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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing I loathe is Ingrid Seward proclaiming that H and M have won the first round, as if this were a prize fight. The Queen and Charles were never going to prohibit Harry from following his heart - probably Harry and Meghan knew that. I think it’s unseemly to think that they caved as opposed to just wanting their son and grandson to be happy.
 
Excuse me? of course they can! the reason they need it in the first place is the fact that Harry is royal and Meghan and Archie are sharing his need for security through their association.
Meghan did not need this type of security before she became Royal the need for it happened after she joined the family. This was when she was subjected to hatred and and racism and where she was expected to put up with it personally and having her beautiful first born child being compared to a monkey just a few days old.
Im proud of them being responsible parents putting their family first and not putting up with the ridiculous demands of a petulant British public. Harry isa spare but he is also royal from birth he should be allowed to retain his birthright but live a life that is not attached dependently on royal duty. So it appears the Queen is also supportive what you think the rest of the family the Queen as well were not hurt by the hatred and the racism? Im sure that high on the list of avoidance is another Diana episode which the media seemed hell bent on recreating.


I'm fed up of pointing out that this is not about "hatred" or "racism" and that all members of the royal family and other well-known people come in for criticism, and sometimes worse, from the press.

The monkey comment was appalling, but it was made clear that it was not meant in a racist way - it could equally have been a picture of a performing seal or a performing dog. That doesn't make it OK, and it was horrible for anyone to speak about a baby like that, but it wasn't racist.

Meghan and Harry receive money from the Civil List, and from the Duchy of Cornwall which belongs to Prince Charles because he is the heir to the throne. They also received public money to pay for their wedding, and £2.4 million to do up their home. In return, they are expected to carry out engagements, and to accept that there will be public interest in them. You may as well say that my boss is imposing "ridiculous demands" on me or being "petulant" by expecting me to turn up for work in return for paying a monthly salary into my bank account.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm fed up of pointing out that this is not about "hatred" or "racism" and that all members of the royal family and other well-known people come in for criticism, and sometimes worse, from the press.

Meghan and Harry receive money from the Civil List, and from the Duchy of Cornwall which belongs to Prince Charles because he is the heir to the throne. They also received public money to pay for their wedding, and £2.4 million to do up their home. In return, they are expected to carry out engagements, and to accept that there will be public interest in them. You may as well say that my boss is imposing "ridiculous demands" on me or being "petulant" by expecting me to turn up for work in return for paying a monthly salary into my bank account.


The U.K. made many times back, the cost from the wedding, in tourism dollars.

The Queen (whomever does these things for her that is) had already started repairing Frogmore as it is her responsibility to maintain the Crown properties. The Sussexes paid for all interior fittings and fixtures.

I've yet to see the Sussexes object to public interest in them. There is no reason to create strawmen reasons. They have been pretty clear what is is they object to and doing engagements, dealing with the public isn't it.

The Sussexes have already said they are giving up any official/government funds. Whatever Charles gives his sons to support their households is his business..it's his money.


LaRae
 
Since most of their money comes form Charles.. its easy to give up "public funding"..
 
Since most of their money comes form Charles.. its easy to give up "public funding"..

That's not the point. The hue and cry has been they shouldn't receive any funding etc etc. They are giving it up. But that's not going to be enough right? What's it going to take to make you ppl happy? Do you want them to live in a trailer house? Give all their money to orphans and disappear into the wilderness?



LaRae
 
I'm fed up of pointing out that this is not about "hatred" or "racism" and that all members of the royal family and other well-known people come in for criticism, and sometimes worse, from the press.

Meghan and Harry receive money from the Civil List, and from the Duchy of Cornwall which belongs to Prince Charles because he is the heir to the throne. They also received public money to pay for their wedding, and £2.4 million to do up their home. In return, they are expected to carry out engagements, and to accept that there will be public interest in them. You may as well say that my boss is imposing "ridiculous demands" on me or being "petulant" by expecting me to turn up for work in return for paying a monthly salary into my bank account.

There is no Civil List, it ceased to exist a long time ago. The structure of the revenue of the Queen are the sovereign Grant (25% the venue of the Crown Estates), 100% of Revenue from the Duchy of Lancester, Private investment

Like what is said above, Charles is free to do what he wants from his revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall. The structure of thier revenue was 95% from charles, 5% from the sovereign grant for official activities
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What's it going to take to make you ppl happy?

