The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Mbruno]

Do you mean that in Britain wives legally take their husband's name and in the Netherlands they legally keep their own family name (which is why Camilla was known as Parker Bowles rather than Shand when marrying Charles; something that would be unthinkable in the Netherlands)? Because otherwise, Catherine is as Sphero indicated a commoner married to a peer and therefore known by the female form of her husband's peerage.

And if I am not mistaken the HRs the style and the 'Princess' part is the title, so for Camilla to be known as HRH The Princess Consort, I still think she would need to BE a princess. Just like the Duke of Edinburgh was made a prince. Until that moment, he was the duke of Edinburgh but not the prince consort. Since he was made a prince he is both: prince Philip and the duke of Edinburgh.

I think the way it is done in British documents is to list the name followed by the title derived from the husband. That is why you get “ Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge “ on George’s birth certificate.

Catherine does not use , however, the surname “Mountbatten-Windsor” in accordance with the custom of HRHs not using family names. For the wife of a peer, I suppose the norm in documents would be

[ Given Names] [ Husband’s Family Name], [Female Version of Husband’s Title]

For example,

Georgina Susan Fitzalan-Howard, Her Grace The Duchess of Norfolk

The maiden name may be added inserting, for
example, “ née Georgina Susan Gore” after the title. I believe Diana’s passport for instance included a “ née Lady Diana Francis Spencer” line after “HRH The Princess of Wales”,.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In UK all current duchesses are commoners.

Do you mean that in Britain wives legally take their husband's name and in the Netherlands they legally keep their own family name (which is why Camilla was known as Parker Bowles rather than Shand when marrying Charles; something that would be unthinkable in the Netherlands)? Because otherwise, Catherine is as Sphero indicated a commoner married to a peer and therefore known by the female form of her husband's peerage.

In Britain, wives legally take the rank of their husbands, if it is higher than their own rank by birth. A female commoner who marries a male peer ceases to be a commoner upon marriage, and becomes a peeress. This means that legal privileges belonging to peers are also enjoyed by their wives, as they are peeresses by marriage.

House of Lords - Companion to Standing Orders - Companion to Standing Orders

For the wife of a peer, I suppose the norm in documents would be

[ Given Names] [ Husband’s Family Name], [Female Version of Husband’s Title]

Just like HRHs, peers and peeresses (in their own right or by marriage) customarily do not use a family name (see Debrett's for example).

Apparently that custom has been breached in regard to passports (a realistic step given that passports are used in other countries which do not recognize the custom), but that change might apply to HRHs also.

When Andrew stood down last year it was announced that he would continue to serve as a Counsellor of State, as well as attend events such as Trooping the Colour and the Remembrance Day ceremonies.

Harry will only disqualify himself if he moves out of the UK. His statement said he will continue to support the Queen and that would presumably include being a CoS or Regent.

The Regency Act would need to be amended for Catherine to be Regent as the current act, and the amended version from 1953, says the Regent must be the next adult in the line of succession over 18 (that was the amendment) so long as the Regent is three years older than the monarch if between 18 and 21. It was realised that a person who was 18 could be the active monarch but not the Regent.

As the last time any CoS was officially was called on to do something was 2002 and the Queen no longer undertakes overseas tours there won't be a call for any for the foreseeable future.

Would he be automatically disqualified by moving abroad? From the Regency Act, it looks to me as if Letters Patent would have to be issued to disqualify him.

Provided that, if it appears to the Sovereign that any person who, in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this subsection, would be required to be included among the Counsellors of State to whom royal functions are to be delegated, is absent from the United Kingdom or intends to be so absent during the whole or any part of the period of such delegation, the Letters Patent may make provision for excepting that person from among the number of Counsellors of State during the period of such absence.​

 

[Mbruno]

In Britain, wives legally take the rank of their husbands. A female commoner who marries a male peer ceases to be a commoner upon marriage, and becomes a peeress. This means that legal privileges belonging to peers are also enjoyed by their wives, as they are peeresses by marriage.

House of Lords - Companion to Standing Orders - Companion to Standing Orders





Just like HRHs, peers and peeresses (in their own right or by marriage) customarily do not use a family name (see Debrett's for example).

Apparently that custom has been breached in regard to passports (a realistic step given that passports are used in other countries which do not recognize the custom), but that change might apply to HRHs also.




Would he be automatically disqualified by moving abroad? From the Regency Act, it looks to me as if Letters Patent would have to be issued to disqualify him.

Provided that, if it appears to the Sovereign that any person who, in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this subsection, would be required to be included among the Counsellors of State to whom royal functions are to be delegated, is absent from the United Kingdom or intends to be so absent during the whole or any part of the period of such delegation, the Letters Patent may make provision for excepting that person from among the number of Counsellors of State during the period of such absence.​

I suppose the point is that the Regency Act explicitly requires that the counsellors of state be domiciled in the United Kingdom. The excerpt you quoted above may be referring to a different situation then like a temporary absence from the country.

With respect to peers, I believe they don’t sign with their family names , but the family name is still part of their legal name and, as such, is used in documents. In the case of HRHs, I don’t know if their legal name includes a family name or not.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

With respect to peers, I believe they don’t sign with their family names , but the family name is still part of their legal name and, as such, is used in documents. In the case of HRHs, I don’t know if their legal name includes a family name or not.

Both HRHs and peers have dormant family names which they may voluntarily use. The images of the marriage certificates of Charles' siblings indicate that they listed their names as Mountbatten-Windsor.
But the traditional custom is that they do not use them, in documents or elsewhere.

For example, in the legal notice of the Queen's consent to the late Earl of Harewood's marriage, his name appears as "George Henry Hubert, Earl of Harewood". His family name (Lascelles) is not included.

Source

Compare it to the legal notice of the Queen's consent to the marriage of his son David, then styled Viscount Lascelles. At that time, David was legally a commoner, and was merely called by his father's second title, as is the British custom. His name therefore appears as "David Henry George Lascelles, Esquire (commonly called Viscount Lascelles)", including his family name of Lascelles.

Source

I suppose the point is that the Regency Act explicitly require that the counsellors of state be domiciled in the United Kingdom. The excerpt you quoted above may be referring to a different situation then like a temporary absence from the country.

You're right, but per UK and international law a person's legal domicile does not necessarily change when they move abroad.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Do you mean that in Britain wives legally take their husband's name and in the Netherlands they legally keep their own family name (which is why Camilla was known as Parker Bowles rather than Shand when marrying Charles; something that would be unthinkable in the Netherlands)? Because otherwise, Catherine is as Sphero indicated a commoner married to a peer and therefore known by the female form of her husband's peerage.

And if I am not mistaken the HRH is the style and the 'Princess' part is the title, so for Camilla to be known as HRH The Princess Consort, I still think she would need to BE a princess. Just like the Duke of Edinburgh was made a prince. Until that moment, he was the duke of Edinburgh but not the prince consort. Since he was made a prince he is both: prince Philip and the duke of Edinburgh.

Philip had been born as a Royal Prince: Prince Philip of Greece.

 

[_Heather_]

Philip had been born as a Royal Prince: Prince Philip of Greece.

That's true but he explicitly renounced his titles and styles as a Prince of Greece and Denmark.

 

[Blog Real]

If the monarchy survived the abdication of King Edward VIII will also survive this situation of the Dukes of Sussex.

 

[Somebody]

I think the way it is done in British documents is to list the name followed by the title derived from the husband. That is why you get “ Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge “ on George’s birth certificate.

Catherine does not use , however, the surname “Mountbatten-Windsor” in accordance with the custom of HRHs not using family names. For the wife of a peer, I suppose the norm in documents would be

[ Given Names] [ Husband’s Family Name], [Female Version of Husband’s Title]

For example,

Georgina Susan Fitzalan-Howard, Her Grace The Duchess of Norfolk

The maiden name may be added inserting, for
example, “ née Georgina Susan Gore” after the title. I believe Diana’s passport for instance included a “ née Lady Diana Francis Spencer” line after “HRH The Princess of Wales”,.

Yes, I agree. I remember that there is a distinct difference with how born members are mentioned. For example, while in Catherine's case the HRH came AFTER her name. William's name read: HRH prince William Arthur Philip Louis Duke of Cambridge.

The 'néé' is needed because women loose their maiden name, while in some other countries (including the Netherlands) your maiden name remains your legal surname.

However, that wasn't really the point. It was about Camilla being a 'princess consort' without her husband being a prince ?

 

[Somebody]

Philip had been born as a Royal Prince: Prince Philip of Greece.

Yes, I am aware of that - and he had to renounce that title to marry Elizabeth. So, until he was made a UK prince (in his own right) by his wife; he couldn't be 'prince consort' nor 'prince Philip'. In that same way, I don't think Camilla can be a 'princess consort' unless his husband makes her a princess in her own right.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It's possible I didn't understand what you meant in the earlier discussion My only point (and the point which I think muriel was addressing) was that in my opinion, if King Charles issued an announcement that his wife would be styled HRH The Princess Consort, without issuing any Letters Patent, he would not be failing any legal requirements and nobody, even the British government, would stop him.

As for wives of non-royal peers, my understanding is that they would not use the family name either (see message #394).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Philip had been born as a Royal Prince: Prince Philip of Greece.

True Philip was born HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark.

In 1947, as part of the process of naturalisation as a British citizen he renounced his Greek and Danish titles, and rights to the thrones of those two countries.

From early 1947 until the 19th November 1947 he was Lt Philip Mountbatten - not a prince, not royal just a plain Lt in the Royal Navy. That is what is says on the official marriage programme as well as they were printed before he was given his titles.

On the 19th November, 1947 George VI created him HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, The Earl of Merioneth and The Baron Greenwich but not a Prince.

In 1957 The Queen issued the Letters Patent to give Philip back the title of Prince - when she created him a Prince of the United Kingdom in his own right and also gave him the use of the word 'The' so he became HRH The Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh etc.

 

[travelguy]

With all this talk about how Prince Charles wants to slim down the monarchy what will happen at evens like trooping the colour, royal weddings, coronations. Would his family still go. Would Charles still do the Christmas message when he becomes king

 

[Somebody]

It's possible I didn't understand what you meant in the earlier discussion My only point (and the point which I think muriel was addressing) was that in my opinion, if King Charles issued an announcement that his wife would be styled HRH The Princess Consort, without issuing any Letters Patent, he would not be failing any legal requirements and nobody, even the British government, would stop him. .

You understood my point perfectly. We just have different opinions .

I think that issuing a statement only works when you announce that someone will not use something that he/she would normally be entitled to but not the other way around: announce that someone will use a style and title that he/she is not entitled to - the latter needs a bit more paperwork.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

As a Dutch I have been viewing it all with open mouth. All that hullabaloo. That senior royals want to pursue an own career is actually the norm over here, as the Dutch State only supports the King, the future King and the former King (and their eventual spouses).

I do not know how it is in the UK, but in my country ANY citizen with a risk profile, rich or poor, prince or pauper, a celebrity or a nobody, is provided personal security by the police.

A Dutch newspaper worded it as: the British monarchy 2.0 is very much alike the Dutch monarchy now. The King's two brothers (back then the Number 2 and the Number 3 in the succession) fully aimed for a succesful career outside the Royal House. They had to provide in their own living as any Dutch has to do.

For the occasional representation and formal outings there is a reimbursement by the Royal House. And like Queen Juliana did for her three youngest daughters, also Queen Beatrix created a special Trust (Foundation Functional Costs of the House Orange-Nassau II) to support her two youngest sons "in their execution of the royal dignity".

Read: maybe both princes and their families have to go to a private function like a royal wedding somewhere in Germany and need transport, accommodation, personnel, a garderobe, gifts, etc. These private costs (when it are no State events) are met by this Trust.

This is a situation already existing for 50 years. It is mind-boggling that Harry and Meghan are treated alike traitors of the Queen. In fact they finally brought the monarchy from 1952 to 2020. Pfffff. Come oooooooon....

 

[O-H Anglophile]

But the UK is not the Netherlands. Edward and Sophie tried to work, but were forced to give up their careers. Things are working out a bit better for Beatrice & Eugenie with their careers, but they are further from the throne-and still got negativity directed at them.
And the criticism directed at Harry & Meghan is for a situation a lot more complicated than stepping back from bring full-time royal roles to focus on their careers. For one, they don’t actually have careers.

 

[Lumutqueen]

With all this talk about how Prince Charles wants to slim down the monarchy what will happen at evens like trooping the colour, royal weddings, coronations. Would his family still go. Would Charles still do the Christmas message when he becomes king

The slim down monarchy talk has been rumoured for years, it is something that Prince Charles has never said anything about wanting a slimdown monarchy. It will eventually happen as nature takes its course, but they need Henry and Meghan to maintain the current engagement tally for at least another 20-30 years.

The slim down monarchy, has only ever referred to the members of the royal family doing engagements on behalf of The Queen/The King. It's never referred to balconies, troopings or coronations. Charles will I imagine continue to do the message, it's not something that started with his mother, and it won't end with him.

 

[DuchessMia]

Thanks for your perspective, Duc_et_Pair.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

As a Dutch I have been viewing it all with open mouth. All that hullabaloo. That senior royals want to pursue an own career is actually the norm over here, as the Dutch State only supports the King, the future King and the former King (and their eventual spouses).

I do not know how it is in the UK, but in my country ANY citizen with a risk profile, rich or poor, prince or pauper, a celebrity or a nobody, is provided personal security by the police.

A Dutch newspaper worded it as: the British monarchy 2.0 is very much alike the Dutch monarchy now. The King's two brothers (back then the Number 2 and the Number 3 in the succession) fully aimed for a succesful career outside the Royal House. They had to provide in their own living as any Dutch has to do.

For the occasional representation and formal outings there is a reimbursement by the Royal House. And like Queen Juliana did for her three youngest daughters, also Queen Beatrix created a special Trust (Foundation Functional Costs of the House Orange-Nassau II) to support her two youngest sons "in their execution of the royal dignity".

Read: maybe both princes and their families have to go to a private function like a royal wedding somewhere in Germany and need transport, accommodation, personnel, a garderobe, gifts, etc. These private costs (when it are no State events) are met by this Trust.

This is a situation already existing for 50 years. It is mind-boggling that Harry and Meghan are treated alike traitors of the Queen. In fact they finally brought the monarchy from 1952 to 2020. Pfffff. Come oooooooon....

THIS THIS THIS THIS! What Harry and Mehgan presented to the world is not without precedence. The Dutch monarchy is a perfect, and imho, template example of a modern monarchy that accepted change and are still a strong and very well respected royal family. The Norwegian, Danish, Belgium and other REIGNING monarchies have all followed suit.

The BRF could not expect Harry, as the future second son of the reigning monarch, to simply expect to fully support his family and then be told in the very near future he'd be told "thank you, but now we have Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis to fill our needs". In 20-25 years, Harry will be in his mid to late 50s, and would have missed a lot of opportunities to be seriously financially independent and do some serious work, which don't have any caveats.

HMQ and Prince Charles should have been a lot more proactive when both William and Harry were adults, and changed "protocols" to enable royals, who are not in the direct line, to be a lot more financially independent. It's not like this couldn't have been forseen.

The members of the BRF who will benefit from Harry and Meghan's actions are Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis. And honestly, they should be grateful they will have control of their lives that others before them didn't have.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

But the UK is not the Netherlands. Edward and Sophie tried to work, but were forced to give up their careers. Things are working out a bit better for Beatrice & Eugenie with their careers, but they are further from the throne-and still got negativity directed at them.
And the criticism directed at Harry & Meghan is for a situation a lot more complicated than stepping back from bring full-time royal roles to focus on their careers. For one, they don’t actually have careers.

They gave up their jobs because of the intrusive media, imho. What the newspaper did was so incredibly illegal and it was only after the mobile phone scandal where celebrities sued media outlets that justice was finally served.

The BRF should have been a lot tougher with the media, especially after what happened to Edward and Sophie, and had actually dealt with the want of royals wanting to be financially independent.

 

[JR76]

No one is going to kick Harry & Meghan out just because the Cambridge kids are out of school and expected to work for the monarchy. This rumoured slimmed down monarchy (eminent Royal blogger Marlene Koenig says an internal decision has been made long ago) is nothing more than the monarch, heir, heirs children + their spouses working for the monarchy. The only difference from today would be that the children of Harry, Charlotte, Louis won't have royal roles like the Kents and the Gloucesters do today.
Besides that judging from William and Harry the Cambridge kids will be in their mid-thirties before they become full time royals. At that time Harry and Meghan will be in their sixties which would be a suitable retirement age if they so wanted anyway.

 

[Eskimo]

As a Dutch I have been viewing it all with open mouth. All that hullabaloo. That senior royals want to pursue an own career is actually the norm over here, as the Dutch State only supports the King, the future King and the former King (and their eventual spouses).

I do not know how it is in the UK, but in my country ANY citizen with a risk profile, rich or poor, prince or pauper, a celebrity or a nobody, is provided personal security by the police.

A Dutch newspaper worded it as: the British monarchy 2.0 is very much alike the Dutch monarchy now. The King's two brothers (back then the Number 2 and the Number 3 in the succession) fully aimed for a succesful career outside the Royal House. They had to provide in their own living as any Dutch has to do.

For the occasional representation and formal outings there is a reimbursement by the Royal House. And like Queen Juliana did for her three youngest daughters, also Queen Beatrix created a special Trust (Foundation Functional Costs of the House Orange-Nassau II) to support her two youngest sons "in their execution of the royal dignity".

Read: maybe both princes and their families have to go to a private function like a royal wedding somewhere in Germany and need transport, accommodation, personnel, a garderobe, gifts, etc. These private costs (when it are no State events) are met by this Trust.

This is a situation already existing for 50 years. It is mind-boggling that Harry and Meghan are treated alike traitors of the Queen. In fact they finally brought the monarchy from 1952 to 2020. Pfffff. Come oooooooon....

The Dutch Model is a good one for the BRF to follow but not in this situation....

If Harry and Meghan want to go out and get jobs to support themselves, more power to them. But this is not what they want or intend to do (as stated on their new website). They want to use their status as royals to shill merchandise and give speeches.

As a Dutch person, how would you feel if Prince Constantijn went around charging millions of dollars to talk about his life as a Prince of the Netherlands and started making paid questionable endorsements that could be misunderstood as having the backing of the entire DRF? All the while expecting the dutch taxpayers to pay for his and his family's homes, security and salary. Do you remember the scandals with Queen Juliana's husband and his kickbacks. This is what it would lead to.

The ONLY problem here is this: Harry is HRH The Duke of Sussex due to the goodwill of the British people. Multiple recent polls seem to indicate that the BRITISH people are not comfortable using their tax dollars to support a part-time Royal who wants to make his money elsewhere.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

The Dutch Model is a good one for the BRF to follow but not in this situation....

If Harry and Meghan want to go out and get jobs to support themselves, more power to them. But this is not what they want or intend to do (as stated on their new website). They want to use their status as royals to shill merchandise and give speeches.

As a Dutch person, how would you feel if Prince Constantijn went around charging millions of dollars to talk about his life as a Prince of the Netherlands and started making paid questionable endorsements that could be misunderstood as having the backing of the entire DRF? All the while expecting the dutch taxpayers to pay for his and his family's homes, security and salary. Do you remember the scandals with Queen Juliana's husband and his kickbacks. This is what it would lead to.

The ONLY problem here is this: Harry is HRH The Duke of Sussex due to the goodwill of the British people. Multiple recent polls seem to indicate that the BRITISH people are not comfortable using their tax dollars to support a part-time Royal who wants to make his money elsewhere.

Which website did you read because their official one never stated that they are using their royal status to gain financial independence. The MEDIA have stated that. What you have written is PURE SPECULATION, which has been published by the media. Meghan apprently signed this; Harry is apparently planning this etc etc

The BRF, in conjunction withe the Sussexes are drawing up the Rules of Engagement on how to be part time royals who will earn an income independently. Much like what the Dutch RF did many many decades ago

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that they will be told 'you can't use your royal titles and status for personal gain' and have to sign agreements to that effect. If Meghan wants to return to acting - fine but she would have to use her former name and not act as HRH The Duchess of Sussex or Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor (like Lady Frederick doesn't use her title for her career).

I do think, however, that they have to be all in or all out.

I don't understand why they are allegedly wanting money from Charles and/or The Queen AND wanting financial independence as that is contradictory.

This is a watershed moment for the BRF. I do think Charles' slimmed down monarchy was intended to be siblings and spouses and adult children and spouses but not cousins. Now it seems it is just the one couple in each generation. They will have to work a lot hard (and sorry but the Dutch example ignores one massive difference - The King of the Netherlands if King of ONE country while the monarch of the UK is monarch of 16 different countries AND is head of an organisation that covers about one-third of the earth's population). That is why the BRF needs to be larger in many ways - the Commonwealth.

 

[Osipi]

Which website did you read because their official one never stated that they are using their royal status to gain financial independence. The MEDIA have stated that. What you have written is PURE SPECULATION, which has been published by the media. Meghan apprently signed this; Harry is apparently planning this etc etc

The BRF, in conjunction withe the Sussexes are drawing up the Rules of Engagement on how to be part time royals who will earn an income independently. Much like what the Dutch RF did many many decades ago

One thing that keeps floating through my head is that this is a statement that really, really, really needs to be clarified. I'm going to present a "what if" as it, to me, presents a huge possibility of what their intent is.

What if. What if by being "financially independent" and earning a "professional income" it is all encapsulated within the Sussex Royal Foundation. The aim of the foundation is to be self supporting without the Sovereign Grant funding and it would then, make Harry and Meghan "professional philanthropists". Many seem to think it means hawking their wares that are branded by their titles and status but just what if that is not the intention.

Harry and Meghan, to me, have absolutely no need to be street vendors or on the home shopping channels hawking wares a la Fergie or do the talk show rounds for their own pockets. However, being able to commercially enhance their philanthropic work in said manners could really skyrocket their incentives.

This fits into the framework of being "royal" with a leap into the 21st century in the way philanthropic work would be done. If I remember right, people were aghast that the Queen's coronation would be broadcast on the TV and people in *pubs* would see it. Times changed and the television medium became a huge asset to the BRF and their work.

Just thoughts here. Nothing stays the same and all change seems scary and uncalled for and improper when new but once applied, can be the best thing since sliced bread. ?

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

I think that they will be told 'you can't use your royal titles and status for personal gain' and have to sign agreements to that effect. If Meghan wants to return to acting - fine but she would have to use her former name and not act as HRH The Duchess of Sussex or Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor (like Lady Frederick doesn't use her title for her career).

I do think, however, that they have to be all in or all out.

I don't understand why they are allegedly wanting money from Charles and/or The Queen AND wanting financial independence as that is contradictory.

This is a watershed moment for the BRF. I do think Charles' slimmed down monarchy was intended to be siblings and spouses and adult children and spouses but not cousins. Now it seems it is just the one couple in each generation. They will have to work a lot hard (and sorry but the Dutch example ignores one massive difference - The King of the Netherlands if King of ONE country while the monarch of the UK is monarch of 16 different countries AND is head of an organisation that covers about one-third of the earth's population). That is why the BRF needs to be larger in many ways - the Commonwealth.

No doubt future BRF members who wish to be part time royals and in the direct line will be understanding their titles cannot be used for financial/personal advantage. NDAs are just the start. Those who believe its just the 4 main senior royals, and not with a team of lawyers, financial, government officials etc are not involved are deluded.

Kingdom of the Netherlands have 4 constituent countries —the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

One thing that keeps floating through my head is that this is a statement that really, really, really needs to be clarified. I'm going to present a "what if" as it, to me, presents a huge possibility of what their intent is.

What if. What if by being "financially independent" and earning a "professional income" it is all encapsulated within the Sussex Royal Foundation. The aim of the foundation is to be self supporting without the Sovereign Grant funding and it would then, make Harry and Meghan "professional philanthropists". Many seem to think it means hawking their wares that are branded by their titles and status but just what if that is not the intention.

Harry and Meghan, to me, have absolutely no need to be street vendors or on the home shopping channels hawking wares a la Fergie or do the talk show rounds for their own pockets. However, being able to commercially enhance their philanthropic work in said manners could really skyrocket their incentives.

This fits into the framework of being "royal" with a leap into the 21st century in the way philanthropic work would be done. If I remember right, people were aghast that the Queen's coronation would be broadcast on the TV and people in *pubs* would see it. Times changed and the television medium became a huge asset to the BRF and their work.

Just thoughts here. Nothing stays the same and all change seems scary and uncalled for and improper when new but once applied, can be the best thing since sliced bread. ?

I do not believe the Sovereign Grant has ever been in involved in private charitable foundations, i.e. The Duke ofEdinburgh Awards, The Prince’s Trust or The Royal Foundation of.... That has nothing to do with the Sussex Royal set up.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

One thing that keeps floating through my head is that this is a statement that really, really, really needs to be clarified. I'm going to present a "what if" as it, to me, presents a huge possibility of what their intent is.

What if. What if by being "financially independent" and earning a "professional income" it is all encapsulated within the Sussex Royal Foundation. The aim of the foundation is to be self supporting without the Sovereign Grant funding and it would then, make Harry and Meghan "professional philanthropists". Many seem to think it means hawking their wares that are branded by their titles and status but just what if that is not the intention.

Harry and Meghan, to me, have absolutely no need to be street vendors or on the home shopping channels hawking wares a la Fergie or do the talk show rounds for their own pockets. However, being able to commercially enhance their philanthropic work in said manners could really skyrocket their incentives.

This fits into the framework of being "royal" with a leap into the 21st century in the way philanthropic work would be done. If I remember right, people were aghast that the Queen's coronation would be broadcast on the TV and people in *pubs* would see it. Times changed and the television medium became a huge asset to the BRF and their work.

Just thoughts here. Nothing stays the same and all change seems scary and uncalled for and improper when new but once applied, can be the best thing since sliced bread. ?

?

In my opinion and my interpretation, when I read the website, I believe the Sussexes want to be professional philanthropists. In the patronanges they've signed up to as Royals, and those of personal interest, it seems they want to be like Bill and Melinda Gates. You have articulated my interpretation perfectly.

Changes need to occur, and like most transformations, it scares people. The BRF will survive this and honestly, I believe it will make the British Royal Family brand a lot stronger and far more relevant for today and the future.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The UK has four constituent countries - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Netherlands you are describing is the same as the UK not separate independent countries at all.

 

[Osipi]

I do not believe the Sovereign Grant has ever been in involved in private charitable foundations, i.e. The Duke ofEdinburgh Awards, The Prince’s Trust or The Royal Foundation of.... That has nothing to do with the Sussex Royal set up.

Exactly. Its why its been stated that they're going to forgo the 5% funding from the Sovereign Grant for the Sussex Royal foundation. I do believe that The Cambridge's foundation does receive funding from the Sovereign Grant but not the other ones listed. Perhaps that is why Charles and the Duchy of Cornwall were able to incorporate the Duchy Originals and such products contract with Waitrose with profits percentages going into the Prince's Trust endeavor.

On the funding page of the Sussex IG account, it goes into detail to explain the Sovereign Grant....

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Exactly. Its why its been stated that they're going to forgo the 5% funding from the Sovereign Grant for the Sussex Royal foundation. I do believe that The Cambridge's foundation does receive funding from the Sovereign Grant but not the other ones listed. Perhaps that is why Charles and the Duchy of Cornwall were able to incorporate the Duchy Originals and such products contract with Waitrose with profits percentages going into the Prince's Trust endeavor.

On the funding page of the Sussex IG account, it goes into detail to explain the Sovereign Grant....

The Sovereign Grant funds The Monarch’s (and her representatives’) official duties. Neither The Royal Foundation,in either of its iterations, or Sussex Royal qualify.