The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/)
-   -   The Duke and Duchess of Sussex: Transition & Future (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-transition-and-future-47165.html)

Jacknch 01-24-2020 12:55 PM

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex: Transition & Future
 
This thread is to discuss the Transition & Future of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Discussion on the announcement that they made earlier last month - and subsequent events - took place in the "Stepping Back" thread. That thread is now closed as well as those discussions.

In this new thread, the Moderating team will not tolerate bickering, in-fighting, snarky comments directed at all and sundry, off-topic discussions, de-railing discussions, back-and-forth arguments or unnecessary debate etc. Such posts would make the thread untenable as well as making browsing the thread an unsavoury experience for the larger portion of our membership base - and will be deleted without notice.

Other members who follow the rules and contribute to a civil discussion should not have to be be penalised with the threat of a thread being closed or by having to navigate through the types of posts described above made by members unable to follow the rules nor able to respect the opinions of others.

Moving forward, we expect our members to act civilly, reasonably and responsibly, as well as having a focus on constructive and mature discussion and debate. Those that do not, will find themselves facing a warning and possible suspension.

The Transition & Future thread will NOT be host to discussion about or including the following:
  • The media, journalists, journalism, paparazzi, photographer, reporters etc
  • Relationship with other members of the Royal Family
  • The Markle family
  • Any other subject not DIRECTLY related to the Sussex's Transition and Future.
  • Unsubstantiated unsubstantiated gossip, rumour, speculation or hearsay
  • Accusations or inference of racism towards other posters or members of the media
  • Off-topic remarks
  • Aggressive tones
  • Agenda-driven posts
  • Bickering
  • Repetitive and circular discussion
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and as long as it does not break any of the TRF Rules and Guidelines and meets the above principles, it may be posted here.

Any and all issues are to be directed to the moderating team via private message.

Jacknch 01-24-2020 12:55 PM

Duke and Duchess of Sussex: Transition & Future
 
Welcome to The Duke and Duchess of Sussex: Transition and Future thread


Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs

∑ Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
∑ It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article
text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.
∑ We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.
∑ The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.
∑ Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive
will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.

***

carlota 02-13-2020 02:54 AM

It would appear that Harry is in talks with Goldman Sachs over a potential job with them. It is unknown from the article what the job would be, but they mention an equivalent of an ďambassadorĒ role. Whatever that means. Doubt it would be a financial role as Harry doesnít seem like he would be qualified for that sort of thing.

https://www.hola.com/realeza/casa_in...goldman-sachs/

Alison H 02-13-2020 03:08 AM

Apparently the idea is for him to give an interview for their employees to watch on You Tube! No idea what about, but they've reportedly done this with a number of well-known people, including Victoria Beckham - presumably it's some kind of "motivational" thing. I wish my employers would pay me to watch celebs talking on You Tube!

wyevale 02-13-2020 04:05 AM

The Times reports Sussex is in negotiations with Goldman Sachs about being a guest speaker for the global bank, and discussions are thought to have been going on for about a year..
I posted elsewhere about the record of Goldman Sachs in Greece and elsewhere. It seems deeply questionable that a 'noted humanitarian' like him would wish to be associated [in any capacity] with such an organisation.

Betsypaige 02-13-2020 04:23 AM

Theyíve been in discussions since November, apparently....so well before they were actually ďoutĒ, and at a time when supposedly Harry was discussing this with his father....

muriel 02-13-2020 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2292948)
Apparently the idea is for him to give an interview for their employees to watch on You Tube! No idea what about, but they've reportedly done this with a number of well-known people, including Victoria Beckham - presumably it's some kind of "motivational" thing. I wish my employers would pay me to watch celebs talking on You Tube!

It would be interesting to hear what Harry may have to say as a motivational speaker. He has served in the armed forces and has done some good charitable work, but it might be argued the platform for a lot of that was provided by his family. Outside of his royal heritage, it will be interesting to see what he has to offer.

That said, best of luck to H&M in their commercial endeavours, just hope they do not end up trading too much on their royal status, or in any way embarrassing the BRF.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2292953)
Theyíve been in discussions since November, apparently....so well before they were actually ďoutĒ, and at a time when supposedly Harry was discussing this with his father....

I have seen it mentioned on Twitter that the Sussexroyal website was registered in April 2019. So for all intents, it appears that the plan was in place for a long time before 8 January 2020!

Betsypaige 02-13-2020 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 2292955)
I have seen it mentioned on Twitter that the Sussexroyal website was registered in April 2019. So for all intents, it appears that the plan was in place for a long time before 8 January 2020!

Which would mean that Meghan gave the Royal life even less of a shot than Iíd thought...

ACO 02-13-2020 09:41 AM

It was a more likely scenario it was originally intended to be their foundation website (which it still kind of is) and once separated used it for their overall official one.

Based on other reports it would seen Harry was in conversation for one of his patronages. My guess the newly announced Travelyst initiative. But who knows since no one has confirmed any of the reporters.

Betsypaige 02-13-2020 05:55 PM

Quote:

Harry and Meghan are axing 15 staff and closing their Buckingham Palace office.

It is the surest sign yet that the couple and their son Archie are unlikely ever to return to the UK to live.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex broke the news to their team in person in January following the announcement that they were stepping down as senior working royals.

While one or two may be absorbed back into the royal household, most are now negotiating redundancy packages.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mpression=true


Well...I feel so sad for the 15 employees. Harry and Meghan didnít even give this the year (when this would all be reviewed). I donít understand why they wanted to keep Frogmore - they will barely ever use it; it should belong to people who truly want to live there.

Osipi 02-13-2020 06:03 PM

It makes sense to me that they're closing the BP office. They're no longer going to be working for the "Firm" and have office space available for them at BP that comes with working for the "Firm".

However, it doesn't indicate to me in any real way that they'll not spend part time in the UK and at Frogmore Cottage. They may even establish their own office somewhere to handle the UK side of their endeavors.

Time will tell. We'll definitely know more once their foundation is officially launched.

Alison H 02-13-2020 06:08 PM

I suppose it's not really practical to run between two countries thousands of miles apart, especially with a toddler. I'm sorry for the people who've lost their jobs, though. And it's rather frustrating that millions of pounds have been spent on doing Frogmore Cottage up, presumably to Harry and Meghan's personal tastes, only for them to move out so soon afterwards. I hope someone who really wants to live there moves in soon ... although I don't know who might.

Betsypaige 02-13-2020 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2293113)
It makes sense to me that they're closing the BP office. They're no longer going to be working for the "Firm" and have office space available for them at BP that comes with working for the "Firm".

However, it doesn't indicate to me in any real way that they'll not spend part time in the UK and at Frogmore Cottage. They may even establish their own office somewhere to handle the UK side of their endeavors.

Time will tell. We'll definitely know more once their foundation is officially launched.

Closing the BP office makes sense if they plan on absolutely never doing any engagements again..in which case I guess there’s no point in reviewing this matter in a year.

I just don’t see them ever living in the UK for any length of time, in which case they don’t need Frogmore. I just think it deserves better than to be sitting unused.

Based on what I’ve read, I think this is a permanent thing

Hallo girl 02-13-2020 06:12 PM

I feel sorry for the people who actually left other jobs out with the royal family to join them.

Countessmeout 02-13-2020 06:16 PM

They have made it clear they will return to the UK for part of the year. It makes sense they keep Frogmore. They need a base when in the UK. For security and other purposes makes sense. It’s not like they are taking up housing needed by others. And since they are paying back the work done on it I see no need to complain. They aren’t the first people to have more then one home.

