When is a royal tour, not a royal tour?

hoomee29

I wonder who's footing the bill for their trip. Flights, accommodation and so on.

Let's not forget the famous "I can't believe I'm not being paid for this" comment when last in Australia, so presumably they are being paid by someone.

Must be amounting to a pretty penny!

I read Harry has a lucrative speech engagement while Meghan is hosting a morning 'do' just for women with expensive tickets, but you will get your photo taken with her.
They have stated it's 'privately funded' but I'd bet the house not by them. As long as I don't have to contribute I don't care who is funding it, but there have been murmurings from discontent Aussies that they 'may be' funding the security arrangements. It's all very unclear.

Cardamom
Yes the curtseying incident when Harry was sitting there and didn't say anything.

I found that very disrespectful.

Harry and Meghan are not supported by the British taxpayer, that's why they go have to earn a living and they are trading on their names and connections to do so, having rejected those connections

No, they are not supported by the British taxpayer, but all this palaver about funding armed security shows that they want to be.
Who else would be paying for it? .

The late Queen definitely didn’t want this

Anniebach

The late Queen definitely didn’t want this

Sorry, didn’t want what?

Harry and Megan making money as they doing in Australia

Oh, I don’t know. The Royals aren’t adverse to making a bob where they can.
At least they’re not relying on the King to bail them out of trouble.
£12m, I think it was, to pay off Virginia?

Do tell, when did member the royal family make a public visit to VG ?

Anniebach

Do tell, when did member the royal family make a public visit to VG ?

Sorry, don’t understand your question? ?

RosiesMawagain

^Harry and Meghan are not supported by the British taxpayer, that's why they go have to earn a living and they are trading on their names and connections to do so, having rejected those connections^

No, they are not supported by the British taxpayer, but all this palaver about funding armed security shows that they want to be.
Who else would be paying for it? .

True.

But if they'd just disappeared into the USA quietly .......

Why are people so averse to H and M making money to support themselves - they aren't being given squillions by the taxpayer unlike their relatives. What else are they supposed to do? If you don't like their books don't buy them, if you don't like their TV shows don’t watch. simples.

vegansrock

Why are people so averse to H and M making money to support themselves - they aren't being given squillions by the taxpayer unlike their relatives. What else are they supposed to do? If you don't like their books don't buy them, if you don't like their TV shows don’t watch. simples.

Fair comment.

vegansrock

Why are people so averse to H and M making money to support themselves - they aren't being given squillions by the taxpayer unlike their relatives. What else are they supposed to do? If you don't like their books don't buy them, if you don't like their TV shows don’t watch. simples.

Of course they should make money to support themselves. We aren't going to keep them for doing zilch.
However, they are trading on Harry's titles whilst not wanting to be working Royals.

Having your Lamington and eating it!

They aren’t “ trading on titles”, more the fact that whether you like it or not H is a member of the RF ( working royal is an oxymoron) and as such commercial avenues such as promoting a book or some banal wellness video is open to H and M which would only be open to celebrities . No one has to buy or watch their offerings. The amount of hate generated by their trying to support themselves independently seems to be disproportionate to the tameness of their output. But hey, everyone loves to hate a scapegoat.

I cannot like liars

^They aren’t “ trading on titles”,
Yes they are.

more the fact that whether you like it or not H is a member of the RF
He can relinquish his titles.

working royal is an oxymoron
No it is not. You try it for a month in your 70s.

They aren’t “ trading on titles”, more the fact that whether you like it or not H is a member of the RF ( working royal is an oxymoron)

Of course it isn’t.
“Royals” are such by birth or marriage.
Some live quietly out of the public eye, either due to age, health or choice.
Others appear in public, open things, are patrons of charities, turn out to national events, stand in for the Monarch when necessary (eg funerals) and receive recompense from the Crown. If H wasn’t a Prince nobody would take any more notice of him than e.g. the children of the Gloucesters or for that matter, his cousin Peter Phillips.

You can’t have it both ways.

What H and M are doing is just as much “working” as any royal - working can mean one phone call or opening a hospital wing and shaking hands, posing for photos or whatever. Difference being they are supporting themselves. People must be willing to pay or they wouldn't be doing it. Even if he relinquished his titles everyone would still know who he is.

You don’t seem to see that they are performing these functions under false pretences. As Prince/Duchess/Duke- trading on titles which they have monetized by slagging off and claiming to disown the institution which granted them.
They were told they couldn’t be “half in, half out”so either working royals with all the perks of status, clothes, grand housing , armed protection, deference to their position OR private citizens earning their own living. They were told they could not trade on their royal status. The Queen was quite clear.
As private citizens nobody would have taken any more notice of them than of Joe Bloggs - no Oprah interview, no “Spare” book, no Netflix or Sussex Royal brand.
What don’t you understand?

vegansrock

They aren’t “ trading on titles”, more the fact that whether you like it or not H is a member of the RF ( working royal is an oxymoron) and as such commercial avenues such as promoting a book or some banal wellness video is open to H and M which would only be open to celebrities . No one has to buy or watch their offerings. The amount of hate generated by their trying to support themselves independently seems to be disproportionate to the tameness of their output. But hey, everyone loves to hate a scapegoat.

wow, this thread is still running, love your last sentence vegansrock and other comments.

You have to wonder about this need to trash Harry all over the place, insist he is a liar but maintain an absolute silence about little spoiled boy ANDREW. I put his name in caps because if anyone is a liar, he certainly is and his behaviour is astonishingly appalling, why aren't we having a column destroying him and his reputation as a ROYAL?

As private citizens nobody would have taken any more notice of them than of Joe Bloggs - no Oprah interview, no “Spare” book, no Netflix or Sussex Royal brand.
What don’t you understand?

I don't think you understand the digital world, RosiesMawagan, influencers, social media platforms. information exchange, corruption, pornography, the dark net, networks you can't even begin to know about if you only read the Telegraph and the Mail, in fact you are helping the Sussex Royal Brand stay alive by being on this thread! That is what you don't understand.

RosiesMawagain

You don’t seem to see that they are performing these functions under false pretences. As Prince/Duchess/Duke- trading on titles which they have monetized by slagging off and claiming to disown the institution which granted them.
They were told they couldn’t be “half in, half out”so either working royals with all the perks of status, clothes, grand housing , armed protection, deference to their position OR private citizens earning their own living. They were told they could not trade on their royal status. The Queen was quite clear.
As private citizens nobody would have taken any more notice of them than of Joe Bloggs - no Oprah interview, no “Spare” book, no Netflix or Sussex Royal brand.
What don’t you understand?

Well said, RosiesMawagain

You have to wonder about this need to trash Harry all over the place
No-one is trashing Harry, they are just stating facts. There is no need to trash them, they have managed to bring themselves into disrepute all by themselves.

No-one has been silent about Andrew M-W, on the contrary there have been several threads. Perhaps you missed them, and to link Harry and Andrew in one sentence as you did, Granatlast007, is rather disgraceful, don't you think? Unfair on Harry.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Well Let's have a compassionate look.
Here we have a "family" where the lad's father won't have anything to do with his youngest son , daughter in law, or grandchildren (who he has never bothered to visit.)
The father has disowned his own brother and cut him his ex sister in law, and their daughters off because of a minor, alleged offence (never proven)
The father set the poor example of continuing an affair with a married woman before and during his marriage (Hmm what happened to his uncle who had an affair and wanted to marry a divorced woman? The man who should have been King?)
Now the Heir won't even speak to his own brother!

And the great British Public are expected to accept all these double standards

Ever thought of sourcing links that aren't behind paywalls Granatlast? Although what other Royal behaviour has to do with it all I'm at a loss. For someone who claims I don't get distracted by red herrings. suddenly you're referring to a story about Pippa Middleton, which I haven't read because it's behind a paywall. I'm amazed you obviously have a subscription to the Telegraph, wouldn't have thought it was your cup of tea.