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

[wyevale]

They are needy and TIRING people to be around from what I can tell...

AKA 'Emotional Vampires' in my neck of the Woods..

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

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.

I believe that Mbruno was a tad bit off the mark by stating:
"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."

For a source to clarify this misconception, I'm posting a link from The Prince of Wales website which lists and explains Charles' finances. It tells exactly where his money comes from, what it is used for and believe it or not, tabulates his greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, the monies he receives from the Duchy of Cornwall *is* his personal fortune as long as he is the Duke of Cornwall.

https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/ann...ture-and-staff

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I believe that Mbruno was a tad bit off the mark by stating:
"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."

For a source to clarify this misconception, I'm posting a link from The Prince of Wales website which lists and explains Charles' finances. It tells exactly where his money comes from, what it is used for and believe it or not, tabulates his greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, the monies he receives from the Duchy of Cornwall *is* his personal fortune as long as he is the Duke of Cornwall.

https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/ann...ture-and-staff

I completely understand what you're saying here and I also understand the confusion that comes with this subject. In fact, I've had to read and reread it all to try to get it squared away in my own head. I still believe, though, that the distinction is that the income from the Duchy is for the Duke of Cornwall to use at his own disposal whereas the money inherited by him from the Queen Mother is for Charles to use at his disposal. The money from the Duchy will, at some point, be for the use of William as Duke of Cornwall, then for George as Duke of Cornwall, etc. whereas the inherited money will always and forever just be for plain old Charles. It's very, very difficult to word it appropriately and get the meaning across simply because we're all so very, very used to Charles and the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cornwall all being the exact same person. But eventually, those three descriptors won't be the same person and that's where the distinction lies. Yes, the money coming from the Duchy is able to be used by Charles right now while those three descriptors are all for the same person but there's a distinction to be made between Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall and Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, just Plain Old Charles.

I truly hope that all makes sense because I really fought hard to find the words to even begin to adequately state it all.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by wyevale

AKA 'Emotional Vampires' in my neck of the Woods..

I wish my neck of the woods had expressions like that, lol.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand why they might be unhappy; I just don’t sympathize with the “whoa is me, nobody understands me” double martyr act they’re pulling.....

[texankitcat]

Originally Posted by _Heather_

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.

That makes perfect sense, although I think they would lose commercial appeal by using the Mountbatten-Windsor name since almost no one in the US knows that name. It would be odd to go that route.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by _Heather_

I completely understand what you're saying here and I also understand the confusion that comes with this subject. In fact, I've had to read and reread it all to try to get it squared away in my own head. I still believe, though, that the distinction is that the income from the Duchy is for the Duke of Cornwall to use at his own disposal whereas the money inherited by him from the Queen Mother is for Charles to use at his disposal. The money from the Duchy will, at some point, be for the use of William as Duke of Cornwall, then for George as Duke of Cornwall, etc. whereas the inherited money will always and forever just be for plain old Charles. It's very, very difficult to word it appropriately and get the meaning across simply because we're all so very, very used to Charles and the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cornwall all being the exact same person. But eventually, those three descriptors won't be the same person and that's where the distinction lies. Yes, the money coming from the Duchy is able to be used by Charles right now while those three descriptors are all for the same person but there's a distinction to be made between Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall and Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, just Plain Old Charles.

I truly hope that all makes sense because I really fought hard to find the words to even begin to adequately state it all.

It does get more convoluted as its realized that, with Charles paying income tax on his personal expenditures, what he pays out for himself and Camilla and the Cambridges and Sussexes are split into two categories. Official and Personal. He doesn't have to pay income tax on the official part. The personal part he does like every other British taxpayer. He does this voluntarily. Paying for Meghan's working wardrobe would be considered "official" whereas buying Meghan a beautiful diamond bracelet as a wedding gift would be "personal".

One thing that can be said for Charles and hopefully its rubbed off on his sons is that Charles is an astute businessman. He's done more to grow and preserve the Duchy of Cornwall for future dukes than perhaps any other Duke of Cornwall.

