Britain's Prince Harry and Meghan to give up royal titles
London: Britain's Prince Harry and his wife Meghan have agreed to give up their royal titles and stop receiving public funds as part of a settlement with the Queen that lets them spend more private time in Canada.
The announcement from Buckingham Palace on Saturday follows more than a week of intense private talks aimed at managing the fallout of the couple's shock decision to give up front-line royal duties.
"Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family," Queen Elizabeth II said in a statement.
"I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life."
Her comments referred to battles with the media that prompted Harry and Meghan -- known until now as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex -- to sue several newspapers over intrusions into their private lives.
A separate statement attributed to Buckingham Palace said "the Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family". HRH is the acronym for Her Royal Highness.
"As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments. They will no longer receive public funds for Royal duties," the statement said.
The settlement added that the two will also repay 2.4 million pounds (USD 3.1 million) of taxpayer's money spent on renovating their Frogmore Cottage home near Windsor Castle.
The Palace added that it would not comment on who ends up paying for their security detail in Canada -- an issue of intense public debate. It also failed to mention whether the couple would be allowed to benefit financially from future royalties and franchise fees.
Harry and Meghan are seeking to register the "Sussex Royal" brand as a global trademark for their future enterprises.
The couple are dedicated to environmental causes and are looking to develop their charitable foundation as part of a "progressive" new role.
The queen's announcement is her second on the royal crisis -- dubbed Megxit in honour of Britain's painful battle over Brexit -- ahead of Harry and Meghan's effective resignation on March 8.
"We have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution," the couple said at the time.
"We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America." Meghan then jetted back to Canada and is now their with their son Archie. Their announcement caught the royal family by surprise and created a media sensation in both Britain and the wider world.
Their treatment by London's hard-hitting tabloid press and their personal future -- as well as questions about longstanding royal traditions -- have turned into daily front-page news.
Media reports said Harry would probably join Meghan and Archie on the west coast of Canada this coming week. (AFP)
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CCTVs in police stations: SC asks amicus to convene meeting on utilisation of funds
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that a meeting be convened on May 6 to deliberate on the aspect of utilisation of funds by the states on installation of CCTVs in police stations across the country.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta asked senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, who is assisting it as an amicus curiae in a suo motu matter concerning lack of functional CCTVs in police stations, to hold a meeting on May 6 with the Centre, all states and Union Territories.
"We are of the view that a meeting be convened by the amicus, as done earlier, in which the home secretary of the central government or his nominee not below the rank of joint or additional secretary and the home secretary of states/Union Territories will participate," the bench said.
The issue cropped up after the amicus flagged the aspect of utilisation of funds by the states.
Dave told the bench that in UTs, the Centre gives 100 percent funds while in hilly states, the central government gives 90 percent funding.
He said in remaining states, the Centre gives 60 percent while the rest 40 percent funding is by the respective state.
"Why don't we get responses of the states only on utilisation of funds?" the bench said.
The top court suggested that the amicus can convene a meeting with the Centre, states and UTs on the issue.
It posted the matter for hearing on May 13 and said that a report be submitted before it.
On April 7, the Centre told the top court that all issues concerning installation of CCTVs in police stations would be sorted out within two weeks.
Attorney General R Venkataramani had told the bench that he was taking stock of the issue and a lot of things were happening.
On February 26, the apex court directed the Centre and others to participate in a meeting to deliberate upon the feasibility, modalities and implementation framework of the issues, including creation of a centralised dashboard and standardisation of CCTV infrastructure in police stations.
The top court had earlier directed registration of a suo motu case over the lack of functional CCTVs in police stations after taking cognisance of a media report.
The apex court had in 2018 ordered the installation of CCTV cameras across police stations to check human rights abuses.
In December 2020, the top court directed the Centre to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment at the offices of investigating agencies, including the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
It said that states and UTs should ensure that CCTV cameras were installed at every police station, at all entry and exit points, main gate, lock-ups, corridors, lobby and reception, as well as in areas outside the lock-up rooms so that no part was left uncovered.
The top court said that CCTV systems must be equipped with night vision and have audio as well as video footage.
The court made it mandatory for the Centre, states and the UTs to purchase such systems which allow storage of data for at least one year.
