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!

@Roussette

Well.... there's enough money sloshing around for a Mother to support her son like the Queen is doing with Andrew? And he's 61 !! He lives off handouts from Mummy and she pays off his debts too, so I really think it is up to Charles what he does or doesn't do as far as his sons.

Are you sure about that?

One of the (many) distasteful things about A that I think should be investigated is how the hell he's allegedly built up a personal wealth estimated at over £70m whilst working as U.K. Trade ambassador.

A spokesperson for A confirmed that HMQ would not pay for the Chalet debt https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/insider/celebrity/queen-elizabeth-prince-andrew-ski-chalet-debt-a4455941.html%3famp and aside from the Sovereign grant that ended post the Mathis interview I can find no record of him receiving an income from HMQ.

As for H, the money he and W revived annually from the Duchy of Cornwall (circa £2m plus p.a.) was not "pocket money" do do with as they please.

It's purpose is specifically to cover the costs of being a working royal. So for example, staff salaries, running an office, social media management, travel etc.

In addition the U.K. govt has oversight over the use of the Duchy funds.

From Wikipedia:

"The administration of the duchy is regulated by the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (Accounts) Act 18388^, which requires Treasury's supervision and for the accounts to be presented to both Houses of Parliament.[4]"

It's not as simple as to say C could simply keep funding H.

If H wanted financial independence, leave the U.K. and stop working as a senior royal I think it's pretty fair to say that the U.K. Treasury would have taken a very dim view of him still being payed millions from Duchy revenues.

Frankly all of this goes back to H&M not fully researching and understanding the consequences of their decision to step down as senior royals.

They made a serious of assumptions about finances and security that were simply incorrect and not even within the power of the RF to unilaterally grant even if they wanted to.

@Mummy194

Not fiscal year. Most people count 3 terms per year. So Jan-April (they may not necessarily call it Lent term though).

Terms? What are we, in school? BTW Mummy, in the Uk we have three terms - Autumn, Spring, Winter - in that order. Harry said first quarter of last year in American tv. I can’t tell if you or he or both are confused about which months that actually refers too. Unbelievable.

Everyone gets paid while serving notice. That is what the one year was about. They were working like everyone else within the RF. I would think that they would not expect to be paid this year.

You get paid during a notice period under the proviso you are still doing the job until that period ends.

It's not possible to argue that H&M were still working royals after they left for Canada.

You're right that H faces challenges as a result of his heritage wrt security, but by the same token that doesn't give him the right to make unilateral choices without consequences, especially when the cost of those choices are born by the taxpayer.

The key issue with security was the ability of the Met to provide it overseas. Something they decided was not feasible.

As such the choice H&M made to move from the U.K. was the catalyst for the loss of security.

They thus decided that move was more important than free security. Had they felt otherwise they could have changed their plans.

I absolutely understand them wanting a different life in the US but simply cannot accept that it was a life that the U.K. taxpayer should have funded, especially as they have demonstrated, they had the means to generate a very healthy income stream of their own.

DeRigeur as many reports saying the Queen won't pay the £7M swiss court debt... there are just as many saying she has. So we have no idea. And given BP PR manages to pull certain negative stories, I know which side I'm on.

Yes, and where did he accrue his wealth... backhanders and dodgy deals no doubt.

Tumbleweed on the PA thread I post on.

I know there isn't current news as such, but that's because it's clamped down on over here. I look at US news sources to find out anything. Maxwell has significant further charges against her, thereby adding pressure onto PA when it comes to court in November. His difficulties in finding ways to delay co-operating with US prosecutors will grow rather than diminish.

DeRigeur as many reports saying the Queen won't pay the £7M swiss court debt... there are just as many saying she has. So we have no idea. And given BP PR manages to pull certain negative stories, I know which side I'm on.

The difference is that the allegation that HMQ would pay the debt appeared in a number of publications to which PA's office responded with a very clear statement that this was incorrect.

It's not a case of two simultaneous conflicting stories rather a rumour that was subsequently corrected.

His difficulties in finding ways to delay co-operating with US prosecutors will grow rather than diminish.

Good 👍

The difference is that the allegation that HMQ would pay the debt appeared in a number of publications to which PA's office responded with a very clear statement that this was incorrect

I imagine they found a way round it then!

