Love that Meghan and Harry have used their FU money to say FU!

[OtherJen]

Didn't Harry do some real work when he was in the army? I had the impression that he liked it there, being one of the boys.

Yes, I think he did very well there and was well-liked. It was presumably nice being just Harry and not PRINCE Harry.

I must admit I haven't read much of the stuff that was written about Meghan because I barely touch the news, but I wonder if she wouldn't have got the same vitriol if she had been white just because she's foreign. American, French, whatever, I can imagine people taking against her for not being English even if she was a white Westerner. Hard to speculate on what might have been, of course.

There would have been some of that—some people were bitching about her being too American because the Sussex Royal Instagram put out a "Happy Thanksgiving" post last November. But if she were white, I can guarantee that the press wouldn't have compared her newborn child to an ape.

[Giro]

None of us can really even fathom what it must be like.  They seem genuinely in love and I think these recent actions prove that even more.  And I don't agree that they want their cake and eat it too.  I think the fact that Harry was born into royalty makes it difficult to just cut ties.  I mean, it's not HIS fault that they need 24 hour security.  They can't just walk away.  There is no where in the world they could go without being recognized.  And that comes with expenses just to remain safe.  They have a baby to think about as well. 

I wish them the best of luck.  Every deserves a chance to make their own way and choose their own life. 

[shelivesthedream]

Didn't Harry do some real work when he was in the army? I had the impression that he liked it there, being one of the boys.

Yes, I think he did very well there and was well-liked. It was presumably nice being just Harry and not PRINCE Harry.

I must admit I haven't read much of the stuff that was written about Meghan because I barely touch the news, but I wonder if she wouldn't have got the same vitriol if she had been white just because she's foreign. American, French, whatever, I can imagine people taking against her for not being English even if she was a white Westerner. Hard to speculate on what might have been, of course.

There would have been some of that—some people were bitching about her being too American because the Sussex Royal Instagram put out a "Happy Thanksgiving" post last November. But if she were white, I can guarantee that the press wouldn't have compared her newborn child to an ape.

Obviously not, but perhaps they might have made some equally horrendous attack.

[DragonSlayer]

If they want to step back from public royal duties, that's fine, and I applaud them for trying to create a healthier environment for Archie and any future siblings of his. There is plenty of precedent for that--Princess Anne and Prince Edward, for instance. But they seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too--they won't fulfill royal duties, but they'll trademark the name "Sussex Royal." If they were planning to live on the proceeds from Markle's $5M, I'd be more impressed.

That's my problem with the whole thing. You want out? Great. You do you. But be either out or in. You can't have it both ways.

It bugs me that they trademarked their titles (on the sly, seemingly so they'd still have the use if the Queen stripped them of their titles) for everything from educational materials to merch. If you want out of the royal biz, I don't think it's fair (or ethical) to then trade on that name to make yourself "financially independent." That's having it both ways, not to mention trading on something that was a gift from the Queen... who you are no longer working for.

I'm also not so sure about them continuing to take Charles's money. You give up the sovereign grant, but still take money from dad's Duchy of Cornwall? Again, either in or out, can't have it both ways. Set a timetable and say that after that they will take no money from dad, granny, etc. Become truly self-sufficient, not just sort of self-sufficient. If they want out, they need to find a way to not burden the taxpayers with their security, either. Plenty of celebs foot their own security bills, so since it seems they're wanting to follow the Clooney mold, pay for your own security and don't sponge off the taxpayers.

There's going your own way and finding the life you want to live, but right now it seems like these two want the best of both the royal and the celebrity worlds and you don't just get to pick and choose like that. At least not when public money is involved.

[Plina]

Didn't Harry do some real work when he was in the army? I had the impression that he liked it there, being one of the boys.

Yes, I think he did very well there and was well-liked. It was presumably nice being just Harry and not PRINCE Harry.

I must admit I haven't read much of the stuff that was written about Meghan because I barely touch the news, but I wonder if she wouldn't have got the same vitriol if she had been white just because she's foreign. American, French, whatever, I can imagine people taking against her for not being English even if she was a white Westerner. Hard to speculate on what might have been, of course.

There would have been some of that—some people were bitching about her being too American because the Sussex Royal Instagram put out a "Happy Thanksgiving" post last November. But if she were white, I can guarantee that the press wouldn't have compared her newborn child to an ape.

When they have made the papers here in Sweden it has been when they have taken a stand about environmental issues, like limiting amount of kids, equality or women rights. Taking a stand or pushing those issues always draw out the haters and racists. Here the royals, dont generally make statements in political issues as I have read have been the case here.

[Dicey]

They're a total irrelevance and have nothing to do with FIRE or FU.

You could say that about anyone you don't know. Their own lives are as personal and relevant as yours is to you.

And if you don't think that was a giant FU...

[shelivesthedream]

This is why we keep the royal family around really: https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/05/04/prince-philip-66-gaffes/

When they have made the papers here in Sweden it has been when they have taken a stand about environmental issues, like limiting amount of kids, equality or women rights. Taking a stand or pushing those issues always draw out the haters and racists. Here the royals, dont generally make statements in political issues as I have read have been the case here.

The closer you are in line to the throne, the more you toe the line and are uncontroversial (in public). Prince Charles has raised a lot of eyebrows by taking an interest in land use and town planning as heir to the throne. Harry doesn't stand a chance of ever being king unless there is a MAJOR disaster, so he can let loose a bit more - and I think he has more as William got married and had more children!

I don't love Harry's statements about environmental issues, though, because I do think they're a bit hypocritical. I mean, come on, he flies more in a year than I probably will in my lifetime. It's tough, though, to reconcile personal beliefs with the pressures of "the firm", so it'll be interesting to see what he does now he's "left". And I probably am more of a hardline crank than the people he's hoping to get through to. Points to him for using his celebrity to try to help, I guess.