They really don’t need a full staff in the UK for the few patronage’s they keep there. It makes more sense for their office to be where they are working in the business sense not charity sense. And that is not the UK.

Eugene and Beatrice prove you can do patronage’s without having an office and staff to over see it. The Sussexes work in the Uk will be on par with them now.


As for the staff any who already worked for the royals like the lady who did heads together will have a new job found for her. Like the staff at Frogmore. Others like the former ambassador will easily have a new job either back in foreign service or corporate. Working for royals won’t hurt that. The other staff well they will get a severance package and the job looks good on the resume.

rominet09 02-13-2020 06:32 PM

I think having worked for them on a CV will powerfully help them to find a good job !

QueenMathilde 02-13-2020 06:37 PM

I thought they let go of the staff at Frogmore as well? And I also read that they were looking at an 11 million pound house to buy ( or maybe it was dollars) in Canada.

ACO 02-13-2020 06:42 PM

I don't see the issue. Why would they maintain a full time staff of 15 people when they will spend most of their time outside the UK? Having a small team around the launch of the foundation makes more sense. And as the need to expand grows then add on.

Also it just practical to start from a clean slate. Too many people from other offices there. Too many leaks. Clearly some trust issues within their own camp. This gives everyone a fresh start.

They are apparently doing two engagements for sure with maybe a few more added on but it seems March will be the last of it. March is spring. So is this it?

Countessmeout 02-13-2020 06:48 PM

Two official Royal events. They will likely make sure to visit patronages and such while there. I'd be surprised if they didn't spend a few weeks at least to do the events, some patron visits, visit friends and family. Longer trip so easier on Archie.

May be the last official events. It seemed that they were going to do what they were already scheduled for and nothing more. Outside their patronages, even Harry didn't attend a large number of official duties. It was mainly his patronage work. Those are two different matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by QueenMathilde (Post 2293123)
I thought they let go of the staff at Frogmore as well? And I also read that they were looking at an 11 million pound house to buy ( or maybe it was dollars) in Canada.

Most if the staff was transitioned into other roles. Except those who were recent hires. Found jobs within the royal household.

The rumors of house wanting and irises are so far just that.

My mother just called to say did you hear Harry is moving to Hollywood. She thought it wasn't shocking as my dad is from Vancouver island and my parents thought it was too boring for the couple.

TLLK 02-13-2020 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2293115)
Closing the BP office makes sense if they plan on absolutely never doing any engagements again..in which case I guess thereís no point in reviewing this matter in a year.

I just donít see them ever living in the UK for any length of time, in which case they donít need Frogmore. I just think it deserves better than to be sitting unused.

Based on what Iíve read, I think this is a permanent thing


I agree as well that this is permanent. I'm sorry for those who left other positions that their time with the Sussexes was short lived, but hopefully they will be able to find employment quickly.

evolvingdoors 02-13-2020 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rominet09 (Post 2293120)
I think having worked for them on a CV will powerfully help them to find a good job !

No it wonít, it really really wonít. Meghan, and Harry by connection, are now considered toxic of the highest degree, not to mention the general hostility towards them over their treatment of the queen, Charles and William.
No sane employer would want to get near any one who choose to work for them, they essentially failed their job in making sure they donít screw up (which they did) they couldnít even stop Harry and Meghan from publishing that proclamation and that idiotic demand list.

Osipi 02-13-2020 09:22 PM

Actually, I believe it was the staff that worked at the Sussex office in Buckingham Palace that were let go as that office is closing due to Harry and Meghan no longer being a part of or working for the BRF "Firm".

They may still have an office and staff in the UK eventually as I don't believe they're giving up incentives and involvement in working with charities and patronages that they feel close to that were not and are still not part and parcel of what their "official BRF" work was such as Invictus Games, Hubb Kitchen, Smart Works and such. In other words, the personal connections they've already established and will keep.

If I'm remembering right, the Sussexes do still plan to spend part of the year in the UK and aren't abandoning the UK forever and not looking back. :smile:

yvr girl 02-13-2020 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QueenMathilde (Post 2293123)
I thought they let go of the staff at Frogmore as well? And I also read that they were looking at an 11 million pound house to buy ( or maybe it was dollars) in Canada.

I've seen so much speculation on homes they are looking at. Most of them are ridiculous choices. A lot of them are in the 15 million dollars plus range...many even higher than that. I don't think they could afford a house like that right now.

One was in a trendy neighborhood in Vancouver right on the waterfront. That house is nestled in between 2 beaches. That stretch of water is filled with pleasure craft, paddleboards etc. It wouldn't offer them much privacy.

I think that these stories are pure speculation.

Betsypaige 02-13-2020 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors (Post 2293134)
No it wonít, it really really wonít. Meghan, and Harry by connection, are now considered toxic of the highest degree, not to mention the general hostility towards them over their treatment of the queen, Charles and William.
No sane employer would want to get near any one who choose to work for them, they essentially failed their job in making sure they donít screw up (which they did) they couldnít even stop Harry and Meghan from publishing that proclamation and that idiotic demand list.

Wait, I donít know what CV is, but if youíre referring to the employees that were let go, how on earth would anyone blame them for Harry and Meghanís actions?


TLLK:


Quote:

I agree as well that this is permanent. I'm sorry for those who left other positions that their time with the Sussexes was short lived, but hopefully they will be able to find employment quickly.
I hope they can find work within the royal family....

Iím pessimistic about Harry ever doing anything much beyond these last couple of events....Iím kind of doubtful now that heíll show up for even family events, like Trouping the Colour. I know thatís official, but still, itís the Queenís birthday event - itís not like heíd be working. I hope Iím wrong.

TLLK 02-13-2020 10:23 PM

:previous: While I too hope that some will be able to find work within the "Firm," some of them left positions with the Royal Foundation and I have to wonder if they might have already been replaced.:sad:

Erin9 02-13-2020 10:37 PM

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex: Transition & Future
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TLLK (Post 2293133)
I agree as well that this is permanent. I'm sorry for those who left other positions that their time with the Sussexes was short lived, but hopefully they will be able to find employment quickly.



I am too. What a waste for them. Thereís nothing fun about job hunting- especially when you donít have one.

While this was obviously a practical decision, it makes my sympathy for Meghan and Harry go down further. They couldíve saved a lot of people a lot of trouble- including their family- had they really thought things through from the beginning.

O-H Anglophile 02-14-2020 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2293146)
Wait, I don’t know what CV is, but if you’re referring to the employees that were let go, how on earth would anyone blame them for Harry and Meghan’s actions?

A CV is basically a resume, but more detailed.

I agree, the people were employees not minders, it wasn’t their place to make The Sussexes do anything.

poppy7 02-14-2020 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2293140)
Actually, I believe it was the staff that worked at the Sussex office in Buckingham Palace that were let go as that office is closing due to Harry and Meghan no longer being a part of or working for the BRF "Firm".

They may still have an office and staff in the UK eventually as I don't believe they're giving up incentives and involvement in working with charities and patronages that they feel close to that were not and are still not part and parcel of what their "official BRF" work was such as Invictus Games, Hubb Kitchen, Smart Works and such. In other words, the personal connections they've already established and will keep.

If I'm remembering right, the Sussexes do still plan to spend part of the year in the UK and aren't abandoning the UK forever and not looking back. :smile:

No. They would have worked with the staff of these organisations. They are not their staff...even though Harry set up Invictus. A staff was hired to run it. They don't work for Harry per sae

American media now beginning to 'turn' on Harry and Meghan. And by that I mean just starting to question the narrative they put forward. It's what happens.

