Inheritance Drama: You Got Any? Stories Wanted.

[RetiredAt63]

There's something deeply ironic about getting Oprah to help them tell the world about how awful the media are for violating their privacy.

If they had really wanted privacy they would have stayed on Vancouver Island, where their privacy was being respected.  But no, they moved to LA in the middle of the pandemic.

Someone somewhere joked Harry would make a good next GG.  NO.  Just, NO!!!!!!!

[Mighty Eyebrows]

I heard their location in Vancouver was released, and due to the family pulling security away from them, they wanted to find a new location with security.

No, their location was known pretty much in the first week. I don't live that far away. The locals were pretty respectful, though, even going to the point of not helping the international media that descended to ask questions and take pictures.

I do have some empathy for their problems, but deciding to go for Oprah-type publicity is a decision I wouldn't have made. You are either in the public eye or you aren't. There is no half-way. Personally, I think they might come to regret going back into the madness of media scrutiny.

[former player]

I heard their location in Vancouver was released, and due to the family pulling security away from them, they wanted to find a new location with security.

No, their location was known pretty much in the first week. I don't live that far away. The locals were pretty respectful, though, even going to the point of not helping the international media that descended to ask questions and take pictures.

I do have some empathy for their problems, but deciding to go for Oprah-type publicity is a decision I wouldn't have made. You are either in the public eye or you aren't. There is no half-way. Personally, I think they might come to regret going back into the madness of media scrutiny.

They are proposing to make money to support their lifestyle (£5 million last year, apparently, even with help on their accommodation) through media deals.  And Meghan's chosen profession of actress has always been open to media scrutiny.  A quiet life living privately within their means was always unlikely.

[SwordGuy]

The idea of spending 5 million or more to live on in a year is just crazy to me.   I really can't imagine how I could do it.

I had a full time housekeeper when I lived in Ethiopia.   She and the rest of the house staff (gardener, grounds guards) "came with the house" my company was renting.    It was nice having someone clean the house but I hated having someone puttering around the house when I occasionally worked at home.    I can't imagine having a house full of servants.   (Shudders.) 

I suppose I could get up to $200k per year with a whole lot more energy than I actually have and I would feel like that was incredibly extravagant.     If they wanted to be out of the public eye they could pick up a very nice home in a gated community in much of the country for $500k or a decent one for less than $2m in a few select metro areas.   With their assets they wouldn't need to work if they kept their spending in the $400k to $500k range -- which is a damned extravagant lifestyle with a paid off house.

I feel sorry for them in that the press won't leave them alone for years, but not one iota over finances.   

[gaja]

Just like Plina explaind from Sweden, Norway also has a princess who didn't want to be princess anymore. As long as she doesn't stir any trouble, she is left alone. There have been some issues of her trying to profit from her titles, and now she has been stripped of them. There was also an issue when she started dating an American self proclaimed shaman. Was some if it racism: no doubt. But 90 % of the backlash was from her promoting a misogynist charlatan to the  Norwegian audience, and them trying to make money by basically defrauding people. Her attempts at making money are not going very well, so she has started selling some of her inherited property. Her children never had titles . They are at the same place as UK's Archie, and titles are not normal that far out in the inheritance list. In all likelyhood, they will silently disappear from the limelight and get normal jobs. I think some of the current crown prince's first cousins are selling trucks and running clothes stores, but they have never made an appearance in the newspapers, so I don't really know.

Royalty is a shit job. It might pay well, but otherwise it is just a glorified public servant role with no true power. If it is true that Megan didn't prepare at all, and Harry declined help to prepare her, then it is no wonder everything blew up. Sure, there is plenty of racism in the royal family. Sure, they probably have an extremely shit HR department. But M&H very clearly did not want to do their jobs.

Like most Norwegians, I am against monarchy on principle, but think Harald does a decent job (for instance with this speech: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/king-harald-norway-diversity-speech). We can always discuss the amount of money we spend on them, but as long as they also contribute some of their own (inherited) money to take care of the royal castle and other national heritage sites, I don't mind as much. Having a president instead would also be expensive. If the next generation of our royal family doesn't want the job, then I hope they simply and quietly quit. There is no need to slam the door on the way out.

[AlanStache]

"The idea of spending 5 million or more to live on in a year is just crazy to me."

Google says security guards can cost 75 to 150$/hr; 100$/hr*40hr/wk*52wk/year -> 208k/year.  Would guess they have at least five so that is +1 million right there, then add in a few personal assistants.  Then when you travel you have to fly privet (30k$/flight hr) + everyone needs a hotel room etc.  So yeah I could see things adding up quickly, even if they are not drinking 500 bottles of wine with dinner nightly. 

[Plina]

Like most Norwegians, I am against monarchy on principle, but think Harald does a decent job (for instance with this speech: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/king-harald-norway-diversity-speech). We can always discuss the amount of money we spend on them, but as long as they also contribute some of their own (inherited) money to take care of the royal castle and other national heritage sites, I don't mind as much. Having a president instead would also be expensive. If the next generation of our royal family doesn't want the job, then I hope they simply and quietly quit. There is no need to slam the door on the way out.

