The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3321  
Old 11-14-2017, 05:25 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Then what funding are you talking about? She won't be using taxpayer funding if she lives in the UK as a private citizen. She does have her own means of support.



LaRae
Who said anything about Meghan receiving taxpayers money as a private citizen? Of course she won't be entitled to taxpayers money as a private citizen.

What I said was why I think an engagement announcement should be delayed. Hypothetically if H&M get engaged next week she would automatically be entitled to funding by the British taxpayers from next week, this includes RPOs & other expenses that comes with royal life. Due to the fact that she has never lived in the UK I think this would make bad optics. Best thing will be to have her live as a private citizen in the UK for a few months where she funds herself.
__________________

  #3322  
Old 11-14-2017, 05:45 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen E View Post
Who said anything about Meghan receiving taxpayers money as a private citizen? Of course she won't be entitled to taxpayers money as a private citizen.

What I said was why I think an engagement announcement should be delayed. Hypothetically if H&M get engaged next week she would automatically be entitled to funding by the British taxpayers from next week, this includes RPOs & other expenses that comes with royal life. Due to the fact that she has never lived in the UK I think this would make bad optics. Best thing will be to have her live as a private citizen in the UK for a few months where she funds herself.
What other expenses that come with royal life? There won't be any whatsoever until after she's married to Harry. Up until she says "I do" at the altar, she'll be a private citizen. Those months between the engagement announcement and the actual wedding will be the months she lives in the UK as a private citizen and a royal fiancee. She will not be doing anything "official" for the Firm or be listed in the court circular. After marriage, all expenses that need to be covered will be either from the Queen and the Sovereign Grant or Charles or Harry and Meghan themselves. The *only* thing pertinent to the royal's lifestyle that is paid directly by the tax payers is the protection details. The RPOs get their paychecks from the Metropolitan Police if I'm not mistaken.

No matter who Harry gets engaged to, be it Meghan or anyone else, they will receive the tax payer funding of a RPO. Its only sensible.
__________________

__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
  #3323  
Old 11-14-2017, 05:49 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,588
So you say she's entitled to RPO's if she's engaged but you don't want her to be engaged because you don't want her to have taxpayer money too soon. What does 3 or even 6 months matter?

The logic is a bit lacking in your position Queen E.


LaRae
  #3324  
Old 11-14-2017, 06:06 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 72
Let's put it another way, would Americans be happy to have a first lady who has never lived or worked in the US? Melania Trump is certainly not to my taste but at least she lived & worked in the US for a number of years prior to when her husband became president.

Obviously I don't expect Meghan to live in the UK for several years prior to an engagement but at least for a period wouldn't hurt. And it makes better optics in my opinion. How can you be a representative of a country that you have never lived in? The royal family are funded almost entirely by the British taxpayer from their security, to where they live, travel, holidays, their clothes, their staff, nannies etc.

Britain has become more insular especially after Brexit, so it would be risky if they were to announce an engagement just as soon as she moves to the country. Think about it, someone who has never lived or worked in the UK, suddenly arrives & announces an engagement where she will then be put on the British taxpayer payroll upon her engagement? I dont think that will go down well.

If you look at some of the other foreign spouses of other royal houses like Princess Mary, she lived in Denmark for a year or so before an engagement was announced.
  #3325  
Old 11-14-2017, 06:22 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen E View Post
Let's put it another way, would Americans be happy to have a first lady who has never lived or worked in the US? Melania Trump is certainly not to my taste but at least she lived & worked in the US for a number of years prior to when her husband became president.

Obviously I don't expect Meghan to live in the UK for several years prior to an engagement but at least for a period wouldn't hurt. And it makes better optics in my opinion. How can you be a representative of a country that you have never lived in? The royal family are funded almost entirely by the British taxpayer. Whether it's the duchy etc it is still not their money.

Britain has become more insular especially after Brexit, so it would be risky if they were to announce an engagement just as soon as she moves to the country. Think about it, someone who has never lived or worked in the UK, suddenly arrives & announces an engagement where she will then be put on the British taxpayer payroll upon her engagement? I dont think that will go down well.

