General News about the Sussex Family, Part Two: April-August 2020

[Mbruno]

A new Nanny for their son, yoga in the garden, walking the dogs, cooking, TV, a trip to the hardware store - daily life in Beverly Hills for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Sounds pretty good.

And plans for a children’s book.

Suprised to hear they have plans to move - eventually - from Castle Perry. There were reports of them hoping to buy it ... despite the future building works next door, if Mr Hadid starts contruction at some point.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lling-days-12-bathroom-Hollywood-mansion.html

I haven't really followed the couple for the last months, but I wonder how Prince Harry has sorted out his immigration status in the US. The topic must have been addressed here before, but could anyone clarify?

 

[acdc1]

I haven't really followed the couple for the last months, but I wonder how Prince Harry has sorted out his immigration status in the US. The topic must have been addressed here before, but could anyone clarify?

As the spouse of a US citizen, I suppose he could apply for a green card. It will be interesting to see if he seeks US citizenship at some point.

 

[Somebody]

As the spouse of a US citizen, I suppose he could apply for a green card. It will be interesting to see if he seeks US citizenship at some point.

I assume Mbruno's questions was about his current status. He arrived in the States on March 14, so, if he would have traveled on an ESTA visa waiver (which is what most Europeans do - he would not be allowed to work or formally live in the States), he would have needed to leave the country after 90 days... So, either he left in June for a few days and re-entered, is currently illegally in the USA or sought and gained entrance based on for example a K-3 visa (which would allow him to stay in the States for 2 years).

 

[Sun Lion]

"Election Year"

A new film that the Duchess of Sussex is set to produce.

Based on the political novel, of the same name, by Llyod Scott.

About a US presidential candidate who is actually a Russian operative.

Meghan said to be overseeing the script development in her role as producer.

Lloyd - a woman - has been talking about how the Duchess reached out to her.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...itical-novel-ruffle-White-House-feathers.html

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5775053/meghan-us-presidency-film-political-renegade/

https://www.amazon.com.au/Election-Year-Lloyd-Scott-ebook/dp/B087VT4QWC

 

[Mbruno]

A new film that the Duchess of Sussex is set to produce.

Based on the political novel, of the same name, by Llyod Scott.

About a US presidential candidate who is actually a Russian operative.

Meghan said to be overseeing the script development in her role as producer.

Lloyd - a woman - has been talking about how the Duchess reached out to her.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...itical-novel-ruffle-White-House-feathers.html

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5775053/meghan-us-presidency-film-political-renegade/

https://www.amazon.com.au/Election-Year-Lloyd-Scott-ebook/dp/B087VT4QWC

OMG !



Since she is still the wife of a prince of the United Kingdom who is 6th in line to the throne and, a princess of the United Kingdom herself, the potential for a diplomatic incident is huge.



I suppose she will get away with it by claiming she is doing it as a US citizen, but she can't really separate herself for her current title/status.


I'm pretty sure N.10 and the FCO will not be amused.

 

[Sun Lion]

The Duchess of Sussex is certainly one busy woman.

I've just started a thread for the new movie she is to be the producer of ... "Election Year".

And no, Meghan happy not to be in front of the camera taking a role, the reports say.

 

[Osipi]

All I can say about this news is "you can't cure stupid".

 

[Sun Lion]

OMG !



Since she is still the wife of a prince of the United Kingdom who is 6th in line to the throne and, a princess of the United Kingdom herself, the potential for a diplomatic incident is huge.



I suppose she will get away with it by claiming she is doing it as a US citizen, but she can't really separate herself for her current title/status.


I'm pretty sure N.10 and the FCO will not be amused.

I know I posted recently that I personally thought there were more suprises to come Mbruno, but obviously so much has been going on behind the scenes that are not yet out there in the public domain.

I admire the Duchess's drive and engergy.

Lots more to come no doubt.

 

[Missjersey]

All I can say about this news is "you can't cure stupid".

Haven’t been here (arm in cast) couldn’t pass this up...

I would have done all caps Osipi lol...

 

[Missjersey]

All I can say about this news is "you can't cure stupid".

Haven’t been here in a bit (arm in cast) but couldn’t pass up...

Would have used all caps Osipi, lol ...