Countessmeout 02-14-2020 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2293140)
Actually, I believe it was the staff that worked at the Sussex office in Buckingham Palace that were let go as that office is closing due to Harry and Meghan no longer being a part of or working for the BRF "Firm".

They may still have an office and staff in the UK eventually as I don't believe they're giving up incentives and involvement in working with charities and patronages that they feel close to that were not and are still not part and parcel of what their "official BRF" work was such as Invictus Games, Hubb Kitchen, Smart Works and such. In other words, the personal connections they've already established and will keep.

If I'm remembering right, the Sussexes do still plan to spend part of the year in the UK and aren't abandoning the UK forever and not looking back. :smile:

Besides their commonwealth role, and honorary military, their charity work is the official BRF role. That's part of their official gig.

True, no doubt they will continue with their charities. They have she they will. But in reality that doesn't require a staff. If anything maybe an assistant fir scheduling. Those charities have their isn trained staff.

Patronage wise they are basically the York girls now. They have a small handful of patronages. Like the York girls they don't really need a staff to over see that. They don't need the umbrella of a foundation so no need for foundation staff,

Makes more sense to focus their effort and money on staff for their business and initiatives. That is where they will need the help if any.

Betsypaige 02-14-2020 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erin9 (Post 2293150)
I am too. What a waste for them. Thereís nothing fun about job hunting- especially when you donít have one.

While this was obviously a practical decision, it makes my sympathy for Meghan and Harry go down further. They couldíve saved a lot of people a lot of trouble- including their family- had they really thought things through from the beginning.

I was laid off from work last April as my office closed, and I just really found a job a few weeks ago. Rebecca English doesnít think more than 2 or 3 will be reassigned, so if true, thatís pretty much it for these poor folks who have been - from what Iím reading - incredibly loyal to Harry and Meghan.

Iím afraid I agree with Richard Kay (swipe right to read his editorial), though I wonít lay this all at Meghanís feet as Harry is clearly very happy to ditch his family and birthright. Yes, Iím aware that this doesnít mean that heíll never return, or that he canít communicate with people via Skype or whatever, but we donít know thatís the case. Iím personally sad about the whole thing - for Charles, William, etc.. - while at the same time, I donít give a darn what they do and Iím glad NY papers arenít reporting on them.

https://twitter.com/re_dailymail/sta...703065601?s=21

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile (Post 2293156)
A CV is basically a resume, but more detailed.

I agree, the people were employees not minders, it wasnít their place to make The Sussexes do anything.

Thank you!

You canít make adults do anything...the Sussexes staff got shafted.

Quote:

American media now beginning to 'turn' on Harry and Meghan. And by that I mean just starting to question the narrative they put forward. It's what happens.
Poppy, Iíve read one article bashing Harry and Meghan (but, itís the NY Post); have you read more?

Denville 02-14-2020 04:09 AM

He will problaby vist frequently to see familybut I don't think he's going to do that much work in the UK. His future is in America/Canada. I think they are stuck with Frogmore as it is not a place that can be easily retned to someone else.. for security reasons. So if H and Meg come back at times it can be opened up forthem.

Alison H 02-14-2020 04:30 AM

They've been told that they've got to pay commercial rent on Frogmore, now that they're no longer working royals. That's going to be a lot of money for somewhere they're only using for a few weeks a year, but I don't know what the alternative is - they can hardly put an ad in the local paper offering it for rent, much as I'm sure loads of people would love the idea! What a waste of a multi-million pound refurbishment.

It's not really practical to spend half the year in one country and half in another, as was originally being suggested. I know some people do, but that's usually retired people trying to avoid bad weather. You can't be running backwards and forwards with a toddler. Once Archie's old enough for school, their travel options are going to be very limited.

Denville 02-14-2020 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2293179)
They've been told that they've got to pay commercial rent on Frogmore, now that they're no longer working royals. That's going to be a lot of money for somewhere they're only using for a few weeks a year, but I don't know what the alternative is - they can hardly put an ad in the local paper offering it for rent, much as I'm sure loads of people would love the idea! What a waste of a multi-million pound refurbishment.

It's not really practical to spend half the year in one country and half in another, as was originally being suggested. I know some people do, but that's usually retired people trying to avoid bad weather. You can't be running backwards and forwards with a toddler. Once Archie's old enough for school, their travel options are going to be very limited.

yes that's the problem. with some royal houses/apartmetns they can be rented out to suitable people who can pay a high rent.. (and some are given as low rentals to former staff). but I think because of where Frogmore Is situatied its not easy to put the house to another use with someone renting it. I agree its not practical to sepnd half the year in the UK nad the rest away, as they seem to have orginally believed they would do. If they were leading a quiet retired life.. maybe but even if they were doing that, they have a small child and it would be difficult to keep ferrying him back and forth.
and if they are trying to earn money, they will be busy, they wil probably be traveling a lot within the American landmass and that will be enough for them with Archie to consider, without taking a long trip to the UK and spending a period of time there. SO I think the UK charities will become a back number and perhaps have to be dropped. I would say that apart from the problems of their commercial work, that was another reason why they queen said they could not be half and halfers.. She problaby foresaw that it would be too difficult to come to the UK for a couple fo months, do royal work here and then be back in the USA for engagemetns or speaking tours there.. thtat maybe it wuodl end by one of them having to drop of the royal stuff (most problably Meghan) and stay in Canada with Archie and it just wouldn't work..
And even with a small number of charities, I think its going to be diffuclt and in a few yaers, if they stay there the charities will have to be dropped.

Hallo girl 02-14-2020 05:32 AM

I am now beginning to wonder about the whole time frame scenario. One of the staff only joined last August, why would they employ somebody only to sack him in January. The former ambassador was only given the job a few weeks ago.
It does appear discussions to leave had been ongoing for some time so it would suggest they were employing people at the same time as they were discussing leaving. Why employ these people only to sack them.
Does this suggest the original plan was to to retain the staff here

Denville 02-14-2020 05:35 AM

they orginally intended to be half and half, so perhaps they were going to keep them on full time and they'd liaise with them when they were in the UK...

Hallo girl 02-14-2020 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2293187)
they orginally intended to be half and half, so perhaps they were going to keep them on full time and they'd liaise with them when they were in the UK...

IMO it demonstrates they had made decisions without really considering the impact, could this be why the talks had been going on in the background for some time, what they wanted was not going to work for the palace.

Also how can you pay somebody a salary for them only to be really employed for half a year. I wonder if anybody was given the opportunity to go with them.

Betsypaige 02-14-2020 06:03 AM

It just strikes me as odd that theyíd originally planned to stay half the time in the UK when they thought they could be part-time Royals, but once it was decided that that couldnít work, that plan went out the window. Why? There was no reason to leave the UK just because they werenít going to be working Royals. It kind of looks like they were upset that they didnít get what they wanted, so they split

wyevale 02-14-2020 06:28 AM

Quote:

That's going to be a lot of money for somewhere they're only using for a few weeks a year, but I don't know what the alternative is
An Hotel ? There are many in London, more than used to accommodating guests requiring high levels of Security/privacy/comfort.
That would play FAR better with a British Public that feels deeply 'used' and 'led up the garden path', by this couple, altho' I doubt they factor that into their decision making now..

muriel 02-14-2020 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2293179)
They've been told that they've got to pay commercial rent on Frogmore, now that they're no longer working royals. That's going to be a lot of money for somewhere they're only using for a few weeks a year, but I don't know what the alternative is - they can hardly put an ad in the local paper offering it for rent, much as I'm sure loads of people would love the idea! What a waste of a multi-million pound refurbishment.

