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

[katiebird]

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.

Again this not a nefarious tax avoidance tactic but a very standard business practice in the US. The vast majority of companies are incorporated in Delaware unless there is a very compelling reason to incorporate elsewhere.

 

[rob2008]

Again this not a nefarious tax avoidance tactic but a very standard business practice in the US. The vast majority of companies are incorporated in Delaware unless there is a very compelling reason to incorporate elsewhere.

Standard business practice in the US does not equate to acceptable financial management by the BRF. It's a crucial cultural distinction. The Crown is not one of a vast majority of companies.

 

[Beryl]

I am really astounded reading comments in various place how cheap people are about covering the Sussex security bill.
Harry will be the son of a king, whatever his future role is, and in an era of international terrorism he and his family should have lifetime security.
It's as if people assume that having them free range with a few body guards is adequate. It most certainly is not.
Since the British people have chosen to have a monarchy and raise them to a position of international prominence they damn well need to ensure their security. If they do not want to pay for their monarchy then dont have one.
And Meghan would not have needed security on this level had she not married into the family so she should not be penalized.

 

[Somebody]

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.

Place in line to the throne doesn't matter as much as how close someone is related to the monarch.

For example, there are surely far more people who know who the princess royal (maybe some would call her princess Anne) is than who viscount Severn is; even though he is 2 places higher up in the line of succession.

The same in other countries: very few people (even in the Netherlands) wouldn't know who countess Leonore is but would surely know princess Margriet who is lower in line to the throne but was an active working member of the royal family for years and daughter and sister of a queen; while Leonore is only a granddaughter of a queen and now niece of a king.

In the case of the UK: what matters is that Harry is the heir's son. A few years ago Beatrice was 6th in line to the throne and before that Eugenie had that position for many years; and at the point neither of them wasn't as well-known as Harry is now.

Nonetheless, of course the BRF has a worldwide fame that other royal families don't and as a consequence of it, its members as well.

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.

Apparently the queen thinks it is relevant to mention that Harry and Meghan will not remain 'full-time working' member of the royal family. Although, as I discussed above, I don't think she recognizes the 'part-time' capacity. You either work for the royal family or you have a different 'more independent life' (and might occasionally show up for royal events).

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.

True but in this case in her statement the queen clearly distinguished between two categories. Within one sentence she both used 'the royal family' and 'my family'. Those two clearly were not meant to be one and the same thing. The first refers to the 'institute' (or firm), the second to the (personal) family - like all of us are part of a family.

“Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.”

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I am really astounded reading comments in various place how cheap people are about covering the Sussex security bill.
Harry will be the son of a king, whatever his future role is, and in an era of international terrorism he and his family should have lifetime security.
It's as if people assume that having them free range with a few body guards is adequate. It most certainly is not.
Since the British people have chosen to have a monarchy and raise them to a position of international prominence they damn well need to ensure their security. If they do not want to pay for their monarchy then dont have one.
And Meghan would not have needed security on this level had she not married into the family so she should not be penalized.

Your argument loses its strength when you consider the only one of the current monarch’s children to receive full time protection is Charles, the next King.

 

[Somebody]

I am really astounded reading comments in various place how cheap people are about covering the Sussex security bill.
Harry will be the son of a king, whatever his future role is, and in an era of international terrorism he and his family should have lifetime security.
It's as if people assume that having them free range with a few body guards is adequate. It most certainly is not.
Since the British people have chosen to have a monarchy and raise them to a position of international prominence they damn well need to ensure their security. If they do not want to pay for their monarchy then dont have one.
And Meghan would not have needed security on this level had she not married into the family so she should not be penalized.

You are aware that currently the families of the sons of the queen do not have full round the clock security? Even Edward's wife, so the queen's daughter-in-law, only has security when on royal duty.

Of course, their risks need to be assessed and if because of their status as royals security within the UK is warranted they should have it. If at one point it is deemed no longer needed (or to a lesser extend), there is no reason to continue providing the same type of security (I would assume they rather have less of it if that could safely be achieved). So, stating that they need lifetime (round the clock?) security also seems far fetched. And I don't think it is unreasonable that some limitations will be placed on the security provided if they are the ones who choose a different way of life. If they would have remained full-time working members of the royal family, it would be different.

So yes, they need to be kept safe; which will be partly the responsibility of the UK government as members of the royal family (or family of the queen) but if they decide on a high-profile life after quitting as working members of the royal family, they will have to pay their share. If they would choose a low-profile life, it would be highly unlikely that in the long run high-level security would be needed (for the short term it would of course be necessary - and should be taken care of as it is now).

