Harry and Megan are moving to America. Huge event, surely. But he wants to unlink himself, somehow (I forget the word [“official?”] which was used) from such-and-such something or other which was his up-til-now customary roles. Enshrined in law, or custom-which-was-assumed-to-be law?
More about “official” — legal, I might say: he says he wants to be “financially independent,” so he is renouncing his allotted salary from the Royal Family, so something’s getting signed somewhere, right?
Also, as part of the announcement was some sort of statement of the obvious, that the couple plan to stay in America and won’t be cutting ribbons and showing up at all the stuff Royals do. But they used a word suggesting that that Royal gladhanding was more than the expected thing for Royalty to interact and show concern for Everybody Else, but some sort of duty which has a name, and the renunciation of it must be declared formally somehow.
Since the exploits of the power couple will entertain for the rest of my lifetime (God willing) it would be good to start off with the right mindset. Cynical, horrified at Simpson redux, etc. etc…
They are going to “balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America”. It’s thought that “North America” most likely means not the US but Canada, which of course shares its monarchy with the UK, so the Duke’s royal status has some official traction there. And of course the Duchess formerly lived there.
As for roles, they “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”.
Although this is not precisely defined anywhere, it’s recognised that there’s a “first division” in the Royal Family who are more closely connected to the Queen and closer to the line of succession, who devote substantial time performing official duties on behalf of the monarch, do not earn money from an external career and receive signficant sums from the sovereign grant (which is the taxpayer-funded financial arrangement that pays for the monarchy). Then there is a second division who are more distant from the throne, do relatively little in the way of official duties on behalf of the monarch, are free to pursue (appropriate) careers and receive little or nothing money the sovereign grant. The Sussexes seem to be suggesting that they will join the second division.
Sussex doesn’t have an “allotted salary from the Royal Family”. Reportedly, about 95% of his income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall, the estate/endowment belonging to his father. The remaining 5% comes from the sovereign grant, and (is supposed to) cover the cost he incurs in connection with the official duties he performs. In addition he lives in a house that belongs to the Crown, and that was renovated for him at (vast) taxpayer expense, and he gets a security detail which is provided at taxpayer expense. Plus, he and his wife both have private wealth; his inherited from his mother and hers accumulated during her acting career.
It’s not clear what is meant by becoming “financially indepdent”. They are already financially independent in the sense that their combined personal fortunes are such that they could live in modest comfort for the rest of their lives without ever having to take paid employment. But they could not live comfortably in the style to which they are accustomed - the multiple homes, the private jets, etc, etc.
They obviously intend to do less in the way of official duties, and presumably will forego most or all of the payments they get from the sovereign grant. Do they expect to continue to receive substantial payments from the Duchy of Cornwall? And do they expect that to continue indefinitely, after Charles has ascended to the throne and the Duchy passes to William? Or are they going to try to develope and monetize their own brand? If so, how?
As someone has pointed out, this move means that Meghan is now free to play the role of Meghan in Netflix’s The Crown, which I’m sure we’d all watch, but I don’t think Harry’s upbringing and experience obviously fit him for any particular career, and he would have to be cautious about trying to earn his crust through granting celebrity endorsements.
He’s still qualified to fly choppers. I say he should become one of those helicopter lumberjacks in northern British Columbia. It’s acceptable because it has “British” in the name.
It would take a monumental catastrophe for Harry to ever ascend to the throne, so for what reason does he need to be doing “royal stuff”? Tradition? How far down the line of succession does that go? Under what rule or custom should he be expected to do that?
I could see the argument if Prince William did this (he will likely be king in the future, he has a responsibility to the UK, etc.) but if Harry wants to do his own thing while, importantly, paying his own way, why has this become such a scandal?
Moreover, could this precipitate a possible end to the monarchy?
I think they are being graciously allowed to resign. It seemed clear from the press announcements regarding the handling of the Andrew debacle that the queen is beginning to publicly hand over some decision-making to Prince Charles. And Charles has always been quite clear that he would keep the Royal Salaries as tight as possible. Now that William has three children there is no need to keep Harry close.
The initial move from the grounds of Buckingham (where we all thought the royal cousins would be growing up together) and the increasing hints of a rift would seem to indicate that Harry and Meghan were being pushed off.
The move to North America was a huge surprise to me, but maybe she wishes to return to her acting career. I did think they would live a charmed and quiet life of charity in their newly renovated crown gift home. But it’s certainly true that their child(ren) will be too far removed to expect any real income from the crown, and will have to be prepared for “real” life.
I wonder what (if any) income comes with the Duchy of Sussex?
There has always been far more royal stuff to be done than one person can manage - countless charities to be patronised, events to be attended, medals and decorations to be pinned on, hands to be shaken, new buildings to be opened, etc, etc. So it has always been the case that other members of the family do these things on behalf of the monarch. And the fact that they do this has traditionally been the justification for allowing them to live in Crown properties, directly or indirectly receive public or crown funds, etc, etc.
(A) Because of the reasons why he wants to do it. And (B) because he reportedly made and announced the decision unilaterally, rather than in consultation with the other participants in the family business, which some see as unsupportive and disloyal. And (C) because of concerns that either he doesn’t really want to pay his own way, or that he may intend to do so in ways that will “cheapen” the family brand.
Well, we can always hope. But, realistically, it has survived much worse that this.
None. There is no “duchy” of Sussex (meaning landed estate, as there is with the Duchies of Cornwall [Charles] and Lancaster [the Queen]); there is only the dukedom, which is merely a title.
