More News on Harry and Meghan

[Viviennemary]

Two little bits of news I read today. First the bells won't ring out at Westminster Abbey for Meghans birthday next month and she'll be devastated. No I don't think she'll even expect them to ring. And I had to smile at Bogart the dog was left behind in Canada because it didn't take to Harry. What else could she do. Hardly leave Harry behind. And it would have been a worry with a baby in the house too. She did the right thing here.

@OVienna I want to see that picture! I have a beagle and they are bloody hard work - although I love them to bits - hats off to MM for giving a rescue beagle a home.

Here you go, MIssEliza ...

Some absolutely horrible comments on Bea and Edo in the comments section of the papers. What TF has happened to the Evening Standard??? I still find it amazing people try to argue H&M have been specially targeted, overall.

"the crown passes to {PoW} presumably it will stop ringing for Anne, Andrew and Edward (I am assuming HMQ will outlive PP) anyway"

I think that'll be up to Charles as monarch. I can't remember if they were rung for monarch's sibling when Princess Margaret was alive.

But they might start up again for Prince Harry, as he would count again as monarch's child (they ring for grandchildren and great-grandchildren only in the direct line of succession, and only spouses in direct line too as they are future consorts)

@WinnieTheW0rm

"the crown passes to {PoW} presumably it will stop ringing for Anne, Andrew and Edward (I am assuming HMQ will outlive PP) anyway"

I think that'll be up to Charles as monarch. I can't remember if they were rung for monarch's sibling when Princess Margaret was alive.

But they might start up again for Prince Harry, as he would count again as monarch's child (they ring for grandchildren and great-grandchildren only in the direct line of succession, and only spouses in direct line too as they are future consorts)

I assume Charles’ idea of a slimmed down monarchy means it’s likely they won’t ring for anyone he doesn’t seem as a senior royal although considering the amount of work Anne/Edward/Sophie does and will probably continue doing, it might seem churlish to actively stop it.

The Countess of Wessex doesn't get the bells

Only the spouses of the sovereign and the direct heirs - so Duke of Edinburgh and Duchesses of Cornwall and Cambridge

@Puzzledandpissedoff thank you! They are the cutest dogs, IMHO.

@OverUnderSidewaysDown

It's the same principle though isn't it? People on that thread were adamant that once you take responsibility for a pet, whether it's an amoeba or a great ape, you don't just ditch it.

So what do you do if you can no longer keep the pet? We had to do t, it was heartbreaking and very hard to do, but we had no choice. You cannot just keep a pet if it detrimental to the pets well being.

Samcro I agree, you shouldn’t keep the pet if that would be detrimental to the pet or indeed to the owner - I’m thinking of, say, am allergy that develops suddenly.
What seemed odd about MM’s dog being left was that the reason given changed. First we were told it was because the dog was too old to travel. Now we are told it was because it didn’t take to Harry. The inconsistency gives a bad impression.
Poor Bogie!

The problem about these stories is that it is never really clear who is telling them. So who was it who said that the dog was rehomed because it didn't take to H? There are so many people telling/selling stories about H&M at the moment that it is impossible to know what to believe.

The original version that the dog was too old to relocate to a new country sounded entirely reasonable to me as long as good arrangements were made for him. Where has this new version come from and why?

More news

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8541853/Campaigners-report-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-Sussex-Royal-charity.html

[quote Oldbutstillgotit]More news

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8541853/Campaigners-report-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-Sussex-Royal-charity.html[/quote]
Royal Foundation are denying any inappropriate use and the claim is by an anti-royal campaign group. I’m assuming it will be investigated and we will get more information then. Very embarrassing for H&M if proved correct.

I am no expert but is it not odd to transfer charity funds to a company ? I know it is non- profit making company but it seems a bit strange. Having said that I would have thought W and H would have asked for and received advice .

I think it's right that it should be investigated and any indiscrepancies brought to light. But you would think their advisors would make sure everything is above boards.

It doesn't look as if The Royal Foundation is guilty of inappropriateness, they split the funds and gave half to another registered charity; Sussex Royal. The question appears to be what Sussex Royal did with the funds when it was dissolved recently, and if it transferred the funds to Travelyst, Prince Harry's company. There is ambiguity over whether Travelyst is a not for profit company/charity or a limited company.

According to the blurb Travelyst is a bold new travel initiative and a catalyst for change. Whatever that might mean. I didn't read any further.

I think the Sussexs and Cambridge's charitys are both being accused of wrong doing, although their is no doubt the accusation comes from an anti-royal organisation. In the circumstances, it seems best to reserve judgement, for now.

The filing on companies house for the RoyalFoundation is quite transparent about the funds and Travelyst project was moved to Sussex Royal and it was all not for profit. I've read today that Travelyst is a limited company now. It would actually make sense for Harry to earn money from this if it's transparent. But I can't imagine you can just close something like Sussex royal and move all the money to a limited company. But I wonder what does happens to funds if you dissolve a charity/foundation? I don't know enough about the legalities so intrigued to see what happens here.

The argument in the article is that the only reason the RoyalFoundation moved funds to Sussex Royal was because William and Harry are brothers and that is not a good enough reason for a charity to move funds. So both the Cambridges and the Sussexs are accused of breaches of charity legislation.

I am reading it that the main issue is the transfer of funds from a charity ( Sussex Royal ) to a commercial company . Happy to be corrected .

That is how I read it too oldbutstilgotit. We'll have to wait and see what happens. Nothing I bet.

This is a video from the guy that wrote to the charity commission about the reasons why he did.

I would imagine that if there is any ambiguity at all that the media will run plenty of articles and make multiple mentions about it.

I think all future marriages of anyone should be privately conducted now. Bea and her man's wedding looked so dignified, and it takes so much pressure off EVERYONE!. Way to go I think. Leave an air of mystery and then show us some lovely pix.

Anyway, am I on the wrong thread? LOL.

Let them all at it, doubt M+H will feature much anymore, but that is what they wanted correct? Sorted so.

Does anyone know what the consequences are if a charity breaches UK regulations?