It's not really practical to spend half the year in one country and half in another, as was originally being suggested. I know some people do, but that's usually retired people trying to avoid bad weather. You can't be running backwards and forwards with a toddler. Once Archie's old enough for school, their travel options are going to be very limited.

I have no doubt that any costs associated with FC will be funded by Charles, as is the lifestyle of H&M.

Pranter 02-14-2020 07:00 AM

They may not buy a house in Canada for awhile...they can rent indefinately. Might take a bit to find something that will work for their situation.


I'm thinking we may see them for the CW Services and Beatrice's wedding (along with a couple more things).

Charles funds the households of both his children..and really that is his business. Many parents around the world (regardless of income) help support their children/grandchildren.


LaRae

Denville 02-14-2020 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2293193)
It just strikes me as odd that theyíd originally planned to stay half the time in the UK when they thought they could be part-time Royals, but once it was decided that that couldnít work, that plan went out the window. Why? There was no reason to leave the UK just because they werenít going to be working Royals. It kind of looks like they were upset that they didnít get what they wanted, so they split

They wanted to live abroad part of the time.. that was part of the original plan.. so If they were told they could not continue with the Royal part of the job, then naturally they were going ot settle full time abroad. why woud they live part time in the UK if there was no pressing need to be there for royal duties, and they do have a need to earn a living which they were going to do abroad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter (Post 2293211)
They may not buy a house in Canada for awhile...they can rent indefinately. Might take a bit to find something that will work for their situation.


I'm thinking we may see them for the CW Services and Beatrice's wedding (along with a couple more things).

Charles funds the households of both his children..and really that is his business. Many parents around the world (regardless of income) help support their children/grandchildren.


LaRae

Its not clear if he funds them from his private wealth or from the Duchy funds. And while there is no law about it, the Duchy funds have usually under Charles been used for his charities and for helping out relatives who are working for the Family. However it might be preferable to see the funds going to Harry, even if he's not doing any royal work, than to see Harry - well chasing money shall we say? Of course he is going to have to work now and undertake something like speaking engagements or commercial endorsments.. but Charles may be hoping that by continuing to help him financially he can minimise the amount of commercial work

Hallo girl 02-14-2020 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter (Post 2293211)
They may not buy a house in Canada for awhile...they can rent indefinately. Might take a bit to find something that will work for their situation.


I'm thinking we may see them for the CW Services and Beatrice's wedding (along with a couple more things).

Charles funds the households of both his children..and really that is his business. Many parents around the world (regardless of income) help support their children/grandchildren.


LaRae

That last line is very true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2293193)
It just strikes me as odd that theyíd originally planned to stay half the time in the UK when they thought they could be part-time Royals, but once it was decided that that couldnít work, that plan went out the window. Why? There was no reason to leave the UK just because they werenít going to be working Royals. It kind of looks like they were upset that they didnít get what they wanted, so they split

That is a very fair point, they could have withdrawn from public life. i.e. royal life. but still stayed at Frogmore living the quiet life they claimed they wanted.

Denville 02-14-2020 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2293223)
That is a very fair point, they could have withdrawn from public life. i.e. royal life. but still stayed at Frogmore living the quiet life they claimed they wanted.

I think they particularly Meghan felt they could not stay full time in the UK. they would get a lot of critical press and that upsets tehm.. and I think that Meg just didn't like the UK when she got to know it...

Alison H 02-14-2020 07:59 AM

I'm sure the Queen or Prince Charles could put them up in one of their spare bedrooms for a few days :-) .

Hallo girl 02-14-2020 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2293226)
I'm sure the Queen or Prince Charles could put them up in one of their spare bedrooms for a few days :-) .

They could use Nottingham Cottage, for all the time they will need it.

acdc1 02-14-2020 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2293193)
It just strikes me as odd that they’d originally planned to stay half the time in the UK when they thought they could be part-time Royals, but once it was decided that that couldn’t work, that plan went out the window. Why? There was no reason to leave the UK just because they weren’t going to be working Royals. It kind of looks like they were upset that they didn’t get what they wanted, so they split

IMO, I don’t think Meghan enjoyed living in the UK or had made many close friends there. Her close friends and support system are in North America, and I’m wondering if the UK just wasn’t a good fit for her. Now that they have no more royal duties there’s really not much tying them to the UK work-wise, and perhaps they decided that they would be happier living in North America closer to her loved ones rather than in the UK.

I doubt we’ll see them spending any sort of substantial time in the UK again as a family, beyond visiting for family events or for a couple of weeks at a time during the holidays. I think for them, especially Meghan, Archie, and any future children, the future is in Canada and/or the US, wherever the family settles. They’ll be raised there, go to school there, and will probably settle there when they have their own families. I could see Harry getting homesick and spending more time in the UK on his own time.

Mirabel 02-14-2020 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter (Post 2293211)

Charles funds the households of both his children..and really that is his business. Many parents around the world (regardless of income) help support their children/grandchildren.


LaRae

But other parents don't fund one child from what is essentially a trust fund for another child.
Duchy funds are earmarked for William, not Harry.

As for a future home, I'm convinced they will end up with a mansion in the Hollywood Hills.

ACO 02-14-2020 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2293229)
They could use Nottingham Cottage, for all the time they will need it.

Or they use the home they have. It is theirs whether they use it full-time or not.

Denville 02-14-2020 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel (Post 2293233)
But other parents don't fund one child from what is essentially a trust fund for another child.
Duchy funds are earmarked for William, not Harry.

As for a future home, I'm convinced they will end up with a mansion in the Hollywood Hills.

The money is used by Charles as he thinks fit, to support his sons and his charities and possibly I think other relatives who are on the royal duty roster.. and the queen alsos supports some of the cousins. I do think that if Harry is NOT any more a working royal or a retired working royal, Charles may have misgivings about continuing to support him from Duchy funds as he had been shelling out a large sum for botht sons to help with their work and lifestyle expenses. but he can help him out from his own private wealth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO (Post 2293238)
Or they use the home they have. It is theirs whether they use it full-time or not.

Its not Theirs, it belongs to the Crown as far as I know. and they rent it.. and it doesn't seem a great idea for it to be sitting empty for long periods each year and having to be opened up.

ACO 02-14-2020 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2293240)
Its not Theirs, it belongs to the Crown as far as I know. and they rent it.. and it doesn't seem a great idea for it to be sitting empty for long periods each year and having to be opened up.

Theirs in the fact they are the current ones leased to it. As long as they are paying for it (and by all reports they will do so) then it is in fact their home.

It was already sitting empty for the most part per the documents. That is why it was in need renovation even before Harry and Meghan decided to move in.

Nothing really has changed. If they decide to end their lease then by all means rent it to someone else. I suspect it won't be that easy unless someone like Bea or Eugenie wants it.

Denville 02-14-2020 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO (Post 2293243)
Theirs in the fact they are the current ones leased to it. As long as they are paying for it (and by all reports they will do so) then it is in fact their home.

It was already sitting empty for the most part per the documents. That is why it was in need renovation even before Harry and Meghan decided to move in.