[partgypsy]

Didn't Harry do some real work when he was in the army? I had the impression that he liked it there, being one of the boys.

Yes, I think he did very well there and was well-liked. It was presumably nice being just Harry and not PRINCE Harry.

I must admit I haven't read much of the stuff that was written about Meghan because I barely touch the news, but I wonder if she wouldn't have got the same vitriol if she had been white just because she's foreign. American, French, whatever, I can imagine people taking against her for not being English even if she was a white Westerner. Hard to speculate on what might have been, of course.

I think it's both. That she is a "commoner" and not one of us. But there were also many explicitly racist attacks as well, comparing her son to a chimpanzee, referencing "mixed breeds" etc. And that royal wearing a Blackamoor brooch where she was attending, I find it hard to believe that was "unintentional".

[DadJokes]

If they want to step back from public royal duties, that's fine, and I applaud them for trying to create a healthier environment for Archie and any future siblings of his. There is plenty of precedent for that--Princess Anne and Prince Edward, for instance. But they seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too--they won't fulfill royal duties, but they'll trademark the name "Sussex Royal." If they were planning to live on the proceeds from Markle's $5M, I'd be more impressed.

Isn't Sussex Royal the name of their charity? Why is trademarking that name a bad thing?

[OtherJen]

If they want to step back from public royal duties, that's fine, and I applaud them for trying to create a healthier environment for Archie and any future siblings of his. There is plenty of precedent for that--Princess Anne and Prince Edward, for instance. But they seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too--they won't fulfill royal duties, but they'll trademark the name "Sussex Royal." If they were planning to live on the proceeds from Markle's $5M, I'd be more impressed.

Isn't Sussex Royal the name of their charity? Why is trademarking that name a bad thing?

Yes. Apparently Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and Princess Anne also hold trademarks for their names and organizations.

[Bernard]

I had no idea that there are so many fans of Jerry Springer, the Kardashians, the Royal Family, and Britain's Got Talent.
I personally don't give a hoot what so-called celebrities do and what they spend their money on . . .

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

It's coming out now in the press that there was no 'blindside' element to this. It's been in discussion in the royal family for months. Harry has been trying to get a meeting with the Queen but she turned him down. Well, seems they got tired of their desires being managed into non-existence and took actual steps. Only to be faced with rubbish from the palace about being shocked, hurt and disappointed. I think the royal family is a truly toxic nightmare, myself.

Anyway, they have money. Why do they need Daddy's? I suspect they'll be cutting as many ties as they can and really actually going their own way. I'm kind of hoping that the pair of them create something that overshadows the old establishment bullshit of the palace and actually gets things done. Sidelined for a slimmed down monarchy? Take that, monarchy!

[mathlete]

I had no idea that there are so many fans of Jerry Springer, the Kardashians, the Royal Family, and Britain's Got Talent.
I personally don't give a hoot what so-called celebrities do and what they spend their money on . . .

It must be exhausting being so much better than everyone else ;)

[BradminOxt19]

I read that their cottage (which was gifted to them) was just renovated with tax payer funds of $2.5 million.   If they truly have FU money then they should pay that back to the tax payers (and give back the cottage as well), otherwise I don't think this thread is entirely accurate that they have FU money.

How do you say FU when you keep tax payer funded property and millions in renovations?   I'd say that's hardly a FU.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I read that their cottage (which was gifted to them) was just renovated with tax payer funds of $2.5 million.   If they truly have FU money then they should pay that back to the tax payers (and give back the cottage as well), otherwise I don't think this thread is entirely accurate that they have FU money.

How do you say FU when you keep tax payer funded property and millions in renovations?   I'd say that's hardly a FU.

Wrong. The cottage belongs to the crown and needed renovating anyway. It's the queen's responsibility to maintain all the crown property. Harry and Meghan actually paid for all the fixtures and fittings they chose themselves. They've been granted permission to live there indefinitely but that can be revoked at any time by the queen. Sounds like a shit deal to me.

[BradminOxt19]

I read that their cottage (which was gifted to them) was just renovated with tax payer funds of $2.5 million.   If they truly have FU money then they should pay that back to the tax payers (and give back the cottage as well), otherwise I don't think this thread is entirely accurate that they have FU money.

How do you say FU when you keep tax payer funded property and millions in renovations?   I'd say that's hardly a FU.

Wrong. The cottage belongs to the crown and needed renovating anyway. It's the queen's responsibility to maintain all the crown property. Harry and Meghan actually paid for all the fixtures and fittings they chose themselves. They've been granted permission to live there indefinitely but that can be revoked at any time by the queen. Sounds like a shit deal to me.

I was wrong, the renovations cost tax payers $3m https://www.insider.com/harry-meghan-markle-3m-frogmore-cottage-taxpayer-then-quit-2020-1

The point of this is, this thread celebrates Harry and Meghan saying FU with their own FU money.  Sorry, but it is not FU to keep a cottage owned by taxpayers (who pay for the Royals) with a $3m renovation.

Paying for fixtures and fittings? A pittance compared to the entire renovation cost.

If they want to renounce all royal duties, then give back the cottage and live elsewhere.  Otherwise it is hypocrisy to declare they said FU to anyone, except the tax payers.

Imagine if Trump decided to quit the presidency but keep the White House as his own house... yeah, that's definitely a FU to the tax payers.

[LonerMatt]

Man there are a lot of mean and bitter people here 'you're either in or you're out' - if I work somewhere and decide to quit but hold stock in that company I have it both ways. Most people have a version of that.

I think conversations like this are why they want to leave, who the fuck wants 10000x random bros commenting on how shit you are no matter what you do?

[mm1970]

I read that their cottage (which was gifted to them) was just renovated with tax payer funds of $2.5 million.   If they truly have FU money then they should pay that back to the tax payers (and give back the cottage as well), otherwise I don't think this thread is entirely accurate that they have FU money.

How do you say FU when you keep tax payer funded property and millions in renovations?   I'd say that's hardly a FU.

Wrong. The cottage belongs to the crown and needed renovating anyway. It's the queen's responsibility to maintain all the crown property. Harry and Meghan actually paid for all the fixtures and fittings they chose themselves. They've been granted permission to live there indefinitely but that can be revoked at any time by the queen. Sounds like a shit deal to me.

I was wrong, the renovations cost tax payers $3m https://www.insider.com/harry-meghan-markle-3m-frogmore-cottage-taxpayer-then-quit-2020-1

The point of this is, this thread celebrates Harry and Meghan saying FU with their own FU money.  Sorry, but it is not FU to keep a cottage owned by taxpayers (who pay for the Royals) with a $3m renovation.

Paying for fixtures and fittings? A pittance compared to the entire renovation cost.

If they want to renounce all royal duties, then give back the cottage and live elsewhere.  Otherwise it is hypocrisy to declare they said FU to anyone, except the tax payers.

Imagine if Trump decided to quit the presidency but keep the White House as his own house... yeah, that's definitely a FU to the tax payers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogmore_Cottage

"In 2019, the house was converted into a 4-bedroom & nursery, single-family home, at a reported cost from the Sovereign Grant of Ł2.4 million "of taxpayer-funded costs, royal accounts show", according to a BBC report.[12][13] There was some criticism at this use of public money,[14] however, as a property of a royal palace of state and designated heritage site, Frogmore Cottage was always scheduled to be renovated, regardless of occupant.[15] "

It's nothing like the Trump/ White House.  Trump doesn't own the white house, his family doesn't own the White House.  The National Park Service owns the White House.

They don't own the cottage either HOWEVER it is owned by the crown (aka, the family).  They want to still consider it their home, fine, but the crown can refuse to allow them to stay if they see fit.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I read that their cottage (which was gifted to them) was just renovated with tax payer funds of $2.5 million.   If they truly have FU money then they should pay that back to the tax payers (and give back the cottage as well), otherwise I don't think this thread is entirely accurate that they have FU money.

How do you say FU when you keep tax payer funded property and millions in renovations?   I'd say that's hardly a FU.

Wrong. The cottage belongs to the crown and needed renovating anyway. It's the queen's responsibility to maintain all the crown property. Harry and Meghan actually paid for all the fixtures and fittings they chose themselves. They've been granted permission to live there indefinitely but that can be revoked at any time by the queen. Sounds like a shit deal to me.

I was wrong, the renovations cost tax payers $3m https://www.insider.com/harry-meghan-markle-3m-frogmore-cottage-taxpayer-then-quit-2020-1

The point of this is, this thread celebrates Harry and Meghan saying FU with their own FU money.  Sorry, but it is not FU to keep a cottage owned by taxpayers (who pay for the Royals) with a $3m renovation.

Paying for fixtures and fittings? A pittance compared to the entire renovation cost.

If they want to renounce all royal duties, then give back the cottage and live elsewhere.  Otherwise it is hypocrisy to declare they said FU to anyone, except the tax payers.

Imagine if Trump decided to quit the presidency but keep the White House as his own house... yeah, that's definitely a FU to the tax payers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogmore_Cottage

"In 2019, the house was converted into a 4-bedroom & nursery, single-family home, at a reported cost from the Sovereign Grant of Ł2.4 million "of taxpayer-funded costs, royal accounts show", according to a BBC report.[12][13] There was some criticism at this use of public money,[14] however, as a property of a royal palace of state and designated heritage site, Frogmore Cottage was always scheduled to be renovated, regardless of occupant.[15] "

It's nothing like the Trump/ White House.  Trump doesn't own the white house, his family doesn't own the White House.  The National Park Service owns the White House.

They don't own the cottage either HOWEVER it is owned by the crown (aka, the family).  They want to still consider it their home, fine, but the crown can refuse to allow them to stay if they see fit.

The other thing about Frogmore Cottage is that it's actually not that big or fancy. It's not a palace or a castle. The reason it cost so much to renovate is because it's heritage listed, and because it had been so frickin long from the last renovation that the place had to be rewired!. I don't know what people think, but there are way fancier McMansions! I've seen a dozen sites that talk about Frogmore Cottage but actually show pictures of Frogmore House. The Cottage is just a little building in the grounds of Frogmore House.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Man there are a lot of mean and bitter people here 'you're either in or you're out' - if I work somewhere and decide to quit but hold stock in that company I have it both ways. Most people have a version of that.

I think conversations like this are why they want to leave, who the fuck wants 10000x random bros commenting on how shit you are no matter what you do?

Have to say, I'm finding this whole saga quite personally inspirational. They're looking at a MAJOR change and I hope they pull it off. And if/when they do, I think everyone will forget all this backlash and agree that it was the only way forward for that little family but also royalty in general. William and Kate and the rest of the royals look like most boring yes-men in comparison.

[shelivesthedream]

I don't think everyone in this thread understands where the Royal family's money comes from. A lot of journalists are deliberately misleading about it. The royal family has massive personal investments and land which they would still own even if they all abdicated, and if the revolution came they'd have a job to take it all off them in any legal way. IIRC, each British taxpayer pays around Ł1/yr to the royal family which largely goes on maintaining the many historic buildings they are responsible for.

[libertarian4321]

I find the British Royals to generally be a ridiculous anachronism. 

Lets face it, if forced to live by their own wits, most of those in-bred fools would struggle to reach a management position in the pet department at Walmart (or perhaps Tesco, to make it look more British).

So I love watching Harry and Meghan cause a row. 

Harry probably can't wipe himself without the help of a footman, put Meghan is a real functioning person who was doing fine before meeting Harry, so I'm sure they'll do fine.

