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!

I think that all monies donated to charity are a good thing.

For anyone interested, here are some further details regarding the donations mentioned earlier in the thread:

Feeding Britain Donation
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are using money made off their royal wedding to help to fight hunger during the coronavirus pandemic.

Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, have arranged for $112,000 in profits from the BBC broadcast of their May 2018 wedding to be donated to Feeding Britain, an organization that works to eliminate hunger in the U.K.
source

Himmah Donation
The Duchess of Sussex donated a generous £10,000, or about $13,700, from The Royal Foundation to Himmah, a U.K.-based community project that tackles poverty, racism, and social exclusion. Her donation uses additional proceeds raised from her popular recipe book,Together: Our Community Cookbook, which she published in 2018 to benefit Hubb Community Kitchen.
source

Presspad Donation
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry left a media diversity charity CEO "totally shocked" after an investment was made to the company last week.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex made the donation to the charity through their non-profit Archewell foundation.
source

Bushfire Relief Donation
Details of the donation were posted on the Sussex Royal Instagram account on 4th January 2020 (before they 'left'). The amount was not disclosed.
source

Oh, for goodness sake, @Mummy194, how can you possibly believe that that interview with Parky describing some of the events of a royal tour in the 70s counts as "complaining," or that it's anywhere NEAR the shit show that H&M's talk with Oprah was!

If you are going to minimise racism and lack of MH support a 'shit show' and blame the people who went through that experience. Knock yourself out.

@CallmeHendricks

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?

I always feel that it must in some way be pretty tough for Anne - she was the only 'blood' princess after Margaret, and didn't conform to the sterotype. She was then superceded by Diana, Fergie, Sophie, Beatrice, Eugenie - and now Catherine and Meghan. Not worthy of a photo opportunity at most of the work she does, other than in local media.

Yet I suspect she would never complain about this - maybe is rather relieved.

And she would never diss her family.

'Oh, for goodness sake, @Mummy194, how can you possibly believe that that interview with Parky describing some of the events of a royal tour in the 70s counts as "complaining," or that it's anywhere NEAR the shit show that H&M's talk with Oprah was!'

Indeed. Some can't grasp of course the rf can reflect on their 'truths' and their 'lived experiences' but to do so by criticising and targeting the royal family constantly is totally tacky,

Unfair scrutiny! They didn't like it themselves yet seem to love chucking it at others.

@Roussette

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

I don't think it's knocking them, just pointing out the difference between a UK charity and a US Foundation.

Apparently a US Foundation only has to pay 5% of its income to charity - I was shocked to learn this.

@smilesy

What do Zara and Peter get from us? They don’t receive any income as Royals, do they?

Zilch!

Neither do H&M. That is the point.

Strange too that Anne receiving a 'bothersome' present from a local native is not seen as disrespectful. Nor is she seen as whinging about her privacy and media lies and intrusion. it is not a problem that she would like to go disappear somewhere away from the limelight. Recalling her own bad experiences is not seen as self indulgent at all. Or indeed just talking about her life is not making it about her.

@Mummy194

Neither do H&M. That is the point.

Now.

“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”

Sorry Mummy it wasn’t clear from you post what you meant.

Apparently a US Foundation only has to pay 5% of its income to charity - I was shocked to learn this

Yes, the difference between UK & US was covered above.

5% is the minimum, very many of them put far more into charity.

By law, each year, foundations are required to distribute roughly 5% of their net assets of the previous year (the “minimum distribution requirement”). Consequently, you might assume that private foundations only pay the 5% minimum requirement for charitable purposes. In 2018, however, the study foundations disbursed 7.3% of their assets on average for charitable purposes with the smallest foundations in the sample (those with assets of less than $1 million) distributing 14.2% of their total asset balances

I think "H&M are on the same boat" was the giveaway.

No offense, but seriously, is this really how you want to spend your Sunday? Arguing about 2 people you have never met. I just don’t get it. I’m moderately interested, but this thread is just crazy.

