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

[Alison H]

No-one knows – that’s the trouble! You can buy all sorts of Royal Collection souvenirs from the palaces, or on line. I have no idea who spends £35 for a pink china mug from the Royal Collection, but presumably someone must. £7 for a shower cap with a Buckingham Palace crest on it? £20 for a toy corgi? £995 (!!) for a Buckingham Palace watch? Then there’s all the Duchy Originals food. If they want to sell stuff and give the money to the Sussex Royal Foundation – as long as it’s vaguely tasteful – then I don’t see that anyone can object, but, as they say that they want to work towards financial independence, that probably isn’t the idea. I can’t see that they plan on getting 9 to 5 office/shop/factory jobs, hence all the speculation.

Princess Michael of Kent's historical novels are actually pretty good!

If they’re going all out for commercial gain and using their royal celeb status, endorsements would probably be the way to go. I’m never sure that anyone rushes out to buy a particular brand of tea or coffee because an A-list celeb advertises it, but maybe they do!

No-one really knows, and there’s no precedent for this. It wasn’t as if we were going to see the Duke of Windsor on Strictly Come Dancing or Celebrity Big Brother, or the Duchess of Windsor advertising a particular brand of perfume.

Hopefully something can be worked out that's not too difficult for anyone?

 

[Hallo girl]

Are we absolutely and positively 100% sure that all this means that H&M are going into business for themselves for personal profit? The speculations here seem to be formed as if its 100% fact and certainty that the Sussexes are going to be showing up on our late night infomercials selling Sussex Royal Pillows and Sheets (act now before they're all gone) kind of thing.

I just can't help but think that if it was their goal to go into business for themselves and sell wares to the public for profit, do talk show rounds, come out with a line of clothing designs, do a stint on Survivor or Temptation Island and pretty much put themselves on top of the heap as "celebrities" they would have announced they were walking away totally from the "Firm", decide not to open the Sussex Royal Foundation at all as charity work doesn't put money in their pockets as its supposed to highlight causes and not their ever glowing royal selves, move to Canada (or even the US) permanently and sell T-shirts with them giving the Bronx cheer as souvenir t-shirts (buy one and get the second one free) immortalizing the date they gave their royal lives the heave ho.

I keep reminding myself that whatever happens, it will be the result of communication, working with the Queen, Charles and the "Firm" and come to an agreement that works for all sides and clarifies *exactly* what their plan is and how they're going to implement it.

I think we may really be surprised. Then again, what do I know? Probably as much as anyone else does at this time though?

You are right we do not know, but I will just put it out there for discussion, by saying they still wanted to do royal duties it then gave them a foot in the camp to keep Frogmore, also finance from Charles. With everything that has came out this week , and the obvious planning that has went on please do not blame the British public for being cynical about their plans.
Why did she need to run away to Canada, she could have stayed here and sorted it out with the RF then moved abroad.

Nothing will surprise me about this young woman, I have been critical of her in the past but I did like her and thought she made Harry very happy. She was either very naive about what would be expected from her within the family or never had any intention of following the Royal way.

She wants to be centre of attention, even when she is with Harry she takes over, when she is with the family there is a pecking order ,she will never walk ahead of William and Kate.

There is allegedly problems within the family,could it be that some of the others didn't like her need to change things.

I am not saying change is bad, there is always room for change but it is not for Meghan to change the ways of the RF when she has just joined it.

If this is Harrys last engagement today, and from what we know neither of them have cancelled engagements for the coming months, it is another sign that this plan was long in the making, not a sudden reaction to a newspaper story.
The more I read and here the more I realise how naive the public were about them.
Meghan has never intended staying around other than long enough to raise her profile. She was not a well known name or face in the UK before it came out they were dating, and who let that out by the way.

 

[texankitcat]

Are we absolutely and positively 100% sure that all this means that H&M are going into business for themselves for personal profit? The speculations here seem to be formed as if its 100% fact and certainty that the Sussexes are going to be showing up on our late night infomercials selling Sussex Royal Pillows and Sheets (act now before they're all gone) kind of thing.

