Question on being allowed to work as Royals?

[kenandbarbie]

I saw H and M have mentioned that Eugenie and her sister are allowed to work in their court documents. Is that right? Why are some Royals allowed to work and not others?

They work in a software company and an art gallery, respectively. They do not receive public money, have no private security and do not generally represent the Queen at events (they each have some relationships with charities, though - Eugenie has a relationship with he National Orthopaedic Hospital after having surgery for her scoliosis there and supports a scoliosis charity) though as members of her family they are present at Tropping the Colour, Ascot etc. They don't do anything political. So it's a completely different situation to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Royals have worked for other people, it's when they have their own companies that it has not gone so well (Edward and Sophie, for example). I don't think working for a third party is an issue, it's the perception of trading on their Royal connections when they have their own business.

They are allowed to work if they are not working Royals.

That’s been the case for everyone since the Sophie sting

The York princesses do the odd charity event, as they have done patronages. But they don’t carry out royal duties. Ditto the Phillips, Tindalls, Linleys and Chattos

Thanks! So Harry and Meghan as not working royals anymore are allowed to work but weren't when working royals? Are they complaining about not being able to work when they were working royals?

My understanding is that Meghan was whinging about not being allowed to work when Beatrice, Eugenie, Zara etc are allowed. But B&E are not working royals, don’t receive public money and have “normal” jobs which don’t exploit their royal connections. Zara does exploit her connections and has advertising deals etc, but she isn’t royal and doesn’t have a title.

Yes H&M can work now they’re not longer working royals.

Rolex have been sponsoring 3 day eventers since at least the 1970s (I remember when Lucinda Prior-Palmer had it), so there’s a good chance that Zara would have joy it anyhow on her sporting credentials

The job that Meghan was told she could not do was act, simply not compatible with being a senior working royal. The expression cake and eat it springs to mind with them - wanted the royal trappings and perks but not the responsibilities and limitations. How they want to live is up to them but if you don't want the job you don't get to use royal in your branding

Thanks. Makes sense now!

@okiedokieme

The job that Meghan was told she could not do was act, simply not compatible with being a senior working royal. The expression cake and eat it springs to mind with them - wanted the royal trappings and perks but not the responsibilities and limitations. How they want to live is up to them but if you don't want the job you don't get to use royal in your branding

I have seen it reported that prior to the marriage, HM offered Meghan the option to not become a working royal, and to maintain her career, but she was happy to become a working royal at that point.

There are jobs and jobs. Working in a relatively modestly paid job would be fine especially serving the community like when William worked as a helicopter pilot. But going round giving speeches for hundreds of thousands of pounds a time trading on your royal name - not fine.

Actually MM does have a point about one other working royal who trades off the royal name and titles for his own profit - Prince Andrew!

PA uses his ''Pitch at the Palace'' initiative to line his own pockets. Buried in the contract that participating start-ups have to sign to participate is that PA will get to take 2% of any investment deal that might result from the event. This news article about it is very scathing of his grifting:

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/prince-andrew-refuses-to-give-up-pitch-at-palace-as-it-emerges-he-can-take-a-cut-of-every-deal/ar-BBX8Vqw

To quote from the article:

''Rich Wilson, co-founder of a technology hedge fund, who attended one of the first Pitch@Palace events in 2014, said in a blog post yesterday: “This is absurd beyond belief… What’s even more scandalous is that the people involved didn’t even know about it. By burying the equity terms at the end of the contract, it has been missed. I don’t know anyone who was told about it up front.”

He added: “For Prince Andrew, his actions are once again inexcusable … what on earth is a member of the Royal family using his status to take equity from early-stage tech founders for essentially nothing?” ''

So we have HRH PA using his royal status to scam money. Of course, this wouldn't be a good example for M&H to use as reason why they should be able to use their titles to make money. In fact it shows why royals should never trade on their titles.

Prince Andrew represents everything that's wrong with having a RF IMO. He's arrogant, ignorant, greedy, dishonest, famously a bully to staff and very, very avaricious. I'm not a die-hard republican but he represents what can happen when you elevate people to a superior position in society based on nothing but the accident of birth. If he'd been born into an average British family I wonder if he would have turned out better? I tend to think he'd would have ended up in jail actually.