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

[Royalist.in.NC]

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!

That sounds complicated to figure out, but thanks so much for the info! Maybe Meg will be the one who is paid so she can only pay tax on US earnings as opposed to worldwide - hope I’m making sense. All sorts of loopholes in US tax law....

 

[Denville]

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!

I doubt if he has diplomatic status. he's not there ona visit.. or to work short term. he's moved there, married to an American citizen and is living there.

 

[Sionevar]

I doubt if he has diplomatic status. he's not there ona visit.. or to work short term. he's moved there, married to an American citizen and is living there.

Yes, I also doubt that. I suspect he is fully liable for US tax now, based just on the residence rules.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

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?

Rich folks in the US who bought The Interview hook, line, and sinker. And because no matter what he is called, he is still Diana’s son, and it would be perceived as prestigious to have Harry attend your “whatever” event. A number of folks in the US are really into status and this meets that criteria .

 

[Erin9]

I dont think most people go in for that nowadays, so a title like "Princess Harry" would look odd to Americans.

There’s that , but also- in fairytales or movies that have Princess X in it, it is HER name used.

But- I still think it would look strange with Meghan’s feminist, independent, strong woman brand too. (Though I think some of her stories/choices have gone against that brand, that’s a separate issue.)

 

[Alison H]

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.

There was a lot of fuss about sexism when it was announced that Mrs Michael Tindall, rather than Mrs Zara Tindall, had given birth to her second child, but the announcement was officially correct! Even a widow would officially be Mrs John Smith.

If Harry is deemed UK resident, he would have to pay tax in the UK on income earned in the US, although there are double taxation treaties so there'd be relief for tax paid on the same income in the US. However, as he's hardly been in the UK this year, he wouldn't class as UK resident. I don't know how he can work in the US without a green card or some sort of work visa, though. Presumably he can get a green card because he's married to a US citizen (er, like in that film with Gerard Depardieu and Andie MacDowell!)?


We often hear about former Prime Ministers earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a time for giving speeches at dinners, often in the Far East. OK, they are probably good speakers, but the attraction seems to be the cachet of being introduced as "former Prime Minister". They're not even royal - they're politicians who were kicked out of office or felt obliged to resign! I have no idea why people pay that sort of money, but evidently they do.

 

[Heavs]

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".

I was merely commenting on the Washington Post's article yesterday that said they were basically a glam, ambitious version of Fergie and lo and behold today they announce a Children's Book just like her (and many many other celebs). They have a bigger platform than she did but that was what I was saying.

https://archive.ph/uD1Dr

It does also note that they need the royalty factor (as did Fergie even though she was divorced) to build their American Dream Brand.

I don't have a problem with royalty writing books, although from Meghan's previous writing I kind of question if it will work as an actual book that children will like rather than a showcase of the Sussex "caring" brand, but we'll see.

I think in the US they're more interested in "Diana's son" with a dash of BRF than a "Blood Prince" in general otherwise Madeleine, Theodora and the rest of the Greek royals, Lux Royals, and Bea and Eug themselves would get more press and gossip since they are or have lived in the US but they're basically anonymous - even the one with an acting career.

I agree that there will always be those who pay for access to "real royalty" and there's a very much a certain sprinkle of fairy dust over the word Prince or Princess, that's why they're fighting so hard to keep using Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex at every opportunity despite trashing the family and everything it stands for.

But most Americans don't seem to really know or care much about the difference between "blood prince" and any other type, which is fine because they're a republic. Unless he's Diana's son and Harry's certainly playing that up as much as PH,DOS.

 

[Sionevar]

That sounds complicated to figure out, but thanks so much for the info! Maybe Meg will be the one who is paid so she can only pay tax on US earnings as opposed to worldwide - hope I’m making sense. All sorts of loopholes in US tax law....

I believe they have set up a production company for the Netflix deal. If that's true, any income will probably be earned by the company and taxed at the corporate level. Harry and Meghan may then take money out of the company in whatever form makes the most sense for them e.g. earned salary or dividend payments, which they would then declare on their personal tax returns.

I have no doubt their personal financial situation is i) complex and ii) heavily streamlined for international tax efficiency and iii) being managed by a variety of smart, capable and tax-savvy people. They won't be doing their IRS returns themselves

 

[Denville]

Rich folks in the US who bought The Interview hook, line, and sinker. And because no matter what he is called, he is still Diana’s son, and it would be perceived as prestigious to have Harry attend your “whatever” event. A number of folks in the US are really into status and this meets that criteria .

What for? he's been nasty about his "royal" family,. He's called them heartless racists, and told the world that he thinks that his father and brother are trapped in royal life and that he is happy to have escaped it.. and that they are foolish because they can't see how trapped they are. And because of that, he's on pretty cool terms with his royal family at present.. What's the point of meeting a Prince who doesn't want to be a prince and who is barely on speaking terms with the rest of his family....

T

We often hear about former Prime Ministers earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a time for giving speeches at dinners, often in the Far East. OK, they are probably good speakers, but the attraction seems to be the cachet of being introduced as "former Prime Minister". They're not even royal - they're politicians who were kicked out of office or felt obliged to resign! I have no idea why people pay that sort of money, but evidently they do.

These politicans are people who have had a long career in politics and have something to talk about... All Harry seems to offer is complaining that the RF is racist and that he's his mother's son....

 

[Erin9]

What for? he's been nasty about his "royal" family,. He's called them heartless racists, and told the world that he thinks that his father and brother are trapped in royal life and that he is happy to have escaped it.. and that they are foolish because they can't see how trapped they are. And because of that, he's on pretty cool terms with his royal family at present.. What's the point of meeting a Prince who doesn't want to be a prince and who is barely on speaking terms with the rest of his family....

IA with you. But he’s famous. People do sometimes like to get to say they’ve seen/met/talked to someone famous.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

There was a lot of fuss about sexism when it was announced that Mrs Michael Tindall, rather than Mrs Zara Tindall, had given birth to her second child, but the announcement was officially correct! Even a widow would officially be Mrs John Smith.

If Harry is deemed UK resident, he would have to pay tax in the UK on income earned in the US, although there are double taxation treaties so there'd be relief for tax paid on the same income in the US. However, as he's hardly been in the UK this year, he wouldn't class as UK resident. I don't know how he can work in the US without a green card or some sort of work visa, though. Presumably he can get a green card because he's married to a US citizen (er, like in that film with Gerard Depardieu and Andie MacDowell!)?


We often hear about former Prime Ministers earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a time for giving speeches at dinners, often in the Far East. OK, they are probably good speakers, but the attraction seems to be the cachet of being introduced as "former Prime Minister". They're not even royal - they're politicians who were kicked out of office or felt obliged to resign! I have no idea why people pay that sort of money, but evidently they do.

I love your remembering that movie “The Green Card.”

 

[Somebody]

:
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

That's rich. Not sure how explaining to the world that you had no idea how to deal with your wife's mental health crisis (after you previously had access to mental health services and later on refused to talk to your family about your wife's) would empower others to get the help and support they deserve. It would mostly suggest that you have to keep it hidden as you should be afraid of how your relatives might respond.

 

[Denville]

IA with you. But he’s famous. People do sometimes like to get to say they’ve seen/met/talked to someone famous.

but he is "famous for being famous".. Famous in fact mainly for walking out on his family and his royal life. If he was sincere about this, he'd say "I dont want to be royal. I just want a quiet life doing a bit of good, and I don't want to see reporters or fame hunters or autograph seekers...
And perhaps some people might be thrilled to see "a prince" if it just took a few mins out of their day and didn't cost anything... but really, why on earth would anyone pay thousands of pounds to hear him talk?

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I was merely commenting on the Washington Post's article yesterday that said they were basically a glam, ambitious version of Fergie and lo and behold today they announce a Children's Book just like her (and many many other celebs). They have a bigger platform than she did but that was what I was saying.

https://archive.ph/uD1Dr

It does also note that they need the royalty factor (as did Fergie even though she was divorced) to build their American Dream Brand.

I don't have a problem with royalty writing books, although from Meghan's previous writing I kind of question if it will work as an actual book that children will like rather than a showcase of the Sussex "caring" brand, but we'll see.

I think in the US they're more interested in "Diana's son" with a dash of BRF than a "Blood Prince" in general otherwise Madeleine, Theodora and the rest of the Greek royals, Lux Royals, and Bea and Eug themselves would get more press and gossip since they are or have lived in the US but they're basically anonymous - even the one with an acting career.

I agree that there will always be those who pay for access to "real royalty" and there's a very much a certain sprinkle of fairy dust over the word Prince or Princess, that's why they're fighting so hard to keep using Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex at every opportunity despite trashing the family and everything it stands for.

But most Americans don't seem to really know or care much about the difference between "blood prince" and any other type, which is fine because they're a republic. Unless he's Diana's son and Harry's certainly playing that up as much as PH,DOS.

Thanks for posting the WP article! I agree with your “fairy dust” assessment.

 

[Durham]

Post 1952

I still don't understand what was meant in the interview about not being able to get any help with suicidal thoughts.

Anyone with a phone can ring the Samaritans for a start.

Why would anyone in the RF want to stop one of their own seeking help? It makes no sense.

 

[Somebody]

Post 1952

I still don't understand what was meant in the interview about not being able to get any help with suicidal thoughts.

Anyone with a phone can ring the Samaritans for a start.

Why would anyone in the RF want to stop one of their own seeking help? It makes no sense.

The BRF didn't know about it, so couldn't even try to stop her from seeking help (even if they wanted; which of course they wouldn't have).

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

What for? he's been nasty about his "royal" family,. He's called them heartless racists, and told the world that he thinks that his father and brother are trapped in royal life and that he is happy to have escaped it.. and that they are foolish because they can't see how trapped they are. And because of that, he's on pretty cool terms with his royal family at present.. What's the point of meeting a Prince who doesn't want to be a prince and who is barely on speaking terms with the rest of his family....

Denville , I hear what you are saying, and personally, I have lost all respect for Prince Harry after what he is done. However, my point was that in the US most people don’t understand (nor are they interested) in the nuances of things that you folks in the UK do understand. Remember that here school children are taught about the American Revolution only from our standpoint and call out the big bad British King George III - so many are totally unsympathetic to the RF - we are a republic, remember.

And while I agree about him trashing his family, some folks here in the US will be sympathetic to someone who “escaped” the RF and believe all or most of the lies in The Interview. Or even if they don’t believe the lies, cynically, people out to make a buck using their “fairy dust sparkle” will not care IMHO. Sad but true.

That's rich. Not sure how explaining to the world that you had no idea how to deal with your wife's mental health crisis (after you previously had access to mental health services and later on refused to talk to your family about your wife's) would empower others to get the help and support they deserve. It would mostly suggest that you have to keep it hidden as you should be afraid of how your relatives might respond.

Yep, my point exactly!

 

[Queen Ester]

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

That would look awful, even in the States using your kids in order to attack their grandfather would look cheap

 

[Denville]

The BRF didn't know about it, so couldn't even try to stop her from seeking help (even if they wanted; which of course they wouldn't have).

she could have gone to her doctor. Did she really not think of that? Even if she was so depresed she wasn't thinking clearly, surely Harry would have siad "talk to the doctor and get a referral to a psychiatrist...."

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Post 1952

I still don't understand what was meant in the interview about not being able to get any help with suicidal thoughts.

Anyone with a phone can ring the Samaritans for a start.

Why would anyone in the RF want to stop one of their own seeking help? It makes no sense.

You are absolutely correct - it makes no sense whatsoever!

 

[camelot23ca]

Post 1952

I still don't understand what was meant in the interview about not being able to get any help with suicidal thoughts.

Anyone with a phone can ring the Samaritans for a start.

Why would anyone in the RF want to stop one of their own seeking help? It makes no sense.

It does make sense if your focus is on producing sound bites to help you monetize your personal story.

I’ve gotten progressively more cynical about the interview in the weeks since it first aired. They did it to help build their brand for the American market. They wanted a few parts to really stick - the racism accusation, the alleged money woes with Charles as the villain and the idea of The Sussexes as being trapped and isolated in the middle of a mental health crisis. They kept those parts just vague enough to provoke as much discussion as possible.

What they obviously weren’t aiming for was logic or even coherence, (and certainly not dignity). They said multiple things during the interview that weren’t true, and I don’t think it was by accident. They didn’t care that essentially all of the UK and a sizeable portion of Americans who bothered to pay attention knew they were full of it. The US is a huge country, so even if you take away the vast majority of the population who could care less about them, as well as the substantial chunk of people who are turned off by them, that still leaves a sizeable number who are either gullible enough to believe them or who will support them regardless of what they actually say or do, for various reasons. That’s the only group they care about because that’s the group that will make them money and keep them in the public eye.

 

[rominet09]

Well now she has written a book to celebrate the link between child and father.
A bit strange considering she doesn't see her father any more and Harry doesn't see his too !
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14852232/meghan-markle-childrens-book-dodgy-ground/

 

[Mbruno]

I think in the US they're more interested in "Diana's son" with a dash of BRF than a "Blood Prince" in general otherwise Madeleine, Theodora and the rest of the Greek royals, Lux Royals, and Bea and Eug themselves would get more press and gossip since they are or have lived in the US but they're basically anonymous - even the one with an acting career.

Most people in America don't know Madeleine, Theodora or any of the above, except perhaps Beatrice and Eugenie. Harry is in another league in terms of celebrity.

Judging from a press report about a recent New York social event, Princess Madeleine seems to be using the name "Madeleine O'Neill" privately in the US. She still goes by HRH Princess Madeleine of Sweden on her social media and that is also the name she uses professionally in connection with the World Childhood Foundation, but I don't see her using her royal titles in the same way as Harry and Meghan to build a commercial brand.

 

[duchessrachel]

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.

Thank you. I wasn't exactly sure what was done.

 

[Betsypaige]

I'm having a wee bit of a problem with Harry lecturing us on having "compassion for those we know and those we don't."

Where was his compassion for his family - especially his father - when he ripped them on TV?

Well now she has written a book to celebrate the link between child and father.
A bit strange considering she doesn't see her father any more and Harry doesn't see his too !
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14852232/meghan-markle-childrens-book-dodgy-ground/

Which is what Penny Junor said, and I couldn't agree with her more. I don't know much about Meghan's issues with her dad, but as for Harry - he's completely pushed his father away, betraying him in the worst way.

Royal biographer Penny Junor said: “It’s very easy to talk about relationships between fathers and sons when they are two years old.

“But problems come when the children are older — as Meghan found out with her father and Harry with Prince Charles.

“So it is an odd thing to have done.

“She is on dodgy ground because of her relationship with her father and Harry with his.

 

[Kataryn]

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?

Why are people in a republic interested in "Royality" anyway? I have no idea besides my own interest and I personally wouldn't pay to access them, but why would people be interested in singers of a certain star level? It surely is something psychological, but don't ask me what it is...

 

[Sandy345]

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.

It was a whole lot more serious for Edward VIII's situation. He was actually King and his date for Coronation was set! Harry has virtually no chance of getting to be King. Edward VIII was set to be King from the moment of his birth. Harry unlike Edward VIII is a father. Different scenario.

 

[Roslyn]

Thank you. I wasn't exactly sure what was done.

If anyone wants to know exactly what happened at Elizabeth's coronation, including who said what at what stage of the proceedings, you can find it here: The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II Every peer took this oath:

"I, N. Duke, or Earl, etc., of N.
do become your liege man of life and limb,
and of earthly worship;
and faith and truth I will bear unto you,
to live and die, against all manner of folks.
So help me God."

So I'm assuming Harry would be expected to give a similar oath to his father and, later, to his brother. I wonder what the consequences would be if he didn't?

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Which is what Penny Junor said, and I couldn't agree with her more. I don't know much about Meghan's issues with her dad, but as for Harry - he's completely pushed his father away, betraying him in the worst way.

Yep, it is on Amazon and Amazon.uk for preorder in hardback, kindle, and Meg reading the audiobook. I will not be buying it.

It blows my mind that someone who hasn’t seen her own father in three years and who helped Harry throw his father under a bus has the gall to write about relationships between fathers and sons.

But some people will enthusiastically buy it and their name will be in the public eye and they’ll make some bucks if it sells well.

It does make sense if your focus is on producing sound bites to help you monetize your personal story.

I’ve gotten progressively more cynical about the interview in the weeks since it first aired. They did it to help build their brand for the American market. They wanted a few parts to really stick - the racism accusation, the alleged money woes with Charles as the villain and the idea of The Sussexes as being trapped and isolated in the middle of a mental health crisis. They kept those parts just vague enough to provoke as much discussion as possible.

What they obviously weren’t aiming for was logic or even coherence, (and certainly not dignity). They said multiple things during the interview that weren’t true, and I don’t think it was by accident. They didn’t care that essentially all of the UK and a sizeable portion of Americans who bothered to pay attention knew they were full of it. The US is a huge country, so even if you take away the vast majority of the population who could care less about them, as well as the substantial chunk of people who are turned off by them, that still leaves a sizeable number who are either gullible enough to believe them or who will support them regardless of what they actually say or do, for various reasons. That’s the only group they care about because that’s the group that will make them money and keep them in the public eye.

Well, I have to agree with you. I am becoming more cynical too. Meghan is not stupid: I’m sure they have some sort of plan or are working on other things. You don’t write and have someone illustrate and publish a book overnight.

 

[camelot23ca]

Which is what Penny Junor said, and I couldn't agree with her more. I don't know much about Meghan's issues with her dad, but as for Harry - he's completely pushed his father away, betraying him in the worst way.

I can understand Meghan wanting to celebrate the bond Harry has with Archie, despite, or maybe even due to, the friction that she and Harry have with their own fathers. As others have pointed out, the bond between a parent and a toddler is pretty straightforward compared to what comes later, (I doubt Charles ever thought things would come to this when he was spending time with a two year old Harry), but it’s still special, and with a first child it’s also completely new. So of course Meghan has every right to be happy that Harry and Archie have bonded well.

What I don’t understand is why this all warrants publishing a book? I read that the book started as a poem she wrote for Harry just after Archie was born - why not just leave it at that? Meghan’s husband loves their child so a book gets published. Meghan has a miscarriage and then feels the need to write an editorial for The New York Times. Meghan and Harry fight with his family and the result is a tell all interview with Oprah. What part of their lives are they going to sell next?