Harry and Meghan are giving up royal titles and state funding. Here's what that means - CNN

The news comes after a flurry of conversations and crunch talks with the Queen, who said Saturday that she was "pleased" to have found a "constructive and supportive way forward" for the Sussexes.

Earlier this month, in a carefully worded Instagram post and curated new website, Harry and Meghan announced their intention to exit the royal family. In it, they made clear what they wanted: to work to become financially independent, while continuing to support the Queen.

The question is now: did they get what they had hoped for?

Is this the exit the Sussexes had in mind?

The Sussexes had pitched for a hybrid role, where they would be allowed to pursue personal income, but also continue representing the Queen. But it appears they were offered two choices by the Palace -- in or out. They chose out.

So what's the deal with their royal titles?

Meghan received the title Her Royal Highness (HRH) The Duchess of Sussex upon marriage in May 2018. Harry's full title was His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.

But the couple will no longer use the titles His and Her Royal Highness after announcing they would step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family. This is quite unprecedented. After her divorce from Prince Charles, Harry's mother Diana had her "HRH" title taken away, and she was given the courtesy title of "Diana, Princess of Wales."

Similarly, Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York was also stripped of her HRH title after her divorce from Prince Andrew.

But the situation for Harry and Meghan is different -- they have chosen, or been asked, not to use these titles because they no longer represent the Queen.

What does it mean for the Sussex brand?

This decision is really about Harry and Meghan's extraction from royal life, but the next question is what will happen to the Sussex Royal brand.

The role, outlined on Harry and Meghan's Sussex Royal website following the couple's first announcement, doesn't currently align with the agreement announced by the Palace on Saturday. That whole new brand of Sussex Royal will probably have to be reworked, and we are waiting to see what that will look like.

When does the new arrangement take effect? How long will it last?

The changes will take effect in the spring, when Harry and Meghan will stop using the titles "HRH." The situation will then be reviewed a year later, but in the meantime Harry can expect a lot of media scrutiny.

So what will they do now?

This latest announcement doesn't mean that the couple will no longer move in Royal circles -- we'll still see them at functions that look a lot like Royal events.

Harry and Meghan are also keeping all of their private causes and patronages -- including Invictus -- and the various patronages they hold separate to their association with the Queen. But the couple will have to find a way of tying this together with bringing in an income.

We will probably see them undertaking commercial work, possibly media work, but we'll have to wait and see who that will be with, or how that will be shaped. We know that the couple haven't signed any commercial deals yet.

Harry and Meghan will have to bring in quite a substantial income to keep up with their current lifestyles -- while the Prince of Wales will be financing them through his private estate, the Duchy of Cornwall, this is expected to be in the low millions and may not be permanent.

What does it mean for other royals?

Harry and Meghan's exit from the royal family is quite unprecedented, and could become a blueprint for other senior members of the family who want out -- for example, William's children, if they felt the same way as Harry as adults.

There are also questions that need to be answered about how Harry's move will affect Charles and William. It remains unclear whether Harry's royal duties will be dispersed between Charles and William, or whether Harry's departure will effectively reduce the amount of work that the royal family is doing.

What was left unsaid in the announcement?

The announcement didn't address what will now happen to the Sussex Royal brand, and it didn't give further details about what the security arrangements will look like for the couple in Canada.

Who is expected to pay for security costs?

In the statement released Saturday, Buckingham Palace said it would not comment on the details of security arrangements.

"There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly-funded security," it said.

Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau told a Canadian television station Monday that: "...there are still a lot of decisions to be taken by the royal family, by the Sussexes themselves, as to what level of engagement they choose to have and these are things that we are obviously supportive of their reflections, but have responsibilities in that as well."

Trudeau added: "That is part of the reflection that needs to be had and there are discussions going on."

What will their life look like now -- splitting time between North America and UK?

The couple will be spending most of their time in North America.

But they can only spend a certain amount of time in Canada without citizenship -- UK and America citizens can spend up to 6 months in the country as a visitor -- so it remains to be seen how much time the young family will also spend in the United States.

They will still maintain their Frogmore Cottage residence on Windsor Estate, west of London -- but will have to pay rent for it.

They will also return the Sovereign Grant funds they recently spent to renovate the residence -- £2.4 million (about $3 million) of British taxpayers' money -- the palace said in a statement.

Works included the removal of a chimney, re-finishing the roof, new staircases, fireplace installations and a new "floating" wooden floor. Expenses related to fixtures, furnishings and fittings were funded privately by the couple.

CNN's Stephanie Halasz and Jack Guy contributed to this report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiV2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAyMC8wMS8xOS91ay9oYXJyeS1tZWdoYW4tcm95YWwtZXhwbGFpbmVyLWdici1zY2xpLWludGwvaW5kZXguaHRtbNIBW2h0dHBzOi8vYW1wLmNubi5jb20vY25uLzIwMjAvMDEvMTkvdWsvaGFycnktbWVnaGFuLXJveWFsLWV4cGxhaW5lci1nYnItc2NsaS1pbnRsL2luZGV4Lmh0bWw?oc=5

2020-01-19 13:27:00Z
52780542675596

Harry and Meghan drop royal duties and HRH titles - BBC News - BBC News

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiK2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tL3dhdGNoP3Y9X2YzVDNYNmVhdlXSAQA?oc=5

2020-01-19 10:00:11Z
52780542675596

Harry and Meghan: 'Nothing like this has ever happened before' - BBC News

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will no longer receive public funds for royal duties as part of an agreement on their future role.

The couple will also no longer use their HRH titles or represent the Queen formally as they break away from being senior royals.

BBC royal correspondent Daniela Relph explains what happens next for Harry and Meghan.

Read more: Harry and Meghan drop royal duties and HRH titles

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiY2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hdi91ay01MTE2NTIzMy9oYXJyeS1hbmQtbWVnaGFuLW5vdGhpbmctbGlrZS10aGlzLWhhcy1ldmVyLWhhcHBlbmVkLWJlZm9yZdIBAA?oc=5

2020-01-19 09:55:49Z
52780542675596

Harry and Meghan: 'Nothing like this has ever happened before' - BBC News

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will no longer receive public funds for royal duties as part of an agreement on their future role.

The couple will also no longer use their HRH titles or represent the Queen formally as they break away from being senior royals.

BBC royal correspondent Daniela Relph explains what happens next for Harry and Meghan.

Read more: Harry and Meghan drop royal duties and HRH titles

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiY2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJiYy5jb20vbmV3cy9hdi91ay01MTE2NTIzMy9oYXJyeS1hbmQtbWVnaGFuLW5vdGhpbmctbGlrZS10aGlzLWhhcy1ldmVyLWhhcHBlbmVkLWJlZm9yZdIBAA?oc=5

2020-01-19 09:26:42Z
52780542675596

Weinstein attorney Donna Rotunno dishes on 'celebrity victimhood' in #MeToo era - Fox Business

Disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein spoke to the New York Post about his accomplishments in Hollywood. FOX Business’ Cheryl Casone with more.

The twelve jurors and three alternates were selected by the close of Harvey Weinstein’s Friday in court, setting the stage for what would soon be an estimated six weeks-long rape and sexual assault trial featuring Hollywood stars, civil rights advocacy and, surely, drama.

Continue Reading Below

It had been two weeks of celebrity sightings – whether inside the courtroom or in front of the New York courthouse – bickering between defense attorneys and prosecutors and a virtual revolving door of roughly 680 potential jurors including the model Gigi Hadid, who wasn't chosen.

