Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
GHScorpiosRule

The Royals: All the People Who Unironically Wear Robes and Crowns

Recommended Posts


54 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

And The Telegraph reported that this is in fact categorically false and that Harry and Meghan in fact purchased their home themselves and have a mortgage. 

Yeah. I don’t know why people just assume that Harry and Meghan have no money whatsoever and are living totally off the grace of his father. As I understand he’s worth $40 million just from monies inherited from his mom and the Queen Mother’s estates. If those inheritances have been invested properly he’s likely worth significantly more. Meghan in her own right was worth about $5 million before their marriage. So I think it’s believable that they were able to qualify for a loan to purchase a home on their own. That’s not to say that they’re not receiving some support from Charles, I’m guessing mainly with security costs. But that’s neither here no there. It’s obvious they are working to establish a life on their own and this is just another step in that process. 

Anyway, Santa Barbara is a good choice. It’s a beautiful, quiet area that’s a good distance from the glitz and glamour of LA, but still close enough if they choose to do some work there. 

Edited by Enero
  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Enero said:

Anyway, Santa Barbara is a good choice. It’s a beautiful, quiet area that’s a good distance from the glitz and glamour of LA, but still close enough if they choose to do some work there. 

Also, there's already a lot of celebrities living there, so security must be pretty tight in the area already. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Hiyo said:

I really like Pryce--and am looking forward to what he does with the character--but I was sort of surprised that they used Charles Dance for Mountbatten and didn't save him for old Philip. He was always who I envisioned as Philip 3.0. But I'm also confused why they cast Nicholas Rowe early on and didn't just save him to be middle-aged Charles. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, ouinason said:

or even Beatrice and Euginie.

Yes, how were Beatrice and Eugenie supporting themselves before their marriages.   Somehow no one made a big deal out of the grace and favor apartment they were living in.   Which means they were living rent free in an apartment given them by the Queen.   They didn't even do Royal duties.   But let's drag Meghan and Harry for having dad help them out -- which plenty of non-Royals do.

  • Like 21

Share this post


Link to post

9 hours ago, ouinason said:

Anyway, if they bought the house themselves or if Charles did buy it, it isn't a big deal.  The Sussexes talked about becoming independent of the money of British taxpayers through the Sovereign Trust, not being independent of his family money (which is a small distinction, but the point was to not be working for the Royal firm anymore) so whatever.  It's really not anybody's business at this point.  We aren't examining the financials of Katherine Schwarzenegger Pratt or Paris Hilton or even Beatrice and Euginie.  It's all just getting a little out of hand.

Maybe they could have worded it differently to make it harder for the press to attack them for not truly being "independent" but they shouldn't have to.

Imagine the Queen owned a company, let's say Corgi Corp. Charles, Harry, Wills et al work for Corgi Corp. They are also her family. Harry decides he doesn't want to work for Corgi Corp anymore. Maybe he is allergic to dogs, maybe he just wants to work in construction, who knows, but the thing is, he quits his job at Corgi Corp. That doesn't mean he's not still the grandson of the companies owner. So if Grandma, or Dad want to give Harry money they made from Corgi Corp, they have every right to do so, and it is perfectly normal, most families operate this way if they are financially able. 

They aren't independent from their family, they just quit their jobs at the family business. 

I also wish I had a dad who could buy my a house. I'd be fine with that. Independence is overrated. lol

 

  • Like 17
  • Laugh 3

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Maybe they could have worded it differently to make it harder for the press to attack them for not truly being "independent" but they shouldn't have to.

Imagine the Queen owned a company, let's say Corgi Corp. 

<snip>

I also wish I had a dad who could buy my a house. I'd be fine with that. Independence is overrated. lol

1. I absolutely love the name Corgi Corp.

2. 100% agreement that they should not have to word things to make it harder for the press to attack them. Nothing they could say or do would really work, especially with the British tabloids whose entire purpose is shit-stirring for fun and profit.

