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

[Mbruno]

The income of the Duchy of Cornwall derives in part from the tenants who live on, work on & care for the land. Hard working folk who are the backbone of England. The idea that their labour would enrich anyone other than those committed fully to this kingdom feels deeply wrong.

The duchy is not some anonymous investment fund. It is a community. I see it as an unwritten convenant. The duchy owes as much to its tenants as they do to it. The people working for it deserve to be respected. That comes in no small measure from ensuring that income produced from their hard work is spent wisely & in a dignified manner.

On top of that, the Duchy has several privileges and powers that resemble a fiefdom more so than a private estate and are often questioned by anti-monarchist organizations. The Duke of Cornwall is free to choose to use his private income from the Duchy to maintain his son’s family in Canada while not doing any official work there on behalf of the UK, but chances are that decision might boost calls for greater parliamentary oversight of the Duchy or changes to the Duchy’s privileges or the way the Duchy’s surplus revenue is allocated. I don’t think it would be wise to open that can of worms because of Harry and Meghan’s desire to live abroad, but I am afraid Charles will do it anyway. .

 

[wyevale]

enrich anyone other than those committed fully to this kingdom feels deeply wrong.

THIS, a thousand times this, anyone who has seen the recent Documentary on the work and Tenants of the estate would understand this.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=duchy+of+cornwall+documentary

 

[Lady Daly]

Spotlight on Royal Finances

Very informative article on the breakdown and history of the British Royal Family's financial institutions by the Wall Street Journal - WSJ. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...-puts-spotlight-on-royal-finances-11578942453. WSJ requires subscription hope this link through google works for anyone interested.

 

[_Heather_]

The income of the Duchy of Cornwall derives in part from the tenants who live on, work on & care for the land. Hard working folk who are the backbone of England. The idea that their labour would enrich anyone other than those committed fully to this kingdom feels deeply wrong.

The duchy is not some anonymous investment fund. It is a community. I see it as an unwritten covenant. The duchy owes as much to its tenants as they do to it. The people working for it deserve to be respected. That comes in no small measure from ensuring that income produced from their hard work is spent wisely & in a dignified manner.

That's actually a fabulous point and one that I hadn't thought of in those terms before. And for what it's worth, I think you've hit the nail square on the head.

 

[Ista]

I doubt the queen makes a distinction between her family and the Royal family. And if she does, "her" family would be the Mountbatten-Windsors as compared to the Windsors and the Armstrong-Jones.

I completely disagree with this. One of the many things that the Queen has been consistent about in the last 70 or so years of her life is the divide between her family (private) and the Royal family, which enjoys extraordinary privilege, and pays for that privilege by their devotion to and willingness to serve the nation. They are clearly and consistently two different entities, although the same individuals may be in both her family and the Royal family. If that is not understood, then it's not possible to grasp what some of these discussions are about and why they are such a huge honking deal to so many Britons.

(Edited to add)Here's an example, which is for illustrative purposes only, and not meant in any way to derail this thread:
Her willingness to force Prince Andrew to step back from his public life was her acting as Queen, head of the Royal family. Her attending church with her son, Andrew, was clearly her acting as a loving mother to a member of her family. Two clearly separate actions, done in two totally different capacities.

 

[Lilyflo]

Point 3: Their landlord payed for renovations to made the house ready to be rented out. They pay rent or have somebody else pay it. But rent is being payed. The queen would not allow the cottage to be rented out to someone else because of the entrance to Frogmore Gardens. So the newly renovated cottage either stays empty (again) or is lived in, earning rent. What problem is there? The queen could have bought them an entire estate like she did with the Princess Royal. Then it would be theirs not only in possession, but in ownership. What reason would there be to deprive them of their own house???

Yes what you say is completely rational but we're in a difficult situation here with H&M wanting to to step back from full-time royal work. Given this unusual situation, I think the BRF would be wise to shut down the complaints about the cost of the Frogmore Cottage refurb by having H&M pay for it. If they don't, it will be a running sore: "We the tax payer paid for their house renovation & they don't even live in it" will be repeated ad nauseam. Housing costs here in the UK have exploded & we have 'generation rent' who could never afford to rent somewhere like FC & can't get on the house-owning ladder. Many others (like mine) have their own houses via help from 'the bank of Mum & Dad'. The BRF could easily just make this contentious issue disappear & they should just do it.