I think this reflects my thinking regarding our royal family. The working royal family has been limited and the grandchildren, with the exception of the family of the crownprincess will not be part of the working royal family. I like Viktoria and thinks she is a worthy repsentative of the country. If the other siblings would take over I would probably have a more negative picture of a continuing representation by the royal family.

[racquetcat]

Does anyone else have any farm inheritance drama or stories?

I have some that I posted maybe ~40 pages back.  Here's the simplified version to keep it short.

  My grandfather had three kids and three pieces of property.  He had 2x cattle ranches in CA that are about 200 acres each and a house in the local city.  Instead of giving one property to each child, every property got split 3 ways.

  Now my mom lives in the house and her brothers live on a ranch of their own.  Since it's jointly owned, they all pay rent to each other and pay out ranch income.  I've never figured out how they allocate income since it's technically owned 1/3 each way, but each ranch has one person doing all the labor.  I know the ranches don't make much money. 

  About a decade ago, the family enters into a business deal to sell a conservation easement on a separate property owned by one brothers second wife.  No one ever told me the full story, but I know that somehow my mom now owns half of this new property and the new wife sued the other brother over the deal.  Being ranchers, no one ever talked about this.  They just stopped talking to each other.  Yet they still pay each other rent.

  I'm now set to inherit 1/6 of each property eventually.  I've talked to my mom about changing it so that me and my brother can inherit the house and our cousins can inherit the property that their parents live on.  Unfortunately my mom has zero interest in this.  She enjoys having a partial ownership stake in the ranch.

  I'm not sure what I'll do when I inherit this mess.  I have zero interest in owning a 1/6 stake in a ranch.  None of the other family members have the funds to buy anyone else out.  I also remain irrationally angry at one of my uncles over a property purchase I tried to make from the family (this is a different story).  Part of me wants to force a sale of something just to get out of it.  But I know this would destroy my relationship with all of my uncles and cousins.

One of the reasons we want to do all this legal stuff is that people would not be inheriting partial ownership of LAND, they would be inheriting partial ownership of a corporation.   That way, no one can force anyone to sell.    They would be able to sell to outsiders as long as no family members would meet the price.    That way, they can get their money out if they want to.   At some point folks may decide it's better to sell the entire corporation to some mega-corporation because it's not worth the hassle.   Right now, my 1/3rd and 1/2 share is worth $20k to $25k a year.    (I budget for $20k in my income projections.)   

I was an only child.  My mom's siblings each had 3 kids, so their share would be 1/9th and 1/6th (or 1/9th and 0/6ths).   Two more generations and it won't be that much money per share.   Except in my branch of the family; my daughter will inherit the income rights but my son will inherit my share of the farm, so it will take another generation before my share gets diluted 3 ways (3 grandkids).

$6-8k is still solid money to help middle class folks jump-start their savings or their schooling.

When you get down to $1k or $2k, not so much.   At that point it probably won't be worth a family member's time to manage things for everyone else and it would make far more sense to sell.

As for me, I like having a source of income that's in the $20k to $25k range that's uncorrelated to stocks, bonds, social security or rental houses in a different state. :)   And for that I have my grand parents to thank for it.    They were smart, hardworking, good hearted folks who passed that on to their kids.   They didn't have much money during the depression but they made it thru with their farm intact.

My grandfather was very smart fellow.   The local mill and grain silo company had been in the same local family for some generations.   Millers tend to be wealthier than farmers because they get a cut of all the farmer's income.    I don't know how much you know about small town or small rural areas.   It's not uncommon for someone really hard-working and sharp to make a lot of money and become important in their small area.   Their kids partially grew up as regular kids so they have a lot of the traits their parents have.  But the 3rd and 4th generation are often ignorant, lazy and feel more entitled than the mythical Reagan welfare queen.    They grow up being "important people" and never really have to develop their abilities to provide for themselves.  Once they take over they often run the business into the ground and spend themselves broke.   

The millers in that area were in the 3rd or 4th generation and had all the bad qualities I just described.   My grandfather had received a very large check from them for his grain (minus their cut for the work, of course).   The check bounced.

Because he paid attention and knew people, he found out that other checks had bounced.   This is back before computers checked the balance right away, etc.   So if you needed a bit of float in your account, you could play some games.   Let's say the millers had $10,000 in their account.    If they wrote an $11,000 check it would bounce, but it looked to whomever was processing it to be a simple mistake instead of a fraudulent check.   If they wrote several such checks, each would look, to whichever teller processed it, to be a simple mistake.

My grandfather realized that there were more serious problems than just a simple oops.  So he went to the bank and asked how much they had in the bank account.  His feeling was that $10,000 out of $11,000 was better than $0 out of $11,000, so maybe he could just get what they had instead of what they owed.   The bank teller shook her head no and explained they weren't allowed to reveal that information.

My grandfather thought for a moment, then asked, "If I were to deposit $100 in the account, would there be enough to cash this check?"

The teller looked at him, thought about the rules, and said, "No--o--o--o--o..."

"How about $200?"

