with long lenses of Meghan or other Royalty, or celebrities going about their private lives? Are the public so ( whatever word you choose, sad/bored/ mindless) , that they/we have to have this constant gossip column of largely assumed or made up nonsense ( This actress is too fat/too skinny/ dating someone else's husband etc you know the type of thing). Are 'we' any better for it?

Secondly, all over the tv at the moment are the words "mental health awareness", a subject that William and Harry have addressed themselves. Are 'we' proud that someone who has evidentally had to deal with some issues himself ( his mother's death and the manner of it, his army experiences, of lost comrades etc) is having his life so relentlessly peered at and his choices criticised?

Would any one on here with mental health issues, past or current, like that scrutiny? Would any one here hold another member up to it? ( and boy could we if we chose to!) Or is it only 'fair game' if it's someone we don't 'know' .

It's a skip and a jump for the American press to get to Canada and they're not exactly shy in taking pictures at the best of times. Canadian press is not Holy either in many quarters. Historically the British press used to be "nicer" to the Royals not so much these days :-)

I'm with Allan on this.

So Sue.....why do you want to know?

Or to put it another way...is there a petition in the UK saying the same thing?? I'm under the impression many there don't want to pay for the security while they're not in the UK.

I assume the UK protection is armed? Private security can not be armed here as Sylvia said ages ago. If the RCMP (mounties) end up doing it all there'll be problems as there's never enough officers to go around these days forget even the cost involved...if the citys own officers take the security on same problem as RCMP...for instance in Toronto always a need for more officers.

They were being extremely naïve if they thought that by moving to North America they would be free from the paparazzi.

I suspect, however, that they, or at least M, want publicity on their own terms and to the betterment of their bank balance.

Kay .............

of course Canada is not going to be any better than the UK, it might even be worse.

They will have less control over the media here ......

........... and anyway, it was Japanese media that wanted to hire a boat so they could see into the mansion and its grounds from the ocean side, not Canadian or British.

The US has even less control, if one believe what is written/photographed/printed.