Harvey Weinstein, left, arrives at court with his lead attorney Donna Rotunno on Tuesday, Jan. 7, the first day of jury selection. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

HARVEY WEINSTEIN CAUGHT ON CELLPHONE TIRADES: POTENTIAL JUROR

“It went as well as it could have under those circumstances,” Weinstein’s lead attorney, Donna Rotunno, told FOX Business in a telephone interview just hours after court on Friday. “I always say that when the defense takes on a case, you start off every case down 21-to-nothing. That’s the nature of the game.”

Supermodel Gigi Hadid arrives at a Manhattan courthouse for jury selection. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Weinstein, 67, is accused of raping a woman in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013 and sexually assaulting another in 2006. If convicted, he could face life in prison.

The once-feared former studio boss behind such Oscar winners as "Pulp Fiction" and "Shakespeare in Love" has said any sexual activity was consensual. The initial claims against him in October 2017, however, fueled a barrage of additional accusations that drove the rise of the #MeToo movement, which called out sexual misconduct, particularly among the powerful and famous.

Coming less than a year after the election of an American president who himself had been accused of inappropriate sexual advances, the Weinstein case was followed by allegations against high-profile personalities from casino mogul Steve Wynn, who stepped down from the company that bears his name, to television personality Charlie Rose, who was fired by CBS and PBS.

Last week, California prosecutors announced a new set of charges against Weinstein -- including forcible rape, sexual penetration by use of force and sexual battery -- in connection with two reported incidents in the course of as many days.

Prosecutors in Los Angeles County accused the movie producer of forcing himself into an unidentified female victim’s hotel room on Feb. 18, 2013, and raping her, according to a statement. He's also accused of assaulting a different woman in a Beverly Hills hotel room a day later.

Despite the defense team's multiple attempts to have the case moved out of New York City, as well as requests to interview potential jurors in private and one to have the judge removed, their efforts were largely unsuccessful.

Opening statements are expected to begin Wednesday.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Amid widespread media coverage and the pressure attached to the case's outcome, Manhattan Supreme Court Judge James Burke at one point warned potential jurors: “This trial is not a referendum on the #MeToo movement.”

Harvey Weinstein arrives at the Oscars in 2014. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)

Five women and seven men will make up the jury. Of the dozen, four people – one man and three women – are African-American, while a fourth woman is African-American and Latino, ABC News reported. Two women and one man will serve as alternates.

Much of Thursday and Friday were spent with Weinstein’s defense team, led by Rotunno, sparring with prosecutors such as lead attorney Joan Illuzzi – and vice versa – over the ages, genders and races of the potential jurors.

Rotunno came down on assistant district attorney Illuzzi for largely rejecting men as prospective jury members, while the prosecutor complained to the judge that the defense was excluding young, white women.

“He has eliminated every single young, white female from both panels,” Illuzzi said, referring to one of Weinstein’s attorneys, according to Variety.

Donna Rotunno arrives at a Manhattan courthouse on Thursday, Jan. 16, for jury selection in Harvey Weinstein's trial. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

Rotunno was called out for arguing against a white, female juror because she neglected to inform the court that she was writing a book based on “assumptions about women in the workplace,” according to the report.

The woman was ultimately designated Juror No. 11, Rotunno told FOX Business.

“She did not disclose that she is writing a book called ‘The Age of Consent’ that deals with many issues that this trial is going to address,” Rotunno said during the call. “We did what we could with the constraints that were put on us, and you know, hopefully, we have a fair jury.”

Rotunno took the reins as Weinstein's lead attorney in July and was joined by colleague and fellow attorney Damon Cheronis.

There are so many things that are wrapped up into this case that it would almost be impossible to find this type of perfect storm involved in a case ever again

- Donna Rotunno

“I chose to represent Harvey Weinstein because I think these are the types of cases that lawyers that do what I do live for,” Rotunno said shortly after she joined the legal team, which had already included Arthur Aidala.

The Chicago-based attorney is no stranger to defending men in sexual assault cases, nor is she new to high-profile cases of a sensitive nature.