I just can't help but think that if it was their goal to go into business for themselves and sell wares to the public for profit, do talk show rounds, come out with a line of clothing designs, do a stint on Survivor or Temptation Island and pretty much put themselves on top of the heap as "celebrities" they would have announced they were walking away totally from the "Firm", decide not to open the Sussex Royal Foundation at all as charity work doesn't put money in their pockets as its supposed to highlight causes and not their ever glowing royal selves, move to Canada (or even the US) permanently and sell T-shirts with them giving the Bronx cheer as souvenir t-shirts (buy one and get the second one free) immortalizing the date they gave their royal lives the heave ho.

I keep reminding myself that whatever happens, it will be the result of communication, working with the Queen, Charles and the "Firm" and come to an agreement that works for all sides and clarifies *exactly* what their plan is and how they're going to implement it.

I think we may really be surprised. Then again, what do I know? Probably as much as anyone else does at this time though?

I appreciate your efforts to put a favorable spin on everything they are doing as you champion their efforts, however their actions and attitude are not supporting what the Sussex’s are trying to sell to the public. They have shown without a doubt that they will do what they want and consequences be damned for those that have to clean up the mess they create. They have shown that they will go rogue, appealing to the public for support (as their various statements have included) without approval of the BRF, or even the Government of two countries. That is concerning and alarming.
These two are completely out of control and need to be reined in and legal safeguards put in place to protect the Institution.

No, I don’t trust anything these two do. I DO think they will continue to spiral and cause more damage. I DO believe they are going to attempt to cash in on their Royal status to earn millions. I DON’T believe they have any intentions of fulfilling their obligations to the Queen, Crown and Country and we will only see less of them going forward. I DON’T buy into their “victim” role and never did.

Why? Because they have shown us that they are all about THEM and be damned about anyone else. When people show you that is who they really are? Believe them.

 

[Mbruno]

Oh I definitely agree with you that the Queen deserves all the down time she wants at any time she wants now. Even Charles is at the age where a lot of us (even me and I'm a few years younger than Charles) are happily retired and enjoying the golden years of retirement. The comparison is with what the Queen has done throughout her reign with Balmoral/Sandringham/Windsor Castle.

No matter what we humans do and how aware we are of carbon footprints we cause, we're never going to totally eliminate them. Its just not possible. What is possible though is to adjust and amend how things are going into the future and this is what I think Harry and Meghan's aims are. To enact a change that works better for them and for everyone around them and I'm sincerely hoping they come to a workable solution all the way around.

I do definitely agree that the website launched with its plans really wasn't any way to go about it because it just threw a whole lot of crapola into the fan and where's there's crapola, its going to attract flies buzzing about. We need clarification on so many things as so much is vague and open for speculation.

If the Queen is in Balmoral , the court simply moves there. If a Privy Council meeting is needed to ratify an order in council, appoint a public official, or even prorogue Parliament as was the case last year, the relevant ministers will move to Balmoral and hold a council with the Queen there.

In other words, she doesn’t cease to be Queen because she is not in London. If the Queen is, however, out of the country for an extended period of time , the law authorizes her to transfer temporarily the exercise of some of her royal powers and prerogatives to one or more Counsellors of State.

 

[Betsypaige]

Nothing will surprise me about this young woman, I have been critical of her in the past but I did like her and thought she made Harry very happy. She was either very naive about what would be expected from her within the family or never had any intention of following the Royal way.

She wants to be centre of attention, even when she is with Harry she takes over, when she is with the family there is a pecking order ,she will never walk ahead of William and Kate.

There is allegedly problems within the family,could it be that some of the others didn't like her need to change things.

I am not saying change is bad, there is always room for change but it is not for Meghan to change the ways of the RF when she has just joined it.

Well said. I think, sadly, she never really had any intention of “following the Royal way”. It always seems as if Meghan was trying to push the boundaries, and that the Queen was actually rather understanding and patient. Not even two years in and she’s done - a barely half-hearted effort on her part.

I wonder if she’s encouraging Harry to hold grudges and freeze people out like she does. That would explain the rift with William. There’s otherwise no reason for Harry not to have told his brother how he feels about his lack of support - and I’m sure William would have explained and apologized. Instead it just seems as if Harry has let all his resentments build up - against others as well - and pushed William (and others) away. Maybe this is the distancing that has been referred to...