Sorry to be so annoying on this, but Andrew has form for massaging figures and the truth AFAIC.

@Roussette

The difference is that the allegation that HMQ would pay the debt appeared in a number of publications to which PA's office responded with a very clear statement that this was incorrect

I imagine they found a way round it then!

Sorry to be so annoying on this, but Andrew has form for massaging figures and the truth AFAIC.

Indeed he does and I understand your skepticism, but tbh given the publicity I think The Palace would not not allow such a statement to be made if untrue.

Not for A's sake, but the damage to HMQ's reputation if she paid off this debt for him and lied about it.

Thus I'm not relying on A's honesty, rather the unfailing reality that the palace ultimately always acts in the best interests of the monarch.

Yes.... but maybe the money came from elsewhere. There is so much opacity in Royal finances, we will never know! If the Queen can lobby Govt to change a bill to enable her to conceal her considerable wealth from us, anything can happen!

Here is just one view from a news report...
"The Duke of York stepped down from his public role in November 2019 due to the ongoing backlash over his association with Jeffrey Epstein.

It’s thought that when he was forced to take early retirement, he gave up his £249,000 annual salary which he received from public funds.

Reports that he continues to earn money from the Queen despite ceasing to represent her more than a year ago have appalled royal fans.

An insider has said that he was being financed through the Duchy of Lancaster, the Queen’s private estate which consists of 18,480 hectares.

While this is said to earn the Queen approximately £21million per year, it is not clear how much is given to her son"

I know this is unsubstantiated but there are reports like this out there. And I don't think any of us (me included) really know.

@SallyLockheart

Don't know what your confusion is, no one has ever said first quarter of last year and be referring to Michaelmas / Autumn / September.

Everyone assumes it's the first months of the year from January.

The presumption is that the accounts will be finished to be submitted for the deadline of 5 April. Meaning they are completed before that date. Obviously someone contacted him and told him he is cut off, naturally that should be around March, before submissions. What seems to be nitpicked is the date of wether it was end of March - when they left or beginning of April. If you listen to the report once more, they say sometime between April and July.

twitter.com/GMB/status/1407928368927019009

Agree that the Royal finances are conveniently opaque and there's a fair amount of scope to hide things so as you say Rousette, we'll probably never know the full story.

To make the comparison, again, are the Sussexes different in having transparent finances? Archwell is too new to have accounts to publish yet. You and Mummy have both said firmly that the Sussexes are financially independent. Is that on the basis that they say they are?

Cacacois I really don't know... except that it's a US case being tried in a US court. There is a lot going on with this case, and I pick up Maxwell's side from the brothers' webpage they have created for her. But the prosecution are keeping their cards close to their chest... the little black book of names especially.

Ian Maxwell has confirmed that 'the photo' (PA and Virginia) was taken in Ghislaine's Belgravia flat....... A denies it all of course...

Archwell is too new to have accounts to publish yet. You and Mummy have both said firmly that the Sussexes are financially independent. Is that on the basis that they say they are?

No no no! It is a statement from Clarence House that says they are. So not supposition on my part!
I know nothing, only what is put out there. And this was. And although I have been challenged many a time on posts, when it's an official statement, surely we believe that?

The Clarence House spokesperson described the couple's departure from the working royal family as “a matter of enormous sadness to the family”, adding: “I betray no confidence when I say they've been very successful in becoming financially independent.”

and another one...

A Clarence House spokesperson stated..."That funding ceased in the summer of last year. The couple are now financially independent.”

You get paid during a notice period under the proviso you are still doing the job until that period ends.
It's not possible to argue that H&M were still working royals after they left for Canada.

How is it not possible to determine they were working royals considering they were doing the same zooms as everyone else.

You're right that H faces challenges as a result of his heritage wrt security, but by the same token that doesn't give him the right to make unilateral choices without consequences, especially when the cost of those choices are born by the taxpayer.
The key issue with security was the ability of the Met to provide it overseas. Something they decided was not feasible.