Nothing really has changed. If they decide to end their lease then by all means rent it to someone else. I suspect it won't be that easy unless someone like Bea or Eugenie wants it.

it was sitting empty but it was tehn allocated to them as working royals and renovated. Possibly it was earmarked as a likely country home for H when he got married.. and then when he married and they wanted to live there, they got it and a lot of money was spent on making it into one residence. And it isn't easy to let to someone else, so it is an awkward situation for it now to be left unused for long periods.. It seems they are still only paying a limited rent, which is usual for working royals.. but they're not working royals now.

muriel 02-14-2020 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACO (Post 2293243)
Theirs in the fact they are the current ones leased to it. As long as they are paying for it (and by all reports they will do so) then it is in fact their home.

It was already sitting empty for the most part per the documents. That is why it was in need renovation even before Harry and Meghan decided to move in.

Nothing really has changed. If they decide to end their lease then by all means rent it to someone else. I suspect it won't be that easy unless someone like Bea or Eugenie wants it.

It will be a convenient solution if Bea could find a use for FC.

ACO 02-14-2020 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2293244)
it was sitting empty but it was tehn allocated to them as working royals and renovated. Possibly it was earmarked as a likely country home for H when he got married.. and then when he married and they wanted to live there, they got it and a lot of money was spent on making it into one residence. And it isn't easy to let to someone else, so it is an awkward situation for it now to be left unused for long periods.. It seems they are still only paying a limited rent, which is usual for working royals.. but they're not working royals now.

False. It was going to be renovated long before Harry and Meghan decided to move in. I think it was the Daily Mail that had posted all the official work documents. It was basically an abandoned 5 home unit and they had begun work on remodeling it into, I believe, a 3 home one to allow for more space for modern families. Then new docs were issued a few months later to turn it into a one family unit. It was said Harry and Meghan were initially going to move next door to the Cambridges (and they basically confirmed it on their website) but then decided against it and went to Windsor instead.

Anyways, the Today show who broke the Stanford University news had a report this morning on their show. I guess Harry and Meghan had meeting across San Francisco while in town. It was all education focused in connection to their foundation.

XeniaCasaraghi 02-14-2020 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2293117)
I feel sorry for the people who actually left other jobs out with the royal family to join them.

I remember hearing years ago with Diana that staff would be moved to another royal rather than just being left without a job at all..

Quote:

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors (Post 2293134)
No it won’t, it really really won’t. Meghan, and Harry by connection, are now considered toxic of the highest degree, not to mention the general hostility towards them over their treatment of the queen, Charles and William.
No sane employer would want to get near any one who choose to work for them, they essentially failed their job in making sure they don’t screw up (which they did) they couldn’t even stop Harry and Meghan from publishing that proclamation and that idiotic demand list.

I think you are working to hard to spread the deserves annoyance towards M&H to others who worked for them. Harry and Meghan are the ones who messed up not the people who worked for them. The people who are advising them and working on their PR would be hard to.employ because they really gave some bad advice.

Alison H 02-14-2020 10:59 AM

I really wouldn't have thought that anyone would blame Harry and Meghan's staff for their behaviour. The staff are presumably going to include secretaries, people responsible for their clothes, and general household staff doing the cooking and cleaning. I don't see how anyone can blame them for anything.

_Heather_ 02-14-2020 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2293117)
I feel sorry for the people who actually left other jobs out with the royal family to join them.

I agree 100%. None of this mess is their fault and since most of them are not in the very privileged financial position of Harry and Meghan, they're the ones who will suffer the most through no fault of their own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLLK (Post 2293148)
:previous: While I too hope that some will be able to find work within the "Firm," some of them left positions with the Royal Foundation and I have to wonder if they might have already been replaced.:sad:

I suspect that those who came from the Royal Foundation have been replaced already and even if they haven't, I doubt the door is open for a return. It's hard to return when you decided the grass would be greener on the other side and then got burned. Not exactly the ideal employees for the Royal Foundation when they essentially chose sides and were just unlucky enough for it to play out the way that it did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2293146)
Iím pessimistic about Harry ever doing anything much beyond these last couple of events....Iím kind of doubtful now that heíll show up for even family events, like Trouping the Colour. I know thatís official, but still, itís the Queenís birthday event - itís not like heíd be working. I hope Iím wrong.

I agree. I've said for awhile now that I don't really see him returning even for family events. At first I thought he might come back alone for those things but at this point I'd be surprised if even he comes back for anything. I certainly would be surprised, to say the least, to see them all back for any of those events.

LadyGlendower 02-14-2020 11:28 AM

I don't think PH will return for a while and when he does, he will be alone.

Yes, I'm old and cynical and I don't see their relationship going the distance. Happy wife doesn't always mean happy life and I think Harry will miss the UK and the Continent.

Alison H 02-14-2020 11:30 AM

I hope they do come back at some time this year, whether it's for Beatrice's wedding, Commonwealth Day, Trooping the Colour or anything else. Without wanting to sound like a harbinger of doom, the Queen and Prince Philip are not going to be here for ever. The Queen visited the Duke of Windsor in Paris during a state visit to Paris in 1972, and he died a couple of weeks later, and I'm sure she was so glad that she'd had that chance to see him. If you don't see people whilst you can, you may not have another chance. Sorry to be a gloom merchant, but Prince Philip's looking pretty frail now.

Denville 02-14-2020 11:33 AM

I don't se why he wont come back at times for some evetns. He has left his job, but he hasn't done antying wrong per se... why should he not occasionally attned family royal Events?

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi (Post 2293262)
I remember hearing years ago with Diana that staff would be moved to another royal rather than just being left without a job at all..



I think you are working to hard to spread the deserves annoyance towards M&H to others who worked for them. Harry and Meghan are the ones who messed up not the people who worked for them. The people who are advising them and working on their PR would be hard to.employ because they really gave some bad advice.

Mabye they didn't.. maybe their PR people gave them good advice and it wasn't taken.. or they did the best they could but things didn't work out.

Betsypaige 02-14-2020 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter (Post 2293211)
They may not buy a house in Canada for awhile...they can rent indefinately. Might take a bit to find something that will work for their situation.


I'm thinking we may see them for the CW Services and Beatrice's wedding (along with a couple more things).

Charles funds the households of both his children..and really that is his business. Many parents around the world (regardless of income) help support their children/grandchildren.


LaRae

As to your last point, thatís absolutely true - and Iím sure the British public would be fine with that if it were confirmed that Charles was doing that through his personal, not Royal, monies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallo girl (Post 2293223)
That is a very fair point, they could have withdrawn from public life. i.e. royal life. but still stayed at Frogmore living the quiet life they claimed they wanted.

In fact, staying at Frogmore would have pretty much ensured that they wouldnít have to deal with an intrusive media.

Quote:

They wanted to live abroad part of the time.. that was part of the original plan.. so If they were told they could not continue with the Royal part of the job, then naturally they were going ot settle full time abroad. why woud they live part time in the UK if there was no pressing need to be there for royal duties, and they do have a need to earn a living which they were going to do abroad.
Denville, but the point is that Harry and Meghan were fine with living half the year in the UK. Youíre saying that they really didnít want to live in the UK at all if they didnít have to....but then, if thatís true, why did they even propose a half and half situation unless it was to appease the Queen and Charles?

_Heather_ 02-14-2020 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2293281)
Denville, but the point is that Harry and Meghan were fine with living half the year in the UK. Youíre saying that they really didnít want to live in the UK at all if they didnít have to....but then, if thatís true, why did they even propose a half and half situation unless it was to appease the Queen and Charles?

