Harry stepping down as a senior royal ..PART TWO

[Dowser]

As I finished the last one
Only right I start the new one.
Here you go

Yes, as stepitupjuan says there was a loss of HRH for Diana (and Sarah F) which meant she should curtsey to her son if protocol was followed properly and allegedly, even the Queen didn't think that was a good idea at the time.

There certainly seems more of an appetite among the public for them to lose the Sussex title, but as they've trademarked that they were obviously hoping to keep it and work with it! So I think they'll be reluctant to let that go if at all possible!

There are all kinds of tax implications as well that they may not have thought through as well as living abroad preventing Meghan from continuing with any application for citizenship here.

Also, I'd imagine their personal staff have contracts which will say about working abroad, but not for months at a time! They may not want to stay in Canada.

Like everyone else, I'm going on what I've read about the 'negotiations', but Harry was asked to put something in writing to Prince Charles before speaking to the Queen - PC is his main source of income so that makes sense - it wasn't an outright refusal to discuss it at all, just a request for what he wanted in writing.

I agree with LordoftheWhys about the way they've gone about it - an overseas posting or a total renunciation of the titles would have gone down fine, it's the way they've gone about it wanting the best of both worlds that has annoyed people.

Yes I know about Diana & Fergie.

I meant in response to this- "It was Anne's choice to take away the Philips titles. Don't really see H&M being too bothered about titles, since they removed them from Archie." - about titles not being removed.

Or they could be not bothered because they know he'll get a title when Charles takes the throne. If they were not bothered about titles, I think they'd be rejecting their own as well not trademarking them.

Their titles weren’t removed though, they never had them in the first place as their parents turned them down.

I don’t think the queen will remove M and H’s titles. She’ll just want to stop them cashing in on their royal connections.

I don’t think the queen will remove M and H’s titles. She’ll just want to stop them cashing in on their royal connections.

I agree with this and that's where deadlock will arise. The trademarking of "Sussex Royal" both denotes they would be HRH's (which is the royal part of the title as opposed to the dukedom of Sussex) and that they would be cashing in. I think that's untenable for the Queen. So keep the Ducal name but lose the HRH, then cash in, but it then means the title "Sussex Royal" is inaccurate. They'll be members of the Royal Family but with no royal titles.

But 'Sussex Royal' as a brand is for the benefit of the US and the international markets. They won't care that it's inaccurate.

It's interesting that all the high-profile celebs are now releasing statements saying they didn't know what H&M were going to do eg Oprah; Elton; Gayle King. When it comes to a choice between distancing themselves from H&M or annoying the Queen, it seems loyalty to the Queen is going to win every time.

Does anyone else remember that the sussexroyal Insta handle actually belonged to a member of the public originally and it was taken off him without his agreement? I wonder how he feels about all the trademarking?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/newsbeat-47813521

Not quite - he wasn't using it

Not using it but said he would have liked to from time to time.

They had to trademark the RoyalSussex, because someone was trying to squart on it. It includes clothes, stationery, etc. and is estimated to be worth around £500m. But this all would have gone to some guy in Malta !

So they had to trademark it so it goes to the charities it was actually meant for.

Ofcourse they kept their titles, they were senior working royals anyway. So if they cared so much for titles, why not keep it for Archie? PA, kept it for his daughters.

Erm, Oprah, Elton and co. saying they knew nothing about it sounds right, and if anything affirms that H&M had not been disrespectful to TQ and PC, by telling friends about this and actually did put the Palace at the forefront...........

Ok, so the wording is "not assigned" instead of "removed". It's neither here or there. The main thing is that they did not have their children with titles. Did not mean to say it in a way that implies they were forcefully removed or that they did something wrong.

I think that the ‘Sandringham Summit’ tomorrow should be televised. We’re handing this shower millions of public money every year. The least they can do is entertain us. I want to see Anne giving him a smack around the face for insubordination and QE2 making like Alexis Carrington.

Incidentally, this from further up the thread:

Personally, I'm a bit live and let live... that poor little boy who walked behind his mother's coffin with the eyes of the world on him, has fallen in love and deserves happiness whichever way, shape and form that takes.

FFS! Are you serious? So a man who grew up with unimaginable privilege can do whatever he likes at vast expense (ours) because his mother died? I’d get rid of all of them tomorrow, but if him and his missus don’t want to do the more boring royal engagements any more they can sod off and pay for themselves like everybody else has to.

Maybe we could have a phone vote (monies raised to pay for their security) on the options?

Their DC would probably be resident in Canada/US, so in the event of a breakup Harry would have to live there to co-parent etc.

FFS! Are you serious? So a man who grew up with unimaginable privilege can do whatever he likes at vast expense (ours) because his mother died? I’d get rid of all of them tomorrow, but if him and his missus don’t want to do the more boring royal engagements any more they can sod off and pay for themselves like everybody else has to

I wrote the quote you're replying to.

And where in it do I say they should not have to pay for themselves?
Nowhere.

And where did I say he can do what he likes with no answer to anyone? Nowhere.

I just said I wanted him to be able to find happiness with the woman he loves. Obviously there will be constraints on that financially from any sort of public purse.

Funny how there is this ridiculous outcry and yet Andrew, with his paedophile friend, cashing in on the RF name by him and his ex wife gets a smidgeon of bad press in comparison.