I just wish they could have had cameras in the room when the old bat, er Queen, heard the news.  Would have been compelling reality TV...

[MissMoneyBags]

This is not a FU in the mustachian sense. This is the equivalent of saying to your employer: I'm taking a 5 percent pay cut. I'm also going to redefine my job according to what I want, and cut back on my hours to concentrate on my family. I'm going to move to another continent, but I'm keeping the house you've just paid Ł2.4 million to renovate. And the doubling of security expenses incurred in me moving abroad, is your problem. Oh, and I just announced this on Instagram instead of talking to you....

Most mere mortals wouldn't have a job after treating their boss, never mind their grandmother, like that...

I do have enormous sympathy for their situation - I wouldn't give up my privacy or freedom for anything. In this case they seem to want to have their cake and eat it, though... they want the prestige and 95% of the financial reward of being a royal, yet they want to control what their job involves, and how it's perceived in the press.. It doesn't work like that. Worst of all, they seem to want to cash in on their royal connections, which is downright distasteful..

They've had a hard time in the British press, but some of the criticism has been merited, I.e the private planes, while preaching about climate change, the shoddy treatment of her family, and lately the way they used a documentary about underprivileged children in Africa to moan about their lives. I haven't seen anything racist in the British press, but it's possible that she got a harder time due to her race. I doubt it though... the press has been just as harsh about every other member of the royal family at some point in the past. What usually happens though, is that the royal in question knuckles down and gets on with the job..

[partgypsy]

That might be the way it works. They actually have a lot of leverage and may be able to have their cake and eat it too. Like I explained before Harry and his brother would be rich dudes even with no titles. They come from an incredibly rich family. I guess we'll see. But I bet they are going to get most of what they are aiming for.

Btw the person who said Harry couldn't even wipe his butt, I'm assuming you are joking?  He's had to live a rigorous structured life since he was born. In addition to a very busy schedule of "public" work, charity work etc required for his role, he served in the military, went through same training as everyone else. He's served as an Apache helicopter pilot and commander.

[Mighty Eyebrows]

From the people themselves:

https://sussexroyal.com/funding/

Seems to clear up a lot of trash talk, here and elsewhere.

I am not a Royal-Watcher, but I think they are brave for stepping out of the roles.

[MissMoneyBags]

From the people themselves:

https://sussexroyal.com/funding/

Seems to clear up a lot of trash talk, here and elsewhere.

I am not a Royal-Watcher, but I think they are brave for stepping out of the roles.

I've already seen that page, and I don't think it clears up much. They've relinquished the sovereign grant, but they still want to receive funding from Prince Charles/Duchy of Cornwall (which is 95 per cent of their current income- roughly Ł2.5 mill), and their security (which will increase significantly as they've decided to move abroad) will be paid for by the British tax payer. The costs of the royal family's security is a secret by the way, but it's rumoured to run in the hundreds of millions.

So they're not exactly financially independent, nor are they going to be, unless they start earning serious cash. They may be incredibly wealthy, but their living costs are most likely astronomical. I'd have a lot more respect for them, if they relinquished all titles and privileges, and lived off their own wealth. As far as I can tell from their statements, that's not the plan.

But you're absolutely right - what they're doing is brave.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I don't see why they can't be financially independent. They don't spend more than your average A lister with round the clock security, and they have at least that ability to earn large amounts of money. I think they'll be just fine.

[MissMoneyBags]

I don't see why they can't be financially independent. They don't spend more than your average A lister with round the clock security, and they have at least that ability to earn large amounts of money. I think they'll be just fine.

The only way they're going to be earning large amounts of money, is by leveraging their royal titles  and connections. Hence the trademarking of the sussexroyal brand.

That may seem a normal thing to do in America, but in the UK, where the taxpayers have already shelled out millions to fund their lifestyle, it won't go down well. They only have those titles and connections because of who Harry's grandmother is..

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I don't see why they can't be financially independent. They don't spend more than your average A lister with round the clock security, and they have at least that ability to earn large amounts of money. I think they'll be just fine.

The only way they're going to be earning large amounts of money, is by leveraging their royal titles  and connections. Hence the trademarking of the sussexroyal brand.

That may seem a normal thing to do in America, but in the UK, where the taxpayers have already shelled out millions to fund their lifestyle, it won't go down well. They only have those titles and connections because of who Harry's grandmother is..

That doesn't make sense. Are the taxpayers annoyed they've paid for the lifestyle of a guy who had no say in being born into it? Or are they annoyed they potentially no longer have to?

[Plina]

I can’t talk about the UK but coming from a country with a royal family I would not compare them to a normal a-lister. I would say that their role is to be a symbol of the state, to represent the country without all the politics and to carry on the historical heritage in form of Castles etc.

The taxpayes pay the Bill for maintaining the castles and their representation in exchange for this job. If you don’t like the deal you can of course step down and that is ok but then as a taxpayer I would expect them to pay their own bills in total as well as paying their own housing. It would also be expected that you don’t use your title to make money from as it was given to you as part of the deal that you do your duty as the royal family. You can use it for charitable ventures but anything else would be seen as breaking the deal. One of our princesses has stepped down and that is ok. She has kept her title but is not as far as I know taking any money from the state. She is taking part in some offical family things. The norwegian princess has gotten a lot of critism for using her title to sell lectures and books, which I have understod has somewhat reigned in by the king.

I would say it is a crappy deal to be royal these days and I understand if people want out. From a taxpayer view I would say that either you are in with the privilegiers that comes with it or you are out without them. The royal family in our country still exists because they have the support of the people. Our current crown princess is very popular and I would say a major factor of the popularity of the royal family and a contributor to their existence. Today it would be political suicide to push for a republic but that is something that could change pretty fast. That is the one of the reasons they went out with an announcement last year of who would be belong to the royal family that represents the country and therefore would be supporter by taxpayer money. Because of the growing amount of grandchildren of the king, the discussion started of who would be supported by taxpayer money and the royal family prefered to limit the beneficiaries themselves instead of it resulting in a discussion in the parlament.

