The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April-June 2021

[valeas]

I dont suppose they will use a kids book to attack Charles...

well, as archie is only two and harry will hardly remember these period in his own life, they technically cannot say anything beyond the age of two, when M. says it through a mother's eyes
we'll have to see

 

[Durham]

It cannot be used again (but it does not limit parliamentary powers). See reply here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-287.html#post2396642

As you imply parliament is sovereign & can do what it wants. No parliament is bound by previous legislation. If a head of steam built up about this issue it could act any way it chose.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April 2021 -

I dont suppose they will use a kids book to attack Charles...

It would hope not. Archie is not even 2. (Almost there though. Just checked his DOB.)

Though I suppose if there’s an illustration of father and son on a bike, that could be seen as one.

 

[Kataryn]

It doesn't matter to me how he was known or that his name was in lights. It doesn't matter to me if he's an eloquent speaker or not. It doesn't matter to me if he got paid for this or if he volunteered his time like other people did for this cause. What matters to me is that he gave of his time and his energy and himself to try and make a difference in a world that severely needs to reach everyone and get them vaccinated against Covid-19.

Harry, in this case, mattered. For that he's earned my respect. ?

That's what I think as well! I don#t mind that Meghan took Harry with her to her own home country - has she been the queen of California, everyone would expected that! Now they live on what they have - and in America, you get credit by banks and companies and get payed for what you represent and are, not for what you actually do. It seems being "the grandson of the current queen and the son of the future king "of England" is worth the big bucks.It was a bit shacky if they would get the right people to contact them and take them under contract at first, but I guess Oprah was realy, really helpful, so she got "that interview" with enough scandal in it to really introduce their side to the American public.



So now I believe they are pretty settled, they have good advisors, they'll stay afloat and even get really rich and the only thing is to convince Willam, that it is okay what they do because they are living now in a different country with different rules.



My idea would be to tell William that this was they way their mother would have gone to be able to afford the life and the security adequate to her international position without the British taxpayer covering for that. Diana would have been forced to go the same way because she simply did not have the big money to support her private life when she was so famed internationally. And my guess is that she would have taken Harry with her anyway, because he is "just the spare" in a world where there is really only one place at court and that's for the heir, the heir's heir and that line's offspring.



It is sad for some people but we live in a time where we have a very quiet first layer of the money society and then we have a very present first layer of the "normal" society. I bet noone of that money-rich people fears anything on inviting Meghan and Harry as representators of the "other top" people to their home. Different from queen Mary, Meghan and Harry will not expect to be given the stuff they admire and they won't steal either. They might allow these ultra-rich people to give them money for their charities, but that's the prize to pay for their presence.



I understand that a life like Meghan & Harry can have will annoy a lot of people who only accept the Royals as long as they work and have not much fun. I personally think Charles and William have a lot of personal fun, though Harry thinks different and should know better.

But I believe in today's world, especially since "ideas" like creating software can make you super rich when in former time you needed stuff like actual gold or jewels or trade contracts etc. Harry and Meghan as the "spare" and his wife have a right to fish as much money from the ultra riches for giving them connection to what these ultras miss out on, which is really being based in this earth's society.



It's how it is today - and as much as you wish that without Charles' money and security payed by the British taxpayer, they will have to live simple life. But no, they don't. Harry may appear as "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" and that is only using his real name, not his Royal titles and the ultra rich people will pay for him. (Just like other ultra rich guys payed for "HRH The Duke of York", but let's not talk where these guys got their money from and don't look too closely at where the money Harry will get comes from.)


Just to put my thesis back into one sentence: Harry's birth to "this" Royal couple made sure he will never loose his appeal. And if he wants to market that, he will be sucessful. And if you don't like that, there are many ultra rich people who are only happy that such a intensive sparkler came to their market and they will buy because they buy the real deal!

 

[Erin9]

They dont need to request that they are removed, they can just stop using them...

They could. And you’d ALMOST wonder why they don’t after how extensively they attacked their family from just about every conceivable angle personally and professionally. But- royalty is quite literally their selling point. It’s what makes them “special.” That’s it. So- of course. It’s one of the reasons my respect for them is quite low now.

 

[duchessrachel]

I don’t think Harry is treating Charles badly because he’s the only parent around, though I agree with the point in general. I can not agree that children pitting parent against parent in a divorce is common - maybe it happens, but in my opinion, it tends to be the warring parents to use the children. There’s plenty of divorce in my family, but thank goodness nothing like this ever happened. In any case, H is almost 40 years old - I can not excuse him for sanctifying his mother while deeply wounding his father. I get the former as he lost her at such a young age, but his being so public with it while being so public about his anger at his father (for reasons I abhor) is ugly, very ugly.

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.

So if Harry renounced his titles in the US, his titles would still be recognized and valid in the UK with dual citizenship. He could still swear fealty to his father, the King, in the UK with no problem.

Guess its a case of when in Rome, do as the Romans do, eh? ?

This has made be wonder about something. During Queen Elizabeth's coronation, I think Prince Philip had to swear to be her "liege man" or something like that. I saw it on the Crown, which I take with a grain of salt, so I am not sure. Did Queen Elizabeth's children have to pledge their allegiance to her? Anyway, the reason I am wondering is that when Prince Charles is crowned King, will Camilla and William have to pledge their allegiance to him. If so, this could be a very awkward situation for Harry.

 

[Heavs]

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.

 

[UglyAmerican]

Exactly. Harry seems to care only about his mother, certainly based on what he says publicly. He’s Diana’s son -period. That goes over very well with a segment of America.

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.

 

[Fijiro]

This has made be wonder about something. During Queen Elizabeth's coronation, I think Prince Philip had to swear to be her "liege man" or something like that. I saw it on the Crown, which I take with a grain of salt, so I am not sure. Did Queen Elizabeth's children have to pledge their allegiance to her? Anyway, the reason I am wondering is that when Prince Charles is crowned King, will Camilla and William have to pledge their allegiance to him. If so, this could be a very awkward situation for Harry.

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.

 

[Betsypaige]

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.....

This ! They’re racist and didn’t support her when she was suicidal, but she’s sure trading on the connection for all she’s worth.

 

[RandyDrx]

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.

 

[Betsypaige]

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

 

[duchessrachel]

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.

 

[_Heather_]

Meghan to release a children's boom inspired by Harry and Archie on June 8

https://twitter.com/x/status/1389587986539556875

"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...

 

[Somebody]

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.

 

[Betsypaige]

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....

 

[Somebody]

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.

 

[valeas]

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.

 

[Durham]

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.

 

[Fijiro]

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_of_current_British_princes_and_princesses

 

[Queen Ester]

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?

 

[Alison H]

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.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

:

'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

 

[Kataryn]

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".

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

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!

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?

 

[Denville]

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

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?

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

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.

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

 

[Sionevar]

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/international-taxpayers/substantial-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!

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

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!

 

[Denville]

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.