INTL Harry and Meghan plan to do things their way.
- Thread starter mzkitty
- Start date
NoDandy
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Delete comment
TBonz
Veteran Member
Not impressed with Megan. Not impressed with Harry. Seems like Megan is calling the shots here.
Seems to me the duo would like to do what they like (hobnob with Hollywood - Megan's dream) and live the high life but do very limited Royal work to earn the money they get from the BRF. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Cut 'em loose. Harry has enough money on his own to get by.
Seems to me the duo would like to do what they like (hobnob with Hollywood - Megan's dream) and live the high life but do very limited Royal work to earn the money they get from the BRF. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Cut 'em loose. Harry has enough money on his own to get by.
MountainBiker
Veteran Member
And we all know what a great job the Queen did raising her own kids.......
Ravekid
Veteran Member
Is it possible they both see the monarchy sliding to the point of being less important in the coming decades due to changing demographics? A recent Sun article says that the Muslim population in England is around 6%. Other more popular, but non-Christian religions number 1%. Twenty-one million people in the country claim no religious affiliation. So 7% of the country is of a religion that was basically non-existant for the whole monarchy thing over the centuries. Right now the royals still seem somewhat relevant and popular, but I wonder if the levels of interest will continue ten years from now, twenty?
thompson
Certa Bonum Certamen
Britons want Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stripped of royal titles: poll
A new poll published in Mail Online says opinion of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle has fallen to an all-time low, with 54% of respondents saying they should be stripped of their royal titles.
pagesix.com
Britons want Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stripped of royal titles: poll
By Jon Levine
January 11, 2020 | 9:18am
The British people are fed up with renegade royals Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
A new poll published in Mail Online says public opinion of the pair has fallen to an all-time low, with 54% of respondents saying they should be stripped of their royal titles.
The poll also showed a strong majority of Britons now believe Harry and Meghan should be stripped of royal allowances from the royal family or British taxpayers, and be forced to repay a roughly $3.1 million renovation to their 19th-century estate, Frogmore Cottage.
In a renewed show of reverence for their 93-year-old monarch, 60% percent of respondents said the pair had treated Queen Elizabeth II “shoddily” with 54% saying Harry should give up his position as sixth in line to the British throne.
Harry and Meghan made waves this week after releasing a statement saying they would “step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent.” They plan to split their time between England and North America.
The announcement was made without consultation with the palace.
Well this has apparently been in the works for some time. As if we didn't know this really is ALL about the MONEY. This time it is about a charitable donation for elephants. Next time you can bet it will be about a charitable donation so Megan and Harry can continue their lifestyle and jet-setting ways.
Meghan Markle reportedly signs deal with Disney following royal split
www.today.com
Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex has reportedly signed a deal with Disney to do a voice-over in exchange for a contribution to a wildlife charity of her choosing.
The news, which was reported by U.K. newspaper The Times, comes on the heels of the shocking announcement that the former Meghan Markle and her husband, Prince Harry, plan to "step back" as senior members of the British royal family.
The couple hope to become financially independent and carve out more progressive roles for themselves, spending more time in North America. In the meantime, they will continue to retain their residence at Frogmore Cottage — that is, with the Queen's permission.
https://www.today.com/video/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-step-back-a-royal-mess-76345925627
The reported Disney deal has Meghan doing a voice-over in return for a donation to Elephants Without Borders, which supports wildlife conservation. The collaboration points to the couple's desire to use their celebrity status to further their favorite charities, though some critics see the move to partner with a media company as a blemish on the royal family's image.
Meghan has reportedly already completed the voice-over work prior to the couple's Christmas holiday in Canada where they spent time with Meghan's mother, Doria Ragland.
This wouldn't be the first time Harry and Meghan have partnered with Disney. In July, the couple attended the premiere of the Disney film "The Lion King." The premiere was held in support of African Parks, an organization Prince Harry supports. And following the birth of their son Archie, Disney presented the couple with a special cartoon featuring Winnie-the-Pooh to celebrate the happy occasion.
According to one report referenced in The Times, this new deal has confirmed speculation by senior members of the royal family that the couple has been signing deals with "firms including Disney" as they step away from tradition and into a life less bound by appearance and familial restrictions.
In recent months, the couple has been vocal about the intense pressure they receive from the media, particularly since becoming parents. The pair said they hope to raise Archie with an appreciation for the royal tradition he was born into while giving their family the space they need to focus on "the next chapter" which seems to include support for a variety of charities.
Now the emerging report about Meghan's work as a Disney voice-over artist has everyone watching to see how the young couple will carve out a new role for themselves as they step back from Buckingham Palace and onto a new uncharted path.
Meghan Markle reportedly signs deal with Disney following royal split
Meghan Markle reportedly signs deal with Disney following royal split
This wouldn't be the first time the Duchess of Sussex has partnered with the California-based entertainment company.
www.today.com
Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex has reportedly signed a deal with Disney to do a voice-over in exchange for a contribution to a wildlife charity of her choosing.
The news, which was reported by U.K. newspaper The Times, comes on the heels of the shocking announcement that the former Meghan Markle and her husband, Prince Harry, plan to "step back" as senior members of the British royal family.
The couple hope to become financially independent and carve out more progressive roles for themselves, spending more time in North America. In the meantime, they will continue to retain their residence at Frogmore Cottage — that is, with the Queen's permission.
https://www.today.com/video/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-step-back-a-royal-mess-76345925627
The reported Disney deal has Meghan doing a voice-over in return for a donation to Elephants Without Borders, which supports wildlife conservation. The collaboration points to the couple's desire to use their celebrity status to further their favorite charities, though some critics see the move to partner with a media company as a blemish on the royal family's image.