Truthfully, I suspect that was their proposal because they knew it would look better than simply saying "we're out." Anytime you enter into negotiations about anything you shoot high and understand that you can always work down but you can't go back up. In this case, if you say that you want to work part time and then they tell you "no" you can say "well we tried" and go on about your business as you wanted to in the first place. That's my take on it anyway, especially because Harry would have known or should have known that they weren't going to be allowed to do the half in/half out.

muriel 02-14-2020 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2293281)
In fact, staying at Frogmore would have pretty much ensured that they wouldnít have to deal with an intrusive media.



Denville, but the point is that Harry and Meghan were fine with living half the year in the UK. Youíre saying that they really didnít want to live in the UK at all if they didnít have to....but then, if thatís true, why did they even propose a half and half situation unless it was to appease the Queen and Charles?

It all seems very sad, IMO.

> The half-in half-out arrangement was never going to work, IMO. It has been tried unsuccessfully previously. Representing the Crown one day, and endorsing a brand or making a paid speech are just not compatible, IMO. Worse still, soliciting work on a royal engagement, as it appears Harry did with the Walt Disney executive is just not acceptable.

> What makes this particularly worse is that H&M announced their gramnd plans on 8 January, without having secured agreement of HM. That just results in a PR disaster all around.

> Do H&M intend to spend any time in the UK at all? Personally, I just do not thing we will see Meghan here at all, other than at times absolutely necessary (e.g. family events, funerals and previously committed engagements). I do not believe she has any interest whatsoever in either "The Firm", the British people or Harry's family.

Durham 02-14-2020 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2293278)
As to your last point, thatís absolutely true - and Iím sure the British public would be fine with that if it were confirmed that Charles was doing that through his personal, not Royal, monies.

I'm not sure what the distinction is between personal & royal monies. What is the source of Charles "personal money"? If it's inheritance from the late Queen Mother then she had no money of her own (earned or from the Bowes-Lyons) just what was left to her by her husband. What was the source of that money? It certainly wasn't any sort of earned income.

Charles has money because his immediate ancestors had money. That money came from the public purse/ancient duchies in one form or other. I'm not so sure the British public would therefore be quite so sanguine.

Betsypaige 02-14-2020 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Heather_ (Post 2293269)
I agree 100%. None of this mess is their fault and since most of them are not in the very privileged financial position of Harry and Meghan, they're the ones who will suffer the most through no fault of their own.



I suspect that those who came from the Royal Foundation have been replaced already and even if they haven't, I doubt the door is open for a return. It's hard to return when you decided the grass would be greener on the other side and then got burned. Not exactly the ideal employees for the Royal Foundation when they essentially chose sides and were just unlucky enough for it to play out the way that it did.



I agree. I've said for awhile now that I don't really see him returning even for family events. At first I thought he might come back alone for those things but at this point I'd be surprised if even he comes back for anything. I certainly would be surprised, to say the least, to see them all back for any of those events.

I admit, however, that my negativity comes from my natural born pessimism. Nothing Harry has said or done actually proves he wonít return for such events - of course nothing heís said or done proves he WILL return either, but my point is that my opinion is based on...no information, lol.

What is the Royal Foundation? Thanks !

Osipi 02-14-2020 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durham (Post 2293285)
I'm not sure what the distinction is between personal & royal monies. What is the source of Charles "personal money"? If it's inheritance from the late Queen Mother then she had no money of her own (earned or from the Bowes-Lyons) just what was left to her by her husband. What was the source of that money? It certainly wasn't any sort of earned income.

Charles has money because his immediate ancestors had money. That money came from the public purse/ancient duchies in one form or other. I'm not so sure the British public would therefore be quite so sanguine.

The money that goes to Charles from the Duchy of Cornwall is his private income as that is the reason the Duchy of Cornwall was created all those hundreds of years ago in 1337. It is Charles' to do as he pleases with it and it will continue on to earn funds for future Dukes of Cornwall into the future.

In itemization (as we all can do with our income tax forms), Charles' income is divided into groups. Official expenditures such as staff, offices, supporting his family in their work etc are tax deductible. The private expenditures like buying Catherine a bracelet, Camilla a new pearl choker or a work of art and even splurging on a Big Mac are his private spending and he pays income tax on that like all the rest of us do.

If he chooses to still support Harry from his Duchy of Cornwall income, the difference would be that it would be listed under "private expenditures" rather than "official expenditures". Its in the public domain exactly how Charles spends his money.

https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/ann...ture-and-staff

Betsypaige 02-14-2020 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durham (Post 2293285)
I'm not sure what the distinction is between personal & royal monies. What is the source of Charles "personal money"? If it's inheritance from the late Queen Mother then she had no money of her own (earned or from the Bowes-Lyons) just what was left to her by her husband. What was the source of that money? It certainly wasn't any sort of earned income.

Charles has money because his immediate ancestors had money. That money came from the public purse/ancient duchies in one form or other. I'm not so sure the British public would therefore be quite so sanguine.

Good point. Well in this case, there’s nothing to be done about it. Charles isn’t going to let his youngest son completely leave the nest without any sort of support - though I believe that once Harry is a success (assuming), he will likely withdraw the support.


Heather:

Quote:

Truthfully, I suspect that was their proposal because they knew it would look better than simply saying "we're out." Anytime you enter into negotiations about anything you shoot high and understand that you can always work down but you can't go back up. In this case, if you say that you want to work part time and then they tell you "no" you can say "well we tried" and go on about your business as you wanted to in the first place. That's my take on it anyway, especially because Harry would have known or should have known that they weren't going to be allowed to do the half in/half out.
That’s the truth - good point.

Osipi, thanks for the info!

Muriel, the Disney thing is so un-Royal like and awkward ...

O-H Anglophile 02-14-2020 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2293287)
...

What is the Royal Foundation? Thanks !

The Cambridges's Foundation--that was originally William & Harry's Foundation, then added their wives after their marriages (The Royal Foundation of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke & Duchess of Sussex)-- before the split in two last year.

Durham 02-14-2020 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2293290)
The money that goes to Charles from the Duchy of Cornwall is his private income as that is the reason the Duchy of Cornwall was created all those hundreds of years ago in 1337. It is Charles' to do as he pleases with it and it will continue on to earn funds for future Dukes of Cornwall into the future.

In itemization (as we all can do with our income tax forms), Charles' income is divided into groups. Official expenditures such as staff, offices, supporting his family in their work etc are tax deductible. The private expenditures like buying Catherine a bracelet, Camilla a new pearl choker or a work of art and even splurging on a Big Mac are his private spending and he pays income tax on that like all the rest of us do.

If he chooses to still support Harry from his Duchy of Cornwall income, the difference would be that it would be listed under "private expenditures" rather than "official expenditures". Its in the public domain exactly how Charles spends his money.

https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/ann...ture-and-staff

Well yes he can do what he wants with his income but he has to be seen to be using it in supporting the crown. Nobody is suggesting he lets son no 2 go hungry but there has to be some sort of proportionate limit.

Osipi 02-14-2020 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durham (Post 2293300)
Well yes he can do what he wants with his income but he has to be seen to be using it in supporting the crown. Nobody is suggesting he lets son no 2 go hungry but there has to be some sort of proportionate limit.

That's the kicker. Who has the right to tell Charles how to spend his personal income? To be honest here, Charles could have used his Duchy of Cornwall income since day one to be a playboy prince, travel the globe and live the life of the extremely rich and famous, have his own personal table at the casinos in Monte Carlo and a fleet of yachts.

What he has done in his lifetime with the Duchy of Cornwall is something that no other Duke before him has done. He's worked diligently to increase the Duchy, support his family in their official roles and has even turned a Duchy property, Highgrove, into a sustainable example of what can be done.

He didn't have to and doesn't have to be "seen" to be doing anything with his private income other than what he chooses to do with it. :smile:

He's well within his right to buy Harry and Meghan their own private island somewhere if he chooses to. He also has the right to tell Harry and Meghan that he'll only support them if they reside on the Inner Solomon Islands and raise penguins. Its totally at his discretion.

Durham 02-14-2020 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2293306)
That's the kicker. Who has the right to tell Charles how to spend his personal income? To be honest here, Charles could have used his Duchy of Cornwall income since day one to be a playboy prince, travel the globe and live the life of the extremely rich and famous, have his own personal table at the casinos in Monte Carlo and a fleet of yachts.

What he has done in his lifetime with the Duchy of Cornwall is something that no other Duke before him has done. He's worked diligently to increase the Duchy, support his family in their official roles and has even turned a Duchy property, Highgrove, into a sustainable example of what can be done.

He didn't have to and doesn't have to be "seen" to be doing anything with his private income other than what he chooses to do with it. :smile:

He's well within his right to buy Harry and Meghan their own private island somewhere if he chooses to. He also has the right to tell Harry and Meghan that he'll only support them if they reside on the Inner Solomon Islands and raise penguins. Its totally at his discretion.

Up to a point. Any modern Duke of Cornwall has to be sensitive to public opinion.

Denville 02-14-2020 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2293281)
In fact, staying at Frogmore would have pretty much ensured that they wouldnít have to deal with an intrusive media.



Denville, but the point is that Harry and Meghan were fine with living half the year in the UK. Youíre saying that they really didnít want to live in the UK at all if they didnít have to....but then, if thatís true, why did they even propose a half and half situation unless it was to appease the Queen and Charles?

I presume they did want to continue with royal duties, perhaps out of a sense of duty, perhaps hoping to appease the queen
but if the had no royal duties and they had been told "you can dedicate yourself full time to earning a living,!" it was likely that it would be eiaser to do that abroad. And I think that Meg realy didn't like the UK, so possibly Harry felt that full time abroad life was going to make her happier...

Osipi 02-14-2020 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durham (Post 2293311)
Up to a point. Any modern Duke of Cornwall has to be sensitive to public opinion.

To be fair, Charles does. The public sees him voluntarily paying taxes. ;)

But anyways, we're digressing away from the topic of the transition. Lets just say that Charles is within his right to support Harry and Meghan if he chooses to do so. There are no checks and balances that would prevent him from doing so.

Or he could buy the world a Coke and a Big Mac. I'm hungry. :biggrin:

Denville 02-14-2020 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2293306)
That's the kicker. Who has the right to tell Charles how to spend his personal income? To be honest here, Charles could have used his Duchy of Cornwall income since day one to be a playboy prince, travel the globe and live the life of the extremely rich and famous, have his own personal table at the casinos in Monte Carlo and a fleet of yachts.

What he has done in his lifetime with the Duchy of Cornwall is something that no other Duke before him has done. He's worked diligently to increase the Duchy, support his family in their official roles and has even turned a Duchy property, Highgrove, into a sustainable example of what can be done.

He didn't have to and doesn't have to be "seen" to be doing anything with his private income other than what he chooses to do with it. :smile:

He's well within his right to buy Harry and Meghan their own private island somewhere if he chooses to. He also has the right to tell Harry and Meghan that he'll only support them if they reside on the Inner Solomon Islands and raise penguins. Its totally at his discretion.

It may be technically but if he were to do something like that, I can imagine the screams from public opinion. It is not entirely his private income, but what he owns as Duke of Cornwall..

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Heather_ (Post 2293282)
Truthfully, I suspect that was their proposal because they knew it would look better than simply saying "we're out." Anytime you enter into negotiations about anything you shoot high and understand that you can always work down but you can't go back up. In this case, if you say that you want to work part time and then they tell you "no" you can say "well we tried" and go on about your business as you wanted to in the first place. That's my take on it anyway, especially because Harry would have known or should have known that they weren't going to be allowed to do the half in/half out.

Im not sure he did. I think he thought it would be a good compromise between the usual duties expected of him as a royal and his desire to be a private person and to please his wife, who was increasingly unhappy with Britain and the Press. He problably thought that they could spend part of their time in Canada and doing work in the US that would bring in money, and part of it in the UK.. doing royal duties. that way Meg would not have to put up with the press full time.. nor would he. I don't think he really saw that there IS a gap between money making activities and service to the crown..I think he did believe that the queen might agree to it and he didn't take into account the logistitcs of moving back and forth with a small child etc.

Durham 02-14-2020 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2293317)
To be fair, Charles does. The public sees him voluntarily paying taxes. ;)

But anyways, we're digressing away from the topic of the transition. Lets just say that Charles is within his right to support Harry and Meghan if he chooses to do so. There are no checks and balances that would prevent him from doing so.

Or he could buy the world a Coke and a Big Mac. I'm hungry. :biggrin:

I think we have a near consensus! I'll settle for yes he can but he would be well advised to make it as modest as possible. After all a "quiet life" should be, by any definition, a cheap one;)

Somebody 02-14-2020 02:22 PM

I am very curious to see where they end up and how they solve the visa situation if they decide they'd like to live in Canada.

What would the visa process for Harry be like if he was to join his wife and son (American citizens) to the USA?

I am also interested to see how they plan "to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born" in their post-royal life.

Pranter 02-14-2020 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel (Post 2293233)
But other parents don't fund one child from what is essentially a trust fund for another child.
Duchy funds are earmarked for William, not Harry.

As for a future home, I'm convinced they will end up with a mansion in the Hollywood Hills.


The Duchy is the DoC, whomever he is and has been since something like the 1300's ...he's not depriving any future DoC of anything William will Inherit much more at some point. I daresay they can funnel a few million to the second son without it making William or George or any future Monarch homeless. I assume you will have the same issue with William giving Louis any funds when he is the DoC?

There is absolutely nothing in either of their backgrounds to indicate they want to live in a mansion in HH. That is fantasy.



LaRae

acdc1 02-14-2020 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2293340)
I am very curious to see where they end up and how they solve the visa situation if they decide they'd like to live in Canada.

What would the visa process for Harry be like if he was to join his wife and son (American citizens) to the USA?

I am also interested to see how they plan "to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born" in their post-royal life.

Iím curious about this, too. It seems like Canada is the preferred place to settle, but neither of the three are Canadian citizens.

As Meghanís spouse, Harry is the immediate relative of a US citizen which gives him the ability to be a lawful permanent resident of the US (aka get a Green Card) if he meets the requirements. Thereís a lot of eligibility requirements but looking through them it looks like he does indeed meet them and wouldnít be considered inadmissible, so he could probably get a Green Card pretty easily.

Iím interested in seeing what happens about Meghan gaining UK citizenship. I donít believe she will because you have to live there for at least 9 months of the year and I donít see them doing that, itís been made very clear that theyíll be settling in North America for the most part. It will be interesting if they do settle in the US rather than Canada if Harry becomes a US citizen. Have there been any members of the royal family who became US citizens? Obviously Meghan and Archie are, and I believe one of Freddy Windsorís daughters who was born in America has dual citizenship (but they appear to be living and raising the girls in the UK), but other than that I canít think of any?

Betsypaige 02-14-2020 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile (Post 2293299)
The Cambridges's Foundation--that was originally William & Harry's Foundation, then added their wives after their marriages (The Royal Foundation of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke & Duchess of Sussex)-- before the split in two last year.

Thanks! So, employees of the Cambridges and Sussexes came from the RF?