If you are from a country without a royal family it might seem to be a question of just opting out but it is not that simple.

[MissMoneyBags]

I don't see why they can't be financially independent. They don't spend more than your average A lister with round the clock security, and they have at least that ability to earn large amounts of money. I think they'll be just fine.

The only way they're going to be earning large amounts of money, is by leveraging their royal titles  and connections. Hence the trademarking of the sussexroyal brand.

That may seem a normal thing to do in America, but in the UK, where the taxpayers have already shelled out millions to fund their lifestyle, it won't go down well. They only have those titles and connections because of who Harry's grandmother is..

That doesn't make sense. Are the taxpayers annoyed they've paid for the lifestyle of a guy who had no say in being born into it? Or are they annoyed they potentially no longer have to?

I'm not sure you're getting the point - the UK tax payer will still be funding Meghan and Harry, but the royal couple  don't want to neither live here, nor do the work of a royal. On top of that they want to cash in on the titles given to them by the queen. Those titles come with huge privileges, but also huge restraints and responsibilities.

 It's absolutely fine if they don't want to be part of the royal family, but they must forfeit the priviliges and become financially independent without trading on the royal title. From what I can read on their website, that's not their plan.. They want to keep the privileges, get rid of the boring duties, and cash in...

[Noodle]

It's an interesting story, that's for sure. I tend to think that Harry and Meghan ran up against the dual inclinations of "suck it up and deal" and "this too shall pass" within the royal family. From what I know about royal history, the Queen is particularly touchy on the first because her whole line got stuck with Buckingham Palace after her uncle decided to abdicate rather than fight it out over (or rule without) Wallis Simpson. (Although Wallis may have done Britain a favor given that Edward was WAAAAY too sympathetic to fascism and Nazi Germany.) There is also, unfortunately, a long tradition of royal brides getting trashed by the media, especially during the courtship/early marriage days. Even the Queen Mother was viewed with some skepticism as a member of the aristocracy rather than an actual princess, although it was less of a deal because her husband was not at that time expected to be king. Certainly Diana, Sarah Ferguson, Camilla, and Kate all went through rough times with the press, most of which have now blown over. So the Queen and Charles may have been thinking that in a few more years, especially as attention is diverted by Charles' eventual coronation, and William and his growing family's greater roles, and Meghan no longer being the new and interesting royal, things would calm down of their own right if they could just stall long enough. But I think they were underestimating that Meghan, as an older and more confident person, is less willing to let the Palace dictate her life, that the intersection of race/being an American/being a television actress was going to inflame the press and public in especially awful ways, and that Harry, after losing his mother specifically due to the press, is not going to put up with it either.

For the record, I think the whole kerfuffle about whose picture was on the Queen's desk during the Christmas speech was probably more about ANDREW than Harry...having just members of the royal family who are the direct line of succession (plus Philip) was a way to avoid reminding the public that Andrew, who is really in disgrace, exists.

It will be interesting to see what the Palace does next--they could certainly withdraw the Sussex title and take away their current residence and the income from the Duchy of Cornwall, all of which are subject to the generosity of the Queen and the Prince of Wales...but the more they take away, the less influence the royal family has down the road, and they are nothing if not playing the long game. I do hope that William and Harry eventually put things right between them. Being in the royal family seems like such a peculiar and high-pressure experience, having people around who get it is a rare thing.

[Mighty Eyebrows]

I'm not sure you're getting the point - the UK tax payer will still be funding Meghan and Harry, but the royal couple  don't want to neither live here, nor do the work of a royal.

I don't know if you really did read their site. The queen gives ALL her income to the state, which gives between 15-25% of it back to fund the buildings and her role as head of state. The taxpayer is not really paying anything. Yes, the police costs are hidden, but I doubt they come to the balance of the income of the entire crown estate.

As for Harry & Meghan, any money from Charles is not taxpayer money. It comes from his own private holdings.

I have no idea why people get so worked up about these symbolic people, either to love them or hate them. They are just humans, who eat, sleep, and brush their teeth. Mostly ignoring them should be part of a healthy low-information diet.

[MissMoneyBags]

I'm not sure you're getting the point - the UK tax payer will still be funding Meghan and Harry, but the royal couple  don't want to neither live here, nor do the work of a royal.

I don't know if you really did read their site. The queen gives ALL her income to the state, which gives between 15-25% of it back to fund the buildings and her role as head of state. The taxpayer is not really paying anything. Yes, the police costs are hidden, but I doubt they come to the balance of the income of the entire crown estate.

As for Harry & Meghan, any money from Charles is not taxpayer money. It comes from his own private holdings.

I have no idea why people get so worked up about these symbolic people, either to love them or hate them. They are just humans, who eat, sleep, and brush their teeth. Mostly ignoring them should be part of a healthy low-information diet.

I did read their site, but funnily enough it doesnt have the full facts. The crown estate is not the private property of the queen, and the revenue from it belongs to the treasury.  Harks back to 1760, so seems convuluted us, but essentially the state owns the crown estate. So actually, the UK tax payer DOES pay the sovereign grant.

Also the duchy of Cornwall is somewhat part of the crown estate, but is set up to pay the expenses for the eldest son of the monarch. So it's actually not his private property either..

[SwordGuy]

If they had applied MMM principles from day 1 of their intent to become married, they could have socked away millions already.   Plus Harry inherited millions already.   Plus Megan had money before, so she may have had a nest egg to build on also.

