The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2481  
Old 01-14-2020, 05:51 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
Yes I am sure. I prefer not to think too much about it. Time reveals truth and whatever the real story. It will gradually become more obvious.
Indeed it will !
__________________

  #2482  
Old 01-14-2020, 05:52 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,220
I really do think they both would have benefited from a longer time dating or a longer engagement. We heard that Harry spent a lot of time visiting Meghan in Canada due to her work commitments, I think she spent very little in the UK and very little time getting to know the RF and how it works. That isn't a criticism, just an observation. To be honest it really does also seem as if Harry has take a very defensive approach to Meghan and rather than introduce her to the ways of the RF and indeed the ways of the UK he has just let her be exactly as she is and when she has not done things the way Royals are expected he's just shouted down how unwelcoming everyone is. Its a two way street - compromise by the public and compromises by Meghan and Harry to meet in the middle. Instead we've just had their way or out.

Meghan seems a strong personality and that can be a very good thing, but the RF don't like change, they aren't use to being told they need "modernising" so Harry possibly should have eased her in a little bit more.

For me they should keep their titles but with a watertight agreement they are only used for "official duties" in the UK when visiting their patronages etc or if they are asked to represent the Queen overseas. Otherwise it should me Harry and Meghan Sussex or Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or tbh Meghan could probably still use Meghan Markle.

I think they should use Harry's trust fund and Meghan's money to buy a home overseas and of course Charles will still give his son a personal allowance. To me it will simply move from being categorised as "support to the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge and Duke & Duchess of Sussex" as it is now to come out of Charles's personal expenditure (yes its all from the same pot but the distinction is there) As they will be doing less "officially" I think they should expect to get less but let's face it, it will still be more than any of us "earn" in a year.

Security is the issue but I agree they should definitely get it while representing the Queen but work their own thing out when overseas.

The big fuss has all come about mainly because of the way this was done and their website with their view on what was going to happen/ Their comment about "financial independence" was poorly thought out coming from a couple who were always going to rely on family handouts.

TBH I feel HM and Charles will likely pay them as now (possibly even more) just to ensure they don't turn to commercialisation. At the end of the day the Queen and Charles have plenty of money that isn't theirs as such but which they are free to use - they probably think better to pay them than let them go down the commercial route and cause headaches for the monarchy.
__________________

  #2483  
Old 01-14-2020, 05:53 PM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess View Post
Yes, I just thought it was an interesting take on the situation and that some posters here might want to read.
It is interesting, because Princess Anne does indeed seem to have the work/life balance thing down. I just got distracted by the generating income part of the article because I thought it showed the writer hadn't done enough homework. The larger point, I believe, is a good one, so thanks for posting it.
  #2484  
Old 01-14-2020, 05:55 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I really do think they both would have benefited from a longer time dating or a longer engagement. We heard that Harry spent a lot of time visiting Meghan in Canada due to her work commitments, I think she spent very little in the UK and very little time getting to know the RF and how it works. That isn't a criticism, just an observation. To be honest it really does also seem as if Harry has take a very defensive approach to Meghan and rather than introduce her to the ways of the RF and indeed the ways of the UK he has just let her be exactly as she is and when she has not done things the way Royals are expected he's just shouted down how unwelcoming everyone is. Its a two way street - compromise by the public and compromises by Meghan and Harry to meet in the middle. Instead we've just had their way or out.

Meghan seems a strong personality and that can be a very good thing, but the RF don't like change, they aren't use to being told they need "modernising" so Harry possibly should have eased her in a little bit more.

For me they should keep their titles but with a watertight agreement they are only used for "official duties" in the UK when visiting their patronages etc or if they are asked to represent the Queen overseas. Otherwise it should me Harry and Meghan Sussex or Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or tbh Meghan could probably still use Meghan Markle.

I think they should use Harry's trust fund and Meghan's money to buy a home overseas and of course Charles will still give his son a personal allowance. To me it will simply move from being categorised as "support to the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge and Duke & Duchess of Sussex" as it is now to come out of Charles's personal expenditure (yes its all from the same pot but the distinction is there) As they will be doing less "officially" I think they should expect to get less but let's face it, it will still be more than any of us "earn" in a year.