3. Independence has its ups and downs, but I wouldn't mind being gifted a nice house.

4. Bears repeating:: Corgi Corp. is a wonderful company name. I wonder what the company logo would be?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Yes, how were Beatrice and Eugenie supporting themselves before their marriages.   Somehow no one made a big deal out of the grace and favor apartment they were living in.   Which means they were living rent free in an apartment given them by the Queen.   They didn't even do Royal duties.   But let's drag Meghan and Harry for having dad help them out -- which plenty of non-Royals do.

Good points!

 

Also, now that BOTH the Princesses of York are married and living elsewhere, why is the Duchess of York STILL living with the Duke in Windsor territory all these decades after their official split?  One may have made the case re the Princesses of York possibly benefiting from having both parents under the same roof   while they were small children . However, they're both grown,   married women so why is their mother STILL living there and does this mean that ANY Royal could ask any person they wanted to share their quarters and the Queen would let them do so on her shilling?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Blergh said:

Good points!

 

Also, now that BOTH the Princesses of York are married and living elsewhere, why is the Duchess of York STILL living with the Duke in Windsor territory all these decades after their official split?  One may have made the case re the Princesses of York possibly benefiting from having both parents under the same roof   while they were small children . However, they're both grown,   married women so why is their mother STILL living there and does this mean that ANY Royal could ask any person they wanted to share their quarters and the Queen would let them do so on her shilling?

I don't think the grace and favor housing works that way.  There are multiple instances of non-related people living with members of the royal family in their grace and favor apartments and it doesn't appear that the Queen has objected.  For all we know, if Fergie weren't around, Andrew would've behaved even worse than he has.

BTW, William and Kate lived together in college, Meghan moved into Harry's cottage at Kensington before that wedding.  Diana lived with the Queen Mother at Clarence house prior to the wedding with Charles. 

Personally, I wish Andrew would fall off the face of the earth and never be seen again, but I don't think the Queen is going to evict him from the Royal Lodge which means Fergie is there to stay, too.  I believe she moved in when it became clear that she was broke after the divorce and didn't have anywhere suitable to live with the Queen's granddaughters,  Now she's been ensconced for almost 2 decades, she's not going anywhere.

Quote

Yeah. I don’t know why people just assume that Harry and Meghan have no money whatsoever and are living totally off the grace of his father. As I understand he’s worth $40 million just from monies inherited from his mom and the Queen Mother’s estates

I believe Harry's inheritance was around $20 million and the $40 million figure is based on earnings on the money since then.  In any event, he's never lived on his own funds and I believe that part of the reason he hasn't is that Charles, who is a billionaire, knows that Harry is not going to be king and will never inherit the vast wealth that William has and will get.  Therefore, out of his billions, Charles has provided substantial support for Harry to give him the infrastructure to continue living at a level befitting the son of the Prince of Wales while saving Harry's own funds for the time when Charles is no longer around.  Buying a home for Harry and his family is a substantial way that Charles can invest in the security and comfort of Harry, Meghan and the baby.   The house is a gift that will keep on giving and I see nothing wrong with a very wealthy man making sure his child can continue to live in comfort at a high standard.  I doubt Bill Gates' kids are ever going to be left to find their own way completely either.

In addition, if Harry weren't the son and grandson of Charles and Elizabeth; he could've married a barely known actress and lived anywhere without a problem.  It is because he is part of the royal family that he needs housing that can be protected by security.

  • Like 10
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

I do think that Her Majesty keeps Fergie on a short leash, and if allowing her to live in the Royal Lodge makes Fergie behave then she will keep on living there.  No one wants Fergie to sell stories to the press or write a tell-all so they give her enough money to stay in line.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/13/2020 at 4:07 PM, doodlebug said:

Buying a home for Harry and his family is a substantial way that Charles can invest in the security and comfort of Harry, Meghan and the baby.   The house is a gift that will keep on giving and I see nothing wrong with a very wealthy man making sure his child can continue to live in comfort at a high standard.

This is all well and good but it's predicated on an assumption he bought it, despite other media saying they confirmed through their own investigation and sources that he didn't. And that's the point with so much regarding Harry and Meghan. Many keep making sweeping assumptions, taking it as fact even though it's just an assumption and judging them accordingly, to said assumption.

