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

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Elenath

Gosh, this place has become almost as bad as Quora, with it's rumors of Meghans links to Jeffrey Epstein, George Soros, etc. Stories how she is a narcissist and he is a spineless twit. People are showing their true colors. Those who never really liked her from the start will think this confirms everything and Those who liked them say it's probably more complicated than it seems to be.

Don't be so overly dramatic. The BRF won't collapse, HM and prince Philip will be fine, they've had worse and Of course this has been discussed.

I people criticize Harry and Meghan for their poorly stated statement, BP's statement wasn't very thought out either. BP saying this comes as a complete surprise is odd. It's not like Harry or Meghan to not discus this. So BP's statement could also be seen as a stab in the back. It could have been worded differently.

Let's not forget it's not the queen or Charles who word such statements.

[Claire]

Originally Posted by Muhler

What's the word on the streets this morning in Britain?

What do people you overhear say?

Are they disappointed? Angry? Indifferent towards H&M (I.e. a: Okay have a nice live)? Don't really care? Embarrassed? Supportive?

I think the professional commentators are just as clueless as we are, but the reaction among ordinary people is crucial.

Everyday folk - Pretty much not caring.

The press office is rushing around - but there is a lot of news happening. The general consensus with the royal correspondence is to wait on the palace. There is going to be talks between the offices presumable and then details will be released. Unless Meghan and Harry talk first.

[Muhler]

I have been doing a search and so far the only ones who have added "disappointed" (ostensibly said by a palace spokeswoman) to the official comment issued by the palace is BBC. Everybody else are quoting BBC.

To me that suggests an off the record opinion by someone in the PR office to a BBC reporter, no more.

But still no further official comments from the palace?

To quote myself from yesterday. No further elaboration by noon cannot be interpreted as anything but an official major rift within the BRF. Caused by a unilateral, uncoordinated statement by H&M.

---------

This is still all we have officially from the palace:

Discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage. We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.

- Everything else is hearsay, second hand "sources", interpretations and opinions.

---------------

But the palace must elaborate soon, or they can forget all hopes about damage control.

As for the press: I don't know what demons the editors-in-chiefs are worshiping but I'm pretty certain they are happily giving thanks right now!
This means countless articles, features, documentaries, panel discussions, satire and so on for at least a couple of years.

-----------------

As others have pointed out, I too think this premature move by H&M is triggered by someone who really don't comprehend how a monarchy works.
But what about Harry? He knows how the monarchy works, right?
Well, opinions are contagious. If you surround yourself with people who have one opinion, you will gradually adhere to that opinion and/or you will be caught up and carried along - especially if emotions are involved.

[kbk]

One may assume that if they really want to be independent and led private lives and make living on their own they can always totally resign from Royal life, titles and privileges. Harry can disclaim his peerage and I'm sure that the Queen could issue a warrant to change their styles and titles as it depends entirely on the Sovereign's will. Princess Patricia of Connaught is an example.

[Alison H]

Queen Victoria's father lived in Canada for a while. The Queen and Prince Philip spent some time in Malta, whilst Prince Philip was stationed there. There are certainly precedents for senior royals spending time abroad, and I'm sure something could have been worked out, had Harry and Meghan sat down with the Queen and Prince Charles and talked about it, which it doesn't sound as if they've really done.


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

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by helenbeee

if you havent noticed the Queen is about to retire and Charles has made it clear for years that he is going to shake things up and make changes to the dependency of non essential royals.

Any evidence to actually back any of your assertions up?

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by sophie25

I've never seen such consensus of opinion on any of these forums. We all seem to agree they have to be in or out, this halfway house arrangement is a total non starter. I'm absolutely sure they will be told this by the royal household as well.

Sorry, I have a totally opposite opinion. I believe we live in the 2020s and this is a good way to disarm the media while staying together with the family. And a lot of people in social media think it is a positive thing, too. Let Willaim and Catherine be the future king and queen of the Uk (or what will be left of it) and let harry and Meghan keep their cake and eat it, too like all other rich people can do in today's world.

[Lemon Lyman]

Hmmm having pondered this over night I think the best for all would be for them to give up being working royals completely. I don’t think the half and half would work as the line would be too blurred and still lead to bad media coverage.

Go live the quiet life in Canada with Archie. Come and join in on family days such as Trooping, Easter and Christmas. Do what charity work you want to but don’t muddle it up.

I do wonder if Meghan misses acting.

[kbk]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Sorry, I have a totally opposite opinion. I believe we live in the 2020s and this is a good way to disarm the media while staying together with the family. And a lot of people in social media think it is a positive thing, too. Let Willaim and Catherine be the future king and queen of the Uk (or what will be left of it) and let harry and Meghan keep their cake and eat it, too like all other rich people can do in today's world.

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.

Originally Posted by Lemon Lyman

I do wonder if Meghan misses acting.

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.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by kbk

One may assume that if they really want to be independent and led private lives and make living on their own they can always totally resign from Royal life, titles and privileges. Harry can disclaim his peerage and I'm sure that the Queen could issue a warrant to change their styles and titles as it depends entirely on the Sovereign's will. Princess Patricia of Connaught is an example.

Harry can't disclaim his title. It has to be done within 12 months of acquiring it.

[DeeT]

Originally Posted by kbk

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]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

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]

Originally Posted by kbk

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]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

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]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

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]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

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?

Originally Posted by RoyalNight

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/frequent...ml#question_10

[RoyalNight]

Originally Posted by 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

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".