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 a good comparison to the recent Harry interviews is the (excellent) 'Joey Essex: Grief and me' documentary on BBC iplayer. Joey's mother tragically died when he was 10.

The documentary shows Joey getting therapy, reflecting on his life and relationships. He wants a healthy relationship with a partner but knows he needs to address the trauma he's suffering, and make changes in his life. There's no blaming his family who all dealt with the tragedy in different ways. He accepts he's an adult who is responsible for the decisions in his life. It's very moving and communicated clearly.

Questioning your upbringing is totally normal when you start a family yourself and I'm not surprised by Harry doing that. Airing dirty laundry e.g. 'my father isn't answering my calls at the moment', however, is just trashy TV and attracts more tabloid nonsense. I hope Harry gets better guidance in future.

My point is, Mummy194, that I doubt whether they’d welcome your drawing attention to their finances. They may be fantastically generous in their endeavours, but, as others have observed, if they were we surely would have heard about it.

Actually I’m not blaming H&M - who wouldn’t take advantage of a legal tax break - but their supporters need to take off the rose-tinted spectacles for a moment and think that maybe, just maybe, their idols might have the same base desires as mere mortals.

@Mummy194

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

Why? What's special about today?

H&M -and indeed any wealthy Americans would be idiots not to donate $$ to charity. And same for UK UHNWIs (and not so ultra, I guess) in the UK. The tax breaks are well worth it. Everyone benefits. I worked for an UHNWI once and expressed my delight at his varied and generous donations across the board, coming to high six figures and the year wasn’t finished and he shrugged and said it was worth it for the tax.

Everyone wins. He wasn’t a particularly altruistic man but he enjoyed smoking cigars with his billionaire friends at fundraising dinners where people paid tens of thousands of pounds a table to meet other people in the industry. All under a pretence of being super generous. They couldn’t have given a shit about Motor Neurone Disease or whatever but that doesn’t stop the charity itself benefitting a lot from the gift.

@CallmeHendricks. I think Mummy means if something bad happened involving Kate today as in “at the moment”. I’m glad it’s not just me getting the wrong end of the stick 🤣

So no-one has any evidence that H&M donate any more than the 5% is the long and short of it. Someone may donate more, but again it won't be to a level of what the UK consider charitable donations is the non-elephant in the room to anyone with eyes, that is.

H&M have taken advantage of the US system (entirely for their own advantage - as they are the ones that will do best out of it - as per any sensible tax advice in the US would have advised them to do). It's how the wealthy in US get richer and hold on to more of their money and pay less tax.

So let's drop the there is anything much else to it. It's isn't the equivalent of UK charity. Until there's evidence that they have selected to give a significant amount more than 5% ie 70% maybe? then it is merely wishful thinking, as is the fact that Harry's a hard done by boy who is never, ever at fault and didn't bring a wife into the RF without considering whether she understood any of what it actually entails.

In the UK there was outrage when people became aware that charities have to only donate over 27%. Fortunately, lots do donate nearer to the 80+% figure and there is much more scrutiny on UK charities and people can choose not to give to charities that aren't open about accounting.

So no-one has any evidence that H&M donate any more than the 5% is the long and short of it

Of course not. It hasn't even completed one financial year!

Founded October 2020.

What’s happening to the proceeds from The Bench ?

I think they are Meghan's private earnings.

Yes, Chief exactly that. They are doing exactly what wealthy US people do. Perhaps we can have endless praise and sainthoods for all the people who have foundations in the US? Or, is it just H&M who deserve more than mere acknowledgment that they're just investing in a manner that makes them wealthier (but make more noise about it).

@Roussette

So no-one has any evidence that H&M donate any more than the 5% is the long and short of it

Of course not. It hasn't even completed one financial year!

Founded October 2020.

Exactly,

There is also no evidence that they only donate 5% either is the long and short of it.

Nor is there any evidence of them taking advantage of a system, as someone said legal too, I guess just as legal as it is that HMQ moves her private money to the Caymen Islands.

They also have more than one job, with H's 2 jobs at Silicone Valley and nothing wrong with The Bench giving income to them as well.