A few hundred dollars deposited into their account later, he walked out with as much of his money as they had.    Other folks ended up getting bupkis.

@SwordGuy
I totally get the point that at a certain point it doesn't make sense to keep land if you own 1/9th of a quarter section or something. I don't know how much land my wife's grandparents or my grandmother owns, but at some point that could be broken into such small parts that it would make more sense to sell it then to keep such a small portion (maybe I should start saving now so I could potentially buy out other family members). It'll be interesting to see how that all plays out for my wife and I, but we probably have another 30 years before anything would get in our hands.

[Dave1442397]

My grandfather was very smart fellow.   The local mill and grain silo company had been in the same local family for some generations.   Millers tend to be wealthier than farmers because they get a cut of all the farmer's income.    I don't know how much you know about small town or small rural areas.   It's not uncommon for someone really hard-working and sharp to make a lot of money and become important in their small area.   Their kids partially grew up as regular kids so they have a lot of the traits their parents have.  But the 3rd and 4th generation are often ignorant, lazy and feel more entitled than the mythical Reagan welfare queen.    They grow up being "important people" and never really have to develop their abilities to provide for themselves.  Once they take over they often run the business into the ground and spend themselves broke.   

The millers in that area were in the 3rd or 4th generation and had all the bad qualities I just described.   My grandfather had received a very large check from them for his grain (minus their cut for the work, of course).   The check bounced.

Because he paid attention and knew people, he found out that other checks had bounced.   This is back before computers checked the balance right away, etc.   So if you needed a bit of float in your account, you could play some games.   Let's say the millers had $10,000 in their account.    If they wrote an $11,000 check it would bounce, but it looked to whomever was processing it to be a simple mistake instead of a fraudulent check.   If they wrote several such checks, each would look, to whichever teller processed it, to be a simple mistake.

My grandfather realized that there were more serious problems than just a simple oops.  So he went to the bank and asked how much they had in the bank account.  His feeling was that $10,000 out of $11,000 was better than $0 out of $11,000, so maybe he could just get what they had instead of what they owed.   The bank teller shook her head no and explained they weren't allowed to reveal that information.

My grandfather thought for a moment, then asked, "If I were to deposit $100 in the account, would there be enough to cash this check?"

The teller looked at him, thought about the rules, and said, "No--o--o--o--o..."

"How about $200?"

A few hundred dollars deposited into their account later, he walked out with as much of his money as they had.    Other folks ended up getting bupkis.

A smart guy, indeed. Some good logical thinking there!

[zolotiyeruki]

"The idea of spending 5 million or more to live on in a year is just crazy to me."

Google says security guards can cost 75 to 150$/hr; 100$/hr*40hr/wk*52wk/year -> 208k/year.  Would guess they have at least five so that is +1 million right there, then add in a few personal assistants.  Then when you travel you have to fly privet (30k$/flight hr) + everyone needs a hotel room etc.  So yeah I could see things adding up quickly, even if they are not drinking 500 bottles of wine with dinner nightly.

You'd probably need security 24/7.  Crazy people don't necessarily follow business hours.

But $30k per flight hour is excessive--that's military fighter and bomber prices. 

[AlanStache]

"The idea of spending 5 million or more to live on in a year is just crazy to me."

Google says security guards can cost 75 to 150$/hr; 100$/hr*40hr/wk*52wk/year -> 208k/year.  Would guess they have at least five so that is +1 million right there, then add in a few personal assistants.  Then when you travel you have to fly privet (30k$/flight hr) + everyone needs a hotel room etc.  So yeah I could see things adding up quickly, even if they are not drinking 500 bottles of wine with dinner nightly.

You'd probably need security 24/7.  Crazy people don't necessarily follow business hours.

But $30k per flight hour is excessive--that's military fighter and bomber prices.

30k$/flight hour: yeah I messed up with the reading; confused cost vs rate...

[talltexan]

I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.

A whole extra house and household in Montecito...

[iris lily]

I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.

A whole extra house and household in Montecito...

They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.

They are now living in Santa Barbara California.(edit:  sorry I didn’t realize it Montecito is a area in Santa Barbara region.)

[former player]

I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.

A whole extra house and household in Montecito...

They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.

They are now living in Santa Barbara California.

He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them.  Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them?  And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered?  For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.

Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson.  So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.

[PhilB]

I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.

A whole extra house and household in Montecito...

They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.

They are now living in Santa Barbara California.

He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them.  Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them?  And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered?  For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.

Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson.  So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.

I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way.  Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses.  Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).

[former player]

I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.

A whole extra house and household in Montecito...

They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.

They are now living in Santa Barbara California.

He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them.  Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them?  And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered?  For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.

Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson.  So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.

I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way.  Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses.  Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).

Ah, right, he's just the heir to a Dukedom instead of becoming a Prince.  My bad.

[Plina]

I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.

A whole extra house and household in Montecito...

They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.

They are now living in Santa Barbara California.

He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them.  Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them?  And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered?  For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.

Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson.  So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.

I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way.  Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses.  Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).

Ah, right, he's just the heir to a Dukedom instead of becoming a Prince.  My bad.

