When you get married, you don't always know exactly what you're getting; when you marry a celebrity that's even more true, since most famous people are adept at creating a persona for the cameras that is quite unlike the human they are in real life.
Linda McCartney married Paul McCartney shortly before the breakup of the Beatles, upon which time Paul took his young family and retreated to a rural area of Scotland to nurse his grievences with alcohol.
"I married a famous rock star and then I found myself in an isolated cabin with an angry drunk," Linda reportedly said.
"I married a famous rock star and then I found myself in an isolated cabin with an angry drunk," Linda reportedly said.
Meghan Markle married a famous prince who is increasingly resembling an angry drunk.
But they're not going to Scotland - they're going to California.
The documentary they would have enjoyed
Even Meghan's fans would have to acknowledge that she has never really fit in in the UK; her non-fans might argue that she didn't really try.
A truly "whip-smart" woman, as Meg supporters call her, would have started out her tenure by doing a tour of the country and making a big deal about viewing its historical and natural treasures, from Hadrian's Wall to Snowdonia National Park to the White Cliffs of Dover to the British Museum in London.
That's a documentary the Brits would have enjoyed watching: a newcomer asking respectful, if sometimes naive, questions about British history and culture.
Instead, Meg brought her California "woke" culture and celebrity glamor with her and tried to impose it on the Brits.
It hasn't been a hit.
California here we come
So it was announced last month that the Sussexes will take a six-week break from royal duties, for what the a palace source told the Sunday Times was some "much needed family time."
Although Meghan was officially on maternity leave for several months this year, she chose to perform a guest-editorship of Vogue UK during that time, plus arranged a (very) miniature capsule collection to support Smartworks, one of her patronages.
Numerous media accounts suggest that the two are headed for California, where they will visit the only member of Meghan's family they appear to be on speaking terms with, Meghan's mother Doria.
Over the past few days, it's been suggested that the two will stay not only for Thanksgiving, but for Christmas, and perhaps beyond that. They are reportedly looking for a house in Malibu to serve as a "second home base."
Who would pay for that house, and the security the two Royals would require during their time in the US, is still unclear.
He has agreed to work on the production of a documentary on mental health with Oprah Winfrey for Apple's new streaming service. But he has no experience in production work, so it's unclear exactly what he will bring to the project.
He can sit in on some meetings and share his personal point of view. He might even serve as an on-air host of the project, or do some interviews - although nonprofessionals tend to not be very good at this. (JFK Jr. was a nice man, but when he attempted to play journalist at his magazine George the results were not encouraging.)
But documentary production is often slow process, with a great deal of time spent in research, finding interview subjects and setting up interviews, and then prepping the subjects and their surroundings before the star talent arrives.
After the star talent leaves, skilled editors select clips and piece the whole thing together to make it watchable and give it a continuing narrative. Music and titles are added, and short packages are made for promotional use.
I can't imagine Harry doing much of the pre-production work, or any of the post-production.
What is he going to do all day?
I have no input on whether or not that is reliable.
But if he isn't drinking yet, being far from home with nothing to do sounds like an excellent opportunity to start hitting the sauce, particularly for someone who has been struggling with addictions for most of his adult life.
There was some gossip at some point that the "time off" was actually medical leave for Harry go to to rehab, but I haven't heard much about this recently.
Will Meghan find herself isolated in California with an angry drunk?
It seems unlikely that the six weeks (or more) in the US will be a new beginning for the Sussexes.
It seems more likely to be the beginning of the end.
Although Meghan was officially on maternity leave for several months this year, she chose to perform a guest-editorship of Vogue UK during that time, plus arranged a (very) miniature capsule collection to support Smartworks, one of her patronages.
Numerous media accounts suggest that the two are headed for California, where they will visit the only member of Meghan's family they appear to be on speaking terms with, Meghan's mother Doria.
Over the past few days, it's been suggested that the two will stay not only for Thanksgiving, but for Christmas, and perhaps beyond that. They are reportedly looking for a house in Malibu to serve as a "second home base."
Who would pay for that house, and the security the two Royals would require during their time in the US, is still unclear.
What will Harry do?
Even more unclear is what in the world Harry will do with his time in California, where he has few friends, no family, and no defined work assignments.He has agreed to work on the production of a documentary on mental health with Oprah Winfrey for Apple's new streaming service. But he has no experience in production work, so it's unclear exactly what he will bring to the project.
He can sit in on some meetings and share his personal point of view. He might even serve as an on-air host of the project, or do some interviews - although nonprofessionals tend to not be very good at this. (JFK Jr. was a nice man, but when he attempted to play journalist at his magazine George the results were not encouraging.)
But documentary production is often slow process, with a great deal of time spent in research, finding interview subjects and setting up interviews, and then prepping the subjects and their surroundings before the star talent arrives.
After the star talent leaves, skilled editors select clips and piece the whole thing together to make it watchable and give it a continuing narrative. Music and titles are added, and short packages are made for promotional use.
I can't imagine Harry doing much of the pre-production work, or any of the post-production.
What is he going to do all day?
An addict with time on his hands
There are rumors circulating, courtesy of an Italian newspaper, that Harry had fallen off the wagon during his trip to Tokyo for the Rugby finals and had begun drinking again.I have no input on whether or not that is reliable.
But if he isn't drinking yet, being far from home with nothing to do sounds like an excellent opportunity to start hitting the sauce, particularly for someone who has been struggling with addictions for most of his adult life.
There was some gossip at some point that the "time off" was actually medical leave for Harry go to to rehab, but I haven't heard much about this recently.
Will Meghan find herself isolated in California with an angry drunk?
It seems unlikely that the six weeks (or more) in the US will be a new beginning for the Sussexes.
It seems more likely to be the beginning of the end.
Comments
1: Their "child", if it exists, is a ward of the Queen because it's in line for the throne. Judging by what little we already know a good case could be made that they're unfit parents and they'll lose custody.
2: She can sue for divorce in California all day long and she won't get diddly squat. She wouldn't be divorcing some actor or rapper but a foolish member of one of the most powerful families on Earth. She has no idea just how frought with peril her position is if she keeps her crap up."
I disagree with #1 because Her majesty has custody of grandchildren by a letters patent but from what I know not of great-grandchildren. In Cafornia, a parent would have to be deemed 'unfit' to lose custody and that is a very high bar and I don't see how Megs would be considered 'unfit'. For that natter, aven Harry with his alleged 'problems' would not be considered 'unfit'.
2.She would hit the financial lottery if she divorced Harry in California. She would likely get both Child Support and Spousal Support and possibly Alimony (depending on how long she stays married and her ability to support herself). The Child Support would be a whopping amount and Spousal Support can be considerable also. Harry's has a lot of money and the court would consider his 'income' whether it be from trusts, the Duchy or fees for donations to the foundation (if it has been income to him). Meg would receive an award to keep her in the lifestyle she and harry has enjoyed but offset by the income she has and reasonable income she could earn (like being an actress as she was such in Suits).
All in all the Court has guidelines but still has wide discretion. I speak from having personally litigated a very complicated drawn out California custody case. I even went to the Appellate court twice 'in pro se' and won on subsidiary issues arising from the custody case. The law might have changed a bit, since then but fundamentally it's the same as I checked the other day when this arose as a discussion on Nutty's blog.
>>>>>She believes that Harry and Meghan were never invited to either Balmoral in the summer or Sandringham for Christmas - in fact, they were specifically un-invited, because these are private spaces for the Royals and they cannot be trusted to keep what happens there private.
Meg likes to take photos of family-only spaces, of course, and she also seems willing to share family-only gossip in order to get paid/curry favor with journalists/get herself a little bit of extra publicity. (Sharing the tidbit about Prince George's "usual morning destruction" back in 2017.) Perhaps Harry tells Meg, and Meg tells the world, so Harry is not invited either.
To protect their pride, the Sussexes were allowed to say that it was their decision not to attend.
Aunt Jane's theorey is that the Sussexes are considered generally untrustworthy within the family, which is why Meg is never allowed to borrow the Queen's jewelery.<<<
I'm with you and Aunt Jane. I never believed that the Sussexes were invited to Balmoral this summer. I think all their social bridges with the Family have been burnt since the Archie Debacle. They were permitted to participate in the ceremonial events but the Queen sent a very clear message by decamping to Scotland in early July, about 5 or 6 weeks earlier than normal that she was not going to be any part of the Archie business or be within 300 miles when he was 'christened.' If that ever occurred. Archbishop Welby seems to be as much of a sycophant as Meg's paid-off tabloid journalists. I can't believe that Elizabeth, as devout as she is, has any use at all for an atheistic Archbishop who would suck up to her celebrity-seeking troublesome grandson's wife. Unless Megs is also guilty of putting false statements into the mouth of Archbishop Welby. If she has done, nothing has been denied or retracted.
William got Granny to kick the Harkles out of KP and, if she wasn't already planning to bar them from Balmoral, perhaps Will went to her and said how upsetting Harry and Meghan's presence is to Kate and the children, as well as himself. He may have to tolerate Harry at public events, but not while on vacation with his kids. And Elizabeth, who cherishes Balmoral more than any other place on earth would not want her sanctuary spoiled by the Harkle Debacle.
I take the tack now that anything that comes out of Meghan's paid PR camp is going to be false. Told that she and Harry would be turned back at the Balmoral gates, she went on the offensive with a bunch of claptrap about how the Queen loves her so much she was going to get a special birthday party, cake, private party wing, what have you. All lies.
The Harkles may go to California for a sit-down with Oprah and some SussexRoyal photo ops with Doria (sans Archie, who remains 'too young to travel' though he went to a virus-and-crime infested danger zone in South Africa) . . I predict that Harry will return to England after 2 or 3 weeks, sans Meghan. If this is a 'soft' way of announcing her permanent break with the family in which she couldn't cut it for even two years, I wonder how soon that will be made known.
Sometimes I think there is merit to the fringe view that Meghan is the Antichrist. Anybody remember Omen III: The Final Conflict? Sam Neill portrays a grown up Damien, son of Satan . . and candidate for President of the United States. Sometimes I wonder just how powerful Smegs' backers REALLY are. Without supernatural intervention, it sometimes feels like there is no other possible explanation for how she has gotten this far.
Since when has August been an official 'holiday' month for the royals? I'm pretty sure there are events for members of the royal family in the CC. Speaking of which, what offical royal events did Meghan do last August? I can't think of any. Attending The Lion King premiere wearing a dress two sizes too small doesn't count.
That is an interesting thought but I wouldn't think it would work as the Court looks primarily at what your income Has Been (not just current and projected) and frowns on attempts (especially flagrant) to lessen income or hide income.
Given that neither he nor his wife has said a single word about Meghan in months, I think it's safe to say he doesn't give much of anything about her.
And neither do any of her other celeb 'friends'. These are transactional relationships. Could be merching, as in Serena's case. Or could be the opportunity to portray yourself as being oh so very woke and feminist and standing up for a poor beleagured member of one of the most privileged families on earth. At zero cost to yourself. And with Hilary Clinton, there's also the Sara Latham connection. But make no mistake, every one of these 'friends' would Markle Markle in an instant if it suited them. And vice versa. It's all terribly cynical.
Wishful thinking, I know...I just don't want her to get her claws on money that she doesn't deserve just because she was a good lay.
"", I wonder...if the RF sees that a divorce is imminent, could they cut Harry off to prevent her from getting any of the Duchy funds? I imagine that is something that could be reinstated at a later time, so I wonder how the courts would look at that?""
The money Harry gets from the Duchy of Cornwall is not income. It is an offset of expenses in relation to his royal duties. The only personal income Harry gets is the interest on the capital left by Diana and the Queen Mother. It would be like the spouse of a Member of Parliament claiming parliamentary expenses in a divorce suit.
Also Harry doesn't own any property. Frogmore House is administered by the Crown Estates on behave of Queen and the country. In real terms, without his Royal privileges which are closely ringfenced, Harry is not hugely rich. A similar situation happened when the Duke and Duchess of York divorced. Sarah Ferguson was left (in royal terms) very poor indeed. The royal family are masters as protecting their assets, as is the UK's Exchequer.
Yes.
On the topic of her friends posting positive comments now, Brene Brown posted on Twitter something about working with her on Vogue and wonderful, yada.
Again, what we are seeing is really off timing (delayed) for people praising her.