 

[SOS]

I am really astounded reading comments in various place how cheap people are about covering the Sussex security bill.
Harry will be the son of a king, whatever his future role is, and in an era of international terrorism he and his family should have lifetime security.
It's as if people assume that having them free range with a few body guards is adequate. It most certainly is not.
Since the British people have chosen to have a monarchy and raise them to a position of international prominence they damn well need to ensure their security. If they do not want to pay for their monarchy then dont have one.
And Meghan would not have needed security on this level had she not married into the family so she should not be penalized.

People are angry, but protection is very expensive. They should offer them some minimal level of protection. If the Sussexes want more, they need to pay.

 

[texankitcat]

I am really astounded reading comments in various place how cheap people are about covering the Sussex security bill.
Harry will be the son of a king, whatever his future role is, and in an era of international terrorism he and his family should have lifetime security.
It's as if people assume that having them free range with a few body guards is adequate. It most certainly is not.
Since the British people have chosen to have a monarchy and raise them to a position of international prominence they damn well need to ensure their security. If they do not want to pay for their monarchy then dont have one.
And Meghan would not have needed security on this level had she not married into the family so she should not be penalized.

Security for the Royal Family is a significant cost to the British taxpayers which doesn’t seem to be an issue as long as they are full time working Royals. But for Royals who want to be part time and live in another Country as Harry and Meghan do, I think they have a right to voice their complaints. Americans don’t pay for the Royal Family, so who we to demand they pay the bill?

 

[Betsypaige]

Security for the Royal Family is a significant cost to the British taxpayers which doesn’t seem to be an issue as long as they are full time working Royals. But for Royals who want to be part time and live in another Country as Harry and Meghan do, I think they have a right to voice their complaints. Americans don’t pay for the Royal Family, so who we to demand they pay the bill?

I agree completely. Harry and Meghan can't expect to ditch the "worst" parts of being Royal while keeping the benefits. If they want to be essentially like ordinary people, then maybe they should experience life without security, like 99.9999.99 % of the world does. If Canada and Canadians want to foot the bill, ok, but otherwise.........

 

[Fijiro]

I know there are different rules in different countries. USA pays for security of the First Family even after the President has left office. And for Vice President and family too after office. And also for senior government officials, during and after office.

 

[texankitcat]

I agree completely. Harry and Meghan can't expect to ditch the "worst" parts of being Royal while keeping the benefits. If they want to be essentially like ordinary people, then maybe they should experience life without security, like 99.9999.99 % of the world does. If Canada and Canadians want to foot the bill, ok, but otherwise.........

If they come to America they will have to make due with private buffed out bodyguards paid for out of their own pocket like every other celebrity.

 

[Betsypaige]

I thought this opinion piece struck the right tone.....the entire article is worth reading. I like the reference to the Duke of Windsor. The Duke and Duchess lived a life of empty frivolity, which explains why he did look so terribly sad (you could see it in those old photos). I don't think H and M would live such pathetic lives, of course, but perhaps I think Harry may miss his old life more than he thinks.......

Prince Harry may well find that his step into the unknown does not bring him happiness he craves. The media are unlikely to leave him in peace. Inevitably, they will scrutinise every move the couple make, examine their new methods of funding, and the people who surround them.

The primary role of the royal family is to support the monarch. Prince Philip, Princess Anne and others have always been there when required. And, when they are not needed, they take on their own causes, and adopt certain areas of public life for which the Queen simply does not have time. The so-called minor royals, such as the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra, have given their lives to helping their cousin, the Queen, while gradually slipping down the royal line of succession. The Duke of Kent used to undertake Independence ceremonies in Commonwealth countries. Now he shops alone, unrecognised, in Kensington High Street. They have all worked within the system, and it is sad that Prince Harry and Meghan feel they cannot do the same.

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/hugo-...sion-is-sad-complicated-and-may-not-end-well/

If they come to America they will have to make due with private buffed out bodyguards paid for out of their own pocket like every other celebrity.

They seem to want to hang with celebrities - maybe Oprah and co. can recommend some good bodyguards, lol

 

[Osipi]

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.

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.

Its the Crown Estates that hold title to Frogmore Cottage "in right of the Crown". Royals that live on Crown Estates holdings have leases signed, sealed and delivered with the Crown Estates itself. Windsor Castle is a Crown Estates holding and reserved for the use of the monarch. The "gift" of Frogmore Cottage for the Sussexes to use was basically the Queen's permission, along with the Crown Estates giving permission and establishing a lease agreement.

Like William and Catherine, Harry and Meghan personally paid for interior design and personal touches. So, in a nutshell, no taxpayer monies were directly used to fund the renovations of a Crown Estates holding.

Interesting tidbit here. In 2019/20 the Queen will receive £82 million from the Grant. Every expenditure from the Sovereign Grant is itemized and published yearly.

https://fullfact.org/economy/frogmore-cottage/

 

[Mbruno]

I know there are different rules in different countries. USA pays for security of the First Family even after the President has left office. And for Vice President and family too after office. And also for senior government officials, during and after office.

Does it pay for the President’s adult children’s security after he leaves office ? I am asking because I do not know.

As Somebody said, in the UK right now, the Queen’s adult children other than the Prince of Wales do not get 24/7 security , but they are protected at official events. From what I learned in other forums from Dutch or Swedish posters, that seems to be the norm too in other countries for children of the sovereign who are not the heir.

The risk for the British RF may be comparatively higher, however, as the UK is probably a more likely target of international terrorism than some smaller countries.

 

[soapstar]

I know there are different rules in different countries. USA pays for security of the First Family even after the President has left office. And for Vice President and family too after office. And also for senior government officials, during and after office.

The entire first family doesn’t receive security after the President has left office. Only the former president, his/her spouse and any children under 16. So for instance, none of the Trump children will receive protection after Trump leaves office.

Does it pay for the President’s adult children’s security after he leaves office ? I am asking because I do not know.

Nope. Only children 16 and under.

 

[Hallo girl]

I am really astounded reading comments in various place how cheap people are about covering the Sussex security bill.
Harry will be the son of a king, whatever his future role is, and in an era of international terrorism he and his family should have lifetime security.
It's as if people assume that having them free range with a few body guards is adequate. It most certainly is not.
Since the British people have chosen to have a monarchy and raise them to a position of international prominence they damn well need to ensure their security. If they do not want to pay for their monarchy then dont have one.
And Meghan would not have needed security on this level had she not married into the family so she should not be penalized.

All that is very true, but they have decided to leave the royal family and be self sufficient , earn money based on their profile so that changes the scenario. Also according to reports using a hidden tax regime.

 

[duchessrachel]

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.

I agree. If they want to be independent, then independent means not living on Daddy's money, like the rest of us independent people.

 

[_Heather_]

Why would they step down as Directors?

I have absolutely no idea and I'm not even remotely familiar with the UK business laws so I'm not even sure if that's precisely what happened. However, the wording and dates are interesting. Unless of course it's really just some standard boring legal language and I don't really know enough to know what it is. That's why I was hoping someone here could tell me. But what I do know is that it's for their foundation and it came from Companies House and is not even remotely the same as incorporating her personal company in Delaware.

 

[duchessrachel]

I tend to agree with you, though I do have to consistently remind myself skepticism isn't healthy and perhaps I need to wait and see what comes of it. Though, as a long time royal watcher and as someone who, like all of you, tends to be more "up" on things regarding the monarchy and the RF, I share the belief that it might be possible for Harry to "enter into the spirit of this new arrangement" but I truly believe that Meghan's already checked out entirely. It's true that I don't know that for sure and this is only my perception but I do very much think she's decided she's done and out and that's that. Whether Harry will be able to walk that line between his life with her and his life as part of the RF, I don't know. I suspect it will be incredibly difficult now and increasingly difficult as time goes on.

Just my opinion, but I truly don't think she will ever walk to church again with the RF on Christmas (by her own choice). I think she will be in the UK very little. I wonder about the patronages the Queen turned over to her. I think she has separated herself from the RF and it will be a constant "walking the line" for Harry, as you said, between his life with Meghan and his life as a member of the RF. It is true that Harry had stated before ever meeting Meghan his discomfort with certain aspects of his role in the RF, but I think that the farther away he is from them, the more he will miss them.

 

[_Heather_]

Just my opinion, but I truly don't think she will ever walk to church again with the RF on Christmas (by her own choice). I think she will be in the UK very little. I wonder about the patronages the Queen turned over to her. I think she has separated herself from the RF and it will be a constant "walking the line" for Harry, as you said, between his life with Meghan and his life as a member of the RF. It is true that Harry had stated before ever meeting Meghan his discomfort with certain aspects of his role in the RF, but I think that the farther away he is from them, the more he will miss them.

You know, I hadn't really considered the patronages the Queen handed over to her. Of course she has her own patronages and it'll be up to her and to those organizations whether or not she remains their patron. And, correct me if I'm wrong but, aren't organizations typically proud of the fact that they have not just a patron but a Royal Patron? As it appears that Harry and Meghan may no longer actually be a part of the Royal Family wouldn't that take a bit of prestige away from those organizations who will no longer really have a Royal Patron?

 

[ACO]

I suspect we will see Harry doing more engagements than we think if that is what the family wants. Probably will be a compromise to whatever they put together. My guess is that it will be something like they are in the UK for a week or two and then back to Canada for a month.

Will be interesting to see how it settles. My guess Thursday at the earliest. They wouldn't want to overshadow the Cambridge engagement tomorrow and rightfully so. Harry's clearly still on as of now. So that might be a tad awkward.

 

[texankitcat]

I suspect we will see Harry doing more engagements than we think if that is what the family wants. Probably will be a compromise to whatever they put together. My guess is that it will be something like they are in the UK for a week or two and then back to Canada for a month.