Does he actually inherit a dukedom? I thought the titels were only an honorary thing. Here, they get a duchesse or duke title but that does not come with castles or land as they did a couple of hundreds of years ago. It only means a bit more ribboncutting in that specific part of the country.

[PhilB]

I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.

A whole extra house and household in Montecito...

They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.

They are now living in Santa Barbara California.

He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them.  Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them?  And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered?  For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.

Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson.  So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.

I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way.  Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses.  Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).

Ah, right, he's just the heir to a Dukedom instead of becoming a Prince.  My bad.

Does he actually inherit a dukedom? I thought the titels were only an honorary thing. Here, they get a duchesse or duke title but that does not come with castles or land as they did a couple of hundreds of years ago. It only means a bit more ribboncutting in that specific part of the country.

The title doesn't come with any lands, property etc.  It is, however, hereditary unlike the life peerages handed out by the government which die with the holder.  Basically it just gives extra points in ribbon cutting Top Trumps.

Harry has already inherited a fortune and seems not to have grasped that being a main member of the Royal Family is a job.  Moaning about having been cut off financially is like complaining that your boss stopped paying you after you resigned.

[Imma]

Just like Plina explaind from Sweden, Norway also has a princess who didn't want to be princess anymore. As long as she doesn't stir any trouble, she is left alone. There have been some issues of her trying to profit from her titles, and now she has been stripped of them. There was also an issue when she started dating an American self proclaimed shaman. Was some if it racism: no doubt. But 90 % of the backlash was from her promoting a misogynist charlatan to the  Norwegian audience, and them trying to make money by basically defrauding people. Her attempts at making money are not going very well, so she has started selling some of her inherited property. Her children never had titles . They are at the same place as UK's Archie, and titles are not normal that far out in the inheritance list. In all likelyhood, they will silently disappear from the limelight and get normal jobs. I think some of the current crown prince's first cousins are selling trucks and running clothes stores, but they have never made an appearance in the newspapers, so I don't really know.

Royalty is a shit job. It might pay well, but otherwise it is just a glorified public servant role with no true power. If it is true that Megan didn't prepare at all, and Harry declined help to prepare her, then it is no wonder everything blew up. Sure, there is plenty of racism in the royal family. Sure, they probably have an extremely shit HR department. But M&H very clearly did not want to do their jobs.

Like most Norwegians, I am against monarchy on principle, but think Harald does a decent job (for instance with this speech: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/king-harald-norway-diversity-speech). We can always discuss the amount of money we spend on them, but as long as they also contribute some of their own (inherited) money to take care of the royal castle and other national heritage sites, I don't mind as much. Having a president instead would also be expensive. If the next generation of our royal family doesn't want the job, then I hope they simply and quietly quit. There is no need to slam the door on the way out.

Your princess Martha Louise is in the Dutch tabloids all the time! See, we have the convention that pictures of royals are only taken at official engagements, they don't write about the private lives of the underage members at all, and they don't publish "paparazzi" pics of royals unless they do really really stupid shit. Our royal family seems to have half a brain so they have never been caught playing strippoker or dressing up as nazi's. So we look to other royal houses for more entertaining stories, and she definitely fits that description. Plus she lived in the Netherlands for a while so there's a connection. But they don't stalk her either, they just publish whatever she puts online.

Our King's late brother was totally not interested in being a royal, so he studied engineering, got a job and moved abroad and nobody cared about that, and it's the same for the King's cousins. They have access to a great network, the best education money can buy, they have excellent career opportunities. They don't have to flip burgers. Some are entrepeneurs, other are in banking or startups or they work for the military or the UN. Honestly I think their quality of life is probably better than that of the heir.

I think many people feel the same about the monarchy in the Netherlands. Our current King does his job ok-ish, his wife is very well liked. She comes across as kind and fun and is always dressed nicely. Her main charity interest is financial independence for women! (she's a former banker with a degree in economics).  The job of being royalty seems pretty boring though, and if none of our current princesses is interested, we'll happily abolish it. It seems that all we care about for royal women is how they dress. Our Queen Maxima is a great dresser though - it's clear she just wears whatever she likes (and is appropriate for the occasion of course). English royals all seem to dress like they're in their 50s/60s. I wonder what those ladies wear in their private lives. I expect the dress code makes the job even less fun.

[TomTX]

I don't believe for a minute that they want to live normal lives, unless by "normal" they mean "extraordinarily privileged and unencumbered by any obligation."
There's something deeply ironic about getting Oprah to help them tell the world about how awful the media are for violating their privacy.

They literally can't live normal lives unless they want the kids (and possibly themselves) at very high risk for kidnapping or worse. They are at a level of fame where full-time security and a secure household location is a requirement.

[Hula Hoop]

I'm so glad that the Italians had the good sense to get rid of their monarchy via a 1946 referendum.  The guy who would have been heir to the throne is a reality TV star/food truck owner although more recently he has been trying his hand at politics. https://www.ruetir.com/2020/12/12/emanuele-filiberto-changes-job-and-becomes-chef/

[DaMa]

I would think security is one of those things that gets a lot more expensive with relatives living far away from each other. One more person living at Windsor castle: not a lot of additional expense.