I am thinking that they were expecting a huge wave of support for her from the documentary and there was a fair amount of backlash instead. This then is the who else can we call on to raise a flag of support for her to try to counteract the negative.
Perhaps anyone who is thinking she would be great in politics might want to rethink that. She doesn't do well with criticism and her current lifestyle (royal) is not something very relatable to people hanging onto their house/car life. Many people are just an unexpected medical bill away from financial disaster.
And, there really isn't all that much of a platform of successful projects. If the Smart Works was really really a gold mine, they would have released numbers to drive momentum for the next act.
Oh, child support is complicated (state by state) but one can petition to raise it if the ex has an increase coming in (usually). Some states have a maximum of some sort limiting just how much it can be raised.
The Queen would have invited them to Balmoral in the summer and to Sandringham for Christmas. Harry is her grandson, Archie is her great grandson, and as long as Megsy is married to Harry, she is family.
Expect to see Harry's scowling face and Megsy's smug face (along with some more new jewellery if she can't get her hands on any more of Diana's jewellery) at Sandringham on Christmas day. If they don't appear on the walk to church, expect an official announcement that they were at Sandringham but there is some excuse why they couldn't go to church. Megsy is supposed to be so intelligent and educated and smarter than anyone else, so surely she knows by now that without the royal family, the wealth and global position is much reduced. She needs these public appearances with the BRF, the funded offices and staff, the free housing, the RPOs, the subsidised clothing, travel and all else associated with official appearances.
But, perhaps she is deluded enough to believe that she can be a global icon and very wealthy outside the BRF, and preferably on her own. And perhaps she has lined up a mansion rent free to stay in while she is in LA and business meetings to build her own wealth (but what talents does she have?).
@Cateyes, but if they were to disinherit him tomorrow, then his income at the time of any divorce shouldn't take in to consideration what he no longer makes from the Duchy or any other royal accounts.""
Sorry to keep poking my nose in, but your hypothesis is built on faulty information.
Harry cannot be disinherited from what he does not have. He has no claim on anything from the the Duchy of Cornwall (and neither does William). Charles pays Harry's expenses from Duchy funds which he (Charles) administers on behalf of the nation. The Duchy has nothing to do with Harry. There is no way either Harry or Markle can get their hands on any royal or national assets.
Madge: 1. Harry and Meghan's expenses were reported to be funded jointly by the Duchy of Cornwall and the Sovereign Grant, ergo, they are publicly funded, more so than the Cambridges ... thank you for pointing out that the Windsors don't own the duchies. This is a misconception that gets bandied about even by journalists.
As to Harry's money: he does have trust fund/s. The Queen Mother could only escape inheritance tax by the strategic use of trust funds. Also, trust funds, if settled judiciously, are very effective tax minimisation vehicles.
Money in a bank or through an asset portfolio would not have the same generous tax treatment.
All the royals have trust funds. Since trusts are not legal entities, they can't be sued. So, it also protects the corpus from unscrupulous persons, like Meghan.
The only time Harry gets anything from the Sovereign Grant is travel expenses when he represents the Queen. He doesn't see a penny of it, it goes out of the Grant via procurement contracts. The Sovereign Grant is the royal expense account, for the costs of travel, security, staff and the upkeep of royal palaces.
Charles has resisted having to fund two separate offices ("courts") for his sons. I think it's safe to assume that Charles refused to fund Harry and Meghan's office.
I wasn't suggesting that Harry receives personal funding via the Sovereign Grant, but that his office was partly funded by it. Knowing the leaks about Charles' opposition to funding two separate courts for his sons, I believe that he put in on his mother [who controls the Sovereign Grant].
Yes, it was controversial that the Civil List was replaced by the SG ... the Queen gets a percentage of the profits from the Crown Estates. I can assume that, given the public outcry by those opposed to the monarchy, that the Queen has some autonomy as to its final expenditure.
Can I just ask how you are so certain that Harry only gets money from the SG when he represents the Queen? I ask because that is contrary to what was reported by reputable royal reporters at the time.
I marvel that Smegs has that much capital still for PR . . .why is her smug face everywhere still, when she is persona non grata in the Royal family? Where is she getting her resources?
The name I keep coming back to is Ron Burkle. Longtime Clinton fundraiser, owner of Soho House, with ties to the Los Angeles Black community - he's a good friend of Magic Johnson - so it would seem likely he has some association with Oprah as well. He knows David Geffen, who is an Oprah pal - she recently vacationed on his yacht.
Burkle also owns part of Radar Online.
And, of course, Burkle was a close friend of Jeffrey Epstein. He and Bill Clinton travelled to Africa on Epstein's 757.
Burkle is a billionaire who has plenty of money to finance Meghan's PR campaign.
As to why he would want to do so, we can only speculate.
On the topic of her friends posting positive comments now, Brene Brown posted on Twitter something about working with her on Vogue and wonderful, yada.
I'll add Brene Brown to the Meghan defenders list.
I'm sure Meg can be very charming in small does.
nd, of course, Burkle was a close friend of Jeffrey Epstein. He and Bill Clinton travelled to Africa on Epstein's 757.
Burkle is a billionaire who has plenty of money to finance Meghan's PR campaign.
As to why he would want to do so, we can only speculate.
If the rumors of MM being part of the Epstein saga is true, then I think that is the answer to the last question.
Your last sentence is the crux of the matter . . . I accept that Meg has powerful backers, financially and culturally . .very like Barack Obama, a virtual unknown Congressman in 2006 did. I see commonalities between Barack and Meg--two biracial outliers from very humble backgrounds, who were ambitious for advancement & whose backgrounds and genetic makeup boosted their ambitions greatly with the right people and covered over slim resumes. Until our current occupant of the White House, Mr. Obama had the least work experience in government of any President to take office.
Meg was kind of his equivilent in show business, with the biracial parentage, the fractured family, trying hard to fit in as white for most of her life until being half-black became expedient for her larger goals. Mr. Obama was a strong candidate at the right time, though. He's got an Ivy League education and personal gifts which Meg entirely lacks, without the sordid past. Both are good at hustling but Barack kept his nose (mostly) clean for the bigger picture. There may have been some undergraduate experimenting with cannibis but what is that compared to what Meg's got up to?
I don't understand why *she* was chosen as worthy of all this investment. If a very temporary chaos agent was all her backers were after, they got it. If they wanted to play a longer and more damaging game against the monarchy for whatever reason, Meg was a poor choice because she doesn't have the stuff. She's spectacularly imploded in less than two years, exposed for the fraud she is. Another candidate who was less thirsty and more savvy would still have the world thinking she was great. Meg can't 'front' for more than 5 minutes because she's a completely empty facade. Wasn't that apparent to anyone who's ever spent more than 10 minutes in her company? People that she meets superficially at events can't even stand her . . what are all these ongoing transactional relationships with so-called friends, lovers and backers doing for those who are on the other end? Meg's got nothing to give 'em; she's a lemon in every single category.
It might have been less obvious when she was younger and could still pull off the sexy ingenue thing. Nobody really expects girls in their early 20s to have much depth. If Meg's backers had found her and cultivated her into Harry's circle, say post-Chelsy, pre-Cressie, ie., 10 years ago, I wonder if it'd be any different. She might have at least been able to have her own real child at that time. She was an already long-in-the -tooth gamble that has tanked in every conceivable way, so I don't understand why she's still getting so much paid PR and attention. If I were among her backer cohort, I'd be pulling the plug on this failed experiment.
.
I agree with that person from LSA re: the Harkles being uninvited. I posted last evening that that is what I was thinking as well. With all the contradictory flap on the tabloids I think that the Harkles have nowhere to go. Nobody wants them round, and rightly so. I don't think Dorito is welcoming them with hugs and drinkies saying " come on in and take your shoes off " The rumour that they will be staying at Toad Hall is rubbish i think. They have never stayed there as people who live round there have never seen them. I am waiting for one of the tabloids to re-publish the letter from Smegs brother. The one where he warned Ginge not to marry her. That would be brilliant right about now.
The first thing I noticed was a large infographic saying Meg had taken on 153 Royal engagements since becoming a duchess. Really?
Also, they quote a figure from "Brand Finance" (which I've never heard of) saying 150,000,000 pounds would be pumped into the British economy by women trying to imitate Meg's style.
I think they're sniffing glue over at Tatler.
@Madge Thanks for that information again about the Sovereign Grant. I knew the Civil List was abolished but didn't know the breakdown of who was paid and where the funds came from.
As far as LaMarkle and Harry going to California - is this one of LaMarkle's PR putting it out there to make the RF give them permission to go? Just like the "invitation to Balmoral for Meg's birthday with the Queen baking a special cake" or some such? if true, I think they should stay home and clean up their act. Going to California won't help them one bit it'll just be a change of scenery not to mention the expense of security, lodging, staff, etc., and I would think that those RPO's would hate to be away from family over the holidays.
As to being invited to Sandringham - I think they were/are but LaMarkle has decided to turn the Queen down for various reasons mostly because she may have to parade with Kate by her side and she hates that she's not NUMBER 1. And because slighting the Queen and Charles is her version of "punishing" them for not giving her more freedom and not making her the centre of their world.
Just my 2 cents, I could be so wrong.
I highly doubt that Meg has a close relationship with her mother. Her father was the custodial parent for many years and we see how she's treated him. Meg has imported her African-American mom for photo ops when it was expedient--pre-arranged papp walking in Toronto to raise her profile; that very interesting appearance by Doria at the Invictus event where Harry looked like he was more or less ambushed; the wedding of course, and the cookbook launch with minority women, so Meg could display how down she was with the neighborhood--look, I brought my black mother! I'm one of you all!
There was a ton of noise made in April - May about Doria coming to stay in a specially-made nanny wing to help with the new baby. As mom to Meg, Doria is now a celebrity in her own right, but no single image of her arriving or leaving any airport on either side of the Pond has been captured. She was supposedly gone from her life in L.A. for 6 weeks to be a nanny to her new grandson, but . . where, exactly? The family is not and never has been living at Frogmore so all that about the mother suite, etc. and Meg taking the healthful air in the garden during her confinement is untrue . . so why should the central piece be true, either? 6 weeks in Windsor and not a single sighting. Then allegedly back in July for the christening (which if that was actually done in May would coincide better with the April-May timetable for D.'s alleged visit.
But--just because we've got two formal portraits of her posed with members of Archie's Royal family and all dressed up in the second one, my money's on both of those being inauthentic. Even if the really awkward composition and suspicious recycling of near-identical outfits in both photos is not taken into account, both of those pictures are Meg's property under the SussexRoyal copyright. I can't see the Queen or any members of the RF willingly posing for any but the official BP photographers, in which case the Queen would own copyright to those images.
Doria did not attend the baby shower in New York, at which Markus Anderson's presence was deemed more crucial than the impending baby's grandmother. I think Doria knows the score with this baby/pregnancy and is either staying away of her own accord or being kept away, and her 'appearances' have been curated (to use one of Meg's fave words) to present the image of 'supportive grandma'. Archie's six months old now and we've not heard a peep from Doria. Nor has Meg even mentioned her mom since the early days of Archie's life . . until the idea of this American visit was floated. Doria now represents a convenient excuse to go to L.A. for the holidays instead of spending them with Harry's clan . . it's a smokescreen for Meg's other ambition--to grab a Hollywood Housewife lifestyle.
Meg is using her mom just like she does everyone else . .or her mom's name at least. Doria has a criminal record and is allegedly in a same-sex domestic partnership. I doubt she wants Mega-Watt scrutiny into her personal life. It'd be a riot if she told Meg to p*ss off, too. Or maybe they're in it together . . all so confusing.
Anyone want me to list it out? I really don’t have much to do today... actually still in pjs on this cold day,
>>>Why would they NOT be invited to Sandringham when by not doing so would give the Harkles more ammunition for their not being supported by the RF and being portrayed as being victims....”We were not invited to Balmoral, or to Sandringham, we were treated as outcasts!!!!”.<<<
I can think of several reasons.
--Mental well-being and lower blood pressure for everyone else present
--No concerns about family heirlooms or the silver going missing, to later turn up on Meghan's Mirro
--An actual Happy Christmas being possible, free of Harkle drama
--No profanity-laced tirades, crockery getting hurled and broken, tantrums or bald-faced lies having to be tolerated at a festive season.
