Absolutely this! Taking Harry’s title away could be viewed as rather too close to the bone as it were from the perspective of the RF! As a Republican of course, I see it as morally wrong that a person should be viewed differently by others, or given a higher status, thanks to an ancient right of birth, so I think they should all have their titles taken away! So every time a title is removed, Republicans will be happy.
It’s interesting in that RE DM article - thank you for archived link Puzzledandpissedoff - when she says,
A source involved in those highly tense negotiations six years ago once told me that the ‘focus’ of the talks, as far as the Palace was concerned, was not on the issue of security or HRHs, but ‘always on Harry and Meghan’s status as working royals and protecting all those concerned’, as well as ‘preserving the commercial-free nature of the institution’.
Now again, as a Republican, looking at that last sentence, I can’t in all honesty see a huge difference in what H&M are doing and what the Royals do, except that Meghan is being more blatant about it. In fact, if you like that sort of thing, she has played a blinder!
The Royals outwardly go and do charitable works for no money or material gain. But is that really true overall?
For example, while it could be said that Sophie and Edward do the grunt end of charitable works in royal terms, apparently for little personal reward, it’s not as if they aren’t rewarded handsomely for it in a myriad of other ways is it? And that goes for all of them.
For a start Edward and Sophie enjoy huge perks eg living in a £30 million pound house for a peppercorn rent, and somehow manage to maintain the upkeep on a property with fifty-one rooms and one hundred and twenty acres of land on a “modest stipend”? How so?
(H&M incidentally come in for a lot of criticism for their expensive Montecito lifestyle but Sophie and Edward’s lifestyle is lavish given that their public roles are considerably less demanding than your average NHS GP who also works for the nation, but considerably harder.)
The secretarial office and chauffeur for the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh are primarily funded by the Sovereign Grant, which is public money provided by HM Treasury to support the official duties of working members of the Royal Family. These expenses are part of the operating costs of the Royal Household.
The Sovereign Grant, is funded by the profits of the Crown Estate (a diverse £16 billion portfolio of land and marine assets, technically owned by the Crown but managed independently for the nation. It includes nearly the entire UK seabed, significant coastal areas, 200,000+ acres of rural land, and prestigious London commercial properties which in the eyes of a Republican are public assets).
To focus on clothes, as everyone is obsessed with Meghan flogging clothing off the back of her Australian tour, Sophie, as I understand it, funds her wardrobe for official engagements through a clothing allowance provided by the King, funded via the Sovereign Grant and private income from the Duchy of Lancaster. The latter in effect takes money from the ordinary man in the street, because it rents land to public institutions such as the army and the NHS, and makes revenue from wind farms on our coastline. And yet Charles pays no commercial tax on the Duchies, so the public lose out again.
And yet the nature of the work of the RF is couched by Rebecca English as being “commercial free” by nature. But is it really?
S & E’s daughter, Lady Louise, gets to enjoy an expensive hobby such as carriage driving, keeping her horses at Windsor castle and she practices driving around Windsor Great Park and within the grounds of Sandringham and then competes in competitions at both of those locations.
Obviously there is a difference between Royal Patronage and working visits, but generally speaking, when Royals attend certain events on behalf of a charity, the charity itself has to meet some of the expenses.
When working on behalf of the Crown, royal charity visits are generally funded by the Sovereign Grant or taxpayer funds. However, charities often cover local logistical costs of hosting certain events, such as catering, decorations, and specialized security, and they may be charged rent for using Crown-owned properties.
While local police manage major security, specialized or extra security requirements can sometimes fall on the venue or charity, though this varies.
Investigations by Republic UK have shown that some charities (e.g., RNLI, Macmillan Cancer Support) have paid rent to Duchy estates for office space.
So of you look at all of this in broad terms:
M&H >do charity work>receive commercial benefits off the back of it
Edward Sophie> do charitable work> receive material and paid-for financial rewards off the back of it
It really is hard to tell the difference imho! Both sets of royals benefit materially and in terms of their lifestyle when carrying out charitable work, it’s only the Montecito branch who are admitting to it!