 

[QueenMaryAndTheIvy]

some people down the thread were discussing how British the royal family or its members are.
William's and Harry's great-great-grandmother from maternal line was an American who became - briefly - Lady Roche. She was born in New York, died in New York. Ellen Frances Work (1857 - 1947) had a lineage to Armenian and Indian ancestors.
Prince Philip is fairly Danish (-German) from his father's side. His mother was born, though, at Windsor Castle, and his grandmother, too, but his great-grandmother was born at Buckingham Palace. If you go the lineage further down, his great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria was born at Kensington Palace, and her father at Buckingham House ( yes, the same place, there ARE changes in British history, houses go from palaces to ruins and the other way round.)
In this light, I find Duke of Windsor's comment on the British Royals very snobbish: he said to James Pope-Henessey that there are only two true royals living in the BRF ( 1958 or so), he and his sister Princess Mary Lascelles/Harewood. The blood mixed with a Scottish Bowes Lyon and he didn't count young Duke of Kent or his brother Gloucester as royal blood...?

 

[Somebody]

I would assume that, as far as Canada is concerned , the following are considered members of the Royal Family:

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/royal-family/members-royal-family.html

Thanks! So, that deviates from all three options and it's a bit hard to decipher what the boundary is. It seems that being a descendent of the queen and a royal highness are requirements but it's not enough as Beatrice and Eugenie are not included - so adults need to be full-time working members as well?

So, in that case it would make sense that if Harry and Meghan are no longer full-time-working members they also seize to be members of the royal family from the Canadian perspective.

 

[yvr girl]

Why? I don't follow foreign royals much but those who do so, have said that nearly all women who have married into other royal families have had A LOT of pressure from the press and negative criticism..such as Letizia Ortiz, or Mary Donaldson. and it has often extended to their relatives as well....

They get pressure in their own countries. Top British royals are much more global. In developed countries you would be hard pressed to find someone who didn't at least know who Harry and Meghan are, while the same cannot be said for Letizia or Mary. They definitely wouldn't be able to tell you who the 6th in line to the throne is.

 

[Betsypaige]

THIS, a thousand times this, anyone who has seen the recent Documentary on the work and Tenants of the estate would understand this.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=duchy+of+cornwall+documentary

Which I didn't see, but given all that, maybe Charles has to explain to his youngest son that he can't see how he can support him through the Duchy - it would be a disservice to those tenants. I'd think William would support this POV as well.

 

[wyevale]

make this contentious issue disappear & they should just do it.

AMEN, this must surelyhappen - the idea of this 'cottage' remaining empty, would be a gift to republicans..and one they will be certain to capitalise on..

 

[Jacknch]

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.

Personally speaking, I don't think there should be so much emphasis with regard to the terms "full-time" or "part-time" royals. I feel the same way about distinguishing between who is a "senior royal" and who is not.

Both issues are subjective. Maybe once a year or so, we get a newspaper article listing who are the hardest working royals and then it's all forgotten for anther year. Only when the matter is highlighted will people comment about value or worth and then move on.

I would add, that whilst keen royal watcher like us will have all the details brilliantly listed as to engagements carried out every year, the ordinary person-on-the-street probably wouldn't be bothered so much.

Provided members of the royal family are seen out and about on a regular basis, highlight important causes we might not otherwise hear about and generally act in a regal and dignified way as befits being a member of a royal family then I'm personally happy.

What people don't want is scandal or half their daily newspaper taken up with page upon page of royal analysis.

 

[Mirabel]

Also why does everyone assume Meghan is behind the decision to leave? First of all Harry is not stupid and is perfectly capable of using his mind and making decisions. Also Harry has on a couple of occasions indicated that he wanted to leave and this was pre-Meghan. He only stayed because of his grandmother. What changed besides getting married? He became a father and he saw the way his wife (and to an extent his child) were being treated. He made it very clear that he wasn’t going to play games with the media when it came to his family.

Maybe it's my own perception, but Harry seems very angry these days and has for some time.
What happened to the laughing, joking prince of yesteryear?

He's always had to deal with the press. Why is that suddenly so unexpected and enraging?

