The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 1: September-December 2020

[Denville]

With reference to Harry's surname (He has never used Mountbatten Windsor privately or publicly.

https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name

'...that The Queen's descendants, OTHER than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.'

Harry still has his HRH (which he doesn't use commercially) and has the title of Prince.

yes but his legal surname is Mountbatten Windsor. He could choose to use it if he wishes to...

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I'm sorry but all of these numbers incredibly inflated are inaccurate.

An unknown actress like Meghan (this movie was made before Suits!) would not get 100K for a minor role in a low budget indie movie (how many total minutes is she even in the movie?), I mean she's not even listed in the main cast list at Wikipedia, so i'm guessing 5 minutes, maybe 10 - out of 120 minutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remember_Me_(2010_film)#Cast
She likely made scale, maybe a bit more because Trevor was a producer, given how small her role was.

As an unknown actress with very little to her resume let alone any noteworthy parts, Meghan would not make more than scale...

Surely the amount listed for Remember Me is accurate. There's probably documentation of that amount for her total salary. It's likely checkable and traceable, or it wouldn't have been reported as being that amount. We'd probably be surprised how much actors make for small roles in films that make a profit. At the time Meghan appeared in Remember Me, she was married to Trevor Engelson, and he was the producer of that film, as noted.

In Andrew Morton's biography of Meghan, American Princess, Morton indicates that Engelson did not often find roles in his films to give Meghan work. But she did get this particular role. It's in a bar that's darkly lit, so she's barely visible. But she does speak one line. Again, it's easily checkable how much a small role like that can bring when the film is moderately successful, which Remember Me, in fact, was.

https://www.thefilmography.com/meghan-markle-32684.php

Remember Me was not Meghan's first role in a film, and she had a union card. She was actively going on auditions and she'd made a number of television pilots by then that did not get picked up by any network. In 2009, Meghan starred as an FBI agent in the television series, Fringe. She played the minor, uncredited role in Remember Me in 2010. By that point, she'd landed some significant, if not highly visible, work already. So she probably rated higher than scale for the small role in a movie that went on to make decent money.

If you're saying you don't believe she made much more than 'scale,' how much do you think that was? In any case, it doesn't matter since it happened a long time ago, and whatever money Meghan made, she reportedly saved a good portion of it, and she retained a good business accounting and investment firm that still represents her.

As I mentioned earlier, Meghan receives substantial residuals annually for all of her film and television work. Since Meghan dated and married Prince Harry, there has been more interest in and thus increased sales of Suits DVDs and even of obscure films and television pilots that she appeared in. Hallmark released a special edition of Meghan's two films (The Dater's Handbook, and When Sparks Fly), along with a bonus third film about a royal tale that Meghan was not part of.

 

[Queen Claude]

My understanding is that if there is a circumstance where a legal surname is needed then HRH royals use Mountbatten-Windsor, but use their birth titles and if granted a dukedom / earldom, assume that title.

 

[Denville]

I'm sure the amount listed for Remember Me is accurate. There's probably documentation of that amount for her total salary. It's likely checkable and traceable, or it wouldn't have been reported as being that amount. We'd probably be surprised how much actors make for small roles in films that make a profit. At the time Meghan appeared in Remember Me, she was married to Trevor Engelson, and he was the producer of that film, as noted.

In Andrew Morton's biography of Meghan, American Princess, Morton indicates that Engelson did not often find roles in his films to give Meghan work. But she did get this particular role. It's in a bar that's darkly lit, so she's barely visible. But she does speak one line. Again, it's easily checkable how much a small role like that can bring when the film is moderately successful, which Remember Me, in fact, was.

Remember Me was not Meghan's first role in a film, and she had a union card. She was going on auditions and she'd made a number of pilots by then that did not get picked up by any network.

If you're saying you don't believe she made much more than 'scale,' how much do you think that was? In any case, it doesn't matter since it happened a long time ago, and whatever money Meghan made, she reportedly saved a good portion of it, and she retained a good business accounting firm that still represents her.

As I mentioned earlier, Meghan receives substantial residuals annually for all of her film and television work. Since Meghan dated and married Prince Harry, there has been more interest in and thus increased sales of Suits DVDs and even of obscure films and television pilots that she appeared in. Hallmark released a special edition of Meghan's two films (The Dater's Handbook, and When Sparks Fly, along with a bonus third film about a royal tale that Meghan was not part of.

given how much money she has acquired through her marriage, she is pulling in the residual fees??