As I've stated before, Charles could very well lay down the ultimatum that he will totally finance every cent of their lifestyle if that lifestyle was to live on the Inner Solomon Islands raising penguins. Anything outside of that, they're on their own. His money, his decision.

[Betsypaige]

“There is a firm determination within the palace to understand Meghan and Harry’s position and help them get to a place where they feel comfortable and happy,” a close palace source tells PEOPLE in this week’s cover story.
Despite a focus within the palace on the direct line of succession — highlighted most recently in a holiday portrait of the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William and 6-year-old Prince George — those close to Charles deny reports that he sought to slim-down the monarchy by squeezing out his younger son and daughter-in-law.

“Charles has always envisioned working with both of his sons and their families in the future,” says a close source. The leaner monarchy that has been proposed by Charles for cost-cutting purposes “included Harry and whoever he married,” adds a palace insider.

Observers say the royal family will seek to make things right. “For public and also for deeply private reasons, the Queen, and Prince Charles and Prince William will want to heal the rift,” says royal historian Robert Lacey, author of the books Monarch and Majesty, tells PEOPLE in this week’s cover story. “There is anger at the moment. But if Harry and Meghan are prepared to enter into the spirit of this new arrangement” —making sure not to appear to cash in on their titles and reputations—“I think the Queen, Charles and William will [support them]. Each of them, for different reasons, will want to heal what has gone wrong.”

https://people.com/royals/prince-cha...-close-source/

I wish I could believe that Harry and Meghan want to “enter into the spirit of this new arrangement” and heal the wounds, but I’m skeptical, especially about Meghan. It seems to me that HM, Charles and William really want to help them; the question is will they allow themselves to be helped ?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I believe that Mbruno was a tad bit off the mark by stating:
"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."

For a source to clarify this misconception, I'm posting a link from The Prince of Wales website which lists and explains Charles' finances. It tells exactly where his money comes from, what it is used for and believe it or not, tabulates his greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, the monies he receives from the Duchy of Cornwall *is* his personal fortune as long as he is the Duke of Cornwall.

https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/ann...ture-and-staff

We had that discussion before and apparently you cannot understand the intentional fine semantic distinction that I made between the private income of the heir and Charles’ personal income as an individual separate from his office or title. Ditto for how the Duchy of Cornwall differs from Charles’ private fortune in several respects including his inability to sell assets for personal benefit or the nature of the Duchy as a Crown body. So I won’t go back to the issue.

It suffices to say that , if the BBC , the British papers , cabinet ministers and alike are all saying it is politically controversial to use the Duchy’s income to fund the Sussexes’ self-imposed exile in Canada, they are not doing so because they are so ignorant that they cannot understand that “ this is Charles’s money “ ( which , again, it is not; it is the Duke of Cornwall’s). .

EDIt: Btw, Charles doesn’t have to pay income tax on any of his income from the Duchy because, as a Crown body, the Duchy is tax exempt. The fact that he pays taxes VOLUNTARILY on “ personal expenses” ( separated from “ official expenditure” ) simply underscores how the use of the Duchy money to which he is entitled in his capacity as heir and the Duke is politically controversial and would become even more so if he used it to fund a family in Canada that is no longer part of the “ official” Royal Family.

[Alison H]

I don’t think Prince Charles ever intended to push Harry and Meghan out of the picture.

I think he may have been too hasty generally in wanting a “slimmed-down monarchy”, though. The Duke of Kent and the Gloucesters do plenty of work, and Princess Alexandra still holds some patronages, but they’re all in their 70s or 80s now and presumably won’t carry on working for ever. Even without Harry and Meghan jumping ship, he was leaving himself short of people. OK, charities and sports organisations don't *need* royal patrons in order to operate, but it's a big part of what the Royal Family do, and has been for a long time.

