I'm going to include some links here to commentary in The Guardian as they live blog the so-called summit
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...oyal-family-queen-duke-duchess-sussex-william
"It is being reported in London’s Evening Standard that the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, has privately assured the Queen that the commonwealth country would pick up the bill for security for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex if they were to move to Canada as has been mooted.
That could prove contentious domestically for Trudeau. Dr Barry Mackenzie, a Canadian royal historian, was asked about exactly this on BBC Radio 5 live this morning, and said: “That I think is going to be a sticking point for Canadians. And even though this whole scenario seems to have done a lot to make Canadians sympathetic to the situation in which the Queen finds herself, at the same, if this arrangement means that Canadians are going to have to pick up that bill, then I do fear that may be fodder for republicans, who already complain about the fact that the monarchy is expensive.”
We heard similar views when we asked our Canadian readers what they thought about the proposed move."
Pertaining to the rules for commercial activity:
"The Press Association have just put out a report outlining the existing rules by which members of the royal family are allowed to carry out commercial activities. They could form the starting point for any agreement that comes out of today’s summit meeting. They were devised almost 20 years ago, in the wake of a scandal when the Countess of Wessex was accused of cashing in on her royal status in an attempt to win business for her PR firm.
Under the rules, royals have to first consult the Lord Chamberlain before taking on a new business activity. They could be seen as an impediment to the kind of independence that Harry and Meghan appear to be seeking.
The guidelines also stressed that anyone connected with a business activity “should be carefully briefed not to try to exploit, either deliberately or inadvertently, the member of the royal family’s position, associations or access”.
At the time the rules were introduced there were also calls for a register of royal interests, similar to that operated by MPs, listing the business interests or shareholdings of members of the royal family. This was not introduced, with palace officials warning it could be exploited as an unofficial endorsement.
It does throw into sharp relief one of the contradictions at the heart of the Sussexes’ bid for commercial freedom. Their worth in terms of endorsements and commercial exploitation rest, at least on Prince Harry’s side, almost entirely on being a member of the royal family. It is difficult to see how any work by the proposed “Sussex Royal” brand (see 10:50) can be anything other than tied up with their connections to the monarchy."