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

[DeeT]

I think she's bored and tired with this life. And I don't blame her. But what was she thinking marrying the future King's son?

Maybe it's a matter of saving his marriage for Harry? Meghan clearly is the driving force for this decision. She just doesn't want this life.

Harry & Meghan have presented themselves as a wonderful team. Harry recently spoke out about protecting his family.
I’ll happily take Harry’s word over others quoting unknown sources or supposed unprofessional staff leaking info to unethical press.

 

[Kataryn]

Why should the Duchy of Cornwall support someone not working for them.

Are you really questioning the way your establishment works? Who supports the children of rich fathers but the father's estate? The whole idea of the Duchy of Cornwall was thought up to give the heir to the throne financial independency from the souverain! Trust fonds were invented to do that.

Charles wants to give his son Harry money that is his to give and Harry's to receive. It's not taxpayer's money, it's just family money like the Norfolks, the Westminsters and other grand families of the Uk have it and the head of the family spends it on his family.

IMHO you can't simply say that Harry should not get what other sons of rich fathers get as long as the father wants them to have that money. Why should that be? I'm sure Charles has already saved quite some money for Harry from his Duchy-income so that Harry does not find himself in a situation like Andrew or Edward.

Plus I think Charles understand where Harry comes from - when you lost your mother as a little boy because the media haunted and hunted her, you will protect your wife and child any way you can. And you'll get Charles' support on it, IMHO, if you are the second son and not the heir.

 

[suztav]

It's not the fact that the reality is that the modern monarchy will be slimmed down (a reality and nothing to do with Charles "rumored" statement), it's that:

1.) the Queen as the monarch, as the senior member of the family, and as a grandmother -- is due the respect to have been informed of their wish prior to issuing a statement
2.) you can't be half-in and half-out
3.) as someone posted early on, Meghan needs to understand that the House of Windsor will survive this and go on … with or without her
4.) I really believe that Meghan could have done more for people of color in the Commonwealth by being a full-time member of the royal family
5.) To quote Queen Mary, "the Crown must always win"

While I understand H&M's first instinct is to "push the envelope" to see how far they could go ... this is not going to end well for them. In a few years, they will be nothing more than "celebs" getting paid to attend events by wealthy people who want to rub shoulders with them. That's going to get old fast.

Sad ...

 

[Iluvbertie]

Andrew and Edward will be fine financially. The Queen is a lot wealthier than Charles and has provided for her younger children, as did the Queen Mother.

Note that Anne has an estate of her own and Andrew and Edward have been able to pay the lease on their Crown Estate properties so they will be with their descendants well into the lives of their grandchildren and probably even their great-grandchildren.

The estimate for their millions are well over 50 million each.

 

[Kataryn]

And who's stopping them from being in the family? You don't need titles and special money to do that. You just have contact or you don't. Vide the Princess Royal's children.

And IMHO you don't need to rid yourself of them if you don't want. Harry was given the title of Duke on his marriage. He is still married. He was born a HRH and his wife shares his titles. The HRH is only dependent on your paternal bloodline and not on the question if you work for the "firm" or not. Harry is Charles' son and thus holds his HRH because of who his father is and will be. That is not going to change! Edward VIII. did not loose his HRH either when he abdicated and was given the title of a duke. So where is the historical precedence?
The media made it IMHo impossible for Meghan to be a proper Royal wife with all aspects of the taxpayer via the media having access to her. The media has not behaved in the proper way, so now the duke and duchess decided not to be proper "senior Royals" anymore.

Just like that. I am very curious where this will end. I do hope that Harry and Meghan will come back, but at their own terms, not on those of the likes of Piers Morgan and his ilk.

 

[Mbruno]

Are you really questioning the way your establishment works? Who supports the children of rich fathers but the father's estate? The whole idea of the Duchy of Cornwall was thought up to give the heir to the throne financial independency from the souverain! Trust fonds were invented to do that.

Charles wants to give his son Harry money that is his to give and Harry's to receive. It's not taxpayer's money, it's just family money like the Norfolks, the Westminsters and other grand families of the Uk have it and the head of the family spends it on his family.

IMHO you can't simply say that Harry should not get what other sons of rich fathers get as long as the father wants them to have that money. Why should that be? I'm sure Charles has already saved quite some money for Harry from his Duchy-income so that Harry does not find himself in a situation like Andrew or Edward.

Plus I think Charles understand where Harry comes from - when you lost your mother as a little boy because the media haunted and hunted her, you will protect your wife and child any way you can. And you'll get Charles' support on it, IMHO, if you are the second son and not the heir.

I don’t see how any of that amounts to “protecting his wife and child any way he can”. If anything. Harry should know that, being outside the RF , he and his family will be less protected and more exposed to danger and criticism than if they were in. That is what happened to Diana.

I sincerely think that this move , to use a popular Brexit slogan, is more about Harry and Meghan “ taking control” to do as they want, their way and on their terms. Needless to say , that is not realistic within a hierarchical institution like the RF. Furthermore, the RF is even subject to constitutional constraints ( the political neutrality of the Crown ) and it is not too difficult for me to see H&M’s “new progressive role” probably clashing with that.

I wish people stopped spinning this as Harry trying to protect little Archie or anything of that sort.

 

[suztav]

I just had the time to look at their website -- https://sussexroyal.com/ --

this isn't something that you create overnight. They clearly used the six-weeks in Canada to not only come to this decision, but to create this website.

Sorry … it's all so premeditated. JMHO

 

[RoyalNight]

Are you really questioning the way your establishment works? Who supports the children of rich fathers but the father's estate? The whole idea of the Duchy of Cornwall was thought up to give the heir to the throne financial independency from the souverain! Trust fonds were invented to do that.

Charles wants to give his son Harry money that is his to give and Harry's to receive. It's not taxpayer's money, it's just family money like the Norfolks, the Westminsters and other grand families of the Uk have it and the head of the family spends it on his family.


IMHO you can't simply say that Harry should not get what other sons of rich fathers get as long as the father wants them to have that money. Why should that be? I'm sure Charles has already saved quite some money for Harry from his Duchy-income so that Harry does not find himself in a situation like Andrew or Edward.

Plus I think Charles understand where Harry comes from - when you lost your mother as a little boy because the media haunted and hunted her, you will protect your wife and child any way you can. And you'll get Charles' support on it, IMHO, if you are the second son and not the heir.

Is duchy of Cornwall privately owned by Prince Charles? Or is it 'lend' to him by the country? If it's not a private estate, it's just good will of the UK government and arrangment between the state and the crown. The duchy could easily bring money to the UK budget and benefit all UK citizens.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Are you really questioning the way your establishment works? Who supports the children of rich fathers but the father's estate? The whole idea of the Duchy of Cornwall was thought up to give the heir to the throne financial independency from the souverain! Trust fonds were invented to do that.

I don't understand how to can compare aristocracy to royalty in that regard. Charles represents the Duchy of Cornwall, and the people in those areas work hard to support themselves and the Duchy. Why should Henry take a slice of the pie when he's done nothing for it? It's different when Charles was supporting Henry as a senior royal, to do work on behalf of the crown and therefore for the country. He is not doing so anymore.

It's hardly financial independence, when you're still taking money from a royal source is it?

Is duchy of Cornwall privately owned by Prince Charles? Or is it 'lend' to him by the country? If it's not a private estate, it's just good will of the UK government and arrangment between the state and the crown. The duchy could easily bring money to the UK budget and benefit all UK citizens.

"The Duchy of Cornwall is a well-managed private estate, which was established by Edward III in 1337. The revenues from the estate are passed to HRH The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, who chooses to use them to fund his public, charitable and private activities and those of his family. The Duchy consists of around 53,000 hectares of land in 23 counties, mostly in the South West of England. The principal activity of the Duchy is the sustainable, commercial management of its land and properties. The Duchy also has a financial investment portfolio."

From their website: https://duchyofcornwall.org/frequently-asked-questions.html#question_10

 

[RoyalNight]

I just had the time to look at their website -- https://sussexroyal.com/ --

this isn't something that you create overnight. They clearly used the six-weeks in Canada to not only come to this decision, but to create this website.

Sorry … it's all so premeditated. JMHO

It's so sad how they claimed their little break was to regain their mental strenght and enjoy their family while in fact they were preparing this "bomb".

 

[moby]

@Muhler, I agree on no further comments means actual rift. Actually the first and only statement from BP may be short but I find it to be loaded:

"We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through."

Sounds like they haven't even begun to figure out how to work through what the Sussexes want. Calling it "complicated issues" is also funny given the elaborate FAQs on the website---to me it sounds like that is their official response to the simplistic presentation done by the Sussexes.

I rooted for H&M from the start, still do, but the way this has been handled reeks of self-importance and complete disregard for the tried and tested practices of the Firm.

 

[Mbruno]

Piers Morgan today in the Daily Mail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7868371/PIERS-MORGAN-Queen-FIRE-Royal-Hustlers.html

I know, it is Piers and everything he wrote is or was predictable, but it goes back to my point that Harry and Meghan only made themselves more vulnerable to attack / criticism.

 

[Pranter]

Considering Dan Wootton was correct in his scoop on this matter, I think we can give him some credence on follow-up info.

Because he got this right doesn't mean anything else is. A broken clock is right twice a day. The vast majority of these 'scoops' are false.


LaRae

 

[BaiSoSo]

Piers Morgan today in the Daily Mail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7868371/PIERS-MORGAN-Queen-FIRE-Royal-Hustlers.html

I know, it is Piers and everything he wrote us predictable, but it goes back to my point that Harry and Meghan only made themselves more vulnerable to attack / criticism.

This isn't more vulnerable it is the same thing they have been dealing with already. Piers was the one that told Meghan if she didn't like it to "go back to America". Now that she and Harry are doing something along those lines he's upset about that. He is just highlighting the hypocrisy of the BM.

He is just proving the point that no matter what they do they will be criticized for no reason so they might as well do things that at least make them happy and healthy as individuals and a family unit.

@Muhler, I agree on no further comments means actual rift. Actually the first and only statement from BP may be short but I find it to be loaded:

"We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through."

Sounds like they haven't even begun to figure out how to work through what the Sussexes want. Calling it "complicated issues" is also funny given the elaborate FAQs on the website---to me it sounds like that is their official response to the simplistic presentation done by the Sussexes.

I rooted for H&M from the start, still do, but the way this has been handled reeks of self-importance and complete disregard for the tried and tested practices of the Firm.

Sometimes you have to make the unpopular decision and be proactive....something the BRF doesn't seem to get they are never proactive in anything and only issued this statement because they are scrambling to try and save face as the first POC in the royal family (in modern times) and her husband have enough of the poor treatment towards her and making it clear they aren't going to stand for it. The BRF have done nothing (at least nothing effective) to help the Sussexes deal with the on slaughter of the bullying from the media. When Catherine & Camilla faced it, Harry spoke favorably in public for both of them. Sadly none of them could do the same for the couple, who have done nothing wrong and have successfully completed projects for people of the UK & Commonwealth. Have done 3 successful tours provided a stronger global presence for the family and still nothing.

Expecting them to sit back and take in the abuse is foolish...Harry & Meghan realize that isn't worth their mental health or their family.

 

[Mbruno]

This isn't more vulnerable it is the same thing they have been dealing with already. Piers was the one that told Meghan if she didn't like it to "go back to America". Now that she and Harry are doing something along those lines he's upset about that. He is just highlighting the hypocrisy of the BM.

He is just proving the point that no matter what they do they will be criticized for no reason so they might as well do things that at least make them happy and healthy as individuals and a family unit.

They are more vulnerable in the sense that more people will now agree with Piers and think he has/had a point. Just read the comments section below.

 

[Hallo girl]

And one day will come under Williams control when his father becomes king. He then has a say in the allocation of any money.

 

[Mbruno]

And one day will come under Williams control when his father becomes king. He then has a say in the allocation of any money.

Good point. The moment Charles becomes King, Harry’s money will have to come from the Duchy of Lancaster or the King’s private income . The Duchy of Cornwall will support William and his family.

It looks like Harry and Meghan just wrote down on their new website how they want things to be going forward , but didn’t bother to work anything out first wiith the relevant parties ( the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge , the British government, the Canadian government, etc.). It is justified to ask who they think they are .

 

[Pranter]

Charles is not going to leave either of his sons without money. William being in control of the Duchy of Cornwall isn't going to make Harry penniless.

Everyone needs to stop being so doom and gloom. Let them work it out...who's to say a hybrid system won't work until it's been tried? If it doesn't work things can change again.


LaRae

 

[BaiSoSo]

They are more vulnerable in the sense that more people will now agree with Piers and think he has/had a point. Just read the comments section below.

People agreed with Piers and all his other statements so this still is no different. There are also a lot of people out there in support of Harry and Meghan. Have seen the bullying that they have dealt with and know why they made the decisions they have.

I think she's bored and tired with this life. And I don't blame her. But what was she thinking marrying the future King's son?

Maybe it's a matter of saving his marriage for Harry? Meghan clearly is the driving force for this decision. She just doesn't want this life.

Based on what evidence that Meghan was bored? She seemed to really enjoy the project work having 3 major projects in less than 18 months. More likely she was fed up with the constant poor treatment she received for simply being. Harry made it quite clear even in the engagement interview that their relationship would always be first (as it should be when you take vows of marriage). Why people think he can't make up his own mind is sad... he knows what he is doing he is a 35 year old man, husband & father his family should be his first priority.

Good point. The moment Charles becomes King, Harry’s money will have to come from the Duchy of Lancaster or the King’s private income . The Duchy of Cornwall will support William and his family.

It looks like Harry and Meghan just wrote down on their new website how they want things to be going forward , but didn’t work anything out with the relevant parties ( the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge , the British government, the Canadian government, etc.). It is justified to ask who they think they are .

They are PEOPLE and so many seem to have forgotten that. Day in and Day out for almost 2 years (3 if you count the engagement/dating time) that they have had to put with disparaging remarks, lies and other falsehoods with little true support from their families. They are PARENTS who don't want their child(ren) to be raised in a toxic environment where he is compared to a monkey or on display as if he is part of a circus. They are a COUPLE who decided that enough is enough and took steps to ensure their mental and family well-being. They are HUMANITARIANS that have worked hard to help others in worse conditions/advantages than themselves.

It's so sad how they claimed their little break was to regain their mental strenght and enjoy their family while in fact they were preparing this "bomb".

Who is to say that the break didn't help them regain their mental strength AND help them realize that things weren't going to get better. They posted a few comments/pictures on their own SM during the break supporting charities and were again attacked, the break showed them that they to make drastic changes because the way things were going was not working nor was it helpful...and probably pretty damaging. Regaining mental strength doesn't mean coming back and being scapegoats for the BRF or people for the BM to trash.

 

[suztav]

It's so sad how they claimed their little break was to regain their mental strenght and enjoy their family while in fact they were preparing this "bomb".

Totally agree. I rooted for Harry and Meghan, but this tactic is ill advised. Meghan will learn the hard way that culture trumps strategy every time. She just can’t buck a thousand years of history and think she will be success in it.

If anything, they have placed themselves and their child is an even more vulnerable position re: exploitation, security, etc ...

JMHO

 

[rob2008]

They are more vulnerable in the sense that more people will now agree with Piers and think he has/had a point. Just read the comments section below.

Piers Morgan today in the Daily Mail.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7868371/PIERS-MORGAN-Queen-FIRE-Royal-Hustlers.html

I know, it is Piers and everything he wrote is or was predictable, but it goes back to my point that Harry and Meghan only made themselves more vulnerable to attack / criticism.

It hurts to say that Piers' interpretation could be accurate. Both boys - like all Windsor men - are weak and controlled by their wives. The wives generally know how to behave to protect the crown plus their personal interests. Michael Middleton's family have done this in a highly tactical purposeful way so that they stay at the centre and are in place ready to occupy the throne. In contrast, Meghan is taking the second son along a commercially-oriented Hollywood defined life - ie which cannot process the public spirited nature of monarchy. Americans do not have a concept of public life that is separate from the ability to own and spend money. The Windsors are conservatives there is no way any of them would let themselve be described as 'progressive' - further evidence of Meghan's influence. Harry cant hide that he is in the military, the Household Cavalry even (which doesnt get more establishment). Meghan is clearly controlling him by comparing herself to Diana. That is her main source of power over him but it doesn't work with the rest of us - hence Piers has a point. An average Joe accepts that the royal family are different from the rest of us and therefore have natural, inherited entitlement to their rarefied lifestyle and they do not have the drudgery of jobs and daily grind of earning a living etc. Meghan's choice is illogical. You can't have both - you cant have gobal royal status, make a living in the big bad world and be left wing. She is only getting her way by psychologically manipulating her husband into believing his wife is being persecuted like his mother. ugh.

