And they would otherwise charge £150 for that??! It wouldn't be so bad if the information they give was complete, accurate and unambiguous; but it isn't. Stay away from this outfit, people! For example, they state: That's if they marry abroad and she applies as a spouse. But they will marry in the UK so she has successfully applied for a Settlement: Marriage Visa which is valid for six months. Upon marriage, she then applies for FLR (twice, each for 2.5 years) and then ILR. As the wedding is to take place in May, that's after 5.5 years, not five years as they incorrectly state. They go on to say: but he doesn't need one: he simply needs to show either income of at least £18,600 or savings of £62,500 - or a combination of the two (for which @bigmac will, I'm sure, be happy to provide the calculations!) I believe that is wrong, he alone must be able to satisfy the financial requirements up to and including the second FLR. Now this is plain wrong: Prince Harry is currently fifth in line - and will be at least sixth or maybe seventh in five years' time - and as such he is not entitled to a palace. The principal royal palaces are in any event owned by the State and not the Royal Family and their upkeep is public expenditure (though, you may recall, Her Majesty paid a significant percentage of the costs of repairs to Windsor Castle following the fire of 1992). Even if the Queen doesn't gift him a property as a wedding present, his father might or he could well afford one himself if he were to use his trust funds. How gob-smackingly patronising this mob are. I've read the Daily Mail article and it did make a boo-boo about Meghan's citizenship but this mob, in pointing-out the Mail's error, have made several of their own!
Thanks for reminding me why I haven't bought a British newspaper (er, comic should I say) for at least 20 years now.
Breaking news yesterday - One of Prince William's offspring wants a police car for Christmas. Presumably like one of the ones that escorts him to school everyday (again at public cost). Leading story at the BBC for 6 hours yesterday. Today they are looking at Meghan's ring, all important stuff.
BBC running a live timeline of Harry and Meghan's first Royal visit 10:58 reality tv person seen in crowd 10:59 it's wintry 11:01 bloke with owl - is it trying to woo Meghan. What a hoot! 11:05 they have arrived, bloody good effort - it is a real achievement to get to Nottingham 11:21 some people looking from windows at royal couple Riveting stuff. And trivial. Immensely trivial.
Actually they are giving publicity to World Aids Day and by endorsing it fighting against the stigma of HIV. A disease which has a higher incidence rate amongst hetrosexuals than homosexuals. Also, many many people who are infected refuse to have tests because of this stigma. So yeah, pointless.
The above is simple yet determined trolling - deliberately stirring-up discord; what a truly unpleasant and mean-spirited fellow you are. If there is a "police car" that escorts Prince George to school, then it will almost certainly be an unmarked vehicle and it will only use its blue lights in an emergency. Further to that, in republics, families and cronies of presidents are given escorts and protection at public expense and not only that but the Royal Family does directly contribute towards the costs of its security, particularly for junior royals. Why are you watching television in the middle of a working day? I find it extraordinary that you should be doing so having previously complained at some length about how the negative impact the Brexit vote has dealt your business. You can't be doing too badly if you are watching television. And yes, it probably was a bit of an effort to arrive in Nottingham on time given the rather nasty weather conditions - ice and snow - that appears to be affecting the eastern half of the country. As for triviality: blame the BBC not the royal couple who, I'm sure, would far rather conduct their visits away from the ever-intrusive lensmen and TV crews. But if it's as trivial as you claim, then that says more about you as the viewer than it does about Harry and Meghan!
Trolling? I am posting in line with the subject matter. The trolling came from those who used my views to make this a political thread (completely off topic). Go back and find out what trolling is. I was not watching tv, I was just looking at the BBC news site during a coffee break, a live feed with updates from a number of reporters. This reinforced Graham's views that the Press are as trivial as The Dandy. And why are you trying to goad me into talking about Brexit? Are you hoping for a bite so that you can then cry foul? That is, my dear fellow, trolling. As you will appreciate when you find its true definition. Politics are not allowed here any more, perhaps you should follow the rule you like promoting.
Wikipedia tells us that a troll "is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement." It would appear to be you who needs to ascertain the meaning of "troll" and "trolling", not me. Nevertheless you apparently monitored the BBC yesterday since you claimed that for six hours the BBC's lead story was Prince George's wish for a police car from Santa. But I'm not doing anything of the sort. I merely pointed-out that for someone whose livelihood has been threatened by the democratic processes of our land, you seem to be totally obsessed and distracted by events you deem to be "immensely trivial". You're just another self-indulgent socialist with an unwarranted sense of entitlement and enormous chip on his shoulder.
I am stating my opinion - that is not trolling. In fact, I was posting in agreement with the opening poster. I am only causing discord with those whose opinion differs from mine. Isn't that life? It's disappointing that you have copied and pasted a description of trolling without actually considering how it applied to me - the accused. Unlike you, I have stayed on topic. I logged onto the BBC site at lunch time yesterday. The leading story then was the leading story at 8pm - Prince George wants a police car for Christmas. I didn't need to stay logged on for 6 hours to come to a logical conclusion that the Beeb had led with that story on their web front page in all that time. Your last paragraph is more politics, completely off topic and against the forum rules.
The wiki article seems to describe some of us more aptly than others.... Harry and Meghan have safely left Nottingham, the city being covered in 0.001mm of snow.
I don't have an unwarranted sense of entitlement - all I have, I have worked for. Not sure your hero, Prince Harry, can make the same claim. Doff your cap to the Royals, you know your place, and no-one can aspire to be at the top of the hierarchy in this country - that honor is reserved for the first King sperm to fertilize a Queen egg. What better way to decide who next is to be Head of State? In America, anyone can become Head of State. We don't deserve such freedoms, we are merely proles and we have no right to expect to be anything else. The ruling class are born to rule, they are infallible, they make no mistakes, they are born privileged and they deserve that because of what their ancestors did to o rain that wealth centuries ago. The dynasty is necessary, we'll have none of that "one day I'll be president" daydreaming here. Long to reign over us, God save them all They deserve our undivided loyalty, we have no right to question the system - we would be lost without them (especially when we've worked out what they do).
Of course Trump is a great example of a Head of State. Thats the problem with have a Presidential system, anyone can get in, and cause great damage.
Or Maduro, Kim Jong Un and Mugabe. Marxists to a man and all living high on the hog whilst their subjects starve and live in abject poverty.
