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

[Sterling3763]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

What is unfair about wanting them to either lose their titles or not have security or not be funded by Charles? Those are not extreme - they are consequences for their actions...

Funding from Charles is a more nuanced issue, which I think depends very much on whether Harry and Meagan continue working part-time on behalf of the Queen, or whether they stop altogether. There's also the thorny issue of how Charles uses his private funds.

But the push for Harry and Meghan to lose their titles and styles has always stuck me as odd. Harry remains the son of the Prince of Wales. What is the basis for removing his style? Prince Andrew is, at best, a part-time working royal now and there has been no similar push for him to simply become the Duke of York. Beatrice and Eugenie (at least currently) aren't working royals, yet they remain Princesses.

As for the peerage, it is my understanding that it would require an act of Parliament to remove it. Is that what you're proposing? Are there any other peers who you believe should lose their titles?

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

Frogmore was used for staff quarters. Staff that had to be relocated when it was decided that it would be Harry and Meghan's home. Most of the cost incurred was to convert 5 separate staff apartments into 1 big home. Do you think that they would have spent over two million pounds to renovate staff lodgings?

To clarify. Frogmore Cottage's is owned by the Crown Estates which holds extensive properties "in right of the Crown". That is, managed and all business dealings go through that department just as the Royal Collection Trust holds historical artifacts, furniture, paintings ect. "in right of the Crown". The Crown Estates also own Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle among many other holdings.

The Sovereign Grant is allocated yearly to the Queen from the Crown Estate profits. While the majority of The Crown Estate's profits go directly to the government, around 15% make up the Sovereign Grant. The Queen pays for any renovations and maintenance work such as at Apartment 1A, Frogmore Cottage and Buckingham Palace.

So, in actuality, the Queen, through the Sovereign Grant funded the necessary structural work needed and renovations with the Sussexes privately funding what would appeal to their aesthetics for the interior.

Considering that the amount of the Sovereign Grant in 2019 was £82.2 million , it was affordable for the Queen to do to keep Frogmore Cottage up to date so the property is viable into the future. Now if that amount of £82.2 is 15% of the Crown Estates profits, one can imagine how much the government received for its share.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

What is unfair about wanting them to either lose their titles or not have security or not be funded by Charles? Those are not extreme - they are consequences for their actions...

I think it's extreme to ask for a removal of their titles. Thus far, no prince ever lost his title. Not a king who abdicated and took his whole Duke of Cornwall/Lancaster-money with him, no prince who was killed as a traitor by his close relative the king, no one! And now Harry should loose his title because he wants to live half of the year not in the Uk? Just think of it as doing nothing half of the year for queen and country and you end up in the position of the son or daughter of a second child of a monarch...



That only can happen to Harry once the queen or later Charles declares his will that all children but his and the next monarch's first are no longer HRH. Like it happened in Norway. But that was, before Sverre was born.



It is as it is and it will be as it will be according to the wishes of the queen and the PoW. And both have no interest in shaking the rank of their own family. And what if Harry looses the HRH? He will be His Grace, the Duke of Sussex and everyone will use that title if they had used the HRH before. And no parliament will strip a Royal Duke of his peerage if the queen will want him to keep it! Because this would degrate the value of such Royal titles, make them into something worth nothing.



From what I gather with Prince Andrew, I guess that the political question of how much the government is willing to pay for security for Royals has been decided and they will be stricter now than they were with Royals who don't work. Now it's Andrew but they will come for Harry and Meghan and that's okay IMHO, for as soon as the police has convincing information that something is actually planned against them, they'll get their security back.



Not being funded by Charles is unfair as long as they don't have regular jobs and if they work for their foundation, they should be payed for out of the foundation's money, as is usus for people who are not doing it volountarily but need to earn their money by working. A relative of mine is working for the Red Cross professionally and guess what: he gets payed for it. So either Charles pays for them so they can do charitable things for free or they work for their foundation and get money from there or they need to work on the free market doing whatever is offered and they can do (and if that is not okay with the RF, they have to support them). They don't seem to need too much luxury (Frogmore Cottage is much smaller than the housing of the other Royals) and in Canada they could have another countryhouse payable by their own money.


So I think your "consequences" would mainly mean to change the Royal system of the UK because of Harry and endanger it with that, so I doubt that the queen or Charles will do that. Police will recommend what is necessary and the government will decide what is payable and find a solution and if something happens, they'll find somebody responsible. If not, all was well decided. And for Charles to support them: someone has to! Either Charles or the foundation or an employer (if the queen and Charles allows that, because now that would be quite bad potentially!)


