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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:on the Prince Harry Watch twitter:

"The financial FAQ on the Sussex website is like an adult child telling his parents that by paying for his own phone bill, he's now financially independent .. but he's still living in their house rent-free & is staying on their insurance plan. AND HE'S MADE CHARTS!"

Well, if someone wrote that on Twitter, it must be a good analogy.

I actually think people bash them too much, but i agree with the tweet. Show true financial independence by refunding the cost of re-doing your home, pay for your own security and don't take handouts from daddy. All they need is a good investor and the 24/25 million they already have will go far enough.

No one knows that they aren't already anticipating just that. It feels like so much of this criticism jumps the gun. They made a brief statement with a basic outline of their goal with a promise to explain more as it all gets figured out. All the critics are jumping in with the most damning assumptions, and doing so with such relish (and so many exclamation marks!!!!!). I keep imagining some of these posters as the cheering and jeering crowds at a public hanging in 18th century London.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:on the Prince Harry Watch twitter:

"The financial FAQ on the Sussex website is like an adult child telling his parents that by paying for his own phone bill, he's now financially independent .. but he's still living in their house rent-free & is staying on their insurance plan. AND HE'S MADE CHARTS!"

This tweet is like a woman child who thinks that a horrible analogy is something that the world needs to hear.

I'd take you more seriously if you weren't anonymous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Again, the issue is that they want all of the trappings of royal life ($$ in funding from Prince Charles estate, taxpayer funded Frogmore Cottage, royal protection officers, all the pomp and fawning), without any of the responsibilities.

Good luck with that.

Wow I guess he should just completely abandon his family (only way to end his connection to “royal life” and “pomp”) to make you happy

Unfortunately the reality is funding and funding by the taxpayers. They can't demand or expect funding (including millions in security costs) if they don't perform royal duties. The British government would be well within their rights to raise a ruckus about it.

People on this thread are screeching about their personal views over Harry and Meghan without realizing these two are in a very particular set of circumstances that comes with many rules and it does not make a neat split easy without massive changes to how their life is funded and organized.

I don't see people like Zara abandoning her family because she's not involved in all the pomp.

If Harry and Meghan split their time between the U.K. and Canada as they've said they will, then you won't see them abandoning the family, either.

They also said they would work hard and be part of the team.

[Anonymous]

I think this stems from Meghan having PPD. They just had a nice 6 week holiday in Canada and they realized how nice life out of the bubble is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:on the Prince Harry Watch twitter:

"The financial FAQ on the Sussex website is like an adult child telling his parents that by paying for his own phone bill, he's now financially independent .. but he's still living in their house rent-free & is staying on their insurance plan. AND HE'S MADE CHARTS!"

Well, if someone wrote that on Twitter, it must be a good analogy.

I actually think people bash them too much, but i agree with the tweet. Show true financial independence by refunding the cost of re-doing your home, pay for your own security and don't take handouts from daddy. All they need is a good investor and the 24/25 million they already have will go far enough.

No one knows that they aren't already anticipating just that. It feels like so much of this criticism jumps the gun. They made a brief statement with a basic outline of their goal with a promise to explain more as it all gets figured out. All the critics are jumping in with the most damning assumptions, and doing so with such relish (and so many exclamation marks!!!!!). I keep imagining some of these posters as the cheering and jeering crowds at a public hanging in 18th century London.

Nice try, but their website is quite detailed.

[Anonymous]

All of this faux outrage from the DCUM set where it's standard for grandparents to have: 1) Paid for the wedding 2) Given money for the first house 3) Pay substantially for the grandkids activities and schools.

The only thing I agree with the nutso posts about is that Frogmore should no longer be their residence. If/When they are in the UK they should have to stay at general palace lodging. They shouldn't have to refund anyone for renovations on it, as eventually, it would have had to be renovated for someone. The Queen can now use it as she sees fit.

As far as any income from his father, that's between him and his father. Do you advocate that all children be essentially cut out of their parent's will/life if they don't choose to follow in the family business? Because that's what this is.

If Charles still chooses to fund his son out of his PRIVATE accounts, that's between them. Most aristocratic children don't do anything to "earn" the allowance their families give them, and if you say they do, you're delusional.

Harry and Meghan should not be allowed anything that comes from the public, except security. Which is the same as any former head of state would be entitled to. Otherwise, all of the "Renounce your title! Leave everything!" is just crazy.

[Anonymous]

Why the vague "North America" reference? Are they going to split time between US / Canada / UK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:on the Prince Harry Watch twitter:

"The financial FAQ on the Sussex website is like an adult child telling his parents that by paying for his own phone bill, he's now financially independent .. but he's still living in their house rent-free & is staying on their insurance plan. AND HE'S MADE CHARTS!"

Well, if someone wrote that on Twitter, it must be a good analogy.

