Los Duques de Sussex dejan de ser SAR's pero mantienen el Ducado. Devolverán dinero invertido en Frogmore. La nueva vida en Canadá

[rosario]

Emily Andrews da en el clavo.
¿Como pueden ellos "apoyar por completo a Su Majestad la Reina" y "honrar nuestro deber hacia la Queen" cuando ni siquiera se dignaron a decirle que estaban haciendo esto...?
¿Como pueden ser "independientes financieramente" mientras aceptan una enorme cantidad de ? proveniente del Ducado de Cornwall, el cual existe para mantener a herederos del trono Británico?

Ver el archivo adjunto 1283834

Estoy hecha un lío, no quieren obligaciones pero si los beneficios?

Cómo pueden irse así, con esa actitud Harry demuestra que no tiene y nunca tuvo madera para más.

desafortunadamente esto me da mala espina, si se van Harry reo no resistirá, pobre espero y no pase nada serio

 

[Poupee]

Alguien me puede explicar esto, lo practico/técnico en realidad, porque no entiendo nada.
@Rosebud @tseuG @pilarcita help!!!!

 

[Maralb]

Ahí tienes . Van a aprovechar la enorme popularidad que tienen y se han ganado solitos. Y NO TE GRITO, solo enfatizo. Adios, hasta mas ver, cotillas.

Se la han ganado solitos? No se, a lo mejor ser Harry el nieto de la Queen y que su boda se retransmitió al mundo entero por ser el novio el nieto de la Queen pues ...ha influido un poquito en esa “ enorme popularidad “ . Un poquito, casi nada . Pero un poquito si...

 

[Rosebud]

Where it all went wrong for Prince Harry an Meghan Markle: That glorious wedding captivated the world but from the debacle over her father to the fracturing of the Fab Four, the facade soon began to crumble, writes RICHARD KAY


By Richard Kay for the Daily Mail22:42 GMT 08 Jan 2020 , updated 23:56 GMT 08 Jan 2020


Tragically, the shared happiness was misplaced. Harry and Meghan were not just a couple who wanted to embrace both modernity and tradition; they were bent on re-writing the rule book of what being a member of the Royal Family actually means.

We should perhaps have realised; after all, the manner in which the duchess's father was ruthlessly excluded from the ceremony went beyond mere discourtesy.

At the time, the failure of Thomas Markle to give his daughter away was blamed squarely on his own foolishness.

Nor was much made of the absence of many of Harry's oldest friends, the mates who had stuck by him through thick and thin. In their place came a new set of chums, megawatt celebrities who had not been around when he was at his lowest ebb, but who would add a glamorous touch of stardust to proceedings.

The tragedy of Harry and Meghan is that they could have been life-long royal heroes. The Prince himself was already much loved, second only to the Queen in popularity.

From seeing action on the front line in Afghanistan not once but twice, and from which he had emerged unscathed, Harry had won over those sceptical about his party prince reputation.

After the Army, affection for him soared following his triumphant visit to the Caribbean, where he posed with another superstar, the Olympic athlete Usain Bolt.

If elder brother William represented the dutiful if dull side of royalty, Harry was the fun side. He was open and amusing, taking everything in his stride. All he needed was to find the love of a good woman and his happiness — and ours — would be complete.

His romantic path had been strewn if not with broken hearts then certainly with trepidation. Before Meghan, he had wooed and lost two other beauties — Chelsy Davy and Cressida Bonas —who valued a life out of the limelight, rather than marriage and the goldfish bowl of royal attention.

In Meghan he found a soulmate who had at least experienced life in the spotlight. This, they both hoped, would provide an understanding for their future together.

But if anything this understanding has served to drive them apart from the very institution they say they want to support. It has led to William and Harry, once the closest of brothers, being alienated from one another, and to a series of ill-judged interventions that have provoked bafflement and, yes, even resentment.

Their preaching to ordinary people about how they should lead their lives — particularly about climate change — and what has come to be seen as a drip, drip, drip of complaints about how they are treated, has led to a real disconnect. Who would have thought that in recent times the mere mention of Harry and Meghan's names at Buckingham Palace would lead some of the Queen's most loyal courtiers to wrinkle their noses and pull a face.


The rot set in even before the glow of that May wedding day had passed. Shortly after returning from honeymoon, Meghan was asked by a younger member of the family how it had gone and, more to the point, where they had gone. 'We're not telling anyone,' the new Duchess of Sussex smiled. Was this merely a symptom of someone still adjusting to royal life, or someone who was not about to make any compromises about their privacy?

It was not long before the Markle debacle over Meghan's father was again rearing its head. A sweet but naïve figure, Thomas Markle did not help himself with his sudden fascination for giving interviews about his famous daughter.