I do know I’ll most likely get told to fuck off, but just think about it, eh? I bet even Harry and Meghan don’t give it this much head space.

Even the New York Times (now very progressive) lambasts the foundation system. As I said, do M&H really want people such as Mummy194 cheerleading for their charitable generosity?

Frankly I don’t think Harry could distinguish a foundation or a fiscal quarter from a bunch of turnips. All he cares about is maintaining his lifestyle and if he has been told that a foundation raises money for charity but also he gets to keep the lion’s share then it would be “Yah, awesome, guys!”

@Roussette

Apparently a US Foundation only has to pay 5% of its income to charity - I was shocked to learn this

Yes, the difference between UK & US was covered above.

5% is the minimum, very many of them put far more into charity.

By law, each year, foundations are required to distribute roughly 5% of their net assets of the previous year (the “minimum distribution requirement”). Consequently, you might assume that private foundations only pay the 5% minimum requirement for charitable purposes. In 2018, however, the study foundations disbursed 7.3% of their assets on average for charitable purposes with the smallest foundations in the sample (those with assets of less than $1 million) distributing 14.2% of their total asset balances

As covered by a previous poster, only 22 foundations in the US give more than 10% to charity.

I suppose Archewell could be one of them?

CrazyCat Certainly not telling you to fuck off!

I'm multitasking here... watching Fargo, whatsapping DCs, eating scones, and buying some delicious tea leaves online!

@Mummy194 no need for snark. I didn’t follow what you meant. I do now 😀

@Roussette

CrazyCat Certainly not telling you to fuck off!

I'm multitasking here... watching Fargo, whatsapping DCs, eating scones, and buying some delicious tea leaves online!

Fair enough! Enjoy yourself!

22 have signed up to the Crisis Charitable Commitment, not 22 in the whole US are giving 10% to charity.

Given that Anne witnessed several people get shot in the attempt to kidnap her in the 70s I’m surprised that she wasn’t complaining a lot in 1980. I would have been.

Although, the holding her up as flawless does surprise me as whilst her work ethic is indisputable I’m surprised that the fact two of her dogs have attacked, one children and one killing a Corgi, doesn’t come up more.

I can only imagine how the papers would react now if Kate or Meghan’s dog escaped and bit two children that just happened to be passing on their bikes.

Well, I don't think the Queen's corgis have an unblemished record on the biting front either.
There was some criticism of Meghan leaving one of her dogs in Canada, but I think she was absolutely right to do so, by the sounds of it. He was old and nervous and wouldn't have coped with the move, so went to live with friends, I believe.

@IrmaFayLear

No need for snark. I work in with charities, so not as clueless as you try to portray.

I am well aware of the criticism of US charities and the percentages.

Not going into too much detail as it's a long drawn out story, but you are I'm sure well versed.
On the one had you have the smaller to middle foundations, who have commitments to organisations and individuals for ongoing support. They carefully give a little at a time so they can sustain the funding for longer. The criticism on them is that they want to exist in perpetuality and is it actually worth it, maybe they should change their strategy and make what can be viewed as more meaningful larger sums as ultimately this system leaves a lot in their pot.

You also have the bigger organisations which give 60M per annum, but make billions, hence the commitment is made.

There is a whole lot going on in-between.

It really is not as straightforward as some poster have tried to portray it to be.

@CallmeHendricks

Well, I don't think the Queen's corgis have an unblemished record on the biting front either. There was some criticism of Meghan leaving one of her dogs in Canada, but I think she was absolutely right to do so, by the sounds of it. He was old and nervous and wouldn't have coped with the move, so went to live with friends, I believe.

I don’t think the Corgis have ever mauled another dog to death.

Moving old dogs on long flights is definitely not a good idea.

I think the papers would have minimised anything about Kate today. Most certainly they have kept quiet about the Corgis.