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.

@Diamond7272 d7272 , Harry and Meghan's wedding created more money for the UK than it cost. Harry and Meghan were hugely popular (which wasn't liked because they put W&K to shame). They drew crowds, they sold merchandise, Meghan was giving British fashion a boost. We've been paid back for everything they cost us.

The BBC has got sucking up to do. It's a disgrace that heads didn't roll for the Diana fraud and the protection of pedophilia.

I’m a republican so I’ll happily stick my boot into any of the freeloading, self-serving, inbred parasites and their trophy wives. 🤷🏻‍♀️

The problem with M&H is that they are saying the quiet part out loud. They all massively trade on their titles. Andrew was the worst and his financial shenanigans were and are ignored - it wasn’t until he was accused of rape of a trafficked teenager that anyone considered maybe his business contacts were a bit dodgy. Charles literally accepts shopping bags full of cash from dubious sources.

M&H have publicly announced commercial agreements. We know how much they will make and what they are expected to provide in return. The rest of the RF should be as open, particularly as many of them they are receiving taxpayer cash as well as unspecified ‘donations’ in return for unknown benefits.

Also, adding a large 4 bed house with detached staff quarters to a mansion in Norfolk, a holiday home in Scotland and a huge flat in one of the most expensive parts of London is not my idea of downsizing.

Well I mean, yes. I agree with you.

But I do find it strange that a supposedly impartial news outlet like the BBC presented this story this way.

And as I said, H&M are the best of a bad bunch simply because they do make their own money and don't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for their shenanigans.

It is a desperate day when people genuinely think the Sussex wedding paid for itself via the VAT on commemorative mugs, plates and tea towels...

They had the flashy wedding to garner as much publicity and self interest as possible, and monetise 'brand Sussex' for what they planned all along... To sell themselves and their stories to the highest USA tv station bidder.

It was UK taxpayers who were taken for the ride and forced to stump up massive policing costs when it could easily have been a private affair without her need for tv coverage, public adulation and processions.

But that would have made their oprah confession far less marketable, and their cheque a shadow of what they received...

They knew what they were doing.... Yes, they were working royals at the time, but they didnt keep their end of the deal...

Either have your wedding paid for by taxpayers and then pay them back via hard work... Or... Have a simple private ceremony at no public expense and have a good life abroad, no one owing anyone a thing... Or... Have your wedding paid for by the taxpayer, change your mind regarding public service so pay the security costs back when you can...

They can do the 3rd option now but choose not to. Why return taxpayer money... I mean, there's only a massive lack of money for nurses, police and food banks...

... But these two 'NEEDED' that wedding.

And they 'need' the designer jewellery and couture wardrobes.

They have taken taxpayers for mugs. God knows why we want to see them or hear from them again with their preachy rubbish...???

They have taken taxpayers for mugs

In fairness they have been far more respectful of the tax payers than most royals, by fucking off to the US.

God knows why we want to see them or hear from them again with their preachy rubbish...???

You know what the best thing you can do if you don't want to hear from them? Don't click the links. It's totally in your hands. Don't read the articles and the algorithms will put something else in front of you. Don't comment on the MN threads. You have the power to ignore them and deny them the attention you think they want.

I bet you won't though. You probably can't help yourself.

And they 'need' the designer jewellery and couture wardrobes

Which they pay for themselves, @Diamond7272. Clearly they don't 'need' these things but it's up to them what they spend their own money on.

Also while I agree that their wedding should have been a private affair, paid for privately, I think the same applies to all royal weddings. All of them are an utter disgrace. Wouldn't you agree?

Now H&M are paying for themselves privately, I'm not really sure what your beef is. I'm not sure you're sure either, to be honest. Not a lot of what you're saying makes much sense.

And by the way, the government doesn't pay for foodbanks. Even if H&M paid back every penny that their wedding cost, foodbanks wouldn't see any of it. You don't seriously believe that the government funds foodbanks, do you? The government necessitates them with the hardship it causes.

If you're concerned about money for nurses, police, food banks, then focus on the royals we are paying for instead of the ones we aren't. Anything else is beyond irrational (into batshit crazy).

And as I said, H&M are the best of a bad bunch simply because they do make their own money and don't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for their shenanigans

Well yes and no. The Montecito house was paid for by Charles, presumably from the Duchy income, which he receives because….? And Harry also has an inheritance from
the QM and from Diana (ditto). Im
not denying that they would be wealthy aristocrats without the Royal title but, I just find the whole edifice revolting. And the enthusiasm of people to tittle tattle about it quite depressing.

