Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Charles financially supported the Sussexes until summer 2020

999 replies

SnottyLottie · 24/06/2021 07:47

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!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
ohforarainyday · 29/06/2021 13:24

Nasty.

Exactly.

But apparently obsessively monitoring every single thing Meghan does then getting outraged over it and being determined to view/twist every single tiny thing in the worst possible light, is just "criticism" and not what everyone can see it for: weird obsessive hate.

Roussette · 29/06/2021 13:49

But who says H&M are trying to fool people, apart from on these threads?

Bottom line... you all wanted them to earn a living, pay for their own security, be independent... that is what they are doing, whilst supporting charitable endavours at the same time.

SueSaid · 29/06/2021 13:58

'If CT is criticised by a poster for writing ‘reading voraciously’ as opposed to voracious enjoying being read to (know I’m paraphrasing but couldn’t be arsed to google) then I think it is perfectly alright to demand the same high standards and checking of their own comments and sources.'

Exactly. So what if she gave a tinkly laugh or not anyway. Should we also list how many times Scobie The Cheerleader gets in snide comments?!

Far more damaging for H to actually sling unsubstantiated claims about publicly. Financially 'cut off' my arse.

Skiptheheartsandflowers · 29/06/2021 14:34

@ohforarainyday

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.

If this were true, this thread would already be gone, or be full of holes where Mummy's posts about William and this party were. As it is, I'm astonished that potentially libellous posts against the Cambridges don't get deleted. Almost as if MNHQ are fairly sure they won't go to court. On the other hand, regular deletions of posts critical of the Sussexes do occur.
SallyLockheart · 29/06/2021 14:38

Skip. I too have noticed that MNHQ are so quick to delete quite a lot of the Sussex critical posts ........................

SueSaid · 29/06/2021 14:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Roussette · 29/06/2021 14:52

Good. I've seen some disgusting posts on some of the threads. Not saying on this thread necessarily, but on other threads at different times I have been shocked and thought... how can one human being say this sort of stuff about another human being, the poster must be very unhappy in themselves.

Skiptheheartsandflowers · 29/06/2021 14:54

Following up some posts from further back up the thread, I looked for 'Water charity' who Mummy had mentioned as having a model very like the one for Archwell. I am assuming that the organisation Mummy meant was 'charity: water' - correct me please if I'm wrong. That was interesting because it brought up the Charity Navigator site which seems to aim to appraise how charities work and how well they are doing at a range of things. Here is the entry for charity: water, for example

www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12548

Looking up Archwell on the site, you get this entry

www.charitynavigator.org/ein/852213963

Lots that they can't score yet, which is understandable as it's pretty new. I note though that at one point it says:

The IRS NTEE classification code is T30,Public Foundationswithin the Philanthropy, Voluntarism and Grantmaking Foundations category.

That suggests it's philanthropic and that they'll endow it with their own money. But further down under the Business Master File heading you get:

Foundation Status:

Organization which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (BMF foundation code: 15)

That suggests it's going to be public donations or government grants that will make up the money. Confused

So it's hard to be clear on what the model is. But it will be interesting to see what sites like Charity Navigator can show about Archwell when it's been operating for longer. At the moment its merits and activities are largely self-proclaimed.

Roussette · 29/06/2021 14:54

I think it's a reporting thing tbh, we all know who the enthusiastic squad reporters are

Absolute tosh. You can insinuate all you like. I like posts standing by people's names because it really shows them up for what they are.
The only ones I report are the truly disgusting ones like I mentioned above.

Cacacoisfarraige · 29/06/2021 15:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Mummy194 · 29/06/2021 15:06

I also like to leave the posts standing to show what kind of people we all are. There are people who find some posts disparaging H&M hurtful and are affected by them as someone once mentioned their own mental health being affected by all this hate.

It's actually easy to see how many posts are left standing, you just quickly scrawl down. At one point, the posters gave made it really simple by numbering the threads.

IrmaFayLear · 29/06/2021 15:17

I would be interested in some posters’ stances on tax avoidance. So are Amazon et al beyond reproach for avoiding tax? Tax evasion of course is a different matter, but avoidance is legal. If you believe that M&H are perfectly entitled to make use of legitimate tax avoidance schemes, do you feel the same about multinational companies or indeed wealthy individuals/celebrities who are domiciled for tax purposes in tax beneficial countries or who avail themselves of avoidance schemes?

Interestingly a low-tax philosophy is about as far as you can get from the progressive idea.