 

[Missjersey]

Ugh now I’ll try delete one UGH

 

[Mbruno]

It seems that both Harry and Andrew are still councilors of state

Wikipedia has removed Harry from the list of "eiigible" Counsellors of State, but that depends really on clarifying his residence status. The law is very clear in terms of restricting the roles of Regent and Counsellor of State only to people who are domiciled in the United Kingdom.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counsellor_of_State



As Curryong said, it may be the case that, since he still mantains a permanent home in the UK, he is therefore still eligible, but I am not sure. In any case, I don't think the Queen would appoint him a Counsellor of State if needed given his recent erratic behavior. Unlike a Regent, a Counsellor of State does not assume royal prerogatives automatically when the monarch is absent. The Queen must issue specific LPs delegating royal prerogatives (or some of them) to specific Counsellors and fix the duration of that delegation,

 

[Eskimo]

Wikipedia has removed Harry from the list of "eiigible" Counsellors of State, but that depends really on clarifying his residence status. The law is very clear in terms of restricting the roles of Regent and Counsellor of State only to people who are domiciled in the United Kingdom.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counsellor_of_State



As Curryong said, it may be the case that, since he still mantains a permanent home in the UK, he is therefore still eligible, but I am not sure. In any case, I don't think the Queen would appoint him a Counsellor of State if needed given his recent erratic behavior. Unlike a Regent, a Counsellor of State does not assume royal prerogatives automatically when the monarch is absent. The Queen must issue specific LPs delegating royal prerogatives (or some of them) to specific Counsellors and fix the duration of that delegation,

It’s meaningless at the end of the day. If it came to that Parliament would remove him (and Andrew if needed) from the line of succession

 

[Mbruno]

It’s meaningless at the end of the day. If it came to that Parliament would remove him (and Andrew if needed) from the line of succession

Removing someone from the line of succession is actually quite tricky because, in addition to an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, it requires the consent of the Parliaments of the other 15 Commonwealth realms where the British monarch is still Head of State and, in some of those realms (e.g. Australia and New Zealand, but not Canada), it also requires that they amend their own law of succession according to their own constitutional rules. That is why the Succession to the Crown Act for example, which changed the order of succession by introducing equal primogeniture, took almost two years to come into effect.



Rules about regencies and appointment of Counsellors of State are easier to change because they generally apply only to the UK and can be changed unilaterally by the UK parliament (at least regencies do not extend to Australia or Canada; regencies apply to New Zealand , but the NZ Constitution Act, 1986 leaves it to British law).

 

[JessRulz]

I'm utterly perplexed as to how it was felt necessary to link Kanye West running for US President to Meghan; said posts have been removed as off-topic and political without a direct royal-focused link.

 

[poppy7]

Wikipedia has removed Harry from the list of "eiigible" Counsellors of State, but that depends really on clarifying his residence status. The law is very clear in terms of restricting the roles of Regent and Counsellor of State only to people who are domiciled in the United Kingdom.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counsellor_of_State



As Curryong said, it may be the case that, since he still mantains a permanent home in the UK, he is therefore still eligible, but I am not sure. In any case, I don't think the Queen would appoint him a Counsellor of State if needed given his recent erratic behavior. Unlike a Regent, a Counsellor of State does not assume royal prerogatives automatically when the monarch is absent. The Queen must issue specific LPs delegating royal prerogatives (or some of them) to specific Counsellors and fix the duration of that delegation,

As someone pointed out when I brought this up before, there are no Councillors of state needed anymore as the Queen does not travel aboard. So the members have not been updated since Phillip retired. You will notice it says ' eligible'

If so it would be Charles, his sons, Andrew and his girls.

Once Charles becomes King he may choose to just have his wife, William, his nieces, his brother (Edward) and his sister. And likewise William in time have his children, wife and his cousins.

 

[Denville]

Perhaps with Archewell, they won't draw a salary that exclusively puts green dollars into their own bank accounts but think about this. With being a not for profit foundation/organization, expenses that are connected to travel, promotional events, lodging and airfares if its a global foundation/organization and *anything* related to their incentives are (drum roll) tax deductible and is easier on their private bank account. If they draw a nominal salary as CEOs, that is also tax deductible for a not for profit.

so all this is to ease the pressure on tehir bank account..

None if the point in setting up a charity is to do good. Unfortunately, most charities are set up to help the founders more than to help the less privileged

That is true but for such a "woke" couple? The facts seem to be that they want to set up some kind of charity to get themselves noticed and they want it to be the kind that they can use to pay themselves a salary, although they already have a pretty decent income. I believe them when they said that they wanted to make a professional income and gain financial independence. They felt that they didn't have enough money, and wanted to be able, part of the time, (in thier original plan) to earn their own money, so that they could - well have and spend more. Raising more money for charity was at best a secondary consideration.

