The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2401  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:12 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: N/A, United States
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
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...

Because they don’t want to be bullied by the media any more they are self-centered and selfish? Everyone that has actually worked with them says quite the opposite.

Meghan before the world knew her name was out there giving moral support to young girls, finding ways to feed those in need, working to help girls around the world get fresh water and opportunities to go to school and spent some holidays support troops overseas. After she became a royal (and even before) she was helping victims of the Grenfell fires, helping women get back in the job market and supporting Harry in his projects. Harry has been working with children suffering from AIDS since his late teens early twenties. He is the leading force in a project that has helped soldiers from all over the world recover from PTSD and injuries. None of that says selfishness or self-centeredness.

Also why does everyone assume Meghan is behind the decision to leave? First of all Harry is not stupid and is perfectly capable of using his mind and making decisions. Also Harry has on a couple of occasions indicated that he wanted to leave and this was pre-Meghan. He only stayed because of his grandmother. What changed besides getting married? He became a father and he saw the way his wife (and to an extent his child) were being treated. He made it very clear that he wasn’t going to play games with the media when it came to his family.
__________________

  #2402  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:15 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
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
Yes as a fellow UK taxpayer, I could live with that.

I'd also be willing to cover their security for charitable fundraising done outside of the UK as we've done that for Charles when he's been fundraising in the US. Also, security for any overseas work done on behalf of the FCO or BRF.
__________________

  #2403  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:18 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
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.
I think this is very fair...I think we all want everything to work out for this family, not just as the BRF as an "Institution" but as a real family, which I sometimes think people forget that they are.

I do really appreciate the way that the Queen and Charles handled this. I think the pundits are correct when they speak of HM's comments being gentle and grandmotherly, of the senior royals wanting only for Harry and Meghan to be happy, and overall that lessons were learned from the Diana situation. I think the way they've handled this so far has the best chance of healing the wounds and enabling a future where Harry (at the least, even if not Meghan) becomes more of a working Royal. There were not threats, no shouting, no recriminations, no throwing weight around......
  #2404  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:44 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,542
Lately there has been a lot of back and forth bickering among members and it is becoming quite tiresome. This is a forum, so there are going to be opinions you agree with, and opinions you don’t. Just remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and as long as it does not break any of the TRF rules and guidelines, it may be posted here.

No matter how you feel about the opinions of your fellow members, please be civil and respectful of one another.

Also as has been stated before, let's please stop the comparisons between royals. Any further comparisons will be deleted.
__________________
  #2405  
Old 01-14-2020, 01:52 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Coastal California, United States
Posts: 1,230
I don’t understand the issue with Charles supporting his second son’s family going forward. My understanding of the Duchy of Cornwall assets and income is based in part on what happened with the POW before Charles - Prince Edward, later (briefly) King Edward VIII. As far as I know, based on the biographies I’ve read, David used the Duchy income to fund his personal life & when he abdicated he took the personal fortune he amassed from the Duchy’s income with him. Charles has been rather unique in that rather than using the Duchy’s income just for his and his sons’ expenses, he uses a lot of the income for his charitable projects & his work related expenses - but if/when William becomes the Duke of Cornwall he could decide to use all of the income to support himself and his children and he may do so to start building up nest eggs for Charlotte and Louis, who, like Harry, and unlike George, will not inherit an estate to support them in the future. Thus, based on this, I think Charles is free to give Harry as much or as little as Charles’ wants.
As an aside, David actually purchased property in Canada while he was the POW & he kept that property when he abdicated. http://royal-splendor.blogspot.com/2...f-windsor.html Charles purchased property in Romania - not sure if it’s Duchy property or his personal property, tho’.
  #2406  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:01 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
If the Sussexes step back from their royal duties...

81% think they should get no more public money
66% think govt shouldn't fund their security
56% think they shouldn't get Frogmore Cottage
46% think they should be stripped of their titles

https://t.co/Y4Ztop6V5k?amp=1
  #2407  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:03 PM
Bassoonist's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Barnesville, United States
Posts: 20
I know I am repeating what everyone else has said, but I see the difference in my personal life. I live with my sister. I'm disabled. She supports me with her own income from wages earned as a college professor. She does not expect the college to support me directly. I do not work there. My name is not associated with them. I don't live my life in accordance to what the college desires. If she wants to support me and my cats, that is her choice. But the business that I don't work for has no responsibility to do so. I would not dream of asking them to.