A whole extra house and household in Montecito...

They have security following them out and about.I took the Duchess’ complaint to mean
Archie got no security if he stayed in the royal family confines.

They are now living in Santa Barbara California.

He'd have been covered by his parents' security as long as he was with them.  Presumably the concern was that he would be spending significant time not with them?  And their home must have been covered 24/7 so if he was at home alone he would still have been covered?  For a child still under 2 that presumably covers just about full time security: he's either at home or out with his parents.

Plus, as soon as the Queen dies (she's 94) in normal circumstances (not sure what the family break means) Archie automatically becomes a prince and entitled to protection on his own account because he's the King's grandson.  So this "not entitled" business is really pretty limited, it seems to me, and not hard to either work around or pay a little bit extra to fill in any gaps.

I'm afraid the bolded bit doesn't work that way.  Of the Queen's grandchildren only Charles' kids (because he's the heir apparent) and Andrew's (because he managed to persuade the Queen) are princes / princesses.  Neither Anne's kids nor Edward's have these titles (or massively expensive security).

Ah, right, he's just the heir to a Dukedom instead of becoming a Prince.  My bad.

Once Charles is King, Archie will be entitled to be a Prince.

Prince/Princess  are children of the sovereign, children of the sons of the sovereign , and children of the Prince of Wales' eldest son.

This is why Andrew's daughters are princesses.  Edward's children are entitled to be prince/princess, but their was a decision made that they would not.

It used to be just the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales' was a prince (which would be just George), but that was changed to all the children in December 2012.  I suspect the "complaint" may have come from that.  Why just William's children and not Harry's?

If the Queen were to outlive Charles, Archie won't be a prince.

[Imma]

I don't believe for a minute that they want to live normal lives, unless by "normal" they mean "extraordinarily privileged and unencumbered by any obligation."
There's something deeply ironic about getting Oprah to help them tell the world about how awful the media are for violating their privacy.

They literally can't live normal lives unless they want the kids (and possibly themselves) at very high risk for kidnapping or worse. They are at a level of fame where full-time security and a secure household location is a requirement.

I'm sure that's true, but it seems that most of the royal family pays for their own security. It seems only prince Charles and prince William & family have their security paid for, and Harry while he was a working royal. Others pay their own security out of pocket, apparantly from their private wealth. Plus, they lived on a secure family compounds like Windsor and Kensington Palace. It's kind of naieve to not think of what would happen to your security if you quit the job.

But having security doesn't mean you can't live a relatively normal life. I think prince William lived a quiet life in rural Wales when he was in the military. He certainly still had security but it's very different from living in London or in LA. If Harry really wanted to live a "normal" life going back into active duty, preferably in a remote part of the country or somewhere overseas, would have been a great option.

[PhilB]

My bad.  You are right that, under the current letters patent, H&M's kids would become princes / princesses on Charles' accession.  There has been a pretty clear direction of travel on this one though and there is definitely an expectation now that this is an entitlement that will not be exercised.  It has only been done once in the last two generations - and that was very much seen as the Queen indulging her (then) favourite child Andrew.

As to the 'Why W's kids not H's?' question, the 2012 changes were made as part of the whole changes to ensure that if their firstborn was a girl she would not be leapfrogged by any subsequent boys.  This specific change avoided the nonsense of a future queen being styled 'Lady' whilst her younger brother would be 'Prince'.  I'm guessing that the eldest son being a Prince was sufficiently embedded in different things that it was easier to make all of them princes than change son to child.

The overarching issue is the widely supported drive towards a slimmed down monarchy.  Basically the idea is that only those in direct line plus their siblings get a (very onerous) job for life.  Not children of said siblings.

[DadJokes]

Serious question:

Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.

[Imma]

Serious question:

Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.

Is that specific to the British royal family? People in here are just as interested in all the other royal houses, like those of say, Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Spain. I do feel that in the older generation especially there's an appreciation for Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip because of their actions in the War. The free UK, it's royal family and the Allied forces were a beacon of hope to Europeans. I know my late grandparents appreciated them very much because they shared the same experience of working on the home front (like the future Queen) and being in the military (like the future Duke). The Queen became a symbol of the postwar era.

I disagree by the way that royals "do nothing". They are head of state, much like your President. They are not elected and they don't make the political decisions, but do not underestimate their influence. They are basically our countries' top diplomats. Royals forge trade connections, they solve international disagreements and they certainly do influence policy up to a certain degree. They don't spend their days cutting ribbons.

[former player]

Serious question:

Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.

Is that specific to the British royal family? People in here are just as interested in all the other royal houses, like those of say, Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Spain. I do feel that in the older generation especially there's an appreciation for Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip because of their actions in the War. The free UK, it's royal family and the Allied forces were a beacon of hope to Europeans. I know my late grandparents appreciated them very much because they shared the same experience of working on the home front (like the future Queen) and being in the military (like the future Duke). The Queen became a symbol of the postwar era.

I disagree by the way that royals "do nothing". They are head of state, much like your President. They are not elected and they don't make the political decisions, but do not underestimate their influence. They are basically our countries' top diplomats. Royals forge trade connections, they solve international disagreements and they certainly do influence policy up to a certain degree. They don't spend their days cutting ribbons.

