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.
Regarding the discussion on the Duchy, here is the paragraph from the previously mentioned YouGov report, which differentiated between Duchy income vs. public money:

81% think Harry and Meghan should not receive any more financial support from public money;
67% think they should not continue to receive an income from the Duchy of Cornwall;
66% think the government should no longer fund the cost of the Sussex family’s security;
56% say they should no longer be allowed to live at Frogmore Cottage;
46% say they should even be stripped of their royal titles (a figure 12 points higher than the 34% who think they should be allowed to keep them).

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic.../01/13/brits-side-queen-over-harry-and-meghan
 
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?

Its not really a big deal. A lot of companies incorporate in Delaware because it has some corporate advantages that others don't

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/287677
 
The Duchess of Sussex did not join the royal summit with the Queen and senior royals by phone and instead relied on her husband to put their case for a new independent life.

There has been speculation about whether the duchess, who is in Canada with baby son Archie, was able to participate in Monday's discussions convened by the Queen at Sandringham.

A source said: "In the end, the Sussexes decided that it wasn't necessary for the duchess to join."

The duchess is reportedly the driving force behind the Sussexes wish to step back as frontline royals, become financially independent and live part of the year in Canada.

But it appears she was happy for Harry to conduct the face-to-face talks with his family about their wishes, without her direct input.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...ed-take-part-sandringham-summit-harry-deemed/

I feel like Meghan wants nothing to do with the Royals anymore, not her father-in-law, not the Queen, not anyone....and that’s troubling.


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?


I found this on the web. Delaware is also considered a tax haven...

There are two major reasons for Delaware’s dominance of the corporate incorporation business. One reason is the bi-partisan political consensus in Delaware to keep the Delaware corporation statute modern and up-to-date, and to rely on Delaware’s corporate law specialists for advice in how to do this. As a result, law students at every law school in the United States study the Delaware corporation statute and the decisions of Delaware courts interpreting that law.
Corporations want to operate under modern laws that clearly spell out what they can and cannot do. But other states could enact such laws, or simply copy Delaware’s. So the Delaware corporation statute can’t by itself account for Delaware’s success in attracting corporate incorporations.

The other major reason corporations choose to incorporate in Delaware is the quality of Delaware courts and judges. Delaware has a special court, the Court of Chancery, to rule on corporate law disputes without juries. Corporate cases do not get stuck on dockets behind the multitude of non-corporate cases. Instead, Delaware corporations can expect their legal disputes to be addressed promptly and expertly by judges who specialize in corporate law.

Part of the bi-partisan political consensus in Delaware is to appoint and confirm the best qualified corporate law experts to the Court of Chancery. And part of the legal culture in Delaware is to honor appointment to the Court of Chancery as the highest and most respected form of public service.

Other states can, and some have tried, to create similar courts dedicated to resolving corporate disputes. They, too, can resolve to appoint only their best legal experts to these courts. But they won’t have the large body of Delaware case law, court rulings, generated over many years that provide both guidance and predictability to Delaware corporations, lawyers, and judges.
 
Its not really a big deal. A lot of companies incorporate in Delaware because it has some corporate advantages that others don't

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/287677

Except that the link I posted was to an entirely different company. The company that incorporated in Delaware was her company from California called Frim Fram, Inc. The link I posted was to their company, Sussex Royal, and was from Companies House and, to my untrained eye, appears to she them stepping down as directors and appointing a new director. However, maybe the language used is standard and no big deal. I'm just not educated enough on business law in the UK to know.
 
Last edited:
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...

if the queen was "onto her", how come she permitted the marriage and gave Harry a Role with the Commonweatlh?
 
Ouch for them. It isn't ending well for them is it. Although people do seem sympathetic when it is an issue of his mental health but it is increasingly, yes please do deal with that but if you aren't here and don't want to be then you are not our problem.
 