So Charles can pay for his son and son's family as he wishes to. But the royal family business should not and will not do so. If Harry was injured in a work related accident or military event, leaving him unable to work, they would owe him something. Not now. Not at all.
  #2408  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:06 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
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
I like this - a sensible, fair starting point, IMHO...
  #2409  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:12 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Mokane, United States
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
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
This would certainly be a very good starting point for negotiations. I particularly like #6 because that allows for Charles to help them out but has a definite end point and doesn't remain so unknown and, for lack of a better term, wishy washy. I'm not sure that I agree with #1. I'm of the opinion that they should lose both their styles and their titles not only to allow them the commercial freedom they appear to badly want but as an acknowledgement that they "led everyone on" about their intentions over the last couple years. And as an acknowledgement that they behaved abominably and in a very undignified and unroyal way in the way they dropped this bombshell as well as in the disrespect they showed the Queen, the RF, the institution as a whole, and the people of the UK. However, I do believe that this is a very, very good starting point for the negotiations.
  #2410  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:16 PM
hel hel is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Kitchener, Canada
Posts: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
If the Sussexes step back from their royal duties...

81% think they should get no more public money
66% think govt shouldn't fund their security
56% think they shouldn't get Frogmore Cottage
46% think they should be stripped of their titles

https://t.co/Y4Ztop6V5k?amp=1
Buried in one of the reports I read in the past day or so was the suggestion that apparently the backlash against the couple took the Queen aback so much that it pushed her to be less harsh with them.
  #2411  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:19 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,157
Out of interest, what sort of time commitment would people consider acceptable for a 'part-time' working member of the BRF?

Looking at the official duties of full-time working BRF members in 2019 in terms of days (as supplied by Iluvbertie) they range from 83 days to 160 days (not including the older cousins). I'm not including names so we can avoid comparisons of royals so just looking at those figures (which include days spent on overseas visits) what could a part-time working role look like?

I'm thinking for a 2nd tier royal like Harry (ie not the monarch, the heir or the heir's heir) approximately 40 days per year would suffice to still be considered a working member albeit part-time. I'm using days rather than number of engagements because for someone living partly overseas, they'll fit several engagements into 1 day, which in total could equate to 50% of the engagements done by some full-time members.

Again, I’d like to emphasise that this isn’t about comparing specific royals with each other so as per mods direction, please don’t go there. This is just my thinking about the sort of time commitment people would expect for someone to be considered a working BRF member.
  #2412  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:21 PM
Bassoonist's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Barnesville, United States
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaira View Post
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).
Having given this some thought, it won't be practical for them to do the 6 on and 6 off thing. If they have jobs or responsibilities, they won't be able to up and go to England for 6 months. Something will always be in the way. A previous commitment, Archie gets a cold, there is always something. Also, I don't think Meghan will ever go there again, at least not for a while. I don't think she will get a very warm welcome. She has made it clear how she feels about the United Kingdom.
As always I could be wrong.
  #2413  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:26 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: The Secret Garden, United Kingdom
Posts: 29
I wonder, have they truly thought this through? Seems there are so many unanswered questions. And long term, I can’t see this lasting?
  #2414  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:26 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
If the Sussexes step back from their royal duties...

81% think they should get no more public money
66% think govt shouldn't fund their security
56% think they shouldn't get Frogmore Cottage
46% think they should be stripped of their titles

https://t.co/Y4Ztop6V5k?amp=1
Point one - they don't want public money so that should be resolved
Point two - a very sticky issue
Point three - they should pay for the building's refurbishment & conversion to one home & subsequently pay rent on it.
Point four - seems like 54% don't think they lose their titles & it's unlikely anyway unless they wish it.
  #2415  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 705
That's a very good question - especially as all the statistics about royal engagements don't take into account other work done by the royals, such as the time the Queen spends going through red boxes and holding meetings with the Prime Minister, or the work Prince Charles does on admin for the Prince's Trust or Duchy Originals. Also, some engagements get a lot more coverage than others - sitting down to a banquet with foreign dignitaries or going to the rugby union World Cup final will make the front page, whereas going to visit a community centre in a small town won't, so it's very hard to judge how much commitment someone is putting in. 40 days doesn't sound unreasonable for a part-time royal ... although a part-time worker in any other "job" would usually do at least 2 days a week.




As far as the surname goes, I think people will still refer to "Prince Harry" even if his official name is Mr Harry Mountbatten-Windsor, or even if he changes it to Mr Harry Bloggs. There's not much that can be done about that!
  #2416  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
I'm of the opinion that they should lose both their styles and their titles
I agree, and for the same reasons - if they really find their privilege so onerous, off they should toddle, and try life as the rest of us 'cope' with it.

Otherwise I agree that Lilyflo's plan would be a good basis for negotiation..
  #2417  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:36 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Heather_ View Post
This would certainly be a very good starting point for negotiations. I particularly like #6 because that allows for Charles to help them out but has a definite end point and doesn't remain so unknown and, for lack of a better term, wishy washy. I'm not sure that I agree with #1. I'm of the opinion that they should lose both their styles and their titles not only to allow them the commercial freedom they appear to badly want but as an acknowledgement that they "led everyone on" about their intentions over the last couple years. And as an acknowledgement that they behaved abominably and in a very undignified and unroyal way in the way they dropped this bombshell as well as in the disrespect they showed the Queen, the RF, the institution as a whole, and the people of the UK. However, I do believe that this is a very, very good starting point for the negotiations.

