The Duke and Duchess of Sussex: Transition & Future

[Betsypaige]

It’s amazing how genuinely stupid their PR machine has been these past couple of days. There is no way they couldn’t have known this redundancy story wouldn’t hit the news, and then they publish essentially a “job advert” of a social media video at the same time, it’s ridiculous.

While at the same time, they post that Vogue video on their website....good optics

 

[Osipi]

So, as long as Harry is considered a 'temporary resident' elsewhere, he could be considered to still be domiciled in the UK?!

I would think that keeping Frogmore Cottage, paying rent and upkeep on the property year round would be considered being full time domiciled in the UK. There is no stipulation as to how long he actually has to physically reside there. Correct?

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

The American Republic was founded as a very clear rejection of the British monarchy, a repudiation of the The Queen's paternal grandmother's great grandfather in fact.

Just putting it out there - as they say across the pond

And yet the US allows dual citizenship with commonwealth countries, who by virtue of their citizenship, swear an allegiance to HM The Queen/King.

Prince Harry is a UK citizen, who is not next in line to the throne AND is no longer representing the BRF. If he wishes to pursue dual citizenship, he should be free to do so.

 

[Somebody]

I would think that keeping Frogmore Cottage, paying rent and upkeep on the property year round would be considered being full time domiciled in the UK. There is no stipulation as to how long he actually has to physically reside there. Correct?

Unless he does exactly the same with a different house where he actually lives (and does not pay just a symbolic amount of rent)... If (which of course is a big if) they would decide to go and live in the USA and he would apply for a green card he would become a permanent resident in the USA. Imho you cannot be domiciled at two different places.

 

[_Heather_]

Dual citizenship is certainly something to consider but most people who hold dual citizenship are not required to appear at a coronation and swear their allegiance to a newly crowned monarch. While I understand the concept, as do most people here, there's a huge difference between an average citizen holding dual citizenship and one who must swear his allegiance to a newly crowned monarch with the eyes of the world upon his but who also spoke the words required to obtain US citizenship. The wording of those two oaths very clearly contradict each other and would, in theory, mean that he'd need to decide on one or the other and not both. That, in fact, is what my question was regarding and whether anyone here was better placed than myself to comment on that because I don't know all of the legal and immigration intricacies around those matters. Trying to figure out the legality and practicality of a rather complicated situation really doesn't mean that other posters need to "get a grip" it simply means that everyone is doing their best to figure out how that will work in practice.

 

[Somebody]

And yet the US allows dual citizenship with commonwealth countries, who by virtue of their citizenship, swear an allegiance to HM The Queen/King.

Prince Harry is a UK citizen, who is not next in line to the throne AND is no longer representing the BRF. If he wishes to pursue dual citizenship, he should be free to do so.

Nobody is contesting that. It would, however, be insincere (and impossible in good conscious) to both swear that you renounce all allegiance to a foreign prince and (publicly) swear allegiance to your father when he becomes king (as he is expected to do).

 

[_Heather_]

Unless he does exactly the same with a different house where he actually lives (and does not pay just a symbolic amount of rent)... If (which of course is a big if) they would decide to go and live in the USA and he would apply for a green card he would become a permanent resident in the USA. Imho you cannot be domiciled at two different places.

This is actually a really good point. In my line of work we use the word "domiciled" quite frequently, actually, and our definition always boils down to "where they lay their head at night." There's a lot of big words and legal jargon and fancy language around it all but in the end, that's the definition we use of domiciled. If they're planning to make their home in North America with visits to the UK, even if some of those visits are "extended" for a few weeks at a time, then their domicile would be North America and their time in the UK only visits. If, however, their time truly is split 50/50 then there would be a complicated argument about their legal residence and domicile. Loads of people own vacation homes and visit there occasionally, sometimes even for a few weeks, but their actual legal residence is their main home. I'd imagine the same principle would apply here, though I can't really say for certain.

 

[Denville]

I would think that keeping Frogmore Cottage, paying rent and upkeep on the property year round would be considered being full time domiciled in the UK. There is no stipulation as to how long he actually has to physically reside there. Correct?

I don't think so....

 

[Durham]

And yet the US allows dual citizenship with commonwealth countries, who by virtue of their citizenship, swear an allegiance to HM The Queen/King.

Prince Harry is a UK citizen, who is not next in line to the throne AND is no longer representing the BRF. If he wishes to pursue dual citizenship, he should be free to do so.