 

[Alison H]

One of the Sky News reporters at the rugby league World Cup draw, which Harry hosted today, has raised the issue of Harry and Meghan saying that they don’t want the traditional royal rota press coverage at “their” events any more. Yes, this was an engagement carried out by Prince Harry, but it was also about promoting the sport of rugby league – which is very popular in Northern England but not widely played in the South, nor in other parts of the UK – and also about promoting women’s sport and disability sport, as the World Cup is going to include several different events. It’s all very well for Harry and Meghan to go on about “diversity” and “up-and-coming” journalism, but organisations like the Rugby Football League are going to want their big day to receive widespread coverage in the mainstream media. It’s not fair for Harry and Meghan to try to do them out of that – and, if the organisations aren’t going to get the usual publicity from Prince Harry being there, they may as well ask an ex-player or pop star or actor instead.

 

[UglyAmerican]

One of the Sky News reporters at the rugby league World Cup draw, which Harry hosted today, has raised the issue of Harry and Meghan saying that they don’t want the traditional royal rota press coverage at “their” events any more. Yes, this was an engagement carried out by Prince Harry, but it was also about promoting the sport of rugby league – which is very popular in Northern England but not widely played in the South, nor in other parts of the UK – and also about promoting women’s sport and disability sport, as the World Cup is going to include several different events. It’s all very well for Harry and Meghan to go on about “diversity” and “up-and-coming” journalism, but organisations like the Rugby Football League are going to want their big day to receive widespread coverage in the mainstream media. It’s not fair for Harry and Meghan to try to do them out of that – and, if the organisations aren’t going to get the usual publicity from Prince Harry being there, they may as well ask an ex-player or pop star or actor instead.

Add that to the list of things they didn't think of...

That's what I find so bizarre about this. They seem to believe that by announcing their plans, they'd get their way, because Harry's mean old grandma was just dragging her feet for no good reason. It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that many of these issues (funding, security, immigration, rota, etc.) aren't nearly so cut and dried as they'd like them to be. Meghan should have caught on to that by this point, but even if not, surely Harry had some idea.

 

[Betsypaige]

One of the Sky News reporters at the rugby league World Cup draw, which Harry hosted today, has raised the issue of Harry and Meghan saying that they don’t want the traditional royal rota press coverage at “their” events any more. Yes, this was an engagement carried out by Prince Harry, but it was also about promoting the sport of rugby league – which is very popular in Northern England but not widely played in the South, nor in other parts of the UK – and also about promoting women’s sport and disability sport, as the World Cup is going to include several different events. It’s all very well for Harry and Meghan to go on about “diversity” and “up-and-coming” journalism, but organisations like the Rugby Football League are going to want their big day to receive widespread coverage in the mainstream media. It’s not fair for Harry and Meghan to try to do them out of that – and, if the organisations aren’t going to get the usual publicity from Prince Harry being there, they may as well ask an ex-player or pop star or actor instead.

Speaking of, when asked how the the discussions were going, Harry laughed....he also ignored them completely. I don’t want to be “that” person, but the laughing (just judging it on it’s own as admittedly I wasn’t there, lol) comes across either or both as Harry not taking it seriously or just being a jerk about it (like, “now you know why I want to leave”

 

[Pranter]

Some of the suggestions here as to what should be done to them are extreme and very unfair to the situation at hand.


LaRae

 

[Betsypaige]

Some of the suggestions here as to what should be done to them are extreme and very unfair to the situation at hand.


LaRae

What is unfair about wanting them to either lose their titles or not have security or not be funded by Charles? Those are not extreme - they are consequences for their actions...

 

[tihkon2]

... Meghan who, despite a lovely and loving mother, does have an unstable family as evidenced by the behavior exhibited by her father and step-siblings...

Just a correction. They are Meghan's Half-siblings, NOT her step-siblings.

 

[Pranter]

What is unfair about wanting them to either lose their titles or not have security or not be funded by Charles? Those are not extreme - they are consequences for their actions...

We don't have enough info at this point to demand they lose their titles.

What we know: They are stepping back as Senior Royals. They plan to continue their patronages. They want to continue doing engagements on behalf of the Queen. They are going to split time between Canada and the U.K. They are giving up the official funding.

Funding by Charles is none of our business. If a parent wants to give their kids money that's their decision. Further we don't know what they have worked out between them yet.

If they are doing work for the Queen they deserve security. If they are doing private work they deserve security. What remains is to see how they work out who's paying for what...AGAIN we don't know those details yet.

They have not committed a crime. They aren't accused of committing a crime. This desire to see them stripped of everything and sent away is extreme.



LaRae

 

[DuchessMia]

What is unfair about wanting them to either lose their titles or not have security or not be funded by Charles? Those are not extreme - they are consequences for their actions...

What actions have they done that would warrant them losing their titles and security? They’ve committed no crimes. At all. They just asked to scale back their involvement in the royal family and to be able to live outside of the U.K. part-time. What’s so wrong with that?

 

[Erin9]

Speaking of, when asked how the the discussions were going, Harry laughed....he also ignored them completely. I don’t want to be “that” person, but the laughing (just judging it on it’s own as admittedly I wasn’t there, lol) comes across either or both as Harry not taking it seriously or just being a jerk about it (like, “now you know why I want to leave”

Could have just been a nervous/ uncomfortable/didn’t know how to respond reaction. Sometimes people laugh when they’re uncomfortable.

Or- it could be an acknowledgement on some level that this is quite complicated, probably more than he thought.

Many possibilities.

 

[Eskimo]

What actions have they done that would warrant them losing their titles and security? They’ve committed no crimes. At all. They just asked to scale back their involvement in the royal family and to be able to live outside of the U.K. part-time. What’s so wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is simple:

1. Millions of pounds of UK taxpayer funds were used to renovate Frogmore Cottage based on their commitment that they would be full time, senior royals and it would be their primary residence.

2. The want to live in Canada as PRIVATE CITIZENS and yet expect the Canadian government to pick up the bill for their security. Why are private citizens entitled to government paid security?

3. Although, not for certain but their trademarking activities seem to indicate that they plan to use their royal titles for PERSONAL financial gain. Would your employer allow you to use your work job title to make money for yourself from outside sources?

 

[Lumutqueen]

What's wrong with that is simple:



1. Millions of pounds of UK taxpayer funds were used to renovate Frogmore Cottage based on their commitment that they would be full time, senior royals and it would be their primary residence.

Not entirely accurate, nor can it be used as an argument against the couple.

Frogmore Cottage was renovated because it needed to be. It was in a dire condition and would have fallen into ruin if it hadn’t have been renovated when it had. Any cosmetic edition to the house, which made it their home, was paid for by Henry and Meghan.

Whether Henry or Meghan were living in it or not, it would have still needed to be renovated potentially costing a lot more than the £2.4 million it did.

 

[Pranter]

What's wrong with that is simple:

1. Millions of pounds of UK taxpayer funds were used to renovate Frogmore Cottage based on their commitment that they would be full time, senior royals and it would be their primary residence.

2. The want to live in Canada as PRIVATE CITIZENS and yet expect the Canadian government to pick up the bill for their security. Why are private citizens entitled to government paid security?

3. Although, not for certain but their trademarking activities seem to indicate that they plan to use their royal titles for PERSONAL financial gain. Would your employer allow you to use your work job title to make money for yourself from outside sources?

1) Millions of pound would of been spent either way. Work for rehab had already been put in place. The money for the furnishings and fixtures were paid by private funds.

2) They have not said they expect Canadians to pick up the bill. We don't know yet how security is going to be worked out.


LaRae

 

[Betsypaige]

What actions have they done that would warrant them losing their titles and security? They haven’t murdered anyone or stolen funds/lands from anyone. They’ve committed no crimes. At all. They just asked to scale back their involvement in the royal family and to be able to live outside of the U.K. part-time. What’s so wrong with that?

Why should they have security if they aren’t full time royals and won’t even be living in UK most of the time ?

Please, I never said or implied that they committed any crime, so stop with the hyperbole. I presume you’ve read enough of this thread to understand why many of us have issues with Harry and Meghan.

 

[Eskimo]

Not entirely accurate, nor can it be used as an argument against the couple.

Frogmore Cottage was renovated because it needed to be. It was in a dire condition and would have fallen into ruin if it hadn’t have been renovated when it had. Any cosmetic edition to the house, which made it their home, was paid for by Henry and Meghan.