I like #6 as well because it allows M and H to get settled in Canada and to get their ventures off the ground without worrying about finances. I like the idea of their being an endpoint - this isn't punitive, but rather a consequence of their decision. This is what it means to be financially independent.

I think the list is very well thought out. I'm not sure how I feel about the use of their titles. I DO think H and M's retreat to Canada and being part-time royals needs to have a consequence; whether that means losing their titles, I don't know as this is unprecedented.
  #2418  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:39 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
Who would be considered members of the RF? Those on the list on royal.gov.uk (so princess Margaret's grandchildren could stay in Canada but Lord Frederick could not) or only Royal Highnesses (in that case Peter could not decide to kind of move to Canada where his in-laws live while princess Eugenie could; but viscount Severn cannot)? Or only full-time working members of the royal family?

If the first, Harry & Meghan have nothing to worry about regarding staying in Canada.
If the second, that might be a reason for H&M to keep the styles of Royal Highnesses.
If the third, they don't meet that criteria anymore but would probably extended the courtesy as part of the transition period the queen announced.
  #2419  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:45 PM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 13,785
Whatever the solution may be, there will always be extreme scrutiny, headlines, divided opinions, emotional turmoil.. the press will have fodder for the next two decades. This is not going to end well, especially for Harry, he will be torn between worlds. He is who he is and where he was born into, stepping back will not change this in the long run. I see him even more unstable and confused in years to come. Meghan will be fine, she got what she wanted, but at what expense. The rift within the family and especially between the brothers will hardly ever heal.
  #2420  
Old 01-14-2020, 02:52 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Its never been in the plan that they'd be leaving the fold. Just not as many engagements and duties and tours that are expected of full time senior working royals. No matter what happens from here on out, they'll still be part and parcel of the family and all inclusive with being part time inclusive in the "Firm" side of things.

At least that's how I interpret it.
I didn't read anything in the queen's statement that hinted at them remaining part-time royals (or part-time working members of the royal family as she might call it). The fact that she referred to them remaining valued members of her family - and not 'of the royal family' was surely on purpose.

So, while Harry and Meghan might have expressed a wish to both live their own lives and earn money and on the side do royal tours etc, that seems highly unlikely to me (no other non-full-time working member does those). Some charity events seem more likely; just like Beatrice and Eugenie have their personal charities - this of course depends on whether the charities want to keep them; but given their personal relationships with them and their high visibility which will remain as they further build their brand it seems likely that at least most of them will.

Thinking of it, I don't think there are truly 'part-time royals' in the queen's world - other than the period of easing into royal duties for William and Harry until a few years ago. Prince and princess Michael of Kent are probably closest to that job title but in practice they are not seen as working members of the royal family; nonetheless, they might occasionally attend an event such as a garden party (again: like Beatrice and Eugenie).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
(Again : we have no idea yet how Meghan and Harry meant by their words from their IG-statement. The queen does. And while she was happy to have him support her, she supports his choices and said he will always be a part of her family. So I honestly doubt Harry's choices will turn out to be too crass).
We have a pretty good idea what they meant as they built a website to explain exactly what they meant. The main thing they didn't explain was HOW they were thinking to earn the desired 'professional income'. Hopefully they did share this information with the queen.

But to say we have no idea what they meant by their words from the IG-statement means ignoring their carefully designed website. The problem is: we know quite well. Better than we might know for almost any other royal couple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Perhaps that's the fly in the ointment with the Sussexes. They're building a new foundation and perhaps, although it went haywire and chaos ensued, their business plan for the foundation is something entirely different than what has been done before and may actually end up being the wave of the future. A private non profit organization that is self sufficient and self funding. In my mind, when you're creating a foundation to champion a cause or a incentive or a need, you don't want to be picky and choosy where the green dollars come from that actually power the work of the foundation. Is this what is meant by "financially independent" and "professional income"? I think it may be and hence they realize the need to forego the Sovereign Grant funding.
If I am not mistaken the Sussexes themselves stated that they looked into various options to decide on the best form for their foundation; and, apparently, that 'form' doesn't fit with royal life.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american history ancestry armstrong-jones baptism british british royals chittagong countess of snowdon cover-up daisy dutch dutch royals family life family tree games gustaf vi adolf haakon vii heraldry hill history house of glucksburg interesting introduction israel jack brooksbank jewelry jumma kids movie king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mailing maxima nepal nepalese royal family norwegian royal family popularity prince charles prince constantijn princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth pronunciation queen consort queen maud queen maxima royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding russian court dress spain speech startling new evidence stuart swedish queen taiwan thailand tracts unsubscribe videos von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:20 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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