If you look at some of the other foreign spouses of other royal houses like Princess Mary, she lived in Denmark for a year or so before an engagement was announced.
The way the royal family is funded is very well explained out in the Royal Wealth and Finance thread. The private income of the Queen and Charles are from agreements that have been made years and years ago. The *monarchy* and the "Firm" is a whole different ball of wax and how the funds are spent are itemized and published every year.

Can you be more specific and fill us in on exactly what the public taxpayer is going to be doling out the money for? There is *no* taxpayer payroll for any of the British royal famly or the monarchy from what I understand.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
  #3326  
Old 11-14-2017, 06:32 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Zionsville, United States
Posts: 111
I'm not seeing how a few months change the optics. Look, Meghan is American. Even when she eventually applies for British citizenship, she's still American. The people who have a problem with that are always going to have a problem with that. A few months won't change that. Legally Harry is allowed to marry a foreigner and his fiancee is entitled to RPO protection just like Kate and anyone else. I'm not aware of any clauses that create an acception for foreign born brides.

So she moves to the UK, not engaged, and does what? You want to talk about bad optics? I can see it now. "Desperate Meghan Markle, gives up her career to move to London to pressure Harry to propose!" She wouldn't be able to work or even do any charity work (accept the charity work she already has one her own) because anything she does will be seen as her trying to audition for the part of princess.

The situation is what it is, and Meghan is who she is. 3-6 months living in the UK, with no engagement and no real job will not change that.
  #3327  
Old 11-14-2017, 06:34 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen E View Post
Let's put it another way, would Americans be happy to have a first lady who has never lived or worked in the US? Melania Trump is certainly not to my taste but at least she lived & worked in the US for a number of years prior to when her husband became president.

Obviously I don't expect Meghan to live in the UK for several years prior to an engagement but at least for a period wouldn't hurt. And it makes better optics in my opinion. How can you be a representative of a country that you have never lived in? The royal family are funded almost entirely by the British taxpayer from their security, to where they live, travel, holidays, their clothes, their staff, nannies etc.

Britain has become more insular especially after Brexit, so it would be risky if they were to announce an engagement just as soon as she moves to the country. Think about it, someone who has never lived or worked in the UK, suddenly arrives & announces an engagement where she will then be put on the British taxpayer payroll upon her engagement? I dont think that will go down well.

If you look at some of the other foreign spouses of other royal houses like Princess Mary, she lived in Denmark for a year or so before an engagement was announced.

Wouldn't make me a bit of difference if the president had a foreign wife he met while president and brought her over mid term and married her a month later. What possible difference does that make? If she didn't have an interest in representing the US he wouldn't be marrying her.


I still don't know what you think the taxpayers are going to be paying for. It's been outlined to you pretty well by another poster that she's not moving here and getting on the dole and spending her days eating bon bons and watching Downton.


LaRae
  #3328  
Old 11-14-2017, 06:35 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
The way the royal family is funded is very well explained out in the Royal Wealth and Finance thread. The private income of the Queen and Charles are from agreements that have been made years and years ago. The *monarchy* and the "Firm" is a whole different ball of wax and how the funds are spent are itemized and published every year.

Can you be more specific and fill us in on exactly what the public taxpayer is going to be doling out the money for? There is *no* taxpayer payroll for any of the British royal famly or the monarchy from what I understand.
The royals are not always transparent with their finances hence the recent uproar regarding some of The Queen's & Prince Charles investments. But let us not kid ourselves to think that the bulk of their expenses is coming from their own pockets.

I edited my response above to include expenses of their security, running cost of their households, travel, holidays, their clothes, their staff, nannies etc.
  #3329  
Old 11-14-2017, 06:36 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen E View Post
Let's put it another way, would Americans be happy to have a first lady who has never lived or worked in the US? Melania Trump is certainly not to my taste but at least she lived & worked in the US for a number of years prior to when her husband became president.

Obviously I don't expect Meghan to live in the UK for several years prior to an engagement but at least for a period wouldn't hurt. And it makes better optics in my opinion. How can you be a representative of a country that you have never lived in? The royal family are funded almost entirely by the British taxpayer from their security, to where they live, travel, holidays, their clothes, their staff, nannies etc.

Britain has become more insular especially after Brexit, so it would be risky if they were to announce an engagement just as soon as she moves to the country. Think about it, someone who has never lived or worked in the UK, suddenly arrives & announces an engagement where she will then be put on the British taxpayer payroll upon her engagement? I dont think that will go down well.

If you look at some of the other foreign spouses of other royal houses like Princess Mary, she lived in Denmark for a year or so before an engagement was announced.
While Meghan is a US citizen, she has been living in a Commonwealth country for several years, 7 years is a long time. The Queen is the head of state of Canada so in a way, the ‘optics’ as you say, are already good, in my opinion.
  #3330  
Old 11-14-2017, 06:46 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen E View Post
I think things have worked out nicely for Meghan. Suits is pretty much on it's last legs and 7 seasons is quite an achievement for any show. Seems like the best time to bow out!

I personally would hold off on an engagement announcement until she's lived in England for a few months. Simply because I'm not sure how it will go down with the British taxpayers if they are suddenly expected to start funding a lady that has never lived in the UK or contributed in any way to British society. It will reek of entitlement.
I think that is what an engagement is for, to formally introduce Harry's future wife to the people of the UK and Commonwealth. They can't do it in a "no ring, no bring" private or royal engagement situation and it's a little pointless being in the UK, even living with Harry, but not being able to be an officially recognised +1.

That describes Meghan's status when she joined Harry at the IG. For the opening and closing ceremonies, she was not front and centre beside Harry. An engagement brings her officially to Harry's side. Without a ring it's open season on Meghan!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #3331  
Old 11-14-2017, 06:50 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen E View Post
Let's put it another way, would Americans be happy to have a first lady who has never lived or worked in the US? Melania Trump is certainly not to my taste but at least she lived & worked in the US for a number of years prior to when her husband became president.
That's a strange example. First Ladies, for the most part, have been married to their spouse for years before becoming First Lady, and you don't win the Presidency without having been in the nation to first build a reputation and connections and then campaign for at least a year or two. But if an unmarried person were to become
President and then marry a foreigner while in office, I don't think the fact that the new spouse was not American would be the surprising or uncomfortable thing. I think people would mostly just be taken aback to find that the President had carved out enough free time to conduct an international romance. We don't really have many expectations for a First Lady, but we do seem to expect the President to be a workaholic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen E View Post
If you look at some of the other foreign spouses of other royal houses like Princess Mary, she lived in Denmark for a year or so before an engagement was announced.
Mary did, but Alexandra and Marie didn't move to Denmark until their engagements were announced. It's a nice step for a couple to be able to make if the girlfriend's job can be transferred to the country (giving not only an income but a reason for the visa in the time until the engagement becomes official), but it's not always possible. Until fairly recently, royal brides rarely came from the nation they would come to represent and weren't expected to be in that nation until it was time for their wedding.

Being neither British nor a resident of the UK, I'm certainly in no position to take the temperature of the public and how Brexit might color opinion of a foreign royal fiancee. I will say that it seems beyond illogical to me to simultaneously (a) embrace the concept of monarchy/royalty and (b) essentially expect to have anyone marrying into a royal family be the perfect choice for the public from day one. Either you buy into the idea that a family--which is made up of people and marriages that have to work on a personal level in order to work at all--play this role in your nation or you use only with appointed/elected/hired staff to do the job of representing you. If the model is monarchy, then sometimes the public is just going to have to sometimes make its peace with letting people grow into the job rather than be ready for it the moment they become a part of the family. And when it comes to spouses, that sometimes means going ahead and assigning RPO's, providing housing, etc. for British citizens who have never dealt with the public and won't be immediately ready for a full schedule of walkabouts or speech-making and sometimes it will mean providing those resources for foreigners who haven't established themselves as British.

If a member of the royal family (Harry) is ready to get married to that person (Meghan) and the Queen is ok with it then it's time for it to happen, whether Joe Q. Public likes it or not. That's just part of what you get when with a monarchy.
  #3332  
Old 11-14-2017, 06:55 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliec76 View Post
I'm not seeing how a few months change the optics. Look, Meghan is American. Even when she eventually applies for British citizenship, she's still American. The people who have a problem with that are always going to have a problem with that. A few months won't change that. Legally Harry is allowed to marry a foreigner and his fiancee is entitled to RPO protection just like Kate and anyone else. I'm not aware of any clauses that create an acception for foreign born brides.