What bothers me is that Meghan, who is US-American (even though she is the granddaughter-in-law of the Canadian Head of State) just goes to a Canadian charity with political aims and supports them. I think that's a bad way to treat the Canadian's hospitality when in her home country other charities await her to support indigenous women... I mean, I find the treatment we can read about of these native Canadian women wrong in a lot of aspects and there should be help but as an UScitizen with the aim to becom British, she should not become politically active there.
When I think what they could do with charity that they wouldnt be allowed by the Royals, I only come up with things that they shouldn't do as foreigners in Canada or Royals in Britain. They could use their foundation eg as working Royals eg to help British (or USAmerican) women with offers of support, education etc, just like they already did, so where the beef?


Or they could go "on holiday" for some month to the Caribbean or Canada and get therapy/psychological help to cope with life in the Uk. Then work there in fields okay with Charles and take the next pause when needed, but stay away from the papers.


What Meghan has just started to do in Canada is going to create even more and negative waves, IMHO and I'm afraid of the results.

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by Sterling3763

Funding from Charles is a more nuanced issue, which I think depends very much on whether Harry and Meagan continue working part-time on behalf of the Queen, or whether they stop altogether. There's also the thorny issue of how Charles uses his private funds.

But the push for Harry and Meghan to lose their titles and styles has always stuck me as odd. Harry remains the son of the Prince of Wales. What is the basis for removing his style? Prince Andrew is, at best, a part-time working royal now and there has been no similar push for him to simply become the Duke of York. Beatrice and Eugenie (at least currently) aren't working royals, yet they remain Princesses.

As for the peerage, it is my understanding that it would require an act of Parliament to remove it. Is that what you're proposing? Are there any other peers who you believe should lose their titles?

This is only for peerages granted at the behest of the government (the various honours lists). Royal peerages are granted by Letters Patent and can be taken away as such. However, if the Queen would take away their HRH's first, the peerage would no longer be a royal peerage and would require an act of Parliament to remove it

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Osipi

To clarify. Frogmore Cottage's is owned by the Crown Estates which holds extensive properties "in right of the Crown". That is, managed and all business dealings go through that department just as the Royal Collection Trust holds historical artifacts, furniture, paintings ect. "in right of the Crown". The Crown Estates also own Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle among many other holdings.

The Sovereign Grant that is allocated yearly to the Queen from the Crown Estate profits. While the majority of The Crown Estate's profits go directly to the government, around 15% make up the Sovereign Grant. The Queen pays for any renovations and maintenance work such as at Apartment 1A, Frogmore Cottage and Buckingham Palace.

So, in actuality, the Queen, through the Sovereign Grant funded the necessary structural work needed and renovations with the Sussexes privately funding what would appeal to their aesthetics for the interior.

Considering that the amount of the Sovereign Grant in 2019 was £82.2 million , it was affordable for the Queen to do to keep Frogmore Cottage up to date so the property is viable into the future. Now if that amount of £82.2 is 15% of the Crown Estates profits, one can imagine how much the government received for its share.

That and Frogmore Cottage was no longer used as staff quarters but stood empty. Otherwise the outcry of the media would have been even worse, interviewing former tenants etc. So they chose an empty building that had to be renovated anyway before it could be rented out (if it could be rented out at all with its position in the gardens of Frogmore estate other than for staff members) and payed for their decoration like carpets, furniture, lamps, candles, crockery etc. from Charles' and their own money.

And it's not the government who receives the 85% share of the revenue of the Crown Estate, it becomes part of the state's finances and is used to finance the state, to pay for civil servants or social projects etc. So it's money given by the queen to the taxpayer because the whole Crown Estate was created to allow the reigning and ruling monarch to pay for his court, palaces and civil servants, so the monarch need not use the money from his private purse. When government was more and more done by politicians, the king George III. exchanged the revenues of the Crown Estate for the infamous Civil list for the usage by court and Royal family. And when that system became highly critizised as "spending taxpayer's money on the queen", the reversed the system but allowed the queen only to have 15% of the Crown Estate's revenue. Which is fair, as HM still has to pay for her relatives, her court including servants and her palaces.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

Frogmore was used for staff quarters. Staff that had to be relocated when it was decided that it would be Harry and Meghan's home. Most of the cost incurred was to convert 5 separate staff apartments into 1 big home. Do you think that they would have spent over two million pounds to renovate staff lodgings?

If i could just type a three letter answer I would, but I can't. So, yes I do.

It wasn't being used as staff quarters at the time, and if Henry and Meghan hadn't chosen it as their home, it would have had to have been renovated so that it could have been rented out.

[Helen.CH]

Who hosts this Twitter account, named The Royal family? Is it offical or just a fansite ?
They posted today 1 about K&W being in Bradford and 11 (!) of Harry&Rugby.
They seem to urgently trying to give H. work a goid reputation or just being fans if him, maybe both if not official.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Sterling3763

Funding from Charles is a more nuanced issue, which I think depends very much on whether Harry and Meagan continue working part-time on behalf of the Queen, or whether they stop altogether. There's also the thorny issue of how Charles uses his private funds.

But the push for Harry and Meghan to lose their titles and styles has always stuck me as odd. Harry remains the son of the Prince of Wales. What is the basis for removing his style? Prince Andrew is, at best, a part-time working royal now and there has been no similar push for him to simply become the Duke of York. Beatrice and Eugenie (at least currently) aren't working royals, yet they remain Princesses.

As for the peerage, it is my understanding that it would require an act of Parliament to remove it. Is that what you're proposing? Are there any other peers who you believe should lose their titles?

I never proposed anything. I was defending some of these suggestions as not being punitive and harsh - based on the reasoning I've read on this board. I don't know what a style is....

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

This is only for peerages granted at the behest of the government (the various honours lists). Royal peerages are granted by Letters Patent and can be taken away as such. However, if the Queen would take away their HRH's first, the peerage would no longer be a royal peerage and would require an act of Parliament to remove it

I'm not sure there is a difference between a Royal dukedom and any other dukedom. But maybe that has changed when they modernized the House of Lords-rule, though I don't think so. Do you have a source for your claim?



For I don't think it can be so easy to remove a peerage still, even a Royal one. (The Duke of Windsor did not have any peerage anymore when he abdicated, because his peerage had merged with the Crown, so he was "just" HRH the prince Edward of the Uk (according to the Letters Patent of his father about the titles of the members of the Royal family) and his brother as the new king created him Duke of Windsor then.)
I don't think any peerage was removed apart from the ones of British princes who had decided to join Germany in WWI because they were German princes as well due to inheriting king William IV. kingdom of Hannover (Duke of Cumberland) and Prince Albert's inheritance of the German dukedom of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Duke of Albany) and Ernst-August of Brunswick who had held the title of a prince of the UK.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Helen.CH

Who hosts this Twitter account, named The Royal family? Is it offical ir just anfansite?
They posted today 1 about K&W being in Bradford and 11 (!) of Harry&Rugby.
They seem to urgently trying to give H. work a goid reputation or just being fans if him, maybe both if not official.

It's the royal family's official twitter account. The coverage today would have been extensive anyway because it's the draw for a world event taking place in Buckingham Palace.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Helen.CH

Who hosts this Twitter account, named The Royal family? Is it offical ir just anfansite?
They posted today 1 about K&W being in Bradford and 11 (!) of Harry&Rugby.
They seem to urgently trying to give H. work a goid reputation or just being fans if him, maybe both if not official.

They directly posted about Henry and The Rugby League World Cup six times, they retweeted 5 other tweets.

You can tell an account is verified by the blue tick next to their name.

Originally Posted by Eskimo

This is only for peerages granted at the behest of the government (the various honours lists). Royal peerages are granted by Letters Patent and can be taken away as such. However, if the Queen would take away their HRH's first, the peerage would no longer be a royal peerage and would require an act of Parliament to remove it

Your proof to show this is actually the case? As all documentation I have read suggests the exact opposite.

[Betsypaige]

Oh wow, this just makes me so sad. I'm not liking either Harry or William at this point.

Affectionate ridicule? So clearly the two don't respect their father....Harry running to "granny". I wish that the Queen had insisted that Harry deal wit his father. I'll also say this - when Charles is gone, they will regret how they treated their "papa".

Many have questioned why, as William and Harry’s father and only living parent, Charles has not been able to broker peace between his once inseparable sons. The truth is the royal brothers do not really listen to the ‘Papa’ they have long seemed to regard with a degree of affectionate ridicule. Charles has always been desperate for the approval of his two self-confessed ‘mummy’s boys’ and so historically has had to bring in outsiders to read the riot act, such as their former joint private secretary Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton.


Charles’s aides asked William to praise his father’s role in the boys’ upbringing when the brothers appeared in documentaries to mark the 20th anniversary of their mother’s death. He refused. Only Harry paid a brief tribute. But his own relationship with their father suffered a severe blow when, in agreement with the Queen, Charles refused to let the Sussexes set up their own ‘court’ at Windsor after they split their household from the Cambridges’ at Kensington Palace last spring. It is certainly telling that when Charles, famed for his love of ‘black spider’ memos, demanded that Harry commit his ‘North America’ blueprint to paper, the characteristically impatient and sometimes petulant ‘spare to the heir’ went straight to granny.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/...-and-his-sons/

[Pranter]

SMH... because the tabloids and media are so accurate in their stories about members of the BRF. Yes that is sarcasm.



LaRae

[Alison H]

I'd like to know what they're intending to do about staff. I honestly haven't got a clue how many people they employ, and I appreciate that a lot of work can be done remotely these days, but most people are not going to want to be rushing backwards and forwards between the UK and Western Canada - people have families and friends and interests and commitments.


I don't think there's any question of removing their titles. If they agreed to renounce them, that would be different, but actually removing them would seem pretty hostile, and be an embarrassment for the Royal Family. And the government does not want to get involved in this - both the British and Canadian governments have other, urgent matters to deal with.

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

In that case, as she no doubt wants to remain titled and styled (still not sure what styled means).

Styled refers to the HRH, titled is the title. So, her title is Duchess of Sussex. Her style is Her Royal Highness. The Queen can the remove the style, i.e. the HRH at any time. The title, i.e. The Duchess of Sussex, must be removed from both she and Harry by an act of Parliament.

Originally Posted by Pranter

If they are doing work for the Queen they deserve security. If they are doing private work they deserve security.

Why on earth would they deserve security if they're doing private work? I'd agree that they certainly deserve security when performing engagements or duties on behalf of the Queen. But when they're acting privately? Nope, they don't deserve anything. They might like to have it. They may want someone else to pay for it. But they certainly don't deserve it.

[Duchessmary]

My two cents- Harry isn't going to be stripped of anything. He was born an HRH and that's what he'll stay. People also forget he's a wealthy young man in his own right. Diana's will provided amply for both of her sons.

[Lady Marlboro]

There is a lot about this situation I don't like and don't understand - like why loving parents left their 8 month old son in a foreign country. I think they need to realize that there are consequences to their actions and they can't get everything they want. However, I don't think they will lose the title or the HRH because I think deep down in their heart of hearts Charles and William are hoping that maybe one day Harry will come back.

[wyevale]

Immigration lawyers have suggested the Lady's application for British citizenship will be scuppered if she and her Husband spend large amounts of time in Canada.

How can someone WITHOUT British citizenship possibly be considered a "British royal"?

[soapstar]

Once again, the moderators have had to delete comments because of bickering and infighting between members.

You are not always going to agree with the opinions of your fellow members, but we do expect you to always act civilly and respectfully. Insulting and snarky comments aimed at those who don’t share your opinion, are not acceptable. It’s not only against the forum rules, but it disrupts the thread and is unfair to those who are trying to carry on civil discussions.

I’ll repeat this again. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. As long as it does not break any of the TRF rules and guidelines, it may be posted here.

Comments about Meghan’s private visits have been moved to her Current Events thread. Comments comparing the Sussexes to the Queen and other royals have been deleted.

[_Heather_]

Originally Posted by Lady Marlboro

However, I don't think they will lose the title or the HRH because I think deep down in their heart of hearts Charles and William are hoping that maybe one day Harry will come back.

Truthfully, I kind of agree with you. While I personally feel that they should absolutely lose their style and I'm on board with losing the titles, too, I think the RF might feel that's a bit too drastic because there may come a day when Harry "returns to the fold" so to speak. If I'm 100% honest I think the writing's already on the wall for the long term future of the marriage and I wouldn't be overly surprised if, at some point in the future, we see the family welcoming Harry back to both the family and the duties of a full time working member of the RF. However, it would be terribly awkward (and maybe even impossible?) to remove his title now and then give it back when circumstances have changed. I kind of feel like HM, the PoW, and the DoC might be hedging their bets and planning to allow the title to remain in case this plays out the way that I and many others believe it inevitably will. And, if they allow the titles to remain for now and later on find that they're being used in a highly inappropriate way (for personal gain, etc.) they can always be removed. I guess I'm just really saying that it's easier to let it ride for now and remove them later if need be than it would be to removed them now and then later try to reinstate.