Edited by truthaboutluv
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, doodlebug said:

Buying a home for Harry and his family is a substantial way that Charles can invest in the security and comfort of Harry, Meghan and the baby.   The house is a gift that will keep on giving and I see nothing wrong with a very wealthy man making sure his child can continue to live in comfort at a high standard.  I doubt Bill Gates' kids are ever going to be left to find their own way completely either.

Yeah, this. Charles bought his son, daughter-in-law and grandson a house because he can, and because even if Harry isn't a working royal, he is still and always will be Charles' son, and as you said, his second born, so he will not have as much as William will and he is probably quite happy to be able to provide for his child even if that child could technically provide for himself. It's no great conspiracy or slight on Harry's ability to live on his own, it's just a father doing a fathery thing he can afford to do because he's super rich. I'm sure plenty of billionaires and even some lowly millionaires buy their kids' families homes because they can. 

47 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

This all well and good but it's predicated on an assumption he bought it, despite other media saying they confirmed through their own investigation and sources that he didn't. And that's the point with so much regarding Harry and Meghan. Many keep making sweeping assumptions, taking it as fact even though it's just an assumption and judging them accordingly, to said assumption.

Oh, good, if he didn't buy them a house then he has enough money hanging around to buy me one. Hey, Charles, I could use my own mansion. Thanks. 🙂

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 16

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Yeah, this. Charles bought his son, daughter-in-law and grandson a house because he can, and because even if Harry isn't a working royal, he is still and always will be Charles' son, and as you said, his second born, so he will not have as much as William will and he is probably quite happy to be able to provide for his child even if that child could technically provide for himself. It's no great conspiracy or slight on Harry's ability to live on his own, it's just a father doing a fathery thing he can afford to do because he's super rich. I'm sure plenty of billionaires and even some lowly millionaires buy their kids' families homes because they can. 

Oh, good, if he didn't buy them a house then he has enough money hanging around to buy me one. Hey, Charles, I could use my own mansion. Thanks. 🙂

Well, whoever bought it, it cost $14.65 million and has 9 bedrooms and 16 bathrooms not counting the 2 bedroom guest house where Meghan's mother, Doria, is staying. It's also got a tea house, a children's cottage, a pool and tennis courts.  Neither Harry nor Meghan has ever owned a home of their own.  Not bad for a starter home, I guess.

BTW, Tyler Perry's house only had 8 bedrooms, so they've got more room for guests now, in case the Queen kicks Fergie out of Windsor Royal Lodge now her girls are married.

As for who paid for it, PageSix reported that 'sources' told them that Harry and Meghan used their own money.  Meanwhile, The Sun reports that their 'sources' say the money came from Charles.  I don't think either publication is reliable enough that we can judge whose unnamed sources are correct.

Edited by doodlebug
  • Like 7
  • Useful 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, doodlebug said:

As for who paid for it, PageSix reported that 'sources' told them that Harry and Meghan used their own money.  Meanwhile, The Sun reports that their 'sources' say the money came from Charles.  I don't think either publication is reliable enough that we can judge whose unnamed sources are correct.

Considering none of them are hurting for money I suppose it really doesn't matter who paid for it. 

And now I want a tea house!

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/12/2020 at 10:23 PM, ouinason said:

Anyway, if they bought the house themselves or if Charles did buy it, it isn't a big deal.  The Sussexes talked about becoming independent of the money of British taxpayers through the Sovereign Trust, not being independent of his family money (which is a small distinction, but the point was to not be working for the Royal firm anymore) so whatever.  It's really not anybody's business at this point.  We aren't examining the financials of Katherine Schwarzenegger Pratt or Paris Hilton or even Beatrice and Euginie.  It's all just getting a little out of hand.

There's more assumptions and examining of the Sussexes finances than where's the money and what's The Queen doing with it for property she's charged with maintaining but instead lets become so derelict it takes billions to repair.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MissAlmond said:

There's more assumptions and examining of the Sussexes finances than where's the money and what's The Queen doing with it for property she's charged with maintaining but instead lets become so derelict it takes billions to repair.  

