The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #461  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:38 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
This is where I am interested. I interpret that as Prince Edward's children, who are, or at least one is under-aged, currently receive protection until their 18th birthday. This protection may be RPO or sponsored via the Queen from the Duchy of Lancaster.

If this is the case, I completely understand why Meghan is beside herself regarding security for Archie. Technically, Louise and James are HRH Princess and Prince of Wessex, as stated by Sophie in an article last year. So, this makes sense in regards that without a HRH and princely title, Archie would not receive protection, which was reported as the case when the Sussex family went to Africa.

I truly, truly, truly hope this isn't the case. Because if so....
Archie's protection was never tied to him having the title of prince or an HRH. It would have been tied to a risk assessment. He most likely would not have gotten his own security when he was a baby, because he was a baby, would have been one of his two parents and would haven been covered by their security as working royals. Last year in Africa he was still covered by the security of his parents. It's just one of them had one less person on their protection detail.

As he got older his risk assessment would have been reevaluated. He doesn't get any security now because his parents are no longer working royals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
True, but many royals require less security since they live in a policed area like KP.
If Harry and Meghan had remained at Frogmore Cottage, which is on the Windsor estate, security would be less expensive.

But living in California means security costs are huge.
I don't think they have any right to demand that.

I really hope the Queen doesn't pander to Harry and give in to his demands in the interest of peace.
Appeasement never works.
I think if they were going to give in it would have happened already. The official statement seems pretty firm to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
I read somewhere that security costs for them in California can be as high as $10 million a year. I don’t think Charles can afford that
There's no way Charles can afford that. He's not that rich.
__________________

  #462  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:43 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
This is where I am interested. I interpret that as Prince Edward's children, who are, or at least one is under-aged, currently receive protection until their 18th birthday. This protection may be RPO or sponsored via the Queen from the Duchy of Lancaster.

If this is the case, I completely understand why Meghan is beside herself regarding security for Archie. Technically, Louise and James are HRH Princess and Prince of Wessex, as stated by Sophie in an article last year. So, this makes sense in regards that without a HRH and princely title, Archie would not receive protection, which was reported as the case when the Sussex family went to Africa.

I truly, truly, truly hope this isn't the case. Because if so....
You added 2+2 and came up with 7 ��
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
I cannot find where it says that they have to be working members of the royal household.

I found this article but I do not know if it is accurate:

THE DUCHY of Cornwall is an estate that helps fund the Prince of Wales’s family and his public, private and charitable activities. Some of those funds are given to members of the Royal Family, including Prince Harry.

In a shock announcement on their Instagram, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle said they plan to “step back” as senior royals and split their time between the UK and North America.

However, the Duke and Duchess will still be members of the Royal Family.

That means the Sussexes are still expected to receive money from the Duchy of Cornwall.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...s-prince-harry
The Duchy of Cornwall provides an income to the heir to the throne- Charles and no one else. Charles can give some of the money to fund his children if he so wishes but is under no legal obligation to do so
__________________

  #463  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:47 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,689
Queen is smarter than that. Like with spoiled nagging children if you give in once you’ll always be giving in. Give in with this, they will want a nicer bigger home next, then traveling expenses paid for and on and on.
  #464  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:48 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
You added 2+2 and came up with 7 ��


The Duchy of Cornwall provides an income to the heir to the throne- Charles and no one else. Charles can give some of the money to fund his children if he so wishes but is under no legal obligation to do so
Yes, I understand that. But he has a source of income to fund his children.
  #465  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:55 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
Archie's protection was never tied to him having the title of prince or an HRH. It would have been tied to a risk assessment. He most likely would not have gotten his own security when he was a baby, because he was a baby, would have been one of his two parents and would haven been covered by their security as working royals. Last year in Africa he was still covered by the security of his parents. It's just one of them had one less person on their protection detail.

As he got older his risk assessment would have been reevaluated. He doesn't get any security now because his parents are no longer working royals.
On the Africa trip, Harry and Meghan had events where Archie would be away from his parent. As is the case, security would have to be with Archie and his nanny wherever they were staying. As a result of Archie not receiving protection, it is reported that one of the protection officers for Meghan or Harry needed to step in. What this creates is a vulnerability to either Meghan or Harry security as a potential attack vector was created. Luckily, this information was not known at the time because being very senior royals with a very high interest, there is an inherently high risk for ALL of the family.

Whenever Meghan was in public with Archie, she had her own protection, but not for Archie - again creating a potential new attack vector. I remember seeing photos of Kate, with George in the pram and having two protection officers close to her - one for her and one for George.

Archie would not be deemed low-risk. But also - we have no idea what the assessment criteria is. And we will never know
  #466  
Old 03-10-2021, 09:58 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,689
His children are nearly middle aged men with children with more money than most people will earn in 5 lifetimes. One will be a King. If Harry and Wife can’t adjust his head space to reality and learn to live within his means that’s on them not Charles’s
  #467  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:03 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
On the Africa trip, Harry and Meghan had events where Archie would be away from his parent. As is the case, security would have to be with Archie and his nanny wherever they were staying. As a result of Archie not receiving protection, it is reported that one of the protection officers for Meghan or Harry needed to step in. What this creates is a vulnerability to either Meghan or Harry security as a potential attack vector was created. Luckily, this information was not known at the time because being very senior royals with a very high interest, there is an inherently high risk for ALL of the family.

Whenever Meghan was in public with Archie, she had her own protection, but not for Archie - again creating a potential new attack vector. I remember seeing photos of Kate, with George in the pram and having two protection officers close to her - one for her and one for George.

Archie would not be deemed low-risk. But also - we have no idea what the assessment criteria is. And we will never know
I don't think we should know. The United States Secret Service always says they never discuss details about the security of a protectee. I think that's how it should be for all people who are protected. The details should never be released, it opens up to many security concerns, even if the event is passed.
  #468  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:04 PM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 5,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
This is where I am interested. I interpret that as Prince Edward's children, who are, or at least one is under-aged, currently receive protection until their 18th birthday. This protection may be RPO or sponsored via the Queen from the Duchy of Lancaster.

If this is the case, I completely understand why Meghan is beside herself regarding security for Archie. Technically, Louise and James are HRH Princess and Prince of Wessex, as stated by Sophie in an article last year. So, this makes sense in regards that without a HRH and princely title, Archie would not receive protection, which was reported as the case when the Sussex family went to Africa.

I truly, truly, truly hope this isn't the case. Because if so....
prince Edwards children are grandchildren of the monarch and are princes. Harry’s children are great grandchildren and will become princes when they are grandchildren of the monarch, when Charles is king. This is according to the letters patent of 1917 from George V
  #469  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:07 PM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathia_sophia View Post
There is one thing that I don't understand about the issue with Meghan and Catherine. I mean, Meghan says that Catherine made her cry but forgave her. So my question is, why mention it to the public? I'm not quite sure Meghan understand the word "forgive", because if she "forgave" Catherine, she would move on, and yet, she brought it up in the interview (which means she is still bitter about it).
Of course she is still bitter about it, she wouldn't mention it otherwise Tbh it makes it easy to believe the sources who claim Meghan slammed the door when Catherine came with flowers to apologize. She's not over it and will never be over it, as I believe her issues with Catherine are much bigger - position, popularity, being the wife of the older brother... - so any small issue seems like a big insult in Meghan's eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
Because this is an issue that Harry is deeply unhappy about. As he said, he felt let down by his father. We can discuss all day whether or not Charles should pay for it. All that matters is that Harry believes that it should be paid for, either by the public or by his father. He said in the interview that he should have security because he was born into the royal family. To say he should keep working as a working royal to have security, is to say he should remain trapped as a working royal for the rest of his life.
Okay then I'm feeling deeply unhappy about Prince Charles not paying the rent for my apartment, can something be done about that too?

I honestly don't understand the logic "Harry believes he should be given something so we have to give him something". Why? The British public doesn't want to pay for his lavish lifestyle in California. His father doesn't too. And in this situation all that matters are the people who are paying, not the people who are receiving.
  #470  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:13 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
I honestly don't understand the logic "Harry believes he should be given something so we have to give him something". Why? The British public doesn't want to pay for his lavish lifestyle in California. His father doesn't too. And in this situation all that matters are the people who are paying, not the people who are receiving.
Thank you. I am failing to understand this logic myself.
  #471  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:16 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathia_sophia View Post
There is one thing that I don't understand about the issue with Meghan and Catherine. I mean, Meghan says that Catherine made her cry but forgave her. So my question is, why mention it to the public? I'm not quite sure Meghan understand the word "forgive", because if she "forgave" Catherine, she would move on, and yet, she brought it up in the interview (which means she is still bitter about it).
Seriously, you didn't understand why she mentioned it? It was clear as day - that the palace will pick and choose when to comment on untruths. That is why she mentioned it. Because the hate toward her in the media was unbearable and The Firm allowed this lie, and many many others, to be perpetuated. How do we knows this - read below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
Of course she is still bitter about it, she wouldn't mention it otherwise Tbh it makes it easy to believe the sources who claim Meghan slammed the door when Catherine came with flowers to apologize. She's not over it and will never be over it, as I believe her issues with Catherine are much bigger - position, popularity, being the wife of the older brother... - so any small issue seems like a big insult in Meghan's eyes.
Understand now? I'll be the first to admit that it's easier to believe what is written in the media than thinking about whether it is true or not. But Meghan highlighted that an untruth, a blatant lie, was allowed to be perpetuated by those who knew the truth. We have been there before - someone knowing a lie but not saying anything - but imagine that on the world stage
  #472  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:20 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bedford, United States
Posts: 1,689
Huh. The single British mother with two kids and mounting bills who just lost her job x 30,000 believes she should get something but let’s send millions to Cali so Archie kins can go to the most trendy preschool and Meg can go the designers that A list actresses do
  #473  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:25 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
Seriously, you didn't understand why she mentioned it? It was clear as day - that the palace will pick and choose when to comment on untruths. That is why she mentioned it. Because the hate toward her in the media was unbearable and The Firm allowed this lie, and many many others, to be perpetuated. How do we knows this - read below:

Understand now? I'll be the first to admit that it's easier to believe what is written in the media than thinking about whether it is true or not. But Meghan highlighted that an untruth, a blatant lie, was allowed to be perpetuated by those who knew the truth. We have been there before - someone knowing a lie but not saying anything - but imagine that on the world stage
I agree that is why she brought it up but she could have just told Oprah that it wasn't true and left it at that. Why say that Catherine made her cry? Catherine isn't going to respond, so it is a she said/she said situation. Some reports are standing firm that Catherine cried. Meghan didn't go into any details that would allow us to evaluate whether Meghan may have overreacted or misunderstood.
  #474  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:30 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I agree that is why she brought it up but she could have just told Oprah that it wasn't true and left it at that. Why say that Catherine made her cry? Catherine isn't going to respond, so it is a she said/she said situation. Some reports are standing firm that Catherine cried. Meghan didn't go into any details that would allow us to evaluate whether Meghan may have overreacted or misunderstood.
Because it showed the severity of the lie - i.e. the Firm allowed the complete opposite to stay as a truth.

The Firm could have easily released a statement, like they did with Catherine in regards to the Tatler's article completely denouncing the lie, but they didn't.
  #475  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:32 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
You know... has anyone else observed Harry and Charles are repeating the same curse that has plagued British Royal History: Fathers and Sons at war, disappointed, antagonistic or just dysfunctional and toxic? Some times it’s been the fathers, sometimes the sons, sometimes both. And rarely has a happy ending for either party. Hopefully William and his sons will break the cycle.
You are right, and not only fathers and sons, Princes of the Tower, Mary I,
Henry the VIII, Lady Jane, Henry VI
  #476  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:38 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Washington DC, United States
Posts: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frelinghighness View Post
prince Edwards children are grandchildren of the monarch and are princes. Harry’s children are great grandchildren and will become princes when they are grandchildren of the monarch, when Charles is king. This is according to the letters patent of 1917 from George V
I am sick to death reading about the Letters Patent of 1917 from George V. So what? Times have changed. Both William and Harry's children are all great-grandchildren of the Monarch. William's children would not have been titled if the Queen had not stepped in. If Harry's children can wait until Charles becomes king then William's children could have as well and should have. The Queen should not have done it for one brother's children and not the other. Had it been done when Archie was born, this so-called royal family crisis may have been averted. And before anyone says it, I don't care about who is where in the line of succession.
  #477  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:38 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,134
I find it interesting that the Sussexes complain about feeling unsupported.

These 2 haven’t proven to be great at communication.

Off the top of my head:

Harry didn’t talk to his family about Meghan’s mental health issues.

The supposed racism comment that was so upsetting that they had to broadcast a vague version of the story to millions apparently wasn’t worth discussing with the person who supposedly said it.

Meghan’s stories about being unprepared with basics- like how to greet his grandmother. That falls on Harry.

There are more examples, I’m sure.

But just how are people supposed to help you if your communication skills are this poor?
  #478  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:56 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by amaryllus View Post
Huh. The single British mother with two kids and mounting bills who just lost her job x 30,000 believes she should get something but let’s send millions to Cali so Archie kins can go to the most trendy preschool and Meg can go the designers that A list actresses do
We're not talking about taxpayer money. We're talking about Charles' money.
  #479  
Old 03-10-2021, 10:56 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
I am sick to death reading about the Letters Patent of 1917 from George V. So what? Times have changed. Both William and Harry's children are all great-grandchildren of the Monarch. William's children would not have been titled if the Queen had not stepped in. If Harry's children can wait until Charles becomes king then William's children could have as well and should have. The Queen should not have done it for one brother's children and not the other. Had it been done when Archie was born, this so-called royal family crisis may have been averted. And before anyone says it, I don't care about who is where in the line of succession.
You might be shocked to learn that the British Royal Family does not care about what us non-Brits think.
  #480  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:08 PM
Kellydofc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Out in the country, United States
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
I am sick to death reading about the Letters Patent of 1917 from George V. So what? Times have changed. Both William and Harry's children are all great-grandchildren of the Monarch. William's children would not have been titled if the Queen had not stepped in. If Harry's children can wait until Charles becomes king then William's children could have as well and should have. The Queen should not have done it for one brother's children and not the other. Had it been done when Archie was born, this so-called royal family crisis may have been averted. And before anyone says it, I don't care about who is where in the line of succession.
But who is where in a the line of succession is of vital importance for them. I know it doesn't matter to you but it does to them. And they're not terribly concerned with everything being equal. I know it boggles American Republican, and I mean that in the strictest sense of the definition not in regards to a political party, minds and ideologies but there it is. I'm sure you would strive to make everything extremely equal between all your children, grandchildren, etc. but that is not at all how it works in monarchies. There are always going to be members of the family who are of greater and lesser rank.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex with Oprah II - Interview, March 7th-9th 2021 Jacknch The Electronic Domain 1196 03-09-2021 01:48 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names biography birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness coronation daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family life family tree gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs japan jewellery kensington palace książ castle list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess eugenie queen louise royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech sussex suthida taiwan thai royal family united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:15 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×