So she moves to the UK, not engaged, and does what? You want to talk about bad optics? I can see it now. "Desperate Meghan Markle, gives up her career to move to London to pressure Harry to propose!" She wouldn't be able to work or even do any charity work (accept the charity work she already has one her own) because anything she does will be seen as her trying to audition for the part of princess.

The situation is what it is, and Meghan is who she is. 3-6 months living in the UK, with no engagement and no real job will not change that.
Harry or any other members of the royals are free to marry who they want. The royals have a history of marrying foreigners so this is nothing new or unique.

However my point is that someone marrying into the royal family should have at least lived or worked in the country that they will be representing for some period. This has been the case for most foreign spouses. Why should Meghan be any different?
  #3333  
Old 11-14-2017, 06:56 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen E View Post
Who said anything about Meghan receiving taxpayers money as a private citizen? Of course she won't be entitled to taxpayers money as a private citizen.

What I said was why I think an engagement announcement should be delayed. Hypothetically if H&M get engaged next week she would automatically be entitled to funding by the British taxpayers from next week, this includes RPOs & other expenses that comes with royal life. Due to the fact that she has never lived in the UK I think this would make bad optics. Best thing will be to have her live as a private citizen in the UK for a few months where she funds herself.
Why? This was never the case with foreign royal brides in the past. The simple fact of someone giving up their whole life and moving to another country should say enough.
  #3334  
Old 11-14-2017, 07:07 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Why? This was never the case with foreign royal brides in the past. The simple fact of someone giving up their whole life and moving to another country should say enough.
Most recent foreign spouses that I can think of have lived for a period in their adoptive country, Prince Philip, Princess Mary of Denmark, Autumn Philips.

Perhaps a century ago this wouldn't matter but attitudes have changed concerning royals & what is expected.
  #3335  
Old 11-14-2017, 07:10 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,412
Lets face it. When it comes to Harry or anyone marrying in the British Royal Family, Joe Q. Public and what he thinks doesn't matter whatsoever. Although with Harry's marriage, his wife will be expected to work side by side with Harry and the "Firm", it is first and foremost a personal relationship and what the public thinks doesn't really amount to a hill of beans or call any of the shots on how they do things.

We'll just basically have to be happy with whatever they decide they want to do and if their wedding is to be televised so that we all can be a part of it, we'll be given the privilege of being included. We can't ask for anything more than that.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
  #3336  
Old 11-14-2017, 07:14 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Zionsville, United States
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Why? This was never the case with foreign royal brides in the past. The simple fact of someone giving up their whole life and moving to another country should say enough.
Exactly. It's like Meghan has to jump through hoops because she has the audacity to not be British. And if we are being really honest, it still won't be enough for some.

Just because some other bride may have done something, does not mean it is the only, correct way. Why should Meghan be any different? How about because she is different. Every relationship and circumstance is unique.

The fact is she wouldn't be able to work in the UK. Any job she got would be scrutinized and picked apart. And even if she did get some job, she would still be working there as an American. On a work visa. So how is that working for her new country? What exactly would she be proving since as "just a girlfriend" she'd have to mostly be out of sight anyway.
  #3337  
Old 11-14-2017, 07:17 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen E View Post
Most recent foreign spouses that I can think of have lived for a period in their adoptive country, Prince Philip, Princess Mary of Denmark, Autumn Philips.

Perhaps a century ago this wouldn't matter but attitudes have changed concerning royals & what is expected.
Philip is not exactly a recent example (70 years married!), he went to school in the U.K. as a teen and was in the British military during WWII. Elizabeth didn't meet him overseas, he didn't move to the U.K. because of his engagement or marriage.
Autumn is a private citizen, married to a private citizen.
And if you are bringing Mary into this, then as pointed out upthread neither of Joachim's wives moved to Denmark prior to their engagements.
  #3338  
Old 11-14-2017, 07:50 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Tennessee, United States
Posts: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen E View Post
Most recent foreign spouses that I can think of have lived for a period in their adoptive country, Prince Philip, Princess Mary of Denmark, Autumn Philips.

