Prince Harry Current Events 28: April 2015 - June 2017

[Rudolph]

I didn't say Britain is doing 'nothing' I said its miles behind America in how it treats veterans and its true. The USO Warrior and Family Centre is just one of many centres in the US.

Headley Court is woefully inadequate. MoD announced it will close and services transferred to a new centre to be developed at Stanford Hall *hopefully* to be opened by 2018

The cost of setting up the centre will be met by a fundraising campaign led by the Duke of Westminster, who has bought Stanford Hall.

Thank God for the Duke. Himself a Sandhurst graduate and army veteran

Given the low priority the British government gives to veterans I won't hold my breath it will be ready to open in 2018

But this is off-topic so I'll end it here.

 

[Dman]

Whispers in the DM that Harry could start carrying out Investitures:
How fear of The Table keeps the Royals busy, by EPHRAIM HARDCASTLE | Daily Mail Online

 

[Rudolph]

With Prince William presiding at Tuesday’s investiture ceremony, the Palace has become increasingly coy about divulging which royal is doing the honours at these events. The Queen attends fewer and fewer investitures and recipients are increasingly keen to get a place on days when she is present.

After the Queen, William is the most popular, with Charles and Anne sharing a distant last place. Word is that Prince Harry may soon join the investiture rota, something bound to shove Charles and Anne further down the hit parade.

The DM. You have to laugh. Charles is the Prince of Wales, its difficult to 'shove' him down the hit parade.

 

[Curryong]

They're talking in terms of popularity though, with the attendees at the Investitures. It reflects the popularity of Charles in various opinion polls, ahead of his wife but way behind the main pack of Queen, Will, Harry, Kate.

 

[wartenberg7]

I think Harry's voice sounds quite a bit like his father's. He's just been on the morning news, and he is such a huge hit over here. Not that people all know him or care about him, but that he comes across as our kind of good guy. He gets coverage and good press when he's over here. JMO.
And having watched the clips - that was not POTUS flirting - that was her joking around, I think. But she and Harry, clearly have gotten to know and feel at ease with one another.

Are there really some people in the US who do not know Prince Harry?!

 

[Osipi]

Are there really some people in the US who do not know Prince Harry?!

I would imagine that the majority of the people in the US have a glimmer who Prince Harry is but that number would drastically be reduced by asking them if they know who Prince Henry of Wales is.

 

[wartenberg7]

I would imagine that the majority of the people in the US have a glimmer who Prince Harry is but that number would drastically be reduced by asking them if they know who Prince Henry of Wales is.

Well realising this, from the european point of view, America seems to be as far away as another planet - or, when you live in the US, Europe is in a different galaxy...

 

[Curryong]

Speculation that Harry will become a full time Royal.

Prince Harry will become full-time royal when he does the Remembrance Sunday honours | Daily Mail Online

 

[Curryong]

Harry with Prince Philip at Remembrance Fields yesterday.

Prince Harry joins Prince Philip at Westminster Abbey's Field of Remembrance to pay tribute | Daily Mail Online

 

[Lady Nimue]

Speculation that Harry will become a full time Royal.

Prince Harry will become full-time royal when he does the Remembrance Sunday honours | Daily Mail Online

Is this bona fide information? Is this how we would find out? Wondering. I agree with 'the source' that it would be 'perfect' if there was a wife.

Actually, being a Cressida partisan, I think it would be keen if Cressida was the wife but was allowed to have her own career. I think it would be immensely interesting to have such a royal couple, very au courant with the advancing social/marriage scene.

 

[Skippyboo]

The first time a non Royal colonel or non child of a sovereign given honor of laying wreath in own right? William did it in his name in 2007. He didn't become Colonel of Irish guards until 2011. Harry like his brother has honorary positions in the Royal Navy and RAF.

Didn't KP already say that Harry wasn't going to be a full time Royal went he left the army earlier this year? The Royal variety show isn't that the event that no one wants to go to?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

Right now, at this time, I think its pretty appropriate for Harry to be the one to lay the wreath in his own right. Not because of his standing in the BRF or that he's a full time royal but because of his dedication and service to those in the military.

It is fast becoming a reality that when it comes to the British royal family and their connection to the British military, where once it was Philip as a navy man, that did a lot of representation for the family at military type events, the torch is most likely to be passed down to his grandson Harry. Not in any way undermining either Charles or William's involvement with the military but I think for Harry, it is much more of a personal connection.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, when Prince Philip passes (which hopefully won't be for years yet) Andrew (the Falklands War) and Harry (Afghanistan twice) will be the only members of the Royal family that will have seen active service. Harry's first deployment in Afghanistan began in late 2007.

I love Harry's frock coat on this engagement. It's a bit of a change from his usual dress uniform for the Blues and Royals.

As for the Royal Variety Show it is a charity event and most senior royals turn up to view it sooner or later, whether they want to or not. The artists who appear are always happy to be presented.

 

[Daria_S]

Right now, at this time, I think its pretty appropriate for Harry to be the one to lay the wreath in his own right. Not because of his standing in the BRF or that he's a full time royal but because of his dedication and service to those in the military.