 

[Mbruno]

I completely disagree with this. One of the many things that the Queen has been consistent about in the last 70 or so years of her life is the divide between her family (private) and the Royal family, which enjoys extraordinary privilege, and pays for that privilege by their devotion to and willingness to serve the nation. They are clearly and consistently two different entities, although the same individuals may be in both her family and the Royal family. If that is not understood, then it's not possible to grasp what some of these discussions are about and why they are such a huge honking deal to so many Britons.

(Edited to add)Here's an example, which is for illustrative purposes only, and not meant in any way to derail this thread:
Her willingness to force Prince Andrew to step back from his public life was her acting as Queen, head of the Royal family. Her attending church with her son, Andrew, was clearly her acting as a loving mother to a member of her family. Two clearly separate actions, done in two totally different capacities.

I don’t know about the Queen herself, but I think that those issues are legally unclear in the UK.

There are countries like the Netherlands where official membership of the Royal Famiily is defined by law. In Spain, membership of the Royal Family is defined by royal decree and the Court differentiates between the official Royal Family and the “ Family of the King”, which is the King’s extended family. In Sweden, they have the “ royal house”, which is equivalent to the official royal family, and the “ king’s family” , which would be again the extended family.

In the UK, we know with certainty who is an HRH and who is not, but , other than that, it is not clear who belongs to the official royal family and who belongs only to the extended family, although we might guess based again on HRH status and access to public funding.

 

[Lilyflo]

The income of the Duchy of Cornwall derives in part from the tenants who live on, work on & care for the land. Hard working folk who are the backbone of England. The idea that their labour would enrich anyone other than those committed fully to this kingdom feels deeply wrong.

The duchy is not some anonymous investment fund. It is a community. I see it as an unwritten covenant. The duchy owes as much to its tenants as they do to it. The people working for it deserve to be respected. That comes in no small measure from ensuring that income produced from their hard work is spent wisely & in a dignified manner.

A good point well made. I know some Duchy tenant farmers & can vouch for the reciprocal respect. In that recent documentary about the Duchy, Prince Charles, in an informal speech to some tenants, thanks them for paying their rents (cue warm laughter) & says he hopes they agree he spends it wisely (or well, can't remember) - the gist was he spends a lot on investing in the future of the land & the communities who live on it eg via eco projects & commercial opportunities for locals. I honestly don't know how aggrieved most tenants might be about what Charles does with the surplus to support his own lifestyle & that of his sons. If they feel they're paying a fair rent & the landlord is investing back in to sustain the future, they might consider it isn't their business. Overall, I think the issue is perhaps more one for republicans who disagree with the notion of Charles & the Queen owning large chunks of UK land & property in the first place.

 

[_Heather_]

Maybe it's my own perception, but Harry seems very angry these days and has for some time.
What happened to the laughing, joking prince of yesteryear?

He's always had to deal with the press. Why is that suddenly so unexpected and enraging?

Yes and not just angry but just...down. Glum. Irritable. And while we're on the subject of why everyone believes this has an awful lot to do with Meghan, I've felt since the beginning that those "PDAs" that everyone fawned over smacked of overtones of Meghan treating Harry very much in a "mothering" fashion rather than as an affectionate partner. The constant hand on the back is very much a parental gesture and when you take into consideration things like talking over him and doing much of the talking in the engagement interview, etc. the impression I've had for quite some time of Harry is that of a chastised child who's been told to calm down. Factor in that it's been widely reported that his longtime and loyal friends were dropped like rocks and it feels very much like a parent removing their child from friends they didn't approve of.

It's just my take on it and there'll be loads of posters who don't agree. And that's fine. But it really isn't hard at all to see why many, many people feel this was all instigated or led by Meghan.

 

[yvr girl]

Who would be considered members of the RF? Those on the list on royal.gov.uk (so princess Margaret's grandchildren could stay in Canada but Lord Frederick could not) or only Royal Highnesses (in that case Peter could not decide to kind of move to Canada where his in-laws live while princess Eugenie could; but viscount Severn cannot)? Or only full-time working members of the royal family?

If the first, Harry & Meghan have nothing to worry about regarding staying in Canada.
If the second, that might be a reason for H&M to keep the styles of Royal Highnesses.
If the third, they don't meet that criteria anymore but would probably extended the courtesy as part of the transition period the queen announced.

There is actually a list.
https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/royal-family/members-royal-family.html

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Royal Sources, I use the term loosely, have confirmed that The Duchess of Sussex did not take part in the meeting yesterday. It was decided between the Sussexes that it was unnecessary for Meghan to join.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217037093823811584

One would have thought that Meghan would have had a speaking part about her viewpoints and feelings. After all, she is Prince Harry's wife.

 

[Gawin]

On top of that, the Duchy has several privileges and powers that resemble a fiefdom more so than a private estate and are often questioned by anti-monarchist organizations. The Duke of Cornwall is free to choose to use his private income from the Duchy to maintain his son’s family in Canada while not doing any official work there on behalf of the UK, but chances are that decision might boost calls for greater parliamentary oversight of the Duchy or changes to the Duchy’s privileges or the way the Duchy’s surplus revenue is allocated. I don’t think it would be wise to open that can of worms because of Harry and Meghan’s desire to live abroad, but I am afraid Charles will do it anyway. .

I agree - very bad optics & an issue of fairness. If the money is used to support Charles's family fine but restrict it to family members who can't earn their own income because they are working for the Crown.

 

[Betsypaige]

Yes and not just angry but just...down. Glum. Irritable. And while we're on the subject of why everyone believes this has an awful lot to do with Meghan, I've felt since the beginning that those "PDAs" that everyone fawned over smacked of overtones of Meghan treating Harry very much in a "mothering" fashion rather than as an affectionate partner. The constant hand on the back is very much a parental gesture and when you take into consideration things like talking over him and doing much of the talking in the engagement interview, etc. the impression I've had for quite some time of Harry is that of a chastised child who's been told to call down. Factor in that it's been widely reported that his longtime and loyal friends were dropped like rocks and it feels very much like a parent removing their child from friends they didn't approve of.

It's just my take on it and there'll be loads of posters who don't agree. And that's fine. But it really isn't hard at all to see why many, many people feel this was all instigated or led by Meghan.

Many of the media have noted it as well - because pre-Meghan, Harry was always a delight to deal with. Arthur Edwards talked about how he'd buy them drinks, etc....I find it hard to believe that Harry hates all of the media or that he views all of them as a necessary evil when by all accounts he had a good time with them. Maybe Meghan plays on his fears.....She seems to be an overpowering person - who has also dropped her friends like rocks.

 

[Pranter]

Point one - they don't want public money so that should be resolved
Point two - a very sticky issue
Point three - they should pay for the building's refurbishment & conversion to one home & subsequently pay rent on it.
Point four - seems like 54% don't think they lose their titles & it's unlikely anyway unless they wish it.

Point 3...they paid for the interior fixtures and furnishing. It is the Queen's job to make sure the Crown Properties are kept in good condition. Work to rehab it had already been put in place when it was offered to The Sussexes.




LaRae

 

[BaiSoSo]

Maybe it's my own perception, but Harry seems very angry these days and has for some time.
What happened to the laughing, joking prince of yesteryear?

He's always had to deal with the press. Why is that suddenly so unexpected and enraging?

He has a wife who the media has constantly bullied and a small child who has also received some of the media nastiness (chimpanzee, spoiled brat). No one wants that treatment for their family.

Although I would also say Harry made it very clear long before Meghan came into the picture that he didn't really like the media...he tolerated them. But when you have a family especially a young child usually your tolerance for bullcrap tends to go way down.

 

[Lilyflo]

Point 3...they paid for the interior fixtures and furnishing. It is the Queen's job to make sure the Crown Properties are kept in good condition. Work to rehab it had already been put in place when it was offered to The Sussexes.

Yes I know & I've rebutted the complaints with these facts before but we're in different territory now. There's a lot of disgruntled feeling around (the poll shows an indication of it) & this would be one item of contention they could easily remove.

 

[Pranter]

Many of the media have noted it as well - because pre-Meghan, Harry was always a delight to deal with. Arthur Edwards talked about how he'd buy them drinks, etc....I find it hard to believe that Harry hates all of the media or that he views all of them as a necessary evil when by all accounts he had a good time with them. Maybe Meghan plays on his fears.....She seems to be an overpowering person - who has also dropped her friends like rocks.

Harry was not always a delight to deal with. He had his own run in with reporters etc.

Gee maybe Harry's change of attitude toward the reporters and media started when while dating he had to issue a statement due to the harassment (which William publically supported) that has continued...Edwards and the rest would have to be idiots to not understand what's going on with his changed attitude.


LaRae

Yes I know & I've rebutted the complaints with these facts before but we're in different territory now. There's a lot of disgruntled feeling around (the poll shows an indication of it) & this would be one item of contention they could easily remove.

I don't understand the issue. They must have some sort of legal contract or agreement on the property. If the Queen wants to change those terms and have them pay rent (I assume they aren't now) that would be up to them to agree or move.



LaRae

 

[tausi]

One would have thought that Meghan would have had a speaking part about her viewpoints and feelings. After all, she is Prince Harry's wife.

I will not be surprised if the Queen said no Conference Calls per DM. I know Meghan and Harry always spread news that they are decision makers (sources ). It's quite tiring to read.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I think people are glossing over an important element when talking about money from the Duchy of Cornwall. Meghan and Harry released their website, and perhaps the most repeated phrase (other, ironically, than The Duke and Duchess of Sussex) was "financially independent."

To Joe and Sue Public, launching your platform on the idea of "financial independence" when you have no intention of cutting off the millions of pounds of income from your father came off as at best wildly out-of-touch and at worst deliberately misleading. When people talk about being "financially independent," they are not generally reliant on a parent for money.

So the issue here is not so much that people "have a problem" with what Charles does with his income from the Duchy, or that they "have a problem" with the Sussexes taking money from Charles. The huge pushback comes from this feeling that they are trying to pull the wool over over eyes by harking their own independence when the truth is nothing of the sort. They've meant one thing (independent from public income) and said quite another, and frankly, everyone is tired of it.

People are tired of not feeling that this whole affair was dealt with forthrightly. If they want to live part-time in Canada on Harry's father's income for the time being, say so.

And just to head off the criticism that no wool has been pulled over anyone's eyes because the website explains everything: Yes it has. These savvy people understand that most people just take in the highlights, and they have used the words "financially independent" at every chance they are given.

 

[wyevale]

The Telegraph reports a change in the location of the Duchess' company from California, to Delaware.

Regrettably its behind a Paywall, but the crux of the story is visible :

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217193443157561344

 

[_Heather_]

The Telegraph reports a change in the location of the Duchess' company from California, to Delaware.

Regrettably its behind a Paywall, but the crux of the story is visible :

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217193443157561344

Hm. Interesting. I really don't have a complete handle on what, if anything, this means but I did also see this earlier today which seems as though it's one of those things that's either very mundane and simply a paperwork issue or is a very big deal that they're hoping to keep quiet. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of business filings could weigh in?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217048740411908096

 

[Missjersey]

Yes and not just angry but just...down. Glum. Irritable. And while we're on the subject of why everyone believes this has an awful lot to do with Meghan, I've felt since the beginning that those "PDAs" that everyone fawned over smacked of overtones of Meghan treating Harry very much in a "mothering" fashion rather than as an affectionate partner. The constant hand on the back is very much a parental gesture and when you take into consideration things like talking over him and doing much of the talking in the engagement interview, etc. the impression I've had for quite some time of Harry is that of a chastised child who's been told to calm down. Factor in that it's been widely reported that his longtime and loyal friends were dropped like rocks and it feels very much like a parent removing their child from friends they didn't approve of.

It's just my take on it and there'll be loads of posters who don't agree. And that's fine. But it really isn't hard at all to see why many, many people feel this was all instigated or led by Meghan.

I agree. Long ago I remember how happy this forum was in anticipation for Harry’s big day. I don’t believe he was thinking back then of anything being discussed here now. He just wanted to be married (so many discussions here even on that). I think Meghan is the mastermind behind all this, chipping away at him and yes wearing him down. IMO he’s always been a man-child. Sadly, he’s allowed this mess. If it’s for “mental health” they need to leave, that imo should be their priority, not sussexroyal and their brand.
I would strip the title/styles in a NY second but I doubt it will happen. Yesterday I looked up to see the pics of their wedding and the one of Her Majesty looking at the bride says it all imo, she’s on to her. Harry made his bed so we shall see...

 

[katiebird]

The Telegraph reports a change in the location of the Duchess' company from California, to Delaware.

Regrettably its behind a Paywall, but the crux of the story is visible :

https://twitter.com/x/status/1217193443157561344

Incorporating in Delaware unless you have a need to be incorporated elsewhere is a standard business move, not something nefarious. It’s not a physical move, but a legality.

Unless you’re physically doing business in California, it would be a horrible business decision to be incorporated there. California has crazy high taxes.