The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #3561  
Old 01-18-2020, 09:46 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The BP statement is rather illogical, however. It says that the Duke and Duchess will no longer use their HRH style as "they are no longer working members of the Royal Family", but neither are Prince Michael, the York girls, or , currently, even Prince Andrew. Nevertheless, they have all kept the HRH style and the titular dignity of Prince/Princess.

The inconsistency in my opinion is that no British legal document since the Victorian age (or indeed no legal document in any surviving European kingdom that I know of) has ever linked HRH style or the dignity of Prince to any form of "working status". Instead, being an HRH or a Prince has been consistently linked to proximity of blood to a sovereign or the heir to the Crown, sometimes distinguishing, however, between male and female line (as the UK does).

Linking HRH or princely status to "official work" is a novelty, which, again, apparently is not being applied consistently, but on a rather ad hoc basis.

In Harry and Meghan's case, I suppose the real issue is to prevent them from being identified as official representatives of the Queen or the Crown while acting as unsupervised free agents. Stripping them of the HRH makes that association less likely than if they were "HRH Prince/Princess xxx".
I agree. I assume the queen noticed that this time a different approach was required to make sure that Harry and Meghan don't 'live off' their royal status while earning big money by promoting their own royal brand. Had they taken a different approach in which their 'royal background' would not be the main driver for their professional income, she might have come to a different conclusion.
__________________

  #3562  
Old 01-18-2020, 09:53 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
On a more frivilous note, we may never see Meghan wearing a tiara again. They may not even attend Charles' coronation.
Do you really think this is a possibility? Things would have had to have deteriorated incredibly badly between Harry and Charles...and even if they had, imagine how it would look for him ? For Meghan also?
__________________

  #3563  
Old 01-18-2020, 09:53 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post

In Harry and Meghan's case, I suppose the real issue is to prevent them from being identified as official representatives of the Queen or the Crown while acting as unsupervised free agents. Stripping them of the HRH makes that association less likely than if they were "HRH Prince/Princess xxx".

This is a quote from tomorrow's Sunday Times, which supports your view:

"Harry and Meghan will retain their royal titles but they will not be allowed to use them to drum up commercial profits. They will be known as Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The implied threat is that if the lines are blurred their HRHs could yet be stripped from them."
  #3564  
Old 01-18-2020, 09:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,306
What the Sussexes wanted
What they got


“…to continue to carry out their duties for Her Majesty The Queen”
“…they understand they are required to step back from Royal duties”
“While they can no longer formally represent The Queen…”
“…they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.”


“The Duke & Duchess of Sussex will continue to use Frogmore Cottage – with the permission of HM – as their official residence as they continue to support the Monarchy,”
“The Duke & Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home”.

“Welcome to Sussex Royal, the source of factual information and details relating to the works and structure of Their Royal Highnesses The Duke & Duchess of Sussex
“The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles…”

“…as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge…”
“While they can no longer formally represent The Queen…”
“…they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.”
  #3565  
Old 01-18-2020, 09:58 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 401
I think the HRH issue is simple. All these many years later, one of the things most remembered about Diana is how the cruel Queen stripped her of her HRH and how her young son comforted his crying mother by vowing to give it back to her. Announcing that Harry and Meghan were losing their own HRH style would create an onslaught of comparison and an army of people saying that the family was treating Harry's wife like they treated his mother. How could they do this to the little boy walking behind the coffin?

The Queen has effectively taken away the HRH will wisely avoiding the outcry that would have come from Diana's son's wife losing HRH "just like Diana." Instead, she's offered an explanation that will make sense to most people and sent a clear message without drawing unnecessary angst. Make no mistake-- for all intents and purposes, the HRH is gone.
  #3566  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:00 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Linking HRH or princely status to "official work" is a novelty, which, again, apparently is not being applied consistently, but rather on a somewhat ad hoc basis.

In Harry and Meghan's case, I suppose the real issue is to prevent them from being identified as official representatives of the Queen or the Crown while acting as unsupervised free agents. Stripping them of the HRH makes that association less likely than if they were "HRH Prince/Princess xxx".
I get the impression that the "use" of HRH or anything related to "royal" is a term of their going into "business" for themselves totally separate from the monarchy's "Firm".

It would, at least to me, be similar to having a son of Bill and Melinda Gates break totally with the family firm, Microsoft. With leaving that corporation totally, the kid is banned and forbidden to "use" anything that could or would have the illusion of being linked to Microsoft and everything Microsoft holds and promotes. That person, although always and forever will be the son of Bill and Melinda Gates, business wise, he couldn't "cash in" on that connection. The kid has to stand on his own two feet with his own business venture.

Of course the "Firm" is going to keep a close eye on anything that Harry and Meghan "promote" in the future to protect the "Firm" as it will be impossible to expect the general public to see Harry and Meghan's business ventures separate from being members of the British Royal Family.