Don't actually discount the cutting ribbons stuff either.  Very often that is just the publicity icing on a long-term interest and involvement in a cause that wouldn't be happening, or wouldn't be happening on the same scale, without the push of royal involvement.  Which is a big regret to me in Meghan deciding to leave the UK Royal family - her scope to influence for the better in the decades to come was enormous, if she had put in the work behind the scenes.

[SwordGuy]

Serious question:

Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.

Kate and Meghan are mighty easy on the eyes so I never mind a good photo of them, any more than any other pretty woman.

I suspect the general reason is because all the other royalty are from countries that don't speak English, so it's easier for our press to repackage stories about English royalty than other ones.

[Dicey]

Serious question:

Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.

I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits also despise dislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!

[dcheesi]

Serious question:

Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.

Is that specific to the British royal family? People in here are just as interested in all the other royal houses, like those of say, Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Spain. I do feel that in the older generation especially there's an appreciation for Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip because of their actions in the War. The free UK, it's royal family and the Allied forces were a beacon of hope to Europeans. I know my late grandparents appreciated them very much because they shared the same experience of working on the home front (like the future Queen) and being in the military (like the future Duke). The Queen became a symbol of the postwar era.

I disagree by the way that royals "do nothing". They are head of state, much like your President. They are not elected and they don't make the political decisions, but do not underestimate their influence. They are basically our countries' top diplomats. Royals forge trade connections, they solve international disagreements and they certainly do influence policy up to a certain degree. They don't spend their days cutting ribbons.

In the USA, it's definitely all about the house of Windsor. Some of the same people obsess about the latest UK royal drama would be hard pressed to even tell you which other (European) countries have royal families, much less naming their members.

I think it's just natural for the English-speaking former colonies to focus on the English/UK royalty for historical reasons. Even though the US has been independent for longer than "Commonwealth" countries like Canada, and more forcefully so, we still have a fascination with where we "came from" as a country. And with the pomp & circumstance of the old monarchy.

[PhilB]

Serious question:

Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.

I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits also despise dislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!

Unless there is a jubilee to celebrate or one of the turns up to open a new building, it's likely that most British children will hear little if anything about the monarchy from their schooling.  We don't have daily pledges of allegiance to the flag or anything like that.  British support for the Royal Family is largely based on our deep dislike for our politicians such that the thought of replacing the Queen with a politician is enough to make us stick with what we've got - as long as they don't muck it up.

The general reaction to Harry marrying Meghan was overwhelmingly positive.  People thought he was definitely batting above his average and most of us liked what her being of mixed race signaled about us as a modern, tolerant country.  It's just a shame that neither of them seemed to have properly read the job description in advance.

[By the River]

In the USA, it's definitely all about the house of Windsor. Some of the same people obsess about the latest UK royal drama would be hard pressed to even tell you which other (European) countries have royal families, much less naming their members.

I think it's just natural for the English-speaking former colonies to focus on the English/UK royalty for historical reasons. Even though the US has been independent for longer than "Commonwealth" countries like Canada, and more forcefully so, we still have a fascination with where we "came from" as a country. And with the pomp & circumstance of the old monarchy.

In 1990, we went to Brussels where we met up with a friend's old exchange student.  As he showed us around downtown, we came down the side of a large elegant building (the Opera house) where there was a crowd of maybe 15 people.  In a few minutes, an older lady came out, gave the royal wave to the crowd and got into a black town car.  Our host told us that was the queen of Belgium.  I didn't know Belgium had a monarchy until then.   

[AMandM]

Serious question:

Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.

Don't forget that the British monarch is also the monarch of countries outside of Britain.

[RetiredAt63]

Beats me.  My impression is that Americans pay more attention than Canadians do, even though they are our Royal family too.  I think the biggest reason we are not pushing to abolish the monarchy is that the role of GG is so imbedded in our system, and if we have no monarch we don't need a royal representative and then what do we do about the constitutional role of the GG?  So better to let sleeping dogs lie.  Of course once Elizabeth* dies things may change.

* Victoria and Elizabeth, good longevity genes in that family.

[DaMa]

Serious question:

Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.

For me it's part of a love of history.  The history of England from 1066-1603 has always fascinated me, and 1603-current to a lesser degree.  The thing with the prince title is basically a bit of trivia I just happen to know.

I am also a history buff on American westward migration, the Holocaust, and Himalayan mountain climbing.

[SunnyDays]

I wouldn’t be averse to the royal family becoming obsolete after Charles (if he ever becomes king).  Royalty is an anachronism in this day and age, and the younger royals are capable of earning their keep, so why waste taxpayer money on them?  They’ve never meant anything to me beyond pretty weddings.

[PhilB]

I wouldn’t be averse to the royal family becoming obsolete after Charles (if he ever becomes king).  Royalty is an anachronism in this day and age, and the younger royals are capable of earning their keep, so why waste taxpayer money on them?  They’ve never meant anything to me beyond pretty weddings.

Don't underestimate the soft power Britain gains from them.  A state banquet with the Queen or King of England is something that appeals very strongly to the vanity of various presidents around the world and gets our PM an in with them while they are here.

Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy to be rid of them if anyone can come up with a better alternative.

[former player]

I wouldn’t be averse to the royal family becoming obsolete after Charles (if he ever becomes king).  Royalty is an anachronism in this day and age, and the younger royals are capable of earning their keep, so why waste taxpayer money on them?  They’ve never meant anything to me beyond pretty weddings.

Don't underestimate the soft power Britain gains from them.  A state banquet with the Queen or King of England is something that appeals very strongly to the vanity of various presidents around the world and gets our PM an in with them while they are here.

Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy to be rid of them if anyone can come up with a better alternative.

It's finding an alternative which is the problem.  Either the PM becomes Head of State as well  (and there's just been an example of that going badly wrong in the USA) or a new form of elected President has to be invented which would be almost impossible to keep out of politics.

One of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy is that it fills a position of power without being able to exercise any of that power: there is no vacuum into which bad actors can insert themselves and the Prime Minister, who does exercise power, always has someone above them in the hierarchy to whom they have to answer, even if only formally.

The Church of England does much the same for the UK: it occupies a central spiritual space, preventing anyone else from taking that over either religiously or politically (see eg: Irish Catholicism, USA evangelism), and because its status is legally defined it has no need to define itself by a narrow and/or exclusionary creed, making it inclusive of anyone who wants to participate and also being able (slowly) adapt to societal change.

[TomTX]

Serious question:

Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.

I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits also despise dislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!

Be fair - as an American she wouldn't even know what petrol is!

/s (as an American)

[RetiredAt63]

Serious question:

Why do people outside of Britain pay so much attention to the British monarchy? They hold no power and do nothing of significance. I get the tabloid-celebrity obsession from the average person (a.k.a. idiots), but even otherwise intelligent people seem to hold some weird infatuation with that family.

I've heard it's partially because British schoolchildren are taught to respect the monarchy. I have a theory that the Brits also despise dislike the fact that Harry chose a non-British wife. It's as if he insulted every loyal female subject by finding every one of them unworthy. And then Megan poured petrol on the fire by saying she didn't know much about the royal family before she married into it. How dare she not know about them and their Queen!

Be fair - as an American she wouldn't even know what petrol is!

/s (as an American)

Kate Middleton thought long and hard before marrying a Royal.  Megan seems to have not done her homework.  Being a Royal close to the throne is a job. One you can't take a vacation from.

[Imma]

I wouldn’t be averse to the royal family becoming obsolete after Charles (if he ever becomes king).  Royalty is an anachronism in this day and age, and the younger royals are capable of earning their keep, so why waste taxpayer money on them?  They’ve never meant anything to me beyond pretty weddings.

Don't underestimate the soft power Britain gains from them.  A state banquet with the Queen or King of England is something that appeals very strongly to the vanity of various presidents around the world and gets our PM an in with them while they are here.

Having said that, I'd be perfectly happy to be rid of them if anyone can come up with a better alternative.

It's finding an alternative which is the problem.  Either the PM becomes Head of State as well  (and there's just been an example of that going badly wrong in the USA) or a new form of elected President has to be invented which would be almost impossible to keep out of politics.

One of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy is that it fills a position of power without being able to exercise any of that power: there is no vacuum into which bad actors can insert themselves and the Prime Minister, who does exercise power, always has someone above them in the hierarchy to whom they have to answer, even if only formally.

The Church of England does much the same for the UK: it occupies a central spiritual space, preventing anyone else from taking that over either religiously or politically (see eg: Irish Catholicism, USA evangelism), and because its status is legally defined it has no need to define itself by a narrow and/or exclusionary creed, making it inclusive of anyone who wants to participate and also being able (slowly) adapt to societal change.

I dislike the idea of the monarchy as well, but for this reason a constitutional monarchy is the last bad option I can think of. The other big advantage is that a monarch has a strong long-term incentive to behave - unlike Presidents and Prime Ministers. In the worst case scenario, they are not re-elected or made to resign and look like a fool, but their behaviour does not have direct job consequences for their offspring, or for themselves for that matter. A politician can cause and problem and then leave someone else to fix it (you just have to look at Cameron to see what I mean) but the monarch will be stuck with their past mistakes for the next few decades.

[SwordGuy]

For those of you who need this:

You can't change the people around you but you can change the people around you.

[Sibley]

I don't care how unprepared someone was for a role, if someone is SUICIDAL and they are denied mental health treatment, that is WRONG. Full stop. No excuses. None. Nada. Zip.

So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.

[former player]

I don't care how unprepared someone was for a role, if someone is SUICIDAL and they are denied mental health treatment, that is WRONG. Full stop. No excuses. None. Nada. Zip.

So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.

If that were true I would agree with you.  But -

1) "Thoughts of suicide" is not the same as "suicidal".  I can think rationally about potential methods of suicide without having any intention of doing anything about them.

2)  Meghan is a grown woman with large amounts of money and direct access to anyone in the world she wanted to call, including any heath care professional - who would have been under a duty of confidentiality.  I agree she was in a foreign country but she spoke the language and no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to.  Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.