 

[Marengo]

If they wanted a life somewhat away from the lime light and a proper career I think the move could have been understandable and perhaps could even have been applauded. As others said: it happens in other monarchies too. And even in the UK there are some examples, most notably the Duke of Gloucester who worked as an architect with little fuss.

But I doubt they will be pursuing a genuine career path. Instead it seems they want to become a 'brand' which means they will be monetizing their royal status as any international celebrity does these days. Instead of being out of the lime light I suspect they will -try to- be more in the lime light. It casts doubts over all their actions of the last 1 1/2 years. In hindsight one can only wonder if any real efforts were made at any point to make this situation work or if this was the plan all along. I fear they give me the impression of the latter.

Some claim that the RF never really accepted Meghan. I would not be surprised if the reality is the other way around. Meghan never really accepted them. Neither did she accept the role she was supposed to play. I can not see many other explanations for throwing the towel in the ring after barely a year of active royal duties.

For years I have been allergic to this mixture of monarchy and celebrity. It is a reason why I had strong doubts about the introduction of Sofia of Sweden into the Swedish royal family. For some reason I gave this couple the benefit of the doubt. Sadly I fear we have been deceived and the naysayers have been right. They are making a mockery out of the whole thing.

Time will tell if I am wrong, I sincerely hope I am & will be happy to write a mea culpa. But if I am not, I can not see how this can end in a good way. If they truely go ahead in monitizing their status the monarchy needs to distance itself from this couple and break ties with them. It would of course be preferable if they are made to see sense but I am not counting on that to happen.

 

[Kataryn]

I just had the time to look at their website -- https://sussexroyal.com/ --

It's all here if you care to read:
In the spring of 2020, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be adopting a revised media approach to ensure diverse and open access to their work. This adjustment will be a phased approach as they settle into the new normality of their updated roles. This updated approach aims to:

• Engage with grassroots media organisations and young, up-and-coming journalists;
• Invite specialist media to specific events/engagements to give greater access to their cause-driven activities, widening the spectrum of news coverage;
• Provide access to credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting to cover key moments and events;
• Continue to share information directly to the wider public via their official communications channels;
• No longer participate in the Royal Rota system.

And so on. We learn of their critizism of the current Royal correspondents and how they support open and truthful media. Even if they are critizised when appropriate.
I can subscribe to that. And I think that is the basis of their wish to get rid of their position as "senior Royals". They want reports about their work that are truthful, even if they are not always positive and they want to enjoy their privacy as individuals, all the while understanding, that

"their roles as members of the Royal Family are subject to interest, and they welcome accurate and honest media reporting as well as being held to account if appropriate. Equally, like every member of society, they also value privacy as individuals and as a family."


It is honestly as shame that the tabloids especially did not respect that and treated them as they deserved, but hunted them down and lied all the time about Meghan. So I support their decision.

 

[wyevale]

Word on the street in the UK - no-one's very impressed.

Exactly the opinion of people i've heard from, on this matter..

People are cross that the Queen [especially, but not only her] was 'blindsided'..

 

[LadyGlendower]

What my thoughts keep circling back to is bad advice from paid professionals plus a certain amount of hubris on the part of those receiving that advice equals an unqualified disaster.

HM is one of the most admired people on the planet. She has endured through over seventy years of economic and political cycles in the UK, familial upheavals, personal losses, etc. and has earned the respect of almost everyone that is educated about what her role is as Monarch. She is seen with great affection in the US as well (I'm looking at you, Meghan).

Who in their right minds, during a period in which you have been regularly barbecued to a certain extent in the press, makes this kind of move in such a public way, against a public figure like QE II?

