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!

If William had not told Roya Nikkah, they story would not have been published in the Sunday Times. There would be no need for Harry to clarify that the conversation was not productive.

I know the BM, cut off the first part of the clip when Gayle talks, but she was answering and correcting.

Here they talk about the article, right at the beginning.

As has been said before when this matter was discussed, there is a significant difference between confirming that a phone call has taken place to divulging its outcome.

H was under no obligation to do this whatsoever.

He could, quite simply have chosen, like William to confirm they had spoken.

It's really that simple.

Roya's article pretended that they had a good productive talk, which was not the case.

Harry did not divulge the contents, but said it was not productive.

@Mummy194

Roya's article pretended that they had a good productive talk, which was not the case.

Harry did not divulge the contents, but said it was not productive.

The Times article only stated they had "been in contact".

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/palace-raises-stakes-in-meghan-bullying-inquiry-7v7wkjntw

The Roya Nikkhah Sunday Times article said the following:

"Last night it emerged that William and Harry had "been in contact" for the first time since last Sunday’s TV interview with Oprah Winfrey, in which the Duke of Sussex and his wife made allegations of racism in the royal family".

Here is the original source.

See also the relevant tweet from Roya:

twitter.com/royanikkhah/status/1371020518749536259?s=21

@Mummy194

Roya's article pretended that they had a good productive talk, which was not the case.

Harry did not divulge the contents, but said it was not productive.

@Mummy194 Are you referring to the Roya Nikkhah piece 'Up close and personal with Prince William' in the Sunday Times, that refers to 'William's close friends' as sources? Because if so, that article was published on 20 March. Gayle King's comments on how she had called the Sussexes and they'd told her that the conversations with William were 'not productive' was reported in the Evening Standard on 16 March. That happened first. It wasn't a response to the William-focused article, it was a Sussex leak to Gayle King, pure and simple. No clarifying or correcting of what William said. Unless you mean a different article on another date, in which case can you please link and specify?

Also, as @Cacacoisfarraige has pointed out, this is still you saying William did something with no proof whatsoever. The link shows nothing. Please @Mummy194 stop stating what you individually believe as if it was accepted, verified fact. It's not.

@Skiptheheartsandflowers

Also, as *@Cacacoisfarraige has pointed out, this is still you saying William did something with no proof whatsoever. The link shows nothing. Please @Mummy194* stop stating what you individually believe as if it was accepted, verified fact. It's not.

On that note I believe we are still waiting for Rainy to provide proof of some pretty serious allegations that William encouraged friends to attend his party in blackface.

Actually my apologies to Rainy.

I've scrolled back through the thread and this was another allegation from Mummy.

@DeRigueurMortis

Actually my apologies to Rainy.

I've scrolled back through the thread and this was another allegation from Mummy.

You're quite right, that was Mummy. What happened before is that info is posted that purports to clear things up (as we've just seen), but doesn't actually provide evidence for what was originally claimed. Posters ask again for evidence. Tumbleweed.

Yes it's definitely a frustration of these threads....

The same allegations been made time and again and then another derailment to prove that no, that information is not correct.

The article headlines was clearly portrayed to make it as if H&W made up or that it was all fine or productive at least. In the run up to this article, it was widely reported that they had no contact, people supposed that W is angry and not talking to H. Then the article come out with they talked at last, so people had a sigh of relief that, thinking there was something productive there.

H corrected those suppositions, if he does not want it discussed, he can keep the call to himself. Why did he tell Roya this? if he does not want it discussed, he does not leak it to the papers. What was it? Was he setting some kind of trap for H , knowing people will carry on with supporsition and H will correct, so he can keep saying he can't trust him with info. It was a confidential phone call, why is W telling papers about it in the first place.

On a positive note the statue unveiling seems to have gone well which is good.

Seems opinions on the statue itself are somewhat divided.

I think as long as H&W like it (and I assume they approved it) then that's all that matters.

I already said, go and look up the old thread with all the links, and stop banging on about it, in a thread where it's not even relevant.

@Mummy194

I already said, go and look up the old thread with all the links, and stop banging on about it, in a thread where it's not even relevant.

I did. There's no proof at all.

Equally you are the one "banging on about it" by brining the allegation to this thread.

Not every poster reads every thread so if your going to make a serious allegation then you should be prepared to back it up on the thread you made it - not simply referencing another thread you don't even link to that doesn't contain any proof.

Honestly this is getting very tiresome.

@Mummy194

The article headlines was clearly portrayed to make it as if H&W made up or that it was all fine or productive at least. In the run up to this article, it was widely reported that they had no contact, people supposed that W is angry and not talking to H. Then the article come out with they talked at last, so people had a sigh of relief that, thinking there was something productive there.

H corrected those suppositions, if he does not want it discussed, he can keep the call to himself. Why did he tell Roya this? if he does not want it discussed, he does not leak it to the papers. What was it? Was he setting some kind of trap for H , knowing people will carry on with supporsition and H will correct, so he can keep saying he can't trust him with info. It was a confidential phone call, why is W telling papers about it in the first place.

This is full of inaccuracies. What article headline? As I said just now, the Gayle King report came first, then the article about William. I also think you must have mis typed H for W at the start of your second paragraph - but even assuming that, again, William did not 'correct suppositions', and it was Harry's contact Gayle who spoke first and revealed information about the call. The dates on the articles show that.

So, still waiting for this evidence that William spoke to Roya? All you've done here is assert your own opinion as if it's fact again.

As it has been mentioned recently on this thread, I thought I would include a share token for the Up close and personal with Prince William article in the Times, in case anyone would like to read it in full.

I did not confuse anything. Roya reported about the call first, as I have linked in the video. If she had not, no one would have even discussed the phone call in the first place. No one would have known it even took place.

I wonder if this is the article Mummy195 is referring to?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/focus-poor-belittled-rich-kids-prince-harry-and-his-fancy-dress-set-486919.html%3famp

I wouldn’t say it was a slam-dunk though. It says:

W asked for a Zulu costume
Some people at the party wore black face
If W had gone as a Zulu, he might have been in black face too.
Actually he was seen in a black leotard and fur.
Supposedly he was a leopard.
But maybe he was a Zulu with traditional fur leg coverings….

Presumably when Roya reported that a call had taken place, it was thought quite reasonably that that would be all that was said or that Harry would confirm a call took place. It was not expected that the contents of the call would be shared in any way. You are clutching at straws to say it was Roya’s fault that the conversation was reported at all. Why would they be any reason not to? The fault was with King leaking what was said. And King may well have done that without anything shaving been said. After all HaM themselves like to tell us about their zoom calls with Granny about waffle makers or whatever.

Having. Not shaving 🤣🤣

William shared that they had a call
Harry shared that call was not productive.
He did not share the contents of the call. He was not the first one to talk about the call, he never brought it to anyone's attention, William did.

He did not share the contents of the call, he said that it was not productive.

The video says that ST correspondent Roya Nikkhah had reported that William and Harry had spoken for the first time after the interview being aired. Then we move to Gayle King coming on to say she's spoken with the Sussexes and and that she was told it wasn't 'productive'. How on earth that becomes 'Roya leaked the contents of the call' when the video actually shows us Gayle on TV doing that, I don't know.

Nor is it, again, any proof that William leaked anything. Another reminder that this is speculation. Which is fine up to a point, many posts here are speculative, but they shouldn't be presented as something they're not.