 

[Betsypaige]

The fact that Netflix and Spotify announced deals with "the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" rather than "Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor" suggests to me that the couple is basically cashing in on their royal brand (not necessarily "royal connections"). And it also confirms to me that has been Meghan's "business plan" from the start.

I already thought they were trading on the “royal brand”...this confirms it. As I said before, there’s no way Netflix would ever have given out some huge contract to complete unknowns with zero producing experience. They no doubt expect to garner ratings just by people seeing that the “Duke and Duchess of Sussex” are involved. Most people would have no idea who Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor are. Harry said he wanted time be known by this name, but he’s constantly proving that’s not true. I really believe they need to have their titles stripped - then they won’t be able to market their title.

 

[Curryong]

yes but his legal surname is Mountbatten Windsor. He could choose to use it if he wishes to...

Did you not read the quote from the article?

'that The Queen's descendants, OTHER than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.'

Harry is a descendant of the Queen (and Prince Philip) but he has the Styling of Royal Highness and the title of Prince, therefore he does not 'carry the name of Mountbatten Windsor.'

 

[Denville]

Did you not read the quote from the article?

'that The Queen's descendants, OTHER than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.'

Harry is a descendant of the Queen (and Prince Philip) but he has the Styling of Royal Highness and the title of Prince, therefore he does not 'carry the name of Mountbatten Windsor.'

Far as I understand when Will took out a lawsuit in France, he used the name Mountbatten WIndsor... and Anne signed her marriage register with that name.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I dobut she was a millionaire.. I think she made a decent living but as you say, most actors who are starting out, who get a break, want to buy a home so that at least they have a roof over their heads.. so it is pretty surprising if Meg didn't buy a little place to live in. She could have gotten a mortgage and bought a small property in LA.. she didn't know she was going to be so lucky as to meet Harry.

It's been widely reported that Meghan was a millionaire by the time she met Prince Harry. I don't see any reason to disbelieve that based on her Suits salary, financial investments, and substantial additional work projects, including modeling ventures, her Tig blog, and her Reitman's contract.

Meghan dated Engelson for about 7 years in L.A., and they lived together, possibly in a rented property, or else the property was in his name.* They were engaged in 2010 around the time she landed the role in the Suits pilot which was filmed in New York in Fall 2010, and immediately picked up by USA Network. After she married Engelson in 2011 in Jamaica, Meghan moved to Toronto and rented the the well-known attached townhome (under her married name at the time, Meghan Engelson). She lived in that same property the entire time she was based in Toronto filming Suits for 7 seasons from 2011 to 2017.


* When Harry & Meghan purchased their Montecito home, the statement released by their representatives indicated that it was the first home purchase for both of them. That means Meghan never previously purchased a house of her own.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

given how much money she has acquired through her marriage, she is pulling in the residual fees??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual_(entertainment_industry

There's also a passage in Finding Freedom, which mentions that much of Meghan's current annual income is derived from residuals she receives for her past work as an actor.

 

[Denville]

It's been widely reported that Meghan was a millionaire by the time she met Prince Harry. I don't see any reason to disbelieve that based on her Suits salary, financial investments, and substantial additional work projects, including modeling ventures, her Tig blog, and her Reitman's contract.

Meghan dated Engelson for about 7 years in L.A., and they lived together, possibly in a rented property, or else the property was in his name. They were engaged in 2010 around the time she landed the role in the Suits pilot which was filmed in New York in Fall 2010, and immediately picked up by USA Network. After she married Engelson in 2011 in Jamaica, Meghan moved to Toronto and rented the the well-known attached townhome (under her married name at the time, Meghan Engelson). She lived in that same property the entire time she was based in Toronto filming Suits for 7 seasons from 2011 to 2017.

Widely reported can mean anything. I suppose there are millionaries who never own a home but I'd think it was strange.

 

[Curryong]

Far as I understand when Will took out a lawsuit in France, he used the name Mountbatten WIndsor... and Anne signed her marriage register with that name.

French legal documents do not recognise foreign titles, so William couldn't use Cambridge, and as Anne was marrying and was not yet the Princess Royal she signed as a Mountbatten Windsor, no doubt a compliment to her parents. Senior Royals just do not have surnames as such.

 

[Denville]

French legal documents do not recognise foreign titles, so William couldn't use Cambridge, and as Anne was marrying and was not yet the Princess Royal she signed as a Mountbatten Windsor, no doubt a compliment to her parents. Senior Royals just do not have surnames as such.