Security is the issue but I agree they should definitely get it while representing the Queen but work their own thing out when overseas.
I think one of the central issues is that Meghan likes to use her voice and have her opinions heard. The role of the royal family is to ensure the other people voices are heard while they remain mute.
  #2485  
Old 01-14-2020, 05:55 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: L'angolo, Vatican City
Posts: 247
It doesnt look good to seek financial independence on the basis of adopting tax avoidance tactics. This will be an advantage that marks the individual out as 'rich' and 'high earner'. It seems uneasy for the British monarchy to associate itself with using your money and status to avoid contributing to the public purse. It doesnt indicate solidarity and public spiritedness that the hereditary principle should be promoting. To be blunt, this looks unethical for a Prince of the Blood, a son of Great Britain to use tax specialists to maximise income. However, now that he will no longer be a full time working royal, he can be relieved of this responsibility to be above commercialism and economics.
  #2486  
Old 01-14-2020, 05:56 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 13,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ista View Post
It is interesting, because Princess Anne does indeed seem to have the work/life balance thing down. I just got distracted by the generating income part of the article because I thought it showed the writer hadn't done enough homework. The larger point, I believe, is a good one, so thanks for posting it.
No problem
I agree that Gatcombe and Frogmore aren't really comparable but it was a perspective I otherwise hadn't thought of - it certainly would have been interesting if the internet had been around when Anne made the decision for her children to be private people, and to see what people had to say about it! (That was before my time, so I don't remember the general conscious from the public.)
__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
  #2487  
Old 01-14-2020, 05:57 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Heather_ View Post
Except that the link I posted was to an entirely different company. The company that incorporated in Delaware was her company from California called Frim Fram, Inc. The link I posted was to their company, Sussex Royal, and was from Companies House and, to my untrained eye, appears to she them stepping down as directors and appointing a new director. However, maybe the language used is standard and no big deal. I'm just not educated enough on business law in the UK to know.
Why would they step down as Directors?
  #2488  
Old 01-14-2020, 06:02 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: jersey shore, United States
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2008 View Post
It doesnt look good to seek financial independence on the basis of adopting tax avoidance tactics. This will be an advantage that marks the individual out as 'rich' and 'high earner'. It seems uneasy for the British monarchy to associate itself with using your money and status to avoid contributing to the public purse. It doesnt indicate solidarity and public spiritedness that the hereditary principle should be promoting. To be blunt, this looks unethical for a Prince of the Blood, a son of Great Britain to use tax specialists to maximise income. However, now that he will no longer be a full time working royal, he can be relieved of this responsibility to be above commercialism and economics.
You’re right. It seems as if they went to Canada to jumpstart their Sussex brand, who knows if it’s to line their own pockets, and still keep a hand in the royal piggy bank if they can, and now a tax shelter. Makes ya wonder!
  #2489  
Old 01-14-2020, 06:07 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess View Post
No problem
I agree that Gatcombe and Frogmore aren't really comparable but it was a perspective I otherwise hadn't thought of - it certainly would have been interesting if the internet had been around when Anne made the decision for her children to be private people, and to see what people had to say about it! (That was before my time, so I don't remember the general conscious from the public.)
As far as Anne’s children being private individuals, it was normal for a princess’s children. No different than Princess Margaret, the Queen's sister or Princess Mary, the Queen’s aunt.
  #2490  
Old 01-14-2020, 06:15 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 707
In terms of Harry enjoying the work, I think he is really into the Invictus Games, the work he's done for HIV/AIDS charities, the Sentebale charity in Africa, etc. I can't imagine he's going to step back from some of those charities - and it would be very sad if he did, because he's done a great job.


