wsc

People on the outside looking in might see being a royal as a fairy tale they wish could become true for them; watch almost any holiday Hallmark movie.
 
A privileged life? Yes. Nice homes and cars? Sure. Fame, fortune? Certainly. But I imagine there's also a clear downside to being an HRH.
 
At the highest level, do you realize that Elizabeth (from age 10 on, at least), Charles, or William were probably never asked, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" There's no point to the question for them. They have no choice in the matter. It would literally take an act of Parliament for them to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, or anything other than Queen or King. Their life was always going to be lived in the spotlight, every word scrutinized, every act talked about, any indiscretion publicized and magnified. And much the same fates befall their children, the royal princes and princesses.
 
It's only when you become a distant, minor royal (read that as "irrelevant," which must do wonders for your sense of self-worth), do you begin to have options for your life's work. But you're still saddled with the fame and the spotlight, but in a way that can probably only cause scandal instead of earn praise.
 
Elizabeth I said of Mary, Queen of Scots, before condemning Mary to death, "You were born too close to my throne," meaning Mary was a threat to Elizabeth's life and crown. In a less somber but perhaps still sad sense, Harry was born too close to the throne, as well.
 
Second son of the Prince of Wales, he and his brother, shortly after Harry's birth, were dubbed "an heir and a spare." Catchy phrasing and typically Brit humor, it may still have somewhat stung the younger son, destined to live in the shadow of his older brother, the heir apparent. Photos of Harry as a child make him look impish, which by some accounts, he was. And adorable, too. Pics of him with his mother melt my heart, and images of his face at Diana's funeral bring tears to my eyes. All that grief and sense of loss played out before the eyes of all the world. Harry had some rough spots on his way to adulthood; the Nazi armband and Naked in Vegas come to mind. But he found himself and came into his own in the army. He wanted to be, and seemed largely to have been treated as, "one of the guys." Before Meghan, this might have been his happiest times.
 
I have always had a soft spot for Harry, a sensitive boy growing into a somewhat wounded man, and have sensed a pain somewhere in his soul. I always had, and still have, reservations regarding Meghan; never saw her as a good fit for Harry or the Firm. But she seems to have made Harry happy, and I very much want that for him. If he needs separation from his royal roots and the bad and bitter memories that come from them, I wish him well. He has every right to follow his course toward a happier life.
 
But he and Meghan seem to be struggling with an unprecedented transition and seem, too, to have formed unrealistic expectations of how it should and will go; keeping royal perks and access to the royal purse aren't realistic. I wish them well, but the interview didn't help. People who want a calmer, quieter, less drama-filled existence generally don't go on Oprah to talk about it, and I doubt the interview was Harry's idea.

I agree completely regarding the decision, or perhaps more accurately, the policy regarding titles for Archie, and for the increasing number of others that have been or will be relegated to the status of "minor royals."
 
Prince Charles, to a larger extent, and the Queen to a lesser one -she, after all, has less time ahead of her than Charles has ahead of him, and therefore, perhaps, less active interest in a more distant future - are keen to reduce the rolls of those supported by the Sovereign Grant, or the used-to-be-used Civil List, royals supported financially though public monies. As the Queen's children have children, and those children have children, and now even those children are having their own children, the number of members of an extended royal family is growing by leaps and bounds. Boundaries must be set and someone must set them. The most common complaint reported in British opinion polls regarding the Royals is the cost of keeping them in the manner to which we might all like to become accustomed.
 
With William now having three children of his own, the likelihood of any of Harry's children being needed to support royal succession is becoming increasingly remote. This is even more the case for the Queen's other children (Anne, Andrew, and Edward) and their children, and even more so that that, for the Snowden line, descendants of the Queen's deceased sister, Princes Margaret and her husband, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, created Earl of Snowden for his marriage to Margaret. None of the Snowden line have the HRH designation, and the children of Anne and Edward do not use royal titles. Archie, although every ounce a cutie, to be sure, not being named a prince or given the HRH designation, was in line with the policy of limiting membership in the official Royal Family, and not motivated by any prejudice or ill will.

Just another typical Saturday night, he thought to himself.

I didn't realize Stupid was an arrestable offense.

People on the outside looking in might see being a royal as a fairy tale they wish could become true for them; watch almost any holiday Hallmark movie.
 
