I think this makes it clear they don’t want the constraints of public money and I can’t blame them. The two main things that come with that public money are the royal rota and the inability to take money/earn money in other ways which is really limiting in this day and age of how you can raise money for causes and/or earn money yourself.
I'd seen some of the comparisons between stories written about Kate and those about Meghan, but I didn't realize the extent to which the media were so against anything that Meghan did. I'm even more disgusted by it.
I'm also glad that the queen released the statement today showing her support for Harry and Meghan to stomp out some of the news this evening with wild guesses (and leaks?) about the progress of the Sandringham Summit.
If H&M are only going to work on a limited basis for the family, I think that by the time William is on the throne he'll either have to extend senior status to Beatrice & Eugenie, or end the monarchy altogether.
If H&M are only going to work on a limited basis for the family, I think that by the time William is on the throne he'll either have to extend senior status to Beatrice & Eugenie, or end the monarchy altogether.
It’s not like there isn’t precedent for that though. The queen’s cousins were (are?) working royals, right?
It's interesting that she called them "Harry and Meghan" and not by their titles.
I can’t figure out if that’s a snub or if she’s respecting the fact that they’re individual human beings, not just Royal titles. I am leaning towards snub though. Is it stirring up rumors that she has/will take away their titles?
It's interesting that she called them "Harry and Meghan" and not by their titles.
I can’t figure out if that’s a snub or if she’s respecting the fact that they’re individual human beings, not just Royal titles. I am leaning towards snub though. Is it stirring up rumors that she has/will take away their titles?
I think the repeated mention of family is trying to show they are working this out as a family vs business minded because the main knock on this whole thing is how unsupportive they’ve been. I’d be surprised if it’s anything but trying to soften her image and PR driven.
I can’t figure out if that’s a snub or if she’s respecting the fact that they’re individual human beings, not just Royal titles. I am leaning towards snub though. Is it stirring up rumors that she has/will take away their titles?
I think the repeated mention of family is trying to show they are working this out as a family vs business minded because the main knock on this whole thing is how unsupportive they’ve been. I’d be surprised if it’s anything but trying to soften her image and PR driven.
I agree that the use of their names is to show that this is a family issue and not a "Firm" issue.
I haven't read all the posts but I just saw this article this morning. It is truly remarkable how different the same publications treated Kate Middleton vs Meghan Markle.
I started to read the buzzfeed article several hours ago but just got around to logging in to share it also- glad you beat me to the punch.
These headlines aren't even the most egregious though. I don't follow the British papers/tabloids but I've seen many shared about "high" staff turnover and referring to Meghan as a control freak, bossy, etc. Comments normally follow that there has been a bit of turnover with the Cambridges as well without the coverage. The side by side of what is out there makes me sad for Meghan.
If H&M are only going to work on a limited basis for the family, I think that by the time William is on the throne he'll either have to extend senior status to Beatrice & Eugenie, or end the monarchy altogether.
It’s not like there isn’t precedent for that though. The queen’s cousins were (are?) working royals, right?
They were, but the number of senior/working royals were slimmed down a few years ago per Charles' request. In response to public complaints about how many members of the royal family are supported by taxpayers. Beatrice and Eugenie were decisively excluded from senior status at that time (admist complaints from Andrew). Sucessive generations have already been having fewer children, I'm sure Charles expected to make do just fine with him and both his sons and their families. Now he'll just be down to William, and William will need some help when he takes the throne.
It’s not like there isn’t precedent for that though. The queen’s cousins were (are?) working royals, right?
They were, but the number of senior/working royals were slimmed down a few years ago per Charles' request. In response to public complaints about how many members of the royal family are supported by taxpayers. Beatrice and Eugenie were decisively excluded from senior status at that time (admist complaints from Andrew). Sucessive generations have already been having fewer children, I'm sure Charles expected to make do just fine with him and both his sons and their families. Now he'll just be down to William, and William will need some help when he takes the throne.
If Charles's health is anything like the Queen, William probably has 20-25 years until he is King. His 3 children would be between 25-30 at that point and be in position to start making solo appearances... unless Charlotte and Louis take after Uncle Harry. Edward and Sophie are also 15-16 years younger than Charles so they theoretically could still be working royals when William ascends to the throne.
If H&M are only going to work on a limited basis for the family, I think that by the time William is on the throne he'll either have to extend senior status to Beatrice & Eugenie, or end the monarchy altogether.
