Folks are talking negatively about the possibility of a reality show. I’m not sure what royal public life is but a reality show. Maybe it’s a tasteful reality show.
Maybe skieurope can explain royal funding. It seems pretty complicated to research.
Well, back in the day, Prince Edward did a royal game show.
I would love to see the movie about all this when it comes out.
Also a possible movie in the future where H&M’s son (or future son/daughter) comes back to claim their rightful place in the family haha. Oh the possibilities!
Wow, @katliamom ! Now I understand what they’ve been saying about the press bullying her. Never truly understood it before. Now I get it. Thanks for posting that link. What an eye opener.
I had seen that yesterday and was flabbergasted! The hypocrisy is astounding, and blatant.
Holy cow. That really lays out some critical differences in coverage.
Here’s the link without the FB tracking 
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
I am sure there are double standards all over but not on this particular monetizing. The queen just released a statement that Harry and Megan are now allowed to take a profession. The royals are not allowed to make money that benefits themselves directly. Whatever Kate, William, Charles were doing is couched under something else other than making money for their living.
@Iglooo Could you please give a link to the statement the Queen just released? I can’t find such a statement.
Meghan wanted to be the new Grace Kelly. Instead she became the new Wallis Simpson.
@jonri I think it’s this statement, where she acknowledges that Harry & Meghan want to be financially independent of the taxpayers.
I doubt they will be selling Sussex Royal mugs or anything like that. I think paid speaking engagements and board positions are more likely. Any board positions or paid partnerships (like with a designer or brand) will have to be very, very carefully vetted and probably still get approval from the palace. I think someone mentioned that now is the time for them to do this, while interest in them is high and I totally agree. I’m not sure how interesting they will be long term, but it sounds like the door is open for them to re-assume “senior” royal duties. I really hope the press leaves them alone-but that’s a bit of a double edged sword as all of the press-positive and negative-has really created their high profile. It will be interesting to watch it play out.
@jonri, I heard it from a streaming network. I can’t link that. But I found an article suggesting the same. Granted it is not Queen’s own word. The article further clarifies financial details. I know it is only an opinion not a written rule book.
https://www.macleans.ca/royalty/9-clues-in-the-queens-statement-about-harry-and-meghans-future/
Reading the article @Lennon posted, it sounds like H&M intended to keep royalty but do it their way. I doubt that’s something the Queen can agree to.
Respectfully, @Iglooo, I read the statement differently than you do.
@Jonri, was that the statement from the queen you were looking for? I just don’t see how it will be all that different than how Princess Beatrice or Princess Eugenie are treated. It’s too bad it had to happen with so much drama, had things gone differently it could have been worked out quietly behind the scenes. (And no-I am really not sure who is at fault as far as the leak and the drama. I’m not sure if the Sussexes are victims or masterminds!) As non-senior royals like Bea and Eug, they will have more “top shelf” opportunities, because they are more famous but they will have to be very careful to not give them impression of impropriety/implicit influence as “Royals” - I don’t think it would be better for them to give up their titles or HRH (they don’t seem to be doing that as per their website) but it might make things easier in some respects. They’ll still be supported by Charles, who was paying 95% of their expenses anyway. Perhaps if they really get their own thing up and running well, they can be really independent, but I’m not sure who just walks away from millions of dollars per year. I wouldn’t!
Meaning? How did you read? I have no idea what Macleans publications are like. They do imply when you represent, you don’t take commercial relationship. That’s why the royals are supported by tax payers. It makes total sense to me. If I am employed full time by A, I couldn’t go around representing A and at the same time cashing it in to my own pocket, not company’s. You could put it in your resume but direct monetary benefit is probably universally forbidden.
There is ‘monetizing’, and then there is ‘monetizing’!
Meghan collaborated on a cookbook and a capsule clothing line; my understanding is the proceeds directly benefitted a) the victims of the Grenfell fire (cookbook) and b) at risk women (capsule clothing collection). That type of monetizing does not financially benefit H&M in anyway (afaik), and is not considered royally tacky!
Now, if H&M, under the Sussex Royal brand, are to plaster their faces on your morning coffee mug or your dog’s raincoat, and reap the profits - well, that type of monetizing is 'royally tacky, and is, under present constraints, not allowed. If they sell access to themselves, that is also not allowed (although that might change any day now!)
Another example of approved monetizing is Prince Charles’ Duchy Originals brand, which he established in the '90s; Duchy Originals, a wholly organic brand, sells everything from cookies to wine. From inception, the idea was to help small and medium sized organic famers, with all profits going to charitable causes.
And tis is an interesting read as to how the Duchy funds itself and the six, soon to be four, most senior members of the Royal Family:
Charles & Camilla, William & Kate and Harry & Meghan
https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/features/duchy-cornwall
Etc!
That is apprantly tax free while they are in the palace. Once outside, it will be taxable. I can’t help but feeling it wasn’t thought through by H&M. The public is against Charles paying them from the Duchy(?) Fund, his private money.
Regarding monetizing, I think a part of that discussion (both here and in the press) derives from the fact that H&M have registered for a significant number of trademarks in the last year. It seems that W&K did that previously as well. In conversation with S who is an IP attorney, he pointed out that registering for a trademark is not always because one wants to sell something and generate revenue; rather, it can be a protective trademark designed to prevent others from capitalizing on the brand, such as the Sussex Royal logo, etc.
I doubt they can capitalize on the brand if they are not part of the royalty. I would guess the brand ultimately belong to the Palace even if they registered. It would be theirs if they remain inside the Palace.
The answer to that very much depends on what their plans are for being self-supporting in the future.
So far, the issue has mostly been examined from the perspective of Britain, British citizens and the British monarchy. But only half the couple is British and either could live and work most anywhere in the world. If they really are prepared to make their own money and live independently, there’s no reason they shouldn’t be able to do that in Canada, the US, Africa, wherever they choose. And it’s really none of anybody’s business - British or otherwise - if their dad continues to slip them some cash out of his personal wealth. Especially during a transition period or to pay for security.
@milee30, I meant the victim or mastermind thing in relation to how their plans were released. Was it a ploy to force the Queen and Charles into giving them their titles, HRH, Frogmore, funds, everything else written up on their website-or were they the victims of a leak to the press who forced them to spill the beans prematurely?