But here was a man of limited resources suddenly thrust onto a global stage, unsure of protocol and stumbling from one misadventure to another.

Sympathy, at first, was with his daughter, but questions were soon asked about her and Harry's duty of care towards him. In fact, the seeds of this family fall-out which, I believe, has shaped the way Harry and Meghan are now, were sown through their own casual ineptness.

They should never have allowed Markle to fall into the clutches of the paparazzi with his admittedly crass stunted pictures before the wedding. Why did no one from Harry's office — or indeed Prince Charles's — fly to Mexico, where the retired lighting director lived in genteel if reduced circumstances?

He should have been flown to Britain, housed in any number of royal residences, dressed and presented to the world on his daughter's wedding day.

This lack of care inevitably led to another unseemly domestic outcome — the behaviour of Meghan's extended family. As unattractive as they undoubtedly were, there was no doubt they had a point when they railed about the duchess's treatment of her divorced father. Certainly it compared unfavourably with the kidgloves handling of Meghan's mother, Doria Ragland, who played a prominent part in her daughter's wedding.

Even so, many were prepared to cut Meghan some slack, pointing out how hard many young women — particularly Harry's mother, Diana, had found royal life.

But revelations about the duchess's apparently high-handed manner were causing unease. It emerged that there had been a row between Harry and one of the Queen's closest aides over the tiara the duchess wanted to wear at her wedding. Several tiaras had been considered, but the Queen did not want to lend the one Meghan preferred. Words were exchanged and Harry backed down.

Meanwhile, it emerged that Meghan had complained about the mustiness of St George's chapel and wanted it sprayed with air freshener before the ceremony.

This was a young woman who was clearly not going to accept her position quietly.

There was further trouble over the bridesmaids' dresses, which was an early sign of the great tensions to come.

It was reported that Meghan had reduced Kate, her soon-to-be sister-in-law, to tears, because of her manner.

Weddings, of course, often lead to domestic tensions but are usually forgotten afterwards. With Harry and Meghan, they just increased.

Meghan's decision to hold an extravagant baby shower in New York didn't just shock people, it offended them, too. What possible justification could there be for the private jets — no matter who picked up the bill — as well as luxury hotels, lavish parties and expensive baby gifts?


It was the kind of look associated with the Kardashians, not the Windsors.

Then came the biggest shock of all — the secrecy over the birth of baby Archie.

Here, not just tradition but common sense was upended. They announced there would be no bulletins on when or where the baby would be born, no traditional photograph and they even declined to say who was in charge of delivery.

This didn't just upset royal fans but the Royal Family, too.

For generations, the births of those close to the throne have been proclaimed on a notice placed just inside the railings of Buckingham Palace. It always includes the names of the doctors in attendance.

Harry and Meghan simply ignored protocol and did it their way. While touching it undoubtedly was as Harry spoke of his pride and joy, the moment was riven with controversy. As for the birth, they cackhandedly arranged for a statement saying Meghan had gone into labour to be issued after the baby had actually been born.

But the real insult came when baby Archie's christening was shrouded in secrecy.

The couple refused to say who the godparents were, and when photographs did appear the infant's face was largely obscured.

Some may see this as unnecessary carping about a couple who want to ensure their son is not brought up in the royal way, but has the privacy that was denied Harry and William as they grew up. Others suggest that all they were really doing was weaponising their family in their battles for privacy.

Meanwhile, the 'fab four', as the royal brothers and their wives had been dubbed, was no more. Harry and Meghan moved to Windsor, separated his office from William's and split from their highly successful charity, the Royal Foundation .

This was not just a change in direction but a unilateral declaration of independence.

Nothing illustrated this more than their decision to give an interview to ITV while on a royal tour of southern Africa last autumn. It was a mistake of historic proportions. Standing against a backdrop of some of the most deprived regions on earth, they complained to the camera about their lot.

At the same time Harry's comments triggered another wave of disbelief.

Questioned about his relationship with William he confirmed what until then had been mere tittle tattle: that the once whisper-close brothers had fallen out.

How much this domestic heartache is at the centre of the Sussexes's bombshell is not yet clear.

But the repercussion are going to echo for a long time to come.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...chess-facade-crumbled-writes-RICHARD-KAY.html

Vaya, dice lo mismo que muchas por acá. Parece que hubiera leído el foro...

 

[Poupee]

Ver el archivo adjunto 1283852

Esto es una court circular???? WTF????

 

[Macawinsord]

Fuente Forbes

Gran número: $ 86 millones. Eso es lo que le costó la monarquía a los contribuyentes británicos en 2018-2019, según el informe anual de la Casa Real. El apoyo de los contribuyentes a la realeza es un problema político en curso en algunas partes del Reino Unido, y los críticos dicen que las poblaciones vulnerables y los programas sociales reducidos podrían tener más uso para los fondos. El sitio web de Harry y Meghan dice que si bien ya no aceptarán el dinero de los contribuyentes, esa contribución solo cubrió el 5% de sus costos, específicamente para sus gastos oficiales de oficina. El 95% restante de su financiación es proporcionado por el Príncipe Carlos, el padre del Príncipe Harry, a través del Ducado de Cornualles.”
———————-
Supongo que seguirá costeando todo Charles.

supongo que por un tiempo si y que tampoco los dejara sin nada pero no creo que siga dándoles los cuanto 5 millones ?? si no están trabajando para la institución, cuidara de ellos seguramente pero ya no al mismo nivel, recordemos que carlos mira mucho los temas económicos y también esta muy pendiente de no "desagradar" a la opinión publica.

y como ducado fue creado para cuidar económicamente de los herederos... Harry es cada vez menos heredero.

 

[Silvanita]

Meghan después de que ella publicó el anuncio en Instagram (que por cierto, qué cutre!)

 

[Princess Royal]

Ella

Mientras no vivan del contribuyente pueden hacer lo que quieran, una vez que se tomen las decisiones en palacio. Se comenta que al Harry seguir siendo quien es la casa de Frog sigue siendo suya. A mi no todo lo que han hecho me ha gustado pero no les han dado una oportunidad, desde el minuto uno han ido a por ellos. Lo dicho, prefieren mantener un ped*filo que a un negro.

Si el dinero es importante, pero el honrar a la Reina y a UK lo es todavía más para los británicos. Con el Brexit, las huelgas peticiones de Independencia en Escocia e Irlanda del Norte, esto que hacen, ahora mismo sobraba.

Con su condición de afroamericana puede dar y hacer mucho. Pero creo que su ambición y ganas de controlar todo, como Letizia, (que las dos vienen del medio audiovisual, se aman!), puede con sus buenas intenciones. Yo no creo que el tema del racismo sea por lo que la atacan. Diana era la representación de la quintaesencia de lo britanico y sin embargo nunca la dejaron vivir en paz.
Y entre ellos el dinero es lo de menos. Es ser fieles y respetar la tradición. Esto debe herir al padre, hermano y abuelos.

Andrew es una vergüenza y deberían quitarle el título y pose cio es si lo encuentran culpable. Nadie, pienso yo, defiende a un pedofilo ,degenerado, abusador.

Ella pensó que estaría blindada y no es así. Desde el principio se han quejado y pedido más. Otra casa, otra oficina, otra fundación etc Y creo que no están pensando en su hijo. El chiquillo no tendrá ningún tipo de familia, Ni salidas con abuelos , primos, cumpleaños etc. Solo unos padres que van dando palos de ciego. Espero que piensen en el antes de seguir lanzándose al vacío.

 

[Maralb]

Emily Andrews da en el clavo.
¿Como pueden ellos "apoyar por completo a Su Majestad la Reina" y "honrar nuestro deber hacia la Queen" cuando ni siquiera se dignaron a decirle que estaban haciendo esto...?
¿Como pueden ser "independientes financieramente" mientras aceptan una enorme cantidad de ? proveniente del Ducado de Cornwall, el cual existe para mantener a herederos del trono Británico?

Ver el archivo adjunto 1283834

Porque son tontitos y les encanta contarlo al mundo ?

 

[tseuG]

Alguien me puede explicar esto, lo practico/técnico en realidad, porque no entiendo nada.
@Rosebud @tseuG @pilarcita help!!!!

Está difícil de entender querida @Poupee . Ellos anuncian que dejan de ser "senior" royals, pero que apoyarán a la Queen, que su residencia estará entre UK y América, pero que seguirán con sus patronazgos y demás.

Es decir, muy poco claros. Sí, pero no, pero sí, pero no.

Y luego hay un anuncio de Buckingham Palace diciendo: Entendemos que los Sussex quieren salir corriendo, pero nada está definido aun.

Es decir, ...

 

[Princess Royal]

C

Esto es una court circular???? WTF????

Como lo han dicho sin consultar nada, están discutiendo el cierre de la oficina, con que casa se quedan, quien mantendrá esa supuesta casa, que se hará con los empleados que tienen etc. Es como un divorcio y están dando los primeros pasos de un acuerdo.

 

[sincoronita]

Lo cierto es que más allá del apoyo "inicial" recibido (Carlos acompañándola en la boda y alguna otra cosita) para el común de los mortales republicanos de países remotos, esta noticia se lee como "otra metedura de pata de esta CR, que dejó que la prensa los destrozara y que no sabe proteger a su familia".