Harry and Meghan what they’ll do next

[PelicanPie]

Let’s strive to keep on topic and not engage with posts designed to disrupt.

Whether we are for or against and couldn't care less we, as Britons, know what the Royal family stand for and what place they hold in our society.

This is patently untrue now, and this point is spot on that there is

an awkward fudge at the heart of the Royal Family. And it is about what is actually means to be royal. A very good explanation about why we badly need a national conversation about the Royal Family and what the definitions and parameters actually are.

And, for it to be fair, it needs to happen without all the heat and outrage. It needs to not focus on the institution and not one couple.

Dandy thank you
The list seems pretty unremarkable to me, I think it is what a lot of celebrity actors do, and nothing that would legitimise the treatment of the press that she got, but maybe explain why she got on some people's nerves already.

Harry will still need security whether he is Harry Mountbatten Windsor or Harry HRH /Duke /etc . Stii the Queen's grandson and brother of the next King .

I don't think I've seen anyone dispute
the need for security, only how much of it should be funded by the taxpayer when they are making their own lifestyle choices.

What's your view on the funding peridito? Unlimited funding? partial funding?

Rocking no it’s NOT what a lot of celebrity actors do. Not all of it. Not when they’re her status. Mostly they act. They don’t speak at wealth investment conferences for wealthy banks.

None of the other actors on Suits were doing half of that.

guest speaking at a wealth investment summit in the Cayman Islands

Do you recall what she spoke about?

I can’t Rainbows I’m not sure if it was specified. I think she interviewed people? I posted details and photos on another thread. If I get a moment I’ll see if I can find it.

My view on funding is that the cost should be met by the RF up to the level that H&M had while resident in the UK .

Perdito I think that would be fair. Do you think they would accept that or be able to afford it?

Does anyone have definitive info as to how much protection for H&M in the UK actually cost ?

When I look all I can find are estimates ,for H&M and for other members .Though I did come across the info that protection was provided for Beatrice when she was at finishing school in Switzerland .

Cayman Islands 2016

cais.ky/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CAIS-agenda_Jan28-1.pdf

5:00 – 5:30 SUCCESS IN SUITS: BREAKING THROUGH BARRIERS Interview with Meghan Markle, Actress, Model, Lifestyle Entrepreneur and Humanitarian

I think we'd have to get into defining celebrity-actor, to try and work out an agreement, Dandy.
I can't see anything wrong with what she's done as a working woman though. Certainly nothing to justify press harassment etc. Some actors will do more, some less.

I was not one bit surprised when Meghan and Harry walked away, they were subjected to the most horrible and nasty media intrusion, I absolutely still think they did the right thing.

However, I think it is crazy of them to expect the UK taxpayer to pay for their security while they choose to live abroad, especially when it appears that all three of them can be in different parts of the world at the same time.

I think, they should absolutely benefit from the Royal Security pool while they are in the UK and travelling on royal business, but outside of that, i.e. choosing to live in a different country or going about their private business, then they should absolutely be self-funding their own security, or let Charles pay for it if he wants to.

Anyway, I would expect that their contracts for their private engagements could also include costs for private security ,as well as private travel and their accommodation to these event. .

I do feel sorry for them, they are getting slaughtered no matter what they do.

I think that would be fair. Do you think they would accept that or be able to afford it? We can't really know, can we? Or opinions have been filtered through an often hostile or sensationalist press. All the negotiations were/are private.

I'm all for greater transparency, but let's look at the cost of the RF as a whole as well. And definitely let's scrutinise the spending of tax-payers money more widely. And the money that never near the tax man in the first place. There are lots of people glad the heat is on the royal couple.

I suspect the reason for this review period is to allow for the opportunity to dial down the emotions and allow the ramifications to sink in so H&M get fully understand reality of their situation as opposed to their ambitions.

Unfortunately, even if they did want to return as working RF members again, I think they will never be accepted by the UK public or the media.

