The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 -

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

He doesn't want to 'save money' exactly. He wants to keep more of it for himself by not having to provide for other royals. There has been no suggestion of reducing the amount of the Sovereign Grant and that is the only way to 'save money' other than for him to save more for himself rather than save any from the British taxpayers.

Charles is the most expensive of them all. He has tastes. The Sovereign Grant that pays for the work they do basically covers nothing though. A lot of the money we pay for them comes in the upkeep of Palaces etc. they do pay for a lot via their private Duchy’s. Which means really only Charles and William is wealthy. And Charles inherited his grandmothers ways with money.

Harry basically had no money. Meghan must have been shocked.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by FigTree

Charles is the most expensive of them all. He has tastes. The Sovereign Grant that pays for the work they do basically covers nothing though. A lot of the money we pay for them comes in the upkeep of Palaces etc. they do pay for a lot via their private Duchy’s. Which means really only Charles and William is wealthy. And Charles inherited his grandmothers ways with money.

Harry basically had no money. Meghan must have been shocked.

Charles has NOT inherited his grandmother's ways with money. He has worked hard to make the Duchy of Cornwall more profitable, and he paid the furlough money for many of his staff during the lockdown wiht Covid.. rather than expecting the Govt to pay it. He may spend money to liead a comfortable luxurious life, but he is not like the QM, spending far too freely. Harry did NOT have no money. He had half of Diana's fortune, which is not a massive amount by royal standards, but it is hardly peanuts.

[tommy100]

Interesting that in the christening statement which has caused so much commentary about titles the spokesperson for the Sussex's appears to get the title of the officiant wrong - John H. Taylor is a bishop not Archbishop it seems.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by FigTree

Charles is the most expensive of them all. He has tastes. The Sovereign Grant that pays for the work they do basically covers nothing though. A lot of the money we pay for them comes in the upkeep of Palaces etc. they do pay for a lot via their private Duchy’s. Which means really only Charles and William is wealthy. And Charles inherited his grandmothers ways with money.

Harry basically had no money. Meghan must have been shocked.

The upkeep of the palaces is done via the Sovereign Grant. That was the major change that happened with this law when it passed - all the moneys were put into one pot for use as the monarch deemed necessary - for palace upkeep and maintenance and for the use of the extended family for official expenses. The Duchies are for the private expenses of the family.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The upkeep of the palaces is done via the Sovereign Grant. That was the major change that happened with this law when it passed - all the moneys were put into one pot for use as the monarch deemed necessary - for palace upkeep and maintenance and for the use of the extended family for official expenses. The Duchies are for the private expenses of the family.

Sovereign grant is highly extended to cover renovations of Buck House. It fluctuates depending on what they need. The actual paying for the work is very little of it and in a lot of cases they use their private money to cover things like wardrobes etc.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Durham

I certainly agree it's about public perception which is surely precisely why it is important that most relatives of the monarch are not princes. A prince x would be more newsworthy than a Mr or a Lord x.

Charles is basically conservative like his mother, and while he's willing to cut down, he does not IMO want to take away the status of HRH and Prince from the relatives that already have it, which includes his grandchildren.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by Denville

Charles has NOT inherited his grandmother's ways with money. He has worked hard to make the Duchy of Cornwall more profitable, and he paid the furlough money for many of his staff during the lockdown wiht Covid.. rather than expecting the Govt to pay it. He may spend money to liead a comfortable luxurious life, but he is not like the QM, spending far too freely. Harry did NOT have no money. He had half of Diana's fortune, which is not a massive amount by royal standards, but it is hardly peanuts.

He is perfectly within his rights to live the lifestyle he wants if he wants to and can afford it, that is his right. He likes the finer things…that is what I meant by being like his grandmother. She never paid the bills…allegedly, and that is different. But he is hardly frugal with the cash like Mother, sister etc.

Harry says he doesn’t want to spend that money. He wants the kids to have it. But then on Oprah he says he has used it but who knows. I doubt he touched it before his wedding.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by FigTree

Sovereign grant is highly extended to cover renovations of Buck House. It fluctuates depending on what they need. The actual paying for the work is very little of it and in a lot of cases they use their private money to cover things like wardrobes etc.

BP is a special case with the Sovereign Grant being raised from 15% to 25% of the income of the Crown Estates to cover that expense for 10 years only. When the refurbishment is finished the SG will revert to the 15% only of the income of the Crown Estate. The % is set in law.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

BP is a special case with the Sovereign Grant being raised from 15% to 25% of the income of the Crown Estates to cover that expense for 10 years only. When the refurbishment is finished the SG will revert to the 15% only of the income of the Crown Estate. The % is set in law.

Yes but what they use it for. Not a lot goes to actually them. Most other royals are, relatively, cash poor.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by FigTree

He is perfectly within his rights to live the lifestyle he wants if he wants to and can afford it, that is his right. He likes the finer things…that is what I meant by being like his grandmother. She never paid the bills…allegedly, and that is different. But he is hardly frugal with the cash like Mother, sister etc.

Harry says he doesn’t want to spend that money. He wants the kids to have it. But then on Oprah he says he has used it but who knows. I doubt he touched it before his wedding.

he likes to live well, true and has a lot of servants, but I can't understand how you could say he is like the queen mother who was very extravagant and often had money troubles. He paid the furlough money for some of his staff, during the pandemic, which hardly smacks of someone who is grasping all the money he can for himself.
As for Harry and his money, I thought that he was complaining that he did not have enough money to pay for his security.....

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Denville

Charles is basically conservative like his mother, and while he's willing to cut down, he does not IMO want to take away the status of HRH and Prince from the relatives that already have it, which includes his grandchildren.

Maybe but the latest rumours are that (some) of his grandchildren will not be HRH. So your guess is as good as mine.

The monarchy needs to retain respect in order to thrive. It will not do going forward if there are people aplenty with royal or princely status doing their own potentially disreputable thing. It will detract from the prestige of the institution. That is the blunt truth. The King will just be storing up problems for his successor if things stay as they are.

The ultimate irony will be a William v limiting titles to his eldest son's children while his nephew & niece slide further down the line of succession behind William v's other untitled descendants. A&LD will just end up looking utterly preposterous & anachronistic in middle/old age as a prince & princess. Just as the York women already do. And that's not meant to be any comment on them as individuals. No doubt they're both lovely people.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by Denville

he likes to live well, true and has a lot of servants, but I can't understand how you could say he is like the queen mother who was very extravagant and often had money troubles. He paid the furlough money for some of his staff, during the pandemic, which hardly smacks of someone who is grasping all the money he can for himself.
As for Harry and his money, I thought that he was complaining that he did not have enough money to pay for his security.....

She didn’t have half his money so who knows how the expenditure equates. In any case. Ends have to meet. Charles do so again he is free to spend what he wants. She vastly exceeded her income and then some. From her background etc probably had no clue about money anyway and just spent it. He obviously does have financial savvy.

Harry basically didn’t want to spend his own money and he doesn’t have enough to sustain their lifestyle anyway. His inheritance would be wiped out in under 10 years.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by Durham

Maybe but the latest rumours are that (some) of his grandchildren will not be HRH. So your guess is as good as mine.

The monarchy needs to retain respect in order to thrive. It will not do going forward if there are people aplenty with royal or princely status doing their own potentially disreputable thing. It will detract from the prestige of the institution. That is the blunt truth. The King will just be storing up problems for his successor if things stay as they are.

The ultimate irony will be a William v limiting titles to his eldest son's children while his nephew & niece slide further down the line of succession behind William v's other untitled descendants. They will just end up looking utterly preposterous & anachronistic in middle/old age.

Harry is his son and it’s hard to be harsh. The first non titled heir to the throne now is Sienna. All non titled heirs are descended down the female line. Which is not modern or even anything but archaic. But then the law is antiquated and moves slowly. They really were getting somewhere with Edwards kids.

Hopefully, whatever they decide, thst the children of Louis and Charlotte have parity.

I personally feel you should only be a Prince of Princess if your parent or sibling is the monarch. Any grandchild or niece, nephew should have a lesser title or none at all.

[RoyalNight]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Buckingham Palace indicated today to royal reporters who made inquiries after the christening announcement that the website will be updated to refer to the Sussex children as Prince and Princess. We will see if and when it happens, as the palace website is not known for prompt updates. Six months after Queen Elizabeth II's death, the profiles of senior working royals on the royal website still include phrases such as "supports Her Majesty".

That said I do wonder if Buckingham Palace is simply trying to save face. Prior reports on the title issue referred to talks between the King and the Duke and Duchess, suggesting it was not as simple as waiting for the couple to make a decision and following whichever decision they made, which is the current line from the Palace.

I think it’s a great strategy form the King&BP. Wait for whatever the Sussexes decide and go with it behaving as if that was always the plan. Taking away the titles at any point would only make give power to racist claims. Not updating the website is genius. They couldn’t have updated everything but the Archie and Lili’s titles. It’s better to pretend that the webmasters are taking their sweet time

[Durham]

Originally Posted by FigTree

Harry is his son and it’s hard to be harsh. The first non titled heir to the throne now is Sienna. All non titled heirs are descended down the female line. Which is not modern or even anything but archaic. But then the law is antiquated and moves slowly. They really were getting somewhere with Edwards kids.

Hopefully, whatever they decide, thst the children of Louis and Charlotte have parity.

I personally feel you should only be a Prince of Princess if your parent or sibling is the monarch. Any grandchild or niece, nephew should have a lesser title or none at all.

That's all fair comment. Another slightly different way forward is limiting titles to the children of the monarch & those in direct line in each generation. I've no doubt that this is what William will instigate one day. And the rf will be all the better for it.

And the point still stands that this debate would still be happening even if H&M had stayed as completely happy & loyal members of the rf in Britain.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by Durham

That's all fair comment. Another slightly different way forward is limiting titles to the children of the monarch & those in direct line in each generation. I've no doubt that this is what William will instigate one day. And the rf will be all the better for it.

And the point still stands that this debate would still be happening even if H&M had stayed as completely happy & loyal members of the rf in Britain.

Well that would mean the same people. If your parent is monarch you are likely to one day be the sibling of the rest.

Williams kids. George’s kids, next heirs kids etc. that way

[HenRach Dominion]

Having Archie and Lilibet styled as Prince or Princess without the HRH because their father's is in abeyance would set up an interesting precedent. As an example, say there's a future son of a monarch...we'll call him HRH Prince Sebastian, Duke of Worcestershire. Prince Sebastian tragically dies before his wife gives birth to their first son, Waseem. Would he
1. HRH Prince Waseem, Duke of Worcestershire because his father still retained his HRH at the time of his death, or
2. Prince Waseem, Duke of Worcestershire because his father lost his HRH the moment he died?

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by HRHHermione

This news honestly took me by surprise. I think on some level, I expected that Harry and Meghan recognized that the use of titles were inappropriate for children being raised in the U.S. and without close ties to the monarchy and I thought that’s why they’d opted out of using the ducal courtesy titles of Earl of Dumbarton and Lady Lilibet.

This move just… it really defies logic. If you want to escape the confines of the monarchy, by all means, do so. But you can’t have both.

I'm baffled at the constant need for aggravating and challenging King Charles in the few months he has been in charge of the family, the country and the church of England. They would have never pulled this PR stunt with QEII around.

What is the point of all this? They wanted no titles and be regular people. Fine.
By the way, the websites with the princely titles were registered long before the baptism and are currently 'parked' for future use.

My wild guess on the mystery godparent is someone with lots of money, so I'll narrow it down to Serena Williams or Oprah, and third choice Elle Degeneres. All three are from their circle and all three are mega millionaires.

Did anyone from the Doria side was invited to this, or notified? I'm sure their social media would mention cousin Meg this week on this event.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Denville

But Charles has shown no sign of wanting to remove titles from Andrew who is now not a working royal, nor Harry who is the same. so why would he take titles away from his grandchildren who have done nothing wrong or foolish.

The main reasons why a person (I am speaking in general) might want to take royal titles away from young children who have done nothing wrong or foolish but not from adults who have done wrong or foolish things are, firstly, that the young children are too young to be aware of the removal and the adults are not, and, secondly, that if the removal is related to downsizing and unrelated to wrongdoing, then it is obviously irrelevant whether the children or the adults have done anything wrong or foolish.

Reasonable people can have different views on whether it would be appropriate, but the implication that there is no justification for differentiating between young children and adults is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Denville

Who says the king wants to limit titles?

By the same token, who says he does not? There is no irreproachable proof one way or the other, but there have been more "leaks" in one direction than the other.

Originally Posted by tommy100

Interesting that in the christening statement which has caused so much commentary about titles the spokesperson for the Sussex's appears to get the title of the officiant wrong - John H. Taylor is a bishop not Archbishop it seems.

Correct, see the link here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2535808

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by suztav

There is an article out in People magazine that Lilibet was baptized last Friday in Los Angeles.

Why didn't they just baptize her when they were in the UK for the Queen's Jubilee and they had a 1st birthday party for her?

This couple continues to perplex me with their passive/aggressive attitudes about everything.

Oh, by the way, Tyler Perry was godfather. Godmother remains anonymous.

My guess is that releasing the news of Lili's formal reception into the Church of England was timed deliberately to occur with Harry/ Meghan's "princess" title for her.

As dim as he seems, even Harry must realize that Britain's first unbaptized princess is not the banner he wants his only daughter to wave..

Her christening at the age of almost two underlines the fact that her parents didn't consider it a priority until they decided to use the titles.

I don't know who the godmother is, but it almost certainly is not Serena Williams. She is a devout Jehovah's Witness and that sect neither practices infant baptism nor believes in it.