“In a case like this,” she said,” the deck is stacked against you even more – given media presence, given the pressure on the [district attorney's] office to convict… there's political pressure, there's social pressure, there are the pressures of the movement.”

The #MeToo movement is a topic Rotunno has not shied away from, despite representing a man who, according to a report by The Cut, has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 100 women. Several accusers, many of whom are celebrities, are expected to testify.

"The court of public opinion takes over, and we lose sight of the fact that Harvey Weinstein is an innocent man unless a jury finds otherwise"

- Donna Rotunno

Rotunno believes the sheer number of accusers lends credence to her arguments in defense of Weinstein.

In some ways, the notion of #MeToo leaves women “feeling like you're a part of something," she said.

"What happens is you might have a memory or a recollection of something that now morphs into something else… there's almost like a celebrity victimhood status now. People join movements and they say, ‘Oh, well, #BelieveAllWomen. Well, OK, if we're going to believe all women, then I can say whatever I want.’”

Actor Rose McGowan, right, speaks at a news conference as actor Rosanna Arquette, center left, listens outside a Manhattan courthouse Jan. 6. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

She called the #MeToo movement “dangerous,” a statement she previously made when being interviewed for a recent New York Times article. “I have to look at #MeToo through the lens of a criminal defense attorney because that's the way #MeToo is affecting my client in this situation," she told FOX Business.

“I believe in the justice system. I believe everyone has a right to the presumption of innocence and everyone has a right to a fair trial and due process,” she said. “And that's what we lose in social movements – people get stripped of their rights, whether it's inadvertent or not ... That's just not the way our system of justice is. That's not what it’s founded on.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiTWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmZveGJ1c2luZXNzLmNvbS9saWZlc3R5bGUvd2VpbnN0ZWluLWF0dG9ybmV5LWRvbm5hLXJvdHVubm8tbWUtdG9v0gFRaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZm94YnVzaW5lc3MuY29tL2xpZmVzdHlsZS93ZWluc3RlaW4tYXR0b3JuZXktZG9ubmEtcm90dW5uby1tZS10b28uYW1w?oc=5

2020-01-18 16:41:59Z
52780558221575

Box Office: 'Bad Boys for Life' Eyes $68M, 'Dolittle' Goes to the Dogs - Hollywood Reporter

MOVIES

8:08 AM PST 1/18/2020 by Pamela McClintock

Starring Robert Downey Jr., 'Dolittle' may only earn $30 million over the long Martin Luther King Jr. weekend.

In another win for Sony Pictures, Bad Boys for Life is laughing much louder than expected in its North American box office debut while, across town, Dolittle is going to the dogs for Universal.

Bad Boys for Life, reteaming Will Smith and Martin Lawrence after a 17-year-hiatus, grossed $23.5 million on Friday for a projected $66 million to $68 million debut over the four-day Martin Luther King Jr. weekend, well ahead of expectations and successfully restarting the action-comedy franchise.

The threequel, earning solid reviews and an A CinemaScore from audiences, will have no trouble scoring the second-best showing ever for the MLK holiday behind American Sniper ($107 million), not adjusted for inflation. And there's already talk of a sequel.

Friday's audience was led by African-Americans (43 percent), males (56 percent) and ticket buyers under the age of 35 (57 percent), according to PostTrak.

Bad Boys 3 cost $90 million to produce before marketing. Years in the making, the R-rated pic was directed by Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah.

Dolittle, grossing $6.3 million on Friday, is now looking at a projected four-day gross of $31 million. While that's somewhat ahead of tracking, it is still a dismal start for a film that cost $175 million to $200 million before marketing. The hope now is that family audience gives Dolittle long legs; it also could make up ground overseas.

The period film, starring Robert Downey Jr., hoped to reboot the franchise about the iconic vet who can communicate with animals. Directed and co-written by Stephen Gaghan (Syriana, Traffic), Dolittle was supposed to open last May, but its release was delayed twice after Universal rushed to rework parts of the story and complete reshoots.