A privileged life? Yes. Nice homes and cars? Sure. Fame, fortune? Certainly. But I imagine there's also a clear downside to being an HRH.
 
At the highest level, do you realize that Elizabeth (from age 10 on, at least), Charles, or William were probably never asked, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" There's no point to the question for them. They have no choice in the matter. It would literally take an act of Parliament for them to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, or anything other than Queen or King. Their life was always going to be lived in the spotlight, every word scrutinized, every act talked about, any indiscretion publicized and magnified. And much the same fates befall their children, the royal princes and princesses.
 
It's only when you become a distant, minor royal (read that as "irrelevant," which must do wonders for your sense of self-worth), do you begin to have options for your life's work. But you're still saddled with the fame and the spotlight, but in a way that can probably only cause scandal instead of earn praise.
 
Elizabeth I said of Mary, Queen of Scots, before condemning Mary to death, "You were born too close to my throne," meaning Mary was a threat to Elizabeth's life and crown. In a less somber but perhaps still sad sense, Harry was born too close to the throne, as well.
 
Second son of the Prince of Wales, he and his brother, shortly after Harry's birth, were dubbed "an heir and a spare." Catchy phrasing and typically Brit humor, it may still have somewhat stung the younger son, destined to live in the shadow of his older brother, the heir apparent. Photos of Harry as a child make him look impish, which by some accounts, he was. And adorable, too. Pics of him with his mother melt my heart, and images of his face at Diana's funeral bring tears to my eyes. All that grief and sense of loss played out before the eyes of all the world. Harry had some rough spots on his way to adulthood; the Nazi armband and Naked in Vegas come to mind. But he found himself and came into his own in the army. He wanted to be, and seemed largely to have been treated as, "one of the guys." Before Meghan, this might have been his happiest times.
 
I have always had a soft spot for Harry, a sensitive boy growing into a somewhat wounded man, and have sensed a pain somewhere in his soul. I always had, and still have, reservations regarding Meghan; never saw her as a good fit for Harry or the Firm. But she seems to have made Harry happy, and I very much want that for him. If he needs separation from his royal roots and the bad and bitter memories that come from them, I wish him well. He has every right to follow his course toward a happier life.
 
But he and Meghan seem to be struggling with an unprecedented transition and seem, too, to have formed unrealistic expectations of how it should and will go; keeping royal perks and access to the royal purse aren't realistic. I wish them well, but the interview didn't help. People who want a calmer, quieter, less drama-filled existence generally don't go on Oprah to talk about it, and I doubt the interview was Harry's idea.

I agree, and have always used the Rent.Men site anonymously.
 
Out of curiosity, what are the benefits of membership? And even if a member, is it not possible to still visit the site anonymously?
 
Also, and unanswerable by any but the escort, why would an escort block someone for checking out their profile? Makes no sense to me, and seems a bit petty.

People on the outside looking in might see being a royal as a fairy tale they wish could become true for them; watch almost any holiday Hallmark movie.
 
A privileged life? Yes. Nice homes and cars? Sure. Fame, fortune? Certainly. But I imagine there's also a clear downside to being an HRH.
 
At the highest level, do you realize that Elizabeth (from age 10 on, at least), Charles, or William were probably never asked, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" There's no point to the question for them. They have no choice in the matter. It would literally take an act of Parliament for them to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, or anything other than Queen or King. Their life was always going to be lived in the spotlight, every word scrutinized, every act talked about, any indiscretion publicized and magnified. And much the same fates befall their children, the royal princes and princesses.
 
It's only when you become a distant, minor royal (read that as "irrelevant," which must do wonders for your sense of self-worth), do you begin to have options for your life's work. But you're still saddled with the fame and the spotlight, but in a way that can probably only cause scandal instead of earn praise.
 
Elizabeth I said of Mary, Queen of Scots, before condemning Mary to death, "You were born too close to my throne," meaning Mary was a threat to Elizabeth's life and crown. In a less somber but perhaps still sad sense, Harry was born too close to the throne, as well.
 
Second son of the Prince of Wales, he and his brother, shortly after Harry's birth, were dubbed "an heir and a spare." Catchy phrasing and typically Brit humor, it may still have somewhat stung the younger son, destined to live in the shadow of his older brother, the heir apparent. Photos of Harry as a child make him look impish, which by some accounts, he was. And adorable, too. Pics of him with his mother melt my heart, and images of his face at Diana's funeral bring tears to my eyes. All that grief and sense of loss played out before the eyes of all the world. Harry had some rough spots on his way to adulthood; the Nazi armband and Naked in Vegas come to mind. But he found himself and came into his own in the army. He wanted to be, and seemed largely to have been treated as, "one of the guys." Before Meghan, this might have been his happiest times.
 
