This is a rather relevant point. Last I checked, both Harry and Meghan had separate lawsuits against the tabloid media for doing various things they oughtn’t, and the nastiness toward Meghan has been disproportionately harsh. It is not clear to me how their proposed course of action will change the amount of negative media attention they get, but perhaps they have a plan.
(On a further speculative note, I wonder if she misses working as an actress and how much of that is driving this move. As “financial independence” goes, her publicity value for any show or film she appears in has just gone through the roof and thus her agent could likely negotiate some major deals for her until the novelty wears off.)
I highly doubt she wants to resume acting or that either intend to become influencers or merchandisers.
My money is on they want to get political. On the world stage. In the name of women, human rights, climate change, animal protections, Africa, etc. Something they can NEVER undertake as full on ROYALS.
If they stay on it would mean smiling and making nice with human rights abusers, despots, etc.
And, while I think It’s possible they may get a condo near her Mom, I’m Highly sceptical they are looking to live in LA. They’d have very little privacy there I expect.
I’m not a mind reader, but I get psychic readings that it is a direct reaction to Brexit. They wanted to be in the Royal family of a country dedicated to the borderless, egalitarian European Union. But after Brexit, they would have to be the figureheads of the attitude “You can’t be admitted to our country, because of where you were born”. But really they think the where and to whom you were born shouldn’t matter, and the role Harry was born into should reflect that. Since it no longer does after Brexit, they are quitting.
The problem arises if the Sussexes decide to profit directly from their royal connection. “Prince Harry Shaving Cream” would not go down well with Her Maj.
They could take up fund-raising and managing charities full time with few real problems, and I think that this is their likely ambition.
ISTR that there is currently at least 1 “senior” royal who is over 75, and bearing her share of duties.
These folk haven’t exactly worn themselves out digging ditches all their lives, they have access to the best healthcare/diet/fitness resources available, and a good number of the duties are not overly taxing either physically or (I suspect) mentally.
I wager William and Kate will be able to shake hands and wave well past age 75. Maybe that’s these folks’ problem - no mandatory retirement age!
In sequence, without multi-quoting, cause I don;t wanna spend time just lengthening my post and make a mess
1). Who does that in the USA? 2). Who does that in Australia? 3). Who does that in France now the DeGaulle is gone? 4). I dunno, James Bond? 5 & 6). Who does that in every country? 6). Hrm … who do you want at a charity dinner? What if a Royal is available, and its not one you want?
So the reasoning is circular, the British people financially support the Monarchy, they get figureheads for public appearances, but that costs “alot”, so Prince of Wales has an idea for consolidation: 75% of the current amount of Royals, for 50% of the cost, a real benefit for everyone. Or is that not the vibe that the British people are feeling from these developments?
The Queen still undertakes several hundred engagements a year, but the quantity has diminished over time, as have the types: she withdrew from long-haul international travel some years ago, for example, so the Head of the Commonwealth only attends Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings held in Britain (Charles gets sent to the rest), and her last royal tours of Canada and Australia and New Zealand are all behind her. She has a lot more “meet and greet in the Music Room at the Palace” and a lot fewer “visit this city or that town” occasions.
Other members of the family have not enjoyed her famous good health: her own sister Margaret died at 71, e.g., and had been essentially an invalid for several years prior, while cousin Alexandra has had to scale back the scope of her work due to polymyalgia rheumatica.
Sure, but “Harry Windsor Shaving Cream” isn’t really trading on anything but his own name, so I’d imagine it would be ok, especially if it was one of those charity type businesses a-la Newman’s Own.
The traditional deal is that if you’re a Royal, you do all the engagements, toe the party line and generally behave in a very circumscribed manner in almost all respects. In exchange for that, you get fabulous wealth, privilege and respect.
Harry and Meghan are basically saying that they aren’t taking that deal, which is if not unprecedented, extremely unusual.
Sure, but both the Queen and Prince P are reasonably active into their 90s, no? William and Kate impress me as reasonably clean-livers. I’d lay money on both of them making it at least to 80.
And Maggie contributed at least a little bit to her early demise, no?
As others have said, I don’t understand the need for the Royals to conduct meet and greets. But they could always deputize whatever cousins or uncles and aunts that they wish.
And how many kids have William/Kate popped out so far? Even if there IS some brief period of royal shortages in 20 yrs, shortly thereafter, their spawn will have perfected the little half wave, and lined up their make-up and wardrobe assistants.
Harry is still fairly high in the line of succession, right? While it’s not all that likely, there’s still a not-so-long list of deaths that would leave him due to inherit the throne. Has he been, or will he be, officially removed from that list? Could he unilaterally remove himself, or would it take an Act of Parliament?
(I think he could remove himself by converting to Catholicism, but I’m referring to a more direct means)
He is 6th in line currently (his father, older brother, and his brother’s three children precede him). He has not been removed from that list, and it would take an Act of Parliament to remove him (absent conversion to Catholicism or divorce and remarriage without consent).
Sixth, if I’m counting correctly. Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry (then Archie)
He can remove himself de facto just by stating his reluctance to be in the line of succession - no-one would force him in the unlikely event it became a live issue. If HM wanted him removed de jure that would need Parliament involved I think.
I suppose if Harry and Meghan REALLY wanted to piss off the Queen, they would convert to Catholism the way Tony Blair did after he concluded his career. That would certainly be a big ratings booster for their news tabloids, and ER would certainly not be amused
Only one Queen and a lot of bridge ribbons and official funerals and such to attend, so they send someone further down. Actually a good system, as then the PM can attend to business.
The President or the Veep. It wastes a LOT of their time. Sometimes the First lady helps.
In many nations they have a figurehead President and a working PM. One meme going around some years ago was how many foreign nations have a Female president, but the USA has never had one. In many cases that President is a figurehead with no real power. This is the difference between the head of government and the head of state. In the USA the President is both, but that isnt common.
The Royals are by no means leeches on the taxpayer dole. The job of head of state is a important one, even if mostly powerless. And the Royal income comes from land and properties that used to belong to the King/Queen but are now mostly sorta “public”.
