Seems Beatrice and Eugenie have more respect for themselves and the monarchy than Harry does. He is clearly using his title to help get a role that he is unqualified for. Interesting how this helps their financial situation, I can’t imagine the salary from this is enough to help them out that much. Wonder if he is getting his feet under the table before a stock market flotation.
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021
- Thread starter Jacknch
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Executives at the same sort of level in similar Silicon Valley firms reportedly take home seven figure annual salaries. BetterUp is apparently valued at well over a billion dollars. However, I read an article early today, can’t find it again, that stated Harry was given stock in the company in lieu of a salary.
Last edited:
Who you are and who you know opens doors for a lot of people. I'm sure all the second generation Hollywood actors and models are good at their jobs, but I'd imagine it was a lot easier for them to get a foot in the door than it would've been for Joe or Josephine Bloggs, who might have been just as good. But Beatrice and Eugenie have both got degrees, and have always worked, so I don't think it's very fair to criticise them: they can't help being who they are. Harry's "job" is different, because he's not really qualified to do anything other than be an Army officer, but, if he focuses on that rather than on whingeing and moaning and telling lies about the Royal Family, then I hope it works out for him.
They actually work and make decisions. That isn't Harry's job. He basically just has a face job. Nothing wrong with it . It's what he can do. He wouldn't earn seven figures for it.
Lee-Z
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 3,589
- City
- Heerlen
- Country
- Netherlands
Indeed nothing wrong with it, i know some people wouldn't consider it 'work', but don't underestimate the value a 'face' can have for a business, with regards to gaining interest, sponsors, other prominent people's support etc etc
and the beauty is, that Harry can combine several of these tasks for various organisations and causes
and ofcourse he's new to this line of work, so imo we should give him a chance to find his footing
As long as they never resort to dissing the RF again (either themselves or via 'friends') i say it's all good...
(an apology and retraction of the interview 'truths' would be better, but i have no hope for that)
True but Harry's only a "face" because of his rank and because he just did an interview where he largely dissed his royal family... Other people may be a "face" whihc htey can use to make money.... for shallow reasons, sports success, reality show success etc.. but its a LITTLE bit more than just being the son of a prince who has been on TV attacking his family...
It si rather shocking that his atack on his family, is what's largley got him this notice - that got him the job.
That showed him to be an angry confused and disloyal person.
I agree. That's why i think they'd be better to concentrate on money making (there's nothing WRONG with making money) and not try to mix it in with this charity stuff.. when they have build themselves a steady income, then they can move over to charity work, or part time charity work. It doesn't seem clear where Archwells money that they give in donations is coming from. Is it money that they put in? Is it money that they got form public donations? i think that at the moment a charity is going to muddy the waters as they ARE now clearly panicking and trying to find a way of making money.
But he's not going to, is he? They had a chance with this interview to promote their charity, to talk about their future plans for earning a living, to focus on what they CAN or plan to do.. but they didn't do that. They went so far the other way that even i was surprised at how they behaved. They've attacked the RF as racist, heartless, etc etc and as far as I can see said NOTHING about their new life.. except that they are clearly annoyed that the "racist heartless family" who treated them so badly, wont pay them money...
I wonder if Harry has now been seeing getting a job because even to US people his apparent belief that Charles should have bankrolled him for years and years may have come across badly. I mean that US people not aware of the nuances of RF may have been less skeptical about most of his claims than UK people were. But they will probably notice that it seems a bit odd for him to diss his family and then come up with "Oh but Dad should be paying for me."
I think that he really showed true colours (sadly)when he came out with the whole thing that yes he had left UK to earn a living but was annoyed that Charles would not cough up money for him indefintiely...and that he'd only done the Netflix deal because "he had no money and Dad would not pay for him"....
It si rather shocking that his atack on his family, is what's largley got him this notice - that got him the job.
That showed him to be an angry confused and disloyal person.
I agree. That's why i think they'd be better to concentrate on money making (there's nothing WRONG with making money) and not try to mix it in with this charity stuff.. when they have build themselves a steady income, then they can move over to charity work, or part time charity work. It doesn't seem clear where Archwells money that they give in donations is coming from. Is it money that they put in? Is it money that they got form public donations? i think that at the moment a charity is going to muddy the waters as they ARE now clearly panicking and trying to find a way of making money.
But he's not going to, is he? They had a chance with this interview to promote their charity, to talk about their future plans for earning a living, to focus on what they CAN or plan to do.. but they didn't do that. They went so far the other way that even i was surprised at how they behaved. They've attacked the RF as racist, heartless, etc etc and as far as I can see said NOTHING about their new life.. except that they are clearly annoyed that the "racist heartless family" who treated them so badly, wont pay them money...
I wonder if Harry has now been seeing getting a job because even to US people his apparent belief that Charles should have bankrolled him for years and years may have come across badly. I mean that US people not aware of the nuances of RF may have been less skeptical about most of his claims than UK people were. But they will probably notice that it seems a bit odd for him to diss his family and then come up with "Oh but Dad should be paying for me."
I think that he really showed true colours (sadly)when he came out with the whole thing that yes he had left UK to earn a living but was annoyed that Charles would not cough up money for him indefintiely...and that he'd only done the Netflix deal because "he had no money and Dad would not pay for him"....
Last edited by a moderator:
Lee-Z
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 3,589
- City
- Heerlen
- Country
- Netherlands
i wonder if the casual watcher of the Oprah interview really "got" all the layers that we has royalty watchers have picked up from it...i think what remains as an impression for many people who just looked at it on the surface are things like:
- independent
- modern
- anti-racism
- open about mental health issues
these four things alone make H&M a good 'face' for many companies.... just maybe not in the UK (and maybe not in western europe either..)
i think what remains as an impression for many people who just looked at it on the surface are things like:
- independent
- modern
- anti-racism
- open about mental health issues
these four things alone make H&M a good 'face' for many companies.... just maybe not in the UK (and maybe not in western europe either..)
How about disloyal, incoherent, confusing in what they say? how about odd in that they continually criticize the RF yet still cling to the titles and expect the money?
and how can anyone see them as open about mental health issues when it seems that harry was embarrassed by his wife having them and did not know how to get her the help she needed?
Last edited:
Osipi
Member - in Memoriam
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 17,268
- City
- On the west side of North up from Back
- Country
- United States
One thing I've noticed about Archewell is that its a .com rather than a .org. So, to me that means its not a non-profit organization but rather a commercial venture for profit. This makes sense with having Archewell Productions as part of it. Their Netflix and Spotify work entails hiring people and the finances for Archewell Productions will be handled by the foundation itself and is not the Sussexes private bank account. They're not doing things for free or for "charity". They're effectively setting up their own company much like BetterUp is for a purpose of not only getting a message out that they want to put out but also to generate income and pay for staff and float the foundation's expenses. I imagine that both Harry and Meghan can draw a salary from the foundation also. They probably have a team of lawyers and accountants that make sure everything is above board. It takes a while to establish something like this and get it running smoothly. Effectively, Archewell is a startup itself.
"Org and .com domain name extensions are used at the end of website URLs in order to help categorize them. They are also called TLDs ( Top Level Domains ) . Org is primarily used by non-profit organizations, while .com is used mostly by for-profit businesses."
https://makeawebsitehub.com/org-vs-...m domain name,mostly by for-profit businesses.
Except that, for the nth time, limiting HRH among the King's grandchildren to the heir's children has been a trend for the past 40 years in several European monarchies (the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden) and has nothing to do with race.
I don't know if Charles as King will make any changes to existing rules, but it has been long expected (long before Harry met Meghan) that such changes might come in the next reign and, if they do, nobody in the UK will be surprised, or ask for an explanation, or consider it a casuistic move targeting Meghan's children specifically because they are biracial. On the contrary, I think most people would welcome a slimmer, less costly Royal Family.
That is why what Meghan said to Oprah makes no sense at all for most people in the UK, but might resonate with some viewers in the US who are not aware of the context I described above
Last edited:
well then! It seems very blurred as to whether they are using ti to make money or to raise funds to donate to good causes. I thought soemthing like this would happen.. that there would be a blurred line between their charitable work and their money making....
yes of course but now she has put this out there, people may well now think if charles does decide not to give Archie HRH when he is king.. that it IS because of A's racial heritage....
Last edited by a moderator:
The only way I can interpret it is that Harry and Meghan, the supposed progressive, egalitarian and "new kind of" royals, surprisingly care greatly about their children being HRH Prince/Princesss (unlike for example Edward & Sophie), and are using the race card to blackmail Charles into not making any changes in the future.
The excuse that they needed Archie to be an HRH to have security doesn't hold either considering that Beatrice and Eugenie are HRHs and don't have public security.
Last edited:
Also Prince Michael of Kent does not currently receive security and as far as I know has never received it even though he has had the style and title of a prince since birth.
Kaye1850
Nobility
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2020
- Messages
- 260
- City
- Essex
- Country
- United Kingdom
That may be true in your state, but it certainly is not true for all of the U.S.
https://www.usmarriagelaws.com/marriage-license/marriage-witnesses-requirements/
I really think that we cal all, well almost all, agree that having or not having the HRH doesn’t have any impact on whether or not one receives security. And frankly, I think we can all agree that Meghan just straight up lied when she claimed that it did. She blatantly lied about it because she was selling this load of nonsense to an American audience that doesn’t know any better and doesn’t care enough to actually look up the answer. Which, by the way, is ridiculously easy to find.
Royalist.in.NC
Courtier
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2021
- Messages
- 848
- City
- Nowheresville
- Country
- United States
I agree. And Meghan has set it up now publicly that if Charles had planned and does change it, he will be called racist by some.
Is there something about having to reside/be born in the UK - for Harry’s children? Similar to Madeline’s? If they stay in the States I cannot imagine anyone thinking it appropriate for British taxpayers to support them no matter what their titles and styles may be.
Last edited by a moderator:
Precisely. And judging by everything that’s happened over the last year and a half including the interview, I’d bet my last dollar that she knew exactly what she was doing and that that was the plan and not just an unfortunate consequence. They didn’t get the HRH they wanted for him at birth because HM didn’t issue a special LP changing the established rule. They’re mad that it was made very clear that in the world of the monarchy, their children simply don’t rank as highly as the Cambridge kids. “So, we can’t have the HRH when we want it? Fine. We won’t use any title at all and, by the way, we’ll make sure you can’t use new LPs to change the rules in the future without being deemed a racist. Watch us work.”
AC21091968
Royal Highness
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2020
- Messages
- 1,632
- City
- Sydney
- Country
- Australia
In terms of public opinions on Royal security (founded by British taxpayer and decided by Met Police), there was a YouGov poll conducted on 31st March 2020 with 2334 British adults. The question was
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have reportedly moved to Los Angeles, USA. Under this circumstance, who do you think should pay for their protection, if anyone at all?
Most of the responses suggested that neither the British nor US government should pay for Harry & Meghan's protection. This is one of the polls on Royal Family with a low percentage of "Don't know" answer, usually there are a quarter or even a third of the surveyed adult.
The British government: 3%
The US government: 6%
Neither: 80%
Don't know: 11%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/03/30/e959b/3The US government: 6%
Neither: 80%
Don't know: 11%
I don’t believe so. I’m no expert on that sort of thing but I’m pretty sure we’d have heard about it long before now if there were. Though, on a personal note, I certainly think it’s worth creating. I know it caused a bit of confusion or uproar in Sweden when Madeleine decided to leave the country but all in all it seems like a pretty succinct and efficient way to be sure everyone knows the expectations.
Royalist.in.NC
Courtier
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2021
- Messages
- 848
- City
- Nowheresville
- Country
- United States
Exactly. And while the whole title issue is galling, Harry will always be a “face” in the US because he is Diana’s son and a prince. Obviously the powers that be at Better Up wanted his titles and well known face for PR. Welcome to Corporate America!
US Royal Watcher
Royal Highness
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,991
- City
- Washington
- Country
- United States
Thank you to everyone who has been contributing to the interesting discussion. A few of my reactions, for what they are worth.
- Although it is frustrating that some people cannot defend Harry and Meghan without trying to disparage other family members (which in my opinion, demonstrates the weakness of their arguments), a college degree isn’t everything. Harry is more than an ex-army officer and I think he has things to offer any company: he is charismatic, empathetic, and has repeatedly demonstrated his ability to connect with others. Despite his flaws (and we all have them), he can help others. In our society, public perception is reality.
- That said, having Harry (or anyone) involved in an anti-free speech organization is more than a little scary. Anyone who is associated with a phrase like “their truth,” has no standing to evaluate “misinformation.”
- There are reports that there are another 90 minutes of unaired footage of the interview, so in fairness, this footage could contain a lot of information on their new life and charitable projects. Since the broadcasted footage probably included most of the “explosive” allegations, the unaired footage is not likely to generate as much interest.
- Although the interview garnered high ratings, 50 million people around the world is a small percentage of people who could have watched it. The public polls are based on how the media has been reporting the interview. The U.S. media has been very sympathetic to the couple and has not highlighted the inconsistencies, which is why people in the U.S. are more sympathetic to the couple than people in the U.K.
- Even though Harry has often encouraged people to think of him as an "average guy," he obviously believes that titles are very, very important, which is why they are fighting to ensure their children retain their titles when Charles ascends. I am conflicted: on one hand, if Charles issues patents removing the titles, he will be accused of racism, which will be dredged up over and over. On the other hand, reducing the number of people with royal titles makes sense – and Meghan and Harry have now confirmed that Charles is planning to slim down the monarchy. Moreover, I think the British public will support a decision to remove royal titles from children who are being raised outside of their country. There will be no benefit to the British public for the children to have titles because they will not be working members of the family. The only reason Harry and Meghan want the titles is to enable the kids to cash in if they choose.
Last edited:
Osipi
Member - in Memoriam
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 17,268
- City
- On the west side of North up from Back
- Country
- United States
If they stay in the States, I can't see any reason that anyone would think that they should have any kind of perks whatsoever because they were born royal. Why? They turned their backs on the royal life they could have had and made it clear that they wanted "independence". Sure they can keep their titles and styles as peers but where they choose to live, it doesn't mean anything much. Anyone can be a Queen or a Prince or a King in the US. King, itself, is a common surname. Larry King for example.
I don't think they'll be very warmly received back in the UK either. We don't know what their plans are for living part time at Frogmore because Covid pretty much put the kibosh on that for the time being. I think the British taxpayers would really be displeased if any kind of public funding were afforded to the Sussexes from here on out. They just don't represent the people at all anymore so why should they pay for them?
IMO, should Charles make any kind of changes when he's the monarch, the Sussexes would be the last people to have any kind of say in any of it. They chose to turn their backs on the monarchy and the family and sail off to the sunny climes of California. They've burnt their bridges in so many ways that they have no choice now but to be independent and on their own to sink or swim. When they chose "out", I don't think they realized how far "out" really would be.
Fem
Courtier
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2017
- Messages
- 797
- City
- UK
- Country
- Poland
I disagree. Beatrice and Eugenie having HRHs has everything to do with Harry's children. Harry is the second son of a future monarch, so he'll be in the same position as their father was. Harry's children will never (barring some catastrophe) be in the direct line of succession - that's for William and his children.
Beatrice and Eugenie got HRHs because their father had fought for it, he wanted them to be working royals, he wanted them to have titles, he wanted them to have security, he wanted them to be treated as William and Harry. Sounds familiar?
Times changed, the monarchy has to change too. There is a reason no other grandchildren of HMQ have the HRHs/use them (it's still not clear about the Wessexes' children, though with the current climate I don't think they'll ever use it, even if they have the right) - because yes, slimming down the monarchy is needed. This has happened with many Europeans monarchies in the last 25-30 years and it'll happen to British monarchy too. Harry and Meghan fighting for their children to have the HRHs, to have the Prince/Princess titles - especially since they left the UK - is simply sad.
I don't quite agree. Beatrice and Eugenie got HRHs because they are granddaughters in paternal line of a British Sovereign and all children of a Sovereign's son are HRHs in the UK. It has nothing to do with being a "working royal" and it is a rule that has been in place for a long time, actuallv before 1917, since the Hanoverian period. Andrew didn't have to fight for it as there are no indications AFAIK that the Queen planned to change that rule during her reign.
Similarly, Edward's children, who are in the same position that Archie will be when Charles is King and in the same position as Beatrice and Eugenie now, could (actually should) be HRHs too. But, in their case, conversely, their parents "fought", or rather asked the Queen (which is a more accurate description) to have them styled only as children of a peer, which she agreed to without, however, making any formal changes to current rules by issuing new LPs.
I interpret the way James and Louise's case was handled as a signal that the Queen saw it as an exception that applied to Edward's children only by special dispensation of her will and pleasure, and not as a rule of general application, such as e.g. all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales becoming HRHs, which was effected by means of new LPs in 2012.
Last edited:
Prinsara
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2020
- Messages
- 5,414
- City
- A place to grow
- Country
- Canada
Yes, and I still can't see what a supposedly factual interview and audience has to do with an admittedly fictional movie that is claiming to reveal "what really happened", other than the tenuous "Harry and Meghan" connection. Equating them seems a bit strange, but that's me.
Last edited:
I agree entirely and I think we should also add that, in the case of Louise and James, I believe HM saw, understood, and agreed that it might make it easier for them in the long run to not use the title/style which they automatically had at birth and so she agreed given that they would, more than likely, need to make their own way in the world just as Beatrice and Eugenie have. That said, I also believe that she deliberately chose to do it this way as a one-off rather than by issuing new LPs in order to allow them the flexibility and freedom to resume the use of the titles/styles as adults should they choose to do so or in the event, however unlikely, that they’ll need to be working royals who will represent the monarch of the day. It’s not inconceivable that, especially now with a bit of an upcoming manpower shortage, Louise and James (Beatrice and Eugenie, too) may find themselves in a position much like that of HM’s cousins in which they have careers but are occasionally asked to represent the monarch and may choose to take on some patronages as such.
Prinsara
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2020
- Messages
- 5,414
- City
- A place to grow
- Country
- Canada
The cousins who represent her (George, Alexandra, and Richard/Birgitte) don't have careers, though. Prince and Princess Michael (and Bea and Eugenie) have careers because they've never worked for her.
of course not. But clearly they have a bitter anger against the RF, I think largely they are angry at the fact that Charles cut off funding, and they're trying to blacken them by calling them racists. I think that behind the scenes, during the first year or 2 of the marriage, the RF HAS Been trying to help them, since they were clearly not happy.. It seems that the queen was ready to consider them moving to Africa for a time.. to give them a break, but whatever they got it was never enough.
I do feel that if Charles does decide not to give the HRH to Archie, which he may have considered as part of "slimming down", he may now feel compelled to do it or he'll be branded a racist.. which I think is grossly unfair...
Last edited:
Actually, and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, I believe Richard is an architect. And, though Prince Michael is not an official working member of the family, he has on occasion taken on the job here and there of representing HM or working with a patronage or organization on behalf of the RF.
Last edited:
yes but he gave it up when he became the sole suriviving son of the D of Gloucester and took on royal duties. But that was a long time ago...
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
- Sticky
- Sticky