I have always had a soft spot for Harry, a sensitive boy growing into a somewhat wounded man, and have sensed a pain somewhere in his soul. I always had, and still have, reservations regarding Meghan; never saw her as a good fit for Harry or the Firm. But she seems to have made Harry happy, and I very much want that for him. If he needs separation from his royal roots and the bad and bitter memories that come from them, I wish him well. He has every right to follow his course toward a happier life.
 
But he and Meghan seem to be struggling with an unprecedented transition and seem, too, to have formed unrealistic expectations of how it should and will go; keeping royal perks and access to the royal purse aren't realistic. I wish them well, but the interview didn't help. People who want a calmer, quieter, less drama-filled existence generally don't go on Oprah to talk about it, and I doubt the interview was Harry's idea.

People on the outside looking in might see being a royal as a fairy tale they wish could become true for them; watch almost any holiday Hallmark movie.
 
A privileged life? Yes. Nice homes and cars? Sure. Fame, fortune? Certainly. But I imagine there's also a clear downside to being an HRH.
 
At the highest level, do you realize that Elizabeth (from age 10 on, at least), Charles, or William were probably never asked, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" There's no point to the question for them. They have no choice in the matter. It would literally take an act of Parliament for them to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher, or anything other than Queen or King. Their life was always going to be lived in the spotlight, every word scrutinized, every act talked about, any indiscretion publicized and magnified. And much the same fates befall their children, the royal princes and princesses.
 
It's only when you become a distant, minor royal (read that as "irrelevant," which must do wonders for your sense of self-worth), do you begin to have options for your life's work. But you're still saddled with the fame and the spotlight, but in a way that can probably only cause scandal instead of earn praise.
 
Elizabeth I said of Mary, Queen of Scots, before condemning Mary to death, "You were born too close to my throne," meaning Mary was a threat to Elizabeth's life and crown. In a less somber but perhaps still sad sense, Harry was born too close to the throne, as well.
 
Second son of the Prince of Wales, he and his brother, shortly after Harry's birth, were dubbed "an heir and a spare." Catchy phrasing and typically Brit humor, it may still have somewhat stung the younger son, destined to live in the shadow of his older brother, the heir apparent. Photos of Harry as a child make him look impish, which by some accounts, he was. And adorable, too. Pics of him with his mother melt my heart, and images of his face at Diana's funeral bring tears to my eyes. All that grief and sense of loss played out before the eyes of all the world. Harry had some rough spots on his way to adulthood; the Nazi armband and Naked in Vegas come to mind. But he found himself and came into his own in the army. He wanted to be, and seemed largely to have been treated as, "one of the guys." Before Meghan, this might have been his happiest times.
 
I have always had a soft spot for Harry, a sensitive boy growing into a somewhat wounded man, and have sensed a pain somewhere in his soul. I always had, and still have, reservations regarding Meghan; never saw her as a good fit for Harry or the Firm. But she seems to have made Harry happy, and I very much want that for him. If he needs separation from his royal roots and the bad and bitter memories that come from them, I wish him well. He has every right to follow his course toward a happier life.
 
But he and Meghan seem to be struggling with an unprecedented transition and seem, too, to have formed unrealistic expectations of how it should and will go; keeping royal perks and access to the royal purse aren't realistic. I wish them well, but the interview didn't help. People who want a calmer, quieter, less drama-filled existence generally don't go on Oprah to talk about it, and I doubt the interview was Harry's idea.

I agree completely regarding the decision, or perhaps more accurately, the policy regarding titles for Archie, and for the increasing number of others that have been or will be relegated to the status of "minor royals."
 
Prince Charles, to a larger extent, and the Queen to a lesser one -she, after all, has less time ahead of her than Charles has ahead of him, and therefore, perhaps, less active interest in a more distant future - are keen to reduce the rolls of those supported by the Sovereign Grant, or the used-to-be-used Civil List, royals supported financially though public monies. As the Queen's children have children, and those children have children, and now even those children are having their own children, the number of members of an extended royal family is growing by leaps and bounds. Boundaries must be set and someone must set them. The most common complaint reported in British opinion polls regarding the Royals is the cost of keeping them in the manner to which we might all like to become accustomed.
 