When did the Met decided this is not feasible? From what I could gather, the Met said the risk is still the same. What I got from that was that the RF would not sign off on it. The Met have never said anything about not being able to provide security, as they do provide security in general overseas for other workers and diplomats etc.
As I said previously, during scrutiny meetings, the Met would need more than H's signature that he must be provided with security, they need the palace to do this.

But, the Met is not even the main issue here, they are not complaining about the Met not providing security per se. If that is the decision, it must be put down formally and clearly. PC, however should help with security, and by cutting funds, he was putting their lives at risk as he knew they were still starting out on trying to be independent at that point.

You also state :
As for H, the money he and W revived annually from the Duchy of Cornwall (circa £2m plus p.a.) was not "pocket money" do do with as they please.
It's purpose is specifically to cover the costs of being a working royal. So for example, staff salaries, running an office, social media management, travel etc.

The money is not 2M, as it's divided into 3. W,H and other things. We have no idea how much, and CH could have told us the amount - which I believe H would have been able to tell us what it went into. Which could well mean it's for paying out and closing down the office as you stated what it's for. So PC would have known there is no money for security left, because with all those costs, I highly doubt it was anywhere near 2M. Clever of CH to lump 4.4M together like that.

Is that on the basis that they say they are?

Based on the fact that the taxpayer is not obliged to pay for them, as confirmed by the palace.

@Mummy194, are you really suggesting that there are only three 'quarters' in a year?

• When did the Met decided this is not feasible? From what I could gather, the Met said the risk is still the same. What I got from that was that the RF would not sign off on it. The Met have never said anything about not being able to provide security, as they do provide security in general overseas for other workers and diplomats etc. As I said previously, during scrutiny meetings, the Met would need more than H's signature that he must be provided with security, they need the palace to do this.*

We've done this to death.

The RF do not sign off security. It's the purview of the Met.

The issue was the Mets inability to provide long term security in a Foreign country from a financial, logistical and safety perspective (the later wrt the officers being armed abroad).

Nothing to do with risk. Very different from providing security for foreign visits.

H&M made the decision to relocate to a country that made the Met unable to continue to provide security.

That was their choice. Their decision.

@CallmeHendricks
I clearly just said they were probably told sometime end of March and someone from CH has said sometime between April and July is the summer. Clearly to confuse things.

H&M would have known that the tabloids and palace were petty and stupid, but probably did not realise how low they can go.

Taking away security and money from a couple and baby knowing they have eligible threat on their heads is putting their lives at risk

Taking away security and money from a couple and baby knowing they have eligible threat on their heads is putting their lives at risk

No.

Moving abroad without checking if the organisation responsible for their security would continue to be able to provide it put their lives at risk.

Harry is a grown man. He's in his late thirties. He's been in the Army . Charles does not have a responsibility to fund his sons for the rest of their lives. Harry decided to go and live in another country, and be financially independent. That means no more cheques from Papa.

As it is, it seems Charles was more than generous for some while after they left. It has to stop somewhere.

As it is, it seems Charles was more than generous for some while after they left. It has to stop somewhere

I agree. And it has. As the statement from CH has said. They are financially independent.

@DeRigueurMortis

* When did the Met decided this is not feasible? From what I could gather, the Met said the risk is still the same. What I got from that was that the RF would not sign off on it. The Met have never said anything about not being able to provide security, as they do provide security in general overseas for other workers and diplomats etc. As I said previously, during scrutiny meetings, the Met would need more than H's signature that he must be provided with security, they need the palace to do this.*

We've done this to death.

The RF do not sign off security. It's the purview of the Met.

The issue was the Mets inability to provide long term security in a Foreign country from a financial, logistical and safety perspective (the later wrt the officers being armed abroad).

Nothing to do with risk. Very different from providing security for foreign visits.

H&M made the decision to relocate to a country that made the Met unable to continue to provide security.

That was their choice. Their decision.

Please post a link that says the Met are stating that they cannot provide security for H&M.

Yes, we have done it to death. It very much has to do with risk, that was the consensus here, which I agree with. Nor am I talking bout foreign visits, but individual based in situ, overseas. All of which gets an annual review.

There is no chance in hell the Met can provide such costly security without the relevant signatures. I have sat in enough scrutiny meetings to know you need a lot of signatures to do this. It's common sense really, the Met is not allowed to just spend money nilly willy.