You asked if there was anything factually incorrect and disputable. It’s disputable that she’s “almost Straight outta Compton” if she’s a long way away from being out of Compton.
Right. And unless UK divorce laws are different than US divorce laws, inheritances are separate property. If my wife has a father that is worth $15 million and she is set to get it all when he dies, that remains her separate property even if we remain married or get divorced. If she wishes to share it with me that is her choice alone.
There is no need for a “trick” where she renounces her inheritance, divorces me, and then claims it back. She can stay married, divorce me, or do whatever and it remains her separate property.
Wait, a social worker is being criticized for living in a low-income area? Would it be better if she commuted in from Bel Air? Presumably low-income areas are where the need is greatest and it’s gotta help for one to live there, just to see the problems first hand.
Her family is from an area very close to Compton geographically, historically, economically, and reputationally. (Four miles, in Los Angeles terms, is nothing.) That makes it hard to dispute “almost.”
Note that I’m not defending the Daily Fail in any way. I think it was a pretty bad article. However, the devil’s argument is that Compton is reasonably well known to British audiences, Crenshaw isn’t, but Crenshaw is very much like Compton and it’s right in the same area, so saying “almost Compton” gives the reader a reasonably accurate idea of her family’s background. She’s not really “a long way away.”
Ah, but that’s the sticker in the Daily Fail’s approach: there’s nothing in the article that explicitly criticizes her. That’s certainly the subtext, but it is the subtext, not the actual text, which gives them plausible deniability. “We just stated the facts, ma’am, we didn’t say there was anything wrong with living in a low-income area. If the reader chose to make that judgment, that’s not our fault.” Again, the palace can’t dispute the facts, and complaining about tone and subtext makes the palace look petty.
Many places around greater south-central Los Angels are “almost Compton”. That includes my aunt’s middle-class home in Carson, and the Beach Boys’ origin in Hawthorne. Nobody’s comparing Meghan to Mike Love. Coincidence?
If the UK tabloids didn’t have minor Royals to kick around, would they all go shuttered?
No, because they flip back and forth between beating up on one or another of the royals and beating up on various celebrities and politicians. They’ll kick Boris Johnson or one of the Beckhams or somebody on Strictly Come Dancing if there’s no royal target. There’s ALWAYS going to be a target, though.
I really botched the quoting on my last post, and it’s too late to edit it, so here it is with correct attribution.
Probably not. However, I’m not familiar with Carson; does it have a history, economy, crime rate, and reputation very similar to that of Compton? It’s not just the geographic proximity they’re trading upon.
No, because they flip back and forth between beating up on one or another of the royals and beating up on various celebrities and politicians. They’ll kick Boris Johnson or one of the Beckhams or somebody on Strictly Come Dancing if there’s no royal target. There’s ALWAYS going to be a target, though.
So it looks like the final answer is:
“There aren’t any significant royal income opportunities, so the original omnibus question is moot.”
I guess the announcement of intention to become “financially independent” was to mollify hyper-sensitive British taxpayers, who would gripe that they are collecting taxpayer funds while doing nothing “royal”, but really those taxpayer funds are a pittance.
No, the taxpayer funds are significant, but they go to the monarch, who gets to dole them out as s/he sees fit. Individual royals other than the monarch don’t collect taxpayer money directly and have no automatic claim on them, so your question about “royal assets” is irrelevant.
Except the taxpayer funds are only five percent of the money Harry and Meghan receive. The rest comes from his father’s duchy, which I don’t think is taxpayer funds.
Well then how does the law address what Meghan might argue:
Monarch = boss
Harry = employee
Therefore Harry owes alimony.
Harry’s not an employee, in that he does not perform any particular set of duties for any particular remuneration. It’s not like he receives £5000 every time he opens a new factory and £10K every time he shows up in a [snazzy|dorky] uniform for a ceremony–there’s no royal pay scale.
Only five percent of his ongoing costs are currently funded from the grant, but he does receive taxpayer-funded security above and beyond that, and recent renovations at his home (to the tune of £2.4 million) were also taxpayer-funded, among other one-off expenses. Further, the fact that there’s a 5/95% split is an entirely discretionary decision between the Queen and the Prince of Wales, and one that could be revisited.
As I understand it, the law in the UK addresses financial orders on marriage breakdown like this: the court looks at the totality of the financial circumstances of the spouses, both the assets they own individually or jointly, and their current and expected future income. Then it makes such order as seems just to it in the circumstances.
Harry’s current and likely future income is important, but it’s unimportant whether, or to what extent, that income is derived from taxpayer funds, from the private estates of his father or grandmother, or from other sources. The fact that Harry doesn’t have an absolute right to receive the income is not so important as the fact that he is, in reality, likely to receive it, or that he can arrange his affairs so that he does receive it. If a financial settlement is ordered by the court on the basis of certain expectations and those expectation are not borne out in reality, then either party is free to apply to the court to vary the financial settlement.
And for the most part they aren’t “taxpayer funds” but income from accumulated capital assets, 70% of which already goes into general government revenue.
I think it’s fair to treat the money that goes from the duchy to Charles as taxpayer funds, but that money goes to Charles regardless. The only taxpayer loss is that, if the money didn’t go to Harry’s household, Charles might take it as personal income and voluntarily pay income tax on it.
Ehh, that’s mostly just an accounting trick. Money is money. The idea that the Crown Estate paid for the monarchy was just such a strong myth that the Cameron government, when looking for a way to get the funding for the monarchy to rise automatically with inflation so that “Queen seeks pay rise!!!” headlines would go away forever, thought that would be the easiest to get people to accept. It doesn’t actually make any more sense than giving the Queen a simple grant that was indexed to inflation, and would be absurd when based on any other revenue; imagine if she got a little bit of every duty payment at Heathrow Airport.
This is the royal family. They’re ALL high maitenance.
Hell, they’ve got NOTHING on their ancestors.
also, the current thinking is if Charles becomes king everyone who doesn’t have an inheritance of their own is off the dole other than William and family so i think harry and megan seeing theres not much point in pitting up with the royal BS is getting out while the gettings good
supposedly when one of Fergie’s kids asked for a bit of cash for a project she was told to “get a job” but was slipped the money to smooth things over …
I remember a story that Charles doesn’t even put the toothpaste on the toothbrush himself because a valet or other servant does so for him. That’s about as high maintenance as you can get, short of needing someone else to wipe his ass.
Story is, I suspect, all it is. It was once related decades ago of some crusty old (non-royal) Duke, which makes me suspicious that it surfaced again applied to Charles just when he was the tabloids’ Two Minutes’ Hate target.
Hmmm. On mulling this over, I think Harry does have some dastardly evil plot going on… but it’s not to save money on divorcing Meghan.
He’s looked things over and realized he faces an entire lifetime of doing stupid, boring, trivial duties while becoming steadily less and less important as William has more children, and they grow older, and probably marry and bear children of their own, all while QE2 becomes the first human to live to age 140.
So he’s going for the big enchilada, a country of his own! He plans to take over Canada, lead them in rebellion against Great Britain, and then declare himself King Harry!
You heard it here first!