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

https://people.com/royals/prince-cha...-close-source/

I wish I could believe that Harry and Meghan want to “enter into the spirit of this new arrangement” and heal the wounds, but I’m skeptical, especially about Meghan. It seems to me that HM, Charles and William really want to help them; the question is will they allow themselves to be helped ?

I tend to agree with you, though I do have to consistently remind myself skepticism isn't healthy and perhaps I need to wait and see what comes of it. Though, as a long time royal watcher and as someone who, like all of you, tends to be more "up" on things regarding the monarchy and the RF, I share the belief that it might be possible for Harry to "enter into the spirit of this new arrangement" but I truly believe that Meghan's already checked out entirely. It's true that I don't know that for sure and this is only my perception but I do very much think she's decided she's done and out and that's that. Whether Harry will be able to walk that line between his life with her and his life as part of the RF, I don't know. I suspect it will be incredibly difficult now and increasingly difficult as time goes on.

[Ista]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

It suffices to say that , if the BBC , the British papers , cabinet ministers and alike are all saying it is politically controversial to use the Duchy’s income to fund the Sussexes’ self-imposed exile in Canada, they are not doing so because they are so ignorant that they cannot understand that “ this is Charles’s money “ ( which , again, it is not; it is the Duke of Cornwall’s). .

Like many other things pertaining to the Sussexes, now and in the past, it is worth noting what entities like the BBC, British papers, etc. say and think about different issues, in this case, the use of the Duchy of Cornwall monies. Consistently I am seeing British sources say that this is a concern and possible sticking point, and that it would not be received well, so I'm going to take them at their word. Not that those things couldn't be worked out, as I'm sure they will be, but the palace's stance from the time the Sussexes dropped their bombshell was that these were very complicated issues, so again, I'm taking them at their word.

I am wondering very much what the term "transition" covers, although again, I'm sure we'll find out. My best guess is that Harry at least may be doing some royal work for a while to justify their receiving some of these grey area monies, with the long term objective being them shifting into a completely private lifestyle. But, who knows? I also wonder how William feels, aside from his love for and desire to support his brother, about essentially having to continue to fund a couple who won't be pulling anywhere near their weight. It wouldn't be surprising if there were some complicated feelings to sort through on that end.

[muriel]

How about this for a potential solution:

1) They keep their titles.

2) They get to use their titles when they carry out revenue generating work that goes directly to their charitable causes or Foundation.

3) They do not get to use the Sussex name for any commercial activities they engage in for personal gain. In that case, they have to be Mr & Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor.

4) UK government to provide security when in the UK, though not when they are carrying out commercial activities.

5) Not quite sure how costs of security outside the UK is dealt with

6) Charles to provide some level of funding for the next 2 years

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

I wish my neck of the woods had expressions like that, lol.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand why they might be unhappy; I just don’t sympathize with the “whoa is me, nobody understands me” double martyr act they’re pulling.....

The saying is "woe is me."

It is interesting how your stance regarding the situation with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex contradicts your opinion vis-à-vis the Duke of York:

This. It really bothers me that so many want Andrew not just punished through losing his position in the BRF, but also his family...that he now can never show his face with them again. I’m sorry, but that’s too much for me. The public got what they wanted - and it’s completely fair as Andrew had to go. However, he’s still a son, brother and husband, and he should be able to be those things regardless of his losing his “ day job” as it were.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by _Heather_

I tend to agree with you, though I do have to consistently remind myself skepticism isn't healthy and perhaps I need to wait and see what comes of it. Though, as a long time royal watcher and as someone who, like all of you, tends to be more "up" on things regarding the monarchy and the RF, I share the belief that it might be possible for Harry to "enter into the spirit of this new arrangement" but I truly believe that Meghan's already checked out entirely. It's true that I don't know that for sure and this is only my perception but I do very much think she's decided she's done and out and that's that. Whether Harry will be able to walk that line between his life with her and his life as part of the RF, I don't know. I suspect it will be incredibly difficult now and increasingly difficult as time goes on.

I'm not necessarily a skeptical person by nature, but I don't have a good feeling about Meghan anymore; I don't think she gave this life a chance and I think she's unfair to her in-laws and whomever else in the BRF that she doesn't think supported her. I think she's dug in her heels and seemingly given up on Harry's family. I HOPE I'm wrong, but based on what I've read about her and what I'm seeing, I don't have a good feeling about her.

The problem is, Harry reminds me of my brother, who is such a nice guy, but who married strong women who ran roughshod over him. That said, whatever Meghan's issues are with his family, whatever sensitivities he has with his family, I know he loves them deeply. I believe that as far as he's able, he will commit to this new arrangement. I'm more concerned with his personal relationships. Meghan thinking her in-laws don't care about her is one thing (horrible though it is); Harry thinking that is a different kettle of fish.

Originally Posted by Benjamin

The saying is "woe is me."

It is interesting how your stance regarding the situation with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex contradicts your opinion vis-à-vis the Duke of York:

Oh good lord, I loathe typos and I made a doozy of one....thank you!

I don't get your point; they are two completely different things. With Andrew, I didn't believe he should be "kicked out of the family" to the extent that he should never be seen with them again. What does this have to do with Harry and Meghan? I have no problem with them not wanting to live the Royal life, but you bet I have a problem with them picking and choosing which parts of it they accept, and I detest how they handled this whole thing. Like I said, completely different things.....

[kathia_sophia]

I've been away and I tried to understand what's going on.


I like Harry and Meghan, if they want a different way of life, then be it. It is their lives, they should live the way they feel comfortable and happy.


HOWEVER, if they wanted such life, they should've made it clear since the very beginning. I think this chaos happened because everything is confusing, and they keep going back and forth with every decision they make. To me it's simple...If they decided to be senior royals when they married, then be it. If they decided to be more free from the Crown and not be senior royals when they married, then be it.


But, NO! I think everything was poorly done. The same happened with Archie. Why announce his birth in a public way, and present him to the press, and give him a british royal christening, when he is supposed to be a private citizen? If they wanted him to be "normal" with no title, then follow the rules! If they wanted to have all that pomp, then give him a title!


I like Harry and Meghan, but things have been done without much responsibilty. They need to be more clear of what they want and be organized. Yet, they were immature. It was not the press nor the social media that created this mess, this was their doing for making things turn into a turmoil of confusion.


I hope they learn from this, and if they want that half-private half-royal life, then have it. But, for christ sake, don't change everything once again. They need to stick to their words and choices.

[ashelen]

We will probably never know the true of everything.
For one way I believe Harry is very much marked by the tragedy of his mother and I can understand him not to have anything with the media and try to live a life less public.
But one thing strike me is the fact of all the media comments through the time he is with Meghan repeating the bad relation between him , his brother and Kate. It might be some true in all that. Also cames to me the bad relation she had with her father's family, I can't stop to wonder if her half sister is right about Meghan??????? She does not have any relation with her family is she trying to do the same with Harry's family?

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by muriel

How about this for a potential solution:

1) They keep their titles.

They will

2) They get to use their titles when they carry out revenue generating work that goes directly to their charitable causes or Foundation.

3) They do not get to use the Sussex name for any commercial activities they engage in for personal gain. In that case, they have to be Mr & Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor.

That will be the major sticking point. They have very little to offer besides being TRH The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor is never going to be as lucrative as HRH The Duchess of Sussex and they know it

4) UK government to provide security when in the UK, though not when they are carrying out commercial activities.

Another sticking point. The BRF hate to use personal funds for anything and will try their best to get the government to pay. Although this might be a moot point since I doubt we will ever see them back on British soil once the commercial interests take off

5) Not quite sure how costs of security outside the UK is dealt with
Trudeau tried to fanboy by suggesting Canada would pick up the tab and had to backtrack within half a day.