Nobody said they were doing anything illegal and lots of posters have said that they are perfectly entitled to earn money from a foundation and that charities will benefit. What irritates people is all the virtue signalling as if they are the only people ever to donate money.
Didn’t they originally say they were not going to set up a foundation, but some “other”
Charitable organisation 🤔

“Despite a January announcement of plans to launch a foundation called Sussex Royal, the new page stated that the Duke and Duchess "do not plan to start a 'foundation.'"

Instead of a foundation, the couple "intend to develop a new way to effect change and complement the efforts made by so many excellent foundations globally." They will launch a new non-profit organization that will enable the couple to "effect change" and "complements the efforts made by" other foundations.”

So what? You get collective advise or whatever, to do what is best, but your answer is, I'm not doing a foundation because that is what I said when I left, even though circumstances have quite changed since then?

I think they will just go with the choice that is best for them and whatever charities they support.

Bof. I just wondered why they had even bothered to say they weren’t going to set up a foundation. Why say anything at all 🤷‍♀️

also paying a lot for accommodations here in the UK too etc

And as I said upthread that has quietly turned from a vaunted 'full repayment to the taxpayer' to a repayment less eighteen months 'full market rent'.

Apparently someone is an approximately £360k out of pocket. Not clear who.

mummy : the long and short of it: do you give more in income tax or CGT than you should do? Just hand it over freely? That's what you're suggesting H&M do of any Foundation they create now or in the future.

If they wanted to give to charity, then they would - there are tax efficient ways of giving to other Foundations that are already set up and running (by many of their wealthy friends).

The reason to create your own Foundations is to access tax efficient vehicle yourself - you funnel the 5% for charity and report it as given so that you don't LOSE the tax benefits for the other 95% - ie part of the US tax system it's running through. It's about tax benefits and why it's promoted by wealth managers.

Thing is with H&M as much as they denounce the RF they actually want half-in/half-out - and that means no Foundations for their own personal wealth. So it's yet to be seen really how it pans out and "not for profit" is an oxymoron to UK eyes when we look at it.

The long and the short of it is that they aren’t doing anything wrong but they aren’t doing anything wonderful either . They are just doing what a lot of wealthy Americans do, the only problem is that they are not quite wealthy enough to make it really efficient.

I don’t understand how they can afford to donate money. They apparently can’t pay their own ‘securidee’ so how do they have enough to make substantial donations? They can’t have it both ways !

They are paying their own security though.

birds: money goes through the foundation and give 5% to charity (either choose to make a massive song and dance about it) or just do it as part of trying to preserve and maximise wealth. Optics.

Charitable donations are a necessity of the Foundation to access the 95% tax exemption - so it's cheaper to pay 5% in charitable donations.

As Glencora alludes to above - champagne lifestyle on (relative to their vastly wealthy "friends") lemonade wages. If they talk long and hard enough about their contacts and the RF to Netflix then the champagne will arrive. Depends on whether you see that as greedy or great business strategy. Either way it's to promote the individuals themselves and not "saintly" behaviour.

It's a risky strategy, especially when you just burned the bridges back the other way - although, not sure they realise that and thought a nod to the Queen's pet name might create a foot-in/foot-out (now they accept the half-in/half-out they were told wouldn't work isn't going to happen.

The simplest way to determine how any US tax-exempt nonprofit/foundation is using its funds is by reading the annual Form 990. Since Archewell received tax exemption status in 2020, there isn’t a Form 990 publicly available yet. The determination letter says their tax year ends on 31st December, so their 990 for 2020 was due on 15th May 2021.

Once the Form 990 is available (from the IRS, Charity Navigator, GuideStar and probably other places, including their own website), it will be possible to determine how much money Archewell received and how it was spent.

Link to Archewell on GuideStar

I also couldn't find any evidence that the Sussexes had donated 'personal' money to any charities. The donations in their name came from The Royal Foundation (before it was split), Archewell, from profits following their wedding and from sales of the Grenfell cook book. I couldn't find a source for the bush fires donation, however as it came before the split (and before the funding from Prince Charles stopped) I doubt it was 'personal' money.

I'm sure if there is evidence the charity donations were made from 'personal' money, someone will be able to find and post the sources.

Regardless, the fact that charities received much needed funding is the most important thing.

The best way to find someone's personal money is through the taxman, and I don't think they will be telling you or me.

The charities said it was a personal donation. Not all of those - a majority did not come from Royal Foundation. Infact do you have proof that they came from the Royal foundation?