Well yes of course he should & he is. The point surely is the (as yet hypothetical) irony of a member of the British royal family acquiring citizenship of the one country whose very genesis is anti (British) monarchist. The Declaration of Independence contains a very long list of grievances against the king.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Did you read the naturalization oath of allegiance? Upon becoming a US citizen he has to swear to "renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity" to a foreign "power"; so, to his own close family members! So, while a dual citizenship from birth is no problem. And most countries don't require a person to utter such strong language (or more extreme: will require you to give up your previous citizenship), in this case it would be extremely awkward and disingenuous.

A dual UK, Australian and Canadian citizenship is very different: they share the same head of state...

My sister-in-law, her husband and children are all dual Australian and American citizen. They were all born in Australia. They immigrated to the US some 20 years ago. Our citizenship requires us to swear allegiance to the Queen. Quite clearly the respective Australian and US governments did not care for the oath because if they did, the concept of dual citizenship would not exist.

Prince Harry is a UK citizen. He has the rights like every other UK citizen and he should be free to exercise them.

 

[Lumutqueen]

My sister-in-law, her husband and children are all dual Australian and American citizen. They were all born in Australia. They immigrated to the US some 20 years ago. Our citizenship requires us to swear allegiance to the Queen. Quite clearly the respective Australian and US governments did not care for the oath because if they did, the concept of dual citizenship would not exist.



Prince Harry is a UK citizen. He has the rights like every other UK citizen and he should be free to exercise them.

Except, and I am presuming here, your sister-in-law and her family don’t at some point need to swear allegiance to their father when he becomes King....

As Somebody pointed out in this point below, there’s no issue with Henry exercising his right, it’s the fact that it would in some people’s eyes be a sham.

Nobody is contesting that. It would, however, be insincere (and impossible in good conscious) to both swear that you renounce all allegiance to a foreign prince and (publicly) swear allegiance to your father when he becomes king (as he is expected to do).

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Well yes of course he should & he is. The point surely is the (as yet hypothetical) irony of a member of the British royal family acquiring citizenship of the one country whose very genesis is anti (British) monarchist. The Declaration of Independence contains a very long list of grievances against the king.

That I agree! A Prince of the UK can technically acquire citizenship from a country that was so anti-British is extremely ironic!

 

[Durham]

My sister-in-law, her husband and children are all dual Australian and American citizen. They were all born in Australia. They immigrated to the US some 20 years ago. Our citizenship requires us to swear allegiance to the Queen. Quite clearly the respective Australian and US governments did not care for the oath because if they did, the concept of dual citizenship would not exist.

Prince Harry is a UK citizen. He has the rights like every other UK citizen and he should be free to exercise them.

Nobody would disagree with you on that I'm sure. What some posters are commenting on is the irony of a member of the royal family becoming (speculation of course) a US citizen & the nature of oath taking.

 

[Denville]

That I agree! A Prince of the UK can technically acquire citizenship from a country that was so anti-British is extremely ironic!

he can certainly apply to become an American citizen but how will he reconcile that with going to his father's coronation?

 

[ACO]

How do you know they are not working with their staff to help them land in other great positions?

Some, like Marnie, have been offered other roles in the household but have decided to take the severance package if you read the reporting. Fiona was seconded from Whitehall and will just go back to being a diplomat.

In terms of the Foundation staff, none have been announce beyond their board so it isn't true that they poached staff from the joint foundation. People are conflating the foundation with the royal household.

Staff reshuffle or are made redundant all the time. The Cambridges made some staff redundant last year.

I am honestly perplexed that people are making a big deal out of this. They wanted to still do royal work while pursuing financial independence, the Queen said no. It makes sense that they will not maintain a full staff.

I couldn't agree with you more. And let's keep it real... had they kept these people full time while they were not working full time then it would be a completely different conversation complaining why they were wasting money.

They did the logical thing.

 

[wyevale]

^Many here in Britain would regard such a swearing of allegiance [to TWO *Masters*] as the height of hypocrisy, and absolutely inadmissable.
Sussex is no 'ordinary' citizen despite his [increasingly desperate] attempts to prove otherwise.
If he really wishes to become one, he should cease to call himself Prince and Duke, and henceforth style himself Henry Mountbatten-Windsor, [which btw he will HAVE to do should he become an American citizen].

Then there would be some consistency worthy of respect.

 

[ladongas]

Has there been any discussion of Harry’s intention about US citizenship elsewhere, or just on this board?

 

[_Heather_]

I couldn't agree with you more. And let's keep it real... had they kept these people full time while they were not working full time then it would be a completely different conversation complaining why they were wasting money.