At a guess : Loyalty and Commitment ?

MILLIONS were happy on their wedding day, Today 'not so much'..
 
Last edited:
Isn't it a question, too, if all these patronages can go on in the future.
As a non british I got the feeling that in the Uk there is hardly any flee flying without some royal connection. When elder Members stop working, to be realistic Charles with only two children of his own how will that circus go on and is this really necessary and when, yes, how is it to be dealt?
The RF needs this to proof their own need but after all like Princess Ann has shown often, it is a business and I wonder why people do not seem to get this and go absolutely crazy about a royal visit- they do giod work even without a patronage, maybe it it time to develop more selfconfidence for the future ��

A fellow Dutch poster , Duc er Pair, mentioned how King Willem Alexander dropped several ( most actually) royal patronages upon ascending the throne. Realistically , I think something along these lines should happen in the UK. I really don’t see why, as you said, every NGO in the country needs to have a royal patron or a royal connection to it. It seems to me that the Royal Family feels that is important to keep them close and relevant to “ the people” , but maybe that will change as part of “ slimming down” and they will focus instead on broader umbrella initiatives rather than individual patronages.
 
At a guess : Loyalty and Commitment ?

MILLIONS were happy on their wedding day, Today 'not so much'..

They've shown plenty of that. Perhaps that should be more of a two way street.

If the Queen is willing to let them go down to part time status then it should be nothing to you.



LaRae
 
That's not the point. The hue and cry has been they shouldn't receive any funding etc etc. They are giving it up. But that's not going to be enough right? What's it going to take to make you ppl happy? Do you want them to live in a trailer house? Give all their money to orphans and disappear into the wilderness?



LaRae
I don't greatly care what they do if they would go away.. but I don't think they will. They want to continue to do royal duties. They want to continue to have a house in Britian. they want to "earn their own money" which will be done by "marketing themselves". And in spite of claiming they want to raise their own money they are clelary willing to take hand outs from Charles. and who's goig to pay for security? That is a big expense esp if they are going to be back and forth to the UK...

They've shown plenty of that. Perhaps that should be more of a two way street.

If the Queen is willing to let them go down to part time status then it should be nothing to you.



LaRae
the queen is clearly NOT happy with it. She has even said so discreetly in her statement. But she problaby feels she has no option but to agree to some of their demands or her grandson will crack up or the marriage will break up...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since most of their money comes form Charles.. its easy to give up "public funding"..


Even if Harry decided to retire completely, it would be okay for him to get money from his father (out of his father's private income). He has no say in his security costs, he is endangered because he is Charles' son, so has to be protected like anybody who is endangered in Britain. Britain's people decided to stick with their monarchy, thus the sons of the future monarch are figureheads of society (willing or not) that need to be protected because a lot of people are full of hatred and others are critical of the government's politics and might focus on taking out the prince and his family. That's how it is, Harry cannot do anything against it, "Where's the beef?"
 
I have said it before, nobody has an issue with the new life but they need to be truly self sufficient and not a half way house. What they put on the website was a list of demands, they turned the public against them. They have upset our queen, bad optics.
 
the queen is clearly NOT happy with it. She has even said so discreetly in her statement. But she problaby feels she has no option but to agree to some of their demands or her grandson will crack up or the marriage will break up...

No one said she was happy I said she was WILLING. We don't know exactly what she has agreed to other than they will be splitting their time between Canada and the U.K.

Whatever they end up doing, it will be an agreement within the family. We may like it or not. That's going to matter little. It's whatever they can work out amongst themselves.


LaRae
 
the queen is clearly NOT happy with it. She has even said so discreetly in her statement. But she problaby feels she has no option but to agree to some of their demands or her grandson will crack up or the marriage will break up...


Tthe queen can have disappointed or even negative feelings but she is able to allow for other people to decide on their own way of life.That's what makes her a great queen. I wish all Royal Watchers could be as generous and respectful towards the right of other people to lead their own life as they want.

(Again : we have no idea yet how Meghan and Harry meant by their words from their IG-statement. The queen does. And while she was happy to have him support her, she supports his choices and said he will always be a part of her family. So I honestly doubt Harry's choices will turn out to be too crass).
 
Precisely. It wasn't a good idea fro Ed and Sophie to go into business. THey weren't skilled at it and there are always going to be accusations of using a royal status for commercial reasons even if it is unfair. and in the end Ed and Sophie had to give up and go to full time royal work.. Harry and Meghan will problaby find that it is a lot harder to earn the sort of money they want than they originally thought and they may have to cross lines to try and earn money.. then Charles will problaby end up giving them a bigger allowance to try and protect them from criticism.
What business did Sophie and Edward went into?
To my knowledge Edward had his failed production company, but Sophie had a pretty successful PR firm before even meeting Edward (which she decided to close after the fake Sheik disaster, out of respect to The Queen. They than, to my knowledge, became full time working royals.

Have I missed something?
 
I don't greatly care what they do if they would go away.. but I don't think they will. They want to continue to do royal duties. They want to continue to have a house in Britian. they want to "earn their own money" which will be done by "marketing themselves". And in spite of claiming they want to raise their own money they are clelary willing to take hand outs from Charles. and who's goig to pay for security? That is a big expense esp if they are going to be back and forth to the UK...


Newsflash...royal offspring take handouts from their parents. ALL of them.

The rest they will decide, I'd imagine when they are in the U.K. they will have RPO's. When in Canada they may have private security ...no one knows yet.

You are creating this whole senario without even having evidence and very little factual info. Instead of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth wait and see what happens first.



LaRae
 
I think Charles had a stroke of genius when he established his Prince's Trust back in the 70s. That organization encapsulates a whole lot of things under one roof. We saw the same thing with the development of the Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and now the proposed Sussex Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Things are all under a specific umbrella and even incentives within them are on a global mission. Its changing gradually from being a "visit X and opening Y hospital wing within the UK to reaching more and more people around the globe and getting them involved and participating. The royal visiting the local areas and being seen isn't going to be replaced anytime soon but they're also incorporating things on a larger, wider and more global stage as its so easy to do now. Let's just say its so much easier to buy the world a Coke than it used to be.

Perhaps that's the fly in the ointment with the Sussexes. They're building a new foundation and perhaps, although it went haywire and chaos ensued, their business plan for the foundation is something entirely different than what has been done before and may actually end up being the wave of the future. A private non profit organization that is self sufficient and self funding. In my mind, when you're creating a foundation to champion a cause or a incentive or a need, you don't want to be picky and choosy where the green dollars come from that actually power the work of the foundation. Is this what is meant by "financially independent" and "professional income"? I think it may be and hence they realize the need to forego the Sovereign Grant funding.

We actually don't really know that the Sussexes intend to "pad their pockets" financially through paid contracts, merchandising and TV appearances and such. If that is the case, then they, in my eyes, would be working to be financially independent away from daddy's support. If its for their foundation and the philanthropic work they're aiming to be self sufficient and they don't make a dime of profit from it, Charles' support may still be needed and given freely and even applauded.

I think what we need to do now is just wait and see what information and clarification on these matters are made public. We've been assured that we will be informed in good time.

My cold ones are starting to run out.... time to do a run to the store. :D
 
Last edited:
You seem to imagine the BRF works/exists in a vacuum ? They do not.. Public opinion matters a great deal, as does the perceived opinion that the Sussexes have upset HMQ - it isn't something that will be 'forgotten in a hurry'.

No I am well aware they pay attention to public opinion as do most government entities... however they do make their own way as we have all seen. No one is calling you asking if you think the Queen should do X are they? Whatever the Queen decides will be something you all have to live with. You may or may not like it.

The release of the website was badly done and they should take heat about it.



LaRae
 
Newsflash...royal offspring take handouts from their parents. ALL of them.

The rest they will decide, I'd imagine when they are in the U.K. they will have RPO's. When in Canada they may have private security ...no one knows yet.

You are creating this whole senario without even having evidence and very little factual info. Instead of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth wait and see what happens first.



LaRae

I think it's easy for us Americans to have point of views either supporting or not supporting Harry and Meghan's decision (Lord knows I do), but one thing we have to keep in mind is we aren't paying for them and they are not "our" Royal Family. Anyone from the UK who has issues with these developments certainly has a right to air them, just as Canadians have the right to air their concerns on paying for security on a long term basis for the Sussex's. Fortunately, we are exempt from that debate in the US and can just air our opinions overall. :lol:
 
Prince's Trust

I'd forgotten about The Prince's Trust [in all the 'hue and cry'].

Unless the [to be Wales', in the next reign] can find the time -[amidst a gazillion other duties] to run it, it will [in the absence of Sussex], surely lose its royal connections -

The Wessexes/Edinburgh's will be busy the the DoE award scheme, York is a 'no-no', Anne has 'enough on her plate', and George is a mere lad ...

Who else is there ?
 
Last edited:
I'd forgotten about The Prince's Trust [in all the 'hue and cry'].

Unless the [to be Wales', in the next reign] can find the time -[amidst a gazillion other duties] to run it, it will [in the absence of Sussex], surely lose its royal connections -

The Wessexes/Edinburgh's will by busy the the DoE award scheme, York is a 'no-no', Anne has 'enough on her plate', and George is a mere lad ...

Who else is there ?

Couldn't there be a simple solution such as renaming it "The King's Trust"? ?

I think it's easy for us Americans to have point of views either supporting or not supporting Harry and Meghan's decision (Lord knows I do), but one thing we have to keep in mind is we aren't paying for them and they are not "our" Royal Family. Anyone from the UK who has issues with these developments certainly has a right to air them, just as Canadians have the right to air their concerns on paying for security on a long term basis for the Sussex's. Fortunately, we are exempt from that debate in the US and can just air our opinions overall. :lol:

Most certainly the information to reach the Metropolitan Police Service is easily available to anyone that would want to lodge a complaint about how they deem the royal protection details are handled. Their taxes pay for *all* of Metropolitan Police Service (as I understand it) and it is up to them to deem who needs and who doesn't need security. Like us in the US, we know where our tax dollars go but we have no say in how the government chooses to spend it for the most part. :D
 
Last edited:
I think it's easy for us Americans to have point of views either supporting or not supporting Harry and Meghan's decision (Lord knows I do), but one thing we have to keep in mind is we aren't paying for them and they are not "our" Royal Family. Anyone from the UK who has issues with these developments certainly has a right to air them, just as Canadians have the right to air their concerns on paying for security on a long term basis for the Sussex's. Fortunately, we are exempt from that debate in the US and can just air our opinions overall. :lol:


Yes we have very different ways of looking at things...and no one has said a word about ppl not having a right to air their views. Disagreeing with them is not telling them they can't speak.


LaRae
 
No one said she was happy I said she was WILLING. We don't know exactly what she has agreed to other than they will be splitting their time between Canada and the U.K.

Whatever they end up doing, it will be an agreement within the family. We may like it or not. That's going to matter little. It's whatever they can work out amongst themselves.


LaRae

This issue had been discussed over and over again and we are running into cyclic arguments.

Nonetheless, it is important to stress that, although the Duchy of Cornwall surplus revenue is private income , it is not the personal income of Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor as an individual , but rather an income that is tied to a tittle ( or office) of Duke of Cornwall ( the eldest son of the monarch who is the heir apparent). Proof of that is that , when Charles becomes King and William becomes the heir ( and, automatically, the new Duke of Cornwall ) , the income goes 100 % to him and his immediate family and no longer to Charles. Likewise , Forbes magazine doesn’t count the revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster in HM The Queen’s net worth because, again, it is not her personal fortune like Balmoral or Sandrigham , even if irevenue therefrom can be used privately, but rather an ex-offficio income to maintain her and her family in their capacity as the British Royal Family.

In other words, there is a fine distinction between Charles funding H&M from his personal fortune ( which he can will,, sell and dispose of as he pleases ) and funding them with his private income as the heir. The latter can be perfectly used to fund the heir’s maintenance costs ( his “ toothpaste” as some posters here like to repeat ad nauseam) and even to maintain the heir’s family like his adult children. But the Queen in her statement made now a subtle, but in my opinion, clear distinction between “ her ( and by extension, Charles’s) family “ and “ Harry and Meghan’s family “ .

I fully accept and understand that it will be politically controversial for Charles to use the Duchy’s money ( I.e. the heir’s private income, not his personal money ). to pay for example for housing cost overseas ( in Canada) of Harry and Meghan’s family when that family is seen as a separate entity from the heir’s family or, more broadly, the British Royal Famiily.
 
Last edited:
If the Queen is willing to let them go down to part time status then it should be nothing to you.



LaRae

Really, what choice does she have?
She can't lock them up in the Tower.
And, it's not like she can control the press, either.
They may find things are even worse than they were before.

If they prefer Canada, fine.
(Hopefully that will reduce the whining about how awful their lot in life was in the UK!)
 
Yes, I find the leftist leaning Guardian a more neutral paper when it comes to reports of the RF, Their writers should hate the Royals for what they are but instead they just look at the circus surrounding them and have their own thoughts. Which they sometimes share with the reader. Like this, an article I really think should be read by all Royal watchers here - even if they are ultra-conservative.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/11/post-racial-britain-harry-meghan-tabloids
 
Really, what choice does she have?
She can't lock them up in the Tower.
And, it's not like she can control the press, either.
They may find things are even worse than they were before.

If they prefer Canada, fine.
(Hopefully that will reduce the whining about how awful their lot in life was in the UK!)


She doesn't have to agree to anything...she could say nope you are either FT Royals or you need to give it up. She could agree to various things...we don't know what all she's agreed to yet except that they can live in Canada part of the time.

Things may well end up worse than before. If so they will have to figure it out.



LaRae
 
Splitting their time between two countries, or even three countries if they want to spend time in California, is only really going to work until Archie's old enough for school … but that's over 3 1/2 years away yet.
 
I remember quite a few times it was mentioned Harry maybe taking on The Prince's Trust and people shut it down and said it would be better project for someone like Kate. Well there ya go. Maybe she will.

We have zero idea what is happening except the Sussexes are stepping down from being full time and living part time in Canada.

I disliked how they went about it though I can understand their POV. It is clear the family are reluctant supporters of them making such a shift but they can't force them to stay and be unhappy. My guess is that they view this transition period as that... a time for them to get away and really reset.

A lot can change in a year. This family knows all too well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This issue had been discussed over and over again and we are running into cyclic arguments.


(...)

. Likewise , Forbes magazine doesn’t count the revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster in HM The Queen’s net worth because, again, it is not her personal fortune like Balmoral or Sandrigham , even if irevenue therefrom can be used privately, but rather an ex-offficio income to maintain her and her family in their capacity as the British Royal Family..


Harry was born into this family and as long as Charles considers him to be his son, he can give him money from whatever source. Like it or not, but Harry and Meghan are members of the British Royal family and they can step down form working for the firm but they will always be son and daughter-in-law of Charles and thus: British Royals.



In other words, there is a fine distinction between Charles funding H&M from his personal fortune ( which he can will,, sell and dispose of as he pleases ) and funding them with his private income as the heir.


Source please??? I would love to read a judicial article about this distinction to further my knowledge about the details of the Royal system of the Uk.



But the Queen in her statement made now a subtle, but in my opinion, clear distinction between “ her ( and by extension, Charles’s) family “ and “ Harry and Meghan’s family “ .


Yes, she did. But only to talk about her understanding for the (young and new) family of Harry, Meghan and little Archie. To quote HM's statement: "we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family."
How is "remain a valued part of my family" translatable to "a clear distinction between her and "Harry and Meghan's" family. This small family unit is a valued part of "her" (aka The British Royal) family, that's what the queen explicitely said.

Now think about how you read it! Don't you think you faked a "truth" here by alleging HM does not consider them part of "her" family???

Not much better than a DM-writer, IMHO!


I fully accept and understand that it will be politically controversial for Charles to use the Duchy’s money ( I.e. the heir’s private income, not his personal money ). to pay for example for housing cost overseas ( in Canada) of Harry and Meghan’s family when that family is seen as a separate entity from the heir’s family or, more broadly, the British Royal Famiily.


Where are they seen as a seperate entity? The queen explicitely stated that they are members of "her" family. The "Queen's family" is the British Royal family.


Please stop coming up with such blatent untruths to push oil into a fire. You have a right to your opinion, but stick with the facts as they were published by the Court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom