As an aside, I would recommend that they don’t ask Prince Andrew to babysit.
~VOW
Sort of related : a kid was born in Spain and the Dalai Lama said he was the reincarnation of an important Lama. The kid was OK with it at first but once he hit 18 he just wanted to be regular person so he is. He’s 34 now: Tenzin Ösel Hita - Wikipedia
More like a fundamental misunderstanding of how a constitutional monarchy operates.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As someone here once said, and quite correctly, “The Monarch reigns, but does not rule.” In a constitutional monarchy, the people, through their elected representatives, rule; while all the Monarch does, is rubber-stamp their decisions.
It’s a little more complicated than that, but it’s a nuance that seems to be lost on many Americans. In short, the Queen works for us–we do not work for her. Accordingly, we, through our elected representatives in the Commons, tell her what to do, and she does it.
Like I said, it’s a little more complicated than that, but I think that’s a good summation for now.
They both very strongly believe in certain causes, and have each danced up pretty close to the line, of staying NON political! Their histories indicate a strong desire to make a difference in Africa, both for people and wildlife, for Harry, and education and advancement for girls, for Meagan. They have made no secret of the importance of these issues to them. And you can almost see them choosing their words with extreme care, whenever they discuss these issues. Can you imagine having to mince words over something you feel so very strongly about?
I am always left with the sensation that they’d like to say much more, and much more pointedly.
And while Harry may have learned how to smile and make nice with persons/leaders of questionable morals/actions regarding these causes, I doubt it goes down well with Meagan. And I could certainly see such being a ‘line in the sand’ for her.
It’s just an impression I feel strongly whenever I hear them speak. I think they would really like to make a big difference in these fronts, but are being shackled by the directive to be non political or controversial.
Meghan was an outspoken liberal before the marriage. She was clear she did not like Trump.
Latest news is Charles and the Queen are going to give the couple a nice “exit package” in the next few days. Maybe a lump sum of cash?
I think the crown is most likely going to agree to cover protection services for the family moving forward. And it won’t come cheap, if they’re involved in causes. Still, it’s probably the right thing to do.
If they establish a ‘brand’ and funnel the profits into a charity they direct to their causes, expensing their LARGE protection costs isn’t a good optic.
LA is full of private security people that celebs use. I guess the issue is cost of that 24 hours a day.
Assuming a 5% return after investment expenses, taxes and inflation is not conservative. 1.5% or 2% would be more like ‘conservative’. Which still isn’t poor obviously, but without having read a lot about this, I don’t get the impression they actually want to lead fully ‘normal’ lives. And I’m not saying they have to, they are free AFAIC to try to make the lives they want, just everyone else. I just get the impression it’s still as kind of celebrities, ‘making a difference’ with causes, and probably not just ‘getting by’ living on several $100k/yr.
There’s also from British public’s, again not my problem, the issue of paying for their security which they almost surely could not afford to do on their own at this point. In fact as far as money goes their statement wanting to ‘become financially independent’ seems to say they aren’t where they want to be in that respect w/o British public (via the Queen’s household or whatever the right term is) money.
They could make a lot of money, based on various other celebs who basically make it by having been previously famous for something they don’t really do anymore or were always just ‘famous for being famous’. Even if Megan wasn’t a passable actress as she seems to be, demand for her services now would be far greater than any random alumna of a long running basic cable series who hadn’t been on TV in a few years. Harry too, though unlike her he has no real money making profession, could surely make a lot of money (relative to the reliable return on the existing $30m) trading on his fame. But that’s the problem they could run into if they aren’t careful about how they do that. The criticism could eventually damage their ‘brand’. I’m leaving aside potential issues about ‘not allowed to earn money’ because I guess those wouldn’t really be relevant if push came to shove, surely not in case of making money in the US, completely outside the ‘realm’. But it could be a serious issue image wise depending their skill in going about it. I mean, the money would come in part from their royal fame, but making that somewhat subtle is the trick.
All conjecture, of course, but what if every nickel earned is used to fund girls schools and wildlife preserves in Africa? Would the public really still see it as trading on their name? What if it all goes swimmingly and they become heralded for their works, in a few short years? Might it then translate instead into ‘raising Britain’s brand’? All conjecture, of course, but anything seems possible when you consider their wealth, connections, public profile.
They seem to be taking a wild risk with their public images, a daring, individual path that seems fraught with land mines. But then they handled a media shitstorm, atop their royal wedding with aplomb, so maybe we shouldn’t underestimate their potential as a pretty savvy team.
London Times says she is doing a voiceover for Disney with the money going to elephant rescue in Africa.
I saw something that said she was traveling to Canada, where their months old kid had been in the care of someone. (Sorry, don’t recall if it was described as friend or family member.) Huh? How many parents of kids less than a year old send their kid across an ocean from them?
But if every nickel earned went to somebody else, then they would not ‘become financially independent’. In both British and American English I believe ‘we want to become financially independent’ means ‘we want to make money that goes to us’, though not to the exclusion necessarily of raising money that goes to other people. And even doing in a Clinton Foundation sort of way (not to get into political tit for tat but just to illustrate a particular method) where the money is in the charity but it pays for various of your expenses, and/or gives jobs or favors to people who can then later ‘scratch your back’, that can still get criticized.
Again not that I’d particularly be the person criticizing. I’m not a British taxpayer who might be faced by an ongoing situation of non-royal royals I still have support, especially 24/7 security detail costs which would not fit into a few $100k/yr far upper middle class to moderate ‘rich’ budget, even if people fall all over themselves to make clear how they think that’s so much money to live on, as internet Tribunes of the People and all. 
But seriously, serious security takes more serious money to fund. If that could be accounted for as their charitable org’s cost under the rubric ‘every nickel is going to a girls’ schools in Africa providing organization’ maybe that’s the ticket with would be critics. Or not. And of course a lot of Americans, as perhaps opposed to those from countries with some vestigial to tie to Britain (like Canada) or the UK itself, are interested enough in this to discuss it but don’t really care what these people do. As I don’t.
Anyway yeah, it’s a leap into the unknown.
Prince Harry faces substantially more risks than other celebrities; terrorists could well want to kill or kidnap him because of hostility toward the British government. Likewise the British government could well receive intelligence about forthcoming hostile acts towards Prince Harry; intelligence that private security wouldn’t receive.
there are many royals who don’t have 24/7 protection right? Seems like they would be an easy target for terrorists. Not has high profile as H and M but it would still make a big impact.
Harry and Meghan and their son were together in Canada for about a month and a half, from roughly late November to last week. After New Years’, they flew back to England; she spent maybe three days in London before returning to Canada. While Archie did spend a couple of days in somebody else’s care, he wasn’t sent across the ocean by himself.
They didn’t. Harry and Megan took their baby with them when they went to Canada and left him with her friend for a few days (doubtless with a security detail) while she made what she thought would be a quick trip back to Britain.
Anyone who has traveled by plane with a baby knows it’s not easy on the baby. The changes in air pressure hurt babies’ ears, and the change in time zones wreaks havoc on their systems. Since she anticipated a swift return, easier on Archie to leave him in Canada.
All the Queen’s grandkids don’t have 24/7 security do they? For example Andrew’s daughters and Anne’s children.
The couple of times I’ve been at something that Princess Anne has attended, she turned up with a young assistant/secretary/whatever and a guy who was likely an armed close protection officer. Add two or three (unarmed) local police officers, and that’s it for security.