Right now, their income comes from Daddy’s duchy of Cornwall, which was set up six centuries ago to provide an income for the heir to the throne, and from the Sovereign Grant that pays for expenses for official activities, plus whatever private money they earned and he inherited.
As UDS notes, there’s always more “royal stuff” to do than people to do it. Lots of people want a royal to show up at their [insert event name] or help their charity raise funds, and bringing public attention to events and charities and worthy causes is what the royals do. Exactly which members of the family are involved are shifted over time. For example, when many of those close to the throne are too young, more distant members are called upon, as for example in the 1950s and 60s when the Queen’s own children, her sister’s children, and the Gloucester boys were minors, so the Queen’s aunts Princess Mary and the Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent kept up active schedules. In the 1980s, Andrew had an active military career and correspondingly few royal engagements, even though he was high in the line of succession, while his mother’s cousin Alexandra was much lower in the succession and had many more engagements.
Charles is known to want a slimmer list of active royals, in part because of the public perception that there are too many on the fringes who have the titles and live in the palaces but don’t really do all that much. However, having too few performing royal duties also creates a problem, because then there aren’t enough people available to attend sufficient events and charitable endeavors, to see and be seen. The current full-time royals are the Queen, Charles and Camilla, William and Kate, Edward and Sophie Wessex, and Anne, with occasional assists from more distant family. In twenty years time, however, all of these except William and Kate will be aged over 75, if they are still alive at all, and William’s kids will still be rather young, in their early to mid 20s. Who’s going to receive the ambassadors, open the new hospitals, take the salute at military parades, attend funerals and memorials, showcase British industries, host state banquets, lay wreathes at war memorials, attend charity dinners, etc., etc., etc.? If the answer is ‘no one,’ then that does have some implications for continuing public support of the monarchy itself.
Even tens of millions won’t support the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, unless they continue to receive substantial family and taxpayer support. Security costs alone are likely several millions of dollars a year, for example; high-end fashion and travel and executive assistants and maids, etc., don’t come cheap. Even $30-50 million in assets isn’t going to generate enough income, year in and year out, to support their current expenses. Yes, they could cut back, but will they?
Okay, so if I understand one thing correctly, the People of Great Britain have allocated money to be divied up among various Royals some sizable amount of money called the Sovereign Grant, which goes to x persons and not y persons of blue blood. So Charles wants to cut down budget items, well and good, and the taxpayers should be happy when they enter the labor market.
So, to return to the case which most solidifies and distinguishes “tradition,’ “custom,” and"law,”: it’s the last most that asserts itself when real money and lots of it are involved, such as those drawn by rentiers, off a family trust, essentially. So there there must be documents to be signed…right?
Anyone know what the discrete legal instruments are for this sort of thing?
(a) it hasn’t, for most people (most UK news is in a quietish period as politics rearranges itself after the election result) and (b) no, why would it?
What seems to have caused annoyance in the inner circle is that early and presumably leisurely private discussions, about the “streamlining” process in respect of the family’s public activities and image that has obviously been under way for some time, have been brought into the open and publicly up-ended by this announcement, before it’s all organised. I’ve seen it suggested that this was to forestall a story in the tabloids, or maybe it’s a way of influencing the discussions, who knows?
Anything that involves the Sovereign Grant (a share of the income from the Crown Estates) or general government revenues from taxes is obviously public information.
But anything involving private family funds or the Duchy of Cornwall income is just that - private. But a lot of it must be dependent on the discretionary generosity or otherwise of whoever holds the purse-strings for the funds/accounts in question. Whether it’s tied down in legal contracts, who but those concerned would know (heaven and earth would be moved to prevent disagreements getting into the public domain).
The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 is the legislation under which the taxpayer financial support for the monarchy is paid and administered.
The amount paid by way of sovereign grant is a percentage of the income of the Crown Estate, a property portfolion which nominally belongs to the monarch but which in fact is in public ownership. It is distinct from the monarch’s private estate. Every five years the percentage is reviewed by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (both politicians) and the Keeper of the Privy Purse (a courtier). The outcome of their review is published; you can read the most recent one here.
Once it’s paid, the divvying up and spending of the sovereign grants is a matter for the monarch. Accounts which detail how it has beens spent are laid before Parliament each year (and are therefore publicly available). Here is a page with links to the reports and accounts for 2018-19. But expenditure isn’t broken down as between different members of the Royal Family, but rather by category of spending. So we know how much was spend on staff costs, how much on property maintenance, how much on offical travel, etc; it’s not immediately evident how much of the staff costs were for staff serving a particular member of the family, how much of the property costs went on the residence of a particular member, how much of the travel costs were for the travel of particular member.
Given that this is GQ, the latter. The OP asked factual questions, to which factual answers are possible. If one wants to discuss subjective questions like why Americans care, there are already threads on this topic in other forums which would be more appropriate for those questions.
As I pointed out in the other thread, these people are going to make an amazing fortune. The money from the royal bank account is chump change.
They will sell products, they will be among the top “influencers” on social media, etc. There is literally billions to be made here. Think Goop+Kardashians on steroids.
(I am surprised that so many Dopers are thinking in terms of old-school economics like dukedoms and what not. This is an entirely new era. Fame turns into big bucks very easily.)
From a financial point of view, this is really, really smart.
But I think the core reason is the blatant bigotry against Meghan. The British press and the flunkies in the royal household all but use the n-word in trying to destroy her.