What I don’t get is why she should be a patron of anything They don’t live here, are not part of the working monarchy, they’re not part British life at all, so do be a patron is a complete farce.In this
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to stop using Sussex Royal brand
Buckingham Palace this week told Harry and Meghan not to employ the name when they are no longer working royals. It is a blow for the couple, who have been building the Sussex Royal brand.www.dailymail.co.uk
There is a bit about whether she’d be allowed to continue her patronage of the National Theatre and that she has ‘until Easter’ to prove herself.
I’m wondering if this has come from the National Theatre themselves in that they don’t really want to be associated with such a tarnished brand and have asked for a new patron. I mean after having HM The Queen as patron, you’d want a Royal patronage that respected The Queen, and Meagain loses on both counts.
So, by their reckoning they’re not going to be earning any money at all? Are they just going to swan around doing good cause while the money they rake in from the Duchy pays them to do so? They’re taking the pissSo they say that they are not making a “charitable foundation” but something different.
They go on to say
“The creation of this non-profit entity will be in addition to their cause driven work that they remain deeply committed to. While The Duke and Duchess are focused on plans to establish a new non-profit organisation, given the specific UK government rules surrounding use of the word ‘Royal’, it has been therefore agreed that their non-profit organisation will not utilise the name ‘Sussex Royal’ or any other iteration of ‘Royal’”
Non profit entity
Non profit organisation
???
How is this any different from a foundation? Why are they so bogged down in the semantics?
As I understand it, a non-profit company can pay out some or all its taxable income to the owners as compensation but must keep,any other “retained earnings” invested for use as future operational finds. So, if the non profit made £10k it could pay this to the owners as compensation for their work on the company’s business. Just a tax gimmick. It differs from a charitable foundation. If it quacks like a duck......So they say that they are not making a “charitable foundation” but something different.
They go on to say
“The creation of this non-profit entity will be in addition to their cause driven work that they remain deeply committed to. While The Duke and Duchess are focused on plans to establish a new non-profit organisation, given the specific UK government rules surrounding use of the word ‘Royal’, it has been therefore agreed that their non-profit organisation will not utilise the name ‘Sussex Royal’ or any other iteration of ‘Royal’”
Non profit entity
Non profit organisation
???
How is this any different from a foundation? Why are they so bogged down in the semantics?
İ think the patronages will be dropped in due course as it becomes clear they move to Canada/USA permanently. Almost certainly if Meghan is a no-show at the remaining commitments this/next month. Also if titles are stripped. Drip by drip....long game......Ginge and Cringe should just keep quiet and focused and cooperative atm but her narcissism lets her down big time, and will be her ultimate undoing-she can't help herself with the retaliation and fake PR....What I don’t get is why she should be a patron of anything They don’t live here, are not part of the working monarchy, they’re not part British life at all, so do be a patron is a complete farce.
Ahh that’s helpful to know. I suppose they can combine a charitable lecture to Goldsmiths bank with a private plane to visit Serena funded by the foundation on expensesAs I understand it, a non-profit company can pay out some or all its taxable income to the owners as compensation but must keep,any other “retained earnings” invested for use as future operational finds. So, if the non profit made £10k it could pay this to the owners as compensation for their work on the company’s business. Just a tax gimmick. It differs from a charitable foundation. If it quacks like a duck......
Exactly. Spoke on the last thread about CEO’s of charities who earn ridiculous sums of money. I dread to think what Harry and Meghan will want paying from them.As I understand it, a non-profit company can pay out some or all its taxable income to the owners as compensation but must keep,any other “retained earnings” invested for use as future operational finds. So, if the non profit made £10k it could pay this to the owners as compensation for their work on the company’s business. Just a tax gimmick. It differs from a charitable foundation. If it quacks like a duck......
An example of a good non profit might be a private daycare centre that sets its fees so that they bring in just enough to pay staff and operating expenses without accruing an unnecessary nest egg. Unfortunately use of this corporate setup has become commonplace by so-called charities and groups promoting causes. It makes them look innocent because people get fooled by the Non-profit wording.
I get the impression that she is leaking via her friends but not coordinating with her PR company (and certainly not the palace) - this is why we are getting the conflict. Probably the 'I can still use Royal if I want to story' prompted the palace to get onto Harry and get him to correct it.Has anyone noticed that they still can’t get their stories straight? One minute Meghan is leaking that they can use Sussex Royal and there’s nothing legally stopping them. Then a few hours later they confirm they won’t use it. Reminds me of when she went into labour. Doesn’t matter who their PR people are - they always make a total mess of any communication!
Both money grabbing narcs (and yacht girls)After reading the previous thread , I’m wondering if I am the only one struck with similarities
between Meghan and Heather McCartney.
Yes, when he was in England, the number of photos which appeared. Those visiting charity ones where she invited herself, designed to upstage Kate.I do feel as if Meghan is a loose cannon in Harry's life and she only tows the line when he really puts his foot down. After all, she is and has achieved nothing without him.
Yes; the Queen has been brilliantly advised.I think the Queen has played a masterstroke with all of this. She allowed the marriage, would’ve been a PR disaster if she didn’t. Basically gave them what they wanted in terms of quitting active duty and allowed them to keep certain perks. But in doing so has given them strict conditions to those perks, and thus has given them the rope to hang themselves on. Meaning they had the perks, and with every stupid action they take, the Queen punishes them by taking a little bit back each time. All while keeping the British public broadly speaking onside because she has been seen to be giving them what they want in terms of letting them go, but not letting them have all the perks and financial benefits of staying.
Spot onAhh that’s helpful to know. I suppose they can combine a charitable lecture to Goldsmiths bank with a private plane to visit Serena funded by the foundation on expenses