That kind of depends on when William ascends the throne. If Charles’ health is anything like his father’s that’s likely 25-30 years away, putting George, Charlotte and Louis into their 30s.
I mean how many working senior royals do they need? Presumably they don't need 10-15, I think they could make do with 2 or 3 ish. They might have to scale back, but just because you are born into the family doesn't mean you need to be a working senior royal.
And I agree that the 3 kids will be able to be working senior royals when they are older (whether they all will want to is another story).
I mean how many working senior royals do they need? Presumably they don't need 10-15, I think they could make do with 2 or 3 ish. They might have to scale back, but just because you are born into the family doesn't mean you need to be a working senior royal.
And I agree that the 3 kids will be able to be working senior royals when they are older (whether they all will want to is another story).
Up until just very recently, I count about 10. Charles, Camilla, Will, Kate, Harry, Meghan, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, and Anne. They're down three from that. Philip until he retired last year. I mean the royal family has dozens and dozens of patronages. There's a lot of work that's done.
So really the dicey period is not 30 years from now when the Cambridges are grown, it's the period when Charles' siblings are too old to continue and W&K's kids are too young to begin working for the family.
I mean how many working senior royals do they need? Presumably they don't need 10-15, I think they could make do with 2 or 3 ish. They might have to scale back, but just because you are born into the family doesn't mean you need to be a working senior royal.
And I agree that the 3 kids will be able to be working senior royals when they are older (whether they all will want to is another story).
Up until just very recently, I count about 10. Charles, Camilla, Will, Kate, Harry, Meghan, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, and Anne. They're down three from that. Philip until he retired last year. I mean the royal family has dozens and dozens of patronages. There's a lot of work that's done.
So really the dicey period is not 30 years from now when the Cambridges are grown, it's the period when Charles' siblings are too old to continue and W&K's kids are too young to begin working for the family.
There's a few of the Queen's cousins that are full time working royals too though who will presumably retire relatively soon. The Glouchesters and Kents, I believe.
I mean how many working senior royals do they need? Presumably they don't need 10-15, I think they could make do with 2 or 3 ish. They might have to scale back, but just because you are born into the family doesn't mean you need to be a working senior royal.
And I agree that the 3 kids will be able to be working senior royals when they are older (whether they all will want to is another story).
Up until just very recently, I count about 10. Charles, Camilla, Will, Kate, Harry, Meghan, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, and Anne. They're down three from that. Philip until he retired last year. I mean the royal family has dozens and dozens of patronages. There's a lot of work that's done.
So really the dicey period is not 30 years from now when the Cambridges are grown, it's the period when Charles' siblings are too old to continue and W&K's kids are too young to begin working for the family.
It seems then like the potential dicey period would be in the next 15-20 years (assuming Charles and Anne have their parents’ longevity and will be slowing down at that point). Which to me points out why M/H should get out now while their star is hot and they can make a life for themselves that doesn’t rely on the current monarch’s favor. Say in 20y it’s William and their relationship continues to deteriorate. They’re basically in the position of Andrew who I think is a huge cautionary tale on how not to exist in the royal family. Both Anne and Edward have handled their families differently - Edward and Sophie weren’t working royals for awhile, actually and Anne’s kids don’t have titles. If they keep some of their patronages and are available, they can help out on their own terms but at the end of the day they won’t be completely at William’s mercy.
Up until just very recently, I count about 10. Charles, Camilla, Will, Kate, Harry, Meghan, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, and Anne. They're down three from that. Philip until he retired last year. I mean the royal family has dozens and dozens of patronages. There's a lot of work that's done.
So really the dicey period is not 30 years from now when the Cambridges are grown, it's the period when Charles' siblings are too old to continue and W&K's kids are too young to begin working for the family.
There's a few of the Queen's cousins that are full time working royals too though who will presumably retire relatively soon. The Glouchesters and Kents, I believe.
You're right, I googled it and although I can't open the article behind a firewall at work, an official tracking royal engagements in December 2018 said there were currently 15 full time senior royals (Philip retired in 2017). So the Kents and Gloucesters are seniors as well The G&Ks are between 75 to 86 years of age.
So apparently they do need about 15 full time senior members. The current list is shrinking rapidly.
But also, let’s be real. The real problem is now because William (and Kate) doesn’t want to work but also Doesn’t want to be overshadowed. It’s pretty clear.