The Queen receives an annual allowance for maintenance and repairs for a huge number of historically significant properties every year.  And, she provides an annual accounting to Parliament as to what was spent and where.  However, the amount she is given, although substantial, is not nearly enough to keep every single property up to standards.  Parliament has repeatedly refused to allocate more funds, because the money just isn't there.  There is no evidence that the Queen has squandered the money or otherwise misused it.

Britain simply has a huge number of historically significant royal properties; more than the current financial situation can afford to maintain.  There are many other countries with the exact same problem.

Here's an article that lays out the difficulty with maintaining these old structures:

https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/buckingham-palace-is-falling-apart/

Edited by doodlebug
  • Like 11
  • Useful 7

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

The Queen receives an annual allowance for maintenance and repairs for a huge number of historically significant properties every year.  And, she provides an annual accounting to Parliament as to what was spent and where.  However, the amount she is given, although substantial, is not nearly enough to keep every single property up to standards.  Parliament has repeatedly refused to allocate more funds, because the money just isn't there.  There is no evidence that the Queen has squandered the money or otherwise misused it.

Britain simply has a huge number of historically significant royal properties; more than the current financial situation can afford to maintain.  There are many other countries with the exact same problem.

Here's an article that lays out the difficulty with maintaining these old structures:

https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/buckingham-palace-is-falling-apart/

Even Buckingham Palace itself is in major need of repairs/renovations despite how polished everything's kept. And it should be noted the Her Majesty is rather frugal- often eating her breakfast straight from Tupperware containers when possible instead of off the priceless china she saves for banquets,etc. 

  • Like 7
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post

She can't use every day dishes.   I mean you don't have to go Limoges all the time, you can do Corelle.   But I find it amusing to think of the footman handing Her Majesty a tupperware container and her digging in with a fork.   

But yes, things are in such bad state because they let them go on for so long that they cost more now.   If they had fixed the leaky roof, the ceilings wouldn't be rotting and things like that.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

A lot of those old properties are just money pits. When fixing the roof, are you putting in a whole new one or preserving the historical accuracy of the structure? Because the second one can be super expensive. When you go to make those changes, how many historical societies are going to get involved?

Hasn't the queen always been frugal though? She's more of a money saver than a spender. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

What I'm getting from this conversation is that the way I eat midnight snacks in BFE Arkansas is eerily similar to how Her Majesty conducts herself at breakfast. I don't know if I am pleased or weirded out. LOL

Edited by Zella
  • Like 3
  • Laugh 13

Share this post


Link to post

I think the Tupperware containers were spotted on HM's breakfast table in some photos. I assume she poured her cereal (or whatever) into a bowl vs. eating it straight out of the Tupperware, lol.

ETA: Apparently she's been known to take fruit out of a Tupperware bowl and eat it. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/10/06/royal-family-eating-habits_a_23234947/ But nothing about her digging into a Tupperware container of cereal or the like, with a spoon. 

Edited by Jeeves
  • Like 1
  • Useful 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Megan interviewed Kim Ramshaw, the CEO of the 19th, a women's newsletter. This newsletter aims to tell the stories of women from all walks of life from a bi-partisan and honest perspective.  This was a really good discussion. Some of the other ladies featured during today's forum were great as well. On a shallow note, Meghan looks beautiful. I can't help but wonder if she's pregnant again. 🙂 She always glows, but I don't know she seems to be beaming here and at the end of the interview she looked to have touched her stomach. Maybe it’s nothing and she’s just happy to be settled in a new home and was dealing with a growling stomach. 😂 I guess we'll find out soon enough if she is pregnant. 

Edited by Enero
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53783875

From the article:

Princess Anne has been promoted by the Army and Royal Air Force to mark her 70th birthday.

The Princess Royal - the Queen's second child - will take up the role of general and air chief marshal, bringing her ranks in line with her rank in the Royal Navy.

I quite like Anne. Not only is she one of the hardest working Royals, but she also seems like a smart, talented, and fun person (from the little I know). If I could have an afternoon with any members of the BRF, I would choose the Queen (& her corgis) and the Princess Royal.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post

On 8/13/2020 at 7:21 AM, merylinkid said:

Yes, how were Beatrice and Eugenie supporting themselves before their marriages.   Somehow no one made a big deal out of the grace and favor apartment they were living in.   Which means they were living rent free in an apartment given them by the Queen.   They didn't even do Royal duties.   But let's drag Meghan and Harry for having dad help them out -- which plenty of non-Royals do.

1 of the York Princesses, I think Beatrice, had a managerial-level job at an art gallery in London before she got married.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Multiple sources have been claiming that Meghan is at least thinking about voting in this year’s California Primary, despite the tradition that members of the BRF don’t vote in British elections or otherwise get involved in political matters. She is eligible to vote, apparently. At least from the standpoint that she’s apparently still a US citizen.

 

Edited by BW Manilowe · Reason: To remove a graphic which didn’t belong with the post.
  • Like 1
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BW Manilowe said:

Multiple sources have been claiming that Meghan is at least thinking about voting in this year’s California Primary, despite the tradition that members of the BRF don’t vote in British elections or otherwise get involved in political matters. She is eligible to vote, apparently. At least from the standpoint that she’s apparently still a US citizen.

 

It’s not really a claim but a direct quote from Meghan in a Marie Claire article about why she is voting in the 2020 General Election. 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Enero said:

I can't help but wonder if she's pregnant again.

Oh she totally is. And it's pretty obvious. I think it'll be hilarious if they pull a Jessica Biel and people find out after the baby is born. And I wouldn't blame them after the hell the British tabloid media put that woman through during her pregnancy with Archie.

I've always said that when you track the trajectory of all that stuff that happened, it really seemed like the worse of the tabloid hate and attacks and negative story after story started after they announced her pregnancy. You know even with all the evidence of pure hatred we see in the world, I still try to believe in some level of decency in people but honestly at one point, I was convinced these people were hoping Meghan would miscarry. 

Edited by truthaboutluv
  • Sad 7

Share this post


Link to post

If Meghan is pregnant again (or when she’s pregnant again), would she & Harry return to the UK for the birth or would they have it here in the States? Since they’re members of the BRF, by birth & by marriage, & the baby would be related by birth even if, like Archie, it doesn’t have a title, they’d have to have it in the UK, right? I’ve also read recent speculation that Catherine’s pregnant again—but she hasn’t been reported to be throwing up like crazy yet, like the last 3 times she was pregnant, so who knows?

Edited by BW Manilowe · Reason: To add a comment.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly see no reason why any other children they have wouldn't be born wherever they are residing permanently, which is now the US. Between the pandemic and the problems they've had with the British tabloids, I think there would probably be several reasons against such a decision. Just based on the way she has talked about it, I do think Meghan was genuinely hurt and taken aback by how poorly the British media treated her, so I wouldn't blame her if she had no interest in returning there to have a child. It certainly seems like she is no longer pursuing British citizenship and again can't say I blame her. I don't know that it really would matter to Harry whether or not his children were born in the UK (I know some people can feel strongly about the subject), and I think his sympathies would be entirely with her if she didn't want to. 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, BW Manilowe said:

If Meghan is pregnant again (or when she’s pregnant again), would she & Harry return to the UK for the birth or would they have it here in the States? Since they’re members of the BRF, by birth & by marriage, & the baby would be related by birth even if, like Archie, it doesn’t have a title, they’d have to have it in the UK, right?

Why would that be necessary? 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, BW Manilowe said:

1 of the York Princesses, I think Beatrice, had a managerial-level job at an art gallery in London before she got married.

It's a "job" where the Gallery gets to put her name on the letterhead so they get the boost from having a Royal in the company.   But she doesn't really do a lot.   Plus, even manager of an art gallery doesn't pay enough to support the lifestyle she is used to.    Andy has paid most of the girls' expenses their adult life.    Somehow, just like everything Andy does, that gets glided over, while everything Charles does for his kids is put under a magnifying glass.  