Marmaladeagain · 29/06/2021 15:24

putnam-consulting.com/practical-tips-for-philanthropists/are-you-a-narcissist-or-a-philanthropist/

This is interesting. Lots do give to charity on the quiet etc and there is a positive feedback for the individuals. Businesses get involved in charities too because of the positive feedback loop.

It's about accepting what human nature is - scratch my back I'll scratch yours. There really aren't any saints out there.

Wanting to do good is admirable - your friends and family (if you're talking to them) should be proud of your efforts, but it doesn't require wider validation than that for each act of charity etc

Bringing attention to a good cause now and again is clearly good. However, if you're a public figure that only attracts negative headlines wanting half-in/half-out and saying you're more popular than heir to the throne (not a popularity contest - it's the UK political system). Not so good for the charity.

No-one wants to be told who to like and what is "good"/"kind". People decide that for themselves and it takes time to come to those opinions.

There is a very short attention span for H&M - married 18 months and left the UK in a huff asking why everyone can't see how "nice" they are - it's a bit like someone shouting at you to tell you to have "FUN". Just doesn't get the result you'd like Grin

Roussette · 29/06/2021 15:26

There is a very big difference between Amazon and M&H. They are giving back, you might not like how, but they are. Look at what's going on with Amazon at the moment, with their ditching millions of brand new items etc. Hardly on a par with M&H is it..

Maybe Irma you'd like to look at my post from yesterday at 18.42.

Maybe you'd call that tax avoidance? Personally when you consider the billions left to charities each year whilst wealthy people reduced their 40% IHT by just 4%, I think it's worth it. Would you rather they paid the extra 4% and not leave 10% plus of their estate to charities?

However, I do not agree at all with the likes of Gary Barlow et al and their Cayman islands tax avoidance schemes, because nowhere do charities benefit.

Posters want them to earn money and pay for their own security, they have to have some money somehow, like it or not!

Mummy194 · 29/06/2021 15:35

H&M never said they should be liked or claimed to be more popular than others. Though the media have noted that they are.

Basically everyone in the RF, except the 'magnificent 7' are half in and out.

IrmaFayLear · 29/06/2021 15:36

I’m not contesting that - if they want to make use of a foundation, then why not. But certain posters on here are making out that H&M are flippin’ saints handing over their all to lepers. I’ve suggested previously that H&M wouldn’t appreciate that poster spreading the idea about how selfless and generous they are!

It’s like the collection box coming round at church (I’m imagining here!) and your neighbour piping up, “Oh, Joan always puts in £20” when you had been hoping to sneak in 20p.

Mummy194 · 29/06/2021 15:37

In terms of tax relief etc.

Well I suppose they could do like some : take their money to the Cayman Islands and deprive not just the charities, but the tax of the country they reside in. On balance I would find that more grabby.

Mummy194 · 29/06/2021 15:38

The 'posters' were actually replying to some pretending that H&M do not give either or their time or money to charity and they just do not care.

Marmaladeagain · 29/06/2021 15:38

Really Mummy? You mean you didn't hear H say that the atmosphere changed due to being too popular after the Australian tour went "too" well - the Oprah interview?

You don't seem to back up the bad things you say about blackface etc and you don't seem to know what H&M do say either.

www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/prince-harry-says-royal-family-turned-on-meghan-markle-after-australian-tour_au_6045b77bc5b69078ac6c6682

What I said is exactly what Harry said on Oprah.

Roussette · 29/06/2021 15:40

I’m not contesting that - if they want to make use of a foundation, then why not

That is good. Smile

Mummy194 · 29/06/2021 15:41

He said the problems started after she showed she was good at the job. Nothing about being more popular than the heir - that part came from the public and media.

Marmaladeagain · 29/06/2021 15:41

So that's good - we can do away with the idea that there is an inherent "goodness" about someone's character because they work/promote charities.

That's all anyone has been saying - you've asked posters "do you give hundred of thousands?" etc as if there is something inherently admirable about H&M's chosen career path to make themselves more wealthy - it's plain old self-promotion. Seems like we agree finally.

Mummy194 · 29/06/2021 15:43

Erm, no we don't agree.

I already explained that the person is comparing situations that are totally different from each other. Why are you repeating this?

Roussette · 29/06/2021 15:44

Goodness me, this thread is all about point scoring against posters, it's getting ridiculous.

SueSaid · 29/06/2021 15:50

@Roussette

Goodness me, this thread is all about point scoring against posters, it's getting ridiculous.
Why bother commenting then if it's ridiculous.

It could be summarised by saying they weren't cut off at all! they were supported until they were financially independent.

Maybe H will admit this latest incorrect recollection one day..

Swipe left for the next trending thread