Perhaps a century ago this wouldn't matter but attitudes have changed concerning royals & what is expected.
No, actually, most haven't.

Philip doesn't really count, as he'd lived in the UK long before even meeting Elizabeth, so their relationship did not in any way play into his need to live there.

Mary lived in Denmark for a while first. I believe Maxima did the same in the Netherlands (although she'd been working nearby in Belgium--I can't find the date when she moved to be sure). Queen Silvia lived in Stockholm on and off for a couple of years before her engagement was announced.

However, the list of foreign royal spouses of living memory who did not move to their new home country until after the engagement was announced (or, in some cases, not until the wedding) is much longer:

Alexandra (moved from Hong Kong to Denmark)
Marie (France to Denmark)
Grace (US to Monaco)
Anne-Marie (Denmark to Greece)
Sofia (Greece to Spain)
Paola (Italy to Belgium)
Fabiola (Spain to Belgium)
Maria Teresa (she's Cuban, but the move was Geneva to Luxembourg)
Henrik (France to Denmark)

And then, of course, there's Chris O'Neill who didn't move to Sweden at all and opted not to be made royal despite his marriage to a princess.

Which, for me, raises the question: is there any possibility within British custom/the standards set by the currently applicable letters patent for a scenario in which Meghan marries Harry without becoming a princess (with the duties thereof)? We're all assuming that she'll do the same as every other woman who has thus far married a British prince and take on the titles and responsibilities that have traditionally come with the wedding ring, but in recent generations we've seen the BRF move slightly away from the model that all princesses marry men with titles, all sons of the monarch be made dukes upon marriage, and all grandchildren eligible for HRH to actually use it. Could it be possible for the wife of a prince to not truly be royal?

Let me clarify, I don't think that's likely. I'm wondering if it's possible. I'm just engaging in a thought experiment, not anything in the neighborhood of a prediction.
  #3339  
Old 11-14-2017, 07:55 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 72
The mood in Britain has undoubtedly changed & the royals are expected to be more accountable and are now being held up to greater scrutiny.

This is why there was uproar when the Buckingham Palace refurbishment was announced, the recent Paradise Papers, and the uproar when Harry broke the rules by not returning to Britain immediately after an official trip to visit his girlfriend abroad.

The British people are no longer in a mood to just accept things as they are from the establishment. Any perception of nepotism or preferential treatment will be frowned upon. The royals will need to be extremely careful with how this will look which is why I don't think they should rush things as soon as Meghan arrives in England after Suits wraps up. Public opinion does matter a great deal where the royals are concerned.
  #3340  
Old 11-14-2017, 08:13 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by loonytick View Post

Which, for me, raises the question: is there any possibility within British custom/the standards set by the currently applicable letters patent for a scenario in which Meghan marries Harry without becoming a princess (with the duties thereof)? We're all assuming that she'll do the same as every other woman who has thus far married a British prince and take on the titles and responsibilities that have traditionally come with the wedding ring, but in recent generations we've seen the BRF move slightly away from the model that all princesses marry men with titles, all sons of the monarch be made dukes upon marriage, and all grandchildren eligible for HRH to actually use it. Could it be possible for the wife of a prince to not truly be royal?

Let me clarify, I don't think that's likely. I'm wondering if it's possible. I'm just engaging in a thought experiment, not anything in the neighborhood of a prediction.
Anything is possible for The Queen. Princess Harry works the same as Mrs Harry Windsor.

It’s the practice under common law.

Meghan can’t be forced to take her husbands styles and titles but that would open up an Alice in wonderland debate which I know you’re not trying to do.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 19 (2 members and 17 guests)
TeeTee20, two*firecrackers
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Harry and Meghan: The Love Story" eya Royal Library 30 10-28-2017 02:39 AM




Popular Tags
best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill countess of snowdon crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark earl of snowdon fascism fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta margarita infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín juan urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy news nobel 2017 picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar prince philip princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queenmother queen rania queen rania in australia queen silvia state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family united kingdom victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:14 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises