The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2141  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:31 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purrs View Post
"The question of who foots the bill for their security detail may also come up. On their website, Harry and Meghan note that the provision of armed security is mandated by the British Home Office. But if the couple spends much of their time overseas, British taxpayers may balk at paying for their security.

So-called working royals representing the queen full-time at ceremonies and charities get their protection paid for by the state. But junior royals, such as Prince Andrew’s daughter, Beatrice and Eugenie, pay their own way."
This is very interesting - thank you.

Can anyone advise - why does the British Home Office mandate armed security for Harry, but not for Beatrice and Eugenie? They are all the sovereign's grandchildren. Is it because Harry is higher up in the line of succession? Or is it because he served in Afghanistan, and they are worried about a reprisal attack?

If Harry and Meghan step away, would they not change from being full-time royals to part-time royals? That being the case, should they not then pay for their own security?

Genuinely curious to understand the precise reasoning...
__________________

  #2142  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:33 PM
moby's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,148
The statement sounds like the couple is quitting the family, not the work. So personal and not at all officious. The “my family” emphasis sounds like a plea to understand that this is a family issue as much as an official one.

I am curious about the period of transition referred to though. Transition to what? A life divided successfully between two continents? Living in Canada? Out of royal life? Seems like that’s leading to something big and final.
__________________

  #2143  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:33 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sionevar View Post
A visitor is basically a tourist. You can stay in the country for up to 6 months, but you cannot engage in any activity that requires legal residence e.g. work, open a bank account, register to receive Canadian health care.

It would be doable, but tricky - lots of restrictions to work around or to have a backup plan for.
So they can't be visitors then, on a visitors visa...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purrs View Post
The press here in Canada are NOT saying this. They are reporting that who pays for the security is still undecided.from Toronto star:
Something that popped into my head after Trudeaus "announcement" is that what's to stop the next Prime Minister removing his "promise"? It's hardly going to be enshrined in law, or is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sionevar View Post
This is very interesting - thank you.

Can anyone advise - why does the British Home Office mandate armed security for Harry, but not for Beatrice and Eugenie? They are all the sovereign's grandchildren. Is it because Harry is higher up in the line of succession? Or is it because he served in Afghanistan, and they are worried about a reprisal attack?
Beatrice and Eugenie are not working members of the royal family. Any security required is paid for by their father, if any is required at all.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
  #2144  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:39 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
Seems like that’s leading to something big and final.
I do hope so...then 'those most affected' , and the rest of us can proceed with our lives without pathetic 'me,me,me' whining from two deeply self centred people.
  #2145  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:42 PM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaiSoSo View Post
Who said anything about Canadian citizenship??

I don't think they'd apply for Canadian Citizenship. For one I don't think Meghan can be a citizen of three countries - someone else can correct me if I'm wrong. And Harry was always more interested in moving to somewhere in Africa - this whole "Canada/LA" thing sounds like Meghan's idea. What happens if they get divorced which sort of seems likely? Harry will have a citizenship he doesn't want. Plus they will have to pay taxes in two countries. Their finances will be a matter of public record.


No I think they'd go the "work visa" route. And really what sort of work is Harry going to do? He's never held a job. Meghan will be the one working.
  #2146  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:44 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Beatrice and Eugenie are not working members of the royal family. Any security required is paid for by their father, if any is required at all.
But if Harry and Meghan step away to live privately in Canada for six months of the year, would they still be 'working members' during that time?

And I know nobody has the definitive answer yet - we will have to wait and see what details emerge in the coming weeks and months.
  #2147  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:46 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
So they can't be visitors then, on a visitors visa...

If I understood it correctly, what the Canadian minister said to the CBC is that, as members of the RF, they don't need a visitor's visa. Basically, they can visit whenever they want without asking for permission to enter the country.


As the OP said, however, as visitors they cannot work, or open a bank account, or use the Canadian NHS, or do other similar things. So it won't work for their long-term plans.


Quote:


Something that popped into my head after Trudeaus "announcement" is that what's to stop the next Prime Minister removing his "promise"? It's hardly going to be enshrined in law, or is it?

Trudeau has just been reelected for a second term, but he is leading a minority government which may not last the full parliament. The main opposition, however, is the Conservative Party of Canada (the Canadian Tories), which is normally a very pro-monarchy party. I don't see them taking away security from Harry and Meghan, but I may be wrong.



In any case, as far as I understand, Canadian police normally protects visiting British royals on royal tours. If they are going to spin H&M's status as "permanent visitors" as a previous poster suggested, permanent protection won't be a stretch. But that is up to the Canadian government to work out.
  #2148  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:49 PM
Purrs's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
They do not need permission "to visit", but visiting is very different from being a permanent resident. Could a "permanent visitor" work for example or run a business ? Maybe Canada is just an interim solution after all as the statement may suggest.
Actually you can't work or run a business as a visitor in Canada legally at all.

There is no such thing as a "permanent visitor". You could stay as a visitor for 5 months, leave and come back for 5 months repeatedly (which may be is what they plan to do)m but you can't make money or run a business here as a visitor. Perhaps this is what they are planning to do for the immediate future.
  #2149  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:52 PM
ashelen's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: maidstone, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,135
Didn't the younger son of the Queen and his wife wanted to quit at one point? I think he was working in his own project and after the Queen convinced him and his wife to be full time royals?
We are not inside their circle so we can not see a lot of things that may be happening behind doors. But from outside I can see a social climber that got what she wanted, the prince, to be a princess, the money and the power. But may be she did not expect the life of a royal to be as it was and convince him to quit and get a more "normal" life that I am sure would be something that Harry would love to have. He has a lot of money from his mother, his great grandmother, and now they can make even more money. Who knows...….time will tell...…..She strike me as someone, she gets what she wants her way or the highway.
__________________
Ashelen
  #2150  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:52 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
I don't think they'd apply for Canadian Citizenship. For one I don't think Meghan can be a citizen of three countries - someone else can correct me if I'm wrong. And Harry was always more interested in moving to somewhere in Africa - this whole "Canada/LA" thing sounds like Meghan's idea. What happens if they get divorced which sort of seems likely? Harry will have a citizenship he doesn't want. Plus they will have to pay taxes in two countries. Their finances will be a matter of public record.
I know someone here in Canada who is a citizen of Canada, the US and New Zealand. I believe you can hold as many citizenships as you want, as long as all of the countries involved allow it.

I can't imagine what the tax/residency issues would look like, though. Especially if one of the citizenships is for the US.
  #2151  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:53 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purrs View Post
Actually you can't work or run a business as a visitor in Canada legally at all.

There is no such thing as a "permanent visitor". You could stay as a visitor for 5 months, leave and come back for 5 months repeatedly (which may be is what they plan to do)m but you can't make money or run a business here as a visitor. Perhaps this is what they are planning to do for the immediate future.

I know. "Permanent visitor" is a term that the previous poster (to whom I was replying) used to indicate how the government might be spinning H&M's staying in the country.


As far as their business is concerned, they may run it from the UK or from the US, or both.
  #2152  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:54 PM
Zaira's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: A, United States
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
Not really - Buzzfeed knows nothing about the royals and only started following them (and barely at that) when Meghan showed up. You could fit what they know about the royals in a thimble. There were countless headlines about "Waity Kaity", her mother the "Trolly Dolly", her drunk Uncle Gary and how much money Kate was spending before Meghan showed up. They ran pictures of her skirt blowing up in the wind and private pictures of her bathing topless on vacation in France. Meghan should have gone to her about the negative coverage if she wanted sympathy. Or to Andrew's daughters - they called them Cinderella's ugly steps sisters and went on for weeks about the hat Beatrice wore to William's wedding. They gave their own tearful interview about how mean the media was to them. And there were equally negative headlines about the "love of Harry's life" Chelsy Davy. See the people saying "poor Meghan" only recently showed up and didn't see the negative coverage of everyone else in the royal family. I'd say Camilla has gotten the worse coverage - like I said earlier they threw bread rolls at her in the grocery store and played private phone conversations of Charles saying he wanted to be Camilla's tampon. They treat Meghan with kid gloves by comparison. No what Buzzfeed and her supporters wanted was NO negative coverage of Meghan. Not even the queen herself gets that.


I'd also say she's going to get worse coverage without the bubble wrap protection of Buckingham Palace. If she was looking for good media coverage she should have skipped marrying a member of the royal family and married a nice Silicon Valley billionaire. Diana got horrible coverage before she died.

Did you even read the article? Not that you have to but it would maybe help...

And there is no point in rehashing the who had it worse. But again, I've been a royal watcher for way too long including during the early Kate years. What I've seen Meghan go through has been shocking even to me and I am pretty hard nosed and jaded about the media.
  #2153  
Old 01-13-2020, 02:55 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purrs View Post
Actually you can't work or run a business as a visitor in Canada legally at all.

There is no such thing as a "permanent visitor". You could stay as a visitor for 5 months, leave and come back for 5 months repeatedly (which may be is what they plan to do)m but you can't make money or run a business here as a visitor. Perhaps this is what they are planning to do for the immediate future.
That is very interesting and I think you are right. Harry and Meghan's announcement specifically said that they wanted to split their time between North America (not necessarily Canada) and the UK. There is no reason to think that they have any intention on becoming Canadian citizens.

However, I am curious whether it is possible that Meghan's work visa is still active or did it expire when she left Suits?
  #2154  
Old 01-13-2020, 03:00 PM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purrs View Post
Actually you can't work or run a business as a visitor in Canada legally at all.

There is no such thing as a "permanent visitor". You could stay as a visitor for 5 months, leave and come back for 5 months repeatedly (which may be is what they plan to do)m but you can't make money or run a business here as a visitor. Perhaps this is what they are planning to do for the immediate future.



Yes, I don't understand the parlimentary system or the Canadian government well enough to get how it works either. Isn't it possible that like Theresa May Trudeau might not last a full term? So his promise might be pretty hollow.


As for status we had Canadians living next door and they had to go back to Canada every six months to keep their health insurance. Aaaand - that's as far as my knowledge of the Canadian system goes.


In any case Trudeau is a great friend so I'm sure as long as he is in power they'll get special treatment. She snubbed Trump and he has a thin skin so he won't do anything for them. Probably why they won't come until he's out of office. But the next person might be the same way.
  #2155  
Old 01-13-2020, 03:00 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaira View Post
Did you even read the article? Not that you have to but it would maybe help...

And there is no point in rehashing the who had it worse. But again, I've been a royal watcher for way too long including during the early Kate years. What I've seen Meghan go through has been shocking even to me and I am pretty hard nosed and jaded about the media.
I believe that Camilla's coverage has been worse over the years, but the circumstances were very different. I like Camilla but her coverage has been focused on her behavior during Charles and Diana's marriage, which is more serious than making appearances without wearing "tights" (we call them nylons or hose in the U.S.).

Regardless, I think it is unfair to compare one person to another. I tend to get upset at things my husband shrugs off - everyone is different and have different trigger points.
  #2156  
Old 01-13-2020, 03:02 PM
Purrs's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post

Trudeau has just been reelected for a second term, but he is leading a minority government which may not last the full parliament. The main opposition, however, is the Conservative Party of Canada (the Canadian Tories), which is normally a very pro-monarchy party. I don't see them taking away security from Harry and Meghan, but I may be wrong.


In any case, as far as I understand, Canadian police normally protects visiting British royals on royal tours. If they are going to spin H&M's status as "permanent visitors" as a previous poster suggested, permanent protection won't be a stretch. But that is up to the Canadian government to work out.
I think you are mistaken. Yes, historically the Conservative party is pro monarchy (they complained in the 1960s about the new Canadian flag not having an Union Jack in it). However, this isn't much of a factor anymore. They are fiscally conservative (they criticize the other parties for spending too much money when in power) Their party favours even tighter regulation of immigration to Canada and it was under their government that business and independent immigration categories were cancelled. I'd be surprised if they supported this move.

I believe IF they thought there was enough anger from Canadian voters and had the popular support from the public, they would not hesitate to bring a nonconfidence motion and bring down the government. Both of the other two parties, the Bloc Quebecois or the NDP would probably back this motion.

So I do think the current government has to tread very carefully in this area.
  #2157  
Old 01-13-2020, 03:03 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Issue is the BRF does not need to slim down. Henry and Meghan are needed for at least another 20+ years if they wanted to maintain the same level of engagements the royal family does now.

Exactly! Harry would have never been considered part of the "slimming down" plan since he is clearly needed and will the the Monarch's only other child. That argument is ridiculous.
  #2158  
Old 01-13-2020, 03:03 PM
Zaira's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: A, United States
Posts: 1,210
Moving words from David Wiseman who has worked closely with Harry on veterans issues at the Royal Foundation and also of course served himself.

https://twitter.com/wiseshow/status/1216774856257212416
  #2159  
Old 01-13-2020, 03:04 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMathilde View Post
I don't see how they were "run out" - the queen bent over backwards for them even letting Meghan come to Sandringham for Christmas back when they were engaged - something she didn't let anyone else do.
As for her being "treated badly" the other royals got treated as bad or worse - Kate was referred to as "waity kaity" and her mother as a social climbing "trolly dolly". Camilla was pelted with bread rolls when she went shopping. Beatrice and Eugene got called "Cinderella's ugly stepsisters" and they did their own interview where they cried about how hard it was to be a member of the royal family. And the media were picking on Andrew and ignoring Meghan and Harry when they did this - Andrew is the only one happy now he's no longer the "worst" member of the royal family. The difference I find is that the people who like Meghan know little about the royal family and haven't been following them for years so they didn't see the others get treated poorly.


I don't hate Meghan I just don't see why she ran out there and married Harry - Chelsy Davy dated him for years before she decided she couldn't stand the criticism (and she was picked on big time). And I don't understand why she seems so determined to bring them down now. Except for Princess Michael I'd say they treated her pretty decently. You can argue the public didn't but they never treat the royals well.



In any case it looks to me like Meghan and Harry rushed into this and I doubt they'll stay married much longer. Then what will Harry do? Does he still want to be an independent royal? Canada and the US sound like Meghan's choices we all know Harry would love to live in Africa. He's said so many times.
Being invite to Christmas before you are married isn't the same as showing support when the media is hounding you constantly especially while you are pregnant and post-partum. Go back at look at how Harry publicly gave support to both Camilla and Catherine during their struggles. Not one did any of that for Meghan. The Palace (pick one) was able to break the don't explain/complain policy for botox, hair extensions. Just today there was a statement put out that didn't make William look so great.

As for Catherine, I wouldn't necessarily say her treatment was the same as Meghan's if they just commented on things like the early morning emails I don't think they wouldn't be where they are now. Catherine wasn't called things such as vulgar for wearing certain nail polish, she wasn't harassed during her entire pregnancy, she and William can take private planes, helicopters with no complaints.

As for running out to marry Harry....they are in love and that was really all that was needed. Perhaps Meghan gave the British media too much credit thinking... she isn't a party girl (like Harry was when he was younger), she takes her responsibilities seriously so they won't have much to complain about or maybe she thought Harry was worth the risk. But the risks became too much when they became parents and the media started comparing her child to a monkey, talking about at 8 months old that he was going to be a spoiled brat that showed her it was never going to stop. That being said the media had already run off two of Harry's loves was he supposed to be the single bachelor forever? Not being able to get married and have a family because the media would become unbearable?
  #2160  
Old 01-13-2020, 03:04 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Issue is the BRF does not need to slim down. Henry and Meghan are needed for at least another 20+ years if they wanted to maintain the same level of engagements the royal family does now.
That's why they are twisting the Rf's arm. They know that their leaving will cause problems....
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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 of Sussex and The Invictus Games: 2014 and 2016-2018, 2020 Dman The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1150 09-06-2020 07:30 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi althorp american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry british british royals chittagong countess of snowdon daisy duke of cambridge dutch dutch royals family life family tree future games gustaf vi adolf haakon vii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill history house of glucksburg imperial household interesting israel jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewelry jumma kids movie king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mailing maxima nepal nepalese royal family norwegian royal family prince charles prince charles of luxembourg princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess ribha pronunciation queen louise queen maud queen maxima royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal wedding snowdon spain speech spencer family taiwan thailand thai royal family tracts unsubscribe videos wedding gown wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:48 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×