And if Harry were taking out a lawsuit in the USA, he would have to produce a surname as well. His legal surname is Mountbatten Windsor.....
As for Anne, as I recall some thought it was odd that she used Mountbatten Windsor when she got married.. but presumably she regarded it as her surname...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Did you not read the quote from the article?

As you asked Denville "Did you not read the quote from the article?", I think it is fair to ask whether you read the quotes from the links in my response, which confirmed what Denville stated.

ETA: The article to which you linked actually states quite directly that Mountbatten-Windsor is a surname. See the thread on surnames.

 

[ACO]

Sentabale was already ready to go when he was asked to join. It really should have gone to William, it was offered to him first.
The Invictus games as well - there are a number world wide such programmes and yes - many people. Harry is just the figure head. And personally I feel that this will be the first patronage to leave Harry in the future.

Where you getting that Sentabale was offered to William? Pretty sure that is not the case and was very much created by Harry and Prince Seeiso. But please provide a source to that information.

Also Invictus Games can't be taken away from Harry. Harry and the Invictus Board made it a completely separate entity from the royal foundation years ago.

 

[Denville]

As you asked Denville "Did you not read the quote from the article?", I think it is fair to ask whether you read the quotes from the links in my response, which confirmed what Denville stated.

Sorry Tatiana.. I dont think I saw your response.. is it a few pages back? I sometiems miss posts.....

 

[MaiaMia_53]

LOL, how could Sentebale be "offered to William first," when it was created by Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso to aid the poor and needy children of Lesotho, and as a tribute to both of their dead mothers?! Relying on facts over fiction is the best option.

https://sentebale.org/who-we-are/

"Sentebale is a charity founded by [Prince Harry] The Duke of Sussex and Prince Seeiso in 2006, following Prince Harry's gap year to Lesotho in 2004. We help the most vulnerable children in Lesotho, Botswana, and Malawi get the support they need to live healthy, productive lives..."


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

"Prince Harry met Prince Seeiso on his gap year in Lesotho and was moved to help vulnerable children and young people..."


More facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invictus_Games

"The Invictus Games is an international adaptive multi-sport event, created by Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex..."

https://invictusgamesfoundation.org/

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Sorry Tatiana.. I dont think I saw your response.. is it a few pages back? I sometiems miss posts.....

My question was directed at Curryong, not at you. Apologies for the miscommunication.

You did read my response to Curryong, and you replied to it here.

The post in which I linked to my response is here.

 

[Denville]

My question was directed at Curryong, not at you. Apologies for the miscommunication.

You did read my response to Curryong, and you replied to it here.

The post in which I linked to my response is here.

Oh sorry I rmember it now.. Brain not so good these days.. old age.....

 

[caethi]

From https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name






However, in 1960, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal Family (without changing the name of the Royal House), as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V.


It was therefore declared in the Privy Council that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.
. . .



The effect of the declaration was that all The Queen's children, on occasions when they needed a surname, would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.


For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.


The surname Mountbatten-Windsor first appeared on an official document on 14 November 1973, in the marriage register at Westminster Abbey for the marriage of Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips.


A proclamation on the Royal Family name by the reigning monarch is not statutory; unlike an Act of Parliament, it does not pass into the law of the land. Such a proclamation is not binding on succeeding reigning sovereigns, nor does it set a precedent which must be followed by reigning sovereigns who come after.


Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions when he becomes king, he will continue to be of the House of Windsor and his grandchildren will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.


https://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name

 

[RandyDrx]

I knew after their podcast that they would find themselves in hot water.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...illions-Sussexes-small-amounts-musicians.html

How can Spotify give Meghan and Harry millions when it pays singers £200? Sandie Shaw blasts streaming service for handing out a fortune to former royals for podcast while paying only small amount in royalties to musicians

 

[Durham]

They simply have jobs and everyone accepts they got that job in part because of who they are and who they know. Just like plenty of other people out there. My father being one of them or some people at work. They still need to prove their worth when on the job.


Same for the Sussexes. They may have gotten this chance because of who they are, they still need to prove they are worth it.

Yes but I said their voice is amplified immeasurably. Which it is. And they know that, as do the organisations they they work with. And they're happy to play on that.

The "call me Harry" guff is for the birds.

 

[Durham]

All male offspring in direct line gets a title when they marry. Not the minor Royals, not the ladies, but the males do. Has always be done that way and is not connected to being "working Royals". Edward, AFAIK, was not considered to be a future "Working Royal" and still got his titles.

