The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to Step Back as Senior Royals: January 2020

[wyevale]

Prince's Trust

I'd forgotten about The Prince's Trust [in all the 'hue and cry'].

Unless the [to be Wales', in the next reign] can find the time -[amidst a gazillion other duties] to run it, it will [in the absence of Sussex], surely lose its royal connections -

The Wessexes/Edinburgh's will be busy the the DoE award scheme, York is a 'no-no', Anne has 'enough on her plate', and George is a mere lad ...

Who else is there ?

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by wyevale

I'd forgotten about The Prince's Trust [in all the 'hue and cry'].

Unless the [to be Wales', in the next reign] can find the time -[amidst a gazillion other duties] to run it, it will [in the absence of Sussex], surely lose its royal connections -

The Wessexes/Edinburgh's will by busy the the DoE award scheme, York is a 'no-no', Anne has 'enough on her plate', and George is a mere lad ...

Who else is there ?

Couldn't there be a simple solution such as renaming it "The King's Trust"?

Originally Posted by texankitcat

I think it's easy for us Americans to have point of views either supporting or not supporting Harry and Meghan's decision (Lord knows I do), but one thing we have to keep in mind is we aren't paying for them and they are not "our" Royal Family. Anyone from the UK who has issues with these developments certainly has a right to air them, just as Canadians have the right to air their concerns on paying for security on a long term basis for the Sussex's. Fortunately, we are exempt from that debate in the US and can just air our opinions overall.

Most certainly the information to reach the Metropolitan Police Service is easily available to anyone that would want to lodge a complaint about how they deem the royal protection details are handled. Their taxes pay for *all* of Metropolitan Police Service (as I understand it) and it is up to them to deem who needs and who doesn't need security. Like us in the US, we know where our tax dollars go but we have no say in how the government chooses to spend it for the most part.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by texankitcat

I think it's easy for us Americans to have point of views either supporting or not supporting Harry and Meghan's decision (Lord knows I do), but one thing we have to keep in mind is we aren't paying for them and they are not "our" Royal Family. Anyone from the UK who has issues with these developments certainly has a right to air them, just as Canadians have the right to air their concerns on paying for security on a long term basis for the Sussex's. Fortunately, we are exempt from that debate in the US and can just air our opinions overall.

Yes we have very different ways of looking at things...and no one has said a word about ppl not having a right to air their views. Disagreeing with them is not telling them they can't speak.


LaRae

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Pranter

No one said she was happy I said she was WILLING. We don't know exactly what she has agreed to other than they will be splitting their time between Canada and the U.K.

Whatever they end up doing, it will be an agreement within the family. We may like it or not. That's going to matter little. It's whatever they can work out amongst themselves.


LaRae

This issue had been discussed over and over again and we are running into cyclic arguments.

Nonetheless, it is important to stress that, although the Duchy of Cornwall surplus revenue is private income , it is not the personal income of Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor as an individual , but rather an income that is tied to a tittle ( or office) of Duke of Cornwall ( the eldest son of the monarch who is the heir apparent). Proof of that is that , when Charles becomes King and William becomes the heir ( and, automatically, the new Duke of Cornwall ) , the income goes 100 % to him and his immediate family and no longer to Charles. Likewise , Forbes magazine doesn’t count the revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster in HM The Queen’s net worth because, again, it is not her personal fortune like Balmoral or Sandrigham , even if irevenue therefrom can be used privately, but rather an ex-offficio income to maintain her and her family in their capacity as the British Royal Family.

In other words, there is a fine distinction between Charles funding H&M from his personal fortune ( which he can will,, sell and dispose of as he pleases ) and funding them with his private income as the heir. The latter can be perfectly used to fund the heir’s maintenance costs ( his “ toothpaste” as some posters here like to repeat ad nauseam) and even to maintain the heir’s family like his adult children. But the Queen in her statement made now a subtle, but in my opinion, clear distinction between “ her ( and by extension, Charles’s) family “ and “ Harry and Meghan’s family “ .

I fully accept and understand that it will be politically controversial for Charles to use the Duchy’s money ( I.e. the heir’s private income, not his personal money ). to pay for example for housing cost overseas ( in Canada) of Harry and Meghan’s family when that family is seen as a separate entity from the heir’s family or, more broadly, the British Royal Famiily.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Pranter

If the Queen is willing to let them go down to part time status then it should be nothing to you.