They could easily be in a position to have an income of $400,000 to $800,000 a year using the 4% rule even if they never get another dime from the UK or family.   Funny how many of y'all just assume they've spent every penny they've ever received and have no investments of their own to live off of.

As for security costs, those are part of the costs of doing business the way the UK government has chosen to do so.    Got Irish people mad enough to kill your leaders?   Pissed off the middle east lately?  Have to pay for lots of security.    Mind you own business internationally and treat your own people well?   The security needs for the Prince of Monaco are probably pretty small.   Those costs are, and should be, paid by the government.   It's the same way we handle security for ex-presidents here in the USA, and for good reason.

[MayDay]

I don't think its fair to say they should be able to fund their security.  It isn't their fault they need security.  Before Megan was involved with Harry, she probably didn't have any.  If they need security because of his family, its reasonable to want that family to provide the security (although it remains to be seen what the final deal is there).

Regarding Frogmore, from what I've read, the Queen is responsible for maintaining the house (and 2.whatever million to restore a heritage listed building doesn't seem wildly out of line) with H&M covering the aesthetics.  I mean it actually sounds like a bad deal for H&M if the Queen can yank it back whenever she wants. 

Bottom line its all speculation at this point, but the tell-all will be interesting to read!

[Mighty Eyebrows]

essentially the state owns the crown estate

If you want to read it that way, then fine. However, I don't agree.

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

"The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Government in exchange for relief from the responsibility to fund the Civil Government."

If a monarch renounced the head of state role, I think the legal status of this would be considerably more complicated than you imply.

[Bloop Bloop]

Man there are a lot of mean and bitter people here 'you're either in or you're out' - if I work somewhere and decide to quit but hold stock in that company I have it both ways. Most people have a version of that.

I think conversations like this are why they want to leave, who the fuck wants 10000x random bros commenting on how shit you are no matter what you do?

If you work somewhere and quit you can hold stock in the company that you earned. Harry hasn't earned his fortune - he's been given it. That's not a personal failing nor something worthy of being attacked over, but it's also not the foundation of "FU money" when the family you're saying "FU" to is the source of your fortune.

[Villanelle]

I'm not sure you're getting the point - the UK tax payer will still be funding Meghan and Harry, but the royal couple  don't want to neither live here, nor do the work of a royal.

I don't know if you really did read their site. The queen gives ALL her income to the state, which gives between 15-25% of it back to fund the buildings and her role as head of state. The taxpayer is not really paying anything. Yes, the police costs are hidden, but I doubt they come to the balance of the income of the entire crown estate.

As for Harry & Meghan, any money from Charles is not taxpayer money. It comes from his own private holdings.

I have no idea why people get so worked up about these symbolic people, either to love them or hate them. They are just humans, who eat, sleep, and brush their teeth. Mostly ignoring them should be part of a healthy low-information diet.

Sure.  But that doesn't make them "financially independent".   I think the tone-deafness of that phrase alone contributed greatly to the fall out.  When you take millions from daddy and benefit from taxpayer money (even if not receiving it directly) and from the generosity of the queen (the cottage, for example, and even the titles when it comes right down to it) you are not what probably 99% of people would call "financially independent".

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I don't see why they can't be financially independent. They don't spend more than your average A lister with round the clock security, and they have at least that ability to earn large amounts of money. I think they'll be just fine.

The only way they're going to be earning large amounts of money, is by leveraging their royal titles  and connections. Hence the trademarking of the sussexroyal brand.

That may seem a normal thing to do in America, but in the UK, where the taxpayers have already shelled out millions to fund their lifestyle, it won't go down well. They only have those titles and connections because of who Harry's grandmother is..

That doesn't make sense. Are the taxpayers annoyed they've paid for the lifestyle of a guy who had no say in being born into it? Or are they annoyed they potentially no longer have to?

I'm not sure you're getting the point - the UK tax payer will still be funding Meghan and Harry, but the royal couple  don't want to neither live here, nor do the work of a royal. On top of that they want to cash in on the titles given to them by the queen. Those titles come with huge privileges, but also huge restraints and responsibilities.

 It's absolutely fine if they don't want to be part of the royal family, but they must forfeit the priviliges and become financially independent without trading on the royal title. From what I can read on their website, that's not their plan.. They want to keep the privileges, get rid of the boring duties, and cash in...

Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie have titles and lives and jobs of their own.  No tax payer funded security either, from what I understand.The way I see it, the title comes from their birth. Whether or not they're paid for being royal by the tax payer has nothing to do with the title. And PB and PE's situation seems to bear that out.

I'm pretty sure that everyone involved in this situation is mostly just pissed to find out that they don't actually own a piece of Harry and Meghan.

A lot of people keep insisting that the tax payer will still be funding them. How? They don't need either money from the sovereign grant or money from Daddy. They don't even need the security team. Their costs go massively down when they're not expected to do public walkabouts, or walk to a particular church on a particular day, or fly to god knows where for the funeral of god knows who or have someone drive them somewhere mainly because it's a breach of protocol to close your own car door...... They even have the money to pay for the cottage renovations if it all comes to that. They can walk out free and clear. And you know what? Take their titles and they're STILL Diana's little boy and his wife. People will still call them the Sussex's and people will still treat them as royalty.

[Villanelle]

I don't see why they can't be financially independent. They don't spend more than your average A lister with round the clock security, and they have at least that ability to earn large amounts of money. I think they'll be just fine.

The only way they're going to be earning large amounts of money, is by leveraging their royal titles  and connections. Hence the trademarking of the sussexroyal brand.

That may seem a normal thing to do in America, but in the UK, where the taxpayers have already shelled out millions to fund their lifestyle, it won't go down well. They only have those titles and connections because of who Harry's grandmother is..

That doesn't make sense. Are the taxpayers annoyed they've paid for the lifestyle of a guy who had no say in being born into it? Or are they annoyed they potentially no longer have to?

