Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth noting that Meghan opened the interview by telling Oprah Winfrey she hadn’t researched the royal family at all prior to joining it. By about 40 minutes into the program, she was casually referring to the letters patent of George V.

LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a few things we need to clear up, when it comes to the security issue (clearly a focus of the interview):

1. The Canadian Government was providing security through March 2020, as was typical practice. It was thought that Harry and Meghan were on an extended holiday and the Canadian Government had an agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department (London).

That ended in March, when Harry and Meghan said they were no longer going to be working royals, because the Canadian Government said they no longer had an obligation to have their taxpayers pay for security for what amounted to private citizens. The UK taxpayers were of the same mind at the time. Why pay for security for people who didn’t live in the UK and didn’t contribute to the royal family?

2. It’s unclear to me how much truly private money the royal family has. People seem to have the impression they could simply pay for security for Harry and Meghan. Their normal security is done through the government. How much money do they have that is outside the Sovereign Grant (which the UK taxpayers give them)? What can they do with that money?

Before we decide that Harry and Meghan were unfairly deprived of security, we need an understanding of what latitude the royal family actually has with the money they have.

The BRF is among the richest families in the world. They own huge amounts of land and are paid rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a few things we need to clear up, when it comes to the security issue (clearly a focus of the interview):

1. The Canadian Government was providing security through March 2020, as was typical practice. It was thought that Harry and Meghan were on an extended holiday and the Canadian Government had an agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department (London).

That ended in March, when Harry and Meghan said they were no longer going to be working royals, because the Canadian Government said they no longer had an obligation to have their taxpayers pay for security for what amounted to private citizens. The UK taxpayers were of the same mind at the time. Why pay for security for people who didn’t live in the UK and didn’t contribute to the royal family?

2. It’s unclear to me how much truly private money the royal family has. People seem to have the impression they could simply pay for security for Harry and Meghan. Their normal security is done through the government. How much money do they have that is outside the Sovereign Grant (which the UK taxpayers give them)? What can they do with that money?

Before we decide that Harry and Meghan were unfairly deprived of security, we need an understanding of what latitude the royal family actually has with the money they have.

Harry and Meghan are wealthy private citizens who can pay for their own security if they deem it necessary. Why on earth should this be on the taxpayer's dime, or even the family?

I totally agree with you. My point is that I think a lot of people assume the royal family has a ton of private money they can use as they wish. I don’t think that’s really true. They are ultimately government officials (of a sort).

I think the Queen has a Duchy, from which she earns some private money. That’s the only thing she pays taxes on, so I think it’s the only money she “earns.” The rest comes from the Sovereign Grant, which is UK taxpayer money.

[Anonymous]

I didn't watch. So Oprah did not ask them why they were intent on retaining their titles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a few things we need to clear up, when it comes to the security issue (clearly a focus of the interview):

1. The Canadian Government was providing security through March 2020, as was typical practice. It was thought that Harry and Meghan were on an extended holiday and the Canadian Government had an agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department (London).

That ended in March, when Harry and Meghan said they were no longer going to be working royals, because the Canadian Government said they no longer had an obligation to have their taxpayers pay for security for what amounted to private citizens. The UK taxpayers were of the same mind at the time. Why pay for security for people who didn’t live in the UK and didn’t contribute to the royal family?

2. It’s unclear to me how much truly private money the royal family has. People seem to have the impression they could simply pay for security for Harry and Meghan. Their normal security is done through the government. How much money do they have that is outside the Sovereign Grant (which the UK taxpayers give them)? What can they do with that money?

Before we decide that Harry and Meghan were unfairly deprived of security, we need an understanding of what latitude the royal family actually has with the money they have.

The BRF is among the richest families in the world. They own huge amounts of land and are paid rent.

When you say “richest” you need to remember that all of that wealth is not private.

They have some private wealth, but much of it is via the Sovereign Grant, which is not technically their money to do as they wish. It’s to fund their official duties.

To understand exactly what they can do, we need a clear understanding of the amount of their truly private wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't watch. So Oprah did not ask them why they were intent on retaining their titles?

Well, it’s irrelevant now because apparently the royal family has taken away their titles, since doing this interview was a violation of the agreement they had made with the Queen last year.

[Anonymous]

I’m of the impression that their private wealth is massive, but they squirrel it away. They choose to instead use the Sovereign Grant as much as possible so that the public feels it’s getting some value by keeping them around. Oh, and so they can keep squirreling away the private funds. I have no basis for those opinions though.

[Anonymous]

It was an interesting method of attempting to half burn a bridge but actually setting fire to the river. "No, no. Dad, Wills and Kate are fine. But actually we don't talk anymore and Kate made me cry. Grandma is cool though"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a few things we need to clear up, when it comes to the security issue (clearly a focus of the interview):

1. The Canadian Government was providing security through March 2020, as was typical practice. It was thought that Harry and Meghan were on an extended holiday and the Canadian Government had an agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department (London).

That ended in March, when Harry and Meghan said they were no longer going to be working royals, because the Canadian Government said they no longer had an obligation to have their taxpayers pay for security for what amounted to private citizens. The UK taxpayers were of the same mind at the time. Why pay for security for people who didn’t live in the UK and didn’t contribute to the royal family?

2. It’s unclear to me how much truly private money the royal family has. People seem to have the impression they could simply pay for security for Harry and Meghan. Their normal security is done through the government. How much money do they have that is outside the Sovereign Grant (which the UK taxpayers give them)? What can they do with that money?

Before we decide that Harry and Meghan were unfairly deprived of security, we need an understanding of what latitude the royal family actually has with the money they have.

Harry and Meghan are wealthy private citizens who can pay for their own security if they deem it necessary. Why on earth should this be on the taxpayer's dime, or even the family?

I totally agree with you. My point is that I think a lot of people assume the royal family has a ton of private money they can use as they wish. I don’t think that’s really true. They are ultimately government officials (of a sort).

I think the Queen has a Duchy, from which she earns some private money. That’s the only thing she pays taxes on, so I think it’s the only money she “earns.” The rest comes from the Sovereign Grant, which is UK taxpayer money.

You won't get a clear picture because they use a series of cut outs like any mob family. But the Sovereign grant is the very least of their wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh no Harry's father cut him off financially at age 36!

William is 38 and his wife gets a clothing allowance from his dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m of the impression that their private wealth is massive, but they squirrel it away. They choose to instead use the Sovereign Grant as much as possible so that the public feels it’s getting some value by keeping them around. Oh, and so they can keep squirreling away the private funds. I have no basis for those opinions though.

The Queen is estimated to be worth about $300-500 million on her own, although that figure hasn’t been confirmed by the palace.

It’s worth noting that this is a small percentage of the estimated worth of the royal family as a whole, which is in the billions. But that includes state assets that they do not own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a few things we need to clear up, when it comes to the security issue (clearly a focus of the interview):

1. The Canadian Government was providing security through March 2020, as was typical practice. It was thought that Harry and Meghan were on an extended holiday and the Canadian Government had an agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department (London).

That ended in March, when Harry and Meghan said they were no longer going to be working royals, because the Canadian Government said they no longer had an obligation to have their taxpayers pay for security for what amounted to private citizens. The UK taxpayers were of the same mind at the time. Why pay for security for people who didn’t live in the UK and didn’t contribute to the royal family?

2. It’s unclear to me how much truly private money the royal family has. People seem to have the impression they could simply pay for security for Harry and Meghan. Their normal security is done through the government. How much money do they have that is outside the Sovereign Grant (which the UK taxpayers give them)? What can they do with that money?

Before we decide that Harry and Meghan were unfairly deprived of security, we need an understanding of what latitude the royal family actually has with the money they have.

Harry and Meghan are wealthy private citizens who can pay for their own security if they deem it necessary. Why on earth should this be on the taxpayer's dime, or even the family?

Harry inherited 15 million from his mom. Most of his money was coming from his father and from the tax payers. They aren't wealthy private citizens. Tyler Perry provided their security cost for the first few months they were in the US.

It's also a different level of security. Needing security to protect you from crazy people and paparazzi is one thing. Needing protection from another foreign governments and terrorist is another thing. I'm sure their security costs are not cheap. The royal family has a lot of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there’s a few things we need to clear up, when it comes to the security issue (clearly a focus of the interview):

1. The Canadian Government was providing security through March 2020, as was typical practice. It was thought that Harry and Meghan were on an extended holiday and the Canadian Government had an agreement with the Metropolitan Police Department (London).

That ended in March, when Harry and Meghan said they were no longer going to be working royals, because the Canadian Government said they no longer had an obligation to have their taxpayers pay for security for what amounted to private citizens. The UK taxpayers were of the same mind at the time. Why pay for security for people who didn’t live in the UK and didn’t contribute to the royal family?

2. It’s unclear to me how much truly private money the royal family has. People seem to have the impression they could simply pay for security for Harry and Meghan. Their normal security is done through the government. How much money do they have that is outside the Sovereign Grant (which the UK taxpayers give them)? What can they do with that money?

Before we decide that Harry and Meghan were unfairly deprived of security, we need an understanding of what latitude the royal family actually has with the money they have.

Harry and Meghan are wealthy private citizens who can pay for their own security if they deem it necessary. Why on earth should this be on the taxpayer's dime, or even the family?

I totally agree with you. My point is that I think a lot of people assume the royal family has a ton of private money they can use as they wish. I don’t think that’s really true. They are ultimately government officials (of a sort).

I think the Queen has a Duchy, from which she earns some private money. That’s the only thing she pays taxes on, so I think it’s the only money she “earns.” The rest comes from the Sovereign Grant, which is UK taxpayer money.

You won't get a clear picture because they use a series of cut outs like any mob family. But the Sovereign grant is the very least of their wealth.

You sound so ignorant. They don’t own the Sovereign Grant. That’s not their money.

[Anonymous]

IF they divorce someday, it will make Brad/Angelina look friendly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s worth noting that Meghan opened the interview by telling Oprah Winfrey she hadn’t researched the royal family at all prior to joining it. By about 40 minutes into the program, she was casually referring to the letters patent of George V.

I suspect she learned all about that in the discussion with the BRF about titles, security, etc. Of course she knows a lot more now than she did.