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.

the point is, the public want Meghan and Harr gone and would prefer if they ddn't get money from public funds or Charles.. in his persona as Duke of Cornwall… (the money should go to good causes and to other royals who have worked for the country for all their lives.). If Charles wants to give them money from his private wealth, that can't be helped and he may feel obliged to do so...
 
I am thinking about:
Their engagement took place after spending very little time together.
Meghan was invited for Christmas before they were married. According to the press it was the first time The Queen had ever extended an invitation to a prospective new member of the BRF.
Taking a six week "vacation". They were not the busiest of royals.
Meghan and Harry came back to England without baby Archie. Why? We do not know if the baby stayed with the grandmother, a friend, or a nanny.
Meghan being a woman that has been used to the spot light, and she has been outspoken, then, why was she so astonished by the English tabloids?
Meghan left in a hurry. Why didn't they both attend the meeting? In my opinion they should have returned with baby Archie and attended that meeting together.
Princes Harry suffered a lot at a young age with the lost of her mother. Now, P.H. is a grown man who is aware the media attention the tabloids gave Princess Diana and blames their mother's death in part for the press pursuing PD.
Why did PH think the tabloids will be different with his wife.
They are public figures and part of the BRF. They should have thought about their lives as part of the BRF, specially Prince Harry who has been a Royal all his life.
They also were given a beautiful place, Frogmore Cottage, that they decorated to their liking.
Their actions were cowardly and irresponsible. Two grown people living of people taxes with all the privileges and in a separate setting.
 
Last edited:
if the queen was "onto her", how come she permitted the marriage and gave Harry a Role with the Commonweatlh?

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 am thinking about:
Their engagement took place after spending very little time together.
Meghan was invited for Christmas before they were married. According to the press it was the first time The Queen had ever extended an invitation to a prospective new member of the BRF.
Taking a six week "vacation". They were not the busiest of royals.
Meghan and Harry came back to England without baby Archie. Why? We do not know if the baby stayed with the grandmother, a friend, or a nanny.
Meghan being a woman that has been used to the spot light, and she has been outspoken, then, why was she so astonished by the English tabloids?
Meghan left in a hurry. Why didn't they both attend the meeting? In my opinion they should have returned with baby Archie and attended that meeting together.
Princes Harry suffered a lot at a young age with the lost of her mother. Now, P.H. is a grown man who is aware the media attention the tabloids gave Princess Diana and blames their mother's death in part for the press pursuing PD.
Why did PH think the tabloids will be different with his wife.
They are public figures and part of the BRF. They should have thought about their lives as part of the BRF, specially Prince Harry who has been a Royal all his life.

Basically he has always been shaky on royal life. Met a woman you after barely 2 years decided she couldn't deal with it. She wanted to leave and he wants to protect marriage and child and is, it appears, emotionally vulnerable.
 
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.

What about the more straightforward questions on favorable/unfavorable opinion about Harry/Meghan ? As you can see in the link, their favorability rate took a big dive. Of course , it can bounce back , but right now, at least in the UK, their PR is not working very well.
 
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.

Everyone had there doubts. People watched it and went. Aren't they sweet. How long will it last then? I am not saying that is right but right from the get go people could see the cultural and life turnaround Meghan was encountering.
 
I never comment on the British Royals, but in this one instance I will do so because I remember being a young pre-teen watching Diana getting married on that magical day in July. I feel sorry for both her sons, and sincerely wish them both well. It's a tough job, thus my admiration & respect for those that can handle it, and my sympathy for those that cannot (I would fall into the latter). Go with God.

ps: iluvbertie, I love reading your posts, always have. To me you define the Royal Forums. My admiration & respect for your opinion is beyond compare. You are I-T, lol. :)
 
Everyone had there doubts. People watched it and went. Aren't they sweet. How long will it last then? I am not saying that is right but right from the get go people could see the cultural and life turnaround Meghan was encountering.

...and others saw Harry with a wolf in sheep’s clothing..
 