Meghan has reportedly already completed the voice-over work prior to the couple's Christmas holiday in Canada where they spent time with Meghan's mother, Doria Ragland.
This wouldn't be the first time Harry and Meghan have partnered with Disney. In July, the couple attended the premiere of the Disney film "The Lion King." The premiere was held in support of African Parks, an organization Prince Harry supports. And following the birth of their son Archie, Disney presented the couple with a special cartoon featuring Winnie-the-Pooh to celebrate the happy occasion.
According to one report referenced in The Times, this new deal has confirmed speculation by senior members of the royal family that the couple has been signing deals with "firms including Disney" as they step away from tradition and into a life less bound by appearance and familial restrictions.
In recent months, the couple has been vocal about the intense pressure they receive from the media, particularly since becoming parents. The pair said they hope to raise Archie with an appreciation for the royal tradition he was born into while giving their family the space they need to focus on "the next chapter" which seems to include support for a variety of charities.
Now the emerging report about Meghan's work as a Disney voice-over artist has everyone watching to see how the young couple will carve out a new role for themselves as they step back from Buckingham Palace and onto a new uncharted path.
Sorry, those two aren't that deep. This is all about the money and their egos. They don't want any restrictions put on them so they are "taking their ball [grandchild] and running away." Personally I find them an embarrassment to their generation. Instead of being an example of working regardless of their personal income, they are showing just what their character contains. And moths are fluttering out of that wallet.
Kathy, I was in the middle of posting the article you just posted when the I got a message from the forum saying other posts had been made while I was posting, did I wish to view them!
Yes, I thought that was very revealing...
There was also the bit in one of the above posted articles how they've patented "RoyalSussex" or "SussexRoyal" or something along those lines. Now tell me, if they are stepping back from their "royal" duties just why should they get to have a patent for something like that? And exactly why should they be able to keep said royal titles?
They are both asinine.
Krayola
Veteran Member
Someone up-thread hit on this earlier, but what doesn't ring true is all this blather about them wanting to be financially independent. They need to stop using this phrase. The optics are bad when they are mooching off of Charles for 95% of their income. They only want to relinquish the 5% that comes from the tax-payer.
It sounds like they just want to get rid of the tax payer money they receive because it caps their income potential. They are not allowed to earn any more on their own if they accept that 5% from the public. If they get rid of the 5% public funds, they are free to go out and get unlimited $$ via speaking fees, endorsements, set up charities for profit, etc. That's the ticket, right there.
I think that is what this is all about. I'll bet if the 5% Sovereign Grant had not put a cap on their cash flow, they never would have made a peep about wanting to get rid of it.
It sounds like they just want to get rid of the tax payer money they receive because it caps their income potential. They are not allowed to earn any more on their own if they accept that 5% from the public. If they get rid of the 5% public funds, they are free to go out and get unlimited $$ via speaking fees, endorsements, set up charities for profit, etc. That's the ticket, right there.
I think that is what this is all about. I'll bet if the 5% Sovereign Grant had not put a cap on their cash flow, they never would have made a peep about wanting to get rid of it.
NoDandy
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Agree TBonz
MountainBiker
Veteran Member
Certainly money is part of it but I'm sure it is just as much being able to act more independently of the crown. As senior royals they cannot do and say anything that runs counter to established protocols and/or what the sovereign approves of. It may look like a glamorous life to most people but I suspect it is suffocating.
marymonde
Veteran Member
Melodi
Disaster Cat
There is another fear I'm sure the Queen and The Firm has (I'm sure and this has been slightly noted in the UK press) and that is avoiding the scandals that happened when they first started "cutting back" the family a bit in terms of letting Charle's Youngest brother Edward and some of the Cousins who in previous generations would just have had an "allowance" or "married off" into other European royal families or high UK aristocracy.
Some of them got "caught" by reporters impersonating clients and using their royal connections to get contracts and/or made really bad (or cringe-making decisions) when it came to personal work and financial choices (Sarah may have been forced to divorce Andrew, but her working for Weight Watchers and going spectacularly bankrupt was very difficult for "The Firm" to deal with to them it "looked bad."
Not as bad as Andrew looks now but it was "trading on the name" or just making "the firm" look crash and common - bankruptcy!
You get the idea, I think the senior royals have good reasons to fear that Harry and Meghan will totally flaunt their positions and titles to support themselves but be very open about it - I mean they already set up business names!
They likely offer Harry quite a lot of support or even "bribes" in an attempt to try and have some say in what the couple do or don't do to make money - I don't think it will stick but they will try.
I think it was Edward's wife Sophie (I'm not certain) who was secretly filmed promising "royal access" to a fake Middle Eastern businessman who was really a reporter going undercover.
I suspect what is coming will top that, except that it will at least by out there in the open.
Some of them got "caught" by reporters impersonating clients and using their royal connections to get contracts and/or made really bad (or cringe-making decisions) when it came to personal work and financial choices (Sarah may have been forced to divorce Andrew, but her working for Weight Watchers and going spectacularly bankrupt was very difficult for "The Firm" to deal with to them it "looked bad."
Not as bad as Andrew looks now but it was "trading on the name" or just making "the firm" look crash and common - bankruptcy!
You get the idea, I think the senior royals have good reasons to fear that Harry and Meghan will totally flaunt their positions and titles to support themselves but be very open about it - I mean they already set up business names!
They likely offer Harry quite a lot of support or even "bribes" in an attempt to try and have some say in what the couple do or don't do to make money - I don't think it will stick but they will try.
I think it was Edward's wife Sophie (I'm not certain) who was secretly filmed promising "royal access" to a fake Middle Eastern businessman who was really a reporter going undercover.
I suspect what is coming will top that, except that it will at least by out there in the open.
And from elsewhere around the web some more numbers to clarify things.
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
Pre-1990 Diana, I'd agree. Not long prior to her death, she was clearly letting rich Arabs effectively purchase sex with her, for God's sake (and her a mother to two Brit royals). Quiet and classy Melania, no argument. I love how she usefully gives TGE extra alpha male points; when the loudest libtards with TDS commonly sleep with obese versions of Rachel Madcow, *HE* sleeps with a supermodel.
Scarletbreasted
Galloping geriatric
Royal discussion between the big 4 on Monday - possibly with video link to Mehgan:
Link: Queen calls historic royal crisis meeting
I stated, in a much earlier post, that I regarded Harry as “Pussy whipped” - the below snip from the above link more or less proves it?
Meghan, 38, who returned to Canada to join baby Archie on Thursday, could join discussions in a conference call.
We can also reveal that Harry agreed to quit after Meghan vowed not to return to the UK full time.
sb
Link: Queen calls historic royal crisis meeting
I stated, in a much earlier post, that I regarded Harry as “Pussy whipped” - the below snip from the above link more or less proves it?
Meghan, 38, who returned to Canada to join baby Archie on Thursday, could join discussions in a conference call.
We can also reveal that Harry agreed to quit after Meghan vowed not to return to the UK full time.
sb
Last edited:
Krayola
Veteran Member
What the heck did she think was going to happen when she married into that family?!
(Sidenote: anyone would have to be insane to marry into that family since you don't even have legal custody of your own minor kids. Charles will have legal custody when he becomes King and that is BS in my book. What would happen to her kids if they divorce?? But I digress.)
Surely before marriage, he talked to her about what they were allowed to do, what married life would consist of, what the finances would be etc....
Now that the fairy tale wedding is over and the novelty of having a baby has worn off, she is chomping at the bit....but what else did she expect? Unless she planned this all along.
I laughed at what Limbaugh had to say about it:
thompson
Certa Bonum Certamen
You don't have to give a rat's ass about anything. Promise!
thompson
Certa Bonum Certamen
Nope, that was Sarah Ferguson.
Scarletbreasted
Galloping geriatric
Snip: "Nope, that was Sarah Ferguson.)
Who just happens to be "Randy Andy's" ex, but they still co-habit with each other, theoretically, .............. their 2 daughters are a little weird at times too. (One has recently married, one is supposed to marry soon? depending on the fallout of the Epstein/Andy fiasco)
sb
Who just happens to be "Randy Andy's" ex, but they still co-habit with each other, theoretically, .............. their 2 daughters are a little weird at times too. (One has recently married, one is supposed to marry soon? depending on the fallout of the Epstein/Andy fiasco)
sb
thompson
Certa Bonum Certamen
Prince William says he can't 'put my arm around' brother Harry anymore: 'I'm sad about that'
Prince William hopes the Royals can one day reconcile, he said in his first public comments on the Megxit scandal.
www.foxnews.com
Prince William says he can't 'put my arm around' brother Harry anymore: 'I'm sad about that'
Published 1 hour ago
Prince William hopes the Royals can one day reconcile, he said in his first public comments on the Megxit scandal.
“I’ve put my arm around my brother all our lives and I can’t do that anymore…I’m sad about that,” he told the Sunday Times.
The Duke of Cambridge admitted his “sadness” about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle‘s decision to “step back” as senior members of the monarchy, according The Sunday Times of London.
William, 37, seemed resigned to trying to buoy the rogue couple as the fallout from their desire to splinter from the family continued.
“All we can do, and all I can do, is try and support them and hope that the time comes when we’re all singing from the same page. I want everyone to play on the team,” he said.
It’s a sharp turn from early reports that the future king and his father, Prince Charles, were “incandescent with rage,” at Harry, who allegedly did not warn his family that the announcement was coming.
William, whose wife Kate Middleton has been noticeably quiet amidst the controversy, has been heavily involved in trying to appease Harry and Markle in the last few days.
He will join his brother, father and grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, in person at Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, England Monday to find common ground. Markle plans to call-in from Vancouver, Canada, where she and eight-month-old son Archie are staying.
Melodi
Disaster Cat
They really can't do that, no matter how "unfair" it may seem they are still physically members of the royal family and high-value targets for terrorists and other types of kidnappers.
Having something like that happen would not only cause an international crisis but could rock the monarchy to its foundations if it was even believed it was because they lacked proper security and protection.
One reason Harry gave up his officer commission was that at the last moment he was prevented from leading his troops into Afganistan because he was just too "high value" a target for the enemy.
He said (and I think rightly so) if he couldn't lead his troops when it counted than he wasn't really an officer, he understood the decision but the military also accepted his stepping down.
Most Americans have no idea how close the monarchy came to ending with The Queen in the aftermath of Diana's death, especially because of her predictions how it would happen and it did, and then the seeming indifference by the adults in the royal family to the news and their refusal to return to London until there were thousands in the streets.
They can't afford this with Harry and Meghan, even if it is costly, unfair and in a perfect world would not be the case - but it is, at least for now.
