No, I’m saying your theory is implausible because the ascribed motive doesn’t make sense, in that what he/they have announced does NOT prevent her from getting a very large settlement in any divorce. They’re stepping back from five percent of their income, the five percent that gets spent primarily on the expenses related to the official duties they’re also stepping away from.
Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 [see esp. section 22ZB], a British court handling their divorce would be required to consider their standard of living during the marriage and “the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the applicant and the paying party has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future” [emphasis added] in determining the amount of the settlement. If his going back into the family fold would foreseeably give him a lot of extra assets, those assets would be up for grabs in the divorce anyway.
More significantly, the actual assets he has a reasonable claim upon are assets he already has: his inheritance from his mother and the Queen Mother. His current moves don’t affect those assets at all. Everything else he might have is entirely within the discretion of the Queen and his father (and any other members of the family who want to bequeath him anything) and is dependent upon their good will, not whether or not he’s acting as a senior royal (except to the extent that ditching them pisses them off enough to cut him off). There simply aren’t any “royal assets” he can simply claim by waltzing back into the family.
If the end goal was a financial split from the royal family in order to protect his assets, with a secret intention to return to the fold when the dust settled, there would be no need to fracture the relationships with his relatives. He could have had a quiet word with the Queen, announcements would have been made, job’s done.
Why the blue fuck does anyone think they have evidence for ‘Harry doesn’t like his wife and wants to get divorced’? Unless of course they’ve been swallowing everything they read in the tabloids. FFS. :rolleyes:
So they’ve responded directly to the press to dispute whether William is a bully but they’ve done nothing to dispute the offensive statements about Meghan? Clearly the family is doing everything in their power to look out for Harry and Meghan.
How about if the Queen’s press office issued the statement rather than making Prince Harry do it himself? How about kicking tabloids out of the press pool if they are printing falsehoods or trafficking in racist drivel? How about looking for staffers (or worse yet, family) who are the sources of the painful quotes about Meghan and firing/punishing them? How about every time the press says that Meghan did something wrong, without mentioning the article, everyone in the royal family does the exact same thing in a show of solidarity? How about working to help Meghan fit in rather than cutting her off at the knees for every perceived imperfection? How about communications professionals in the palace provide some advice to the family on how to handle press trolls rather than leaving it to an internet comment?
I’m playing armchair psychologist here but it seems Harry is all but leaving his family because he already feels that he and his wife have been abandoned by them.
No, the reason that people dismiss conspiracy theories is that they are nonsense made up by people who have no real grasp of a particular situation, and instead make up scurrilous bullshit for whatever reason.
So when certain elements of the press criticized Meghan for cradling her baby bump, everybody in the family should go out and cradle an imaginary baby bump? How is that supposed to help?
A lot of the things for which she has been criticized are things that other family members do or have done (Kate didn’t get criticized this last time around for cradling HER baby bump; it was “sweet”), but Meghan is the current target. The press always have a target: Kate came in for her share of nasty coverage, before that it was Edward and Sophie, Margaret, “Randy Andy,” etc. Camilla’s coverage at times over the past thirty years has been horrible, but she has plowed through it anyway and today enjoys pretty good coverage most of the time, and Sophie rarely gets mentioned anymore for good or bad, because there’s fresh blood in the water.
Yes, the royals do dispute specific factual allegations (such as the bullying), but most of Meghan’s bad coverage hasn’t been factual but opinionated. For example, the Sun quoted William approvingly "There may be a time and a place for the ‘stiff upper lip’ but not at the expense of your health… " (2017) but then said in 2019 “[Harry and Meghan] ditched the stiff upper lip of previous Royal Family generations and flew the flag for ‘Generation Therapy’ as they revealed their emotions to the world - but were they right to do so? What you make of ‘fragile’ Prince Harry and Meghan’s comments may depend on your generation. Sun parents and kids reveal what they think of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex airing their emotions in public - and whether they have the right to moan in such positions of privilege…” Okay, what specifically is the Palace supposed to dispute or complain about in that latter statement? That readers of the Sun newspaper have opinions about emotional displays? (This is one of the examples in the Buzzfeed News comparison of coverage of H&M versus W&K, above linked.)
The Daily Mail was criticized several years ago for their article headlined “EXCLUSIVE: Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton: Gang-scarred home of her mother revealed - so will he be dropping by for tea?,” with the subpoints that
Prince Harry’s new girl, Suits star Meghan Markle, is from Crenshaw, LA
Crenshaw has endured 47 crimes in the past week - including murder
Gangs, including the Bloods, count the neighborhood as their territory
Markle’ social worker mom, Doria Ragland, lives in the run-down area
While the coverage certainly has a racial tinge, which of those subpoints is factually incorrect and disputable? “We don’t like your tone” certainly starts sounding like press censorship, and while Britain has much different ideas of press freedom than, e.g., the United States, the royals trying to stop opinionated press coverage can be more problematic than the original coverage.
How, exactly, have they cut her off at the knees? The palace at least publicly has included Meghan in more events than is typical for a newcomer to the family; for example, the much-heralded joint train trip with the Queen was reported in many quarters as showing the Queen’s approval and liking for the new Duchess.
Do we know they didn’t provide this advice? In fact, the Queen’s own deputy press secretary, Samantha Cohen, took a job with the Sussexes, and then delayed her departure several times while the pair looked for someone of their own choice for the position. The Sussexes aren’t alone out there: they employ a full communications staff, including a former Obama Administration public relations appointee. I don’t know whether they’re not getting good advice, not following the advice they are given, or just that the good advice is to ignore press trolls rather than give them more ammunition, but I think your specific complaint is misplaced.
Provide a quote of the statement you are referring to. It would be odd to add “and this decision is forever” explicitly to such a statement. And if they added “we’re going to give it a try for a while and might go back”, then I think someone would have pointed it out in this or the other thread already. So I expect to debunk your implication with a straightforward interpretation. But I haven’t done the research to rule it out.
Statement. It’s all couched in vague and nebulous terms, but it doesn’t actually say they are “renouncing” anything in the first place. “We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family, and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen” is not a renunciation of his place in the family.
I don’t think Harry is planning on divorcing her, but I would not be surprised if they get divorced about 8 or 9 years down the road. She seems incredibly high maintenance.
Kate, I think, had a better idea what she was signing up for, after YEARS of being the target of tabloid reporters and paparazzi; her lawyers were issuing warnings to certain newspapers way back in 2005 and again in 2007, and she pursued an invasion of privacy claim concerning certain photographs in 2010. She went ahead and signed up anyway, marrying William in 2011. What goes on behind the palace doors is of course unknown, but since her marriage she has as least appeared to be game to follow the royal routine of tours and banquets and opening gardens. Play table tennis or field hockey in high heels in front of the press? Sure, why not?
I don’t think Meghan really understood what she was in for, though. Moving to a new country, getting married (to a man she’d known for less than two years), and having a baby are all extremely high-stress events by themselves; doing all that in full view of the British press must be multiple-orders-of-magnitude worse. I can certainly understand why they wanted marriage and a baby so soon, but that speed made it a lot harder for Meghan to come to grips with the reality of what life in the palace and the public eye would be like. Now that it has hit her, it’s like a pan of cold dishwater in the face.
The declaration of mutual desire to be “financially independent” (I presume from royal income opportunities) raises an eyebrow enough that the hypothetical I am asking about is worthy of research.
Ok, but the “royal income opportunities” are fairly limited. The monarch gets income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Sovereign Grant; the monarch’s eldest son gets income from the Duchy of Cornwall. Everybody else gets what said monarch and eldest son choose to dole out to them, or what they can earn from regular jobs or from their inheritances and investments. Charles has traditionally paid the expenses of both his children and their families; the Queen has traditionally paid some or all expenses for all of the royals who undertake public duties other than her eldest. In neither case, however, is there a legal or contractual obligation to keep paying. The younger son of the Prince of Wales is not entitled to any portion of their income beyond what they choose to give him. Many years ago, Parliament would fund an annuity or annual payment for various individual royals, but those have been subsumed into the Sovereign Grant, which is supposed to pay official expenses connected with public duties.
Both Crenshaw and Compton are well-known for drugs and gang activities; both have been scarred by racial rioting and violence. (Boyz n the Hood was set in Crenshaw, e.g.). Do Tower Hamlets and the City of Westminster share the same commonalities?
“The royal assets” aren’t collectively owned by the royal family. The family does not have a corporate structure where Harry can “renounce” or “lay claim” to a particular share of the pie.