Meghan and Prince Harry are moving to the U.S./Canada - OFFICIAL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh for Pete's sake. The Queen could revoke the titles and publicly disown them and yet the Sussexes would do just fine. They are sitting on a goldmine.

I feel like people here don't really understand how influencer and Hollywood money works.

They aren't fine now (they are people in crisis acting on impulse). They won't be fine without the titles.

Who exactly is the target market of a failed royal, pushing 40, whose best days are behind her? I'm not sure who they think they can influence now that the coach has turned back into a pumpkin.

DP, but not to mention, do you not remember how fickle Hollywood is? Think of all the stars that once were popular and now have faded in to oblivion. Of course they will be a novelty for a bit and then their star will fade too. They will still have some money, but it will not be anywhere near what it once was and they are clearly banking on being able to match or exceed what they currently have.

Maybe. But better to try and make some money then to be begging for an apartment or a wedding in ten years like their other relatives have to do.

[Anonymous]

*than

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh for Pete's sake. The Queen could revoke the titles and publicly disown them and yet the Sussexes would do just fine. They are sitting on a goldmine.

I feel like people here don't really understand how influencer and Hollywood money works.

They aren't fine now (they are people in crisis acting on impulse). They won't be fine without the titles.

Who exactly is the target market of a failed royal, pushing 40, whose best days are behind her? I'm not sure who they think they can influence now that the coach has turned back into a pumpkin.

How exactly does one “fail” as a royal? It’s not a meritocratic system.

Fail = living in exile, in this instance self-imposed.

They're unpatronaging, bowing out. Unroyaling themselves. Failures as royals.

If they wanted to go make their lives in private, that would be one thing. But this is not an auspicious way to about doing that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will two unemployed people become Canadian citizens

Do you need to be a citizen for say, to own a summer house, in the Canadian Rockies?

If so, MM would hold 3 passports - US, UK, and Canada? Of hate to be her tax accountant.

No. As a member of the royal family she has access as Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth. they can live there as they please.

Also they are asking for tax-payer funded security when they travel. So they are not cutting the strings entirely.

I suspect there are a lot of details that need to be thrashed out.

Prince Charles has privately owned a house in Romania for years. The royals are making this far more difficult than it seems.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/romania/articles/Prince-Charles-of-Transylvania/

https://travelmakertours.com/why-prince-charles-considers-transylvania-his-second-home/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh for Pete's sake. The Queen could revoke the titles and publicly disown them and yet the Sussexes would do just fine. They are sitting on a goldmine.

I feel like people here don't really understand how influencer and Hollywood money works.

They aren't fine now (they are people in crisis acting on impulse). They won't be fine without the titles.

Who exactly is the target market of a failed royal, pushing 40, whose best days are behind her? I'm not sure who they think they can influence now that the coach has turned back into a pumpkin.

DP, but not to mention, do you not remember how fickle Hollywood is? Think of all the stars that once were popular and now have faded in to oblivion. Of course they will be a novelty for a bit and then their star will fade too. They will still have some money, but it will not be anywhere near what it once was and they are clearly banking on being able to match or exceed what they currently have.

Counterpoint: think of all the talentless hacks with a few good connections who keep getting hired. Including women in their 50s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will two unemployed people become Canadian citizens

Do you need to be a citizen for say, to own a summer house, in the Canadian Rockies?

If so, MM would hold 3 passports - US, UK, and Canada? Of hate to be her tax accountant.

No. As a member of the royal family she has access as Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth. they can live there as they please.

Also they are asking for tax-payer funded security when they travel. So they are not cutting the strings entirely.

I suspect there are a lot of details that need to be thrashed out.

Prince Charles has privately owned a house in Romania for years. The royals are making this far more difficult than it seems.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/romania/articles/Prince-Charles-of-Transylvania/

https://travelmakertours.com/why-prince-charles-considers-transylvania-his-second-home/

He doesn't live there permanently. Unless he has a double in England?

It's not that H&M want to buy houses in Canada and LA and all over. It's that they want to live in them. Not in England.

[Anonymous]

Except they are not. They are a joke; to them financial independence means giving up 5% of the funding they are given. The other 95% is from their father; and that estate is tied to him being the Prince of Wales. Frogmore Cottage was renovated with taxpayer money, so they should be paying that back. Even Harry's trust is his mother's money, and SHE got that from her divorce settlement from Charles.

They are not financially independent whatsoever and have no plans of being so.

That could apply to a lot of people we consider financially independent and even those that say they are self-made: Michael Dell, Elon Musk, Trump and his children - maybe not all of these to the extent of Diana's estate, but no one would call any of those people not financially independent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh for Pete's sake. The Queen could revoke the titles and publicly disown them and yet the Sussexes would do just fine. They are sitting on a goldmine.

I feel like people here don't really understand how influencer and Hollywood money works.

They aren't fine now (they are people in crisis acting on impulse). They won't be fine without the titles.

Who exactly is the target market of a failed royal, pushing 40, whose best days are behind her? I'm not sure who they think they can influence now that the coach has turned back into a pumpkin.