The Harkles have cast themselves out. After two years, it's line in the sand drawing time. Anyway, the official line is not that they 'weren't invited', any more than the official line is they weren't invited to Balmoral. The official line is that they were given the option to attend and declined both times in favor of personal vacations with celebrities.
BP is helping them perpetuate their 'we're empowered!' narrative of free choice.
Meg and Harry have to decide which way they want it: either they are empowered free spirits modernizing the monarchy & pursuing their 'privacy' .. or they are cast-off victims. They cannot have it both ways, but they're trying to.
So other than the fact that several members of the royal family were 'working' in August, they actually don't 'work' in August?
It cracks me up when people act as though being a 'working' royal is like having a normal unionised job, with regulations about time off and maternity leave etc. Fact is none of them really 'work' by anything approaching normal standards. They get all the perks and privileges regardless of how much or how little they do. So the idea that because the Sussexes supposedly 'worked' in August (though I'm still unaware of any offical engagements for Meghan during that month) they are now entitled to take a month off to hustle for trade in California, is silly.
I remember reading (years ago) about how Prince Charles managed his diary in order to get good PR and to make him look like he was 'working hard.'
Every small thing/event was used as an entry into the diary. For example, he could be going to visit 4 groups in one day and that would count as 4 engagements. If he does just 10 days of work a month (yeah like that would happen and it's not exactly work is it?), but at that rate of small meetings then obviously it counts as 40 royal engagements.
Oof sounds like he's 'working hard' doesn't it?
So in terms of MM then it's possible she has done 153 'engagements' as the smallest thing which only takes an hour or so 'could' be listed. Imagine the tour of Africa and all the little meetings/things they did there. Depending on how much they were taking the piss then they could say they carried out multiple royal engaements in one day over a 5 day period. It all adds up. Although 153 still seems high even with this sort of dubious record keeping.
They are not entitled to statutory time off because they get more time off than ordinary workers - infinitely. The excuses are extraordinary.
As to their privacy, they get plenty. No one really knows what they do in their "off" time. We are not told how they spend their days off - nor should we be. But I'm just making the point that the royals get ample time off in complete privacy - in fact, given their cost to the UK, I'd call it secrecy.
That's a good one.
If we remove all the celebrity-glad-handing at celeb events, and all the official functions like Remembrance Days and Trooping and church services attended by all the family members, and purely social stuff like Ascot and the weddings of Harry's friends, the number of her Duchess appearances gets whittled down real fast. If we further remove events she attended as Harry's plus-one, the list shrinks still further. I suppose among that figure are all the individual events at all three of her lame official tours and every time she merched her boobs or Archie, or ugly dresses.
Visits to the tennis don't count. Nor, officially, do her appearances at the Luminary Bakery or her self-filmed Smart Works appearance. Or commandeering the stage at the British Fashion Awards.
By my reckoning, this is what I count Meghan doing solo as the Duchess of Sussex in anything resembling a charity appearance for the last year and a half:
--One visit with the Queen in Chester, where she was inappropriately dressed and bolloxed the protocol badly
--One visit apiece to each of her four official charities: Mayhew Animal Charity, SmartWorks, Association of British Universities & the National Theatre. I am particularly shocked that Meg hasn't chucked a rock at her theatre patronage for nearly a year. Intimidated much, Duchess? That place is full of real actors, you see and Meg doesn't like being shown up.
What do we make of neither Meg nor Harry showing up to the Queen's recent ceremony/reception to rebrand the Queen's Trust into the Commonwwealth Trust, which she appointed Harry and Meg President and Vice-President respectively? Removed from the guest list at the Queen's discretion or did they just not bother to show up .. too busy off getting high somewhere? Anybody's guess, but the optics looked pretty bad.
Yeah, if any of them were doing 'normal' jobs in Britain, they would never qualify for maternity leave at all because their hours are way too low. Not saying that Kate or Meghan or any of them shouldn't have time to bond with their babies after birth of course, but that is not 'maternity leave', as they don't have real jobs. Plus, the 'work' they do is more like dull social engagements than real work.
"As to their privacy, they get plenty. No one really knows what they do in their "off" time. We are not told how they spend their days off - nor should we be."
No indeed. And this is why I always laugh when they moan about how 'intrusive' the British press are. In fact the British press are mostly very respectful. You'll almost never see candid photos of any of the royals, certainly not when their children are present. The same isn't true of the American or European press. They would not - and have not - hesitate(d) to publish photos of the royals in states of undress and the like. There's an unspoken agreement between the royals and the British press which works to mutual benefit most of the time. Unless of course the Harkles' shenanigans changes all that.
So if they are trying to impress us with MM's count of just over a 100 for 2018 they are failing.
By the way, the Whining Harry did around 200, fewer than even Camilla. Haz and his Madam are nowhere near the hardests working royals
>>>Every small thing/event was used as an entry into the diary. For example, he could be going to visit 4 groups in one day and that would count as 4 engagements. If he does just 10 days of work a month (yeah like that would happen and it's not exactly work is it?), but at that rate of small meetings then obviously it counts as 40 royal engagements.
Oof sounds like he's 'working hard' doesn't it?<<<
Yes . . . though I'd say it was appropriate to call four separate visits to four separate Royal patronages in one day 'four events'. It's the truth, if they are counting official appearances vs. 'days worked'. Even on a busy tour, the Royals are not going to have a standard 8 or 10 hour workday. Still, even if each appearance is only an hour, there's still the logistics of traveling to and from and being appropriately dressed for each appearance. If one event in the early morning is a charity polo match or donning wellies to tour a working farm, followed by a tea reception and an evening gala, that's three different outfits and the travel in between. That would eat up the whole day, even if actual 'active time' was 5 or 6 hours.
I am perhaps more picky about what constitutes an official Royal engagement, though. If a 2-hour fitting with his tailor or a visit to the Royal barber is in the diary, that's not representing the Queen.
>>>So in terms of MM then it's possible she has done 153 'engagements' as the smallest thing which only takes an hour or so 'could' be listed. Imagine the tour of Africa and all the little meetings/things they did there. Depending on how much they were taking the piss then they could say they carried out multiple royal engaements in one day over a 5 day period. It all adds up. Although 153 still seems high even with this sort of dubious record keeping.<<<
I'm sure this padding has occurred. See my post above for the absolutely stripped down version of Meg's royal diary for the last 18 months. If we count only her solo visits to her designated patronages, I come up with maybe 5 or 6 actual events she 'worked' for the minimum time and maximum merching possible. There are in fact so few individual events at which she's been photographed (not counting cheesy tennis matches or urine-yellow carpets) that we are forced to view those images ad nauseum until I want to scream.
Each of her four main patronages (five, counting the Commonwealth Trust) had a lot of opportunity for her to get more deeply involved than one paltry photo op each. I'm so surprised that she is not haunting the boards at the National trying to direct a play or something. I get the feeling that the National would rather stick pins in their eyes, with their subscriptions falling off a cliff as soon as she was announced as patron. That was all the way back at the New Year, and she'd not been in the family more than six months. A lot of people have had her number from the earliest days but it's all been downplayed.
The Queen has bent over backwards to extend special privileges to Meghan, with important patronages, a solo outing with HM (Kate, mother of three and in the Firm for 8 years only just recently got *her* first solo outing with the Queen, and no special train was involved as it was a London engagement. Meg has at least three very high-profile patronages which were hand-picked for her stated interests. She's been extended every goodwill and leeway and lobbed hand grenades into it all. She has no right to say she's been made unwelcome or been exiled by her racist marriage family. She has ostracized herself by every self-destructive FU act possible.
August 1: princess royal and hubs launched an accessible boat and attended a reception
August 5: countess of Wessex attended women’s hockey World Cup final in London
August 6: princess royal and hubs visited Isle of Wright, did things and had dinner
August 6: countess of Wessex visited sailing things at Gosporf
August 6: queen arrives at Balmoral and inspects royal guard
August 7: princess royal and hubs visited Crowe’s week racing at isle of wright
August 7: countess of Wessex has a meeting at Buckingham Palace
August 8: duke of Sussex had a meeting in Botswana about conservation of rhinos
August 8’: duke of Cambridge went to France for things
August 9: earl of Wessex attended a reception at Usher Hall.
August 11: Divine service at balmoral
August 19: Diving Service at Craithe Parish Church
August 24: duchess of Rothesay visited an exhibition at Victoria Hall
August 26: Divine Service at Craithe Parish Church
August 29: duke and duchess of Sussex attend Hamilton fundraiser for Sentible
August 30: prince Charles had a meeting
So in all of August, the entire working royal family had 13 functions not counting church services. How many working royals are there?
August is traditionally hiatus month for TV actors, too. August is dog days; perhaps the Royals are less busy at this time because most of their patronages they normally visit are also on hiatus for vacations during this lull.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7682231/Confirmed-Meghan-Harry-WONT-spending-Christmas-Queen-Sandringham.html
I don't know if the home has been assigned to Meghan but I'm pretty sure the overarching charity has not. And given she mainly talked about her pregnancy when she visited, I'm not sure she was a hit.
I think it's interesting that BP felt the need to make an official statement. Has that ever happened before? I doubt it. I don't think the fact that they are missing Sandringham is that big a deal in and of itself. Other royals have done so in the past with no fuss made. It's just that, added to the no show at Balmoral and all the other shenanigans, it does look like they are estranged from the rest of the family. I wonder if she's even going to return from California at all.
Having looked on other blogs, it seems that the statement didn't come from the queen, but from 'spokespeople to the Sussexes'. Which actually doesn't surprise me. The royals don't comment publicly on private events - and the church walk aside, Xmas at Sandringham is private. Also, the whole 'HM supports them' and 'other royals have done it too' is just so very Sussex.
But it's just so typical.... the Cambridges were not at Sandringham for Xmas a few times and there was no palaver. No statement from the palace. But with these two, every little thing has to be a big deal. Everything.
'Having spent the last two Christmases at Sandringham, Their Royal Highnesses will spend the holiday this year, as a new family, with the Duchess' mother Doria Ragland.
'This decision is in line with precedent set previously by other members of the Royal Family, and has the support of Her Majesty The Queen.'
The Sussexes, who will be taking a six-week break after Sunday when Harry, 35, attends a Royal Albert Hall event, will likely travel to the US and spend Thanksgiving with Doria, 63.”
'If they had something else lined up, like a big family Christmas with her family and it was their turn, you could understand them dropping out, rather like William and Kate sometimes spend the day with the Middletons.
'But of course Meghan is estranged from everyone in her family apart from her mother, who they will probably see during their six-week break.
'So if they just don't want to be with the Queen and the rest of the royals it is very telling and worrying.
'Maybe they will have time to reflect on their problems in the coming weeks and hopefully realise that thinking of themselves as victims and outsiders is not helping anyone.
'All families have their tensions at Christmas of course but this one is played out in the eyes of the world.'
Meanwhile Ingrid Seward added:
'It does seem to be nothing to do with Archie and to do with their own personal feelings.'
What the California Court looks at is simple: money coming in, period. To put it simply, every litigant has living expenses. Harry's expenses are no more important than a store clerk. So his income as I said would be from the Duchy, the interest off his inheritance (whether simply capital or invested funds), his Foundation income (as some have alleged), his appearance fees (if any, such as Oprah interview/project) and any other monies coming in. And imputed income if necessary according to the discretion of the court.
There are written guidelines to use to figure out the level of child support to be awarded but within the court's discretion is how to categorize things and make a fair assessement of the historical figures since it varies in his case.The Riyals can be careful about protecting their assets but it is immaterial when it comes to law in this country. If a divorce is legally commenced in California (and that is a big 'if'!!), then Harry would be subject to US laws. He would not be the first royal (there have been others in different royal families) to be subjected to US law.
Lastly your example of Fergie Duchess of York and members of Parliament would only apply if the divorce goes thru UK courts. My example was if Megs and Archie were legal residents of California (which is what the discussion centered on) and she did not illegally abscond with Archie.
>>2.She would hit the financial lottery if she divorced Harry in California. She would likely get both Child Support and Spousal Support and possibly Alimony (depending on how long she stays married and her ability to support herself). The Child Support would be a whopping amount and Spousal Support can be considerable also. Harry's has a lot of money and the court would consider his 'income' whether it be from trusts, the Duchy or fees for donations to the foundation (if it has been income to him). Meg would receive an award to keep her in the lifestyle she and harry has enjoyed but offset by the income she has and reasonable income she could earn (like being an actress as she was such in Suits).<<
Not everything you stated above is as cut and dried as you may think.