I've no reason to think they would refuse to accept it . There seems to be a narrative that they are "demanding the British tax payer" pay for their security ,though heaven knows what that's based on .

I think they will make choices based on what income they have - who knows what either will be .Maybe they will pay for locally based protection in Canada .Maybe Charles will give them more money ,he has enough .

I don't care that much TBH . The finances of the RF are hard to pin down ,as far as I'm concerned the RF have been depriving the British tax payer of money for decades .

it's all a rip off as far as Joe public is concerned

The government considers the duchy to be a Crown body and therefore exempt from paying corporation tax. The tax position of the duchy has been challenged by British republicans.[2] In 2012, following a ruling that the duchy was separate from Prince Charles for the purposes of regulation, Republic (the campaign for an elected head of state) asked HM Revenue and Customs to investigate whether the duchy should still be exempt from tax. The tax exemption is based on the assumption that the duchy estate is inseparable from the tax exempt person of Prince Charles.[47]

Since 1993, the Prince of Wales has voluntarily paid income tax on the duchy income less amounts which he considers to be official expenditure.[48] The Prince paid a voluntary contribution to the treasury of 50% of his Duchy income from the time he became eligible for its full income at the age of 21 in 1969, and paid 25% from his marriage in 1981 until the current arrangement commenced in 1993. Tax is calculated after deducting official expenditure, the biggest source of which is the Prince's staff of about 110 who assist with his performance of official duties, including private secretaries and a valet working in his office at Clarence House and at Highgrove House. The official expenditure of the Prince of Wales is not audited by the National Audit Office.

And I'm sure Queenie's dosh from the DoL is equally ring fenced .

And I'm off out now and will be offline ,will catch up later .

Absolutely cracking post Packing. Probably the most insightful I’ve ever read on MN. I agree with your view and think the general sentiment is about this being a role based constitutional monarchy, rather than first family model. This dialogue needs to happen across the nation and upside of all this drama is that hopefully it does happen and change is afoot.

Lifestyle Entrepreneur - another one to add to the CV.

Peridito, fully agreed that there needs to be public discourse and transparency on the royal funding. Not just the duchy incomes but also the tax breaks. I’ve mentioned inheritance tax before - part of the rationale is to stop families continually building up wealth and allow for redistribution. All their assets should be identified as either state or role based (eg duchies and perhaps some palaces) or private (might actually be a lot less of that). Then, for the public ones, we as a society could decide now to manage on a more open access basis. For example, Buck Palace could become like Versailles - a great tourist attraction, place to experience history upfront. No tourists actually really meet the royals so I think the tourism value is a red herring and could be preserved for the nation via make the palaces and other sites state or charitably run (eg national trust). It would mean these stupendously lovely and historic assets could be enjoyed by more than just one family ...

If questions have been raised re. the 24-hr security of Prince Andrew - the son of the monarch and brother of a future king - as recently recommended, then that should surely set a precedent for Harry too?

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-andrew-losing-armed-guard-jeffrey-epstein-downgrade-a4336021.html

A senior source said: “A review was ordered into the Met’s protection of HRH The Duke of York once it was announced he was stepping down from royal duties in November.
“Those in charge of royal security cannot write a blank cheque for anyone who does not have a public role for the foreseeable future. Round-the-clock armed protection is very expensive. The Met is obliged to review the position to ensure it is justified.” .

And that's 'just' £300K pa.

No announcement made yet so I wonder if Andrew is objecting to having his case reviewed when his nephew's situation is SO much worse.

Just read Highgrove actually belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall. So a role based asset that is ripe for converting into a national public treasure should we ever get the courage to become a republic. How brilliant would it be if we could all bring our families to visit these wonderful sites

I've no reason to think they would refuse to accept it . There seems to be a narrative that they are "demanding the British tax payer" pay for their security ,though heaven knows what that's based on

I think if they or RF had any intention to privately fund any of their security then they would have made this clear, like they have done with other financial aspects like Frogmore cottage. If only for the purpose of "mitigating any confusion and subsequent misreporting" as they stated in last week's statement. It's one of the biggest discussion points of the whole transition.