 

[carlota]

The aim is to influence the massive, everday man's travel and tourism. The general masses are more apt to make a difference than one man flying in a private jet when it comes to green travel. For example, if you're going to avidly advocate for carbon emissions from cars, it doesn't matter if the car is a Porsche of a 1998 rented car from "Rent A Wreck". All cars are advocated to become greener and its everyday man with the Rent A Wreck kind of car that will make the most impact and not the few in a Porsche.

Disclaimer: I know absolutely nothing about cars and what cars are bad for the environment. My point was to point out the "everyday" car and the luxury of a Porsche.

i entirely disagree. so basically this is about putting pressure/responsibility on the 'everyday man' because there's many of them, whilst the elites (like H&M) can continue to take private jets back and forth as they please because there's less of them anyway. that is going to be great optics! (note the sarcasm) and 'A private jet emits as much as 20 times more carbon dioxide per passenger mile than a commercial airliner', so if they really want to address the issue i hope they examine their own behaviour. everyone was quick to note the hypocrisy of their jet travel whilst advocating for greener travel.

The irony here being the while COVID-19 persists, eco-friendly travel is harder if not impossible. Social distancing rules means that travel will be not eco-efficient for some time to come

There is no appetite for another charity at the moment.

agree with both. timing is off for this sort of initiative, unfortunately.

 

[Denville]

i the elites (like H&M) can continue to take private jets back and forth as they please because there's less of them anyway. that is going to be great optics! (note the sarcasm) and 'A private jet emits as much as 20 times more carbon dioxide per passenger mile than a commercial airliner', so if they really want to address the issue i hope they examine their own behaviour. everyone was quick to note the hypocrisy of their jet travel whilst advocating for greener travel.





agree with both. timing is off for this sort of initiative, unfortunately.

I think that there's always some excuse why people who talk about green travel etc sitll do a lot of traveling themselves. People want to travel and the world depends on it...
They're going to do it, and so are the rich who go on about carbon emissions. But Harry is the one who has been talking bout it most in the RF recently so he's bound to be crticisied if his practice does not match his preaching.

 

[Somebody]

Wikipedia has removed Harry from the list of "eiigible" Counsellors of State, but that depends really on clarifying his residence status. The law is very clear in terms of restricting the roles of Regent and Counsellor of State only to people who are domiciled in the United Kingdom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counsellor_of_State

As Curryong said, it may be the case that, since he still mantains a permanent home in the UK, he is therefore still eligible, but I am not sure. In any case, I don't think the Queen would appoint him a Counsellor of State if needed given his recent erratic behavior. Unlike a Regent, a Counsellor of State does not assume royal prerogatives automatically when the monarch is absent. The Queen must issue specific LPs delegating royal prerogatives (or some of them) to specific Counsellors and fix the duration of that delegation,

The US treats anyone with a temporary (could be several years) visa as a 'temporary resident'; so in that case Harry would by the US government be considered to be domiciled in the UK. However, if he applies for and is granted a green card, he would be considered a permanent resident - the logical consequence imho being that he would be domiciled in the US.

 

[Osipi]

i entirely disagree. so basically this is about putting pressure/responsibility on the 'everyday man' because there's many of them, whilst the elites (like H&M) can continue to take private jets back and forth as they please because there's less of them anyway. that is going to be great optics! (note the sarcasm) and 'A private jet emits as much as 20 times more carbon dioxide per passenger mile than a commercial airliner', so if they really want to address the issue i hope they examine their own behaviour. everyone was quick to note the hypocrisy of their jet travel whilst advocating for greener travel.

Basically, it *is* aimed at the everyday man. Look at the companies that form Travalyst. Travalyst is a bold new global initiative founded by Booking.com, Skyscanner, Trip.com, TripAdvisor and Visa, with the ambition to change the impact of travel, for good. These are companies and businesses that have the everyday man as their clients. Its these companies and businesses that are striving to make travel and tourism for the everyday man more green for the environment and also preserve and protect tourist sites.

This incentive that Harry and Meghan are involved with is backing finding ways to be responsible. Not cut travel and tourism.

 

[Eskimo]

That is true but for such a "woke" couple? The facts seem to be that they want to set up some kind of charity to get themselves noticed and they want it to be the kind that they can use to pay themselves a salary, although they already have a pretty decent income. I believe them when they said that they wanted to make a professional income and gain financial independence. They felt that they didn't have enough money, and wanted to be able, part of the time, (in thier original plan) to earn their own money, so that they could - well have and spend more. Raising more money for charity was at best a secondary consideration.

IMO this is why they are lashing out at anyone and everyone. The plan seemed to have been to become co-heads of a extremely successful charitable endevour, that would allow them to maintain their lifestyles while waltzing around as global humanitarians.

