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!

Sally

As I explained in detail I am talking criticism with threads on here. Nothing to do with getting married, and time in the RF. I said that here...

I'm referring to me and threads on here right from before they were married, it was in response to a comment about charity donations. I did not refer to their time in the RF. As I say, they can't win, they've had criticism on here for years.

It's like groundhog day on here

@Roussette

But four years is 'years' surely? I don't understand why my comment can be picked up on, when I meant nothing odd.

I think her handwriting is lovely, whether it's calligraphy or not. My dear old Mum had beautiful handwriting, I put my awful scrawl down to having learnt shorthand, it all went downhill after that

My shorthand speed was crap, so maybe that's why it didn't affect my handwriting!

Of course four years is actually 'years' - but when I hear 'years' I think of a significantly greater length of time. As in 'it was years ago' - to me reads as being much longer than four years.

Maybe it's just me!

I absolutely loved it but it was back decades ago and no use for it now, but I can still do a bit!
I had a friend who did it too, we used to write letters to each other in shorthand so our parents couldn't read them

@Roussette

I absolutely loved it but it was back decades ago and no use for it now, but I can still do a bit! I had a friend who did it too, we used to write letters to each other in shorthand so our parents couldn't read them

Funnily enough, my Mum did shorthand as a youngster, and until she died aged 90 in 2017, she would make quick notes on the phone, or reminders to herself, with the odd shorthand outline included. I still find them occasionally - sometimes I can even read them! I was always useless at it though.

Oh aj that is so poignant, what a lovely reminder. I got to 190wpm, I used to be able to take the News down. I will add, it was the only thing I was good at, literally the only thing.

Meghan has lovely hand writing

sorry, but i dont agree with that.

@Roussette

Oh aj that is so poignant, what a lovely reminder. I got to 190wpm, I used to be able to take the News down. I will add, it was the only thing I was good at, literally the only thing.

I am so impressed by 190 wpm. I tried learning and was absolute rubbish.

sorry, but i dont agree with that

Compared to the bulk of the population is really is quite nice. Your opinion of course..... and mine.

Crikey, I’ve done lots of people’s wedding invitations etc and never been offered payment. And my handwriting is much nicer than Meghan’s. I’ve been done!

I did post previously everything about William's appropriation and posted pictures back then together with the articles.
William was described as wearing leopard costume, which I disputed as embellishment as the theme of that particular party was for humans, and he had been looking for Zulu outfits. This was for the natives party.

I suggest, if you are so interested, you look for it back on other threads right here on the RF section.
I really would not dwell on this subject on here because the quickest way to delete a full thread on MN is to criticise the RF, especially W&K.

Don't know if you are doing it on purpose, but MN will zap a thread quicker than you can say "peacemaker, coat dress or rose ".

Strange that there are lots of charity work on there and you jump for the royal foundation donations. Yet, you have no comment on their volunteer work.

H&M made their donations through the royal foundation from their wedding which was private. Charles paid a majority of the 2M with H&M reportedly paying for a few items. This was not the taxpayer money, not a state wedding, hence no heads of states were invited.

Charles paid, because presumably the father of the bride could not. H&M said people could donate through the royal foundation instead of giving gifts, the profits and proceeds of publicity also went to that. So I believe the person included those too as they viewed it as H&M money, and I suppose, so did the charities from how they are reporting it.

As for Archewell, the general public does not give any money to Archewell, they are redirected straight to the charity itself. The assumption so far is that H&M will raise funds for Archewell via production and podcasts etc. but they are not taking from the everyday donors.

Mummy194. I am somewhat baffled by your post.

"H&M made their donations through the royal foundation from their wedding which was private." what does that mean?

and then

". H&M said people could donate through the royal foundation instead of giving gifts, the profits and proceeds of publicity also went to that. So I believe the person included those too as they viewed it as H&M money, and I suppose, so did the charities from how they are reporting it."

so would you praise Wiliam and Kate for donations of reportedly over £1m from their wedding given to 26 charities in the UK?

the quickest way to delete a full thread on MN is to criticise the RF, especially W&K.

Yes, even the mildest criticism of Kate and it's pretty much an instant zap!

Extreme hatred of Meghan and bullying of anyone who tries to defend her is absolutely fine.

I thought the whole point of a foundation was to be tax efficient giving vehicle for wealthy people in the USA?

www.gsam.com/content/gsam/us/en/institutions/our-clients/endowments-and-foundations.html#tabpanel_5131=dGFicGFuZWxfNTEzMV8xL3B1YmxpYy8x

Indeed not sure why people are persisting that the choice of investment vehicle is "good" in some way. It's wealth preservation and tax efficient.

If only we were as rich as H&M then our investment choices would make us "good" instead of "savvy".

CT was roundly criticised for her comments on a popular morning show, she didn't just say reading voraciously, she said I didn't know 2 year olds could read... cue head tilt and tinkly laugh.
She deliberately pot stirred, she has form for this with MM.

Nasty.

That's a Goldman Sachs link I put - offering to help with setting up "not for profit " blah blah and "charitable organisations" for the run of the mill wealthy people that US has by the bucket.

H&M are just wealthy people doing what wealthy people do - taking advice from Wealth Managers etc and Goldman Sachs is one of hundreds offering to help shape wealthy people's money to make more money for their clients and not losing too much to tax along the way.

If you had a Netflix deal would you want to lose half straight to the tax man? No, neither do they - there are many ways to ensure that tax is shaped differently and H&M are not fooling anyone other than those who wish to be fooled and believe in "wronged/saintly/victims/of wealth" people.

If they'd just get on with doing a bit for charity along the way without the hypocrisy of "do as I say, not as I do - be kind " etc then they'd just be run of the mill wealthy people using tax advantages and the hilarity of the hypocrisy would fade away, but their need for validation seems to trump that.