The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2421  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:03 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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).
You have expressed much of what I have been thinking.
It definitely struck me immediately about “family” versus “Family” or “my family” versus “the Royal Family.”
__________________

  #2422  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:04 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 642
I remember writing a post some time ago that Harry and Meghan should be more concerned about when the general public were no longer interested in them. that time has arrived. people are sad for the queen and Charles but sympathy for them is fading,
__________________

  #2423  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
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.

Point 3: Their landlord payed for renovations to made the house ready to be rented out. They pay rent or have somebody else pay it. But rent is being payed. The queen would not allow the cottage to be rented out to someone else because of the entrance to Frogmore Gardens. So the newly renovated cottage either stays empty (again) or is lived in, earning rent. What problem is there? The queen could have bought them an entire estate like she did with the Princess Royal. Then it would be theirs not only in possession, but in ownership. What reason would there be to deprive them of their own house???


People should understand that they are not lazy (I think they worked pretty hard considering what had to be organized before and after the wedding and Meghan was on maternity leave). But the way the media works in the Uk is not something Diana's son is willing to let his wife suffer under. If people don't understand that I honestly don't know why the oh so rich Royals care for them at all. They would have a much better life in Canada or elsewhere!
  #2424  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:06 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Royal Sources, I use the term loosely, have confirmed that The Duchess of Sussex did not take part in the meeting yesterday. It was decided between the Sussexes that it was unnecessary for Meghan to join.
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...823811584?s=20
The tweet you referenced didn't state that it was the Sussexes who decided that Meghan did not need to join. Are there other sources that state it was a decision by the Sussexes? It seemed Charles and William also didn't bring their wives; so probably an only blood family meeting?
  #2425  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:08 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.
I would assume that, as far as Canada is concerned , the following are considered members of the Royal Family:

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/royal-family/members-royal-family.html
  #2426  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:09 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,054
The income of the Duchy of Cornwall derives in part from the tenants who live on, work on & care for the land. Hard working folk who are the backbone of England. The idea that their labour would enrich anyone other than those committed fully to this kingdom feels deeply wrong.

The duchy is not some anonymous investment fund. It is a community. I see it as an unwritten covenant. The duchy owes as much to its tenants as they do to it. The people working for it deserve to be respected. That comes in no small measure from ensuring that income produced from their hard work is spent wisely & in a dignified manner.
  #2427  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:10 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
You have expressed much of what I have been thinking.
It definitely struck me immediately about “family” versus “Family” or “my family” versus “the Royal Family.”
HM probably understands that even if Harry intends to somehow be a part-time Royal, that it’s easier said than done - that the practicalities will get in the way. I don’t see him literally splitting time between Canada and the UK - it’s probably more like 70/30 or 80/20 breakdown. Maybe Harry will spend a few weeks in the UK working, but he’s not going to be flying back and forth every couple of months. He’ll pop over for family events, but essentially for the Queen, Harry isn’t a working Royal.
  #2428  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:12 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.

I doubt the queen makes a distinction between her family and the Royal family. And if she does, "her" family would be the Mountbatten-Windsors as compared to the Windsors and the Armstrong-Jones.
  #2429  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:13 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
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.
I completely agree. I don't think this freedom will make him ultimately happy. You can't really be happy when you cause so much heartache and chaos in order to achieve what you think you want in life. I don't see this ending well either unless he can turn it around.
  #2430  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:18 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
I completely agree. I don't think this freedom will make him ultimately happy. You can't really be happy when you cause so much heartache and chaos in order to achieve what you think you want in life. I don't see this ending well either unless he can turn it around.
Did he hate everything about being a royal? It looked to me like he enjoyed meeting the people.....and the Royals do good work. Is he repudiating all that by his actions? Is I’ve so opposed to the work the BRF does because they don’t match his and/or Meghan’s pet causes? Is it just the media he can’t abide?

I find it hard to believe that he’ll be completely happy and fulfilled without his family - unless “his family” to him now consists of Meghan and Archie only.

I just don’t know....
  #2431  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:18 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
The income of the Duchy of Cornwall derives in part from the tenants who live on, work on & care for the land. Hard working folk who are the backbone of England. The idea that their labour would enrich anyone other than those committed fully to this kingdom feels deeply wrong.

The duchy is not some anonymous investment fund. It is a community. I see it as an unwritten convenant. The duchy owes as much to its tenants as they do to it. The people working for it deserve to be respected. That comes in no small measure from ensuring that income produced from their hard work is spent wisely & in a dignified manner.
On top of that, the Duchy has several privileges and powers that resemble a fiefdom more so than a private estate and are often questioned by anti-monarchist organizations. The Duke of Cornwall is free to choose to use his private income from the Duchy to maintain his son’s family in Canada while not doing any official work there on behalf of the UK, but chances are that decision might boost calls for greater parliamentary oversight of the Duchy or changes to the Duchy’s privileges or the way the Duchy’s surplus revenue is allocated. I don’t think it would be wise to open that can of worms because of Harry and Meghan’s desire to live abroad, but I am afraid Charles will do it anyway. .
  #2432  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:18 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
enrich anyone other than those committed fully to this kingdom feels deeply wrong.
THIS, a thousand times this, anyone who has seen the recent Documentary on the work and Tenants of the estate would understand this.

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ll+documentary
  #2433  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:21 PM
Lady Daly's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sherwood, United States
Posts: 441
Spotlight on Royal Finances

Very informative article on the breakdown and history of the British Royal Family's financial institutions by the Wall Street Journal - WSJ. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj...es-11578942453. WSJ requires subscription hope this link through google works for anyone interested.
  #2434  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:22 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Mokane, United States
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
The income of the Duchy of Cornwall derives in part from the tenants who live on, work on & care for the land. Hard working folk who are the backbone of England. The idea that their labour would enrich anyone other than those committed fully to this kingdom feels deeply wrong.

The duchy is not some anonymous investment fund. It is a community. I see it as an unwritten covenant. The duchy owes as much to its tenants as they do to it. The people working for it deserve to be respected. That comes in no small measure from ensuring that income produced from their hard work is spent wisely & in a dignified manner.
That's actually a fabulous point and one that I hadn't thought of in those terms before. And for what it's worth, I think you've hit the nail square on the head.
  #2435  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:22 PM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I doubt the queen makes a distinction between her family and the Royal family. And if she does, "her" family would be the Mountbatten-Windsors as compared to the Windsors and the Armstrong-Jones.
I completely disagree with this. One of the many things that the Queen has been consistent about in the last 70 or so years of her life is the divide between her family (private) and the Royal family, which enjoys extraordinary privilege, and pays for that privilege by their devotion to and willingness to serve the nation. They are clearly and consistently two different entities, although the same individuals may be in both her family and the Royal family. If that is not understood, then it's not possible to grasp what some of these discussions are about and why they are such a huge honking deal to so many Britons.

(Edited to add)Here's an example, which is for illustrative purposes only, and not meant in any way to derail this thread:
Her willingness to force Prince Andrew to step back from his public life was her acting as Queen, head of the Royal family. Her attending church with her son, Andrew, was clearly her acting as a loving mother to a member of her family. Two clearly separate actions, done in two totally different capacities.
  #2436  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:31 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Point 3: Their landlord payed for renovations to made the house ready to be rented out. They pay rent or have somebody else pay it. But rent is being payed. The queen would not allow the cottage to be rented out to someone else because of the entrance to Frogmore Gardens. So the newly renovated cottage either stays empty (again) or is lived in, earning rent. What problem is there? The queen could have bought them an entire estate like she did with the Princess Royal. Then it would be theirs not only in possession, but in ownership. What reason would there be to deprive them of their own house???
Yes what you say is completely rational but we're in a difficult situation here with H&M wanting to to step back from full-time royal work. Given this unusual situation, I think the BRF would be wise to shut down the complaints about the cost of the Frogmore Cottage refurb by having H&M pay for it. If they don't, it will be a running sore: "We the tax payer paid for their house renovation & they don't even live in it" will be repeated ad nauseam. Housing costs here in the UK have exploded & we have 'generation rent' who could never afford to rent somewhere like FC & can't get on the house-owning ladder. Many others (like mine) have their own houses via help from 'the bank of Mum & Dad'. The BRF could easily just make this contentious issue disappear & they should just do it.
  #2437  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:33 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 6
some people down the thread were discussing how British the royal family or its members are.
William's and Harry's great-great-grandmother from maternal line was an American who became - briefly - Lady Roche. She was born in New York, died in New York. Ellen Frances Work (1857 - 1947) had a lineage to Armenian and Indian ancestors.
Prince Philip is fairly Danish (-German) from his father's side. His mother was born, though, at Windsor Castle, and his grandmother, too, but his great-grandmother was born at Buckingham Palace. If you go the lineage further down, his great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria was born at Kensington Palace, and her father at Buckingham House ( yes, the same place, there ARE changes in British history, houses go from palaces to ruins and the other way round.)
In this light, I find Duke of Windsor's comment on the British Royals very snobbish: he said to James Pope-Henessey that there are only two true royals living in the BRF ( 1958 or so), he and his sister Princess Mary Lascelles/Harewood. The blood mixed with a Scottish Bowes Lyon and he didn't count young Duke of Kent or his brother Gloucester as royal blood...?
  #2438  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:34 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I would assume that, as far as Canada is concerned , the following are considered members of the Royal Family:

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-he...al-family.html
Thanks! So, that deviates from all three options and it's a bit hard to decipher what the boundary is. It seems that being a descendent of the queen and a royal highness are requirements but it's not enough as Beatrice and Eugenie are not included - so adults need to be full-time working members as well?

So, in that case it would make sense that if Harry and Meghan are no longer full-time-working members they also seize to be members of the royal family from the Canadian perspective.
  #2439  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:34 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
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....
They get pressure in their own countries. Top British royals are much more global. In developed countries you would be hard pressed to find someone who didn't at least know who Harry and Meghan are, while the same cannot be said for Letizia or Mary. They definitely wouldn't be able to tell you who the 6th in line to the throne is.
  #2440  
Old 01-14-2020, 03:35 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
THIS, a thousand times this, anyone who has seen the recent Documentary on the work and Tenants of the estate would understand this.

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...ll+documentary

Which I didn't see, but given all that, maybe Charles has to explain to his youngest son that he can't see how he can support him through the Duchy - it would be a disservice to those tenants. I'd think William would support this POV as well.
__________________

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
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones baptism biography british brownbitcoinqueen canada carolin chittagong coronavirus countess of snowdon cover-up dna duke of sussex dutch royal family emperor fantasy movie gustaf vi adolf haakon vii heraldry hill history interesting introduction israel jack brooksbank jewelry jumma kent książ castle list of rulers luxembourg mailing maxima nepal nepalese royal family popularity prince charles prince constantijn princess alexia (2005 -) princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess elizabeth pronunciation queen consort queen maud queen maxima royal balls royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding russian court dress spain startling new evidence stuart swedish queen taiwan thailand tips tracts united kingdom von hofmannsthal wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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