 

IF Meghan is pregnant (and I never presume a woman is pregnant unless the baby is coming out RIGHT NOW or she says she is), there is absolutely no reason the baby has to be born in the UK.   They are still members of the BRF, no matter where they live.   The kid will still be cousin to George, Charlotte and Louis.   Now, if Catherine were pregnante that would be a different matter.   You want anyone in the direct line of succession to be born on British soil.     In WWII, when the Dutch royal family fled, the Queen stayed in London with her son-in-law, but Juliana went to Canada with her daughter.    She was pregnant at the time.    The Canadian government declared the hospital where she gave birth to be a Dutch Embassy so she could give birth on Dutch "soil."   It was an extraordinery move and the Dutch Royal Family have never forgotten this gesture.   They still give thank you gifts to Canada for it.

  • Like 7
  • Useful 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

It's a "job" where the Gallery gets to put her name on the letterhead so they get the boost from having a Royal in the company.   But she doesn't really do a lot.   Plus, even manager of an art gallery doesn't pay enough to support the lifestyle she is used to.    Andy has paid most of the girls' expenses their adult life.    Somehow, just like everything Andy does, that gets glided over, while everything Charles does for his kids is put under a magnifying glass.  

 

IF Meghan is pregnant (and I never presume a woman is pregnant unless the baby is coming out RIGHT NOW or she says she is), there is absolutely no reason the baby has to be born in the UK.   They are still members of the BRF, no matter where they live.   The kid will still be cousin to George, Charlotte and Louis.   Now, if Catherine were pregnante that would be a different matter.   You want anyone in the direct line of succession to be born on British soil.     In WWII, when the Dutch royal family fled, the Queen stayed in London with her son-in-law, but Juliana went to Canada with her daughter.    She was pregnant at the time.    The Canadian government declared the hospital where she gave birth to be a Dutch Embassy so she could give birth on Dutch "soil."   It was an extraordinery move and the Dutch Royal Family have never forgotten this gesture.   They still give thank you gifts to Canada for it.

And, once again, there are multiple other members of the royal family whose kids live above their means just as the children of wealthy non-royals get help from their parents.  For example, Princess Anne's daughter, Zara and her family, live on Princess Anne's Estate.  I presume they don't pay rent to her mother.  Zara makes a living with endorsement deals from brands such as Rolex and Range Rover which are based on her fame both as an Olympic silver medalist equestrian and royal family member.  Her husband, Mike, is a rugby coach and supposedly gets around $200,000 a year in salary.

  All of the Queen's grandkids also received inheritance from a trust set up by the Queen Mother, which would've included Beatrice and Eugenie as well as Princess Margaret's kids.  It is known that William and Harry split $14 million from the Queen Mum with Harry getting most of it since William is the heir to the Duchy of Cornwall and doesn't need it.  Presumably, the other grandkids, who also aren't inheriting the throne, got similar sums of at least $7 million apiece from Great Grandmama.  Not bad.

If Meghan isn't pregnant, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that she's trying.  She started her family a bit later in life, so she doesn't have the luxury of time.  If she wants another child, it is probably now or never.  I hope she is if that's her goal.  As far as the child being born in the UK, I doubt it.  Just as there are ways for Americans who give birth abroad to get US citizenship for their child, I expect Britain does something similar.  Harry is still a British citizen, if they have another child and want it to be a British citizen, I am sure there are ways to do that.  No need for a child who is eighth in line for the throne, at best, to be born on British soil.

Edited by doodlebug
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I'd assume the kids of the future sovereign would be under the microscope more, hence people picking at Will and Harry and their spouses moreso than their cousins. Which means in 20 to 30 years, people are going to be doing it to Will's kids more than Harry's kids. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Doesn't matter where Harry and Meghan have their next kid, by law, they would still be an British citizen, though if they have the child outside the US, they would be classified as a "British citizen by descent" (which is the category for children born outside the UK or an Overseas Territory to a British citizen).

Archie is also a US citizen as well I imagine, as he meets all the requirements of being born overseas with one parent being a US citizen. Which would also be true for any other kids they have outside the US.

 

Edited by Hiyo
  • Like 3
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

Archie is also a US citizen as well I imagine, as he meets all the requirements of being born overseas with one parent being a US citizen. Which would also be true for any other kids they have outside the US.