With William now having three children of his own, the likelihood of any of Harry's children being needed to support royal succession is becoming increasingly remote. This is even more the case for the Queen's other children (Anne, Andrew, and Edward) and their children, and even more so that that, for the Snowden line, descendants of the Queen's deceased sister, Princes Margaret and her husband, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, created Earl of Snowden for his marriage to Margaret. None of the Snowden line have the HRH designation, and the children of Anne and Edward do not use royal titles. Archie, although every ounce a cutie, to be sure, not being named a prince or given the HRH designation, was in line with the policy of limiting membership in the official Royal Family, and not motivated by any prejudice or ill will.

I agree completely regarding the decision, or perhaps more accurately, the policy regarding titles for Archie, and for the increasing number of others that have been or will be relegated to the status of "minor royals."
 
Prince Charles, to a larger extent, and the Queen to a lesser one -she, after all, has less time ahead of her than Charles has ahead of him, and therefore, perhaps, less active interest in a more distant future - are keen to reduce the rolls of those supported by the Sovereign Grant, or the used-to-be-used Civil List, royals supported financially though public monies. As the Queen's children have children, and those children have children, and now even those children are having their own children, the number of members of an extended royal family is growing by leaps and bounds. Boundaries must be set and someone must set them. The most common complaint reported in British opinion polls regarding the Royals is the cost of keeping them in the manner to which we might all like to become accustomed.
 
With William now having three children of his own, the likelihood of any of Harry's children being needed to support royal succession is becoming increasingly remote. This is even more the case for the Queen's other children (Anne, Andrew, and Edward) and their children, and even more so that that, for the Snowden line, descendants of the Queen's deceased sister, Princes Margaret and her husband, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, created Earl of Snowden for his marriage to Margaret. None of the Snowden line have the HRH designation, and the children of Anne and Edward do not use royal titles. Archie, although every ounce a cutie, to be sure, not being named a prince or given the HRH designation, was in line with the policy of limiting membership in the official Royal Family, and not motivated by any prejudice or ill will.

I agree completely regarding the decision, or perhaps more accurately, the policy regarding titles for Archie, and for the increasing number of others that have been or will be relegated to the status of "minor royals."
 
Prince Charles, to a larger extent, and the Queen to a lesser one -she, after all, has less time ahead of her than Charles has ahead of him, and therefore, perhaps, less active interest in a more distant future - are keen to reduce the rolls of those supported by the Sovereign Grant, or the used-to-be-used Civil List, royals supported financially though public monies. As the Queen's children have children, and those children have children, and now even those children are having their own children, the number of members of an extended royal family is growing by leaps and bounds. Boundaries must be set and someone must set them. The most common complaint reported in British opinion polls regarding the Royals is the cost of keeping them in the manner to which we might all like to become accustomed.
 
With William now having three children of his own, the likelihood of any of Harry's children being needed to support royal succession is becoming increasingly remote. This is even more the case for the Queen's other children (Anne, Andrew, and Edward) and their children, and even more so that that, for the Snowden line, descendants of the Queen's deceased sister, Princes Margaret and her husband, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, created Earl of Snowden for his marriage to Margaret. None of the Snowden line have the HRH designation, and the children of Anne and Edward do not use royal titles. Archie, although every ounce a cutie, to be sure, not being named a prince or given the HRH designation, was in line with the policy of limiting membership in the official Royal Family, and not motivated by any prejudice or ill will.

Or Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Japan. I was surprised to learn that over 70 countries -some large, some small- drive on the left. In the case of this handsome, muscular hunk, however, I'll take whichever side he offers. I am, however, partial to the front. I hope he has a nice stick for our ride.

I'm a bit upset with the American media for sensationalizing the interview and making statements about there being a large rift in the Royal Family. That is too general a characterization. Oprah did a fine job with her interview, and Meghan and Harry presented themselves well. The Monarchy will not likely comment on any allegations - they won't rally into some sort of defensive counter attack as the media would like. I would expect, at most, a simple statement from the Queen expressing sorrow that Harry and Megan felt it was necessary to move away but that they will always remain an important part of the family. Some of the interview was quite enlightening, and I do not doubt that some members of the extended family would make crass and racist comments about Meghan and Archie - just look at the history of comments made by Prince Philip and Princess Michael of Kent. But it is inacurate for the media to suggest that race was a factor in Archie not receiving titles and separate security. The Monarchy has been streamlining things for several decades in response to public criticism over the number of titled members. I dont think the Queen is under any obligation to confer titles to any great-grandchild, other than those in the most direct line of succession - William's kids. I don't believe that Princess Eugenie's child has received a royal title, nor the grandchildren of Princess Anne, who in fact refused titles for her own kids. I am also unhappy that the media makes references to the 'Royal Family' in general with respect to accusations rather than 'a member/certain members of' - this leads the public to believe that all members are in cahoots with one another and share discriminatory feelings about Meghan. I think this is an irresponsible and unfair characterization, and it only serves to sensationalize the situation. It is also misrepresenting Meghan's words. But those who harbour racist attitudes in the family should not have the advantage of hiding under the Queen's petticoats, or behind the image of the Royal Family as a unit. Poor Queen E. She must throw her hands up in the air trying to manage the turmoil she gets confronted with so often. But it seems she and Harry and Meghan will weather this - and it was great to hear the mutual respect they all share. Hoping this interview might raise awareness of mental health and wellness issues at the very least. ?

In England??

I still remember the newspaper review: "Marc Singer looks like he's a sculptured marble statue, but unfortunately that also describes his acting."

The beauty of the sofa depends on where you put it; think salon in a Gentlemen's Club in Belgravia section of London.
The beauty of the ass depends on what you put into it; use your imagination for best result. Personally. I'd pick ?

Men like this sometimes make me reconsider my position on facial hair, which I usually don't favor. But this man is h-a-n-d-s-o-m-e, and then some.

I see escort ads every day for men I would only touch with a ten-foot pole, or ones I'd decline in favor of going home alone to satisfy myself.
 
It seems that, for some, the mere willingness to engage in sexual activity for compensation makes them see themselves as a viable and desirable sex companion, even though -in my eyes, at least- they lack the face, the body, and/or the "equipment" that would be needed to secure my interest. And hardly a day goes by that I don't see a "411 on Whatshisname," linking to an ad, which when seen, makes me cringe and ask "Why? How?" could anyone find this man remotely attractive or desirable.
 
All this simply proves the truth that "nobody is everybody's type, and everybody is somebody's type." And although, with some escorts, I couldn't see an attraction if I tried for a thousand years, it doesn't mean nobody else can or does. And since I'm not being asked to participate, it's really none of my business.
 
And as far as how such men as these -and including the current subject Mateo Blanco- attract enough business to survive, or possibly even thrive, remember that almost 75 million people voted for That Man. So some things simply defy rational explanation or logical understanding. But given the size of the population, the law of large numbers means there may be a market for whatever they're selling.
 
Now then, where did I leave that pole?

I see escort ads every day for men I would only touch with a ten-foot pole, or ones I'd decline in favor of going home alone to satisfy myself.
 
It seems that, for some, the mere willingness to engage in sexual activity for compensation makes them see themselves as a viable and desirable sex companion, even though -in my eyes, at least- they lack the face, the body, and/or the "equipment" that would be needed to secure my interest. And hardly a day goes by that I don't see a "411 on Whatshisname," linking to an ad, which when seen, makes me cringe and ask "Why? How?" could anyone find this man remotely attractive or desirable.
 
All this simply proves the truth that "nobody is everybody's type, and everybody is somebody's type." And although, with some escorts, I couldn't see an attraction if I tried for a thousand years, it doesn't mean nobody else can or does. And since I'm not being asked to participate, it's really none of my business.
 
And as far as how such men as these -and including the current subject Mateo Blanco- attract enough business to survive, or possibly even thrive, remember that almost 75 million people voted for That Man. So some things simply defy rational explanation or logical understanding. But given the size of the population, the law of large numbers means there may be a market for whatever they're selling.
 
Now then, where did I leave that pole?

I’ll say it again.
He. Doesn’t. Intend. To. Meet.
It’s pretty clear from a) his pricing and b) his behavior after sharing his pricing.
 
I wish there were a way to get guys who don’t intend to meet off RM. Like escorts don’t want guys who aren’t serious, clients don’t want guys who have no intention of providing.