What don’t they get about other members of the family not getting security either?I suspect they are trying to angle it like how the British Ambassador to the US gets security.
i also supect there is a Diana angle here of history repeating itself: she didn't have Royal security and "look what happened" (says Meghan to Harry every morning over his waffles). So the stories of having to call the police 9x in 9months.... she likes the "9 month" references, doesn't she. But not only are they repeating her favourite gestational period, they are also suggesting that the RF is ignoring the real and imminent danger that they have imposed on this innocent family because Harry was born into these titles that attract paps and weirdos, Meghan innocently and naively married into these titles that attact all these paps and weirdos and Archie was born innocently and naively without these titles but yet he is the real justification they give for security, as proven by these 9 fabricated paps and weirdo intrusions. This security tantrum has Pont Alma tunnel written all over it and yet they don't see the irony that Archie not having titles is, according to their own argument, reducing his risk and giving him titles would increase his risk. They also don't see how these claims of security breaches are so hollow that it actually weakens their story. They really don't see as well how they left to be independent and yet are demanding all these perks ... he didn't even try to suggest any Ambassadorial role for himself with the UK. Only ambassadorial roles as the Kommish of playing nicely in the sandbox and the Chief Shitting Bull of the Bullshit Tribe of Silicon Valley Psych department. He didnt check if these ambassadorial roles provided the elusive motorcade and Men in Black to make his wife happy/pseudo-FLOTUS
Always with the linebacker necklkne dresses (wedding, pink TTC insult, etc etc)
And why the duck did they move somewhere with gun ownership, if they’re so vulnerable?