Will be interesting to see how it settles. My guess Thursday at the earliest. They wouldn't want to overshadow the Cambridge engagement tomorrow and rightfully so. Harry's clearly still on as of now. So that might be a tad awkward.

If anything, I see Harry being the one to doing the back and forth and Meghan staying in Canada. So exacty how do Royals travel? First class on commercial?

 

[_Heather_]

If anything, I see Harry being the one to doing the back and forth and Meghan staying in Canada. So exacty how do Royals travel? First class on commercial?

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.

 

[Kataryn]

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.

I think watching your wife being bombarded with negative headlines for everything from eating avocados to having friends in the US wo throw her a baby shower to not being able to leave a car in proper style or their son being a monkey for having drops of black blood in the otherwise red and blue mix and seeing how she reacts to that (and she has a temperamental, artistic way about her), all that can change how you view the world. especially when you remember how your mother used to cry over the tabloid headlines.

All of this, the feeling he has to fight for his family on all corners beside his family are surely at the base of the wish to leave the toxic environment.

I understand that a lot of British people feel that Harry pi**ed on the family that gave him his superior place in the world, and there is truth in it, but I honestly understand him and why Canada is such a place to dream of.

I'm not sure though they will find their happiness there. If only Meghan was unable to read and could have taken the time to surround herself by people she could trust. And be able to ignore the media. But I guess that's too much to ask of a former actress who though she would be treated fairly. And I write this full of sympathy with both of them and full of disgust with the tabloids.

 

[Bassoonist]

I agree completely. Harry and Meghan can't expect to ditch the "worst" parts of being Royal while keeping the benefits. If they want to be essentially like ordinary people, then maybe they should experience life without security, like 99.9999.99 % of the world does. If Canada and Canadians want to foot the bill, ok, but otherwise.........

Some of them need security to protect them from themselves. Princess Diana would probably still be alive had she kept her British police protection. They would not have allowed her to be driven by a drunk driver and she would have had to wear her seat belt. Maybe Harry needs to keep his personal protection officers and I think that Charles should pay for it, if not the Queen. Just my opinion.

 

[Osipi]

To mix things up a bit, I think there's one very telling factor in all of this that signifies that Harry and Meghan, as working royals for the "Firm" aren't totally put out to pasture or even downgraded except the fact that they will spend part time in Canada for the time being.

There's been no reports or "leaks" of any changes in the Sussexes office now located in Buckingham Palace. There has been no further information or changes to the Sussex Royal Instagram account that I'm aware of. Trickle down effects usually happen in matters of crisis like this one as we saw with Andrew and his BP office and his private secretary being axed and taking over the role of CEO of Pitch (formerly Pitch@Palace).

 

[_Heather_]

There's been no reports or "leaks" of any changes in the Sussexes office now located in Buckingham Palace. There has been no further information or changes to the Sussex Royal Instagram account that I'm aware of. Trickle down effects usually happen in matters of crisis like this one as we saw with Andrew and his BP office and his private secretary being axed and taking over the role of CEO of Pitch (formerly Pitch@Palace).

That certainly is true that we've not had any reports or leaks of staffing changes, etc. However, even should there be staffing changes down the line, I don't really think they'd make those changes before the final decisions had all been made and signed off or really even before the "transition period" is completed, whatever that might mean. I do think it's worth stating, too, that the organization of the monarchy might not be overly fond of throwing innocent employees out on their ear simply because those they were working with have decided to quit. That would look cold and harsh and be horrible PR and I doubt they're in any great hurry to bring that upon themselves. So, I'm of the opinion that no matter what happens with Harry and Meghan, the monarchy might simply find other places for those staffers.

 

[Erin9]

Some of them need security to protect them from themselves. Princess Diana would probably still be alive had she kept her British police protection. They would not have allowed her to be driven by a drunk driver and she would have had to wear her seat belt. Maybe Harry needs to keep his personal protection officers and I think that Charles should pay for it, if not the Queen. Just my opinion.

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”.

 

[soapstar]

If you wish to discuss Meghan’s private engagement, please take it to her Current Events thread.

 

[ACO]

You know, I hadn't really considered the patronages the Queen handed over to her. Of course she has her own patronages and it'll be up to her and to those organizations whether or not she remains their patron. And, correct me if I'm wrong but, aren't organizations typically proud of the fact that they have not just a patron but a Royal Patron? As it appears that Harry and Meghan may no longer actually be a part of the Royal Family wouldn't that take a bit of prestige away from those organizations who will no longer really have a Royal Patron?

No indication they plan of ending any of the relationships with their patronages or connected organizations. Meghan was seen visiting hers before she left. Likely to ensure them she wanted to stay involved. But as with anything, time will tell.