You are correct but I'm sceptical that HM would have given a dukedom in this day & age if she'd known that Harry had doubts about working for the monarchy. This is not the 1930's or even 1980's for that matter. Public opinion around peerages is very different these days.

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...ince-Harry-f-ing-gooder-crazy-little-kid.html

2 very different personalities; nothing in common.

 

[Durham]

Working class Mancunian background. What he says makes perfect sense from his perspective.

Too many middle class types on twitter with zero awareness who would brand his words "hate".

 

[Alison H]

I'm also a Mancunian. And I once spent all evening stood out in the rain watching Oasis do an outdoor concert. However, I wouldn't take too much notice of what Noel Gallagher says: most people get past the idea that swearing every three seconds makes you look cool when they're about 14. You could class someone who runs a food bank as a "do-gooder" - is he going to have a go at them too? Burnage (where the Gallaghers are from) is a very underprivileged area, but I don't see the Gallaghers doing anything to help there, and I'm sure it'd be much appreciated.

 

[Durham]

I'm also a Mancunian. And I once spent all evening stood out in the rain watching Oasis do an outdoor concert. However, I wouldn't take too much notice of what Noel Gallagher says: most people get past the idea that swearing every three seconds makes you look cool when they're about 14. You could class someone who runs a food bank as a "do-gooder" - is he going to have a go at them too? Burnage (where the Gallaghers are from) is a very underprivileged area, but I don't see the Gallaghers doing anything to help there, and I'm sure it'd be much appreciated.

I know Burnage well. Next door to Didsbury & the Heatons! It is as you say.

I don't know his views on dogooders in general but his attitude about royalty doesn't surprise me given his upbringing (Irish working class Mancunian). It will be a point of view shared by others.

 

[Somebody]

You are correct but I'm sceptical that HM would have given a dukedom in this day & age if she'd known that Harry had doubts about working for the monarchy. This is not the 1930's or even 1980's for that matter. Public opinion around peerages is very different these days.

And even previously, the expectation was that any royal duke would work for the firm. Which is why the current duke of Gloucester had to give up his career in architecture when he unexpectedly became the heir to his father's ducal title because of his brother's untimely death. So, that responsibility didn't end with the children of the monarch but included the royal dukes of the next generation. Only when the ducal titles ceased to be royal, there was no longer any expectation of dedicating your life to service to the crown.

 

[Duchess_Watcher]

All of a sudden, there are articles "Harry would have left the Royal family w/o Meghan" what a load of crock? I mean he never looked unhappy before! Why would he had left? It's sad, his life will now be behind a boring podcast.

He has left his friends, his family and the only home he ever known for a woman he hasn't even know for 5 years. Didn't they meet in 2016, married in 2018? Very sad.

 

[acdc1]

You are correct but I'm sceptical that HM would have given a dukedom in this day & age if she'd known that Harry had doubts about working for the monarchy. This is not the 1930's or even 1980's for that matter. Public opinion around peerages is very different these days.

I have a theory that Harry and Meghan’s unhappiness being working royals and ultimate leave from the family really threw “the powers that be” for a loop. There’s just such a sense of duty within the family, and I can’t think of a time since the Abdication when someone has voluntarily stepped away from the Firm... maybe the Duchess of Kent (not counting Andrew because it’s a totally different situation entirely) I look at someone like the Duke of Gloucester, who was unexpectedly put in the position when his brother died and gave up his whole private career to work for the Firm. I get the sense that they truly do think “This is your duty and your birthright to work for the good of the country and its people.” I would assume that not everyone has been particularly happy in the role, but for the most part they’ve stuck it out. I think they may have also been surprised because H&M seemed so gung-ho in their engagement interview, and I truly do think that their intention at that time was to be working royals, but that Meghan soon became unhappy as a working and living in the UK. I’m still not convinced that Harry had been unhappy prior to the marriage (I personally think that if Meghan had wanted to continue working he would have been more than fine doing so), but I think any feelings of insecurity that he has bloomed and that their unhappiness fed each other’s.

 

[Durham]

You may well be right. Who knows? Your guess is as good as anyone else's. I haven't got a clue.

There is a feeling that by continuing to use their titles they (well he really) are not "playing the game" as it were. Maybe it's more of a British concern I don't know. I do wonder if there's not a lot of cultural misunderstanding at times.