Royalty Thread #11: Putting the "Fun" in Dysfunctional

[overedge]

Right here.

That is a good explanation (and thanks, I wasn't aware that had been posted) but they certainly aren't saying what @becca is characterizing them as saying. I don't see entitlement here. Maybe this is not as well thought out as it could be, but IMO at least some thought has gone into it.

 

[kittyjake5]

I suppose the 95% of their funding from PC is the transition period that the Family is working out.

 

[Jenny]

That is a good explanation (and thanks, I wasn't aware that had been posted) but they certainly aren't saying what @becca is characterizing them as saying. I don't see entitlement here. Maybe this is not as well thought out as it could be, but IMO at least some thought has gone into it.

The issue for many seems to be that while the repeatedly talk of being "financially independent," it appears that they aim to achieve that by going off the Sovereign Trust. But as they note on that page, it's only 5% of their expenses.

The other 95% - which they appear to think they will continue to receive - is from the Duchy of Cornwall, controlled by the Prince of Wales, and thus "Daddy's money," which for most of us, does not equate "financially independent." And for some, that's the crux of the financial talk - that they want to be independent, but still expect to benefit from a Duchy they don't even serve - thus "entitlement," particularly when it appears at least that they did not consult Charles on this point, and any money they do receive from the Duchy is at his discretion, and once Charles becomes king, will fall to William to administer, and apparently he wasn't consulted either on this point.

All that of course and who's going to pay for security, because at the moment, that apparently comes from the Sovereign Trust, which they say they no longer want to access.

 

[Jimena]

I live in Puerto Rico so the BRF is extremely irrelevant to our lives down here. But there was my neighbor yesterday, a woman I consider family, asking us what we thought about Meghan and Harry. And we didn't really care, of course. But then she went on this diatribe about how Meghan is a tragedy and that she wanted to marry Harry since the time she was 15 years old and that she's been planning this for a long time, to take this "boy from his family", etc., etc., etc.

I sat there in silence, completely surprised. She was just so incredibly venomous.

FWIW, my neighbor's son basically said that his mom thinks Meghan is a tragedy because she's black. I NEVER, EVER, thought this would be of any relevance to my daily life. And yet, there you have it. I'm still shaking my head.

 

[starrynight]

I do think that IF this was Harry's plan and Meghan is supporting him, he ought to have released a statement being more explicit in that.

It's not fair of him to have basically allowed Meghan to be the scapegoat here, if it is the case he wanted this and she is going along with it. I'd have a very dim view of him if that was the truth.

As for people being upset about Meghan -- I think so many people overlay their own personal experiences onto this. I asked a bunch of people how they saw it and their reaction was shaped by their own personal life experiences. Personally, I have a friend who whenever he gets a new partner, he vanishes off the face of the planet and hardly talks to any of his old friends until they break up ... then rinse and repeat. So, you could overlay that experience onto it.

There's nothing glamorous about family splits though. It's just all very sad and regrettable.

 

[missing]

There are alternate ways to making a living.

Personally, I love the idea of either of them writing their memoirs, but knowing the kinds of books celebrities frequently write, the odds are they'd write picture books- Second Place Prince by Harry or The Princess Who Felt Left Out by Meghan.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I read one article last night that Harry found out it was about to be leaked and they decided to post the news.

Instead of getting aord to th

But did she ALWAYS have her hand on her bump, or were photos of her touching it cherry picked as soon as photographers and papers realized it was clickbait? If she did put her hand on her bump more than Kate, or you, or your friends, or some other women you know or saw - so what?

Do you genuinely not see unfairness in a newspaper saying Kate's cradling is protective of her baby while Meghan's is done to mock infertile women?

Well, I suppose you could look at it that way. Do you think the press sat down and said....let's only get pictures of Meghan with hands on her bump?

UM.............who said anything about mocking infertile womem? That is WAY off the rails.

 

[canbelto]

What is so bad about rubbing a baby bump? I worked with women who did it constantly. It’s very natural.

 

[Peaches LaTour]

The whole power and intrigue of the monarchy comes from its sense of utter exclusiveness and mystique. It's the sort of status that no amount of money can buy.

That's why you had Jay Z and Beyonce who are billionaires and titans of the entertainment industry standing in a queue to shake hands with Meghan and Harry -- and looking thrilled about it. It's why you have billionaires rushing to give them mansions rent free.

In any other kind of world, very talented billionaires wouldn't give two stuffs about a supporting actress from Suits and an ex-serviceman.

For all the talk about royals wanting to be 'just like us' -- if they were, then their power would be gone. They'd just be random rich people.

But they would still have the best jewelry. ?

 

[overedge]

There are alternate ways to making a living.

Personally, I love the idea of either of them writing their memoirs, but knowing the kinds of books celebrities frequently write, the odds are they'd write picture books- Second Place Prince by Harry or The Princess Who Felt Left Out by Meghan.