Up until just very recently, I count about 10. Charles, Camilla, Will, Kate, Harry, Meghan, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, and Anne. They're down three from that. Philip until he retired last year. I mean the royal family has dozens and dozens of patronages. There's a lot of work that's done.
So really the dicey period is not 30 years from now when the Cambridges are grown, it's the period when Charles' siblings are too old to continue and W&K's kids are too young to begin working for the family.
There's a few of the Queen's cousins that are full time working royals too though who will presumably retire relatively soon. The Glouchesters and Kents, I believe.
I don't know if they are full time, or what really constitutes "senior," but The Gloucesters, the Kents, Prince Michael/Hellbeast, and Princess Alexandra definitely have patronages and other duties. Most of them also have Grace and Favor apartments they get cheap from the Queen in exchange for that. I'm not sure about income.
eclaires, Plus Sophie and Edward gave their kids "lesser" titles, which I think made everyone ready for H&M not requesting a title for Archie (which could change when Charles becomes king - their kids might automatically get titles - but I doubt it). Unlike Andrew they WANT their kids to have normal lives.
Post by miniroller on Jan 13, 2020 17:16:54 GMT -5
Sorry that I’m so late to the game (belated likes, etc); things have been crazy since the holidays, but I was coming to make sure that BuzzfeedNews story was posted, because OHMYGOSH- the blatant & utter hypocrisy is so flipping gross! If you’ve not clicked, please go check out that compilation of horribly double standard side-by-sides! Preview/ one of the worst IMO:
I feel like this makes me hate Kate & Will’s AW-ness/ disrespectful non-defensiveness all the more, just grotesque. Your mother would be ashamed, William!!!
Is there any indication that all this “work” by senior royals actually makes a difference? I mean I get that the immediate family has drawing power for events, but do donations and attendance actually increase just because some third rate senior royal, such as that Kent hag, shows up?
Is there any indication that all this “work” by senior royals actually makes a difference? I mean I get that the immediate family has drawing power for events, but do donations and attendance actually increase just because some third rate senior royal, such as that Kent hag, shows up?
No. And that’s part of what I think chafes at Harry and Meghan both. Fundraising, awareness, charity - it has evolved a lot with the advent of social media, among many other factors. The ribbon cutting and just showing up and counting engagements is a way to have something to point to for the cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer but that’s really it. The way the monarchy does things is archaic and somewhat useless when compared to what they could do. Meghan being a celebrity, familiar with how things work globally (she did charity work pre-Harry), and Harry who started two successful charities are willing to think outside the box and see how they can have more impact doing things a different way. I think they tried to bring that to the Royal Family but it wasn’t working (likely because the rest have no interest in changing). I think M/H are aware that if things continue as they are, some day their star dulls, they are the third rate royals and there’s a way to be relevant and have an impact indefinitely compared to counting engagements and getting a ton of press for 10-20y.
Is there any indication that all this “work” by senior royals actually makes a difference? I mean I get that the immediate family has drawing power for events, but do donations and attendance actually increase just because some third rate senior royal, such as that Kent hag, shows up?
I doubt the third rate royals give things much of a bump. They honestly just don't get enough attention most of the time.
Clearly the big senior royals can do a lot of good, M's cookbook being a great example. Hopefully H&M can tap into that more going forward, especially as they get more freedom.
Is there any indication that all this “work” by senior royals actually makes a difference? I mean I get that the immediate family has drawing power for events, but do donations and attendance actually increase just because some third rate senior royal, such as that Kent hag, shows up?
I doubt the third rate royals give things much of a bump. They honestly just don't get enough attention most of the time.
Clearly the big senior royals can do a lot of good, M's cookbook being a great example. Hopefully H&M can tap into that more going forward, especially as they get more freedom.
Is there any indication that all this “work” by senior royals actually makes a difference? I mean I get that the immediate family has drawing power for events, but do donations and attendance actually increase just because some third rate senior royal, such as that Kent hag, shows up?
I don't know the answer to that, but I'm guessing probably not. In theory association with the BRF would convey legitimacy and prestige to other prospective donors, but I feel like any org the BRF would support is probably well-known enough to not need a little bump from the C-list royals.
I doubt the third rate royals give things much of a bump. They honestly just don't get enough attention most of the time.
Clearly the big senior royals can do a lot of good, M's cookbook being a great example. Hopefully H&M can tap into that more going forward, especially as they get more freedom.