The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1901  
Old 05-04-2021, 02:20 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy345 View Post
This is taking a page from the one using title Duchess of York. And Princess Michael used her HRH and title to write a book.
The difference is Fergie and Princess Michael never attacked the BRF publicly.
__________________

  #1902  
Old 05-04-2021, 02:26 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
I have been reading "King's Counsellor", which is the diary by Tommy Lascelles kept during WWII. He was King George VI's Private Secretary. In it, he describes the Duke of Windsor (formerly King Edward VIII) as having never progressed beyond the maturity of an adolescent. I think Harry is the same way. He is acting like a spoiled child.
I think Tommy’s description of the Duke of Windsor is very apt for Harry, agreed.

I don’t come by my disappointment and annoyance in Harry naturally..I’m so sad it’s come to this
__________________

  #1903  
Old 05-04-2021, 02:34 PM
duchessrachel's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Birmingham, United States
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I think Tommy’s description of the Duke of Windsor is very apt for Harry, agreed.

I don’t come by my disappointment and annoyance in Harry naturally..I’m so sad it’s come to this
So am I. I was very excited for their marriage and was looking forward to watching them carry out engagements in the future years. Now that will never happen. I am abhorred by what Harry has done to his family. For the life of me I will never understand how Harry could choose the shifting sands of celebrity over the virtually solid foundation of the Monarchy.
  #1904  
Old 05-04-2021, 02:38 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Missouri, United States
Posts: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Meghan to release a children's boom inspired by Harry and Archie on June 8

https://twitter.com/booksamillion/st...87986539556875

"The Bench is an extraordinary debut children’s storybook by Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex. A heartwarming view of a father’s love through a mother’s eyes, it’s an instant classic you’ll want to read, share, and treasure forever. "
Frankly I'm shocked that it's not coming out on June 10 or 21...
  #1905  
Old 05-04-2021, 02:44 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
She doesn't have to. By tradtion, wives usually take their husband's name....
In the USA she has to formally change her surname to be Mountbatten-Windsor (which she did in her first marriage: she changed it to Engelson and back to Markle). If she didn't do so, she is legally (Rachel) Meghan Markle in the States although she might use Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor (or anything else - as she is doing currently) socially.
  #1906  
Old 05-04-2021, 02:45 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
It's easy to idolize a dead person, because they can't ever disappoint you or argue with you. That's what Harry seems to be doing. Diana can do no wrong in his eyes, and he's right - she literally can't, because she's dead. He's built up this narrative in his head that Mummy would have let him have everything Charles and the Queen said no to, and of course that's not true. But no one can prove it because no one can really know what she'd have thought about things that happened after her death.

It's interesting to think about what Harry's relationship with Diana would be like if she were still alive. She wasn't always the easiest person to get along with, and I doubt she'd have been as wholeheartedly supportive of every single thing he's said and done as he seems to think she would have been. She did a lot of the same things herself, but she regretted many of them after seeing their impact on her family and especially her children. She'd probably have regretted more if she'd lived long enough to experience the long-term fallout.

A lot of what the public remembers as her "glamorous" lifestyle was really indicative of mental health issues. I think that might have become more clear to Harry had it continued into his young adulthood. William seems to have a better understanding of that, and I think that's because he was older and understood the problems better while it was happening. Maybe they'd have all worked through those issues if she'd lived, and their relationship would be sunshine and butterflies today, but I doubt it.
Excellent points. Not only is Diana perfect, but Charles is only flawed. Harry remember things his mum did with him as a boy, but not his father? Hmmm. What’s problematic to me is that this seems to have come out of nowhere. I’m not saying that Harry never had issues with his father, like so many children do, but the sheer anger, the taking that anger public - knowing how many people would react ....


I think that’s also a good point about William, but Harry being close to 40 and a father himself, you’d think he’d have gained some wisdom and insight. Instead, he’s bitter....
  #1907  
Old 05-04-2021, 02:47 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
During the coronation, all Dukes, royals and non-royals, have to pledge their allegiance to the new Monarchy. Prince Philip, as the Duke of Edinburgh had to swear his allegiance. When Charles is to be coronated, Camilla as Consort will probably sit next to Charles; but Andrew, William, Harry, and all royal and non-royal dukes, will have to pledge their allegiance.
And hopefully Edward, as I assume he will receive the title 'Duke of Edinburgh' in between Charles' ascension and the coronation.
  #1908  
Old 05-04-2021, 02:50 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Kopenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 72
Does anybody think Meghan would use Princess Harry?
Though she has proofed anything but being the independent woman she or the media created her to be, I think this form of name is contra her feminist appeal.
Sounds very oldfashioned though many in the US might then think she is a princess.
  #1909  
Old 05-04-2021, 02:54 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Well when the Washington Post described them as a more glamourous, ambitious version of the Duchess of York I guess they were much more on the money than I realised.
Yes I agree. So much of the US media has been bafflingly uncritical of these two that it's refreshing to read some proper analysis whether you agree with it or not. Especially from a newspaper like the WP which is not the most Anglophile of US publications. Although not as bad as the NY Times.