Finally, there is Baby Archie and as long as he is with them, that is their "ace" in terms of security and protection.
Oh and Diana's security was pulled not too long before that car crash...
Melodi
Disaster Cat
From The Guardian
The indiscretion of Sophie Wessex
Sophie Rhys-Jones has obliged Buckingham Palace to rethink its policy of allowing minor royals to pursue careers with her ill-judged remarks to a phoney 'sheikh'. Derek Brown explains
The indiscretion of Sophie Wessex
Sophie Rhys-Jones has obliged Buckingham Palace to rethink its policy of allowing minor royals to pursue careers with her ill-judged remarks to a phoney 'sheikh'. Derek Brown explains.
www.theguardian.com
For reasons of brevity and thread drift I am including the link but not the full article but folks can go read it if they like.
thompson
Certa Bonum Certamen
Both Sarah Ferguson and Sophie got caught... with the same guy.
en.wikipedia.org
snipped
In May 2010, Sarah was filmed by the News of the World offering Mazher Mahmood, an undercover reporter posing as an Indian businessman, access to Prince Andrew for £500,000. On the video made as a documentary source for the story, which is publicly available, Sarah is heard to say that "£500,000 when you can, to me, open doors". She is seen taking away a briefcase containing US$40,000 in cash. Exposure surrounding the incident increased Sarah's public profile and notoriety.
Sterling Publishers substantially increased the print run of Ashley Learns About Strangers, the Duchess's latest book for children; however, the notoriety did not translate into additional book sales. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Sarah explained her behaviour by saying that she had been drinking prior to soliciting the cash, and was "in the gutter at that moment". She also claimed that her intention was initially to help a friend who "needed $38,000 (£28,000) urgently" but she ultimately asked for more money due to her own financial problems.
In November 2016, it was reported that Sarah intended to sue News Group Newspapers (parent company of the News of the World) and its owner Rupert Murdoch for £25 million in damages citing her "loss in earnings" as well as the subsequent "distress" that the media sting brought to her as the main reasons. In January 2018, it was reported that the actual amount the Duchess was seeking was £45 million.
It was reported in August 2010 that the Duchess might declare voluntary bankruptcy with debts of £5 million, though other sources had suggested she owed about £2 million.
In March 2011, it was reported that Jeffrey Epstein had helped the Duchess avoid bankruptcy by paying off some of her debts. The payments were reportedly made after intervention from the Duke of York. In the summer of 2011, Finding Sarah aired on the OWN network. One episode of the U.S.-filmed reality series depicted Sarah meeting with Suze Orman, the internationally known financial advisor, receiving from Orman a strict lecture and practical advice on how to resolve her financial issues.
en.wikipedia.org
In April 2001, Sophie appeared in the media after she was misled in a meeting at the Dorchester by a News of the World reporter posing as an Arab sheikh, Mazher Mahmood, who was later exposed for perjury in Southwark Crown Court.It was claimed by the newspapers that during their "secretly taped" conversation, the Countess had insulted the Royal Family and politicians, calling the Queen "old dear", and referring to Cherie Blair as "absolutely horrid, horrid, horrid", as well as criticising the leadership of Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, and mocking Leader of the Opposition William Hague's appearance. It was reported by the Mail on Sunday and Sunday Mirror that the Countess subsequently had sent apology letters to Blair, Hague and Prince Charles.
Buckingham Palace denied the accuracy of the reports, saying: "The Countess of Wessex, who is trying to pursue her own career, is obviously vulnerable to set-ups such as this." The Palace released a statement saying the reported comments were "selective, distorted and in several cases, flatly untrue". The Palace officials stated that the Countess had not insulted the Queen, the Queen Mother, or the politicians, and the rumours about her difficulties in marriage and her alleged comments about her husband's sexuality were untrue, while according to the Mail on Sunday multiple reliable sources had confirmed these reports. Subsequently, in 2002, both the Earl and Countess announced that they would quit their business interests in order to focus on activities and official engagements on behalf of the royal family and aid the Queen in her Golden Jubilee year.
The Countess of Wessex has been criticised for accepting two sets of jewels from the royal family of Bahrain during an official day-long visit to the country in December 2011, as she and her husband returned to the UK from a trip to Afghanistan. She was given one set by Bahrain's king and a second set by the country’s prime minister, Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa. Her husband, the Earl, received a pen and a watch as well as a silk rug from the Crown Prince of Bahrain, Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, who also gave the countess a silver and pearl cup. The value of the jewellery has not been estimated and its precise contents were not disclosed.
Critics said the Countess should sell the gems and give the proceeds to political protesters in Bahrain. Denis MacShane, then a Labour MP and previously a Foreign Office minister, said: “Given the appalling suffering and repression of the Bahraini people, it would be a fitting gesture for the Countess of Wessex to auction these trinkets and distribute the proceeds to the victims of the regime.”
Royal Family guidelines and procedures relating to gifts published by the government in 2003, state that "before accepting any gift, careful consideration should always be given, wherever practicable, to the donor, the reason for and occasion of the gift and the nature of the gift itself ... Equally, before declining the offer of a gift, careful consideration should be given to any offence that might be caused by such action."
Sarah, Duchess of York - Wikipedia
snipped
In May 2010, Sarah was filmed by the News of the World offering Mazher Mahmood, an undercover reporter posing as an Indian businessman, access to Prince Andrew for £500,000. On the video made as a documentary source for the story, which is publicly available, Sarah is heard to say that "£500,000 when you can, to me, open doors". She is seen taking away a briefcase containing US$40,000 in cash. Exposure surrounding the incident increased Sarah's public profile and notoriety.
Sterling Publishers substantially increased the print run of Ashley Learns About Strangers, the Duchess's latest book for children; however, the notoriety did not translate into additional book sales. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Sarah explained her behaviour by saying that she had been drinking prior to soliciting the cash, and was "in the gutter at that moment". She also claimed that her intention was initially to help a friend who "needed $38,000 (£28,000) urgently" but she ultimately asked for more money due to her own financial problems.
In November 2016, it was reported that Sarah intended to sue News Group Newspapers (parent company of the News of the World) and its owner Rupert Murdoch for £25 million in damages citing her "loss in earnings" as well as the subsequent "distress" that the media sting brought to her as the main reasons. In January 2018, it was reported that the actual amount the Duchess was seeking was £45 million.
It was reported in August 2010 that the Duchess might declare voluntary bankruptcy with debts of £5 million, though other sources had suggested she owed about £2 million.
In March 2011, it was reported that Jeffrey Epstein had helped the Duchess avoid bankruptcy by paying off some of her debts. The payments were reportedly made after intervention from the Duke of York. In the summer of 2011, Finding Sarah aired on the OWN network. One episode of the U.S.-filmed reality series depicted Sarah meeting with Suze Orman, the internationally known financial advisor, receiving from Orman a strict lecture and practical advice on how to resolve her financial issues.
Sophie, Countess of Wessex - Wikipedia
In April 2001, Sophie appeared in the media after she was misled in a meeting at the Dorchester by a News of the World reporter posing as an Arab sheikh, Mazher Mahmood, who was later exposed for perjury in Southwark Crown Court.It was claimed by the newspapers that during their "secretly taped" conversation, the Countess had insulted the Royal Family and politicians, calling the Queen "old dear", and referring to Cherie Blair as "absolutely horrid, horrid, horrid", as well as criticising the leadership of Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, and mocking Leader of the Opposition William Hague's appearance. It was reported by the Mail on Sunday and Sunday Mirror that the Countess subsequently had sent apology letters to Blair, Hague and Prince Charles.
Buckingham Palace denied the accuracy of the reports, saying: "The Countess of Wessex, who is trying to pursue her own career, is obviously vulnerable to set-ups such as this." The Palace released a statement saying the reported comments were "selective, distorted and in several cases, flatly untrue". The Palace officials stated that the Countess had not insulted the Queen, the Queen Mother, or the politicians, and the rumours about her difficulties in marriage and her alleged comments about her husband's sexuality were untrue, while according to the Mail on Sunday multiple reliable sources had confirmed these reports. Subsequently, in 2002, both the Earl and Countess announced that they would quit their business interests in order to focus on activities and official engagements on behalf of the royal family and aid the Queen in her Golden Jubilee year.
The Countess of Wessex has been criticised for accepting two sets of jewels from the royal family of Bahrain during an official day-long visit to the country in December 2011, as she and her husband returned to the UK from a trip to Afghanistan. She was given one set by Bahrain's king and a second set by the country’s prime minister, Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa. Her husband, the Earl, received a pen and a watch as well as a silk rug from the Crown Prince of Bahrain, Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, who also gave the countess a silver and pearl cup. The value of the jewellery has not been estimated and its precise contents were not disclosed.
Critics said the Countess should sell the gems and give the proceeds to political protesters in Bahrain. Denis MacShane, then a Labour MP and previously a Foreign Office minister, said: “Given the appalling suffering and repression of the Bahraini people, it would be a fitting gesture for the Countess of Wessex to auction these trinkets and distribute the proceeds to the victims of the regime.”
Royal Family guidelines and procedures relating to gifts published by the government in 2003, state that "before accepting any gift, careful consideration should always be given, wherever practicable, to the donor, the reason for and occasion of the gift and the nature of the gift itself ... Equally, before declining the offer of a gift, careful consideration should be given to any offence that might be caused by such action."
Melodi
Disaster Cat
Thanks, Thompson I missed that part! Thanks for posting but it really shows the problem "The Firm" faces and why I think they will try to exchange some sort of support for the couple in exchange for some say-so in what they do - again I don't think it will work.
Also interesting, this morning there was talk of them moving to the US, which if there are custody issues might make sense (it doesn't much otherwise, except perhaps for taxes).
But while Canada is a Commonwealth country and The Queen is still the official head of state, the US does have every State with different custody laws and judges can make a lot of custody decisions on their own.
In Canada, Little Archie might be put on the next plane to London if The Queen demanded it, pick the "right" State in the US and the judge is likely to rule in "The Best Interests of the Child" that he stay with his parents, there would be a legal fight that might go on so many years it would be a moot point by the time Archie is nearly grown.
I'm not sure that either Harry and Meghan are bright enough to see this but their lawyers and some of the Hollywood friends who have international custody battles probably would.
Also interesting, this morning there was talk of them moving to the US, which if there are custody issues might make sense (it doesn't much otherwise, except perhaps for taxes).
But while Canada is a Commonwealth country and The Queen is still the official head of state, the US does have every State with different custody laws and judges can make a lot of custody decisions on their own.
In Canada, Little Archie might be put on the next plane to London if The Queen demanded it, pick the "right" State in the US and the judge is likely to rule in "The Best Interests of the Child" that he stay with his parents, there would be a legal fight that might go on so many years it would be a moot point by the time Archie is nearly grown.
I'm not sure that either Harry and Meghan are bright enough to see this but their lawyers and some of the Hollywood friends who have international custody battles probably would.
von Koehler
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Black women are notoriously difficult to live with. Perhaps the Royals are just now realizing what they are dealing with?
von Koehler
I'm finding the interest in this thread highly amusing. The history of all monarchies going back as far as we have the written word, have always been family soap operas. Citing back to the Greeks, Romans, and then to the European thrones and their hanger-on-ers back a thousand years and to this very day.
If it weren't for all the basis in historical fact and innuendo, Shakespeare himself probably would have run out of material. Think of the cultural loss! Think of what we and civilization owe all of these dysfunctional boobs!
Carry on.
If it weren't for all the basis in historical fact and innuendo, Shakespeare himself probably would have run out of material. Think of the cultural loss! Think of what we and civilization owe all of these dysfunctional boobs!
Carry on.
Melodi
Disaster Cat
Spoiled actresses are also difficult to live with and I point out again that the White side of her family has caused a lot more problems than the black side.
Also, she wasn't raised as a "typical" African American (and I used to spend weekends at Jackson State in the dorm when I was in college, I almost went there - so I know what you are talking about).
Instead, her Mom is a Los Angeles businesswomen and Yoga instructor, if anything she was probably raised kind of Upper-Middle Class Yuppie Los Angeles (which like the civil service tends to include a lot of educated African Americans) which given her later Hollyweird career probably helps her be willful, spoiled, egotistical and unwilling to take direction except perhaps from a film director.
I don't actually like her much, I think her Mom is lovely from what I've seen of her, but Meghan herself? Well, when I heard the reports that she made servants (today often degreed professionals) cry with her abusive ways of talking to them and the Queen actually told her "in our house, we do not behave this way" well, let's just say she came off as a cruel and self-centered little jerk (at least in that regard).
I've noticed, especially in South America when I was there - extremely wealthy people from "Old" families tend to treat servants very well (even sometimes adopting their children if they are orphaned) Newley rich people often are horrid because they feel "too close" to the situation - not all of them, I knew some who "never forgot where they came from" and used their wealth to help others and were very good employers.
But "race" seems to have nothing to do with it and I've seen the same patterns in Ireland when it comes to people who are wealthy but decent human beings, and folks who think that now that they are rich (or have a position) they can treat their underlings (who they used to be just like) as scum.
Melodi
Disaster Cat
Yep, exactly why as a writer I follow this stuff, somethings never change except the costumes and the technology.I'm finding the interest in this thread highly amusing. The history of all monarchies going back as far as we have the written word, have always been family soap operas. Citing back to the Greeks, Romans, and then to the European thrones and their hanger-on-ers back a thousand years and to this very day.
If it weren't for all the basis in historical fact and innuendo, Shakespeare himself probably would have run out of material. Think of the cultural loss! Think of what we and civilization owe all of these dysfunctional boobs!
Carry on.
Rastech
Veteran Member
A different perspective. The Royal Family has a loated number of minor Royals problem, and they seriously need to reduce that bloat. Booting out Prince Andrew was a great first start, and, it may be me, but Harry and Meghan have set an excellent example for All the minor Royals to follow to get out of the way. This should be, if the example is embraced and followed widely,the creation of a good new foundation for the future of the Monarchy. My cousin has been involved with the training of William and Harry in the Military, reckons they’re both great guys, and my Gunsmith friend has been in contact with the people handling the rifles and ammunition supply for both prior to them going into the Military also getting very positive feedback. With the relationship between USA and Britain likely to get much closer after we’ve left the appalling European Union, and Harry and Meghan likely to split time between the two, that could prove useful to us all tbh. Particularly with us buying lots of guns from the USA, starting gun and ammunition manufacture alongside in Britain, and the promotion rKeeping and Bearing Arms here (which is inevitably getting closer. I’ve been advancing the cause of women being armed for personal protection, as well as the armed citizen being available to help the Police and Emergency Services for a while, and the anti gun trolls that started off reacting badly to ita few years ago, have pretty much gone quiet on the subject. Harry could do a lot of good spending a lot of time on practicing on USA shooting ranges, and discussions with fitearms training experts, starting with USA Police - the firearms training of British Police is over 20 years behind USA Police Training for example, and that needs fixing urgently. Opportunities in all sorts of areas look promising, though there has been a suggestion that they might create a copy of the Clinton Foundation, shich would rapidly become an unmitigated disaster if they were to imho.
Sorry but I beg to differ. They absolutely can make the decision to defund their security. Will they? If they [The Firm] is smart they will make that their one and only financial contribution, and only a partial funding at that. Before anything financial is distributed from either Cornwall from daddy Charles, or from the trust that holds the inheritance from their mum [Diana], take off the cost of security funding.
Harry has known since birth what his responsibilities would be. He has chosen repeatedly to buck that fact and in the process many times play the fool. It had nothing to do with youth and everything to do with outright arrogance and a desire to rub his family's nose in it, just because he could. He plays the fool even better than many of his ancestors in the same position have played it.
The monarchy would actually be stronger for a little (a lot) of house cleaning. And starting with these two pieces of ego-tripping elitists would look pretty damn good. It would also put the rest of the Windsor family and their hanger ons that play time is over with, you tow the line, perform your duties for God and country, or go find someone else to pick up the tab on your foolishness.
Would it be easy? No. Would it emotionally hurt the family? Yes. Would it be the healthiest [both short and long term] action that can be taken under the circumstances? In my opinion yes. In the long term will it mean that the Windsor family continues to be an asset to their Kingdom and people? Yes.