_Heather_ 02-14-2020 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2293355)
Thanks! So, employees of the Cambridges and Sussexes came from the RF?

When they were all a part of one foundation that foundation employed several people in lots of different roles. When Harry and Meghan decided to leave that foundation, some employees went with them to become "Sussex Only" employees and were no longer employed by the Royal Foundation. Now those that chose to leave the Royal Foundation to become employees of the Sussexes have found themselves without jobs. Both the Cambridges and the Sussexes have their own personal teams and then there's a team that operates the Royal Foundation. Some Royal Foundation employees chose to leave to become part of Team Sussex.

Betsypaige 02-14-2020 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Heather_ (Post 2293357)
When they were all a part of one foundation that foundation employed several people in lots of different roles. When Harry and Meghan decided to leave that foundation, some employees went with them to become "Sussex Only" employees and were no longer employed by the Royal Foundation. Now those that chose to leave the Royal Foundation to become employees of the Sussexes have found themselves without jobs.

Oh wow......so, their repayment for loyalty to the Sussexes was to be laid off, with pretty much no potential to be reassigned. It would have been nice had Harry and Meghan taken the time to try and find positions for these people before flying off to Canada. I'm sad and annoyed all at the same time.

Lumutqueen 02-14-2020 03:32 PM

Itís amazing how genuinely stupid their PR machine has been these past couple of days. There is no way they couldnít have known this redundancy story wouldnít hit the news, and then they publish essentially a ďjob advertĒ of a social media video at the same time, itís ridiculous.

Zaira 02-14-2020 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2293359)
Oh wow......so, their repayment for loyalty to the Sussexes was to be laid off, with pretty much no potential to be reassigned. It would have been nice had Harry and Meghan taken the time to try and find positions for these people before flying off to Canada. I'm sad and annoyed all at the same time.

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.

ladongas 02-14-2020 03:53 PM

Am I mistaken, or are most royal positions rather poorly-paid in comparison to jobs on the outside?

Somebody 02-14-2020 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acdc1 (Post 2293352)
I’m interested in seeing what happens about Meghan gaining UK citizenship. I don’t believe she will because you have to live there for at least 9 months of the year and I don’t see them doing that, it’s been made very clear that they’ll be settling in North America for the most part.

That one is fairly easy I'd say: she is NOT going to be come a UK citizen. Unless their plans drastically change, she is not going to meet the requirements and I expect everyone to be savvy enough not to break the rules for her.

Quote:

It will be interesting if they do settle in the US rather than Canada if Harry becomes a US citizen. Have there been any members of the royal family who became US citizens? Obviously Meghan and Archie are, and I believe one of Freddy Windsor’s daughters who was born in America has dual citizenship (but they appear to be living and raising the girls in the UK), but other than that I can’t think of any?
I don't think Harry can sincerely take the oath (that would be a huge blow to his father or brother (assuming it won't happen in his grandmother's lifetime)) but I also read that there is the option to modify or waiver, so if he would want to become a US citizen that would be the way to go.

Quote:

Naturalization Oath of Allegiance;
"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; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Note: In certain circumstances there can be a modification or waiver of the Oath of Allegiance. Read Chapter 5 of A Guide to Naturalization for more information.
Source: US CIS

Denville 02-14-2020 03:57 PM

Its going to be kind of awkard isn't it? Wife of a Prince.. in line to the British throne and she's not a British citizen...

_Heather_ 02-14-2020 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2293376)
Source: US CIS

I don't know enough about these types of laws to comment definitively but it appears to me that should Harry decide to pursue US citizenship, he'll need to decide whether or not that oath or the oath of allegiance he'll be required to swear to the next sovereign will be more important. If I'm reading that correctly he won't be able to swear allegiance during the coronation as he would typically do AND still take the oath of allegiance as a US citizen. Correct?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2293377)
Its going to be kind of awkard isn't it? Wife of a Prince.. in line to the British throne and she's not a British citizen...

I'm somewhat certain they've long ago stopped caring about what might be seen as "awkward." This is a big part of the reason, though, that some posters have openly wondered about what lies ahead after this transition period and whether they will, after some time, abdicate or renounce Harry's place in the line of succession. Particularly because the future coronations he'd be expected to participate in as someone in the line of succession might be rather awkward and even possibly impossible as I noted above with my question about the oaths.

CrownPrincessJava 02-14-2020 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Heather_ (Post 2293378)
I don't know enough about these types of laws to comment definitively but it appears to me that should Harry decide to pursue US citizenship, he'll need to decide whether or not that oath or the oath of allegiance he'll be required to swear to the next sovereign will be more important. If I'm reading that correctly he won't be able to swear allegiance during the coronation as he would typically do AND still take the oath of allegiance as a US citizen. Correct?

It sounds like most people here have forgotten a little concept called DUAL CITIZENSHIP.

Honestly, the discussion here is sounding like Prince Harry will be charged with treason. If he pursues dual, he can still swear to the next soverign, just like every other dual UK, Australian, Canadian must swear allegiance to the Queen/King.

Somebody 02-14-2020 04:12 PM

I wonder from what moment on Harry is no longer considered to be 'domiciled' in the UK; as in that case he no longer meets the requirement to be a Counsellor of State, meaning Princess Beatrice of York will take over (assuming that she is domiciled in the UK).

What would be the definition for domiciled? Their official address? Where they spend most time?

Edit: according to Wikipedia:
Quote:

In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a lawful permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction.
So, as long as Harry is considered a 'temporary resident' elsewhere, he could be considered to still be domiciled in the UK?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava (Post 2293380)
It sounds like most people here have forgotten a little concept called DUAL CITIZENSHIP.

Honestly, the discussion here is sounding like Prince Harry will be charged with treason. If he pursues dual, he can still swear to the next soverign, just like every other dual UK, Australian, Canadian must swear allegiance to the Queen/King.

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...

Durham 02-14-2020 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava (Post 2293380)
It sounds like most people here have forgotten a little concept called DUAL CITIZENSHIP.

Honestly, the discussion here is sounding like Prince Harry will be charged with treason. If he pursues dual, he can still swear to the next soverign, just like every other dual UK, Australian, Canadian must swear allegiance to the Queen/King.

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:biggrin:

acdc1 02-14-2020 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2293376)
That one is fairly easy I'd say: she is NOT going to be come a UK citizen. Unless their plans drastically change, she is not going to meet the requirements and I expect everyone to be savvy enough not to break the rules for her.



I don't think Harry can sincerely take the oath (that would be a huge blow to his father or brother (assuming it won't happen in his grandmother's lifetime)) but I also read that there is the option to modify or waiver, so if he would want to become a US citizen that would be the way to go.


Source: US CIS

Obviously thereís the option of dual citizenship, one wouldnít expect Harry to give up his British citizenship completely. Iím guessing thatís where the modification would come in?

Betsypaige 02-14-2020 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 2293368)
Itís amazing how genuinely stupid their PR machine has been these past couple of days. There is no way they couldnít have known this redundancy story wouldnít hit the news, and then they publish essentially a ďjob advertĒ of a social media video at the same time, itís ridiculous.

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

Osipi 02-14-2020 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2293381)
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 02-14-2020 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durham (Post 2293384)
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:biggrin:

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 02-14-2020 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2293387)
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_ 02-14-2020 04:33 PM

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 02-14-2020 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava (Post 2293392)
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_ 02-14-2020 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2293394)
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 02-14-2020 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2293387)
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 02-14-2020 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava (Post 2293392)
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 02-14-2020 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somebody (Post 2293383)
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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises