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

[stunking]

Bad timing to say the least

I’m not sure that Charles or The Queen “should” pay for Harry’s security. If they want to, that’s their call. But “should”?? As in they should feel obligated to. That is very expensive.

Harry wanted to be “financially independent”. Harry wanted to step down as a senior royal. He wants to only be in the U.K. part time. He opted to go public with this without prior notice to his family. He followed that up with a website. He’s caused his family a lot of hurt and stress. His timing was particularly good since they’d just dealt with the Andrew situation, which then put them down one member.

Even when his and Meghan’s future is sorted out, the rest of the family will get to deal with the fallout of being down 2 more senior royals. William will have no full time support from his generation, unless something changes. (If any- depending on how things go.)

Prince Phillip in poor health, P Andrew with his arrogance and shameless ways. Takes the heat off him for now.
And I might add Archie is a British citizen. They withheld his title from him so maybe they don't value theirs. Meghan thinks she has her freedom in Canada, she will never know freedom like she did before becoming a royal.
I wish the Sussex's the very best future they can possibly have. Happiness can be elusive when you have such high expectations.

 

[Mirabel]

I would feel more confident in these polls if the pollsters asked the respondents a question/s to ascertain that they understand what the Duchy of Cornwall is and how it operates.

I think I didn't truly grasp the ramifications of Duchy money.

(I accepted that it was Charles' money and he could do whatever he wished.)
I suppose that technically, he can. However, now I see Charles as more or less a trustee of Duchy funds.
Once Charles succeeds, the Duchy money will be William's.

Will he really be happy with handing over a huge chunk of it to his brother, especially if they are not on the best terms?

 

[Eskimo]

I think I didn't truly grasp the ramifications of Duchy money.

(I accepted that it was Charles' money and he could do whatever he wished.)
I suppose that technically, he can. However, now I see Charles as more or less a trustee of Duchy funds.
Once Charles succeeds, the Duchy money will be William's.

Will he really be happy with handing over a huge chunk of it to his brother, especially if they are not on the best terms?

He will not have to. If Charles is King, he will have access to monies from the Duchy of Lancaster and can use those to pay for Harry.

 

[_Heather_]

I think I didn't truly grasp the ramifications of Duchy money.

(I accepted that it was Charles' money and he could do whatever he wished.)
I suppose that technically, he can. However, now I see Charles as more or less a trustee of Duchy funds.
Once Charles succeeds, the Duchy money will be William's.

Will he really be happy with handing over a huge chunk of it to his brother, especially if they are not on the best terms?

Bingo. I think this bolded piece says it far better than many of us have managed no matter how hard we've tried. That pretty much nails it.

 

[Osipi]

He will not have to. If Charles is King, he will have access to monies from the Duchy of Lancaster and can use those to pay for Harry.

This is true but the situation still remains that eventually William will be King and in control of the Privy Purse (the monarch's personal income with the major part of it provided by the Duchy of Lancaster).

IIRC there was a good discussion here somewhere of what would happen with these royal duchies and the Crown Estates and such should the UK become a republic and do away with the monarchy altogether. The agreements in place now have been in place for a very long time without any changes to them and how they operate so its hard to imagine how any of it would be legally and reasonably changed. ?

 

[ACO]

He will not have to. If Charles is King, he will have access to monies from the Duchy of Lancaster and can use those to pay for Harry.

Then that eventually also becomes William's. Again paying for a brother he likely does not get on well with. I guess this could be a legit question regarding Harry's quest for this current transitional independence. Maybe preppy oneside against the idea of just being cut off. Not that it wouldn't happen under his reign but it could have.

The Queen's children have benefited greatly from her living a very long time. I pray Charles has that same health. Nothing is guaranteed and family issues are clearly a thing. Right or wrong.... trust between the brothers is non existent. That much is clear.

 

[Betsypaige]

This is quite a damning piece on the Queen and the BRF for making Harry walk behind his mum’s coffin. I think it was Philip that pushed for that? In any case, i really do understand how Harry could have been damaged by that. I don’t think he’s ever really going to return.

It was also emblematic of the way the Royal Family has, over the years, put protocol before people.

The truth is, Harry has been very damaged by his upbringing.

Even before Meghan came on the scene, it was clear there was a part of him that was very angry about what happened to his mother.

When he and William released an HBO documentary about Diana back in 2017, on the 20th anniversary of her death, he in particular expressed very mixed emotions, not only towards his father but towards the institution of monarchy itself. Indeed, in an interview later that year, he admitted that during his 20s he had seriously considered turning his back on the privilege he was born into, to live an ‘ordinary life’. ‘I felt I wanted out, but then decided to stay in and work out a role for myself,’ he said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...-Damaged-Prince-Harry-saw-Meghan-way-out.html

 

[Kataryn]

I think I didn't truly grasp the ramifications of Duchy money.

(I accepted that it was Charles' money and he could do whatever he wished.)
I suppose that technically, he can. However, now I see Charles as more or less a trustee of Duchy funds.
Once Charles succeeds, the Duchy money will be William's.

Will he really be happy with handing over a huge chunk of it to his brother, especially if they are not on the best terms?

When Charles becomes king he exchanges the Duchy of Cornwall for the Duchy of Lancaster. He won't need the Cornwall-money then to support Harry. And when Charles dies, Harry will inherit his fair share of Charles' money and William will have the Lancaster money. Charles has saved money from Cornwall-income for decades now and can save even more from the Lancaster-revenues. Plus he will inherit Sandringham and Balmoral who make profit from their estate. There will never be a problem for Charles and money, even if he supports Harry in style.

This is true but the situation still remains that eventually William will be King and in control of the Privy Purse (the monarch's personal income with the major part of it provided by the Duchy of Lancaster).

IIRC there was a good discussion here somewhere of what would happen with these royal duchies and the Crown Estates and such should the UK become a republic and do away with the monarchy altogether. The agreements in place now have been in place for a very long time without any changes to them and how they operate so its hard to imagine how any of it would be legally and reasonably changed. ?

I read several articles by scientists who said that the duchies and the Crown estate become the private estate of the Windsors if Britain becomes a republic, to do with them as the then head of the family pleases, because that washow it was meant when all three estates were created. There were some questions about the Crown Estate and Cornwall inheriting from intestate, familyless people who die but these were about the future, not the past.

But it was clear that the Head of the House of Windsor has a right to the assets of both duchies if the Royals quit being Royals. With the Crown Estate it's a matter of negociations. All because the Uk has common law and that benefitted the king/queen regnant for a long time.

 

[Lilyflo]

Actually, the renovations to Frogmore Cottage, like the renovations to Apt. 1A at Kensington Palace (the exterior, structural work, electrical and such) were paid for by the Queen through the Sovereign Grant which is given to the Queen to fund staff costs, official travel and property maintenance. This Grant comes from a percentage of the profits the Crown Estates accrues annually and is calculated accordingly.

Yes we know the details because we follow these things more than the average citizen but people see the sovereign grant as something the government gives to the Queen & it's described in the press as 'taxpayers money' hence the "we paid for it" refrain that won't go away, particularly now that they won't be living there for the majority of time. In times like these, it's perception that matters & my point is that H&M paying for it is an easy PR solution to one of the many public gripes that are likely to escalate in this unprecedented situation.

 

[Betsypaige]

I agree. I think, at least for a time, we'll see Harry traveling back and forth. I'm thinking maybe a week in the UK followed by two to three months in Canada, then another week in the UK, etc. However, I very much doubt we'll see Meghan in the UK again for anything to do with the RF. Yes, she may occasionally enter the UK to visit a friend or perform some work commitment but I very, very much doubt it'll be royal work. I truly don't believe we'll ever see her in the company of the RF ever again and I really believe she's done her last engagement on behalf of the Queen. I think Harry will try to balance the two for a while but I don't see that lasting more than a year, tops. As for how they travel...I would think that it's probably first class commercial barring any credible or specific threat that would necessitate a different method.

That jetting back and forth is an awful lot of travel, but I think if Harry wants to gradually wind down it might work. I don’t think that will be feasible long term, however, as it’s just too exhausting. My gut tells me that he actually won’t do that many engagements; he really seems done with the whole gig. Considering how fast Meghan fled, I tend to agree with you.....

I’m not sure that Charles or The Queen “should” pay for Harry’s security. If they want to, that’s their call. But “should”?? As in they should feel obligated to. That is very expensive.

Harry wanted to be “financially independent”. Harry wanted to step down as a senior royal. He wants to only be in the U.K. part time. He opted to go public with this without prior notice to his family. He followed that up with a website. He’s caused his family a lot of hurt and stress. His timing was particularly good since they’d just dealt with the Andrew situation, which then put them down one member.

Even when his and Meghan’s future is sorted out, the rest of the family will get to deal with the fallout of being down 2 more senior royals. William will have no full time support from his generation, unless something changes. (If any- depending on how things go.)

I don’t think anyone “should” feel obligated to do anything. Though naturally Charles will want his son and family taken care of. But I don’t agree with the word “should”.

This summarizes everything perfectly. Harry and Meghan need to understand that there are consequences to their choices, choices being the key word. They’ve decided that they don’t want to be part of the Royal life (for me, until I see otherwise, I think “part-time” means “rarely seen”). Ok, if that’s what makes them happy, so be it, but that means rejecting everything, not just the difficult things (media, etc..) but the benefits as well.

The burden their choice has placed on the BRF is significant. Everyone’s role now will have to be evaluated, many lives will change in order to accommodate Harry and Meghan’s desires. It’s a good thing for the Monarchy that most Royals don’t put personal happiness ahead of duty. That’s not to imply that Royals don’t deserve to me happy, but surely there was some other way.

 

[Helen.CH]

Out of interest, what sort of time commitment would people consider acceptable for a 'part-time' working member of the BRF?

Looking at the official duties of full-time working BRF members in 2019 in terms of days (as supplied by Iluvbertie) they range from 83 days to 160 days (not including the older cousins). I'm not including names so we can avoid comparisons of royals so just looking at those figures (which include days spent on overseas visits) what could a part-time working role look like?

I'm thinking for a 2nd tier royal like Harry (ie not the monarch, the heir or the heir's heir) approximately 40 days per year would suffice to still be considered a working member albeit part-time. I'm using days rather than number of engagements because for someone living partly overseas, they'll fit several engagements into 1 day, which in total could equate to 50% of the engagements done by some full-time members.

Again, I’d like to emphasise that this isn’t about comparing specific royals with each other so as per mods direction, please don’t go there. This is just my thinking about the sort of time commitment people would expect for someone to be considered a working BRF member.

I have been asking myself the same.
But who knows, at the moment it looks as if the visa thing can be solved but with engagements in the UK it won't be a jan-july in Canada and rest in Uk thing but flying every now and then .
As I have said before this statistics about how many engagements the different royals fullfilled makes me shake my head, though some work behind the scenes is not included most of them lead a more than relaxed life. I appreciate those with small children have more time to hope the future generation with not have to deal with such mental problems some have but beside this they all should work harder!
To H&M not the amount but the kind of work seems to be all important.
The only patronage I wonder about is the Royal Ballet Meghan took over, this would mean to come to some evenings.... we will see.

 

[pkl]

What's the problem here?

They could just continue as the duke and duchess of sussex. No royal highness. And no money from the state. If they start their own brand/business etc. they can not use their royal title. I really can't see the problem. Harry will never become King anyways. So I really can not see the problem. Maybe because I am a scandinavian informal person... I have never understood why the pherifere family of the Queen still represent the monarchy either. The Gloucester and the Kent family? I can't understand why... it's so strange. And yes, I know about all that british tradition stuff. When Charles and Camilla become King and Queen concort, he will slim the monarchy to be Charles - William - George. No extended family. I think he would do something like that. So why not just leave the Sussex'...

 

[Alison H]

I certainly do not have police protection. I would never dream of getting into a car with a drunk driver, nor of not wearing my seat belt. I don't see how lack of police protection can be blamed for Diana's death, tragic as it was.


I feel a bit sorry for Justin Trudeau, who's having to field awkward questions about who should pay for security. He must be wondering how on earth he's got dragged into all this, from nowhere. It's hardly his problem that Harry and Meghan want to jump ship.

 

[Denville]

I think she had her doubts, I truly do, but kept them to herself because she wanted to see her grandson happy. It wouldn’t surprise me if she was concerned at how fast it all happened from when they met, ijmo . Perhaps HM gave Harry a role with the Commonwealth because she thought he was responsible, I don’t know, but am sure she never expected to be blindsided.

I think frankly that the queen was foolish to let the wedding happen. Thoguht so at the time. She should have insisted on some safeguards like Meghan living here in the UK for a year or at least leading a private life for a year or 2 after marriage and not taking on commitments like royal duties, the Commonwealth etc. I cant believe that if she really had doubts about Meg that she would allow Harry to take on a full time royal role with his wife by his side.. in case it all wetn pear shaped.
But I think it is clear now that Harry was very wobbly, even if his public image was the cheerful good natured fellow.. and surely his family must have been aware of this, as they see him in private unless he was very good at concealing it all. (So its possible that they were aware of his problems but tried to blind themselves and hoped he'd settle down).
I think that Meghan has encouraged him to let his feelings out and this has led to his being more and more ready to bail on his royal duties life.

I think I didn't truly grasp the ramifications of Duchy money.

(I accepted that it was Charles' money and he could do whatever he wished.)
I suppose that technically, he can. However, now I see Charles as more or less a trustee of Duchy funds.
Once Charles succeeds, the Duchy money will be William's.

Will he really be happy with handing over a huge chunk of it to his brother, especially if they are not on the best terms?

Obviously whatever financial arrangemetns are made from the Duchy money will have to be agreed to by Wiliam as well...

 

[Roderick]

I think frankly that the queen was foolish to let the wedding happen. Thoguht so at the time. She should have insisted on some safeguards like Meghan living here in the UK for a year or at least leading a private life for a year or 2 after marriage and not taking on commitments like royal duties, the Commonwealth etc. I cant believe that if she really had doubts about Meg that she would allow Harry to take on a full time royal role with his wife by his side.. in case it all wetn pear shaped.
But I think it is clear now that Harry was very wobbly, even if his public image was the cheerful good natured fellow.. and surely his family must have been aware of this, as they see him in private unless he was very good at concealing it all. (So its possible that they were aware of his problems but tried to blind themselves and hoped he'd settle down).
I think that Meghan has encouraged him to let his feelings out and this has led to his being more and more ready to bail on his royal duties life.

How would the Queen stop the wedding from happening? She can only advise and counsel, but she is not omnipotent when a grandson in his 30s decides to marry an American actress. She did what she often does in circumstances where she is not best pleased - she made the best of it.

In my opinion, Harry relied on the huge outpouring of love, understanding and sympathy he rightly received at the age of 12 when he lost his mother and seemed to believe it would last forever. As an adult, he was expected to move beyond that and be regarded and respected in his own right. He didn't like that. He crumbled when he and his wife were criticised and instead of working through it, pulled the plug in the most dramatic way he could think of.

 

[Pranter]

I certainly do not have police protection. I would never dream of getting into a car with a drunk driver, nor of not wearing my seat belt. I don't see how lack of police protection can be blamed for Diana's death, tragic as it was........


.

Because RPO's would of been aware of the issue with the drive and not allowed her to get in the car. Former RPO of Diana has said just that.



LaRae

 

[Alison H]

I don't really see that anyone should need a police officer to stop them from getting into a car with a drunk driver. In that case, you could argue that every single person who's ever got into a car with a drunk driver should have been under police protection as well, and so should every single person who's ever failed to put on their seat belt. There's an issue with Harry and Meghan's security because of the threat from terrorists, or kidnappers, but I don't really see an argument for the taxpayer to fund protection to stop people from getting into a car with someone who isn't fit to drive: surely that's just common sense.

However, that's all getting rather off the point.

 

[Jacknch]

Indeed, let's not go into debate about security for Diana, Princess of Wales - further posts of that nature will be deleted.

Please also be reminded that posts comparing members of the Royal Family with/against one another or which contain links to articles comparing them have also been deleted.

Let us discuss the topic of the thread on it's own merits.

 

[UglyAmerican]

Given the events of the past week, I wouldn't blame Charles for being concerned Harry or Meghan might react similarly if put in a similar situation. I'd never thought of it from that angle before, but I think it's an important point. I don't think it means taxpayers should necessarily foot the bill, but I do think it's a valid concern that's probably in the Queen's mind while she tries to sort it out.

 

[Skippy]

People, I have said it before and will say it again: let Harry and Meghan prove that they can manage/make it. Let them live up to the fuss they created.

As for the emotional/mental part: Harry is a grown man (or at least expected to be) and IF his marriage is a mistake (which I believe to be so), then he must find out himself.

 

[wyevale]

I , and the British Public are now questioning why 'the lady' [if committed to this country and her marriage] retained her lawyers and agents, as well as business/es in the US throughout the marriage ?

Her tearful interview looks like one of her many theatrical performances, and only that.

Many now see clearly she only ever has but one 'commitment', and that is to herself..

 

[Denville]

How would the Queen stop the wedding from happening? She can only advise and counsel, but she is not omnipotent when a grandson in his 30s decides to marry an American actress. She did what she often does in circumstances where she is not best pleased - she made the best of it.

In my opinion, Harry relied on the huge outpouring of love, understanding and sympathy he rightly received at the age of 12 when he lost his mother and seemed to believe it would last forever. As an adult, he was expected to move beyond that and be regarded and respected in his own right. He didn't like that. He crumbled when he and his wife were criticised and instead of working through it, pulled the plug in the most dramatic way he could think of.

AFAICR, Harry had to ask for permission to marry.. I agree that the queen wasn't likely to refuse it.. but maybe showing a bit of caution, like suggesting he and Meg lived together for a time, or at least that they moved into Royal life slowly (Meghan) would have been a good idea. If Meg had just done occasional engagements, as Kate did at first, and the queen had held off from giving Harry a big role like the commonwealth for a yaer or 2, then even if they had ended up saying they didn't want to stick wit the Royal role... it would not have been such a bombshell as this was. It was a difficult position I agree. the queen is very old now, its time she handed over most of her work to the grandsons and so on.. and Harry was supposed to be a full time royal. Philip has retired and is now very old and not well. SHe should be able to rely on her family to get on with Royal life and let her take things easier, and know that they will carry on for her. But I can't help wondering did she know that Harry was so wobbly? Or that Meghan was not likely to be able to support him to stay in his job? the problem is that it is difficult to see who can fill in for htem. ANdrew has now left his patronages, the commonwealth is an important job.. and I don't think that Charles wants to call in any of his nephews and nieces and they probably don't want to give up tehir lives either. I agree, if Harry was so wobbly, he should have made it clear years ago that maybe he simply coudlnt or wouldn't become a full time royal and that they would then have had some time to consider other options.

 

[texankitcat]

Obviously whatever financial arrangemetns are made from the Duchy money will have to be agreed to by Wiliam as well...

If there continues to be financial support by the time Charles ascends the throne, Harry will then be supported by the Duchy of Lancaster which King Charles will inherent as the Sovereign. William will not be in the position to support his brother.

 

[Osipi]

I , and the British Public are now questioning why 'the lady' [if committed to this country and her marriage] retained her lawyers and agents, as well as business/es in the US throughout the marriage ?

Is it a surprise to anybody that Meghan would have business ventures in the US? To be honest here, I didn't have an inkling that she did but then again, people that have substantial amounts of money invest it in various ways and businesses is one way. They also have lawyers and managers that will look after these investments for them. Its just never really been made public just what her wealth was invested in (that I can recall anyways).

HM, The Queen is no exception to this either. She uses her personal fortune and over the past 30 years, has earned $9,372,441.00 with her "business" being horse racing and its been her personal passion (according to MyRacing.com). Its never detracted from her duty, her love of Crown and Country and no one has really bat an eye about it other than the supposed "rumors" of the close friendship between Elizabeth and her racing manager, Henry Herbert, 7th Earl of Carnarvon with whom she had a wonderful friendship and was known as "Porchey". The Queen Mother was also big on investing in horse racing.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/08/que...illion-from-her-horse-racing-side-hustle.html

I imagine that if we really wanted to delve into it deeply, we'd find out that most of the royal family have portfolios and investments made with their personal monies in areas where that money would glean return for them. Its just their private income and private investments don't really hit the news that often as "black marks" against a royal and their dedication to Crown and Country.

So.... where's the beef?

 

[wyevale]

where's the beef?

*AGENTS* - why would 'a senior member of the BRF' require or retain them ? Does the Princess Royal do commercials ? Does the Duchess of Cambridge 'step the boards' ?

 

[Lilyflo]

*AGENTS* - why would 'a senior member of the BRF' require or retain them ? Does the Princess Royal do commercials ? Does the Duchess of Cambridge 'step the boards' ?

It wouldn't bother me if the work the agents procure is for charity fundraising. Meghan has acting experience so why not use that for things like voice-overs, presenting etc if it's dignified & raises money for good causes. However, if it's mainly for personal gain then we're back in the same mess we were with the Wessexes & we know how that turned out.

 

[Osipi]

*AGENTS* - why would 'a senior member of the BRF' require or retain them ? Does the Princess Royal do commercials ? Does the Duchess of Cambridge 'step the boards' ?

Maybe its just me but all agents aren't attached to the entertainment business. The definition of an agent is "a person who acts on behalf of another person or group." Do you know (and I'm honestly asking as I don't know) that Meghan's agent(s) are all pertaining to the entertainment business?

 

[Mbruno]

Then that eventually also becomes William's. Again paying for a brother he likely does not get on well with. I guess this could be a legit question regarding Harry's quest for this current transitional independence. Maybe preppy oneside against the idea of just being cut off. Not that it wouldn't happen under his reign but it could have.

The Queen's children have benefited greatly from her living a very long time. I pray Charles has that same health. Nothing is guaranteed and family issues are clearly a thing. Right or wrong.... trust between the brothers is non existent. That much is clear.

Do your think then that Harry’s quest for financial independence was motivated by fears that William might cut him off when he is king ?

Anyway, going forward I believe it makes sense that second- born children in Royal Families grow up with financial independence as a goal considering that public support for funding siblings of monarchs later in life is diminishing. The norm for adult siblings will be to be part timers and be reimbursed only for the royal events they attend as it is the case in Sweden or the Netherlands .

The problem with Harry is that it should have been done the proper way , I e going to university and getting a real career , or starting a business like Princess Anne’s that is completely separated from his royal profile. The Sussex Royal brand mixes the two things in a completely inappropriate way .

 

[Osipi]

I'm still thinking that by "financially independent" and "professional income" and the trademarking of the "brand" Sussex Royal is in reference to the Sussex Royal Foundation they're establishing for their philanthropic work.

They would be part time royals working for the "Firm" and Queen and country and totally separated would be their philanthropic work with their foundation and how its run, managed apart from Sovereign Grant funding. Being professional philanthropists could be the "business" and "career" path they wish to take.

But what do I know. I'm just following this like everybody else is and enjoying an immensely informative and intelligent discussion about it. ?

 

[Kataryn]

I , and the British Public are now questioning why 'the lady' [if committed to this country and her marriage] retained her lawyers and agents, as well as business/es in the US throughout the marriage ?

Her tearful interview looks like one of her many theatrical performances, and only that.

Many now see clearly she only ever has but one 'commitment', and that is to herself..

I read she removed her company from "noisy" California to "discreet" Delaware, both in the US?? Where did you read this with the move from the Uk to the US? Considering that she still as an American has to declare her taxes there, it is probably good for her and for the Royal family (whose finances were said to be involved in these tax declarations) to change the adress from California to Delaware. I was wondering anyway why so many actors have agencies and lawyers in such "obscure" states when they resided in California? This explained it!


As for your opinion on her reactions, theatrical or not, and her devotion only for herself or for Harry and his family, too is again duly noted but contested.



I personally see why she could have reacted as she did, though I'm not happy about it for the sake of the rest of the RF. But our mileage varries here.