They did the logical thing.

While I don't disagree with you, I also don't think there's anything at all wrong with pointing out that a lot of people's livelihoods depended on Harry and Meghan and there's a human cost to their decision. Yes, a couple of those people may be placed somewhere within the royal organization and one or two may be able to simply return to the position they were seconded from. However, that still leaves several who are simply out of a job. And while that's rough for anyone, it's got to feel like an especially tough kick in the teeth if you left another position to come to work for Harry and Meghan to then be let go almost immediately through no fault of your own. And, considering the level these people have now been employed at, finding a job won't be as easy as just becoming a secretary at the local factory. Most of them will need to look long and hard to find a comparable position and, for most people, that doesn't just happen overnight. It often takes months of searching while still employed. These people are now just unemployed and not because they were bad at their jobs but because they were unlucky enough to have employers who decided to up sticks and they got caught in the fallout. Yes, it might have been logical not to keep an office and staff but that doesn't mean that anyone here is erring by feeling bad for these people who got the short end of the stick.

 

[poppy7]

re no longer members of the 'royal' family and will not work as such. So why would they have a staff that were in fact for that working part of their life and were paid for by whatever pot is shared out among the royals.

I think sometimes people do not seem to get that. Harry and Meghan are in essence like The Earl of Snowdon and Lady Sarah. They both have some patronages (I saw Sarah and son at the royal ballet where she is patron) and I do not think either of them have any staff. Beatrice and Eugenie do more than they will (as in they go to support the family at events).

To be honest though I think these advisers would have given them better advice than the ones who did that quite embarrassing website.

Harry and Meghan are grand. Let them be and let us all move on. The toxicity that surrounded them was bad for everyone's health.

 

[Denville]

re no longer members of the 'royal' family and will not work as such. So why would they have a staff that were in fact for that working part of their life and were paid for by whatever pot is shared out among the royals.

I think sometimes people do not seem to get that. Harry and Meghan are in essence like The Earl of Snowdon and Lady Sarah. They both have some patronages (I saw Sarah and son at the royal ballet where she is patron) and I do not think either of them have any staff. Beatrice and Eugenie do more than they will (as in they go to support the family at events).

To be honest though I think these advisers would have given them better advice than the ones who did that quite embarrassing website.

Harry and Meghan are grand. Let them be and let us all move on. The toxicity that surrounded them was bad for everyone's health.

well no they are NOT like Lord Snowdon or Sarah Chatto. They were full time working members fo the RF, they had an important job which they willingly undertook, only a couple of years ago. they walked out on it. It has caused an upheaval for the RF, as you can't just advertise for a Duke and Duchess to take on various roles..

 

[Osipi]

Then again, it may actually be an asset to have on a CV that they were hired to work for the Sussexes. It would show that they were vetted and chosen to be a right fit to work for a royal couple's office staff regardless of how long the employment actually lasted before the position was deemed obsolete.

I would think it would be more of a help rather than a hindrance to finding future employment. Being vetted and hired to work for royalty at BP does hold a bit of clout.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Except, and I am presuming here, your sister-in-law and her family don’t at some point need to swear allegiance to their father when he becomes King....

As Somebody pointed out in this point below, there’s no issue with Henry exercising his right, it’s the fact that it would in some people’s eyes be a sham.

Harry is swearing his allegiance as a UK citizen and 6th in line to the throne. He's not the next direct heir. The only issue is the fact he's a Prince. That's it.

If the UK believed this to be an issue, where are there laws restricting member of the Royal Family from holding dual citizenship?

 

[poppy7]

Then again, it may actually be an asset to have on a CV that they were hired to work for the Sussexes. It would show that they were vetted and chosen to be a right fit to work for a royal couple's office staff regardless of how long the employment actually lasted before the position was deemed obsolete.

I would think it would be more of a help rather than a hindrance to finding future employment. Being vetted and hired to work for royalty at BP does hold a bit of clout.

These are not people who need CVs. They don't apply for jobs. They have chats in the wide network that they move in. They aren't like the rest of the universe. They will all be fine and was not their fault that their time with the Sussex family was not an achievement to big up.

 

[_Heather_]

Harry is swearing his allegiance as a UK citizen and 6th in line to the throne. He's not the next direct heir. The only issue is the fact he's a Prince. That's it.

If the UK believed this to be an issue, where are there laws restricting member of the Royal Family from holding dual citizenship?

Actually, I could be mistaken but for the coronation I believe he would actually be swearing his allegiance as a peer of the realm and not just as an ordinary citizen. I don't know if that actually makes a difference or not but I can certainly see that it might.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Harry is swearing his allegiance as a UK citizen and 6th in line to the throne. He's not the next direct heir. The only issue is the fact he's a Prince. That's it.



If the UK believed this to be an issue, where are there laws restricting member of the Royal Family from holding dual citizenship?

Literally nothing you’ve said contradicts or questions what I wrote, you’ve actually enhanced my analysis of the situation you’re presenting.

You cannot have laws over the morality of a situation....

 

[poppy7]

well no they are NOT like Lord Snowdon or Sarah Chatto. They were full time working members fo the RF, they had an important job which they willingly undertook, only a couple of years ago. they walked out on it. It has caused an upheaval for the RF, as you can't just advertise for a Duke and Duchess to take on various roles..

They will be now. My personal opinion on the fact thry 'chose' to do that is not particularly repeatable. Harry has fallen from a height in my mind and his rather more 'closed' brother risen as a consequence.

 

[Betsypaige]

While I don't disagree with you, I also don't think there's anything at all wrong with pointing out that a lot of people's livelihoods depended on Harry and Meghan and there's a human cost to their decision. Yes, a couple of those people may be placed somewhere within the royal organization and one or two may be able to simply return to the position they were seconded from. However, that still leaves several who are simply out of a job. And while that's rough for anyone, it's got to feel like an especially tough kick in the teeth if you left another position to come to work for Harry and Meghan to then be let go almost immediately through no fault of your own. And, considering the level these people have now been employed at, finding a job won't be as easy as just becoming a secretary at the local factory. Most of them will need to look long and hard to find a comparable position and, for most people, that doesn't just happen overnight. It often takes months of searching while still employed. These people are now just unemployed and not because they were bad at their jobs but because they were unlucky enough to have employers who decided to up sticks and they got caught in the fallout. Yes, it might have been logical not to keep an office and staff but that doesn't mean that anyone here is erring by feeling bad for these people who got the short end of the stick.

This, especially the part in bold. You can be logical and empathetic at the same time...

Just for myself, based on what I’ve read, I do not think that Harry and Meghan spent time trying to help their now former employees. They just “sacked” them and everyone was apparently shocked, so it’s not like they gave these people heads up from months ago

 

[Alison H]

Unfortunately, things like this happen all the time. People who've worked for someone for years suddenly get told that they're being made redundant because of cutbacks, or because the firm has gone bankrupt, or because production is being moved somewhere cheaper. Often, people don't get any redundancy package beyond the legal minimum guaranteed by the state. It's really horrible and unfair, but Harry and Meghan haven't done anything that loads of other employers haven't.

 

[poppy7]

While I don't disagree with you, I also don't think there's anything at all wrong with pointing out that a lot of people's livelihoods depended on Harry and Meghan and there's a human cost to their decision. Yes, a couple of those people may be placed somewhere within the royal organization and one or two may be able to simply return to the position they were seconded from. However, that still leaves several who are simply out of a job. And while that's rough for anyone, it's got to feel like an especially tough kick in the teeth if you left another position to come to work for Harry and Meghan to then be let go almost immediately through no fault of your own. And, considering the level these people have now been employed at, finding a job won't be as easy as just becoming a secretary at the local factory. Most of them will need to look long and hard to find a comparable position and, for most people, that doesn't just happen overnight. It often takes months of searching while still employed. These people are now just unemployed and not because they were bad at their jobs but because they were unlucky enough to have employers who decided to up sticks and they got caught in the fallout. Yes, it might have been logical not to keep an office and staff but that doesn't mean that anyone here is erring by feeling bad for these people who got the short end of the stick.

Not that I don't disagree that it is awful for the staff, it isn't an unusual occurrence.

This isn't about the staff, it is about the fact people are annoyed about what Harry has done. And there will be no peace with it unless he comes back. Which I actually think he will. But he may not.
And the flaming car crash of what happened will have to be left and actually he will have to be forgotten about for there to be any peace.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Harry is swearing his allegiance as a UK citizen and 6th in line to the throne. He's not the next direct heir. The only issue is the fact he's a Prince. That's it.

If the UK believed this to be an issue, where are there laws restricting member of the Royal Family from holding dual citizenship?

It may not be an issue with the UK, but it definitely would be an issue with U.S. citizenship. When becoming a U.S. citizen, the citizenship oath says “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.”
And we are getting way ahead of things here as Harry is currently not even livimg in the U.S. much less applying for citizenship.