The timing of Dolittle, produced by Team Downey, isn't ideal for Universal following office bomb Cats (both films rely heavily on VFX effects, not to mention animals).

Dolittle — ravaged by critics and marking Downey's first turn on the big screen post-Iron Man — had been tracking for a four-day gross of $22 million to $28 million. On Friday, the pic skewed female (61 percent) and Caucasian (60 percent). Ticket buyers gave the film a so-so B CinemaScore.

The last Dolittle movie, starring Eddie Murphy, hit the big screen 19 years ago and was set in contemporary times.

A much-needed balm for Universal is the early success of Sam Mendes and Amblin Entertainment's awards frontrunner 1917, which scored 10 Oscar nominations Jan. 13, including for best picture.

Now in its second weekend of wide release, 1917 isn't all that far behind Doolittle, earning $6.2 million on Friday for a projected four-day weekend of $26.6 million for Universal and Amblin.

1917 isn't the only best-picture enjoying a bump. Parasite, adding 496 theaters for a total location count of 843 — its widest footprint to date — is on course for a four-day weekend of nearly $2 million, followed by a projected $1.6 million for Jojo Rabbit, which upped its theater count by 880 locations to 1,005 following Oscar nominations.

Best picture contender Ford v Ferrari also upped its screen count, and should gross roughly $1.3 million over the holiday frame. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Joker also tried to capitalize on their nominations by going back into theaters, but since both movies are available on home entertainment, their weekend box office results will be nominal, or $360,000 and $430,000, respectively.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiY2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmhvbGx5d29vZHJlcG9ydGVyLmNvbS9uZXdzL2JveC1vZmZpY2UtYmFkLWJveXMtbGlmZS1leWVzLTY4bS1kb2xpdHRsZS1nb2VzLWRvZ3MtMTI3MDkzMdIBZ2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmhvbGx5d29vZHJlcG9ydGVyLmNvbS9hbXAvbmV3cy9ib3gtb2ZmaWNlLWJhZC1ib3lzLWxpZmUtZXllcy02OG0tZG9saXR0bGUtZ29lcy1kb2dzLTEyNzA5MzE?oc=5

2020-01-18 16:08:33Z
52780558019167

Box Office: ‘Bad Boys 3’ Dominates Over ‘Dolittle’ With $24M Friday - Forbes

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

1. Box Office: ‘Bad Boys 3’ Dominates Over ‘Dolittle’ With $24M Friday  Forbes
2. 'Bad Boys 4' in the Works (Exclusive)  Hollywood Reporter
3. Bad Boys for Life review: the year’s first pleasant surprise  The Verge
4. Why The Bad Boys For Life Reviews Are So Positive | Screen Rant  Screen Rant
5. Review: 'Bad Boys For Life' Proves To Be A Promising Crowd-Pleasing Throwback  Vibe
6. View full coverage on Google News

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMilQFodHRwczovL3d3dy5mb3JiZXMuY29tL3NpdGVzL3Njb3R0bWVuZGVsc29uLzIwMjAvMDEvMTgvYmFkLWJveXMtZm9yLWxpZmUtMjQtbWlsbGlvbi1kb2xpdHRsZS02LW1pbGxpb24td2lsbC1zbWl0aC1yb2JlcnQtZG93bmV5LWpyLWZyaWRheS1ib3gtb2ZmaWNlL9IBmQFodHRwczovL3d3dy5mb3JiZXMuY29tL3NpdGVzL3Njb3R0bWVuZGVsc29uLzIwMjAvMDEvMTgvYmFkLWJveXMtZm9yLWxpZmUtMjQtbWlsbGlvbi1kb2xpdHRsZS02LW1pbGxpb24td2lsbC1zbWl0aC1yb2JlcnQtZG93bmV5LWpyLWZyaWRheS1ib3gtb2ZmaWNlL2FtcC8?oc=5

2020-01-18 15:53:39Z
52780558019167