There is also no guarantee that whatever Harry and Meghan venture into will be a successful venture. It may go belly up within a short amount of time and they'll think "well we tried but it didn't work". Then again, they may be very successful on their own. Time will tell.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3567  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:03 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
I think the HRH issue is simple. All these many years later, one of the things most remembered about Diana is how the cruel Queen stripped her of her HRH and how her young son comforted his crying mother by vowing to give it back to her. Announcing that Harry and Meghan were losing their own HRH style would create an onslaught of comparison and an army of people saying that the family was treating Harry's wife like they treated his mother. How could they do this to the little boy walking behind the coffin?

The Queen has effectively taken away the HRH will wisely avoiding the outcry that would have come from Diana's son's wife losing HRH "just like Diana." Instead, she's offered an explanation that will make sense to most people and sent a clear message without drawing unnecessary angst. Make no mistake-- for all intents and purposes, the HRH is gone.
No one would care if Meghan lost HRH. No one cared when Diana did. She was divorced. No one really cares Harry has. I think people outside the UK think people care about these things. They don't. The royals exist to,promote the country try and raise money. If they aren't doing that. They are no use.
  #3568  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:03 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
This is a quote from tomorrow's Sunday Times:

"Harry and Meghan will retain their royal titles but they will not be allowed to use them to drum up commercial profits. They will be known as Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The implied threat is that if the lines are blurred their HRHs could yet be stripped from them."

Another reason why the HRH was not formally stripped from them may be to have a fallback in case, let's say, Harry and Meghan get a divorce and Harry wants back in. Just speculation on my part of course.


In addition, legally taking away the HRH from a prince of the blood would be quite unprecedented by contemporary standards. The closest situation I can think of is the deprivation of the royal titles and styles of the Windsors' German relatives during World War I, but that was done by an act of Parliament and they had to be certified first as enemy combatants.


In any case, I don't see much difference between the HRH being legally taken from Harry or Harry being de facto prevented (by a "divorce settlement") from using it publicly. I take the notion that he is voluntarily relinquishing the use of the HRH with a grain of salt.
  #3569  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:07 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Another reason why the HRH was not formally stripped from them may be to have a fallback in case, let's say, Harry and Meghan get a divorce and Harry wants back in. Just speculation on my part of course.


In addition, legally taking away the HRH from a prince of the blood would be quite unprecedented by contemporary standards. The closest situation I can think of is the deprivation of the royal titles and styles of the Windsors' German relatives during World War I, but that was done by an act of Parliament and they had to be certified first as enemy combatants.


In any case, I don't see much difference between the HRH being legally taken from Harry or Harry being de facto prevented (by a "divorce settlement") from using it publicly. I take the notion that he is voluntarily relinquishing the use of the HRH with a grain of salt.
The royals were a bit like the Russian royals then. Everyone and their granny was a prince or princess. Thanks to all Victoria's descendent hanging around. It was right to clip it.
  #3570  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:08 PM
csw csw is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Columbus, United States
Posts: 560
This is all so sad. I think posting the info on their website before an arrangement was finalized with the queen was foolish. I wonder though if they included their intention to continue to represent and support Her Majesty because they didn't want her to feel they were abandoning her and that it was an attempt not to be disrespectful. I know it doesn't seem so on the surface. I think they are both a bit naive and definitely ill-advised but I hope they're not heartless. Although that seemed like they were grabbing at having it all, maybe they were just truly trying to say they would still do their duty in some capacity.
  #3571  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:14 PM
ashelen's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: maidstone, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,165
Wonder if she gets pregnant again, where they baby will born? And even though Archie is so young but they are thinking not to send him to British school?
__________________
Ashelen
  #3572  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:15 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,656
One thing I fully expect to happen now is that the Sussex office and staff at Buckingham Palace will be closed. Permanently. Where they set up their own office and staff now is anybody's guess. Kind of like Pitch@Palace has been scuppered and renamed just Pitch.

This probably will also cause some staff to formally resign working for the Sussexes as its not "Firm" related any longer. I guess the Sussexes did get what they wanted and are now able to set up their own household and "court" to use the term lightly.

I think there's a whole lot of work to be done before they can even think of launching their own foundation too including perhaps changing the registration of the foundation and changing the trademarks applied for. Especially if they're required to drop the "Royal" part of Sussex Royal.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #3573  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:16 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
What the Sussexes wanted
What they got


“…to continue to carry out their duties for Her Majesty The Queen”
“…they understand they are required to step back from Royal duties”
“While they can no longer formally represent The Queen…”
“…they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.”


“The Duke & Duchess of Sussex will continue to use Frogmore Cottage – with the permission of HM – as their official residence as they continue to support the Monarchy,”
“The Duke & Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home”.

“Welcome to Sussex Royal, the source of factual information and details relating to the works and structure of Their Royal Highnesses The Duke & Duchess of Sussex
“The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles…”

“…as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge…”
“While they can no longer formally represent The Queen…”
“…they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.”
Thanks for this ! As Dickie Arbiter said, there is no such thing as being part-Royal - you either are or you’re not. As he also said, this was pretty much as good as they could get, and as much as the Queen could give. He doesn’t think we’ll see Meghan in the UK again, but I really hope that doesn’t count for (hopefully a long way down the line) the Queen or Philip’s funerals, Charles’ coronation, etc....If she doesn’t appear then, it’s a total slap in the face..l
  #3574  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:17 PM
Cathy-PA USA's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Harrisburg, United States
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
I'm not sure Andrew or Harry will be officially removed.
Good point.