It is fast becoming a reality that when it comes to the British royal family and their connection to the British military, where once it was Philip as a navy man, that did a lot of representation for the family at military type events, the torch is most likely to be passed down to his grandson Harry. Not in any way undermining either Charles or William's involvement with the military but I think for Harry, it is much more of a personal connection.

This is beautifully put and very true. Henry's connection to the military appears to be very deep and personal, and it's great that he gets the recognition by being able to lay down a wreath in his name. I can only imagine how honored he feels. You're right; this is not about being a full-time Royal. It's about his dedication to the plight of those who served to protect their country.



Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[miche]

I don't think he's becoming a full time royal. Charles won't put money aside for him to do full time duty.

 

[grevinnan]

This is beautifully put and very true. Henry's connection to the military appears to be very deep and personal, and it's great that he gets the recognition by being able to lay down a wreath in his name. I can only imagine how honored he feels. You're right; this is not about being a full-time Royal. It's about his dedication to the plight of those who served to protect their country.



Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community mobile app

Has there been a request from Prince Harry to call him Henry? If not, it is rude to call people by names other than the ones they are using themselves.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Has there been a request from Prince Harry to call him Henry? If not, it is rude to call people by names other than the ones they are using themselves.

His given name is Henry and he is known by Harry.
I don't at all see how it's rude to call him by the name he was christened and the one his parents chose for him.

 

[eya]

Rude to call someone with the name who christened? I don't think so.

 

[HRHHermione]

Has there been a request from Prince Harry to call him Henry? If not, it is rude to call people by names other than the ones they are using themselves.

Both names are used interchangeably and he's been referred to as Prince Henry multiple times. His official website is princehenryofwales.org

This is in no way rude.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Jacknch]

There is nothing wrong with referring to the Prince as Harry or Henry. For those who are not aware, there is actually a separate thread discussing the matter of his name here:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/why-harry-henry-34286-6.html#post1759153

 

[cepe]

Has there been a request from Prince Harry to call him Henry? If not, it is rude to call people by names other than the ones they are using themselves.

Prince Henry of Wales is his formal title and the one used by the CC. His parents said he would be known as Harry at the time they announced his name

EDIT: Apologies - just saw the request to use the appropriate thread.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I don't think he's becoming a full time royal. Charles won't put money aside for him to do full time duty.

Question: 'paying' someone to be a 'full time royal', isn't that the bailiwick of the reigning sovereign? In this case, the Queen? Why would Charles have anything to do with 'paying' Harry to do royal duties? Color me: Confused.

Am I being obtuse? I admit I am not that robust in my knowledge of these things. Harry is independently wealthy, I thought. What would Charles have to do with 'paying' Harry, except as Harry's father and maybe giving him a Trust Fund?

 

[Ish]

Question: 'paying' someone to be a 'full time royal', isn't that the bailiwick of the reigning sovereign? In this case, the Queen? Why would Charles have anything to do with 'paying' Harry to do royal duties? Color me: Confused.



Am I being obtuse? I admit I am not that robust in my knowledge of these things. Harry is independently wealthy, I thought. What would Charles have to do with 'paying' Harry, except as Harry's father and maybe giving him a Trust Fund?

Paying for the engagements undertaken by the Wales-Cambridge branch of the family is done by Charles (I believe it comes out of the Duchy), while paying for the engagements undertaken by the rest of the family is undertaken by the Queen.

It's not actually paying Harry, but covering the expenses that come with engagements.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Paying for the engagements undertaken by the Wales-Cambridge branch of the family is done by Charles (I believe it comes out of the Duchy), while paying for the engagements undertaken by the rest of the family is undertaken by the Queen.

It's not actually paying Harry, but covering the expenses that come with engagements.

I see. Thank you for this, Ish.

Two questions follow: who decided this? It seems to me the sovereign is in charge of the BRF PR. It should be that individual who doles out the money for anyone who represents the BRF. Seems only fair.

And then: why the statement that Charles does not want to pay for Harry's events? What's that about? Or is that bogus?

 

[Ish]

Prince Harry Current Events 28: April 2015

I see. Thank you for this, Ish.



Two questions follow: who decided this? It seems to me the sovereign is in charge of the BRF PR. It should be that individual who doles out the money for anyone who represents the BRF. Seems only fair.



And then: why the statement that Charles does not want to pay for Harry's events? What's that about? Or is that bogus?

For the first question I'm not sure. Charles was paying for himself before his first marriage, so him paying for his wife and children is kind of a logical continuation of that.

I would guess that the reasoning lies within the Duchy (and I'm sure Bertie can correct if I'm wrong). The Monarch receives the incomes from the Duchy of Lancaster as Monarch, and funds the monarchy through this. The Duke of Cornwall (in this case, Charles) is the only other person in the royal family who has a position-based income - through the Duchy of Cornwall - so it makes sense that rather than being supported by the Monarch, the Duke (who is the heir apparent) is supported by his Duchy. The Duke's dependants are his wife and descendants, while the Monarch's are the remainder of the family.

As to the second, it was said last year I believe that Charles could not afford to pay for the Cambridges to become full time royals as doing so would require redirecting funds from other ventures - he pays a high tax rate on the Duchy incomes already, uses it to support his family privately, uses it to support the Duchy itself, and has a number of schemes within the Princes Trust. In short, it's not an issue of desire but an issue of being able to afford to pay for Harry to be a full time royal.

 

[Curryong]

^ Charles does want to pay for Harry's (and William's and Kate's) engagements but only to a certain level.

However, Prince Philip will be 95 next year. He's hardly going to keep on till he's 100. It might be a case of 'the spirit is willing but...' It's all very well looking on the bright side and pretending the Queen and Prince Philip will be able to go on for years and years more. We hope they do. The odds are that they won't.

Prince Philip still has dozens of patronages, some of them connected to the military that will (not might, will) have to be distributed over his sons and grandsons over the next few years. Charles, (already extremely busy) Andrew and Edward will take up some of the slack, but what about the rest?

And what if the Queen's health fails as she enters her 90's? There may have to be some dipping into Duchy of Lancaster funds for Charles's sons to perform Royal engagements if necessary.

 

[Dman]

Charles can afford to fund the Cambridge's and Harry official engagements. He just have to cut down on his massive staff (that's much more larger than his mother's). With The Queen getting ready to turn 90, (God's willing) things are on it's way to changing anyway.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I see. Thank you for this, Ish.

Two questions follow: who decided this? It seems to me the sovereign is in charge of the BRF PR. It should be that individual who doles out the money for anyone who represents the BRF. Seems only fair.

And then: why the statement that Charles does not want to pay for Harry's events? What's that about? Or is that bogus?

This is just my opinion, but the financial rationale bolsters what I have always thought was the real reason - supported both by the Queen and Charles.
And that's that they want William and Kate to enjoy the kids and one another while they can. That they don't want it to become the "Kate and William show" while the Queen is still alive and Charles not yet King. The press clamors for that, but I think the family wants to manage the star power of the Cambridges.
And I find that perfectly sensible and practical. JMO

 

[MichelleQ2]

This is just my opinion, but the financial rationale bolsters what I have always thought was the real reason - supported both by the Queen and Charles.
And that's that they want William and Kate to enjoy the kids and one another while they can. That they don't want it to become the "Kate and William show" while the Queen is still alive and Charles not yet King. The press clamors for that, but I think the family wants to manage the star power of the Cambridges.
And I find that perfectly sensible and practical. JMO

I completely agree and that is a very nice way of putting it: "managing their star power".

 

[Lady Nimue]

For the first question I'm not sure. Charles was paying for himself before his first marriage, so him paying for his wife and children is kind of a logical continuation of that.

I would guess that the reasoning lies within the Duchy (and I'm sure Bertie can correct if I'm wrong). The Monarch receives the incomes from the Duchy of Lancaster as Monarch, and funds the monarchy through this. The Duke of Cornwall (in this case, Charles) is the only other person in the royal family who has a position-based income - through the Duchy of Cornwall - so it makes sense that rather than being supported by the Monarch, the Duke (who is the heir apparent) is supported by his Duchy. The Duke's dependants are his wife and descendants, while the Monarch's are the remainder of the family.

As to the second, it was said last year I believe that Charles could not afford to pay for the Cambridges to become full time royals as doing so would require redirecting funds from other ventures - he pays a high tax rate on the Duchy incomes already, uses it to support his family privately, uses it to support the Duchy itself, and has a number of schemes within the Princes Trust. In short, it's not an issue of desire but an issue of being able to afford to pay for Harry to be a full time royal.

Thank you, Ish.

This is just my opinion, but the financial rationale bolsters what I have always thought was the real reason - supported both by the Queen and Charles.

And that's that they want William and Kate to enjoy the kids and one another while they can. That they don't want it to become the "Kate and William show" while the Queen is still alive and Charles not yet King. The press clamors for that, but I think the family wants to manage the star power of the Cambridges.
And I find that perfectly sensible and practical. JMO

A good answer, and along the way I have thought the same upon occasion.

I also wonder about numbers of people. Charles is supporting quite a few people at this point 'in a manner to which they are accustomed'. There is himself and his wife, both sons, a daughter-in-law and two grandchildren. That's 7 people but how does he support them?

At some point this all gets confusing because there are properties involved and private fortunes. Does not William and Harry have their own money, inherited from their mother, to live on? Plus the housing is paid for by the Crown, not so?

How much money does it take to support a full-time royal? (Rhetorical question as I doubt there are figures for this). Salary and expenses? Or just expenses? What are the expenses, since a charity foots the bill for a royal visit, not so? (In my experience the talent pays nothing and usually gets a stipend, to boot, but royalty may be a different matter). Certainly the government must pay 'expenses', like with the wreath-laying. Is the royal really required to pay for anything in that ceremony other than (perhaps) the wreath they lay down?