I tell you Charles should at the very least take away the clothing allowance he gives Markle. The clothing allowance exceeds a million pounds annually. It is only in recent weeks that she has finally started slowing down on the cost of her wardrobe and even with that her wardrobe cost exceeded $995,000 in 2019.
She owns a crap ton of jewelry outright in her name now as well including a pair of diamond snowflake earrings she's worn a couple of times that cost 12,000 pounds. Yeah, she's not making out like a bandit is she.
She owns a crap ton of jewelry outright in her name now as well including a pair of diamond snowflake earrings she's worn a couple of times that cost 12,000 pounds. Yeah, she's not making out like a bandit is she.
Melodi
Disaster Cat
OK, sure they could physically take it away but when they did that with Diana and she died in an accident a short time later, well there may have been no connection to it in reality but the entire mess nearly DID topple the royal family.
It came very-very close, and they know they simply can't afford a repeat if that sort of public reaction if they can avoid it - anything that makes it look like they played a role, especially if Baby Archie was kidnapped, could be the end of them.
That might totally depend on how they reacted (which was horrible when Diana died, and I'm no Diana fan either) but again, I suspect they will either come to some arrangement where the couple pay part of it or are covered simply because of the horrible risks in this day and age if they don't.
By the way, there are three or four really good articles at the Daily Mail today explaining all the ins and outs and problems with the situation - a couple of them are extremely well written and not just the usual "gossip" fest that the paper is known for.
It came very-very close, and they know they simply can't afford a repeat if that sort of public reaction if they can avoid it - anything that makes it look like they played a role, especially if Baby Archie was kidnapped, could be the end of them.
That might totally depend on how they reacted (which was horrible when Diana died, and I'm no Diana fan either) but again, I suspect they will either come to some arrangement where the couple pay part of it or are covered simply because of the horrible risks in this day and age if they don't.
By the way, there are three or four really good articles at the Daily Mail today explaining all the ins and outs and problems with the situation - a couple of them are extremely well written and not just the usual "gossip" fest that the paper is known for.
Melodi
Disaster Cat
I am pretty sure she bought most of that stuff herself but I could be wrong, she came into the marriage as a wealthy women by most standards, maybe not that of the .001 percent but enough to be a clothes horse especially if a lot of her other bills were covered (no rent, no travel expenses, etc).
Since Diana's estate has come up I'll provide the following analysis based on several websites:
Contents of Princess Diana's Estate
Princess Diana's estate consisted of stocks and other investments, as well as cash from her £17 million divorce settlement (worth roughly $27.2 million in 1997). It included jewelry, dresses, and other personal belongings valued at approximately £21 million ($36 million) as of her date of death. All this netted her heirs nearly £13 million ($20 million) after taxes. But who were those heirs?
Beneficiaries of Princess Diana's Estate
Princess Diana left a last will and testament which she had signed on June 1, 1993. She modified the will by a first and only codicil on February 1, 1996.
These documents left the princess's estate in equal shares in trust to her young sons until each reached the age of 25. Her mother, Frances Ruth Shand Kydd, and her sister, Lady Elizabeth Sarah Lavinia McCorquodale, were to act as co-executors and co-trustees.
The short first codicil simply changed the executors and trustees from Princess Diana's mother and her personal secretary, Commander Patrick Desmond Christian Jermy Jephson, to her mother and her sister.
The Variation Order of December 1997
Apparently, Princess Diana's mother and sister didn't like the provisions of the will because in December 1997, only a few months after the princess's death, the co-executors were able to obtain a secret variation order from the High Court of Justice. Under the terms of "The Arrangement" approved by the High Court, Princess Diana's estate ended up being distributed differently.
Specific Bequests
The sum of £50,000 ($80,000) was left to Princess Diana's butler, Paul Burrell. Certain "chattels"—what are known as "personal effects" in the U.S.—were left to Princess Diana's 17 godchildren.
The Discretionary Fund
A Discretionary Fund was established for the benefit of Prince William, Prince Harry, their respective future descendants and spouses, and charities selected by the co-trustees.
The Discretionary Fund received the following assets of the estate: intellectual property rights, all wearing apparel, £100,000 ($160,000), and accumulated income earned by the fund's assets. The Discretionary Fund is to be held for a "Perpetuity Period" to last until 21 years after the death of the last surviving descendant of his late Majesty King George VI. The descendant had to be living on the date of Princess Diana's death. [A lot of Diana's wardrobe and other personal effects have been disposed of through auctions over the years. Not all have sold however. Several of these auctions benefitted charities. I have found no currect value of the contents of this discretionary fund; however, if as this reads is correct both Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle receive some type of cash allowance from Diana's estate. Her grandchildren do as well. So Harry and Meghan's "financial independence" spiel is looking more and more like hot air rather than reality.]
The income earned by the fund is to be distributed among the fund's beneficiaries during the Perpetuity Period as the trustees see fit. Anything left in the fund when it expires will go to the then-living descendants of Prince William and Prince Harry.
The Residuary Estate
The balance of Princess Diana's estate referred to as the "residuary estate," was left in equal shares to Prince William and Prince Harry. The shares were to be held in trust until each prince reached the age of 30. Each prince was given access to all of the income from their trust when they turned 25, as well as the power to change the final disposition of their trust if anything should remain at the time of their death.
Both Prince William and Prince Harry have reached the age of 30. Prince William turned 30 on June 21, 2012, and Prince Harry turned 30 on September 15, 2014. They each inherited their share of the residuary estate outright and free of further trust. It's estimated that at the time of each prince's 30th birthday, their shares of the residuary estate were worth £10 million each or about $16 million U.S. dollars. [Now depending on what their financial advisors told them, they may have taken a lump sum after taxes and put it in another trust or foundation in order to protect it from further taxation. That is generally what happens to large inheritances here in the US. Trusts cannot be attached by lawsuits. They may have also created a "foundation" which no only benefits themselves but their favored charities and is therefore another way to avoid taxes. As for the items that have been auctioned, I haven't found which of those items were owned by the Estate Trust and which ones were privately owned as gifts from Diana either before her after her death. Or which ones were owned by collectors from sales immediately following her death.]
Sources:
Princess Diana's Famous 'John Travolta Dress' Fails to Sell at Auction
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-112374970-5ab2c22fae9ab80037eda579.jpg)
www.thebalance.com
www.foxnews.com
www.telegraph.co.uk
The Dresses Auction | princessdianaforever
Who inherited Princess Diana’s jewelry?
Contents of Princess Diana's Estate
Princess Diana's estate consisted of stocks and other investments, as well as cash from her £17 million divorce settlement (worth roughly $27.2 million in 1997). It included jewelry, dresses, and other personal belongings valued at approximately £21 million ($36 million) as of her date of death. All this netted her heirs nearly £13 million ($20 million) after taxes. But who were those heirs?
Beneficiaries of Princess Diana's Estate
Princess Diana left a last will and testament which she had signed on June 1, 1993. She modified the will by a first and only codicil on February 1, 1996.
These documents left the princess's estate in equal shares in trust to her young sons until each reached the age of 25. Her mother, Frances Ruth Shand Kydd, and her sister, Lady Elizabeth Sarah Lavinia McCorquodale, were to act as co-executors and co-trustees.
The short first codicil simply changed the executors and trustees from Princess Diana's mother and her personal secretary, Commander Patrick Desmond Christian Jermy Jephson, to her mother and her sister.
The Variation Order of December 1997
Apparently, Princess Diana's mother and sister didn't like the provisions of the will because in December 1997, only a few months after the princess's death, the co-executors were able to obtain a secret variation order from the High Court of Justice. Under the terms of "The Arrangement" approved by the High Court, Princess Diana's estate ended up being distributed differently.
Specific Bequests
The sum of £50,000 ($80,000) was left to Princess Diana's butler, Paul Burrell. Certain "chattels"—what are known as "personal effects" in the U.S.—were left to Princess Diana's 17 godchildren.
The Discretionary Fund
A Discretionary Fund was established for the benefit of Prince William, Prince Harry, their respective future descendants and spouses, and charities selected by the co-trustees.
The Discretionary Fund received the following assets of the estate: intellectual property rights, all wearing apparel, £100,000 ($160,000), and accumulated income earned by the fund's assets. The Discretionary Fund is to be held for a "Perpetuity Period" to last until 21 years after the death of the last surviving descendant of his late Majesty King George VI. The descendant had to be living on the date of Princess Diana's death. [A lot of Diana's wardrobe and other personal effects have been disposed of through auctions over the years. Not all have sold however. Several of these auctions benefitted charities. I have found no currect value of the contents of this discretionary fund; however, if as this reads is correct both Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle receive some type of cash allowance from Diana's estate. Her grandchildren do as well. So Harry and Meghan's "financial independence" spiel is looking more and more like hot air rather than reality.]
The income earned by the fund is to be distributed among the fund's beneficiaries during the Perpetuity Period as the trustees see fit. Anything left in the fund when it expires will go to the then-living descendants of Prince William and Prince Harry.
The Residuary Estate
The balance of Princess Diana's estate referred to as the "residuary estate," was left in equal shares to Prince William and Prince Harry. The shares were to be held in trust until each prince reached the age of 30. Each prince was given access to all of the income from their trust when they turned 25, as well as the power to change the final disposition of their trust if anything should remain at the time of their death.
Both Prince William and Prince Harry have reached the age of 30. Prince William turned 30 on June 21, 2012, and Prince Harry turned 30 on September 15, 2014. They each inherited their share of the residuary estate outright and free of further trust. It's estimated that at the time of each prince's 30th birthday, their shares of the residuary estate were worth £10 million each or about $16 million U.S. dollars. [Now depending on what their financial advisors told them, they may have taken a lump sum after taxes and put it in another trust or foundation in order to protect it from further taxation. That is generally what happens to large inheritances here in the US. Trusts cannot be attached by lawsuits. They may have also created a "foundation" which no only benefits themselves but their favored charities and is therefore another way to avoid taxes. As for the items that have been auctioned, I haven't found which of those items were owned by the Estate Trust and which ones were privately owned as gifts from Diana either before her after her death. Or which ones were owned by collectors from sales immediately following her death.]
Sources:
Princess Diana's Famous 'John Travolta Dress' Fails to Sell at Auction
The Contents of James Gandolfini's Last Will and Testament
Actor James Gandolfini died on June 19, 2013, at the age of 51. He signed his Last Will and Testament six months before he died. Here's his will.
Princess Diana's 'Travolta dress' sells for $290G after auction flop
It was reportedly one of the People's Princess' "favorite" frocks.
www.foxnews.com
Princess Diana's clothing and jewellery items up for auction in Boston
It’s been 20 years since Princess Diana’s death, yet her legacy has barely faded.
www.telegraph.co.uk
Who inherited Princess Diana’s jewelry?