I'm not sure you're getting the point - the UK tax payer will still be funding Meghan and Harry, but the royal couple  don't want to neither live here, nor do the work of a royal. On top of that they want to cash in on the titles given to them by the queen. Those titles come with huge privileges, but also huge restraints and responsibilities.

 It's absolutely fine if they don't want to be part of the royal family, but they must forfeit the priviliges and become financially independent without trading on the royal title. From what I can read on their website, that's not their plan.. They want to keep the privileges, get rid of the boring duties, and cash in...

Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie have titles and lives and jobs of their own.  No tax payer funded security either, from what I understand.The way I see it, the title comes from their birth. Whether or not they're paid for being royal by the tax payer has nothing to do with the title. And PB and PE's situation seems to bear that out.

I'm pretty sure that everyone involved in this situation is mostly just pissed to find out that they don't actually own a piece of Harry and Meghan.

A lot of people keep insisting that the tax payer will still be funding them. How? They don't need either money from the sovereign grant or money from Daddy. They don't even need the security team. Their costs go massively down when they're not expected to do public walkabouts, or walk to a particular church on a particular day, or fly to god knows where for the funeral of god knows who or have someone drive them somewhere mainly because it's a breach of protocol to close your own car door...... They even have the money to pay for the cottage renovations if it all comes to that. They can walk out free and clear. And you know what? Take their titles and they're STILL Diana's little boy and his wife. People will still call them the Sussex's and people will still treat them as royalty.

The Sussex title--the one they are making the center of their apparent new empire--was decided not given to Harry at birth.  The Sussex dukedom was basically an old title, recreated and given to Harry on the occasion of his marriage.  He's only been the Duke of Sussex for two year.

He is a prince by birth; he's Sussex and a duke by wedding present. 

And like any present, he could hand this one back to the giver if he no longer wants it. 

[Cassie]

I wish them all the best. I do think that they should be off the Royal dole and hope Charles doesn’t keep supporting them. They have set up a Sussex website to sell stuff.

[joshuagraham_xyz]

So Harry, who has been receiving his welfare checks for 35 years for doing absolutely nothing has declared that it's too hard to do absolutely nothing so is declaring that he's independent.  Great.  And we care why?

It’s funny to me when people seem to think Harry’s life is this super-easy, awesome time doing nothing.

Yeah, my understanding is that being a "senior royal" is basically a full-time job traveling around being a ceremonial figurehead wherever the government has requested the presence of a ceremonial figurehead. They get paid nicely, but it sounds like a job that would get old after a while, like most any other job.

AIUI, the top 4 adults in the pecking order are typically assigned to "royal duty".  Harry is #4, after Elizabeth (who's getting up there in age), Charles & William - and #5 is the suspected child molester.

[joshuagraham_xyz]

If they had applied MMM principles from day 1 of their intent to become married, they could have socked away millions already.

I won't hold my breath waiting for them to start biking it to work to save money.

[MissMoneyBags]

I don't see why they can't be financially independent. They don't spend more than your average A lister with round the clock security, and they have at least that ability to earn large amounts of money. I think they'll be just fine.

The only way they're going to be earning large amounts of money, is by leveraging their royal titles  and connections. Hence the trademarking of the sussexroyal brand.

That may seem a normal thing to do in America, but in the UK, where the taxpayers have already shelled out millions to fund their lifestyle, it won't go down well. They only have those titles and connections because of who Harry's grandmother is..

That doesn't make sense. Are the taxpayers annoyed they've paid for the lifestyle of a guy who had no say in being born into it? Or are they annoyed they potentially no longer have to?

I'm not sure you're getting the point - the UK tax payer will still be funding Meghan and Harry, but the royal couple  don't want to neither live here, nor do the work of a royal. On top of that they want to cash in on the titles given to them by the queen. Those titles come with huge privileges, but also huge restraints and responsibilities.

 It's absolutely fine if they don't want to be part of the royal family, but they must forfeit the priviliges and become financially independent without trading on the royal title. From what I can read on their website, that's not their plan.. They want to keep the privileges, get rid of the boring duties, and cash in...

Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie have titles and lives and jobs of their own.  No tax payer funded security either, from what I understand.The way I see it, the title comes from their birth. Whether or not they're paid for being royal by the tax payer has nothing to do with the title. And PB and PE's situation seems to bear that out.

I'm pretty sure that everyone involved in this situation is mostly just pissed to find out that they don't actually own a piece of Harry and Meghan.

A lot of people keep insisting that the tax payer will still be funding them. How? They don't need either money from the sovereign grant or money from Daddy. They don't even need the security team. Their costs go massively down when they're not expected to do public walkabouts, or walk to a particular church on a particular day, or fly to god knows where for the funeral of god knows who or have someone drive them somewhere mainly because it's a breach of protocol to close your own car door...... They even have the money to pay for the cottage renovations if it all comes to that. They can walk out free and clear. And you know what? Take their titles and they're STILL Diana's little boy and his wife. People will still call them the Sussex's and people will still treat them as royalty.

Princess Beatice and Princess Eugenie do have jobs, but they're far from financially independent. Daddy finances their lifestyle and security (and up until recently he was partially funded by the government). They live in Kensington Palace (rent free as far as I can tell). But crucially - they do normal jobs that pays them a modest wage. They don't cash in on their royal title. They haven't trademarked their "brand" to sell merchandise. They haven't hit the speaking circuit, or gone on Oprah.

Meghan and Harry explicitly writes on their website, that they intend to be funded by Prince Charles, and continue to be under the security protection of the Met police. That's not "financially independent" which is what many British people have a problem with.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I don't see why they can't be financially independent. They don't spend more than your average A lister with round the clock security, and they have at least that ability to earn large amounts of money. I think they'll be just fine.