The Sussexes could have negotiated a framework for a life as "adjunct" royals that fit their desires for a fulfilling public and private existence. It appears that that process had already begun.

NOW, if they come out of this with anything on their list of desires it will be only because HM will make the decisions based on years of experience good and bad, and for the benefit of the Crown/Country.

 

[Hallo girl]

Charles is not going to leave either of his sons without money. William being in control of the Duchy of Cornwall isn't going to make Harry penniless.

Everyone needs to stop being so doom and gloom. Let them work it out...who's to say a hybrid system won't work until it's been tried? If it doesn't work things can change again.


LaRae

I did not intend to imply that Henry would be penniless once William has control of the Duchy, I was just pointing out for anybody unfamiliar with the process that it goes with the title not the individual, so when William becomes king, it passes to George. The Duchy goes with the title and holder of the Prince of Wales.

 

[Pranter]

It's all here if you care to read:
In the spring of 2020, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be adopting a revised media approach to ensure diverse and open access to their work. This adjustment will be a phased approach as they settle into the new normality of their updated roles. This updated approach aims to:

• Engage with grassroots media organisations and young, up-and-coming journalists;
• Invite specialist media to specific events/engagements to give greater access to their cause-driven activities, widening the spectrum of news coverage;
• Provide access to credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting to cover key moments and events;
• Continue to share information directly to the wider public via their official communications channels;
• No longer participate in the Royal Rota system.

And so on. We learn of their critizism of the current Royal correspondents and how they support open and truthful media. Even if they are critizised when appropriate.
I can subscribe to that. And I think that is the basis of their wish to get rid of their position as "senior Royals". They want reports about their work that are truthful, even if they are not always positive and they want to enjoy their privacy as individuals, all the while understanding, that

"their roles as members of the Royal Family are subject to interest, and they welcome accurate and honest media reporting as well as being held to account if appropriate. Equally, like every member of society, they also value privacy as individuals and as a family."


It is honestly as shame that the tabloids especially did not respect that and treated them as they deserved, but hunted them down and lied all the time about Meghan. So I support their decision.

I posted the link at least 3 times here yesterday....but it doesn't fit the narrative so good luck getting anyone to calm down long enough to read their website/statements.



LaRae

 

[Alison H]

Things have changed since Diana’s day. The way she was treated by the paparazzi, those horrendous pictures of her car being surrounded by photographers as she was trying to drive down the street, was appalling, but that doesn’t happen any more. I think Harry and Meghan have made things very difficult for themselves. Why couldn’t they have issued a few more photos of Archie? Most people will post photos of babies on Facebook or Instagram, although admittedly they’re not going to attract worldwide interest. Why couldn’t they have named his godparents – what was the big secret? It’s hardly as if the press were going to go round and hound them: I doubt most people could even name one of the Cambridge children’s godparents. Nobody has bullied them. They’ve just received some criticism, which everyone in the public eye does – it’s not pleasant, but, if you are in the public eye, whether you are a royal, a politician, a sports player, an actor, a singer or anyone else, then that’s just part of it, and you have to learn to ignore it. I don’t suppose Kate enjoyed having topless photos of herself published in trashy magazines across the world, and some of the stuff that’s been said about Camilla is horrendous. If you want to step out of the limelight completely, as Princess Beatrice seems to be doing, then that’s fine, but you can’t have your cake and eat it.

Meghan could learn a lot from her own mum. Doria Ragland has never behaved with anything less than dignity.

 

[rob2008]

If they will "Provide access to credible media outlets focused on objective news reporting to cover key moments and events" then you are excluding only deliberatel biased forms of journalism - ie 'cranks', politicians and extremists. Every news source is 'credible' and 'objective'. Are they taking a gratuitous pop at the BBC? Piers? A hereditary institution cannot operate in a blatantly politicised way (although they do latently). Is this how they get the UK used to Brexit by americanising the way our royal family works?

 

[Pranter]

I did not intend to imply that Henry would be penniless once William has control of the Duchy, I was just pointing out for anybody unfamiliar with the process that it goes with the title not the individual, so when William becomes king, it passes to George. The Duchy goes with the title and holder of the Prince of Wales.

Your statement did seem to imply Harry was going to be short shifted once William is in charge.




LaRae