I don't know how he feels about some of the less glamorous engagements, or about meeting dignitaries with whom he may not be in sympathy, but, with any job, you have to do the bad bits as well as the good bits.
  #2491  
Old 01-14-2020, 06:19 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden/California, United States
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2008 View Post
It doesnt look good to seek financial independence on the basis of adopting tax avoidance tactics. This will be an advantage that marks the individual out as 'rich' and 'high earner'. It seems uneasy for the British monarchy to associate itself with using your money and status to avoid contributing to the public purse. It doesnt indicate solidarity and public spiritedness that the hereditary principle should be promoting. To be blunt, this looks unethical for a Prince of the Blood, a son of Great Britain to use tax specialists to maximise income. However, now that he will no longer be a full time working royal, he can be relieved of this responsibility to be above commercialism and economics.
Again this not a nefarious tax avoidance tactic but a very standard business practice in the US. The vast majority of companies are incorporated in Delaware unless there is a very compelling reason to incorporate elsewhere.
  #2492  
Old 01-14-2020, 06:22 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: L'angolo, Vatican City
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by katiebird View Post
Again this not a nefarious tax avoidance tactic but a very standard business practice in the US. The vast majority of companies are incorporated in Delaware unless there is a very compelling reason to incorporate elsewhere.
Standard business practice in the US does not equate to acceptable financial management by the BRF. It's a crucial cultural distinction. The Crown is not one of a vast majority of companies.
  #2493  
Old 01-14-2020, 06:24 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Pasadena, United States
Posts: 10
I am really astounded reading comments in various place how cheap people are about covering the Sussex security bill.
Harry will be the son of a king, whatever his future role is, and in an era of international terrorism he and his family should have lifetime security.
It's as if people assume that having them free range with a few body guards is adequate. It most certainly is not.
Since the British people have chosen to have a monarchy and raise them to a position of international prominence they damn well need to ensure their security. If they do not want to pay for their monarchy then dont have one.
And Meghan would not have needed security on this level had she not married into the family so she should not be penalized.
  #2494  
Old 01-14-2020, 06:30 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvr girl View Post
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.
Place in line to the throne doesn't matter as much as how close someone is related to the monarch.

For example, there are surely far more people who know who the princess royal (maybe some would call her princess Anne) is than who viscount Severn is; even though he is 2 places higher up in the line of succession.

The same in other countries: very few people (even in the Netherlands) wouldn't know who countess Leonore is but would surely know princess Margriet who is lower in line to the throne but was an active working member of the royal family for years and daughter and sister of a queen; while Leonore is only a granddaughter of a queen and now niece of a king.

In the case of the UK: what matters is that Harry is the heir's son. A few years ago Beatrice was 6th in line to the throne and before that Eugenie had that position for many years; and at the point neither of them wasn't as well-known as Harry is now.

Nonetheless, of course the BRF has a worldwide fame that other royal families don't and as a consequence of it, its members as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
Personally speaking, I don't think there should be so much emphasis with regard to the terms "full-time" or "part-time" royals. I feel the same way about distinguishing between who is a "senior royal" and who is not.
Apparently the queen thinks it is relevant to mention that Harry and Meghan will not remain 'full-time working' member of the royal family. Although, as I discussed above, I don't think she recognizes the 'part-time' capacity. You either work for the royal family or you have a different 'more independent life' (and might occasionally show up for royal events).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I don’t know about the Queen herself, but I think that those issues are legally unclear in the UK.

There are countries like the Netherlands where official membership of the Royal Famiily is defined by law. In Spain, membership of the Royal Family is defined by royal decree and the Court differentiates between the official Royal Family and the “ Family of the King”, which is the King’s extended family. In Sweden, they have the “ royal house”, which is equivalent to the official royal family, and the “ king’s family” , which would be again the extended family.

In the UK, we know with certainty who is an HRH and who is not, but , other than that, it is not clear who belongs to the official royal family and who belongs only to the extended family, although we might guess based again on HRH status and access to public funding.
True but in this case in her statement the queen clearly distinguished between two categories. Within one sentence she both used 'the royal family' and 'my family'. Those two clearly were not meant to be one and the same thing. The first refers to the 'institute' (or firm), the second to the (personal) family - like all of us are part of a family.