The only way they're going to be earning large amounts of money, is by leveraging their royal titles  and connections. Hence the trademarking of the sussexroyal brand.

That may seem a normal thing to do in America, but in the UK, where the taxpayers have already shelled out millions to fund their lifestyle, it won't go down well. They only have those titles and connections because of who Harry's grandmother is..

That doesn't make sense. Are the taxpayers annoyed they've paid for the lifestyle of a guy who had no say in being born into it? Or are they annoyed they potentially no longer have to?

I'm not sure you're getting the point - the UK tax payer will still be funding Meghan and Harry, but the royal couple  don't want to neither live here, nor do the work of a royal. On top of that they want to cash in on the titles given to them by the queen. Those titles come with huge privileges, but also huge restraints and responsibilities.

 It's absolutely fine if they don't want to be part of the royal family, but they must forfeit the priviliges and become financially independent without trading on the royal title. From what I can read on their website, that's not their plan.. They want to keep the privileges, get rid of the boring duties, and cash in...

Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie have titles and lives and jobs of their own.  No tax payer funded security either, from what I understand.The way I see it, the title comes from their birth. Whether or not they're paid for being royal by the tax payer has nothing to do with the title. And PB and PE's situation seems to bear that out.

I'm pretty sure that everyone involved in this situation is mostly just pissed to find out that they don't actually own a piece of Harry and Meghan.

A lot of people keep insisting that the tax payer will still be funding them. How? They don't need either money from the sovereign grant or money from Daddy. They don't even need the security team. Their costs go massively down when they're not expected to do public walkabouts, or walk to a particular church on a particular day, or fly to god knows where for the funeral of god knows who or have someone drive them somewhere mainly because it's a breach of protocol to close your own car door...... They even have the money to pay for the cottage renovations if it all comes to that. They can walk out free and clear. And you know what? Take their titles and they're STILL Diana's little boy and his wife. People will still call them the Sussex's and people will still treat them as royalty.

Princess Beatice and Princess Eugenie do have jobs, but they're far from financially independent. Daddy finances their lifestyle and security (and up until recently he was partially funded by the government). They live in Kensington Palace (rent free as far as I can tell). But crucially - they do normal jobs that pays them a modest wage. They don't cash in on their royal title. They haven't trademarked their "brand" to sell merchandise. They haven't hit the speaking circuit, or gone on Oprah.

Meghan and Harry explicitly writes on their website, that they intend to be funded by Prince Charles, and continue to be under the security protection of the Met police. That's not "financially independent" which is what many British people have a problem with.

First of all, I never said that PB and PE were financially independent.

Second of all, can you point to the part of the SussexRoyal website where it explicitly states that H and M intend to continue to be funded by Prince Charles? All I can find is an acknowledgement that this has been the case so far. Ditto with the protection and security.

The more I think about all of this, the more I'm convinced that H and M can and will go it alone and they will actually be the future of the British royalty. Wills and Kate will fade into obscurity because they're really quite boring. None of the trappings actually matter. Whether or not the British public are outraged, H and M don't need the accommodation, the titles or the funding. They're the highest profile people on the planet right now, and Meghan seems pretty damn canny to me. I can't wait to see what they do next. I'm still very interested in the fact they removed the baby from the UK and kept him out while this was announced.

[Dogastrophe]

Didn't Harry do some real work when he was in the army? I had the impression that he liked it there, being one of the boys.

Yes, I think he did very well there and was well-liked. It was presumably nice being just Harry and not PRINCE Harry.

I must admit I haven't read much of the stuff that was written about Meghan because I barely touch the news, but I wonder if she wouldn't have got the same vitriol if she had been white just because she's foreign. American, French, whatever, I can imagine people taking against her for not being English even if she was a white Westerner. Hard to speculate on what might have been, of course.

Actually he was Captain Harry. He did two tours of duty in Afghanistan flying Apache helicopters. Some of the accounts that I read indicated that he was very pissed off at the British media for announcing that he was in Afghanistan as it put increased focus on him and put his fellow service members at greater risk.       

[Paper Chaser]

Would we be celebrating/deriding them if they had fabulously wealthy parents that weren't royals?
How is this any different from a trust fund baby quitting a mid-level job they don't like at their family business? They're still the beneficiaries of massive wealth from their family, and the only aspect of their opulent standard of living that is set to change is occasionally using commercial flights and transportation "when security allows", instead of private.

It's an FU move to leave something you don't like, and it takes some brass to leave a rigid system that you're born into, but it doesn't seem like there's really much Financial Independence going on here either.

[Canaan]

Perhaps it's time for the whole thing to be abolished. The family doesn't really serve any useful purpose. They certainly haven't got there on their merits in the last several hundred years anyway. As a subject of her majesty am I supposed to bow and scrape to her and her sprog? Why the fuck should I do that?

There would be significant financial costs associated with getting rid of the tourist attraction that is the royal family.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

CGP Grey is usually a great source, but the claim that the British royal family bring net revenue to the UK has been debunked (or at least challenged):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U [Abolish the Monarchy! - A response to CGP Grey]

[shelivesthedream]

Didn't Harry do some real work when he was in the army? I had the impression that he liked it there, being one of the boys.

Yes, I think he did very well there and was well-liked. It was presumably nice being just Harry and not PRINCE Harry.

I must admit I haven't read much of the stuff that was written about Meghan because I barely touch the news, but I wonder if she wouldn't have got the same vitriol if she had been white just because she's foreign. American, French, whatever, I can imagine people taking against her for not being English even if she was a white Westerner. Hard to speculate on what might have been, of course.

Actually he was Captain Harry. He did two tours of duty in Afghanistan flying Apache helicopters. Some of the accounts that I read indicated that he was very pissed off at the British media for announcing that he was in Afghanistan as it put increased focus on him and put his fellow service members at greater risk.     

...yes? This is what I was saying...?