To think the BBC just love sticking the boot into the Sussexes

[SueDenime]

BBC

Aropos of sod all, they feel the need to mention that there will inevitably be comparisons between the Cambridges' 'by royal standards, modest home' and the Sussexes' 'very much more expansive, multi room accomodation'.

I wouldn't have even thought to compare the two and I'm fairly sure most people wouldn't either. In fact the thing that sticks out the most by far is the fact that this is the Cambridges' third home. And school fees alone will be £50k a year. What cost of living crisis?!

But, yeah. Any excuse to set the cat amongst the pigeons where H&M are concerned, it seems.

Oh grow up ,I'm not a royalist, but i can't see how H&M behave is any worse then the rest of them apart from Andrew of course

I think the (Scottissh) house belonged to the Queen Mother, and she left it to William

I thought so too, but Serenster - who's usually pretty reliable with these things - said it was an unfounded rumour?

I'd believe Serenster rather than my memory!!!

Hang on,

At a time when we had huge homelessness and food banks, then decided to milk every advantage by birthright going with their flash wedding, charged taxpayers hundreds of thousands for policing in the process, then vanished into thin air once they had raised their profile as high as posdible...

They then used that temporarily high profile to trash their family, make a lot of money, and - rather than return the £ to the taxpayer - bought a £10m+ house in Montecito....

Naturally, now our police and foodbanks need every penny after covid, but they naturally 'need' her array of designer clothes and jewellery, private jet travel and the like.

I think the BBC are playing the cards as they are presented.

And yes they are perfectly free to travel any time to the UK... But, why with some tasteless netflix crew in tow at every opportunity...?

Er.... Is the answer money? (again)

Using their 'good deeds' to make money?

It is so tasteless..

Yeah because none of the rest of the royal family have done any of that have they, ? i think the whole lot of them are pointless, but why is always H&M people have a pop at?

'Her array of designer clothes and jewellery, private jet travel and the like' are not paid for by the UK taxpayer so what on earth has that got to do with foodbanks and police? What a bizarre conflation.

However seeing as you're so upset by the poverty levels in the UK (and quite rightly, too), you'll no doubt agree that it's fucking disgusting that the taxpayer coughs up £102.4m a year to keep the rest of the upper class scroungers in hats and baubles. Think of all the stock you could buy for foodbanks for that.

what the article fails to mention is

the Sussexes are no longer paid by the firm etc and W&K are paid by the firm

so what H&M do is up to them - none of our business

lets get rid of the lot of them and they can work at what ever they want

Or their people feeding the media shite

Or their people feeding the media shite

I hardly think it's the Sussexes people inserting themselves into this story. Why would they encourage further negativity?

Suedenime... Are you feeling ok or just a bit dim?

They could happily repay the cost of policing their crazily over the top wedding, thus freeing up a lot of £ BACK to policing and/or foodbanks.

That's what i am saying.

That is what you are twisting.

Are you related to them or part of their PR team/gurus???

As far as I am aware the £100m you talk about is for working royals like the Queen, Charles, William. Poor old Harry and MM have made more money airing their dirty/fictitious laundry that either of them ever 'worked' for before...

They could pay the wedding costs back. Taxpayers money. They just would rather not...

Megan needs a new suite of jewels and Harry needs to pay for his polo ponies..

You're welcome 😘

Not RTFT but I completely agree with you @SueDenime, any excuse!

To address the OP in terms of this being a BBC article not a tabloid one - I think the difference is it's a Nicholas Witchell piece - if you imagine it being read in his voice you can hear it as a spoken reporter interview where they throw in a bit of colour and background analysis/speculation.

I agree it shouldn't be there but it's not so strange when you know the particular correspondent. He's trying to make some basic facts sound a little spicer - it's his style.

Yanbu. I noticed Witchells petty barbed comment earlier.
I'm with Charles when it comes to that man.

At the time of their wedding they too were 'working royals'. So by your rationale, it was perfectly fine to have their wedding paid for. I don't think taxpayers should pay for the RF at all, but that's another thread.

Point is, Meghan and Harry pay for their jewels and polo ponies out of their own money, not mine. What they do with their money is none of my business.

i think the whole lot of them are pointless, but why is always H&M people have a pop at?

Imo it's an attempt to make the rest of the Windsors look better by comparison, and neutralise the criticism from republicans like me.

And of course, it's a great distraction from all the utter shite that's going down with the economy. The Romans had bread and circuses to keep the plebs happy, this archaic and democratic institution is the modern day equivalent.

When he made that comment, I couldn't help thinking that it takes one to know one.

Both awful men imo.

Harry and Meghan’s only source of milking the the Duke and Duchess titles. How is that being self sufficient. Self sufficient would be to give up all titles.

Self sufficient would be to give up all titles.

It doesn't make any difference, he'll always be the grandson/son/ eventually brother of the monarch and there will always be interest in him for that reason. He's not going to move to New Jersey and take a job in payroll. Sorry.

Wasn't there some speculation that the palace preferred him styling himself as DoS as the fallback is Prince and the global media would use that?

You can't give up being the Queen's grandson.

Besides, if they're making their own money they are being self sufficient - the title is costing the taxpayer nothing.

Not that this is the point of the thread, anyway. Although it does prove the point that people (not just the BBC) do enjoy sticking the boot in - and will find all manner of spurious reasons to do so - when it comes to H&M.

I thought that when I read the article too. It was a weirdly gossipy insertion, and completely pointless, but I guess in keeping with the lowered standards we're seeing regularly at the Beeb.

Not to mention the “downsizing” includes housing the nanny, housekeeper, security in different houses close by.! Easy to “downsize” if you are just spreading the square footage you are used to in your other homes between several properties in your new “smaller” home. It’s a bit like saying you are downsizing into a police box when we all know you are actually moving into the Tardis……….

Clicked on the link - that huge house doesn’t match my definition of a ‘cottage’ 😂

But it's so very modest dontcha know?😂

Its ridiculous the press are interested in these vacuous parasites. So much more that public money could be spent on (and needs to be spent in) than these idle multi millionaires. These people have no more right to be kept in absolutely luxury with jobs for life for every generation of their family than the rest of us. It's ridiculous, scandalous that we allow this anachronism and affront to democracy to continue.

Ha ha I was going to say - why are the BBC getting singled out?