Quote:
“Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”
  #2495  
Old 01-14-2020, 06:55 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beryl View Post
I am really astounded reading comments in various place how cheap people are about covering the Sussex security bill.
Harry will be the son of a king, whatever his future role is, and in an era of international terrorism he and his family should have lifetime security.
It's as if people assume that having them free range with a few body guards is adequate. It most certainly is not.
Since the British people have chosen to have a monarchy and raise them to a position of international prominence they damn well need to ensure their security. If they do not want to pay for their monarchy then dont have one.
And Meghan would not have needed security on this level had she not married into the family so she should not be penalized.
Your argument loses its strength when you consider the only one of the current monarch’s children to receive full time protection is Charles, the next King.
  #2496  
Old 01-14-2020, 07:22 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beryl View Post
I am really astounded reading comments in various place how cheap people are about covering the Sussex security bill.
Harry will be the son of a king, whatever his future role is, and in an era of international terrorism he and his family should have lifetime security.
It's as if people assume that having them free range with a few body guards is adequate. It most certainly is not.
Since the British people have chosen to have a monarchy and raise them to a position of international prominence they damn well need to ensure their security. If they do not want to pay for their monarchy then dont have one.
And Meghan would not have needed security on this level had she not married into the family so she should not be penalized.
You are aware that currently the families of the sons of the queen do not have full round the clock security? Even Edward's wife, so the queen's daughter-in-law, only has security when on royal duty.

Of course, their risks need to be assessed and if because of their status as royals security within the UK is warranted they should have it. If at one point it is deemed no longer needed (or to a lesser extend), there is no reason to continue providing the same type of security (I would assume they rather have less of it if that could safely be achieved). So, stating that they need lifetime (round the clock?) security also seems far fetched. And I don't think it is unreasonable that some limitations will be placed on the security provided if they are the ones who choose a different way of life. If they would have remained full-time working members of the royal family, it would be different.

So yes, they need to be kept safe; which will be partly the responsibility of the UK government as members of the royal family (or family of the queen) but if they decide on a high-profile life after quitting as working members of the royal family, they will have to pay their share. If they would choose a low-profile life, it would be highly unlikely that in the long run high-level security would be needed (for the short term it would of course be necessary - and should be taken care of as it is now).
  #2497  
Old 01-14-2020, 07:23 PM
SOS SOS is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beryl View Post
I am really astounded reading comments in various place how cheap people are about covering the Sussex security bill.
Harry will be the son of a king, whatever his future role is, and in an era of international terrorism he and his family should have lifetime security.
It's as if people assume that having them free range with a few body guards is adequate. It most certainly is not.
Since the British people have chosen to have a monarchy and raise them to a position of international prominence they damn well need to ensure their security. If they do not want to pay for their monarchy then dont have one.
And Meghan would not have needed security on this level had she not married into the family so she should not be penalized.
People are angry, but protection is very expensive. They should offer them some minimal level of protection. If the Sussexes want more, they need to pay.
  #2498  
Old 01-14-2020, 07:36 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beryl View Post
I am really astounded reading comments in various place how cheap people are about covering the Sussex security bill.
Harry will be the son of a king, whatever his future role is, and in an era of international terrorism he and his family should have lifetime security.
It's as if people assume that having them free range with a few body guards is adequate. It most certainly is not.
Since the British people have chosen to have a monarchy and raise them to a position of international prominence they damn well need to ensure their security. If they do not want to pay for their monarchy then dont have one.
And Meghan would not have needed security on this level had she not married into the family so she should not be penalized.
Security for the Royal Family is a significant cost to the British taxpayers which doesn’t seem to be an issue as long as they are full time working Royals. But for Royals who want to be part time and live in another Country as Harry and Meghan do, I think they have a right to voice their complaints. Americans don’t pay for the Royal Family, so who we to demand they pay the bill?
  #2499  
Old 01-14-2020, 07:44 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
Security for the Royal Family is a significant cost to the British taxpayers which doesn’t seem to be an issue as long as they are full time working Royals. But for Royals who want to be part time and live in another Country as Harry and Meghan do, I think they have a right to voice their complaints. Americans don’t pay for the Royal Family, so who we to demand they pay the bill?
I agree completely. Harry and Meghan can't expect to ditch the "worst" parts of being Royal while keeping the benefits. If they want to be essentially like ordinary people, then maybe they should experience life without security, like 99.9999.99 % of the world does. If Canada and Canadians want to foot the bill, ok, but otherwise.........
  #2500  
Old 01-14-2020, 07:46 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 644
I know there are different rules in different countries. USA pays for security of the First Family even after the President has left office. And for Vice President and family too after office. And also for senior government officials, during and after office.
__________________

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 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 11:13 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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