This would have entailed the charity raising tens of millions of dollars annually. People would have gladly contributed to such a charity set up by senior members of the RF, in exchange for favors and connections. This is the normal way these kinds of funds are raised.

However, it is obvious that they are on the outs with the RF and have very little if any connections/favors to offer. Nothing dries up the contribution well as fast as this. Thus, the current state of anger and lashing out.

 

[poppy7]

IMO this is why they are lashing out at anyone and everyone. The plan seemed to have been to become co-heads of a extremely successful charitable endevour, that would allow them to maintain their lifestyles while waltzing around as global humanitarians.

This would have entailed the charity raising tens of millions of dollars annually. People would have gladly contributed to such a charity set up by senior members of the RF, in exchange for favors and connections. This is the normal way these kinds of funds are raised.

However, it is obvious that they are on the outs with the RF and have very little if any connections/favors to offer. Nothing dries up the contribution well as fast as this. Thus, the current state of anger and lashing out.

Like being royal. Although in truth, they have less money at their personal disposal than Megjan seemed to realise. Or that she wants.

 

[Denville]

IMO this is why they are lashing out at anyone and everyone. The plan seemed to have been to become co-heads of a extremely successful charitable endevour, that would allow them to maintain their lifestyles while waltzing around as global humanitarians.

This would have entailed the charity raising tens of millions of dollars annually. People would have gladly contributed to such a charity set up by senior members of the RF, in exchange for favors and connections. This is the normal way these kinds of funds are raised.

However, it is obvious that they are on the outs with the RF and have very little if any connections/favors to offer. Nothing dries up the contribution well as fast as this. Thus, the current state of anger and lashing out.

I find it hard to beleive that any charity could supply them with the sort of money to lead a life of luxury... A reasonable middle class salary, and money going to the people its supposed to help.. but not the sort of money that would produce a millionaire type income.

 

[MARG]

The irony here being the while COVID-19 persists, eco-friendly travel is harder if not impossible. Social distancing rules means that travel will be not eco-efficient for some time to come

Strange as it may seem, while everyone is having the vapors about the VIP passengers, there are very discreet companies whose sole purpose is to fill the hold with urgent time-sensitive cargo that would otherwise be taking the long route. I know organs for transplant fall under this category and would bet the majority of urgent medical supplies for smaller towns are arriving in just such aircraft.

Private aircraft are often in an inconvenient places and people make a living out of repositioning them in much the same way rental cars are repositioned.

 

[Osipi]

Strange as it may seem, while everyone is having the vapors about the VIP passengers, there are very discreet companies whose sole purpose is to fill the hold with urgent time-sensitive cargo that would otherwise be taking the long route. I know organs for transplant fall under this category and would bet the majority of urgent medical supplies for smaller towns are arriving in just such aircraft.

Private aircraft are often in an inconvenient places and people make a living out of repositioning them in much the same way rental cars are repositioned.

Brilliant and an angle I never thought of in regards to private air transportation.

 

[acdc1]

I find it hard to beleive that any charity could supply them with the sort of money to lead a life of luxury... A reasonable middle class salary, and money going to the people its supposed to help.. but not the sort of money that would produce a millionaire type income.

I recognize that people who head large international charities or nonprofits are often independently wealthy (ex: Bill Gates) and one could say Harry and Meghan fall into that category too, but heads of large-scale charity groups like the one they would ostensibly be setting up can make a lot of money off it. I used to work for a company of that scale and our CEO, while one of the most down to earth people you’d ever meant, was VERY wealthy from leading the organization. If done right and on a large scale they can be very lucrative.

 

[Denville]

I recognize that people who head large international charities or nonprofits are often independently wealthy (ex: Bill Gates) and one could say Harry and Meghan fall into that category too, but heads of large-scale charity groups like the one they would ostensibly be setting up can make a lot of money off it. I used to work for a company of that scale and our CEO, while one of the most down to earth people you’d ever meant, was VERY wealthy from leading the organization. If done right and on a large scale they can be very lucrative.

Isn't that rather against the spirit of a charity? I can't understand why anyone woudl set up a charity with the idea of making oneself better off, or taking a salary for it.

 

[Alison H]

The argument is that you have to pay a high salary to attract someone of the right calibre, because otherwise they'd just go off and get a job somewhere else, and the charity would be left with poor quality management. The same argument's used to justify paying high salaries to politicians!

 

[poppy7]

The argument is that you have to pay a high salary to attract someone of the right calibre, because otherwise they'd just go off and get a job somewhere else, and the charity would be left with poor quality management. The same argument's used to justify paying high salaries to politicians!

Is it somehow news to people that charities pay very well. It's a job and the not for profit means all profits are put back into the charity.