God alive.... all this debacle has brought out the worst of the worst Royal commentators. They are all crawling out the woodwork (Penny Junor et al) and talking like they are personal friends of the RF.

There is one on BBC now who is setting out exactly what will happen in their meeting today and what the Queen will be thinking, and what will she say,, and what Harry will be wanting and how he will have to come out the meeting and ring Meghan straightaway blah blah...

All bollocks of course.

It is all bollocks, but the RF won't televise the meeting so all we have is rumors, gossip, leaks and speculation.

How creepy and are the royal commentators? I'd happily wave goodbye to RF as it would get rid of the whole smarmy bunch of them. Ugh.

They are all bloody awful. Don't listen to a word they say because they just bang on with opinions not facts.

This is worth reading...

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/12/harry-meghan-flexi-royal-monarchy-modernisation-kate-williams

Taken from the article...
'This is an unprecedented move in the British royal family, and could end up bringing ours more into line with the royal families of Europe, in which most members not in direct line have full-time careers, such as Prince Constantijn, younger brother of the King of the Netherlands, a lawyer who works in banking, or Princess Madeleine, daughter of the King of Sweden, who works for the family foundation, Global Child Forum and lives mostly in Florida.'

Good on H&M, modernisation of our stuffy RF

" in which most members not in direct line have full-time careers, such as Prince Constantijn, younger brother of the King of the Netherlands, a lawyer who works in banking,"

H&M want o be rich celebs though don't they?

Not do actual work?

Also.... I'm surprised no one has picked up on the fact that women who marry into the RF have to give up their jobs.

Yet men who marry into the RF don't. Going back decades... Princess Margaret's husband carried on as a photographer, Princesss Anne's first husband carried on working. Yet the females just have to breed and shut up.

H&M are making the first move to modernise the RF, badly needed, and yet it's like the worst thing ever. I think we will look back and admire this move.

They don't have to give up their jobs. Sarah, Sophie and Princess Michael of Kent all worked until they made mistakes ( Sophie & the Sheik and Princess Michael with the plagiarism) when they had to stop. When Sarah married Andrew she was very determined to carry on her career in publishing. The difficulty is in carrying on their career but not using their Royal links for profit.

There are very few men that have married into the RF to compare.

Philip married in and eventually gave everything up to be a full-time royal and support the queen.

Snowden carried on working as a photographer. Mark Phillips continued to be an equestrian. Both jobs are defined and contained - in other words limited potential for embarrassment or accusations of cashing in.

What H&M are proposing isn't well defined and contained and has the potential to cause the RF great embarrassment as the Sussexes' stated intention is to cash in. The problem is how they aim to do that is unclear - it could include tacky sales of logoed merchandise such as hoodies; touting for personal monetary business while performing duties for the RF (as per the red carpet/Disney hustling); H&M doing work that has a political slant to reflect their views when the RF have to be impartial; the potential selling off of private details of the RF, innocuous or otherwise; endless talk shows and speeches exposing the RF and removing any last remaining mystique they might have that is essential for their continuation; unsavoury adverts such as Meghan acting sexy and stripping while flipping burgers over a BBQ; dealings with unsavoury people, perhaps not directly but indirectly (friends of friends who are dodgy Russian oligarchs or Saudi princes); greedy actions that reflect badly on the RF - the list goes on. And this is all, let's remember, while they want to continue being a royal and carrying out duties in this country.

The women marrying in have been Diana - gave up job as wife to next in line and pretty quickly had children. Sarah - gave up job as married to second in line and at the time Andrew was very much centre stage as well as Charles. Later when they divorced Sarah's dodgy dealings were an embarrassment to the RF. Sophie - tried to continue working but again she embarrassed the RF. Both Sarah and Sophie came over as greedy. Sophie seems to have been forgiven by the RF and the public. Sarah will never be universally liked. So the model of the woman continuing to work hasn't worked well.

If H&M get their wishes in full I think the UK will look back and very much regret this move. But hopefully it'll be mainly be in the US and reporting of it will die down over here, as per Sarah.

The RF have numerous examples of being caught hustling - andrew, sarah, sophie etc. It has never ended well which is why the RF won't want to give carte blanche to H&M to do it.

Sorry just saw Housewife said Sarah continued working in publishing after marrying. I didn't remember that, assumed she gave up straight away. As housewife says, it's not them having a job, it's when they use their connections to the RF in certain ways to cash in - blatantly and greedily.

'This is an unprecedented move in the British royal family, and could end up bringing ours more into line with the royal families of Europe, in which most members not in direct line have full-time careers, such as Prince Constantijn, younger brother of the King of the Netherlands, a lawyer who works in banking, or Princess Madeleine, daughter of the King of Sweden, who works for the family foundation, Global Child Forum and lives mostly in Florida.'

Hardly the same in terms of what H&M propose to do. A lawyer in banking is respectable, unlikely to cause embarrassment. Same with working in the family foundation, claiming a wage.

H&M aim to feather their nest and earn an unlimited amount of money. Asking someone to give your wife a job on the red carpet is tacky and causes embarrassment.

The other thing is who has heard of Prince Constantijn or Princess Madeleine? I haven't. They're minor royals in terms of global exposure. Most European royals are only known in their countries and the neighbouring ones. The UK RF is known globally (some would say largely for their antics).