Income from the monies he inherited from his mother and great-grandmother are not necessarily considered income for Harry. If the money is currently held in trust and he doesn't take a dispersal, then the income reverts back to the trust and absent the dispersal, it is not considered his income. If the money is not held in trust, it gets more complicated, but it is possible to shield some of the income from Smeg's greedy clutches. A very easy thing for him to do would be to take all his separate assets and put them in trust for himself and Archie or any other children of the relationship. Smeg can't stop him from doing this with his own property. Once done, any income could then be funneled back into the trust. He could also opt to only take living expenses from the trust, keeping his income very low.
Alimony is the free ride it once was, even for very wealthy people. California courts are awarding less alimony in cases overall, in addition to the amounts and length of time alimony is awarded decreasing. She may get 2 or 3 years, but unlikely it would even be much longer than that. Alimony is to replace lost income. She had an income prior to the marriage, a court is not going to grant her a lifetime of idleness.
Child support is based on a formula using both parent's income and time spent with the child to determine the amount. Above what is allowed by the formula, Smeg may try to seek payment for educational expenses, medical expenses, some extra curricular activities, and security. California courts are looking less and less at keeping the households or lifestyle equal and making support awards based on the needs of the child.
Harry could easily look cash poor on paper. He has a place to live that Smeg can't get her hands on, Charles could cut him off from his allowance from the Duchy, legally he can shield his inheritance. What's left? Speaking fees? A cut from foundation donations?
Food for thought: Not a California court, but something to consider... https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/royals/newly-divorced-prince-louis-of-luxembourg-ordered-to-pay-just-dollar98-a-week-in-child-support-for-each-of-his-sons/ar-BBVCK9j
Whatever some Californian court says isn’t going to mean diddly-squat to the royal family or its lawyers etc., to suggest or think otherwise is pure fantasy.
Inset eye roll here.
I guess you missed reading when I said the Court had discretion (and somewhat wide discretion depending on the issue). There is no way possible for Harry to claim He is "cash poor on paper) and succeed. In fact, judges usually get irritated that someone who has financial resources tries to weasel out of their legal obligations.
The case you cite did not occur in the US. Anything and everything can happen in a foreign country. I was responding to posters here talking about divorce i Calif. Even then I said it would have to legally be initiated in California (which I doubt would happen because Archie is a resident of the UK).
To the poster who mentioned Harry does not own property, I agree Meg can't get her hands on Frogmore (I addressed that days ago). IMO I think the Queen anticipated things would not go well with the marriage and deliberately did not give them a home. However, I bet Megs will definitely try to get Harry to buy a home in California (which might allow her to get some community property). I won't write more because I already addressed this in a prior thread.
>>>Meghan didn't visit a random group of elderly people in a nursing home. She visited the Brinsworth House in Twickenham, a home for retired actors. It is supported by the Royal Variety Charity. The Queen is its patron.
I don't know if the home has been assigned to Meghan but I'm pretty sure the overarching charity has not. And given she mainly talked about her pregnancy when she visited, I'm not sure she was a hit.<<<
Thank you for identifying Brinsworth House for me. It was identified at the time, but for as many times as those photos of her merching the far-too small black and white summer dress have been shoved at my eyeballs, the name of the organization was usually lost, owing to the horrific visuals that took centre stage.
A retired actors' home was again an attempt by the RF to play to Meghan's interests and strengths. Had she not made such a spectacle of herself there, the Queen might have had the confidence to hand this charity over to her in time. Another fail for MeGain.
That day is infamous for a number of reasons. There was the curiously unseasonal summer dress under a wool coat . . unbuttoned, sloppy, ill-fitting, and out of synch with the month of December. IIRC, this was Meg's first solo charity engagement and it sure didn't bode well for things to come and how she was going to present herself. I didn't understand about the merching then; I couldn't understand why a supposed fashion plate was dressed so bizarrely and wondered about mental illness. I work in public services and a common indicator for disordered thinking is an inability to gauge appropriate dressing--shorts and tees in the winter; wool overcoats and hats in August. It kept happening, too, but then I learned about 'merching'.
Then there was the square bump situation and Meg's incessant belly-cradling and her announcement to the assembled company how very pregnant she was feeling. It was a tone-deaf showboating display and a foretaste of the things to come. I was supportive of her up til then, and despite the poor taste in staging the pregnancy announcement during Eugenie's wedding with the attendant theatricality, I was still buying their relationship and the baby as legit. That ended that day at Brinsworth House, and I began to question whether MM was actually not fully sane.
Besides, it is a perfect excuse not to have to borrow Archie and try to pass him off as their own.
.
Yes I think we were on to something. :-) Truly I believe that the Harkles have nowhere to go. Nobody wants them round. Deservedly so, irksome gormless pair that they are. Now Smegs is saying " Oh don't think I will go to the States because I want to show people what a wonderful humanitarian I am by helping at a shelter ". True humanitarians don't need to announce their contributions to the world. I dare say she is looking quite desperate now.
I’d love to be a fly on the wall in any senior royals household right now!
I'm wondering if the distance between MM and her mother might have something to do with MM listing herself as white when young? I can see where having a black mother would be rather inconvenient to her narrative. I would think that her mother would not be happy about being cast aside for her ethnicity and then embraced for her ethnicity when it fit MM's purposes.
Thank you, Nutty, I needed a good laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hysterical! Does she expect to serve them turkey a month early or something?! It’s completely meaningless to us overhere, visit by all means, but make it a British celebration or reason. Oh but I forgot, Meghan’s doesn’t do British, only the men.
I would assume fauxarchie as the "son" of Harry has a certain amount of rights to any inheritance in the event of something happening right? Could it be that Sparkles thinks she can access these funds via the ghostbaby as a parent?
I saw your link. I haven't read the article because I'm afraid I will choke on my tongue and die. She never, ever stops. She's complete toast but she keeps ramming her narrative of St. Meghan, the Virtuous.
Oprah must have phoned and said don't bother coming, and the documentary with Harry is off. It will be totally fascinating if any images of Doria in Windsor for Thanksgiving surface. More fun with PhotoShop! Though if as I suspect, Doria hasn't been to London for a year, maybe she'd be up for it. But it complete bollocks that they are at Frogmore. I'm getting really tired of that old chestnut.
And why?
>>>@Trudy, if she volunteers on Thanksgiving, will she write uplifting words of empowerment on pumpkin pies for the homeless? Will she distribute her Smartworks clothing? . . .<<<
Thanks for the laughs. Pumpkin pies! (Bet Meg is an artiste with the whipped cream, if you know what I mean. She's got lots of uses for that.) Then there must be several van loads of unsold shoddy SmartSet capsule garments, totally unsuitable for a London winter to give away.
The sad thing here is, I don't actually know if Meg is whip-smart enough to realize that they do not celebrate Thanksgiving in Britain. Thanksgiving is for the descendants of Britons who fled the motherland. Her grasp of history is nonexistent, so perhaps she really does think that Thanksgiving will be a holiday in the UK with everyone sitting down to a big meal.
All I'm going to say about that is that PH should be very, very wary of accepting any drugs that she or any of her friends have touched.
This is true, "judges usually get irritated that someone who has financial resources tries to weasel out of their legal obligations," however it doesn't change the fact that upon divorce, Harry's only obligation is to a minor child. He doesn't have an obligation to support Smeg for life, unless he made a direct statement that she never had to work again and he would support her. Gone are the days when California courts awarded alimony to almost every woman after a divorce. The opposite is true. Smeg knew going in that she was hired by the Firm and in exchange for fulfilling official duties, she would receive renumeration. It also doesn't change the fact that legally Harry can structure his finances and property in such a way as to reduce his exposure to liability in a divorce.
>>somewhat wide discretion depending on the issue<<
Not really. The parent seeking to diverge from the legal guidelines has to show the reason why they are seeking to do so. The parent who ultimately receives child support can't just pull numbers out of their ass. If they are seeking an amount higher than what the guidelines indicate (which by the way, there's an actual hand held calculator programmed to input all income from both parties and spits out an amount) they better be prepared to show it was a historical expense, fits into a category of permitted expenses, is not unreasonable taking the couple's lifestyle into account, and has receipts to show the money was spent in such a way in the past.
It's not cut and dried that Harry would be destroyed in a California divorce.
- Máxima of the Netherlands is very popular, ever since she was introduced to the public in the engagement interview (she already spoke Dutch by then) and has actually held the highest approval rating of all the Dutch royals. Upwards of 80%, if I recall correctly.
- If Meghan should have taken any female royal of a similar background as a rolemodel, it shouldn't have been Mary of Denmark or Máxima of the Netherlands, but Sofia of Sweden. She was a "glamour model" prior to her relationship with Carl Philip. I don't really follow the Swedish family, but I got the impression that Sofia managed to turn her image around. Feel free to correct me if there are any Swedes here.
- The BRF should look to Louis and Tessy of Luxembourg on how to handle a royal divorce if they don't want MM to run off with all the riches. Louis and Tessy were married for 13 years with two kids and she got screwed over big time in the divorce. She lost her title and home (was allowed to stay in their home for 6 months post divorce and that was nowhere near a royal home), gets no alimony, had to fire her divorce attorney because she ran out of money and Louis ended up paying less than a hundred euros per child per week in child support. All because Louis allegedly has no fortune of his own and everything was financed through his parents. His parents also pay for the children's education and healthcare.
I have no idea how international marriages/divorces work. Can an American citizen instigate divorce proceedings in an American court in front of an American judge when her spouse is 1. A foreign national, and not only that--a super-Briton, being a Prince of the realm and therefore under the jurisdiction of the head of state of a foreign government, 2. the ceremony was witnessed and performed in England, by an English officiant, 3. There is a minor child of indeterminate nationality involved--is Archie British from his father or American from his mother? Meg is not yet a British citizen, so there would be custody issues, even if the child's great-grandmother of record were not the Queen of England. If that's the case. Meg and Harry's alleged parentage/custody/legal rights to the baby known as Archie would come under scrutiny of the court--is that really what either of them wants?
4. There will be disputes over financial support, etc. This would not be an amicable dissolution by any stretch of the imagination. The situation is too complicated on too many levels.
If anyone here was married in a country where they are not a citizen or do not reside, could you ring in about how you went about insuring that your marriage was legally recognized by the country/countries you actually reside in/are a citizen of? Is there extra paperwork you have to file in case of a marriage abroad?
She may leave Harry but refuse to get formally divorced from him if the financial benefit would be to her advantage. Also that way she would not have her character raked over the coals in court.
Chortle... that's what I was thinking as well.... not the "motherland" part, but everything else.
There's always drama around these two, isn't there? As I said above, I don't actually think their absence at Sandringham is that big a deal in and of itself. But as part of a pattern of endless drama, snubbing the queen, doing their own thing and who gives a toss what anyone else thinks, well it's of a piece. Other royals have spent Xmas elsewhere but didn't feel the need to create a conversation about it weeks ahead. For a couple who are feeling so very harassed by the media, they seem to court attention quite a lot.
There are many examples of women in a similar position to MM, but they seem to have managed.
BTW, Queen Maxima is my favorite royal. Love her style and big hats!
From the US State Dept website...
"Validity of Marriages Abroad
If you get married abroad and need to know if your marriage will be recognized in the United States and what documentation may be needed, contact the office of the Attorney General of your state of residence in the United States."
State by state basis. California recognizes legal marriages performed in foreign countries if the marriage is not against California public policy. California would not recognize a pluralistic marriage, but will recognize a marriage performed by a shaman in a hut in Botswana if the marriage is legal in Botswana.
My brother's former girlfriend thought she was married until she tried to divorce her "husband." Getting married by some random dude on a beach on an island in the Caribbean (she couldn't remember which island) is not a legal marriage.
She wants to be the centre of attention and to portray the BRF being far from people.
SS is on it : a devoted MM, a newly wed, a brand new mum who wants to be a role model for Archie helping poor people.
We can expect an amount of MM's pals praising her ("she has always been so kind, generous. Motherhood made her an even better person blah blah blah).
I am pretty sure she's already watched and read every single videos & photos of Diana visiting homeless people (key words, facial expressions and dress code). I am looking forward to see photos of her "secret" visit.
I also think those 2 will release photos with Archie in front of their Christmas tree (Archie trying to grab a Christmas star or a Christmas tree ball).
That must be hard for her, after so many efforts, and so much money spent that Kensington's IG has more followers than their IG. I thought she would buy (more) followers.
Now that the Queen has called their bluff (bye, bye guys.. have fun in America).. it turns out that there may never have been any real plans to go to America after all, as I had thought from the outset. So predictable.
Hikari, just FYI, Obama admitted in one of his autobiographies that he smoked pot all the time and did coke "whenever he could afford it." Dude was a major druggie back in the day.
I did think it was odd that Sophie was with the queen to recognize the Commonwealth Trust, not H&M. We all know that Sophie is the queen's favorite, but as far as I know she doesn't have anything to do with the Trust. Also, I thought it was adorable that she referred to the queen as "mama" in her speech at the event.
>This is true, "judges usually get irritated that someone who has financial resources tries to weasel out of their legal obligations," however it doesn't change the fact that upon divorce, Harry's only obligation is to a minor child. He doesn't have an obligation to support Smeg for life, unless he made a direct statement that she never had to work again and he would support her>
No, it is not necessarily true that his only obligation if to the minor child. Spousal support is still routinely awarded in the case of a stay-at-home mother with an infant and others depending on circumstances.
>Gone are the days when California courts awarded alimony to almost every woman after a divorce. The opposite is true>
True, alimony is not as common now as it depends on the length of marriage AND the resources of the spouse and/or ability to earn income. The latter can again depend on the discretion of the judge. For example, I had a $200,000+ in cash (my personal $$) but was a stay-at-home mother and my spouse had to pay child/spousal support, but I waived alimony because the marriage was only 4+ years and I wanted to be rid of him. That is also an example where the Court had discretion and decided in my favor.
.
>Smeg knew going in that she was hired by the Firm and in exchange for fulfilling official duties, she would receive renumeration.>
It depends on what is meant by remuneration. I said income by either party would be considered by the court. However, if she is just given perks like living in the Frogmore home, then that just goes in Meg's favor as giving evidence as to the level of lifestyle she has been accustomed to and to which the court may keep her in.
> It also doesn't change the fact that legally Harry can structure his finances and property in such a way as to reduce his exposure to liability in a divorce.>
Sure Harry can try but the court will be the final arbiter of what is allowed. Once again, the Court may decide more or less favorably to his attempts. Your example in an earlier post regarding him forgoing a dispersal of the money from inheritance would be something subject to the court's interpretation as to whether he is suddenly trying to shield his income (if he voluntarily decided not to take the proceeds_. Th
>The parent seeking to diverge from the legal guidelines has to show the reason why they are seeking to do so.<
It's not the parents using the guidelines, its the court's guidelines codified in law.
No, they can't and that is why Harry can't just start a shell game of hiding his money or relying on some unwritten 'understanding' Meg was subject to the BRF,
>If they are seeking an amount higher than what the guidelines indicate (which by the way, there's an actual handheld calculator programmed to input all income from both parties and spits out an amount) they better be prepared to show it was a historical expense, fits into a category of permitted expenses, is not unreasonable taking the couple's lifestyle into account, and has receipts to show the money was spent in such a way in the past.<
I know there is a calculator but that is only one aspect; before it gets to that point the Judge still has the prerogative to decide the amounts that will be used in the equation. If Harry worked a 40 hr/wk job it would be easy and straightforward but his case would require the discretion of the judge as to how to view his income streams and that of Meghan's. Income is [aramount as expenses can vary so much and they have to be legitimate in the court's eyes unless irs taxes and payroll deductions.
>It's not cut and dried that Harry would be destroyed in a California divorce<
I never even intimated Harry would be destroyed in a California divorce. I do however think. if Meghan can get a separation and/or divorce to be legally heard in the state she will benefit tremendously.
>>Can I just ask how you are so certain that Harry only gets money from the SG when he represents the Queen? I ask because that is contrary to what was reported by reputable royal reporters at the time.<<
It's written into the Sovereign Grant Act and was debated in parliament as to what the grant covers. None of the monarch's family get money from it except in relation to their representation of her.
@Cat Eyes.
I see your point, and it will be interesting to see what happens if divorce proceedings are initiated in California instead of the UK. But would Markle have enough money to fund divorce proceedings in California? Surely that's hellishly expensive?
Followed by a photo of the front page which states 'Caring Queen pops round to support Harry and Meghan.'
Then in small print... 'but Royal couple to spend Christmas in the U.S.
What certainly is FACT though, is that more and more royal reporters and royal commentators are airing their views about Meghan and Harry in a way which is not complimentary to either of them.
Yes, it would be extremely expensive for someone at Meg's level to divorce because she would [rpbably hire a high profile lawyer. However, she would not necessarily be on the hook for the fees as the Court could order Harry to pay. In any event, she/he might just put an amount down for a retainer and bill the rest. An example: In 1987 I hired an LA attorney I saw that had a magazine article written about him and what a mistake that was. He charged me for 1 court appearance that he traveled 250 miles to and Did Nothing except charge me $25,000 because he knew I had a lot of money at the time. Long story short I blew up and threatened to file a malpractice suit on him and didn't pay him a cent (without even going to court). My point being tho, is that litigation can be very expensive in LA.
Richard Palmer must have sniggered to himself as he wrote that story. As a RR, he knows very well that the queen does not come to you. You come to the queen. If invited.
As regards the Xmas snub, I expect on a personal level the queen is probably hurt by the Harkles' lack of respect - Harry is her grandson after all. But I doubt she's terribly worried. In the greater scheme of things, the Harkles and their untitled 7th in line son are irrelevant. If they want to go and play the celebrity game in California well, don't let the door hit them on the way out.
>I don't know why we are even talking about California courts. There's no way California would have jurisdiction in any divorce. The couple in question got married in England and have always lived as a couple in England. Any divorce would go through the English courts.<
Perhaps you missed how this conversation started. The premise was that Meg/Harry would have residency in California thus judicial jurisdiction would be there, Many couples marry in other parts in the world but once they become US residents then jurisdiction becomes in the county where they live. However, if the parties live apart then it is usually where the child's county of residence. Harry could (assuming Megs files first) ask for jurisdiction to be in the UK is he resides there and has joint custody (at least) of Archie.
Personally, I can't conceive Harry would allow a scenario where Archie would be living in the US without him. Thus Meg would not be able to prevail IMO. Woe be to Harry if he resides in California long enough to establish residency.
I think Meg would be sneaky enough to get Harry to have 'a base' in Calif and it would be more advantageous if he buys a house here,
"I did think it was odd that Sophie was with the queen to recognize the Commonwealth Trust, not H&M. We all know that Sophie is the queen's favorite, but as far as I know she doesn't have anything to do with the Trust. Also, I thought it was adorable that she referred to the queen as "mama" in her speech at the event."
I believe the event you reference was actually in celebration of The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Trust which was established by the Heads of the Commonwealth for a 5 year term which ends in 2020. Sophie is/was serving as vice-patron of the trust. I'm not sure that The Queen's Commonwealth Trust has anything to do with it other than both trust serving The Commonwealth nations. So, it kind of makes sense that H&M weren't there and Sophie was.
.
Yes it is just a load of rubbish. Liver Bird is right. The Queen doesn't just ' pop round '. If she is on her horse or having a walkabout she does stop to talk to people, but she doesn't just ' pop round for a cuppa '. It is right up there with the fake pub lunch, getting on a plane with Archie to visit Elton, having her Mum come to stay when Archie was born, etc. Lie stacked on lie. Heavens above, how the hell do they keep it straight?
It is going to be about solidifying her plan to be "famous" in the US. Also on how Harry can use his Royalty fame and immerse into the Hollywood game... ie. producing more documentaries.
She has already laid out the "oh poor me" and "I am a victim" cards hoping the Hollywood bigshots and actors will catch the bait and bring MM + H under their wings...
Also, she could be there for a second surrogacy since her first one in the Britain was a disaster. Her weight increase that we have been seeing lately could be the resutls of hormonal pills shes on to "harvest her eggs". These pills can make you a little chubby.
It will be interesting to see what unfolds in the next 1 year.
>>Spousal support is still routinely awarded in the case of a stay-at-home mother with an infant and others depending on circumstances.<<<
Nope. Courts require the spouse requesting support to show they have made every effort to become self supporting or if they are unemployable, have to provide evidence as to why they cannot be fully employed. IF the court awards support, it is generally temporary. In cases where a marriage was less than 10 years, the court may award support for a period equal to half the length of the marriage. So if the couple was married for 2 years, the spouse may be awarded 1 year of support.
>>I said income by either party would be considered by the court. However, if she is just given perks like living in the Frogmore home, then that just goes in Meg's favor as giving evidence as to the level of lifestyle she has been accustomed to and to which the court may keep her in.<<
Renumeration includes everything received. For purposes of determining income in regards to child support, fringe benefits and perks of employment are included... free housing at Frogmore, included. Not included would be reimbursement for expenses incurred to perform official duties.
>>Your example in an earlier post regarding him forgoing a dispersal of the money from inheritance would be something subject to the court's interpretation as to whether he is suddenly trying to shield his income (if he voluntarily decided not to take the proceeds_.<<
This may be out of the court's jurisdiction. From reading here and in other places, it looks like Harry is not in full control of the inheritance and is limited by the comptroller's (?) office. He can request the principle of the inheritance, however the comptroller can deny his request. We'd have to look at Diana and his great grandmother's will to determine if the comptroller can cut him off.
>>The parent seeking to diverge from the legal guidelines has to show the reason why they are seeking to do so.
>>>>It's not the parents using the guidelines, its the court's guidelines codified in law.
>>>>No, they can't and that is why Harry can't just start a shell game of hiding his money or relying on some unwritten 'understanding' Meg was subject to the BRF,
I'm a bit confused as to what you are saying, but I'll try to unpack.
It's not the court's guidelines at all. The guidelines were passed by the legislature and the court, as the interpreter of the law, applies those guidelines to the facts of the case. If a parent wants an amount greater than what is required under the guidelines, the parent has to provide evidence to the court that proves that the amount is required for the child's care. The opposing party would pound on the guidelines, demanding that the judge not grant an additional penny. The guidelines are there for both parties. A party could argue that the amount awarded under the guidelines is too great and request a smaller award. The custodial parent would then pound on the guidelines demanding the full amount.
What you are calling his money may not be his money at all. He only has access to the interest earned by the principle. This tells me the money is not his to do with as he pleases.
>>his case would require the discretion of the judge as to how to view his income streams and that of Meghan's. Income is [aramount as expenses can vary so much and they have to be legitimate in the court's eyes unless irs taxes and payroll deductions.
I think what you're not considering is that Harry's income streams are at the pleasure of those who hold the strings. He does not receive anything from the Sovereign Grant, money from Charles is an allowance and reimbursement for expenses incurred due to official duties. Smeg is going to have a hard time arguing that reimbursement for expenses incurred while performing official duties is income. What's she going to do if Charles cuts him off? Also consider that the court will also look at the ability of the paying spouse to actually pay the award. Other than the interest from his inheritance, does he have any income?
>>if Meghan can get a separation and/or divorce to be legally heard in the state she will benefit tremendously.
Maybe, but also a risk. It's more likely for all the tawdry goings on to be kept secret in a British divorce than in California. Sure the judge could clear the courtroom and seal the divorce file, but juicy bits will leak out.
'
First, you put words in my mouth. So Nope to your' Nope" on trying to dispute things I did not say.
!. I never said Harry would file for divorce in England
2. I said what the Court would likely do for her station in life as a stay at home mother of an infant.
3. Meghan has not worked in her occupation as an actress since she became engaged and thru marriage.
4. I believe Meghan would be awarded spousal support if she can make a showing of need.
4. I never said Meghan would get Alimony for life! I am aware it would be severely limited for a short term union.
5. The court has discretion despite having guidelines. The mere word says it all, guidelines.
6. The court is going to allow Meghan (and Archie I presume she will have at least joint custody) to have a standard of living commiserate with the one she has now. Heck, Frogmore was a run-down staff quarters that had just 2.3 million dollars put into it to bring into liveable conditions. That's chump change in California, especially Malibu where it has been mentioned they might reside.