6) Charles to provide some level of funding for the next 2 years
Charles will provide funding for as long as they want it. He is as blinkered about this and the Queen is about Andrew

If you read Boris Johnson's BBC comments on this on BBC Breakfast, the UK government feels this is a personal matter for the Windsors to sort out. Reading between the lines, it simply means don't ask the government to pay for them.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by 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...

I mean who says they didn't come to them? We all are just guessing based on what we think and currently how we perceive these people. We don't actually have a clue what went on. Just like all the reports keep changing with new information because people assume and usually incorrectly.

I won't assume one way or another because I have witnessed people coming down on someone for what what they think happened only for the opposite to be revealed. It wasn't as extreme of this clearly but the point remains the same. So I am mindful of this pile on because of what you think occurred.

This family is complicated. No one knows except them what really went down. And I would bet no one in that family would like the details revealed because it might shine lights on everyone involved in ways that doesn't look too great. No one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes.

Personally I don't think anyone is a villain in this saga and I think everyone has been hurt in some own way. Now the family is trying to move on and work things out because despite this things has to keep on. And whatever did or didn't happen, here is hoping is it a lesson going forward to all of them.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

We had that discussion before and apparently you cannot understand the intentional fine semantic distinction that I made between the private income of the heir and Charles’ personal income as an individual separate from his office or title. Ditto for how the Duchy of Cornwall differs from Charles’ private fortune in several respects including his inability to sell assets for personal benefit or the nature of the Duchy as a Crown body. So I won’t go back to the issue.

It suffices to say that , if the BBC , the British papers , cabinet ministers and alike are all saying it is politically controversial to use the Duchy’s income to fund the Sussexes’ self-imposed exile in Canada, they are not doing so because they are so ignorant that they cannot understand that “ this is Charles’s money “ ( which , again, it is not; it is the Duke of Cornwall’s). .

EDIt: Btw, Charles doesn’t have to pay income tax on any of his income from the Duchy because, as a Crown body, the Duchy is tax exempt. The fact that he pays taxes VOLUNTARILY on “ personal expenses” ( separated from “ official expenditure” ) simply underscores how the use of the Duchy money to which he is entitled in his capacity as heir and the Duke is politically controversial and would become even more so if he used it to fund a family in Canada that is no longer part of the “ official” Royal Family.

As we see now there has always been a difference with what is written in law and what is done in the Uk Charles does not have to pay taxes on his duchy income but he does. Like anyone else he is a taxpayer (unlike some companies etc.) He actually has private income apart from the duchy because he inherited trust fonds from his grandmother and grandfather.

But he does not have to tell the public what he spends his income from the duchy on or answer to anyone about what he does with that money.



That, as is his position as a Royal, is controversial. A lot of things are!But there is a difference between controversial or forbidden things! "What Charles wants, Charles does", as we all know form the War of the Waleses and Charles has always been very careful to respect the laws of the land, while doing what pleases him with other things. So this is no point for your argumentation!


And where does it says that the small family unit of the Sussex-branch of the Royal House is not longer a part of the Royal family???


Plus: Still waiting for my source of that distinction between the sources of income of HRH The Prince of Wales. Or do I have to look that up myself???


Okay, I found that the Duchy of Cornwall is a atypical "interest in possession" trust. This means that as long as Charles is the Duke of Cornwall he has a right to the income of the Duchy plus the right to "possess" the assets of the duchy. The duchy is not forbidden to buy property in foreign countries. So Charles could let his advisors decide to buy a house in Canada and he lets his son live there with wife and child while he "possesses" it in the sense of the trust. No problem with the way the Duchy is created and how it is to use.

[Gawin]

This is from the Duchy of Cornwall website:

Where does the Duchy’s surplus go?

Since 1337, the revenues from the Duchy have either passed to an eldest surviving son and heir or where there has not been one, the Sovereign. These revenues can be spent as the Heir or Sovereign see fit. However the current Prince of Wales chooses to use a substantial proportion of his income from the Duchy estate to meet the cost of his public and charitable work as well as the public and private lives of his family, The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, and their children.

https://duchyofcornwall.org/frequent...questions.html