I actually think people bash them too much, but i agree with the tweet. Show true financial independence by refunding the cost of re-doing your home, pay for your own security and don't take handouts from daddy. All they need is a good investor and the 24/25 million they already have will go far enough.

No one knows that they aren't already anticipating just that. It feels like so much of this criticism jumps the gun. They made a brief statement with a basic outline of their goal with a promise to explain more as it all gets figured out. All the critics are jumping in with the most damning assumptions, and doing so with such relish (and so many exclamation marks!!!!!). I keep imagining some of these posters as the cheering and jeering crowds at a public hanging in 18th century London.

Nice try, but their website is quite detailed.

Only the part about the sovereign grant. Everything else is vague, and they explicitly state that they have to work out the particulars and will share them in due course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why the vague "North America" reference? Are they going to split time between US / Canada / UK?

I think because they haven't yet worked out a specific agreement with the Canadian government. It sounds like Trudeau's government is doing that now.

[Anonymous]

I mean this with the utmost respect: Why do this now and not wait until Charles is king? It seems needlessly cruel to do to the Queen at her advanced age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of this faux outrage from the DCUM set where it's standard for grandparents to have: 1) Paid for the wedding 2) Given money for the first house 3) Pay substantially for the grandkids activities and schools.

The only thing I agree with the nutso posts about is that Frogmore should no longer be their residence. If/When they are in the UK they should have to stay at general palace lodging. They shouldn't have to refund anyone for renovations on it, as eventually, it would have had to be renovated for someone. The Queen can now use it as she sees fit.

As far as any income from his father, that's between him and his father. Do you advocate that all children be essentially cut out of their parent's will/life if they don't choose to follow in the family business? Because that's what this is.

If Charles still chooses to fund his son out of his PRIVATE accounts, that's between them. Most aristocratic children don't do anything to "earn" the allowance their families give them, and if you say they do, you're delusional.

Harry and Meghan should not be allowed anything that comes from the public, except security. Which is the same as any former head of state would be entitled to. Otherwise, all of the "Renounce your title! Leave everything!" is just crazy.

Charles makes a big fuss about how he uses his dukedom to support his and his family's royal duties. Considering that (at best), Meghan and Harry are walking away from their royal responsibilities and announced to the whole world that they will be financially independent, then this is no longer about him and his father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:on the Prince Harry Watch twitter:

"The financial FAQ on the Sussex website is like an adult child telling his parents that by paying for his own phone bill, he's now financially independent .. but he's still living in their house rent-free & is staying on their insurance plan. AND HE'S MADE CHARTS!"

Well, if someone wrote that on Twitter, it must be a good analogy.

I actually think people bash them too much, but i agree with the tweet. Show true financial independence by refunding the cost of re-doing your home, pay for your own security and don't take handouts from daddy. All they need is a good investor and the 24/25 million they already have will go far enough.

No one knows that they aren't already anticipating just that. It feels like so much of this criticism jumps the gun. They made a brief statement with a basic outline of their goal with a promise to explain more as it all gets figured out. All the critics are jumping in with the most damning assumptions, and doing so with such relish (and so many exclamation marks!!!!!). I keep imagining some of these posters as the cheering and jeering crowds at a public hanging in 18th century London.

Nice try, but their website is quite detailed.

Only the part about the sovereign grant. Everything else is vague, and they explicitly state that they have to work out the particulars and will share them in due course.

Their website explicitly states that they are not giving up the other 95%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of this faux outrage from the DCUM set where it's standard for grandparents to have: 1) Paid for the wedding 2) Given money for the first house 3) Pay substantially for the grandkids activities and schools.

The only thing I agree with the nutso posts about is that Frogmore should no longer be their residence. If/When they are in the UK they should have to stay at general palace lodging. They shouldn't have to refund anyone for renovations on it, as eventually, it would have had to be renovated for someone. The Queen can now use it as she sees fit.

As far as any income from his father, that's between him and his father. Do you advocate that all children be essentially cut out of their parent's will/life if they don't choose to follow in the family business? Because that's what this is.

If Charles still chooses to fund his son out of his PRIVATE accounts, that's between them. Most aristocratic children don't do anything to "earn" the allowance their families give them, and if you say they do, you're delusional.

Harry and Meghan should not be allowed anything that comes from the public, except security. Which is the same as any former head of state would be entitled to. Otherwise, all of the "Renounce your title! Leave everything!" is just crazy.

I think it depends on the particulars-- how much time they spend in the U.K. and how much official royal work they do while they're there.

[Anonymous]

Why are Americans so taken with this? I would like to hear from some British citizens about what it means for England. It does seem like a balsy move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this stems from Meghan having PPD. They just had a nice 6 week holiday in Canada and they realized how nice life out of the bubble is.

They weren’t on holiday; they were meeting with advisors and agents to plot their new business venture.