I’m not sure about that. I believe for children of US citizens born abroad, the parents have to register the birth and do some paperwork for the child to get their US citizenship. So, he would be entitled to citizenship, but it’s not a given. I am sure that if Harry and Meghan had registered Archie as a US citizen, we would have heard about it. Dear God, how we would have heard about it. The press would have had a field day with that...

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

the parents have to register the birth and do some paperwork for the child to get their US citizenship

Technically, every parent who has a child abroad has to that with their kids, in some form or another.

Quote

So, he would be entitled to citizenship, but it’s not a given

Actually, it a given. In the case of being born to one US citizen on or after November 14, 1986 outside of the United States, that person is a US citizen if the following is true:

1) The person's parents were married at time of birth

2) One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born

3) The citizen parent lived at least five years in the United States before the child's birth

4) A minimum of two of these five years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

Since all of above apply to Archie, he would be counted as a US citizen. No, whether or not his parents have him registered as one, or if they only have him use a British passport, is another issue. But for all intents and purposes, Archie is as much an American citizen as he is a British one.

  • Like 3
  • Useful 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hiyo said:

Doesn't matter where Harry and Meghan have their next kid, by law, they would still be an British citizen, though if they have the child outside the US, they would be classified as a "British citizen by descent" (which is the category for children born outside the UK or an Overseas Territory to a British citizen).

Archie is also a US citizen as well I imagine, as he meets all the requirements of being born overseas with one parent being a US citizen. Which would also be true for any other kids they have outside the US.

 

The rules are different depending on where the child resides after birth.

If Meghan and Harry had stayed in Britain:

As noted above, Meghan would've had to register Archie's birth at the nearest American consulate within a certain time frame after his birth for him to be granted US citizenship.  It is not granted automatically to children of American citizens who are not born in the US who continue to reside in other countries. Of course, she could've done that pretty easily.  I believe those sorts of applications are confidential, so we won't know unless the Sussex choose to tell us.  And it's not our business, anyway, of course.

Since they came to the US and are apparently here as permanent residents, Archie is automatically a citizen as long as he is a legal permanent resident of the US and he is in legal and physical custody of his US citizen parent.  So, presumably, Archie is a US citizen now whether his birth was registered or not.

Edited by doodlebug
  • Like 3
  • Useful 6

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

It is not granted automatically to children of American citizens who are not born in the US who continue to reside in other countries.

Nope. These kids are American no matter where they reside, and how long. Where Archie resides after birth would only affect HIM not being able to grant US citizenship to his kids, ie, if Archie does not reside in the US for 5 years with a minimum of 2 of those years spent after the age of fourteen, then his kids would not automatically become US citizens.

But regardless of where Archie lives, he is legally a US citizen via his mother for the rest of his life, unless he ever chooses to renounce his US citizenship one day.

Quote

It is not granted automatically to children of American citizens who are not born in the US who continue to reside in other countries.

Again, it is automatically provided as long as the citizen parent in question, in this case Meghan, full fills the requirements I listed above. Since Meghan does full fill the requirements, any child she has outside of the US who is not born out of wedlock at the time of birth is automatically a US citizen.

Quote

Since they came to the US and are apparently here as permanent residents, Archie is automatically a citizen as long as he is a legal permanent resident of the US and he is in legal and physical custody of his US citizen parent.

That isn't how it works. Permanent residency does not equate to being a citizen. Permit residency in the US means you have a green card, it does not make you a full citizen (you can't vote with one nor does it entitle you to the use of a US passport). If Archie wasn't a US citizen, Meghan could sponsor Archie for a green card, but he still wouldn't be an automatic citizen until he applied for citizenship. But since Archie is a US citizen, that whole process is moot at this point.

Meghan is a US citizen. Archie is a US citizen. Meghan can sponsor Harry for a green card, and then after a period of time, he can apply for US citizenship if he chooses.

Edited by Hiyo
  • Like 4
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/14/2020 at 8:03 PM, praeceptrix said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53783875

From the article:

Princess Anne has been promoted by the Army and Royal Air Force to mark her 70th birthday.

The Princess Royal - the Queen's second child - will take up the role of general and air chief marshal, bringing her ranks in line with her rank in the Royal Navy.

I quite like Anne. Not only is she one of the hardest working Royals, but she also seems like a smart, talented, and fun person (from the little I know). If I could have an afternoon with any members of the BRF, I would choose the Queen (& her corgis) and the Princess Royal.

I have adored her since I read about the attempt to kidnap her. Just her reaction "not bloody likely" to the would be kidnapper saying "you're coming with us" is fantastic, but really the whole account is made of awesome. Anne is awesome. She's a badass.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

I know there is some debate whether Prince Charles was attractive in his prime.  I found this photo.  Love his smile:

image.jpeg.fcbb75b4fe9379dc90b6fb24d78a2b9e.jpeg

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

That juxtaposition of the rank everyone else topped out at with Edward's "withdrew to pursue a career in the arts" is unintentionally hilarious to me. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

This makes me sad:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/harry-read-cruel-online-comments-101400738.html

As does this. I knew about the white powder letter, and I always suspected that the reason Meghan had such a large motorcade was because she received substantial threats.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/meghan-markle-prince-harry-were-164000144.html

But this is a sweet footnote:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/queen-loved-meghan-markle-soon-114900332.html

  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Camille said:
Quote

As Hello! reports, Scobie and Durand reveal that the future Duchess of Sussex officially met the Queen on October 12, 2017 (though they'd had a fleeting encounter earlier that year, when Meghan and Harry "literally bumped into her"). 

How does one "literally bump into" the Queen? "Granny is that you?, Henry, what are you doing here? & who's your little friend?"

  • Laugh 9

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, GaT said:

How does one "literally bump into" the Queen? "Granny is that you?, Henry, what are you doing here? & who's your little friend?"

In my mind this totally took place in some palace secret passageway the royals use when they don't want to deal with royal bullshit. "Let's take this corridor--we can dodge everyone!--oh fancy meeting you here, Granny. You're trying to avoid everyone too?"

Edited by Zella
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 17

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Camille said:

This makes me sad:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/harry-read-cruel-online-comments-101400738.html

As does this. I knew about the white powder letter, and I always suspected that the reason Meghan had such a large motorcade was because she received substantial threats.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/meghan-markle-prince-harry-were-164000144.html

But this is a sweet footnote:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/queen-loved-meghan-markle-soon-114900332.html

 Meghan and Harry "received an unusually high number of threats" leading up to their wedding, which is probs why Meghan has to undergo a super intense royal training program that involved her taking part in a "staged kidnapping" that included "terrorists" throwing her into the back of a vehicle, as well as learning how to "develop a relationship with the enemy" and "drive a car while in pursuit."

 

So, your typical wedding prep. I hope this is overblown because, Jesus. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

Is part of the training saying "not bloody likely" if your would be kidnapper says "you're coming with us"?

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bijoux said:

So, your typical wedding prep. I hope this is overblown because, Jesus. 

Sadly, probably not. The royal family probably has had to deal with a lot of nutcases regardless, so I can imagine how much it ratcheted up when one of them dared to marry a biracial woman.

I spent their entire post-nuptial carriage ride praying some bigoted idiot with a rifle wasn't out there.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Not sure how to quote multiple posts, but in response to some of the above:

1. Zella's post has me imagining the various royal residences with myriad secret passages and rooms -- sort of a combination of historical (priest holes, escape routes, etc.) and Hogwarts. And now I'm wondering into which houses the BRF would be sorted (but not Andrew, who's a squib in my imaginary world).

2. Hiyo beat me to it, quoting the Princess Royal. Other than this thread, I don't pay that much attention to the lives of the various royals (unless there are pictures of corgis), so I don't know how close Meghan is to her sister-in-law. I hope that Anne welcomed her with open arms, told her about the attempted kidnapping, and has been supportive.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
OtterMommy

Everyone has stated their views on the Sussexes and no one is going to change anyone's mind.  Any further excessive bickering may lead to a temporary suspension of this thread.  If you do not agree with someone's opinion, please scroll to the next post.  If you feel the need to take a stronger action, please use the ignore function.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size