Whether Henry or Meghan were living in it or not, it would have still needed to be renovated potentially costing a lot more than the £2.4 million it did.

Frogmore was used for staff quarters. Staff that had to be relocated when it was decided that it would be Harry and Meghan's home. Most of the cost incurred was to convert 5 separate staff apartments into 1 big home. Do you think that they would have spent over two million pounds to renovate staff lodgings?

 

[Betsypaige]

Could have just been a nervous/ uncomfortable/didn’t know how to respond reaction. Sometimes people laugh when they’re uncomfortable.

Or- it could be an acknowledgement on some level that this is quite complicated, probably more than he thought.

Many possibilities.

Yes it could have been - I laugh when I get nervous (or at least kind of smile). I don’t think that was the case here, just my gut, but I can’t rule it out. I do think it’s closer to the latter...probably many reasons.

 

[Sterling3763]

What is unfair about wanting them to either lose their titles or not have security or not be funded by Charles? Those are not extreme - they are consequences for their actions...

Funding from Charles is a more nuanced issue, which I think depends very much on whether Harry and Meagan continue working part-time on behalf of the Queen, or whether they stop altogether. There's also the thorny issue of how Charles uses his private funds.

But the push for Harry and Meghan to lose their titles and styles has always stuck me as odd. Harry remains the son of the Prince of Wales. What is the basis for removing his style? Prince Andrew is, at best, a part-time working royal now and there has been no similar push for him to simply become the Duke of York. Beatrice and Eugenie (at least currently) aren't working royals, yet they remain Princesses.

As for the peerage, it is my understanding that it would require an act of Parliament to remove it. Is that what you're proposing? Are there any other peers who you believe should lose their titles?

 

[Osipi]

Frogmore was used for staff quarters. Staff that had to be relocated when it was decided that it would be Harry and Meghan's home. Most of the cost incurred was to convert 5 separate staff apartments into 1 big home. Do you think that they would have spent over two million pounds to renovate staff lodgings?

To clarify. Frogmore Cottage's is owned by the Crown Estates which holds extensive properties "in right of the Crown". That is, managed and all business dealings go through that department just as the Royal Collection Trust holds historical artifacts, furniture, paintings ect. "in right of the Crown". The Crown Estates also own Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle among many other holdings.

The Sovereign Grant is allocated yearly to the Queen from the Crown Estate profits. While the majority of The Crown Estate's profits go directly to the government, around 15% make up the Sovereign Grant. The Queen pays for any renovations and maintenance work such as at Apartment 1A, Frogmore Cottage and Buckingham Palace.

So, in actuality, the Queen, through the Sovereign Grant funded the necessary structural work needed and renovations with the Sussexes privately funding what would appeal to their aesthetics for the interior.

Considering that the amount of the Sovereign Grant in 2019 was £82.2 million , it was affordable for the Queen to do to keep Frogmore Cottage up to date so the property is viable into the future. Now if that amount of £82.2 is 15% of the Crown Estates profits, one can imagine how much the government received for its share.

 

[Kataryn]

What is unfair about wanting them to either lose their titles or not have security or not be funded by Charles? Those are not extreme - they are consequences for their actions...

I think it's extreme to ask for a removal of their titles. Thus far, no prince ever lost his title. Not a king who abdicated and took his whole Duke of Cornwall/Lancaster-money with him, no prince who was killed as a traitor by his close relative the king, no one! And now Harry should loose his title because he wants to live half of the year not in the Uk? Just think of it as doing nothing half of the year for queen and country and you end up in the position of the son or daughter of a second child of a monarch...



That only can happen to Harry once the queen or later Charles declares his will that all children but his and the next monarch's first are no longer HRH. Like it happened in Norway. But that was, before Sverre was born.



It is as it is and it will be as it will be according to the wishes of the queen and the PoW. And both have no interest in shaking the rank of their own family. And what if Harry looses the HRH? He will be His Grace, the Duke of Sussex and everyone will use that title if they had used the HRH before. And no parliament will strip a Royal Duke of his peerage if the queen will want him to keep it! Because this would degrate the value of such Royal titles, make them into something worth nothing.



From what I gather with Prince Andrew, I guess that the political question of how much the government is willing to pay for security for Royals has been decided and they will be stricter now than they were with Royals who don't work. Now it's Andrew but they will come for Harry and Meghan and that's okay IMHO, for as soon as the police has convincing information that something is actually planned against them, they'll get their security back.



Not being funded by Charles is unfair as long as they don't have regular jobs and if they work for their foundation, they should be payed for out of the foundation's money, as is usus for people who are not doing it volountarily but need to earn their money by working. A relative of mine is working for the Red Cross professionally and guess what: he gets payed for it. So either Charles pays for them so they can do charitable things for free or they work for their foundation and get money from there or they need to work on the free market doing whatever is offered and they can do (and if that is not okay with the RF, they have to support them). They don't seem to need too much luxury (Frogmore Cottage is much smaller than the housing of the other Royals) and in Canada they could have another countryhouse payable by their own money.


So I think your "consequences" would mainly mean to change the Royal system of the UK because of Harry and endanger it with that, so I doubt that the queen or Charles will do that. Police will recommend what is necessary and the government will decide what is payable and find a solution and if something happens, they'll find somebody responsible. If not, all was well decided. And for Charles to support them: someone has to! Either Charles or the foundation or an employer (if the queen and Charles allows that, because now that would be quite bad potentially!)


What bothers me is that Meghan, who is US-American (even though she is the granddaughter-in-law of the Canadian Head of State) just goes to a Canadian charity with political aims and supports them. I think that's a bad way to treat the Canadian's hospitality when in her home country other charities await her to support indigenous women... I mean, I find the treatment we can read about of these native Canadian women wrong in a lot of aspects and there should be help but as an UScitizen with the aim to becom British, she should not become politically active there.
When I think what they could do with charity that they wouldnt be allowed by the Royals, I only come up with things that they shouldn't do as foreigners in Canada or Royals in Britain. They could use their foundation eg as working Royals eg to help British (or USAmerican) women with offers of support, education etc, just like they already did, so where the beef?


Or they could go "on holiday" for some month to the Caribbean or Canada and get therapy/psychological help to cope with life in the Uk. Then work there in fields okay with Charles and take the next pause when needed, but stay away from the papers.


What Meghan has just started to do in Canada is going to create even more and negative waves, IMHO and I'm afraid of the results.

 

[Eskimo]

Funding from Charles is a more nuanced issue, which I think depends very much on whether Harry and Meagan continue working part-time on behalf of the Queen, or whether they stop altogether. There's also the thorny issue of how Charles uses his private funds.

But the push for Harry and Meghan to lose their titles and styles has always stuck me as odd. Harry remains the son of the Prince of Wales. What is the basis for removing his style? Prince Andrew is, at best, a part-time working royal now and there has been no similar push for him to simply become the Duke of York. Beatrice and Eugenie (at least currently) aren't working royals, yet they remain Princesses.

As for the peerage, it is my understanding that it would require an act of Parliament to remove it. Is that what you're proposing? Are there any other peers who you believe should lose their titles?

This is only for peerages granted at the behest of the government (the various honours lists). Royal peerages are granted by Letters Patent and can be taken away as such. However, if the Queen would take away their HRH's first, the peerage would no longer be a royal peerage and would require an act of Parliament to remove it

 

[Kataryn]

To clarify. Frogmore Cottage's is owned by the Crown Estates which holds extensive properties "in right of the Crown". That is, managed and all business dealings go through that department just as the Royal Collection Trust holds historical artifacts, furniture, paintings ect. "in right of the Crown". The Crown Estates also own Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle among many other holdings.

The Sovereign Grant that is allocated yearly to the Queen from the Crown Estate profits. While the majority of The Crown Estate's profits go directly to the government, around 15% make up the Sovereign Grant. The Queen pays for any renovations and maintenance work such as at Apartment 1A, Frogmore Cottage and Buckingham Palace.

So, in actuality, the Queen, through the Sovereign Grant funded the necessary structural work needed and renovations with the Sussexes privately funding what would appeal to their aesthetics for the interior.

Considering that the amount of the Sovereign Grant in 2019 was £82.2 million , it was affordable for the Queen to do to keep Frogmore Cottage up to date so the property is viable into the future. Now if that amount of £82.2 is 15% of the Crown Estates profits, one can imagine how much the government received for its share.

That and Frogmore Cottage was no longer used as staff quarters but stood empty. Otherwise the outcry of the media would have been even worse, interviewing former tenants etc. So they chose an empty building that had to be renovated anyway before it could be rented out (if it could be rented out at all with its position in the gardens of Frogmore estate other than for staff members) and payed for their decoration like carpets, furniture, lamps, candles, crockery etc. from Charles' and their own money.

And it's not the government who receives the 85% share of the revenue of the Crown Estate, it becomes part of the state's finances and is used to finance the state, to pay for civil servants or social projects etc. So it's money given by the queen to the taxpayer because the whole Crown Estate was created to allow the reigning and ruling monarch to pay for his court, palaces and civil servants, so the monarch need not use the money from his private purse. When government was more and more done by politicians, the king George III. exchanged the revenues of the Crown Estate for the infamous Civil list for the usage by court and Royal family. And when that system became highly critizised as "spending taxpayer's money on the queen", the reversed the system but allowed the queen only to have 15% of the Crown Estate's revenue. Which is fair, as HM still has to pay for her relatives, her court including servants and her palaces.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Frogmore was used for staff quarters. Staff that had to be relocated when it was decided that it would be Harry and Meghan's home. Most of the cost incurred was to convert 5 separate staff apartments into 1 big home. Do you think that they would have spent over two million pounds to renovate staff lodgings?

If i could just type a three letter answer I would, but I can't. So, yes I do.

It wasn't being used as staff quarters at the time, and if Henry and Meghan hadn't chosen it as their home, it would have had to have been renovated so that it could have been rented out.

 

[Helen.CH]

Who hosts this Twitter account, named The Royal family? Is it offical or just a fansite ?
They posted today 1 about K&W being in Bradford and 11 (!) of Harry&Rugby.
They seem to urgently trying to give H. work a goid reputation or just being fans if him, maybe both if not official.

 

[Betsypaige]

Funding from Charles is a more nuanced issue, which I think depends very much on whether Harry and Meagan continue working part-time on behalf of the Queen, or whether they stop altogether. There's also the thorny issue of how Charles uses his private funds.

But the push for Harry and Meghan to lose their titles and styles has always stuck me as odd. Harry remains the son of the Prince of Wales. What is the basis for removing his style? Prince Andrew is, at best, a part-time working royal now and there has been no similar push for him to simply become the Duke of York. Beatrice and Eugenie (at least currently) aren't working royals, yet they remain Princesses.

As for the peerage, it is my understanding that it would require an act of Parliament to remove it. Is that what you're proposing? Are there any other peers who you believe should lose their titles?

I never proposed anything. I was defending some of these suggestions as not being punitive and harsh - based on the reasoning I've read on this board. I don't know what a style is....

 

[Kataryn]

This is only for peerages granted at the behest of the government (the various honours lists). Royal peerages are granted by Letters Patent and can be taken away as such. However, if the Queen would take away their HRH's first, the peerage would no longer be a royal peerage and would require an act of Parliament to remove it

I'm not sure there is a difference between a Royal dukedom and any other dukedom. But maybe that has changed when they modernized the House of Lords-rule, though I don't think so. Do you have a source for your claim?



For I don't think it can be so easy to remove a peerage still, even a Royal one. (The Duke of Windsor did not have any peerage anymore when he abdicated, because his peerage had merged with the Crown, so he was "just" HRH the prince Edward of the Uk (according to the Letters Patent of his father about the titles of the members of the Royal family) and his brother as the new king created him Duke of Windsor then.)
I don't think any peerage was removed apart from the ones of British princes who had decided to join Germany in WWI because they were German princes as well due to inheriting king William IV. kingdom of Hannover (Duke of Cumberland) and Prince Albert's inheritance of the German dukedom of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Duke of Albany) and Ernst-August of Brunswick who had held the title of a prince of the UK.

 

[Lilyflo]

Who hosts this Twitter account, named The Royal family? Is it offical ir just anfansite?
They posted today 1 about K&W being in Bradford and 11 (!) of Harry&Rugby.
They seem to urgently trying to give H. work a goid reputation or just being fans if him, maybe both if not official.

It's the royal family's official twitter account. The coverage today would have been extensive anyway because it's the draw for a world event taking place in Buckingham Palace.