LaRae

Really, what choice does she have?
She can't lock them up in the Tower.
And, it's not like she can control the press, either.
They may find things are even worse than they were before.

If they prefer Canada, fine.
(Hopefully that will reduce the whining about how awful their lot in life was in the UK!)

[Kataryn]

Yes, I find the leftist leaning Guardian a more neutral paper when it comes to reports of the RF, Their writers should hate the Royals for what they are but instead they just look at the circus surrounding them and have their own thoughts. Which they sometimes share with the reader. Like this, an article I really think should be read by all Royal watchers here - even if they are ultra-conservative.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...eghan-tabloids

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

Really, what choice does she have?
She can't lock them up in the Tower.
And, it's not like she can control the press, either.
They may find things are even worse than they were before.

If they prefer Canada, fine.
(Hopefully that will reduce the whining about how awful their lot in life was in the UK!)

She doesn't have to agree to anything...she could say nope you are either FT Royals or you need to give it up. She could agree to various things...we don't know what all she's agreed to yet except that they can live in Canada part of the time.

Things may well end up worse than before. If so they will have to figure it out.



LaRae

[Alison H]

Splitting their time between two countries, or even three countries if they want to spend time in California, is only really going to work until Archie's old enough for school … but that's over 3 1/2 years away yet.

[ACO]

I remember quite a few times it was mentioned Harry maybe taking on The Prince's Trust and people shut it down and said it would be better project for someone like Kate. Well there ya go. Maybe she will.

We have zero idea what is happening except the Sussexes are stepping down from being full time and living part time in Canada.

I disliked how they went about it though I can understand their POV. It is clear the family are reluctant supporters of them making such a shift but they can't force them to stay and be unhappy. My guess is that they view this transition period as that... a time for them to get away and really reset.

A lot can change in a year. This family knows all too well.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

This issue had been discussed over and over again and we are running into cyclic arguments.


(...)

. Likewise , Forbes magazine doesn’t count the revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster in HM The Queen’s net worth because, again, it is not her personal fortune like Balmoral or Sandrigham , even if irevenue therefrom can be used privately, but rather an ex-offficio income to maintain her and her family in their capacity as the British Royal Family..

Harry was born into this family and as long as Charles considers him to be his son, he can give him money from whatever source. Like it or not, but Harry and Meghan are members of the British Royal family and they can step down form working for the firm but they will always be son and daughter-in-law of Charles and thus: British Royals.

In other words, there is a fine distinction between Charles funding H&M from his personal fortune ( which he can will,, sell and dispose of as he pleases ) and funding them with his private income as the heir.

Source please??? I would love to read a judicial article about this distinction to further my knowledge about the details of the Royal system of the Uk.

But the Queen in her statement made now a subtle, but in my opinion, clear distinction between “ her ( and by extension, Charles’s) family “ and “ Harry and Meghan’s family “ .

Yes, she did. But only to talk about her understanding for the (young and new) family of Harry, Meghan and little Archie. To quote HM's statement: "we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family."
How is "remain a valued part of my family" translatable to "a clear distinction between her and "Harry and Meghan's" family. This small family unit is a valued part of "her" (aka The British Royal) family, that's what the queen explicitely said.

Now think about how you read it! Don't you think you faked a "truth" here by alleging HM does not consider them part of "her" family???

Not much better than a DM-writer, IMHO!

I fully accept and understand that it will be politically controversial for Charles to use the Duchy’s money ( I.e. the heir’s private income, not his personal money ). to pay for example for housing cost overseas ( in Canada) of Harry and Meghan’s family when that family is seen as a separate entity from the heir’s family or, more broadly, the British Royal Famiily.

Where are they seen as a seperate entity? The queen explicitely stated that they are members of "her" family. The "Queen's family" is the British Royal family.


Please stop coming up with such blatent untruths to push oil into a fire. You have a right to your opinion, but stick with the facts as they were published by the Court.

[Jacknch]

Please note that several posts have been edited or deleted to remove snarky, argumentative, empty or otherwise unhelpful post. Responses to such posts have also been removed.

As a reminder, when quoting a previous post in response, please either use the whole post you are quoting or an adequately substantial part of it. Quoting just a few arbitrary words from a more substantive post loses or diminishes the context and meaning in the actual response.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

BTW, on a different note, the Daily Mail is reporting that Meghan was barred from phoning in from Canada during the Sandrigham meeting yesterday.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...een-story.html

The thought of the tabloids covering the meeting makes me laugh. Does the DM article mention the tabloids were probably part of the discussion? LOL!

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Pranter

She doesn't have to agree to anything...she could say nope you are either FT Royals or you need to give it up. She could agree to various things...we don't know what all she's agreed to yet except that they can live in Canada part of the time.

Things may well end up worse than before. If so they will have to figure it out.



LaRae

She is not going to say that. She is H's grandmother and she's probably very woiried that if he and Meghan are pressured they will crack up. She can hardly want that or the end of her grandson's marriage. So what choice does she have but to agree to let them live away and try to negotiate a compromise...

[yvr girl]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The UK is unique in terms of the tabloid culture and the level of scrutiny the British Royal Family is subjected to. I accept that posed additional difficulties for Meghan or any other royal bride.

Having said that, moving to another country and adjusting to another culture are not per se insurmountable obstacles. Several royal wives did it , for example Maxima Zorreguieta, Mary Donaldson, Alexandra Manley, etc. And , in the those cases, one could argue it was even harder because they had to learn a new language and go through a much steeper cultural adjustment than moving from Canada to the UK ( many North Americans live in the UK and London in particular is a place where they feel greatly at ease). And, like Meghan, none of the aforementioned royal brides came from a royal background or had a deep understanding of royal life. What they did have was a firm commitment to their new role, at least in Maxima’s or Mary’s case ( different situations though, I know, because they married Crown princes , so there was no way out ).

BTW, on a different note, the Daily Mail is reporting that Meghan was barred from phoning in from Canada during the Sandrigham meeting yesterday.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...een-story.html

I don't think it is fair to compare the level of fame or scrutiny that comes with marrying a British Prince compared to any other country.

[Helen.CH]

I missed that part of the website Sussex royal concerning Funding totally,
has it changed over the last few days or always been that detailed?
If not, it seems as if they have been quite aware of the trouble to come along.

[Zaira]

Originally Posted by ACO

I remember quite a few times it was mentioned Harry maybe taking on The Prince's Trust and people shut it down and said it would be better project for someone like Kate. Well there ya go. Maybe she will.

Honestly all this venom toward the Sussexes is getting over the top and a bit hypocritical. And now people getting defensive people and even more nastier. Is all this needed?

We have zero idea what is happening except the Sussexes are stepping down from being full time and living part time in Canada. The way some have spoke of them the last 3 years you would think parades would be happening. Instead some acting like they personally kicked their puppy.

I disliked how they went about it though I can understand their POV. It is clear the family are reluctant supporters of them making such a shift but they can't force them to stay and be unhappy. My guess is that they view this transition period as that... a time for them to get away and really reset.

A lot can change in a year. This family knows all too well.

Agreed all around.

Harry and Meghan may still do a great deal of work for HM and the BRF. They may not. Harry may do more royal duties while Meghan pursues more private ventures. They both may totally peace out. They may do 6 months in Canada and 6 months in the UK. Who knows.

Nothing is set in stone. The family will work out something and that something may change in a few years depending on how things shake out good or bad with the arrangement as well. The Queen's statement gave a LOT of space for different outcomes.

The fact is that it will be very hard for Charles and William to do this on their own even with drafting in some members not working already or keeping others on for longer. I truly wouldnt be shocked if we see Harry at least do more duties than folks are saying which is also in line with what the Sussexes themselves laid out as a possible path forward. Supporting the monarchy was a central part of their vision and I think its what the family wants to see happen or at least try to see happen if possible (and maybe it isn't! but I guess we shall see).

[Denville]

Originally Posted by yvr girl

I don't think it is fair to compare the level of fame or scrutiny that comes with marrying a British Prince compared to any other country.

Why? I don't follow foreign royals much but those who do so, have said that nearly all women who have married into other royal families have had A LOT of pressure from the press and negative criticism..such as Letizia Ortiz, or Mary Donaldson. and it has often extended to their relatives as well....

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by texankitcat

But how does one become financially independent and earn a professional income in their position? Meghan cannot return to acting as a Royal Duchess and Harry did not pursue a higher education or training beyond his military service. That leaves selling themselves and their “brand” either by funding their lifestyle through their “charitable” endeavors, charging for appearances and celebrity “Hollywood” events/projects, endorsements for famous commercial brands or through merchandising of their Sussex Royal brand. I guaranty they have a plan in place and are chomping at the bit to go full throttle, which is why they were anxious to get out of the BRF obligations and do the absolute minimum required.

As to whether that will be a reality is the question since the BRF should be very concerned and need to put restrictions and legal safeguards in place since neither Harry or Meghan seem to care beyond their own needs and wants at this point. By doing so, it may push the Sussex’s to jump ship entirely since I don’t see Meghan ever returning to become a full time Royal or step foot back in England for any extended length of time. I think she is truly done and only wants the financial gains from the association going forward.

One becomes financially independent by adopting the names Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor for use in all professional matters and solely trading on that. Yes, they'll always make connections based on their association with the BRF but the perception is what's most important. Consider this...Meghan decides she wants to front an Oprah-style afternoon talk show. Yes, it'll get publicity because it just is what it is. But, there's a vast difference between the HRH The Duchess of Sussex Show and the Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor Show. Harry decides he wants to sit on the board of a company and draw a salary. There's a big difference between memos signed HRH The Duke of Sussex and Harry Mountbatten-Windsor. Yes, they're still the same people. Yes, memories are long and people won't forget their connections. That just is what it is. But trading on and using their titles for personal gain is a problem and even if the perception exists that they're working under the Mountbatten-Windsor name versus the HRH The Duke and Duchess of Sussex name it would be a far better perception.

[Betsypaige]

I have done a 180 degree turn on Meghan - I just truly can’t stand her anymore (and Harry either if he feels like this).

Charles has been on her side from the start; by all accounts he’s very fond of her - and so is Camilla. They aren’t mind readers; H and M are putting up good faces and appear to be fine, how would the Wales’, how would anyone, know to constantly ask them if they’re ok? They’re also - especially Charles - extremely busy; I doubt he has time to read all the articles about Meghan. Good grief, if these two were struggling, then they should have gone to Charles for “solace” and “comfort” instead if expecting him to guess that is wrong.

I feel that H and M are selfish and self-centered; they think the world revolves around them, that everyone else ought to consider their needs 24/7. They are needy and TIRING people to be around from what I can tell...

In the same documentary, Meghan told interviewer and longtime pal of Harry Tom Bradby that “not many people have asked” if she was doing “okay” — and insiders say the comment was a thinly veiled reference to her in-laws.

The negative press they endured and Meghan’s outsider status as a biracial American left her “deeply, deeply hurt,” says a source close to the royal household — and feeling unsupported by the royal family.
“Meghan and Harry didn’t feel they got enough comfort or solace from them,” says the source.

https://people.com/royals/meghan-mar...m_term=7572368

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by Pranter

What's it going to take to make you ppl happy? Do you want them to live in a trailer house? Give all their money to orphans and disappear into the wilderness?

I can certainly only speak for myself but in answer to that "what's it going to take to make you people happy?" It's going to take the two multi-millionaires completely 100% funding their own lifestyle and living in the manner that they are able to afford to financially support themselves in without contributions from either public money or private money to which they seem to believe they're entitled. Yes, people can give their own money to whoever they see fit for whatever reason they see fit. However, accepting such funds really doesn't in any way fit the definition of "financially independent" that they're so happy to spout. Being "financially independent" does, by it's very definition, mean that you are completely funding and supporting your own lifestyle by yourself.

Again, I can only speak for myself but I suspect that that is exactly what it will take to make most people happy about this situation. It's very much a case of wanting them to do exactly as they themselves outlined and truly be financially independent rather than believing that for some reason they should be allowed to live off someone else's money while they do...what, exactly? It's not as though they don't already have plenty of money and they're certainly capable of earning substantial amounts of "professional income" and with that I would include plenty of perks from their high powered friends. If they truly desire complete freedom then they need to decide posthaste that they will no longer accept money from anyone but those who are paying them for their services/participation/work.