Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d never seen either of them talk before today and don’t follow much of the blow by blow on them (until today).

He seems MUCH more intelligent, reasoned and sane than I expected him to be. She has Hollywood about her, but she’s also clearly a real human.

It was very interesting to hear about the job vs family bits of this.

The punch I really heard him pulling is that the royal family puts up with, even fosters, the tabloid press because if the tabloid press turns on them, there’s no real argument for the BRF in 2021. I respect him for not going all the way to saying this; it would make the whole thing collapse faster if he did.

I predict he lands on top.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In return they work for the family business.

[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 didn’t take from this what you apparently did—she seems like a quick study, as actresses are. She had the George right but the number wrong.

[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.

It’s a lot more complicated than that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

While I don't pretend to have insider knowledge of the BRFs finances, I was responding to the pp that seems to think the family gets its wealth from the Sovereign grant (their salary, basically). That's simply not the case. The family has kept its finances shrouded in mystery and held in places like the Caymans. They are absolutely using methods to hide their money which is exactly why no one knows how much they have.

[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.

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

It’s a lot more complicated than that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall

Important note on the Duchy: that is held in perpetual trust, so the Sovereign does not privately own it.

The only land I’m aware of that the Queen privately owns is Sandringham House and Balmoral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope. They will no longer be referred to as HRH, but they remain the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

While I don't pretend to have insider knowledge of the BRFs finances, I was responding to the pp that seems to think the family gets its wealth from the Sovereign grant (their salary, basically). That's simply not the case. The family has kept its finances shrouded in mystery and held in places like the Caymans. They are absolutely using methods to hide their money which is exactly why no one knows how much they have.

Ok ... what’s your point? The Sovereign Grant isn’t their money. The Duchy of Cornwall is not owned by them. People look at things like Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace and assume the royal family privately owns all of that. They do not.

People simply don’t really understand the very basics of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope. They will no longer be referred to as HRH, but they remain the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

At the end of the interview, Harry said *all* their titles were taken away.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone catch Meg saying “I gave up my career!” But then Harry mentioning his family wanted her to keep acting?

[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.

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

It’s a lot more complicated than that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall

Important note on the Duchy: that is held in perpetual trust, so the Sovereign does not privately own it.

The only land I’m aware of that the Queen privately owns is Sandringham House and Balmoral.

And a lot of the estimates of wealth include the value of priceless art and jewelry, most of which is also “crown” property, not personal property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

While I don't pretend to have insider knowledge of the BRFs finances, I was responding to the pp that seems to think the family gets its wealth from the Sovereign grant (their salary, basically). That's simply not the case. The family has kept its finances shrouded in mystery and held in places like the Caymans. They are absolutely using methods to hide their money which is exactly why no one knows how much they have.

Ok ... what’s your point? The Sovereign Grant isn’t their money. The Duchy of Cornwall is not owned by them. People look at things like Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace and assume the royal family privately owns all of that. They do not.

People simply don’t really understand the very basics of this.

My point is that they are not, as the pp states, hapless public servants who can't afford to extend security to a prince.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In return they work for the family business.

So it’s not about age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

It’s a lot more complicated than that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall

Important note on the Duchy: that is held in perpetual trust, so the Sovereign does not privately own it.

The only land I’m aware of that the Queen privately owns is Sandringham House and Balmoral.

And a lot of the estimates of wealth include the value of priceless art and jewelry, most of which is also “crown” property, not personal property.

Right.

Similarly to the issue of the titles and the security (the latter of which is provided by the Metropolitan Police Department in London, not privately paid for by the royal family), the finances of the royal family is more complicated than people like to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope. They will no longer be referred to as HRH, but they remain the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

At the end of the interview, Harry said *all* their titles were taken away.

Which makes zero sense, since they continue to be referred to as Duke and Duchess by all media outlets, and the BRF.