What about the more straightforward questions on favorable/unfavorable opinion about Harry/Meghan ? As you can see in the link, their favorability rate took a big dive. Of course , it can bounce back , but right now, at least in the UK, their PR is not working very well.

Yes I did notice that. My comment though was more directed to the questions about funding. When the pollsters ask people whether Harry & Meghan should be funded by the Duchy, I'm not entirely sure the people responding know what it is and how it works.

I don't think they should receive funding from the Duchy or that they should receive publicly funded security. But I also think the half-in/half-out approach doesn't work.
 
Except there's absolutely no way they could have run Frogmore Cottage as an estate to generate income because it's not an estate, it's a house. I can't imagine how that would work, and it in no way is comparable to Gatcombe.

Yes, I just thought it was an interesting take on the situation and that some posters here might want to read.
 
I really do think they both would have benefited from a longer time dating or a longer engagement. We heard that Harry spent a lot of time visiting Meghan in Canada due to her work commitments, I think she spent very little in the UK and very little time getting to know the RF and how it works. That isn't a criticism, just an observation. To be honest it really does also seem as if Harry has take a very defensive approach to Meghan and rather than introduce her to the ways of the RF and indeed the ways of the UK he has just let her be exactly as she is and when she has not done things the way Royals are expected he's just shouted down how unwelcoming everyone is. Its a two way street - compromise by the public and compromises by Meghan and Harry to meet in the middle. Instead we've just had their way or out.

Meghan seems a strong personality and that can be a very good thing, but the RF don't like change, they aren't use to being told they need "modernising" so Harry possibly should have eased her in a little bit more.

For me they should keep their titles but with a watertight agreement they are only used for "official duties" in the UK when visiting their patronages etc or if they are asked to represent the Queen overseas. Otherwise it should me Harry and Meghan Sussex or Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or tbh Meghan could probably still use Meghan Markle.

I think they should use Harry's trust fund and Meghan's money to buy a home overseas and of course Charles will still give his son a personal allowance. To me it will simply move from being categorised as "support to the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge and Duke & Duchess of Sussex" as it is now to come out of Charles's personal expenditure (yes its all from the same pot but the distinction is there) As they will be doing less "officially" I think they should expect to get less but let's face it, it will still be more than any of us "earn" in a year.

Security is the issue but I agree they should definitely get it while representing the Queen but work their own thing out when overseas.

The big fuss has all come about mainly because of the way this was done and their website with their view on what was going to happen/ Their comment about "financial independence" was poorly thought out coming from a couple who were always going to rely on family handouts.

TBH I feel HM and Charles will likely pay them as now (possibly even more) just to ensure they don't turn to commercialisation. At the end of the day the Queen and Charles have plenty of money that isn't theirs as such but which they are free to use - they probably think better to pay them than let them go down the commercial route and cause headaches for the monarchy.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I just thought it was an interesting take on the situation and that some posters here might want to read.

It is interesting, because Princess Anne does indeed seem to have the work/life balance thing down. I just got distracted by the generating income part of the article because I thought it showed the writer hadn't done enough homework. The larger point, I believe, is a good one, so thanks for posting it.
 
I really do think they both would have benefited from a longer time dating or a longer engagement. We heard that Harry spent a lot of time visiting Meghan in Canada due to her work commitments, I think she spent very little in the UK and very little time getting to know the RF and how it works. That isn't a criticism, just an observation. To be honest it really does also seem as if Harry has take a very defensive approach to Meghan and rather than introduce her to the ways of the RF and indeed the ways of the UK he has just let her be exactly as she is and when she has not done things the way Royals are expected he's just shouted down how unwelcoming everyone is. Its a two way street - compromise by the public and compromises by Meghan and Harry to meet in the middle. Instead we've just had their way or out.

Meghan seems a strong personality and that can be a very good thing, but the RF don't like change, they aren't use to being told they need "modernising" so Harry possibly should have eased her in a little bit more.

For me they should keep their titles but with a watertight agreement they are only used for "official duties" in the UK when visiting their patronages etc or if they are asked to represent the Queen overseas. Otherwise it should me Harry and Meghan Sussex or Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or tbh Meghan could probably still use Meghan Markle.

I think they should use Harry's trust fund and Meghan's money to buy a home overseas and of course Charles will still give his son a personal allowance. To me it will simply move from being categorised as "support to the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge and Duke & Duchess of Sussex" as it is now to come out of Charles's personal expenditure (yes its all from the same pot but the distinction is there) As they will be doing less "officially" I think they should expect to get less but let's face it, it will still be more than any of us "earn" in a year.

Security is the issue but I agree they should definitely get it while representing the Queen but work their own thing out when overseas.

I think one of the central issues is that Meghan likes to use her voice and have her opinions heard. The role of the royal family is to ensure the other people voices are heard while they remain mute.
 
It doesnt look good to seek financial independence on the basis of adopting tax avoidance tactics. This will be an advantage that marks the individual out as 'rich' and 'high earner'. It seems uneasy for the British monarchy to associate itself with using your money and status to avoid contributing to the public purse. It doesnt indicate solidarity and public spiritedness that the hereditary principle should be promoting. To be blunt, this looks unethical for a Prince of the Blood, a son of Great Britain to use tax specialists to maximise income. However, now that he will no longer be a full time working royal, he can be relieved of this responsibility to be above commercialism and economics.
 
It is interesting, because Princess Anne does indeed seem to have the work/life balance thing down. I just got distracted by the generating income part of the article because I thought it showed the writer hadn't done enough homework. The larger point, I believe, is a good one, so thanks for posting it.

No problem ?
I agree that Gatcombe and Frogmore aren't really comparable but it was a perspective I otherwise hadn't thought of - it certainly would have been interesting if the internet had been around when Anne made the decision for her children to be private people, and to see what people had to say about it! (That was before my time, so I don't remember the general conscious from the public.)
 
Except that the link I posted was to an entirely different company. The company that incorporated in Delaware was her company from California called Frim Fram, Inc. The link I posted was to their company, Sussex Royal, and was from Companies House and, to my untrained eye, appears to she them stepping down as directors and appointing a new director. However, maybe the language used is standard and no big deal. I'm just not educated enough on business law in the UK to know.

Why would they step down as Directors?
 
It doesnt look good to seek financial independence on the basis of adopting tax avoidance tactics. This will be an advantage that marks the individual out as 'rich' and 'high earner'. It seems uneasy for the British monarchy to associate itself with using your money and status to avoid contributing to the public purse. It doesnt indicate solidarity and public spiritedness that the hereditary principle should be promoting. To be blunt, this looks unethical for a Prince of the Blood, a son of Great Britain to use tax specialists to maximise income. However, now that he will no longer be a full time working royal, he can be relieved of this responsibility to be above commercialism and economics.

You’re right. It seems as if they went to Canada to jumpstart their Sussex brand, who knows if it’s to line their own pockets, and still keep a hand in the royal piggy bank if they can, and now a tax shelter. Makes ya wonder!
 
Last edited:
No problem ?
I agree that Gatcombe and Frogmore aren't really comparable but it was a perspective I otherwise hadn't thought of - it certainly would have been interesting if the internet had been around when Anne made the decision for her children to be private people, and to see what people had to say about it! (That was before my time, so I don't remember the general conscious from the public.)

As far as Anne’s children being private individuals, it was normal for a princess’s children. No different than Princess Margaret, the Queen's sister or Princess Mary, the Queen’s aunt.
 
In terms of Harry enjoying the work, I think he is really into the Invictus Games, the work he's done for HIV/AIDS charities, the Sentebale charity in Africa, etc. I can't imagine he's going to step back from some of those charities - and it would be very sad if he did, because he's done a great job.


I don't know how he feels about some of the less glamorous engagements, or about meeting dignitaries with whom he may not be in sympathy, but, with any job, you have to do the bad bits as well as the good bits.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom