Harry & Meghan what they’ll do next - Thread 2

[DandyAF]

Carrying on the conversation as the last thread finished mid-discussion.

Interesting article. I didn’t know much about narcissists beyond the MIL threads in AIBU.
I must say I don’t know any narcissists in person, but a lot of entertainers seem to fit the bill. Maybe narcissists are drawn to professions that include fame.

www.thepetitionsite.com/en-gb/182/113/000/object-to-and-stop-paying-for-harry-meghan-and-their-son%E2%80%99s-global-security-costs/?cid=headerClick

Thanks Harry. But is that the one that gets to the UK government? There’s a special site for
uK govt ones and can’t see it listed just yet

Was expecting to find it here: www.gov.uk/petition-government

But it’s not so confused!!

This one from change.org: chng.it/ZZqh64svWq

Doesn’t it need to be on the government one for it to be heard?

Fundamentally the issue re: security is whether H&M have a right to make lifestyle choices (such as living in Canada) that cost the taxpayer substantial sums of additional money.

It's an important issue.

It's not really about the extra 10p we might all have to pay it's about setting a precedent (not just for H&M but every "royal") about what what rights they have to spend the taxpayers money.

How far does this extend? Just to security or anything else? How much "extra" is too much? If they move to the US the costs might be higher still, so if we are ok to pay £17m pa extra why not £20m? For how long? 5 years/10years?

What happens when Archie is an adult? Do we pay for him? Is he any less of a target at 18 than now?

What if Louis moves abroad in time..are we happy to pay 3 x an extra £17m?

That the real issue(s) here.

If we pay the extra security what does that really mean wrt other choices and funding H&M (and others) might desire in the future?

If you set that precedent we are suddenly talking about very large sums of money £100's of millions spent on a very small number of people who have made clear they hold no allegiance to the monarchy or the country yet expect to be funded by it because of who they are related to.

Excellent point @DeRigueurMortis

We could end up paying hundreds of millions of pounds in security for so called minor royals, who opt not to work and choose to live wherever they fancy

Not just who they are related to, but who they are married to, to be pedantic.

Regardless of who specifically Harry's wife is, the role itself has only existed for under two years. It equates to about 1.5 years 'service'. Any benefits or support we as normal tax payers get from the government is dependent on our citizenship and how long we've been paying NI contributions (for example). You have to put in some form of 'service' before receiving. Anyone who is not a UK citizen who uses the NHS is, in theory, required to pay back the NHS for their treatment.

It is currently filled by someone who - correct me if I'm wrong - has never been a UK tax payer, and if she has, then it will only have been in the last 2-3 years.

I understand of course that his wife needs protection, but there is a big difference between the expectation of the UK paying for a British born-and-bred royal who has 'served' as one his entire adulthood of 18 years (if not before), and someone non-British who has not pledged their commitment to the country by becoming a citizen and who has stopped serving after under 2 years.

You've heard of medical tourism, well welcome to security protection tourism

Completely agree derigeuermortis. I can't think of any other walk of life where you can write your own spec from public funds and just send the bill each year (apart from the mps and their duck house expenses) . But then I have no idea of the scale of money at this level. Maybe they only need a loan from PC for one year to tide them over then after that it will be as nothing to them to pay the full cost?

It’s setting precedent & that’s the problem.

At this moment in time, I don’t see how “call me Harry & MM” are any different from Eugenie & Beatrice, (or at least come the end of the month). They will both be non working Royals & Grandchildren of the monarch.

Eugenie & Beatrice had their security removed from them as non working Royals, PC wasn’t prepared to pay for it.......Andrew pays for it, think it’s around 500,000 a year

There’s talk of Andrew losing his as a non Working royal.

You could argue that Harry should be entitled to it, as the son of the monarch, but so in that case is Andrew, he will also eventually be the sibling of a monarch, as will Harry, but still not a working royal.

20,000,000 a year is an appalling amount of money....how many homeless, disabled, disadvantaged people could that money help?

Exactly. Never mind 20p per person or whatever. It’s a huge amount of money that’s going to two lazy self indulgent people who are doing nothing for this country. It could be spent on much better things. I’ve signed the petition.

It makes me so cross, that there are kids in this country reliant on food banks, but they think it’s ok to make billions out of being who they are, doing fuck all & expecting everyone else to pay for it!

They seriously need to get over themselves because they really aren’t as important as they think they are

5Leaf

And therein lies the rub....

In their "manifesto" they talked about becoming financially independent.

However there was no timescale on this (as was neither when the Frogmore costs would be repaid.

It also didn't specify what that independence encompassed other than them no longer taking money from the sovereign grant.

You can draw 2 different conclusions:

1. It covers the loss of the Duchy income and security costs.

1. It only relates to the Duchy income.

People are assuming the former, but there's nothing in their statements that suggests this.

Rather they are at pains to point out (despite the Canadian Govt reaching a very different conclusion) that Harry's Royal birth and Meghan's public profile makes them Internationally Protected People.

As IPP's the Govt has a duty to fund their security regardless of how much money they have personally.

So we can't assume they expect at any point in the future to fund their own security - they believe they are entitled to it.

This is why the issue of being "Royal" or not was so important to them. If they are not royal can they still be IPP's?

Even if you believe they are (or at least Harry is) does that mean he is able to dictate the levels of taxpayer spending to fund the lifestyle he wants?

Of course we want them to be safe. But they could be safe and private at Frogmore (or another U.K. base) - maintaining current costs.

Morally is it up to the taxpayer to pay extra for choices they make that would make them unsafe if funding wasn't increased?

Do they not have a responsibility to make choices that keep them safe within the confines of current costs and what they can personally afford?

As I put in an earlier post they are writing cheques their egos and entitlement can't cash. If they can't afford to live in Canada/USA within the confines of current taxpayer contributions and their own private wealth isn't the obvious solution to change their plans to a lifestyle they can afford? Isn't this what any private individual has to do?

I for one am happy to keep "funding" them at current levels, but I draw the line in creating an "open cheque" precedent that allows them to dictate a lifestyle that they personally can't afford to maintain and has to be subsided by the taxpayer (and this also sets that expectation for other family members in the future).

Superb post, DeRigueurMortis; as you rightly identify, this isn't about personalities but the principle of the thing (and of course the precedent involved)

As said so often, I personally believe that either the Queen or Charles will declare sooner or later that they'll pay the costs themselves ... and then find a way to bury it in what the rest of us pay for

It makes a mockery of them self-declaring as philanthropic and doing charity work. Perhaps their charitable (non)entity going to raise money for educational, social care and health services that have had their government funding cut.

Re: the Royal Family picking up the tab.

What we have to remember is that there is a big difference between overall wealth and income.

HMQ is incredibly wealthy but most of that wealth derives from assets she can't sell. Same for PC.

In terms of income the Duchy's of Lancaster and Cornwall comes in at circa £21m each. Out that we know PC already gives circa £4m to H&W and HMQ funds other minor royals.

The extra security funding for H&M has been estimated at £17m.

HMQ and PC might have the wealth but they don't have the disposable income to drum up £17m a year "extra".

Put into context that's 80% of PC's annual income...and when you add on the money he already pays to H&W that's 100%.

The only source that can fund this is the taxpayer - the question is should we?

I do believe we have a moral duty to keep them safe but I don't think that extends to writing an open cheque to fund a lifestyle the individuals in question can't afford when they have other options available.

The point is they can fund their own protection out of their 30 million or whatever it is. Then get jobs.

Well I don’t deny these are all excellent arguments!

Would a feminist, who at the very least has a good education, money in the bank, career prospects and a social conscience really willingly accept financial aid from her wealthy father in law?

Especially since she's already been supported by her father for many years.

HMQ and PC might have the wealth but they don't have the disposable income to drum up £17m a year "extra"

You're probably right, but I wasn't thinking that they'd actually pay the security costs - more that they'd claim they'd do so for PR purposes, then find a way to put it on the public tab

Admittedly I'm no accountant, but are any of us likely to ever know the real ins and outs of royal finances?