Frankly, none of them would have a chance in hell of making their own living because they’re thick as mince, but they’re still “better than us” by an accident of birth. It stinks.

I haven’t particularly noticed the BBC sticking the boot in, but I suppose it’s quite hard to be objective about such a deep seam of mediocrity and self-interest. I do think the BBC led Andrew up the garden path, appealed to his vanity and arrogance, then watched him burn. And I applaud them for that, at least.

There’s absolutely nothing modest about their new home!

The Montecito house was paid for by Charles, presumably from the Duchy income, which he receives because….?

Because he's the heir.

We can't say for certain it was Duchy money, because the royals are not required to deliver that kind of accountability. Who knows how much Charles has given his son or what pot it came out of, but the only way to limit that source of funding would be to limit Charles allowance and ... good luck with that.

And Harry also has an inheritance from the QM and from Diana (ditto)

Those inheritances did come out of private assets, to be fair. The Windsors and the Spencer's are all plenty wealthy in their own right, quite aside from the public money flung at them.

The Montecito house was paid for by Charles ...

Hang on, I thought it was said to be part mortgaged and part paid for with Harry's inheritances - where did it being paid for by Charles come from?

@Puzzledandpissedoff I seem to remember that he bunged them a few million - possibly $12m. Just before Harry told Oprah he’d been “cut off financially” iirc.

I don't think the Sussexes have much relevance in this country now.

Because he's the heir

Absolutely, but (and sorry to go all Billy Bragg about it) it’s an unearned privilege that should be anathema to any democracy or meritocracy. Charlie gets loads of cash he doesn’t need because he’s the first male child to someone else who was born rich and privileged. He would not have that income without the preceding centuries of “divine rights of kings” and other abject bollocks that have more place in stand-up comedy than in a modern constitution.

So if he has contributed, it’s not really correct to suggest the Sussexes are independent.

The irony / Meghan is the only one who actually made her own money and had a career based on her own efforts! Don’t get the hate directed towards her at all - but I’m a Republican and want shot of the lot of the free loaders and their army of toadies ie ‘palace spokespersons’

They need to bow out of anything royal. They are superfluous. I really wish the media would just stop reporting on them.

I think it's more that almost everyone loves a bit of sticking it to the Sussexes, and the BBC are happy to scratch that itch.

It's a bit of a guilty pleasure but it's difficult not to watch the spectacle they produce.

I really wish the media would just stop reporting on them.

They'll do that when the public stops clicking on the stories. But the same people who complain about how much coverage they get also consume all that coverage, so what are the media going to do?

I seem to remember that he bunged them a few million - possibly $12m

Arent you getting confused with this figure? That's another royal 😂

So if he has contributed, it’s not really correct to suggest the Sussexes are independent.

unless you're going to start telling all parents what they can/can't do with their private money, this is a bit of an irrelevant argument.

A better starting point would be to campaign for more accountability / transparency in what the royals do with their Crown Estate and Duchy money.

You’re right @TheKeatingFive - that amount was to spare Andrew’s blushes over the fibs told by the naughty lady. 🙄(Charles did pay something towards the Cali house though!)

And I’d love more accountability on their spends - but seeing as HMQ was only persuaded to pay income tax very recently, I won’t hold my breath.

The reason Sussexes are mentioned is that few people are interested in the Cambridges. The sussexes sell media, the Cambridges do not. So Harry and Meghan frequently get mentioned in Royal Family stories that are nothing to do with them.

So I get most of my news from the BBC, I listen to radio 5. I have not noticed any obsession with the Sussexes or Cambridges. The last few times there was any real reporting on the Royal family was when Prince Philip died and then the jubilee.

I know people love to hate the BBC and often whatever a person's political leaning they call bias (which their best journalist's acknowledge- it comes from all sides). I am just thankful I can listen to balanced radio stations that are not Talk Radio or LBC and the absolute right wing bile interspersed by adverts.

I read the piece on the BBC .
I never look at 'royal' news and I was struck by what an transparent puff piece it was. Nauseating .

It was full of PR nonsense and was clearly trying to sell the idea that W and K are just like any other young family while also forelock tugging about 'royalty'.

The attempt at a dig at H and M was jarring and clumsy. So you dont mention the 3 other homes W and K have but do mention the one that Harry pays for himself ?

Someone is clearly worried about the continued popularity and interest in Harry.