Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He’s not a prince if he gives up being a working royal. Sorry.

The UK taxpayers pay for the royal family’s security. Are they supposed to pay for security for a non-working, quasi-royal who lives outside the UK?

[Anonymous]

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

Yep...they wanted her to keep acting so she could pay for security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yep...they wanted her to keep acting so she could pay for security.

Because the taxpayers pay for their security.

This is a really important point that no one seems to be mentioning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yep...they wanted her to keep acting so she could pay for security.

Because the taxpayers pay for their security.

This is a really important point that no one seems to be mentioning.

This is while they were still working royals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He’s not a prince if he gives up being a working royal. Sorry.

The UK taxpayers pay for the royal family’s security. Are they supposed to pay for security for a non-working, quasi-royal who lives outside the UK?

Since they are paying for other non-senior royals, yes. He was clear that he wanted to step back and be on the same tier as Andrew's kids, who retain their titles and get security. He was very clear that he was not asking for a special arrangement but rather to be demoted.

[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.

That was not in the February 28 announcement, and was not true as of yesterday. There are rumors that the Queen may do it after this interview, but no official announcement has been made.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a30518980/meghan-markle-prince-harry-new-royal-roles-titles/

[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 saw this point on the NYT live blog. It seems unjustifiably snarky. Of course she knows more now about the BRF than she did before. And what’s the point of mentioning “40 minutes?” To make it seem like it was a short time when you think about the disparity in her knowledge over time, when the described facts relate to years, not minutes elapsed of an interview, which is completely irrelevant to the (supposed) point? To insinuate she is lying about not researching before? What’s the point of describing her referring as “casually”? Should she be stumbling over something as complex as royal history? Is the commentator implying again that she was lying about not having done research? Reads like ingrained bias and judgment to me. Blech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He’s not a prince if he gives up being a working royal. Sorry.

The UK taxpayers pay for the royal family’s security. Are they supposed to pay for security for a non-working, quasi-royal who lives outside the UK?

Since they are paying for other non-senior royals, yes. He was clear that he wanted to step back and be on the same tier as Andrew's kids, who retain their titles and get security. He was very clear that he was not asking for a special arrangement but rather to be demoted.

They are all working royals. Very different than what Harry and Meghan did.

They did not renounce their status as working royals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That was not in the February 28 announcement, and was not true as of yesterday. There are rumors that the Queen may do it after this interview, but no official announcement has been made.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a30518980/meghan-markle-prince-harry-new-royal-roles-titles/

It was news that was broken in the interview itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yep...they wanted her to keep acting so she could pay for security.

Because the taxpayers pay for their security.

This is a really important point that no one seems to be mentioning.

This is while they were still working royals.

Really the BRF has no defense if any of this is true. They cut Meghan's security while they were working and removed Archie from the line of succession. Look at Andrew- he's a spare and his kids are princesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He’s not a prince if he gives up being a working royal. Sorry.

The UK taxpayers pay for the royal family’s security. Are they supposed to pay for security for a non-working, quasi-royal who lives outside the UK?

Since they are paying for other non-senior royals, yes. He was clear that he wanted to step back and be on the same tier as Andrew's kids, who retain their titles and get security. He was very clear that he was not asking for a special arrangement but rather to be demoted.

They are all working royals. Very different than what Harry and Meghan did.

They did not renounce their status as working royals.

Did you watch the interview?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yep...they wanted her to keep acting so she could pay for security.

Because the taxpayers pay for their security.

This is a really important point that no one seems to be mentioning.

This is while they were still working royals.

Really the BRF has no defense if any of this is true. They cut Meghan's security while they were working and removed Archie from the line of succession. Look at Andrew- he's a spare and his kids are princesses.

Huh? They got security until March 2020.

Andrew’s kids are princesses because he asked for it. Harry could’ve done the same thing as Archie got older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He’s not a prince if he gives up being a working royal. Sorry.

The UK taxpayers pay for the royal family’s security. Are they supposed to pay for security for a non-working, quasi-royal who lives outside the UK?

Since they are paying for other non-senior royals, yes. He was clear that he wanted to step back and be on the same tier as Andrew's kids, who retain their titles and get security. He was very clear that he was not asking for a special arrangement but rather to be demoted.

They are all working royals. Very different than what Harry and Meghan did.

They did not renounce their status as working royals.

Did you watch the interview?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

There's a reason the royals don't speak to the press

If the royals are going to respond to every sensational story in the British tabloids, they'd have no other time to do anything else.

Its difficult, but it you are a royal - and this goes for all the Royal families - you have to stay silent.

One of the reasons you have to stay silent is because once you respond to a story, any other story you don't respond to will be assumed to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He’s not a prince if he gives up being a working royal. Sorry.

The UK taxpayers pay for the royal family’s security. Are they supposed to pay for security for a non-working, quasi-royal who lives outside the UK?

Since they are paying for other non-senior royals, yes. He was clear that he wanted to step back and be on the same tier as Andrew's kids, who retain their titles and get security. He was very clear that he was not asking for a special arrangement but rather to be demoted.

His problem was that he didn’t ask for anything. He just made an announcement and assumed he’d get what he wanted. In any case, the Princesses only get police protection if they are attending an official event. Andrew allegedly pitched a fit about it, but was told no. Only full-time “working” royals get full time protection officers. You’re either in or out, no in-between. Harry would have been told that, if he’d asked. He didn’t, and got himself out on a limb. And now he’s sawed it off.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/why-princess-eugenie-and-princess-beatrice-no-longer-have-24-hour-police-protection.html/

Back in 2011, it was reported that it was costing over 500,000 British pounds to give Beatrice and Eugenie 24-hour police watch. They were then stripped of this and only receive police protection if they’re attending a royal event.