Charles financially supported the Sussexes until summer 2020

[SnottyLottie]

news.sky.com/story/duke-and-charles-paid-substantial-sum-to-harry-and-meghan-after-megxit-but-couple-paid-back-rent-for-frogmore-cottage-12340192

Prince Harry revealed in his Oprah interview that the Sussexes stopped receiving money from the royal family in the first quarter of 2020. However, newly published accounts reveal that Prince Charles continued to financially support the Sussexes until summer 2020.

I wonder if this is going to be a case of their truth or incorrect wording on Harry’s behalf. Interesting!

They are completely different, not the same thing or comparable.

I cannot compare myself to Bill Gates for example. I'm sure a lot of poster here give.

@ChiefInspectorParker

Wish for their failure @ChiefInspectorParker but be careful that you don’t call karma into your life.

That’s a personal dig. I have no idea on what basis my previous post was deleted.

Mine was deleted too. I wonder....

@Roussette

I’m sure the Nepalese were pretty out out by the subsequent ‘but they made me do it’ narrative. It’s just so rude and thoughtless

I doubt it. He extended his trip by 6 days whilst he was over there, to help rebuild a school that had borne the brunt of the earthquake.

Well he took some to me off on those 6 days. Just saying. Nothing special. You are of Foreign Office duties, part of the job and some perks too I guess.

Mummy194. Going back to your list, it is somewhat disengenuous. For example it lists "Harry and Meghan donate £90k to charity after Merseyside visit". This what not actually a Harry & Meghan donation. As reported

"Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have pledged just over £90,000 to the charity Feeding Britain, which is providing families in need with hot meals and food packages. The money comes from excess profits made from the BBC's coverage of the royal wedding, which took place on May 19, 2018."

So, they choose the charity together with Archbishop of Canterbury - but it is not quite the same as donating money yourself

some very sensitive moderation going on here, compared to many posts which are left standing ...............

@SallyLockheart I agree. I reported a couple a few days ago that I thought were personal attacks but they were left. Not sure why 🤷‍♀️

@smilesy.ditto

Saying that H&M aren’t extraordinarily charitable or hard-working isn’t even insulting - they don’t need to be, they have plenty of money and plenty of things they could do with their time. It’s the fact that they show off about what they do do, some of which looks very like vanity projects, that irritates.

Strange that you see it as showing off when it's this couple, and not when it's Anne and others. Just glimpsed her now on the telly promoting some cause or the other - was not really listening it was in the background. It is important for both Anne and H&M and others to use a platform to promote charities.

That's because when you promote charities, it's not usually viewed as self promoting, and so in that vein, neither are H&M self promoting when they publish their charities.

@ChiefInspectorParker

Strange that you see it as showing off when it's this couple, and not when it's Anne and others

There are plenty of self-publicists in the world, but I doubt many people would agree that Princess Anne is one of them.

I know! Princess Anne showing off. That's a stretch isn it. (I hope saying it's a stretch doesn't break TGs..)

Because in Anne’s case she is usually highlighting the work of others . She uses her public profile to promote the organisations with which she is involved.

She very rarely , if ever, takes credit for herself. I can say from direct experience that she also does a lot for her causes and the people involved in them which you will never hear about. If there is no benefit to the organisation of her actions being publicised then they are not publicised.

H&M frequently, although not always, use their charitable connections to promote themselves which is the direct opposite and also delineates ‘public service’ from ‘service’.

part of the problem is that their activities are quite opaque, eg Meghan's book, is that personal profits or charity fundraiser?
All Harry's media interviews and talks to corporate bodies - ditto
We know that have to earn a living but it is unclear quite how their various endeavours knit together.

For better or worse, we know where we stand with the RF. We UK taxpayers pay towards their upkeep and luxurious lifestyle and in return they meet and greet foreign dignataries, dress well and appropriately, keep neutral, avoid being controversial, put up with lots of tabloid rubbish written about them without complaint, any books they are write or are involved are for charitable purposes, and open recycling centres in Cumbria or wherever as required.

It is self-promotion because the running of charitable money through a US Foundation is a way to earn an extremely good living for themselves. People running UK charities are a completely different ball game - not even in the same ball park and can't be compared.

H&M's charitable work is self-promotion to make money for themselves via their Foundation. It is naïve to pretend otherwise - they do it for their own self- promotion as without that they don't get Netflix or Spotify interested in them. Really flogging a dead horse with this one. Nobody can surely claim otherwise, obviously they can but it's wilful choosing not to see.

That's because when you promote charities, it's not usually viewed as self promoting, and so in that vein, neither are H&M self promoting when they publish their charities.

I don’t think Princess Anne announces that she has promoted charities on a list or via a website though.

@smilesy

That's because when you promote charities, it's not usually viewed as self promoting, and so in that vein, neither are H&M self promoting when they publish their charities.

I don’t think Princess Anne announces that she has promoted charities on a list or via a website though.

Not only does she and others announce on the websites, twitter, and other SM, they also give a list to a dedicated Rota to publicise.

I don't get the impression that Anne believes she is above all criticism because she supports charities; doesn't appear to have the same misunderstanding that by doing charity work you are a "good" person beyond reproach.

A job.

Just imagining Anne smiling beatifically at bestowing her presence upon a charity. Anne has managed not to share publicly that it was really rather tiresome to have to smile and felt "burned out" by it the charity work.

I guess Harry won't get so tired of smiling at the charity events now that there is a steady personal income stream via US Foundations.

What strikes me about royals such as Princess Anne (and Sophie Wessex, for that matter) is that they don't make their visits about themselves. The documentary made to mark Anne's 70th birthday exemplified this perfectly. I always knew she'd had unfair press (probably in part because she wouldn't conform to the media's ideal of a glamorous princess role - luckily Diana eventually came along and saved her from any more of that) but my word, she does a lot.
Can you imagine Anne slagging off her family (or anyone) on TV?

For better or worse, we know where we stand with the RF. We UK taxpayers pay towards their upkeep and luxurious lifestyle and in return they meet and greet foreign dignataries, dress well and appropriately, keep neutral, avoid being controversial, put up with lots of tabloid rubbish written about them without complaint, any books they are write or are involved are for charitable purposes, and open recycling centres in Cumbria or wherever as required.

We give them a bucketload of money to write for those charities. H&M get zero from us.

That is why Zara can go to Australia and get paid to promote herself and her companies, why Peter can get into Covid tests and sell milk. etc. H&M are on the same boat, earning their living, also paying a lot for accommodations here in the UK too etc.

I can't believe posters are knocking charitable foundations. Or is it just H&M's charitable foundation?

I guess I don't need to get anything "straight" then and will go with the only sensible surmise from it straight" then and just assume that by asking someone how many hundreds of thousands didn't imply that to give more money is to give better/do better.

No not just theirs. I work in the sector and would not like to see the Foundation model imported into the U.K.

I would however take issue with ‘knocking’ I am just explaining how it’s a completely different model and that you cannot impose the U.K. charity model or expectations onto it . It’s not necessarily better or worse but it is different and it is ( this is factual not ‘knocking’) more opaque.