And then Sarah Ferguson would pitch a fit at them taking market share away from her Flappy the Helicopter series, or whatever those terrible books are called

 

[MacMadame]

When have Harry and Meghan explicitly said any of this?

Right here.

But that doesn't say what @becca said explicitly. They didn't say they plan to take the Duchy of Cornwall money forever while performing no royal duties.

It talks about transitioning to being financially independent. The logical interpretation of that is that they will gradually reduce their dependency on their father's funds. The "let's put the worst spin on it possible interpretation" is that they intend to be dependent on Daddy forever and also make their own money on top. Since that interpretation doesn't make sense with them saying they want to be financially independent, why assume that is what they meant?

The other 95% - which they appear to think they will continue to receive -

At first. They have no sources of income now because royals aren't allowed to make money. They just have whatever they brought into the relationship, which as has been pointed out by @once_upon will be eaten up very fast if there is no new money coming in to replace it.

Since we have no details now as to what they want, what the BRF wants and how it's going to shake out, why not wait until we have details to decide who is entitled/evil/irresponsible/a drain on the public funds?

I mean I get that it's fun to speculate but it's a pet peeve of mine when people interpret what public figures say well beyond what they actually said, in the worst possible way, and then beat them up continuously for doing/saying this thing that is only in the mind of the person flogging them.

 

[mella]

I do think that IF this was Harry's plan and Meghan is supporting him, he ought to have released a statement being more explicit in that.

It's not fair of him to have basically allowed Meghan to be the scapegoat here, if it is the case he wanted this and she is going along with it. I'd have a very dim view of him if that was the truth.

I don't think him doing that would have made any difference exactly because of those filters you talk about. There would still be a good number of people choosing to believe she manipulated him and the situation... was wearing the trousers... talking him away from his family... etc. He (and she) cannot win imho. And they've decided not to try.

 

[skatingguy]

What is so bad about rubbing a baby bump? I worked with women who did it constantly. It’s very natural.

But Meghan was apparently doing it because the pregnancy was fake, and she was holding a pillow under her clothes, and accentuating the baby bump for publicity, or so was claimed in the British tabloids.

 

[skatingguy]

Also, while some may think Canadian media are "nicer" than UK media, there are still photographers and reporters in Canada who are getting stories for the international press, either as stringers or freelancers.

I think the media will lose interest, particularly the foreign press, and I'm guessing that Meghan & Harry do a few TV interviews for Canadian television over the next few months talking about what they want to do while in Canada, and gushing about the country & the people, and we Canadians will be satisfied and will move on to other issues. The Stanley Cup playoffs are only 3 months away.

 

[canbelto]

But Meghan was apparently doing it because the pregnancy was fake, and she was holding a pillow under her clothes, and accentuating the baby bump for publicity, or so was claimed in the British tabloids.

Oh I forgot that Meghan babynapped Scott and Tessa's fourth secret bundle of joy. Also Meghan is a man. Did I miss any more rumors?

 

[Barbara Manatee]

Do you think the press sat down and said....let's only get pictures of Meghan with hands on her bump?

I think the press realized that there was a narrative forming about Meghan touching her bump and realized it was better for business to take and print those photos over ones where her hands were elsewhere. That's how tabloids work - they find or make up a little flicker of a scandal then pile on the fuel to turn it into a fire.

UM.............who said anything about mocking infertile womem? That is WAY off the rails.

The Daily Mail, as quoted in the article comparing press treatment that's already been linked several times. The article you seemed to dismiss when you said it wasn't fair to compare headlines.

Kate: "Bumping along nicely! The Duchess was seen placing a protective hand on her tummy as she exited the event." Daily Mail: March 22, 2018

Meghan: "Personally, I find the cradling a bit like those signs in the back of cars: Baby on Board. Virtue signaling, as though the rest of us barren harridans deserve to burn alive in our cars." Daily Mail: Jan. 26, 2019

 

[skatfan]

Right here.

Actually, it doesn't.

 

[mag]

I find the sentiment that M&H might run down some of their savings if they actually had to support themselves interesting in the same way I find the “Poor Harry, he didn’t asked to be born into the Royal Family” sentiment interesting. Harry is reported to be worth around $40 million - give or take $5 million. Invested well he is probably making between $2.8 to $3.6 million per year. That is money he has done nothing for. That is not including any money Meghan has. They are living right now rent free and supported by the sovereign grant and Duchy of Cornwall for all their expenses that have anything to do with their charity work. When they go on vacation they have wealthy friends who are happy to offer up villas and private jets. Worst case at a 40% tax bracket and $100,000 a month in security costs, that would still give them $480,000 per year ($40,000 per month) plus whatever Meghan is making on her investments, plus whatever income they bring in. That would be financial independence. Assuming that with that much at your disposal someone else should be picking up the tab for anything is entitlement run amok.

Contrast that with poor people who also are born into circumstances beyond their control. Who get charged outrageous bank fees just because they are poor. Who don’t get free vacation, just because they are poor. Who often can’t take advantage of discounts because they don’t have the cash flow to buy ahead. And who can’t up and move to get a better job because they can’t afford to move and the kinds of jobs they get often don’t include moving allowances.

Now none of that is specifically H&M’s fault. Meghan also worked hard for the money she has. While it isn’t a shame to rich, it also shouldn’t be a shame to be poor. And if we wouldn’t do something for a poor person, should we do it for a rich person?

The Queen and Charles are obviously free to do whatever they want with their private money and I have no doubt that Harry and Meghan will be well looked after. They should also be reimbursed if they take on some royal duties. I believe Beatrice and Eugenie’s security is paid for when they are doing work for the crown. That said, should the decision be made that if they want to step down that mean the money dries up right away, that seems fair too. After all, if a poor person wants to leave their job so they have the freedom to peruse their dreams, I don’t think we would expect their current employer to support them during the transition.

ETA: I will tack this on the end because there is a interesting discussion about money making opportunities for H&M.

The Queen Supports Harry and Meghan, But What Happens Now? | This Morning

Subscribe now for more! http://bit.ly/1JM41yF After ongoing talks at Sandringham House, yesterday evening The Queen announced that she was 'supportive' of Ha...

youtu.be

Some comments from Globe & Mail readers:

‘Meghan and Harry: If you are reading these comments, please take them to heart and stay in Britain!’ Readers debate: Can the royal couple live in Canada? — The Globe and Mail

In this Jan. 7, 2020, file photo, Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex leave after visiting Canada House in London. From the Commentsis designed to highlight interesting and thoughtful contributions from our readers. Some comments have been edited for clarity. Everyone can read the...

apple.news

 

[Peaches LaTour]

Oh I forgot that Meghan babynapped Scott and Tessa's fourth secret bundle of joy. Also Meghan is a man. Did I miss any more rumors?

Actually, if Meghan were a man, I think the Sussex couple would be much more interesting.

 

[skatingguy]

Oh I forgot that Meghan babynapped Scott and Tessa's fourth secret bundle of joy. Also Meghan is a man. Did I miss any more rumors?

She tried to kill her niece with lily-of-the-valley, you know the usual stuff.

 

[RoseRed]

On the discussion of security costs, as I Canadian I'm happy to have them here, but I don't think Canada should pay any security costs for them. Whether that means they just have private security, or if they need some security that can carry firearms sometimes they work with the RCMP but reimburse the costs or something, I don't know. They're rich, so they can pay for security themselves just like celebrities do.

But that doesn't say what @becca said explicitly. They didn't say they plan to take the Duchy of Cornwall money forever while performing no royal duties.

It talks about transitioning to being financially independent. The logical interpretation of that is that they will gradually reduce their dependency on their father's funds. The "let's put the worst spin on it possible interpretation" is that they intend to be dependent on Daddy forever and also make their own money on top. Since that interpretation doesn't make sense with them saying they want to be financially independent, why assume that is what they meant?


At first. They have no sources of income now because royals aren't allowed to make money. They just have whatever they brought into the relationship, which as has been pointed out by @once_upon will be eaten up very fast if there is no new money coming in to replace it.

Since we have no details now as to what they want, what the BRF wants and how it's going to shake out, why not wait until we have details to decide who is entitled/evil/irresponsible/a drain on the public funds?

I mean I get that it's fun to speculate but it's a pet peeve of mine when people interpret what public figures say well beyond what they actually said, in the worst possible way, and then beat them up continuously for doing/saying this thing that is only in the mind of the person flogging them.

All of this is true, but isn't that also a reason to wait and work out more of these details before making it public?

 

[taf2002]

On the discussion of security costs, as I Canadian I'm happy to have them here, but I don't think Canada should pay any security costs for them. Whether that means they just have private security, or if they need some security that can carry firearms sometimes they work with the RCMP but reimburse the costs or something, I don't know. They're rich, so they can pay for security themselves just like celebrities do.


All of this is true, but isn't that also a reason to wait and work out more of these details before making it public?

Can moonlighting off-duty RCMPs carry guns? If so, that might be the way to go. And FWIW I haven't seen anything from Harry or Meghan to imply they expect the Canadian people to pay for their security.

 

[mag]

Can moonlighting off-duty RCMPs carry guns? If so, that might be the way to go. And FWIW I haven't seen anything from Harry or Meghan to imply they expect the Canadian people to pay for their security.

I haven’t either, and as far as I can see there is nothing on their very comprehensive website. I find it hard to believe that they haven’t considered it. And assuming they have, and given how specific they are about “no public funds” and equating that with the Sovereign Grant, why would they also not include a sentence stating that they will also repay Canada for their security costs?After all, that would make the “no public funds” a true statement. If, and it is an If, they are expecting Canada to pay for security then they either don’t understand that that would be taking public funds, or they don’t care. And before someone says maybe they just haven’t thought it through, read the website. Hundreds of hours have gone into the content and the presentation. It is a masterful site and delivers their message very well. Unless they are totally oblivious to that person who shadows them everywhere, including into any meetings with the web designers, they have thought about security.

Security is a lot of money. I know some have said that it is under $2 millions so it is not a problem for Canada to pick it up. If that is case, I work with some not for profits who would like their extra $2 million a year as well. Someone or something will not have access to $2 million or portion of that if Canada agrees to to pay. For those who think it isn’t a problem, perhaps you could suggest where the money could be cut from?

 

[MacMadame]

$100,000 a month in security costs,

I think that's a very low estimate.

She tried to kill her niece with lily-of-the-valley, you know the usual stuff.

And when she eats, trees die. (Avocado toast)

Can moonlighting off-duty RCMPs carry guns? If so, that might be the way to go. And FWIW I haven't seen anything from Harry or Meghan to imply they expect the Canadian people to pay for their security.

No, they never said that. Trudeau said that Meghan and Harry would be safe in Canada and that vague comment spiraled out of control.

 

[kittyjake5]

I believe the Queen or PC will pay for Harry and Meghan’s security out of their own private funds during the transition, they can afford it. I think the idea that Canada will foot the bill is just media fodder. Canada of course will plan, work out the details and provide the security but BRF will pay.

 

[mag]

I think that's a very low estimate.

Since I wrote that post, the number being talked about is $1.7 million or $140,000 per month. That just means they would need to dip into the earnings from Meghan’s money to fund their lifestyle. The point is, they would still be in the top 1% which is more than I can say for the vast majority of Canadians.

 

[overedge]

I believe the Queen or PC will pay for Harry and Meghan’s security out of their own private funds during the transition, they can afford it. I think the idea that Canada will foot the bill is just media fodder. Canada of course will plan, work out the details and provide the security but BRF will pay.

Canada pays for the security when the Queen visits, and also IIRC if the British prime minister visits. IIRC Canada also paid for security when William and Kate visited. Of course H&M are not equivalent in royal status to the reigning monarch and the heir to the throne, but I am not so sure the BRF will pay for H&M's security in Canada. Especially if H&M are in Canada but not doing royal duties.

 

[kittyjake5]

Canada pays for the security when the Queen visits, and also IIRC if the British prime minister visits. IIRC Canada also paid for security when William and Kate visited. Of course H&M are not equivalent in royal status to the reigning monarch and the heir to the throne, but I am not so sure the BRF will pay for H&M's security in Canada. Especially if H&M are in Canada but not doing royal duties.

Like I said they could pay out of their private funds and I believe they should because it is her immediate family that is relocating to Canada not a short royal visit
where Canada would pick up the tab. Harry may not be in line to the throne but he, Megan and Archie are at risk hence security is needed. I just think it would be wrong
that the BRF would expect Canada to pick up the security tab, I would hope that they were better than that.

 

[MacMadame]

Since I wrote that post, the number being talked about is $1.7 million or $140,000 per month. T

A year or just when in Canada? I've seen a lot of estimates. Not sure which ones I believe. (Some of them were clearly crazy. )

One site did point out that traveling ups the costs. If they spend 6 months at a time in each country, that's at least two trips a year but I'm guessing they will pop back and forth and also travel to other places.

I think it's pretty variable what the costs will be. When they were in Canada for their 6 weeks off, they had 10 security people with them. I have trouble believing that would only cost $140,000 per month and most likely that wouldn't be the only expenses especially the first year.

 

[overedge]

Like I said they could pay out of their private funds and I believe they should because it is her immediate family that is relocating to Canada not a short royal visit
where Canada would pick up the tab. Harry may not be in line to the throne but he, Megan and Archie are at risk hence security is needed. I just think it would be wrong
that the BRF would expect Canada to pick up the security tab, I would hope that they were better than that.

Don't get me wrong, I think they need security, and I think the BRF should pay for it too. But I can see the BRF (or more likely their staff) making the argument that Canada has covered the costs for security for royal family members in the past, so Canada should pay for it this time too. Not that they would necessarily win that argument, but I can see them trying.

I might have a teeny bit more sympathy for that argument if H&M are over here doing actual royal work and not just hiding out and chilling. But we already have a Governor-General at the national level and a Lieutenant-Governor in every province, so there's already people appointed to represent the Queen and the Commonwealth. I'm honestly not sure what H&M could do that the GGs and LGs aren't already doing.