Given Canada have made clear they will no longer provide funded security for the couple, I don't believe the stance of 'we can't tell you any more info for safety reasons' is valid.

It doesn't mean they won't announce something in the future, but as it stands there is nothing to suggest they have any intention of contributing to their own additional security costs. And I thinks that is the basis in which people feel like there are demands or entitlement for the security be funded entirely from the taxpayer.

rocking I didn’t post all of what she’d done to justify press harassment, I was talking about my perspective only and you’d asked what you’d missed regarding what age was doing. Please don’t twist this to make it seem I was justifying any press treatment.

For one thing, it’s possible that, like with most public figures, the press know things about MM they aren’t able to publish for certain reasons.

Harry will still need security whether he is Harry Mountbatten Windsor or Harry HRH /Duke /etc . Stii the Queen's grandson and brother of the next King .

But why, if he is no longer a working royal? If the argument is that he's the Queen's grandson, then surely all the grandchildren require protection, which doesn't seem to be the case. If the argument is that he is the brother to future King William, then why doesn't the US, say, give the siblings of sitting presidents secret service protection? Or the Met give the siblings of current Prime Ministers police protection?

The only argument that seems solid is that he gets protection because he is the son of future King Charles, and I think this is a reach. Charles is not the Monarch yet.

As a working royal, of course there is a need for police protection because an individual is acting in loco monarchis, but otherwise?

I think it is worth pointing out that there's a model for how much this could all cost with Tony Blair. He is reported to have cost ( and still cost) taxpayers millions in police protection with his global travelling (it was £250K pa back in 2010 when he was largely British based).

The Daily Telegraph in 2016 reported that Blair's lifestyle (jetting around the world as envoy, mingling private business deals with charity work) meant he had up to eight officers with him on international trips, with four stationed at his homes and the salaries were roughly £70K pa each. And that didn't include the cost of their travel and meals. The estimate was that it cost the taxpayer upwards of £840k a year.

And he's just one person. With Harry and Megan, you are looking at possibly double that if they often travel separately, and then there's Archie to consider.

I think police protection and the royal family needs revisiting. It is said that personally protecting the entire Royal Family, their associated residences and escort needs takes 1000 officers.

And at a time when our ward only has one PCSO on a pushbike to cover 25 square miles and 5000 households.

Dandy
I’ve never watched suits and didn’t know anything about MM till she appeared on Harry’s arm.
I keep thinking about the rift Harry had with william and kate which I didn’t Pay any importance to at the time . But it’s gone significantly deep enough to totally change their relationship
I’ve read since that william told Harry not to marry her. Now this is pure conjecture but against a backdrop of the traditionalism within the royal family, was william pointing out the MM was not ‘ royal bride material’
I’ve seen her sex scenes in suits, the burger ad she made in her bikini for men’s health which was so toe curlingly cringey. The topless photos of her, that allegedly Kensington Palace were aware of
For a rift to go so deep , did william bring all of this up and of course Harry so in love and so besotted took real exception to what was said.

Pure conjecture of course.

What was said by Meghan to Kate on her wedding day that made Kate cry? William was not going to be happy with that.
As each man is going to stand by his wife it just
Seems like Harry is going to end up totally isolated from his family.
It’s a huge mess and I feel for the queen. That picture of her eyes shut in the back of her car said it all.

@TimeLady - exactly. If they can remove Andrew's protection then they can remove Harry's. I don't think wanting to travel the world promoting yourself and earn a load of dosh is a sufficient reason to cost the British taxpayers £20m a year. I suspect that they'll keep protection for the transition period and then they will be required to fund their own.

What I find interesting about these threads is that more people are starting to question the existence of the monarchy. It is starting to look possible that Charles will either never be king or will be the last.