Comparing them to Sarah York made me chuckle. Talk about being damned with faint praise.
  #1910  
Old 05-04-2021, 03:09 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by valeas View Post
Does anybody think Meghan would use Princess Harry?
Though she has priifed anything but beung the independent woman she or the media created her to be, I think this form of name is contra her feminist appeal.
Sounds very oldfashioned though many in the US might then think she is a princess.
Technically she is ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...and_princesses
  #1911  
Old 05-04-2021, 03:20 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by UglyAmerican View Post
It's easy to idolize a dead person, because they can't ever disappoint you or argue with you. That's what Harry seems to be doing. Diana can do no wrong in his eyes, and he's right - she literally can't, because she's dead. He's built up this narrative in his head that Mummy would have let him have everything Charles and the Queen said no to, and of course that's not true. But no one can prove it because no one can really know what she'd have thought about things that happened after her death.
Do you mean that Diana wanted to leave her entire inheritance to Harry and HM and Charles said no? Did William get anything from Diana?
  #1912  
Old 05-04-2021, 03:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,203
I don't think Meghan would use "Princess Henry". But, having told a pack of lies (everything she said about Archie being denied a title and style on the grounds of race was a lie) deliberately designed to damage the Royal Family's reputation, and claimed that the Royal Family were not only racist but didn't care that she was suicidal, it hardly seems appropriate for her to use any royal title, regardless of whether it's "Princess Henry" or "Duchess of Sussex".

Princess Michael's books are actually rather good. OK, they've got "HRH Princess Michael of Kent" splashed all over the front covers, but they are very well-researched, and she talks about her own personal descent from the people she's writing about, rather than the Royal Family's connections.
  #1913  
Old 05-04-2021, 03:45 PM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Asheville, United States
Posts: 133
:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
'For the past two years', so that was 8-9 months before the Sussexes decided to leave the royal fold.
This commitment builds on The Duke of Sussex's long-standing work on issues and initiatives regarding mental health, where he has candidly shared personal experience and advocated for those who silently suffer, empowering them to get the help and support they deserve.

The above is quoted from the Oprah announcement through Drew Barrymore’s show. As a counselor, I am all for shining a light on mental health issues and advocating for help and breaking the stigma. I am still scratching my head with the statement above and Harry’s statement during The Interview that he couldn’t get help for his own wife. So disingenuous
  #1914  
Old 05-04-2021, 03:49 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Well when the Washington Post described them as a more glamourous, ambitious version of the Duchess of York I guess they were much more on the money than I realised.

I don't think Sarah had the connection when she started her "career" that Meghan and Harry had. She wasn't as interested as them as well, just a "former" Royal compared to the "real thing" (as just proved with the funeral).
But she could get rid of her debts and earn big money compared to what the most people earn.

Harry though is a "blood prince" and there will always people who will pay for access.

Accept that. The won't fit into your image of British Royality and we don't know how Charles really thinks but I for once hope that Meghan is suave in business, so the money they earn stays with them and does not get stolen by "advisors".
  #1915  
Old 05-04-2021, 03:52 PM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Asheville, United States
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
In the UK he wouldn't be introduced like this; he would be HRH The Duke of Sussex; they wouldn't combine the 'prince Harry' and 'Duke of Sussex' (without 'the'!). Given that he is not supposed to use HRH; using his highest title would mean being introduced as 'The Duke of Sussex' without a first name or prince; however, I guess both Harry and Meghan prefer to have their first name attached to it for recognition purposes.
This reminds me of a pet peeve as a former clergy spouse. Most people, at least in the US anyway, call clergy and write their names as Rev. John Smith. However, what is proper is to write and say the Rev. John Smith. Fun fact!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Technically, according to US law, Harry would have to renounce his British citizenship and titles in the naturalization ceremony, but, as I asked here before (and apparently didn't get a definite answer), I am not sure if the renunciation would be recognized in the United Kingdom.



There are many dual US-UK citizens in Britain and, as far as I know, British law does not prohibit dual citizenship. Many dual citizens, however, are not naturalized US citizens, but rather "natural-born" citizens of the United States, e.g. by virtue of having an American parent like Archie. I am not sure if naturalization would be treated differently precisely because of the renunciation requirement in US law. Some countries, in the latter case, apply a "don't ask, don't tell" policy and only acknowledge the renunciation if the person officially communicates it to his/her country of origin, but, as I said, I don't know what UK policy is.


In any case, the British tabloids are saying that Harry does not plan to become a US citizen or even apply for a green card. They claim he plans to stay indefinitely in the US on a diplomatic visa (A1 status), which seems far-fetched to me if he is going to live in California for the rest of his life and, furthermore, would require the consent of the British government, which can rescind his diplomatic passport at any time. Besides, my (limited) understanding is that Harry couldn't work in the US on a diplomatic visa, except in the British embassy or a British consulate.
If this is correct, then, how can he make money with Netflix, etc? I’ve wondered about taxes. Meg is a US Citizen and if she gets paid, she has to pay taxes. I honestly don’t know about Harry - both in the UK and US. The Queen pays taxes, does she not? Any accountant or lawyers in the group?
  #1916  
Old 05-04-2021, 04:04 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by valeas View Post
Does anybody think Meghan would use Princess Harry?
Though she has proofed anything but being the independent woman she or the media created her to be, I think this form of name is contra her feminist appeal.
Sounds very oldfashioned though many in the US might then think she is a princess.
She is a princess

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I don't think Sarah had the connection when she started her "career" that Meghan and Harry had. She wasn't as interested as them as well, just a "former" Royal compared to the "real thing" (as just proved with the funeral).
But she could get rid of her debts and earn big money compared to what the most people earn.

Harry though is a "blood prince" and there will always people who will pay for access.

Accept that. The won't fit into your image of British Royality and we don't know how Charles really thinks but I for once hope that Meghan is suave in business, so the money they earn stays with them and does not get stolen by "advisors".
Why will people in a republic pay for "access to a blood prince"?? What is so special about a blood prince that people will pay to - what ? Shake his hand? This is a man who has abused his family on TV, has claimed that royalty is a trap and yet he intends to use his being a "blood prince" to make money. IS that what HE thinks a blood prince should be?
  #1917  
Old 05-04-2021, 04:14 PM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Asheville, United States
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy345 View Post
It would make sense in the US because some married women do not use their first name like Mrs Mary Smith but opt to use Mrs John Smith. So it makes sense
In the old days (IDK about proper etiquette for folks after boomers coz I’m a boomer) you addressed a letter to a married woman who took her husband’s name (and about everybody did) as Mrs. John Smith. If she divorced you would write a letter to Mrs. Mary Smith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
Wow....talk about gushing. Goodness.

To state the obvious- this publicity (which hit my news feed too) and, of course, Meghan’s title on the cover is all about her royal connections. The ones she publicly trashed. If they’d exited with some tiny bit of professionalism, class, and maturity- I’d shrug. This is just a bad look to me.

I know she is The Duchess of Sussex, and it’s certainly her right to use it, but if she was as deeply offended by the royals as she proclaimed, you’d think she’d go by Meghan Markle. Get rid of all royal connections. People would still know who she was. But- using the title on the cover does add a little something.....
Yep, I’m sure she hopes it will add to the bank account. I absolutely agree with you. Trash the family but use the titles.....not classy
  #1918  
Old 05-04-2021, 04:24 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC View Post
If this is correct, then, how can he make money with Netflix, etc? I’ve wondered about taxes. Meg is a US Citizen and if she gets paid, she has to pay taxes. I honestly don’t know about Harry - both in the UK and US. The Queen pays taxes, does she not? Any accountant or lawyers in the group?
Here's some advice about his tax status in the US:

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/inte...-presence-test

You will be considered a United States resident for tax purposes if you meet the substantial presence test for the calendar year. To meet this test, you must be physically present in the United States (U.S.) on at least:

31 days during the current year, and
183 days during the 3-year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before that, counting:
All the days you were present in the current year, and
1/3 of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and
1/6 of the days you were present in the second year before the current year.

If Harry passes this test (or fails it, depending on your point of view ), he will need to pay tax in the US. And I believe he would pay it on his worldwide assets, not just on what he earns in the US.

He may also be liable for US taxes based on the green card test, which is an entirely separate category. And he may be completely exempt if he is considered a Foreign Government Related Individual because he has diplomatic status. It's a complicated business!
  #1919  
Old 05-04-2021, 04:26 PM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Asheville, United States
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Yes I agree. So much of the US media has been bafflingly uncritical of these two that it's refreshing to read some proper analysis whether you agree with it or not. Especially from a newspaper like the WP which is not the most Anglophile of US publications. Although not as bad as the NY Times.

Comparing them to Sarah York made me chuckle. Talk about being damned with faint praise.
I can’t get past the Washington Post paywall. If anyone has a way to share that article, I’d love to read it! Thanks in advance!
  #1920  
Old 05-04-2021, 04:31 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC View Post
In the old days (IDK about proper etiquette for folks after boomers coz I’m a boomer) you addressed a letter to a married woman who took her husband’s name (and about everybody did) as Mrs. John Smith. If she divorced you would write a letter to Mrs. Mary Smith.
I dont think most people go in for that nowadays, so a title like "Princess Harry" would look odd to Americans.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 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 and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021 Jacknch Current Events Archive 2203 04-06-2021 12:08 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american american history ancestry baby names britannia british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles canada carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house cpr dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii emperor family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jewellery jewelry kensington palace list of rulers maxima monarchy mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal family pless prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria resusci anne royal court royal jewels royalty of taiwan russian court dress spain stuart thailand thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:45 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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