I mean who knows but far less famous celebrities (I.e. Kylie Jenner, Jessica Alba, Jenna Bush, etc) have been able to make a lot of money with less.

Kylie and Jessica had the right people behind them. Interesting fact is that, Brian Lee, the co-founder of the Honest Company with Jessica Alba is also the guy who co-founded Shoedazzle with Kim Kardashian and co-founded LegalZoom with Robert Shapiro. Wouldn't be surprised if he had a hand in Kylie's company, too, given his very close ties to the family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh for Pete's sake. The Queen could revoke the titles and publicly disown them and yet the Sussexes would do just fine. They are sitting on a goldmine.

I feel like people here don't really understand how influencer and Hollywood money works.

They aren't fine now (they are people in crisis acting on impulse). They won't be fine without the titles.

Who exactly is the target market of a failed royal, pushing 40, whose best days are behind her? I'm not sure who they think they can influence now that the coach has turned back into a pumpkin.

How exactly does one “fail” as a royal? It’s not a meritocratic system.

Fail = living in exile, in this instance self-imposed.

They're unpatronaging, bowing out. Unroyaling themselves. Failures as royals.

If they wanted to go make their lives in private, that would be one thing. But this is not an auspicious way to about doing that

There are so many examples:

Edward who abdicated - lived in exile and struggled to keep up the lifestyle to which he was born

Fergie - same

Andrew - enough said

even Beatrice and Eugenie - they WANTED to be working royals, but the public don't really care for them (probably because they aren't attractive) so they are not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She even had Oprah fooled. Oprah did not see the red flags of this personality disorder.

Well, Oprah is not a licensed mental health professional like the biddies on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Except they are not. They are a joke; to them financial independence means giving up 5% of the funding they are given. The other 95% is from their father; and that estate is tied to him being the Prince of Wales. Frogmore Cottage was renovated with taxpayer money, so they should be paying that back. Even Harry's trust is his mother's money, and SHE got that from her divorce settlement from Charles.

They are not financially independent whatsoever and have no plans of being so.

That could apply to a lot of people we consider financially independent and even those that say they are self-made: Michael Dell, Elon Musk, Trump and his children - maybe not all of these to the extent of Diana's estate, but no one would call any of those people not financially independent.

Also when people are called independently wealthy we often mean they have a trust fund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Except they are not. They are a joke; to them financial independence means giving up 5% of the funding they are given. The other 95% is from their father; and that estate is tied to him being the Prince of Wales. Frogmore Cottage was renovated with taxpayer money, so they should be paying that back. Even Harry's trust is his mother's money, and SHE got that from her divorce settlement from Charles.

They are not financially independent whatsoever and have no plans of being so.

That could apply to a lot of people we consider financially independent and even those that say they are self-made: Michael Dell, Elon Musk, Trump and his children - maybe not all of these to the extent of Diana's estate, but no one would call any of those people not financially independent.

None of them are announcing to (great fanfare) about their supposed financial independence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will two unemployed people become Canadian citizens

Do you need to be a citizen for say, to own a summer house, in the Canadian Rockies?

If so, MM would hold 3 passports - US, UK, and Canada? Of hate to be her tax accountant.

No. As a member of the royal family she has access as Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth. they can live there as they please.

Also they are asking for tax-payer funded security when they travel. So they are not cutting the strings entirely.

I suspect there are a lot of details that need to be thrashed out.

Prince Charles has privately owned a house in Romania for years. The royals are making this far more difficult than it seems.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/romania/articles/Prince-Charles-of-Transylvania/

https://travelmakertours.com/why-prince-charles-considers-transylvania-his-second-home/

He doesn't live there permanently. Unless he has a double in England?

It's not that H&M want to buy houses in Canada and LA and all over. It's that they want to live in them. Not in England.

They already said they're splitting their time. You think Charles doesn't stay in that Romania house as about equal time as he does Highgrove...which he's never at?

Honestly I think this is a good thing. The royals should be mobile and on a global circuit. There are 30+ countries in the commonwealth and really they need to be spending MORE time in them.

[Anonymous]

I just don't see the big deal in all of this.

Harry is now 6th in line to the throne. An absolutely catastrophic event would have to happen for him to take the throne. Why shouldn't he and Meghan get to live their own lives?

It'd be different if William hadn't yet had kids and Harry was still 4th in line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except they are not. They are a joke; to them financial independence means giving up 5% of the funding they are given. The other 95% is from their father; and that estate is tied to him being the Prince of Wales. Frogmore Cottage was renovated with taxpayer money, so they should be paying that back. Even Harry's trust is his mother's money, and SHE got that from her divorce settlement from Charles.

They are not financially independent whatsoever and have no plans of being so.

That could apply to a lot of people we consider financially independent and even those that say they are self-made: Michael Dell, Elon Musk, Trump and his children - maybe not all of these to the extent of Diana's estate, but no one would call any of those people not financially independent.

None of them are announcing to (great fanfare) about their supposed financial independence.

And if they didn’t mention the money you’d be screeching “AND ON THE TAXPAYER DIME”