And Canada is so BIG! Think of all the flying around they can do while lecturing ordinary people about pollution and climate change. 
My personal (conspiracy) theory is that the Queen and Charles are paying them to do what they want to do - go away - as a means of distracting the press from Andrew. Heard anything about him recently? No, it’s all been pushed off the front pages by the hoo-hah about Megxit. Win-win for the royals.
There’s that article about Frogmore Cottage - FFS, it’s a cottage. There’s a much bigger house on the same estate, plus a mausoleum. It’s been in the Family for centuries. If the government owns it, it’s at the sufferance of some earlier monarch. Last time I was in Europe, half the historical buildings seemed to have some sort of renovations or repairs going on. Heck, the Step Pyramid in Egypt was under renovations when I was there; 4500 years and still not ready - must be a government job. The Taj Mahal a year or two ago had one of its towers undergoing maintenance, surrounded with scaffolding. Raising a fuss about some couple living in the gatehouse Kato Kaelin style instead of shacking up with his brother’s family seems petty even for the tabloids.
The story about Charles and his toothpaste makes sense. Remember this is the heir to the throne since he was born in 1953. Until Diana changed the royal dynamic, the place was pretty stuffy; Charles had butlers coming out of his butlers. every detail was attended to - someone laid out his clothes, took away laundry and brought back cleaned clothes and put them away, someone set out his toiletries for morning or night, someone helped him get dressed, etc. It’s what high end servants did in those days. Walking into the bathroom at night and the tub was drawn, your soaps and towel neatly laid out, toothpaste already on brush, etc. - it’s hard to imagine that level of personal service in modern day North America, but if you watch a few seasons of Downton Abbey or Upstairs Downstairs it’s not difficult to imagine that was the level of personal service back in the day, and the Palace was one of the last places to let go of “the day”.
I kind of wonder how much of that he had to get used to doing himself in the army.
He never served in the Army, but did do active duty in the RAF and Royal Navy.
They just essentially quit their jobs, and will no longer use his/her royal highness
Can I apply for his job?
Crenshaw is closer to both Santa Monica and Beverly Hills than it is to Compton.
Okay? What are the similarities between Crenshaw and either of those in terms of history, economics, crime rate, reputation, etc.? I think I’ve made the point several times that the Daily Mail was emphasizing similarity, not just geographic proximity.
The men they married may have had something to do with how each of them weathered the tempests each of them went through. The William was fifteen, and Harry twelve when Diana died. While it was surely traumatic for both of them, their disparate ages alone would almost necessarily have resulted in disparities in how they processed their loss as individuals. If William was better equipped emotionally to encourage Kate in her dealings with the tabs, that may simply be because he was less primed to see a parallel between his wife’s experiences with the paparazzi and his mother’s than Harry was to see Meghan’s parallels to Di.*
In fact, the Mail’s coverage of W & H wrt “Stiff Upper Lip” expectations is a case in point. The Mail wrote approvingly of William calling out the expectation for his little brother’s benefit as much as his own. When Harry kept up with defying those expectations, the Mail suddenly decided that it wasn’t kosher to defy, or even question them.
*Also, look! Diana was fucking a BROWN man! And now Harry is fucking a BROWN woman! You can’t persuade me that there wasn’t a racist aspect to both the presence of Dodi Fayed and the presence of Meghan Markle in the love lives of “BRITAIN’S Royals” that influenced the coverage of both.
Worse, to tell you the truth, at least lately. See, the goddamned RAMS couldn’t leave well enough alone and let us keep the Los Angeles Basin NFL franchise-free and stay in fucking Missouri where they belonged, so now there’s a goddamned FOOTBALL stadium there.
Used to be a high-class neighborhood whose claim to fame was being home to the Goodyear Blimp. How the mighty have fallen.
They aren’t even moderately close to each other geographically. It’s 14 miles from center to center, which is a huge difference in a metro area.
They don’t share a history at all.
It’s actually not nearly as easy as you’d think to compare crime rates, as Crenshaw isn’t an actual city, unlike Compton.
Based on this as well as other reporting, I’m willing to attribute the motives of the Daily Mail’s headline to racism.
That’s where they came up with the term “PRIVVY Council,” innit?
From 5400 miles away (distance London -> LA), they might as well be across the street from each other.
Both had a very similar trajectory over the last 80 years: a large Japanese-American population giving way to a large African-American population, middle-class flight, surging gang- and drug-related violence, and recent attempts at revitalization.
No, but the LAPD provides detailed online information about crimes in the various neighborhoods, which information is quoted in the Daily Mail’s article above-linked.
Either racism, or pandering to racism in an effort to win readers, yes, and I’ve said as much. However, motive and subtext are not something the royals can easily dispute; it starts looking too much like censorship or press control. They will dispute specific facts, such as the recent “William bullies Harry” story, but the specific facts stated by the Daily Mail (Meghan grew up in Crenshaw, Crenshaw saw 47 reported crimes including at least one murder in the week before the article, Crenshaw is plagued by multiple violent street gangs, etc.) don’t fit into that category. Sure, saying “Crenshaw is one of a cluster of Los Angeles boroughs famous for gangs - along with Compton, Long Beach, South Central and Inglewood” almost certainly comes from disreputable motives, but what is factually incorrect and hence disputable about it?