Unfortunately the interview by Oprah had so little rigour to it and so little follow up to what was said. It's possible to completely accept everything Meghan said in it and still not be certain of an objective truth.

[Sibley]

I don't care how unprepared someone was for a role, if someone is SUICIDAL and they are denied mental health treatment, that is WRONG. Full stop. No excuses. None. Nada. Zip.

So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.

If that were true I would agree with you.  But -

1) "Thoughts of suicide" is not the same as "suicidal".  I can think rationally about potential methods of suicide without having any intention of doing anything about them.

2)  Meghan is a grown woman with large amounts of money and direct access to anyone in the world she wanted to call, including any heath care professional - who would have been under a duty of confidentiality.  I agree she was in a foreign country but she spoke the language and no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to.  Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.

Unfortunately the interview by Oprah had so little rigour to it and so little follow up to what was said. It's possible to completely accept everything Meghan said in it and still not be certain of an objective truth.

I suggest you do some research into the effects of mental illness on someone's life and mental/emotional capacity.

Someone who's sitting and crying while breastfeeding is not capable of standing up to much. Someone saying "no", even if they don't have actual power, could certainly be a real roadblock. I've had enough experience with people dealing with depression, anxiety, etc to know that the normal rules of what you can manage go out the window.

[Sandi_k]

... no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to.  Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.

You're wrong on two counts here:

1) She does not supervise palace staff. She has no line of authority, and no power in that chain of command.

2) The palace *took her passport* when she moved in. She could not "go anywhere in the world she wanted to go to."

[Villanelle]

I don't care how unprepared someone was for a role, if someone is SUICIDAL and they are denied mental health treatment, that is WRONG. Full stop. No excuses. None. Nada. Zip.

So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.

I broke down and watched the interview because it was a topic of conversation among the friend-group text string.

All of the stuff about how she was unprepared, how she didn't realize one actually curtsied to the queen in private, etc. just made me think less of Harry.  (Well, part of me was skeptical it was true, but the other part blamed Harry.)  He was the one who was part of that culture.  He knew to at least some large extent what would be expected of her.  He had the people he could ask questions of or put her in touch with. 

But somehow it is her fault?  If you invite me to a party and I show up in jeans and it turns out it was a formal even and you failed to mention that, you are far more in the wrong for not telling me than I am for not asking about the dress code. 

[Villanelle]

She told her husband she was afraid to be left alone because she was afraid of what she might do.  If we are drawing some ridiculous line between "thinking rationally [????] about suicide" and "suicidal" , that seems to very clearly be the latter.  She was afraid that if she was left alone and therefore given the opportunity, she would take her own life.  That's pretty textbook suicidal, unless you think it only counts if there are pills in your mouth or a blade on your wrist.

I think they are kind of ridiculous.  I think the interview harmed them at least as much as it helped them, though I'm coming at this from someone who has payed little attention to them until now so I don't have all the context.  I think they have a fair amount of fault in just how badly things went.

But some of these comments are just horrible, unless we assume they were outright lying about several things. 

[Sibley]

I don't care how unprepared someone was for a role, if someone is SUICIDAL and they are denied mental health treatment, that is WRONG. Full stop. No excuses. None. Nada. Zip.

So stop blaming the woman for not thinking things through. All that does is tell me something about you, and it's not good.

I broke down and watched the interview because it was a topic of conversation among the friend-group text string.

All of the stuff about how she was unprepared, how she didn't realize one actually curtsied to the queen in private, etc. just made me think less of Harry.  (Well, part of me was skeptical it was true, but the other part blamed Harry.)  He was the one who was part of that culture.  He knew to at least some large extent what would be expected of her.  He had the people he could ask questions of or put her in touch with. 

But somehow it is her fault?  If you invite me to a party and I show up in jeans and it turns out it was a formal even and you failed to mention that, you are far more in the wrong for not telling me than I am for not asking about the dress code.

I haven't watched the interview. I was reacting to the comments in this thread, combined with the bits and pieces I have seen or learned.

[former player]

... no-one had any power to stop her from seeing anyone she wanted or going anywhere in the world she wanted to go to.  Anyone she spoke to in the Royal Household other than a member of the family (and there is no indication she spoke to anyone in the family) was an employee that she could have either ignored or given direct orders to.

You're wrong on two counts here:

1) She does not supervise palace staff. She has no line of authority, and no power in that chain of command.

2) The palace *took her passport* when she moved in. She could not "go anywhere in the world she wanted to go to."

She had authority over her own and Harry's staff and power to ignore any other staff.

We have no indication that she wanted to make use of her passport and was refused or asked for it back and was refused.

I'm not saying she didn't get herself into a difficult position, or that she didn't find herself unable to cope with it.   But she wasn't a naive 20 year old whose family arranged her marriage.  She was a high-earning 36 year old woman with a previous marriage, a previous celebrity relationship and a decent amount of personal wealth that she earned herself.  She had a loving and supportive spouse.   She had options.

I'm sorry if I misred her statements about suicide.