I see that Prince Philip is no longer listed as Counselor of State on the official site, reducing those appointed to four, not five.

It could simply be that there will be less Counselors of State.
Even among those appointed, maybe some who are given no roles to perform due to having resigned or being at too great a geographic distance.
Leaving just two active (Charles and William) for the current time.
  #3575  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:22 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashelen View Post
Wonder if she gets pregnant again, where they baby will born? And even though Archie is so young but they are thinking not to send him to British school?

I don't see Meghan relocating to the UK on any permanent basis. Apparently, she made it patently clear that she can't stand living there.

That means Archie will most likely go to school in Canada, if the Sussexes settle permanently in Canada, or in the US, if they eventually move south of the border. I think they will stay in Canada for a while unless they run into too much political controversy over immigration status and Canada having to fund their security bill for example. In fact, now that they have been de facto cut off from the official Royal Family, it will be very difficult to get state-funded security in Canada and I don't see any possibility of privileged immigration arrangements.
  #3576  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:32 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by duchessrachel View Post
It makes me sad for them. It is not their fault for Andrew's situation. I feel bad that Beatrice may not get a fancy Princess wedding like Eugenie did because of father. I can only imagine the booing that might be directed at Andrew if she had a public wedding and how embarrassing that would be for her. Then again, she may not want a wedding like Eugenie's.
It's a real shame a big wedding for Beatrice is off the cards. If managed well, it could have been a much-needed, 'pull everyone together' morale booster. I'm sure the family will still enjoy the occasion, but the public will play no part in it.
  #3577  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:42 PM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 3,090
Well, this has been fascinating. I'm not sure quite what I expected, but some of the "agreement"--and I use the term loosely since I'm not sure how much choice Harry and Meghan had--was a surprise. The retention of the HRH, but the restriction on using it was a very elegant solution to a thorny problem. I was not expecting Harry to lose his military appointments. The repayment of the renovation money for FC was not a surprise, and neither really was the stepping back from royal duties, since anything else seemed unworkable.

Things I still want to know:

How commercial are Harry and Meghan planning to get, and how embarrassing for the British monarchy is that likely to be?

Will the name of the Sussex Royal foundation have to change?

Where are they going to live (North America covers a lot of ground)?

If they stay in Canada, does that mean they will be jumping the immigration queue or otherwise having the rules bent for them?

Who is going to be paying for their security?

How long is Charles going to be footing the bill for their so-called financial independence?

Are we going to be seeing tell-all interviews or is there an agreement that they will be discreet? If so, does that mean Meghan can no longer have her friends spilling the beans?

Are they going to be showing up for things like Trooping, etc.--in other words, the fun stuff--or are they completely out?
  #3578  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:47 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
Sounds basically if their is a massive tradegy we will,get King Archie Ralph on the throne.

I think she thought it was a fairytale. Marry a prince but marrying royal families or aristocracy has not in the majority of cases gone well for American women and many marriages end. And Grace Kelly was disillusioned. Although she herself did it for eternal fame. It is just a totally different life and that is even before you get used to the European way of life and Sensibility.
One wonders if Meghan thought marrying a British prince would mean a life of movie premieres, parties, tiaras and designer dresses, when actually it's a life of smiling, waving, shaking hands, country estates, dogs, hunting, shooting, fishing, Hunter boots, Land Rovers and Barbour jackets.

Yes, they have glamorous moments, but the British royals don't really live glamorous lives...
  #3579  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:54 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Kansas City, United States
Posts: 27
There's an article in The Telegraph stating that Meghan worked 72 days as a senior royal. It's behind a paywall, so I couldn't read any further. But it is something I'd been wondering about. Does anyone know of a full timeline or list of her engagements since she and Harry married?
  #3580  
Old 01-18-2020, 10:55 PM
Cathy-PA USA's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Harrisburg, United States
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by miss whirley View Post
I'm not sure Andrew or Harry will be officially removed.
Good point.

I see that Prince Philip is no longer listed as Counselor of State on the official site, reducing those appointed to four, not five.

It could simply be that there will be less Counselors of State.
Even among those appointed, maybe some who are given no roles to perform due to having resigned or being at too great a geographic distance.


So that may leave just two active (Charles and William) for the current time.
__________________

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 08:30 PM




Popular Tags
abdication anastasia 2020 archie mountbatten-windsor background story bridal gown british royal family british royals buckingham palace canada chittagong commonwealth countries coronavirus countess of snowdon customs daisy dna doge of venice doll dubai duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii emperor facts family life fantasy movie gustaf vi adolf hereditary grand duke guillaume hill historical drama history intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jewellery king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers mail mary: crown princess of denmark nepalese royal jewels northern ireland norway plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince constantijn prince dimitri princess ariane princess catharina-amalia queen mathilde queen maxima random facts royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family settings speech suthida taiwan thailand tips tracts uae customs united states of america


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:01 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×