The bottom line is that the judge uses the guidelines but can/and does wield discretion on the outcome.
For me to write a detailed response would be useless because it still hinges on the many factors that neither of us knows. As a real-life example, I filed for divorce of a 4 1/2 year marriage and got spousal/child support and my 2 children were 2 & 4 and was Not ordered to work even tho I had a college educ. and prior work history, I also did not lose the marital home which was in both of our names (however I did put substantial money as a down pymt), Spousal support did end eventually but child support didn't. So the Judge went against everything you said he should have done.
I have already felt bad taking up so much space on this subject as it is Off-topic.
But that doesn't preclude the Queen from funding Harry's office. It is not personal money, which is self-evident. The Queen has the Duchy of Lancaster and personal holdings to fund any personal expenditure. She doesn't need the SG for that.
We have established that Harry can't access the SG for his own personal jollies. But funding his office isn't considered so. As I said, it was reported that his office would be funded by the Duchy of Cornwall (Charles) and the Queen. Unless it is by the Duchy of Lancaster ...
HM: I had them last year. You take them!
PC: I had to throw them out of my last party. You take 'em!
Doria: I'm not playing granny to someone else's kid. Besides, I'm heading to Maui. You take them!
Oorah: I don't even know why I'm on this call! I'm not taking them!
Long silence
HM: What is Thomas's number again?
Harry is not entitled to the Duchy money and he never will be. He will never be Prince of Wales. Harry only receives what his father gifts him. As we have seen, if Charles says he won't fund Harry's office, he doesn't have to.
No US court can grant Meghan money that belongs to the people of the UK or the Prince of Wales as beneficiary. End of.
@Liver Bird: agreed, we know next to nothing about what they do in their private time, only what they care to tell us, like crumbs. I'm not particularly interested, but as we agree, they have plenty of privacy.
The whining of Harry and Meghan is dangerous too, because as you allude to, it puts the blowtorch on how little we know about their day to day private affairs. This only happens when you think about how little you know about the royals. The inside of their publicly funded homes are never revealed. So they have nothing to complain about.
30 days?!? No...according to several websites (including University of Cal systems) 366 days, of course may leave for vacations, business etc but have primary residency there and live in state majority of time to qualify for residency. If someone is going to be out of the state for a considerable period of time he/she must establish long-term ties to the state such as employment or education. It also helps to register to vote, register a car, get a drivers license etc to link as much as possible to California.
>Megan cannot get any of the Duchy of Cornwall money. It is the private income of the Prince of Wales, but it is actually owned by the Crown (the people).
Harry is not entitled to the Duchy money and he never will be. He will never be Prince of Wales. Harry only receives what his father gifts him. As we have seen, if Charles says he won't fund Harry's office, he doesn't have to.
No US court can grant Meghan money that belongs to the people of the UK or the Prince of Wales as beneficiary. End of<
Bo Meghan would not get any money Directly but if she gets an award from the Court Harry will have to pay. Where Harry gets the money is his concern....he could go sell autographs or deal drugs for that matter (lol). But people do obey court orders or they go to jail (in this country).
I know very little about US courts. But I can tell you it's not how it works in either the UK or Australia. Any award from the court has to be derived from income.
In this case, no court, in any jurisdiction can award Meghan money based on the Duchy income because it is not and never will be, Harry's. As I said, it is the private income of the Prince of Wales - this is a matter of law, not disputed income.
To be honest, I think the royals have taken steps based on legal advice. There are nuances I can see based on experience.
In the UK and Aus, people don't go to gaol for not adhering to court orders, unless criminal. Mostly, the judge just gets angry, but that's about it. In the higher courts, it just means that the orders stand and are enforced.
I believe you can establish residency in Ca after 30 days.
Someone also posted it would be 366 days.
State Franchise Tax Publication says a Resident is one who intends to make the State their home and their stay is not transitory or temporary. However, they went on to talk about a 'Part-Time Resident'. It is a case where the law might be interpreted one way for one purpose but another statute might apply for another circumstance.
I’d add she also wants to take the money and the royal title and run. I think her longtime fascination with the BRF was the bigvattemraction for Meghan to go after Harry. She could have snagged “a wealthy famous man,” but not one who is a member of the most well known royal family on the planet. I am still hoping they will divorce before she is able to obtain UK citizenship. I don’t know what the law or precedence is in the RF, but I think if she and Harry divorced while she is still holding only US citizenship and not a British subject, it would seem to be impossible or at least very odd to allow Meghan to hold ANY royal title as an American citizen only.
I know Diana and Fergie remained Princess of Wales and Duchess of York respectively after their divorces without the HRH, but both were UK citizens. Wallis also retained her title, but she was the Duke of Windsor’s widow, and she probably had obtained UK citizenship at some point during their lengthy marriage.
Meghan might be new ground for the RF, but if she and Harry divorce, it will likely be extremely nasty, which would leave a bad taste in the mouths of the queen, the RF, and the British public. None of these three would likely be eager for Meghan to continue milking her way through life as duchess if she had not obtained UK citizenship by the time a divorce action is filed.
If they divorce after she obtains UK citizenship, I would bet money Meghan would not marry again and just live with her next target so she could keep the royal title. I think she covets that title above all else.
If a divorce does happen and it's not so clear she will make out like a bandit, I do wonder what the stans who claim Meghan is a millionaire several times over on her own will say.
My answer was assuming that a US Court had jurisdiction. Of course, I have no idea how it works elsewhere,
Yes in America, a Judge can put you in jail on a 'Contempt of Court' charge arising from a civil matter. For example, you disobey some order arising from a divorce (typically it is not paying child support). It can even be as simple as not showing up to your hearing and you could invoke the ire of the judge who generally does not take kindly to such disrespect (also it causes disruption to the orderly process).
I only responded to your earliest post(s) because you are throwing around a lot of "information" as if you are an expert, basing that information on your personal experience, which is likely vastly different from a celebrity and a royal divorcing.
1. I don't think I said anyone would file for divorce anywhere. I was pointing out that Harry wouldn't be treated as poorly as you indicated in one of the previous posts.
2. Station in life? Maybe 40 years ago the court would have been more amenable to granting a stay-at-home mom alimony. It just doesn't happen like that today, and especially not for someone married for a short period of time and for someone who had a career as recently as 3 years ago. Maybe alimony for a brief period for the supported spouse to seek employment, but definitely not long term. There have been recent hotly contested divorces in California where the spouse seeking alimony had to prove the other spouse promised she wouldn't have to work. Without proving the statement to be true, the spouse seeking alimony would not receive said alimony. (NOt to be confused with the palimony case from the 70's.)
3. It was Smeg's decision to step away from her acting career. Has she really ceased pursuing all avenues of income? It's not like she's 60 trying to establish a career after being married for decades. A court is not going to bend over backwards to allow her a life of leisure. Alimony is almost a thing of the past in California. In very specific instances alimony is granted, but in those instances it's very brief absent extraordinary circumstances.
4. It's debatable whether she would get it at all. Typically any woman who can earn an income, and remember if Smeg has been merching and being paid for appearances (SA $250K lunch,) will not receive alimony. Irony of irony, if she's making more from appearances and merching than Harry is making, she could find herself on the hook for alimony.
5. Guidelines doesn't mean the judge can just do whatever he or she wants. You know what happens to judges who overstep their discretion? They get reversed. Other laws and precedents come into play... equity being the big one. Even the most cretinous cads are treated equitably in family court.
6. "The court is going to allow Meghan (and Archie I presume she will have at least joint custody) to have a standard of living commiserate with the one she has now."
That's a general statement, but not really how it works. Courts will try to maintain the pre-divorce living standard status quo, however if the parties do not have the finances available to maintain 2 equal pre-divorce households, the court will likely award an amount insufficient to maintain the pre-divorce status quo.
Also consider this, Smeg would have to prove where they live. Frogmore has been vacant by all accounts. Where is she living?
>>The bottom line is that the judge uses the guidelines but can/and does wield discretion on the outcome.<<
The judge may have discretion, but a judge who oversteps that discretion or is wildly inequitable will be reversed... and judges hate being reversed.
You provided your own anecdote... likely other information that you're not providing that supports the judges finding, specifically when the divorce occurred, if a child had special needs, how long you received alimony, if the child support was reduced once the children were school age, if the child support was based on your earning minimum wage although you weren't working, whether it was an uncontested divorce, etc., etc.
Lizzie: if you are referring to me, I am not saying that. But I'm just stating how the law works in Australia and our law is based on the English common law.
So, I'm letting you know that Meghan can never get the Duchy money. Not ever. It's a matter of fact and law. It's the same with Frogmore Cottage. It belongs to the UK people (Crown). It's not the Windsors to cede in divorce.
Haven't you ever heard of rich people minimising their wealth? Harry has very little of his own and most of what he gets is by way of gift/gratis, either from his father and grandmother or the UK public. She can't get any of it. That's how OUR laws work.
Assuming you're American, with respect, I don't expect you to understand. And frankly, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this divorce will be filed on US soil.
I was joking about Harry getting money from illegal activities. I should have first pointed out that Harry will have to 'prove up' his financial circumstances )No Smoke and Mirrors). The Judge will ask for records of how much money he received and from where. This is where his attorney can try to argue what should be considered 'income' (maybe people are getting fixated on this too much).
The judge will view it according to Calif. law (If proceedings are legally here). Harry cannot get by saying he has no money. If a zillion to one (and he bribes the judge, lol) he is allowed to plead poverty, then the judge can impute a reasonable amount he should be able to have in earnings and give him time to get a job (and training needed to get a job). Can all see how this is sounding ludicrous. Yeah, it won't happen.
I don't understand why peo[le can't believe Meghan would get a financial award. It happens every day with Celebrities who are asked to pay for children born from their girlfriends (tens of thousands of dollars).
I'm not an attorney but I can see Duchy funds per se wouldn't be up for grabs. But I'm kind of surprised that it might be true the level of support provided by Duchy funds during the marriage might obligate Harry to continue that same level of support in case of a divorce. I always thought it was income, not gifts, not previously inherited money (interest is different), not expense accounts....
@ CatEyes...I was joking about illegal stuff too. I can believe Harry would be on the hook for alot, just not quite the way I'm reading some answers to say.
As to Harry's impending divorce: I believe that the Windsors have made strategic moves to avoid what you're referring to. Take for eg, the rumour that Harry's been dipping into his trust capital. That would be provided in court to show that Charles is not providing for any personal lifestyle. FC is owned by the Crown and cannot be ceded in divorce, as I said.
We don't have alimony in either the UK or Australia, which is where the confusion may occur. Meghan is NOT entitled to the same lifestyle once divorced. Of course, she won't have to apply for food stamps ...
There is spousal support or maintenance, but in Australia [and the UK] it means an entirely different thing to "alimony". It usually means, at the discretion of the judge, a sum to be able to live, in the case where the other spouse cannot support themselves.
It has limited application in Australian courts because we have generous welfare, particularly for those with children. A custodial parent can receive AUD1200 per week for a few children, tax-free, plus many other benefits, free lawyers, being just one.
In the UK, as in Australia, each case turns on its own facts and evidence. But again, it is not alimony, as in, the statutory right to live a life of luxury from the other spouse. But it is important that every case is different as every judge is different. In any event, Harry has little to argue over so it's moot ...
I believe they could let her live in FC, but it can never be gifted by reason that it belongs to the Crown. It's this decision and a few others that lead me to believe the Windsors have had a strategic plan in place for the inevitable divorce. Harry owns nothing, is worth next to nothing and all she will get are child support payments and a few bob to shut her up and keep her off the streets. Perhaps a grace and favour house.
The bottom line is that under UK and Aus law, you cannot get blood from a stone. The Windsors have access to the best lawyers in the world and their decisions reflect this. They will save Harry from himself. Even his trust fund was settled long before he met her and is guarded by trustees. I suppose she'd get a cut of that income though. That, I will concede.
As for Archie, he will be well-provided for by the Windsors, obviously, with the best of everything. Charles most likely has already settled a trust fund for him.
I think it has just dawned on Nutmeg that she married the pauper Prince and that her lifestyle only subsists whilst she is married to him.
No one yet, we're playing devil's advocate.
I just spent an inordinate amount of time responding and it didn't post. My weakness is computer proficiency. so does anyone know if there is a way to recover my deleted post? HELPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP Nutters.
Well, Lurking I will have to start over if I can't get my post back. That happened yesterday bit post eventually got on. This is not looking good for that tho.
To file for divorce in California, one of the spouses has to have lived in California for 6 months. However, to file for a legal separation, there is no residency requirement and a petition for divorce can be filed when the residency requirement is satisfied. The legal separation allows spouses to seek support, both spousal and child.
I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, but the US has no jurisdiction here. It's an exceptional case where Meghan entire life is dependent on UK residency, hence jurisdiction.
If she was so stupid to pull this stunt, the BRF's lawyers will quickly have it removed to its correct jurisdiction. No US court will be dividing Harry's assets and income.
None of which is applicable under California law. Once she satisfies residency requirements it's for the California court to decide. If as previous rumors have said, they are shopping for a house, want a base in California, want a break for the UK, etc, she would be free to file for divorce in California. Many people who marry in the UK later move to the US and divorce. People who are residents spend time in the UK working and divorce in California. Funded by UK taxpayers... they or she may lose funding, but that won't stop a California court from hearing or finalizing a divorce.
Are you suggesting that because she's married to a royal she can't divorce anywhere other than the UK? Are you suggesting that there's some sort of written or unwritten agreement that prevents her from divorcing somewhere outside the UK? I'm not sure what you mean by, "It won't be allowed." Why won't it be allowed? Smeg has already shown that she doesn't follow protocol. Absent an ironclad written agreement, how could they stop her?
>I only responded to your earliest post(s) because you are throwing around a lot of "information" as if you are an expert, basing that information on your personal experience, which is likely vastly different from a celebrity and a royal divorcing<
You can be derogatory and dismissive as you are in your first sentence above. However, I am in an equal company as anyone here including you. I never said I was an attorney. However, I have been more successful than the average divorce lawyer having brought two cases to the Appellate court and prevailing in both before the full panel in Santa Barbara. 2 Appellate cases. Most attorney never have taken a case up on appeal much less win.
>1. I don't think I said anyone would file for divorce anywhere. I was pointing out that Harry wouldn't be treated as poorly as you indicated in one of the previous posts.<
If you read all my pasts and others on the subject the hypothetical situation was a divorce in California. In addition, I never said the word "poor" would be Harry's, situation. Rather I emphasised how well Meghan would Potentially be treated by the Calif. courts.
>2. Station in life? Maybe 40 years ago the court would have been more amenable to granting a stay-at-home mom alimony. It just doesn't happen like that today, and especially not for someone married for a short period of time and for someone who had a career as recently as 3 years ago. Maybe alimony for a brief period for the supported spouse to seek employment, but definitely not long term. There have been recent hotly contested divorces in California where the spouse seeking alimony had to prove the other spouse promised she wouldn't have to work. Without proving the statement to be true, the spouse seeking alimony would not receive said alimony. (NOt to be confused with the palimony case from the 70's.)
3. It was Smeg's decision to step away from her acting career. Has she really ceased pursuing all avenues of income? It's not like she's 60 trying to establish a career after being married for decades. A court is not going to bend over backwards to allow her a life of leisure. Alimony is almost a thing of the past in California. In very specific instances alimony is granted, but in those instances it's very brief absent extraordinary circumstances.
4. It's debatable whether she would get it at all. Typically any woman who can earn an income, and remember if Smeg has been merching and being paid for appearances (SA $250K lunch,) will not receive alimony. Irony of irony, if she's making more from appearances and merching than Harry is making, she could find herself on the hook for alimony<
I never said Meghan would get alimony for life as you previously referenced. I am aware that alimony would be shoe]rt term most likely with the fact pattern as it exists today. My discussion centered on spousal and child support. As things seem today Harry would not get spousal support and definitely not alimony. You could continue to throw out ridiculous theoreticals but it doesn't add to the discussion.
>5. Guidelines doesn't mean the judge can just do whatever he or she wants. You know what happens to judges who overstep their discretion? They get reversed. Other laws and precedents come into play... equity being the big one. Even the most cretinous cads are treated equitably in family court.<
The odds are judges don't get reversed from my research. I disagree about the strength that a judge has on discretion in his analysis of the facts, before, during and after plugging numbers into equations. And rich guys don't get to say they are broke either (that's the oldest trick in the book and judges are astute enough to see thru it.
Pt 2. continued:
>6. "The court is going to allow Meghan (and Archie I presume she will have at least joint custody) to have a standard of living commiserate with the one she has now."
That's a general statement, but not really how it works. Courts will try to maintain the pre-divorce living standard status quo, however if the parties do not have the finances available to maintain 2 equal pre-divorce households, the court will likely award an amount insufficient to maintain the pre-divorce status quo.<
You just contradicted yourself (Quote: Courts will try to maintain the pre-divorce living standard status quo,) How unrealistic to think Harry will reduce his lifestyle and like live on skid row and refuse money from Disney, Daddy, maybe Oprah project income, etc;;)
>Also consider this, Smeg would have to prove where they live. Frogmore has been vacant by all accounts. Where is she living? <
WTF? So Garry would not know where Megs and his son live? Are you serious? Don't answer it was a rhetorical question.
>>The bottom line is that the judge uses the guidelines but can/and does wield discretion on the outcome.<<
The judge may have discretion, but a judge who oversteps that discretion or is wildly inequitable will be reversed... and judges hate being reversed.
Well, my research has shown that Appellate judges are loathed to overturn lower court decisions. I would think you know this. However, it is immaterial because Meg will have a renowned Law Firm or Solo practitioner to represent her and they will do a bang-up job in the first place and make sure it not likely to be overturned. In reality, I believe Harry (and probably Megs) would want to settle out-of-court anyway.
>You provided your own anecdote... likely other information that you're not providing that supports the judges finding, specifically when the divorce occurred, if a child had special needs, how long you received alimony, if the child support was reduced once the children were school age, if the child support was based on your earning minimum wage although you weren't working, whether it was an uncontested divorce, etc., etc.<
Nothing special except I was beautiful but dangerous (one attorney I had sued all the district court judges and they all got off my case) UCLA grad. However, I handled 8 years of litigation 'in pro se' and I tell you it was a piece of cake. I'm not impressed with attorneys. They won't go to the Appellate court, they won't clean up their mess nor fight that hard for a client. I probably had a better grasp of law (due to my research of appellate cases) than typical attys handling child custody cases. You can make light of "my experience" but how many cases have you taken and won on appeal?
Sorry Nutters I am only reaponding to @Lurking re Calif, legal ramifications to Megha/Harry potentally. I hope to go to bed soon.
When I say 'it won't be allowed', I mean by the BRF lawyers on instruction from their client - Harry, who will be under instruction from his father and the Queen. He will be brought to heel eventually because he is a pauper by royal standards and is akin to a new born baby left out in the cold to fend for himself.
What I referred to are exceptional circumstances. Most married couples don't reside in a country and are in high public office together. You are comparing ordinary persons to the working royals and this has no merit.
I hate to say this, I really do, but it's hard for Americans to grasp the personal power of the BRF. The power manifests and becomes operational when they are personally threatened. Otherwise, they don't don't use it because the power is illusory.
I hold an Australian law degree, have worked in the superior courts of records for years and am finalising my practising certificate so I can represent clients in my own name. So, I understand Australian and UK law, which is still extremely prevalent in Aus.
You seem to infer that only California law applies. I'm advising that this isn't the case. The only thing we can do is wait. As I said, I'll be happy to say I'm wrong. It's not one-sided. US courts cannot just assume jurisdiction when all the facts favour any divorce proceedings being under UK jurisdiction.
Protocol is one thing, law is another and they are not to be confused.
Facts matter when it comes to jurisdiction. Harry has rights just as much as Meg.
Your judges are political appointments. I doubt they will want to interfere in the BRF's constitutional and financial relationship with the UK public. This would open up numerous cans of worms as to the BRF's financing.
Now, if you believe the BRF will take that lying down, I've got a bridge I'm willing to sell you ...
In case you misread or thought I was responding to you in my @Lurking comments. My statements were originally in response to posters stating Megs/Harry was moving to California. Of course they would be inaccurate if Archie/Harry resided in UK.
Would they Hague convention have any bearing on the case if Meg had custody of Archie in Calif and established residency? Or does it only involve child abduction type situations?
I used the term District court when I should have said Superior court, I live in Texas and here District court is equivalent to Superior court, I lived half of my life in Calif and other half in Texas. I have litigated here also but in civil law other than custody cases and ran for Justice of the Peace. BTW in Texas District Ct judges are elected.
I've read your posts and on several occasions you've made statements that are inaccurate and contrary to the law you purport to know. You cannot take 2 cases you were involved in and consider yourself an expert on the law. It's rather presumptuous to consider yourself more successful than a divorce attorney who has a decades long career and has represented thousands of clients. A successful attorney is one who gets the best outcome for their clients over the course of their career, not measured by 2 cases. You provide anecdotes. You haven't stated when you were divorced, which has a lot of bearing on how the court treats a divorce. What you consider a salient point, or something that you are ignoring as immaterial, may be given more or less weigh by a court.
Alimony, even for wealthy couples, is granted less and less. Alimony is not a right, it's an equitable remedy.
>>I never said the word "poor" would be Harry's, situation. Rather I emphasised how well Meghan would Potentially be treated by the Calif. courts.<<
And do you not see that if Meghan is well in California courts, it would be at Harry's expense?
>>As things seem today Harry would not get spousal support and definitely not alimony. You could continue to throw out ridiculous theoreticals but it doesn't add to the discussion.<<
And one more instance where you are wrong, in addition to derogatory and dismissive. She may have an income equal to or greater than Harry's. If Smeg made $250k from appearances and is making money from merching, it is all subject to income disclosures and will be taken into account to determine support. If she's making substantially more than Harry, and it is possible considering his only income appears to be interest from his inheritance, she could be in the same situation as other high earning female celebrities that have had to pay child support to their former spouses. Someone said elsewhere in this thread that for divorce purposes any money he receives from UK taxpayers (money from Charles from the Duchy of Cornwall), cannot be considered income. Also taken into account will be earning potential. Smeg has earned far more from working than Harry ever has. Harry does not receive funding from the Sovereign Grant and any money he receives from Charles is for living expenses and reimbursement for expenses incurred by fulfilling official duties, but no wage is paid for the time he actually spends fulfilling those duties. His only paid job was when he was in the military.
Another supporter of H & M, Olivia Coleman promoting series 3 of The Crown.
She's quoted as saying the press are evil to H & M.
Evil? Hmmmm.
The amount of articles about where they will be at Christmas is a bit much.
I actually think this is much ado about nothing that has become 'something '. I suppose their PR is working overtime.
>>I'll state now that Harry's lawyers will file an interlocutory application to have the matter heard in the UK.
Your judges are political appointments. I doubt they will want to interfere in the BRF's constitutional and financial relationship with the UK public. This would open up numerous cans of worms as to the BRF's financing.
Now, if you believe the BRF will take that lying down, I've got a bridge I'm willing to sell you ...<<
Harry's lawyer may file an interlocutory appeal (called a writ of mandate in California) however they are almost always denied in California. There have been cases of US courts refusing to get involved in child custody cases that originate in foreign countries, but I'm not sure of any cases where a US citizen returned to the US and then sought a divorce in a US court only to have the US court deny jurisdiction. The California court would have jurisdiction once Smeg satisfies residency requirement. I still don't know how the BRF would prevent her from leaving the country. Are they going to throw her in the Tower? That's the big problem they have. They can't enforce anything against her because it's all protocol and not law. They won't take it laying down, but there is only so much they can do.
You cannot take 2 cases you were involved in and consider yourself an expert on the law.<
******Another fallacy. You put words in my mouth. I never even intimated I was an expert. Also, you are getting redundant. Pointed out and addressed already!
>It's rather presumptuous to consider yourself more successful than a divorce attorney who has a decades long career and has represented thousands of clients.>
****Again you are putting words in my mouth,.,as I never compared myself to an attorney as you have described. It seems that most cases are just handled in the 'cookie-cutter; method of law, whereby the paralegal does the filings and not even briefs in support just mere sentence setting forth what they want. Maybe a little argumentation in court but usually attys want to settle out of court rather than go to mat for their clients.
> A successful attorney is one who gets the best outcome for their clients over the course of their career, not measured by 2 cases. You provide anecdotes. You haven't stated when you were divorced, which has a lot of bearing on how the court treats a divorce. What you consider a salient point, or something that you are ignoring as immaterial, may be given more or less weigh by a court<
******How many cases does the average atty take to the Appellate court in 10 years? Probably none...And win? Even less lol So I am twice as successful as the average atty. I can write like this because I.m adopting your tone and logic.
>Alimony, even for wealthy couples, is granted less and less. Alimony is not a right, it's an equitable remedy<
*****Yes, equitable would not get Harry spousal support as you have suggested.
>>I never said the word "poor" would be Harry's, situation. Rather I emphasised how well Meghan would Potentially be treated by the Calif. courts.<<
>And do you not see that if Meghan is well in California courts, it would be at Harry's expense?<
*******This is like the question "When did you stop beating your wife? The law is equitable remeber (you said it earlier).
Part 2 cont.
>>As things seem today Harry would not get spousal support and definitely not alimony. You could continue to throw out ridiculous theoretical but it doesn't add to the discussion.<<
Sated already
>And one more instance where you are wrong, in addition to derogatory and dismissive<
****You don't like my answers because I am making valid points about your derogatory and dismissive comments.
>.She may have an income equal to or greater than Harry's. If Smeg made $250k from appearances and is making money from merching, it is all subject to income disclosures and will be taken into account to determine support. If she's making substantially more than Harry, and it is possible considering his only income appears to be interest from his inheritance, she could be in the same situation as other high earning female celebrities that have had to pay child support to their former spouses.<
****Not plausible period.but in your worldview harry is a pauper. LOL
>Someone said elsewhere in this thread that for divorce purposes any money he receives from UK taxpayers (money from Charles from the Duchy of Cornwall), cannot be considered income. Also taken into account will be earning potential. Smeg has earned far more from working than Harry ever has. Harry does not receive funding from the Sovereign Grant and any money he receives from Charles is for living expenses and reimbursement for expenses incurred by fulfilling official duties, but no wage is paid for the time he actually spends fulfilling those duties. His only paid job was when he was in the military<
***You assume facts, not in evidence. You nor I am privy to the details of Harry's income.
******Again how many cases have you taken to the Appellate court/ And won? My 2 beats any atty that hasn't. If i can study the law in 10 days and file to get an immediate reversal of part of the case and went on to file a full brief and argue before the Appellate court and win the rest. I didn't get my UCLA degree by being stupid. Hell. even Kim Kardashian is studying under two attorneys in order to pass the Calif. bar. I didn;t need any to accomplish what I did. You can denigrate me but it's immaterial (again).
Your an attorney or a wannabe and it bothers you that I accomplished so much (and downplay avg. divorce attys).
Please stop as Nutty will say we are arguing even tho I am responding to comments Thrown at me (to borrow your words).
That is what I got, a Writ of Mandamus on child custody. It infuriated the sitting judge so much he personally filed a brief arguing against me. I prevailed (maybe it was because I waged my finger in trial ct and told him in a very assertive tone that I was going to reverse his ruling).
Goodbye...Too bad you can;t recognize my accomplishment but instead is so dismissive.
Ok they go back to CA to visit, try to drum up some business and so on.
Won't she, at some point, have to return to the UK for her trial against the media at some point, sooner or later (give a statement or attend the trial)?
Could she decide not to return to the UK and therefore drop the suit? Could the defendants then counter sue for loss of something, legal fees?
The people who would really love to see a CA divorce would be the IRS. They, if anyone, would have legal clout to see even sealed documents. A UK divorce would have a better chance of keeping sealed documents closed to prying eyes.
The chess game continues.
a. Take her film crew so it’s published everywhere (not really the idea of volunteering)
b. If handing out food will she cover her wig with a net
c. Hug everyone she meets
d. Have everyone washed before she goes near them.
e. Stay for any length of time or will she need to hurry back to feed Archie.
f. Give a speech about how wonderful she is
I don’t think she will go anywhere near a homeless shelter unless there are a team of celebrities there.
My personal opinion is that Archie lives in South Africa with his parents and was borrowed (rented) for the visit with the Archbishop.
I think you are correct. It just doesn't make sense to me why MM would blatantly disrespect the queen if her goal was to be a member of TRF. I suspect Harry is just a stepping stone. In my nightmares I see MM running for presidency with Carole Radziwill (RHONY) as VP.
Richard Palmer on Twitter has just posted this:
"I realise that many royal fans/critics on Twitter may not lead normal lives and the platform itself does not lend itself to nuance but let me try to put this into context.
There has been no support from within the Royal Family, as far as I can tell, for Harry and Meghan’s confrontational approach to the media. They are out on a limb on that. The Queen, Charles and Camilla, and the Cambridges don’t think it a good idea and there have been words.
They’ve all had their ups and downs with the media but the Queen is disappointed how it’s all turned out in the first 18 months of the Sussexes’ marriage. Like others in the family, she is concerned about their emotional wellbeing and she sees them regularly."
Queen Máxima is in a totally different league, in my opinion. Not only does she have a masters degree in Economics, but she also had quite an impressive career in banking at - among others Deutsche Bank, before she met (then) crown prince Willem-Alexander. In what was a smart move on their part, the engaged couple visited all 13 provinces of The Netherlands and all four mayor cities in the months of October-early November 2001, as a “meet and greet” for both Máxima and the Dutch people. This, combined with Máxima’s natural charm and good humour, provided an enormous amount of goodwill from the Dutch people. I don’t understand why Buckingham Palace didn’t organise a similar tour of Britain for Meghan and Harry during their engagement period. Why not visit every county in the UK, every mayor city, show Meghan all the beautiful countryside, villages, castles and history that is so plentiful in Britain?
I looked up Máxima’s approval ratings, which are 84% in 2019, slightly above her husband’s at 82%. She is the most popular member of the Dutch royal family.
And @KayeC, I agree about Máxima’s hats, which are brilliant!
However I agree with the comment about Meg not realising she married a pauper prince. A prince who appeared superficially to have financial clout. Now that she has lived and seen how the BRF works and how tight fisted their system is, she is struggling to deal with it. She is no match to this wall of steel. The only way in which she can enjoy this merry ride which turned out to be a rollercoaster, is to stay married, no matter where she lives. She is not that dumb to divorce.
I also agree with the comment that nobody wants them for Christmas and she has nobody. Nothing is worse than that to her. Therefore all these speculations. She is spinning up a wholesome family togetherness at Christmas narrative, of course with photo opportunities. What family though? If a few of her ghosted family invites them, will she accept, doubtfully not. Better to stick around on Harrys home ground where she can pull strings faster . So I say Doria is flying over.
Even if they stay with Oprah. She made a big deal about people not returning Rubbermaid containers in an interview years ago. Even though she is a billionaire now, she was born poor. Harry the royal house guest may wear thin quickly. Assuming they stay at the same place.
They will be tabloid target number 1! Pictures of them misbehaving or arguing will be worth a lot of money.
Can't imagine I am cheering on the tacky tabloids, but I am. Talley Ho! as they say across the pond.
Wouldn't it be a laugh if Harry doesn't go to California at all. Or goes and leaves. Or gets caught by TMZ in compromising photos with a new " friend" after a night of partying. The American tabloid "reporters" respect only the money they are paid for their photos and stories.
If team royal were truly devious, they would have a powerful Weinstein type offer Meg a role/sponsorship/whatever if she put out and make sure a hidden camera were catching the action. Harry would probably head back to the UK in a huff and get a very favorable divorce agreement.
The press made a huge deal about Di teaching her sons how to use money and pay for things with cash. If royals aren't typically thought how to buy a cup of coffee, imagine the shock of "normal lif
Wish their trip were recorded as a real documentary including Harry's reaction to Meg hitting up Rodeo Drive with the joint charge cards.
Megan the survivor may already be looking to trade up for a more expensive carpet to lay and walk all over -one trick pony that she is. Well.... she probably knows lots of kinky tricks, but that is the extent of her appeal.
Harry is looking threadbare and worn out.
I don't believe for a second that she had a change of mind. I believe that one, or possibly two things have happened:
1. The RF is withholding permission for Archie to have a passport or travel to the USA, because they know she won't come back with what is essentially Harry's child. She intends to stay, once she gets to the USA. They are preventing the child from leaving with her.
2. If as widely believed the RF has cut the purse strings, there will be no money to fund the travel or the stay in the USA, no money for private jets, 24 hour security, and lavish accommodation and wardrobe.
So, she is stuck in the UK with no money and can't leave unless she effectively abandons her meal ticket Archie (sorry for the little baby, what a terrible shame to start life as a bargaining chip) and dumps Archie with Harry.
I think it's all over bar the shouting.
I KNOW they have the POWER to clean this up...including the mysteries surrounding Archie. Why are they not using their 1200 year old personal power to extinguish this nonsense? We've discussed so many possible reasons for their lack of control but pieces to the puzzle seem to be missing and the idea of a republic is growing in popularity.
The Royal Family don’t act in a knee jerk fashion. It would be slow and slightly painful at first and then suddenly everything is shut down and you’re on your own (think of Diana and Fergie and not forgetting The Duke of Windsor)). I’ve said it numerous times, once they saw the way Meghan and Harry were behaving, I think they’ve let the Sussex’s have enough rope to hang themselves. The Sussex’s have lost a ton of support within the UK, and the very fact they pointedly said they weren’t going to both Balmoral and Sandringham, when all other senior royals attend is very note worthy indeed. This never happens (not both occasions within the same year, it’s unprecedented). The Sussex’s might have turned both invites down or they were simply not invited, but this could be seen as the way the Firm is slowly squeezing and freezing them out. It looks bad all round.
Supposedly the queen sees them every day and is supportive.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7682231/Confirmed-Meghan-Harry-WONT-spending-Christmas-Queen-Sandringham.html
https://www.instagram.com/p/B41zRstlfEY/
"Happy birthday to His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales - Sir, Pa, Grandpa!"
Pa? Grandpa? God they can't do anything with even a semblance of maturity or decorum, can they?
But the whole thing is such a mess. Really. When other royals have been absent at Sandringham there was no 'will they or won't they' with contradicting statements in the media. They just weren't there. The royals do not commnent on their personal social arrangements, which this is. Everything is a drama with these two. And I guess that's the way they like it. If they simply hadn't shown up at Sandringham, nobody would have much cared. Christmas is the quietest time of year for media gossip in any case. But now, we have 4 or 5 stories about them and their 'family time' every day. That's what they want, despite their whining over media 'intrusion'.
They don't have any other photo of "grandpa" playing with their child....
If I may put my tin foil / photoshop hat on for a minute, this photo again seems a bit odd, especially the outline of Harry's suit against the background of the supposed christening location wall (can't remember the room this was in). The same goes for Charles. They difinitely seem to be standing together, but I am not sure about the location. Looks like the wall was pasted in the back. And, as someone else pointed out, where are the more recent photos of Charles playing with his grandson? There probably aren't any.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a29794856/prince-harry-william-rift-main-reason-sussexes-skipping-royal-christmas/
>>>>>>According to a source who spoke with Us Weekly, “Harry and Meghan are having a small Christmas with just immediate family instead of spending it at Sandringham. The rift between William and Harry is one of the main reasons behind their decision. As it’s Archie’s first Christmas, they want it to be super special. It’ll be just Doria and the three of them.”>>>>>>
Wonder which source is most likely to speak to a US publication? ...
Trying to throw shade on William for spoiling 'Archie's first Christmas' [sob]. Won't get anywhere. William is getting so much positive press now. He's even getting a hint of the kind of 'sexy' coverage he got when he was in his late teens/early 20s. He seems to be the only royal projecting a sense of firmness and decisiveness. He can't do much but he's sending nuanced messages in the way the Queen is said to do with her brooches and hats.
I liked a comment I saw elsewhere yesterday about being upset as we were promised a mental health break from Meghan and Harry. All these changing plans for Christmas are so like Archie's arrival. Enough already!
For all of those worried about Megs having a political career in the US, if being a photogenic mixed-race woman were all it took, Kamala Harris, who's actually held several demanding elective offices, would be killing it in the polls. She's not. Here in the US, op-research is a finely honed dark art. If there are any skeletons in Megs' past, an opponent would find & release them. The press loved Beto O'Rourke, touted him as 'the next big thing.' He was made to look like a shallow loon in short order, & he was in the House of Representatives. Get real people.