Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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
Roussette · 13/07/2021 23:00

Well said rainy

SallyLockheart · 14/07/2021 06:08

Is that white supremacist terrorist case from the UK or USA?

CatherineAragon · 14/07/2021 07:39

The point is that in order to receive a living as a Royal there is an expectation that you will work within the system for the British public. Otherwise the expectation is that the member of the family get a job that supports them. Which is what they said they would do. Charles paid for them for six months or so , after that they were expected to self fund. That included security.
Harry obviously expected his father to pay for security for the rest of their lives! This had obviously not been agreed at all.

Coronateachingagain · 14/07/2021 08:03

Well said @CatherineAragon

Oldbutstillgotit · 14/07/2021 08:32

@ CatherineAragon

Well put !

Mummy194 · 14/07/2021 08:47

@CatherineAragon

How do you know what was agreed? Were you in Sandringham ?

The only thing we were told was that they had a transitional year, which a lot of people understand to be garden leave.

LittleBearPad · 14/07/2021 08:49

Gardening leave means you don’t do any work for anyone let alone sign multi million contracts with Netflix, Spotify etc.

It wasn’t gardening leave. Yet they were still funded. Yet they still complained.

Mummy194 · 14/07/2021 08:56

If your gardening leave does not pay you, you take a job or make a deal surely. The deals were made after cut off.

Charles financially supported the Sussexes until summer 2020
Coronateachingagain · 14/07/2021 09:47

Who cares about gardening leave. He complained of being cut off, having just bought multi million pound house.

LittleBearPad · 14/07/2021 11:21

If you aren’t paid you aren’t on gardening leave.

That’s why they weren’t on gardening leave.

HTH

Mummy194 · 14/07/2021 11:30

Which is why they went and got deals when that became clear.

What was the point of this transitional year anyway. Why not just cut off immediately, and tell them go out now, you are out.

And in your previous post you say they were funded.

LittleBearPad · 14/07/2021 11:35

The point was to give them the chance to back-peddle if they wished to.

You’re the one who mentioned garden leave which made no sense.

ajandjjmum · 14/07/2021 15:10

@Mummy194

Which is why they went and got deals when that became clear.

What was the point of this transitional year anyway. Why not just cut off immediately, and tell them go out now, you are out.

And in your previous post you say they were funded.

Because HM was being kind, thinking that they might re-think and wish to re-join the working Royals. I'm sure she would have been really happy for them to do so.
Serenster · 14/07/2021 15:31

I always thought that the one year review had been put in place so Meghan and Harry had an “out” if it turned out that their plans for their future were not going to work out as they planned. I presume Meghan and Harry would have been of the opinion that it was unnecessary, but that the Royal family liked giving the impression that the door was still open, as the Queen’s statements have constantly emphasised that they remain loved family members.

upinaballoon · 14/07/2021 17:06

I, too, thought that the "we'll review in a year" was just that, most likely for both sides to review the situation.

Cacacoisfarraige · 14/07/2021 17:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ohforarainyday · 16/07/2021 15:55

The point is that in order to receive a living as a Royal there is an expectation that you will work within the system for the British public.

That clearly isn't accurate. Plenty of non-working royals either receive public money (eg the York Princesses having state-funded security until well into adulthood) and/or live in royal properties for a peppercorn rent. Plenty of so-called "working royals" barely work yet are given access to a multi-millionaire lifestyle for doing the equivalent of barely one day a week, or for counting attending movie premieres, Wimbledon finals, or close family events as "work."

Charles paid for them for six months or so , after that they were expected to self fund.
Then how come they had to rely on Tyler Perry when they first left? Anyway they did go out and work and landed a £70 million Netflix deal just months after leaving.

Harry obviously expected his father to pay for security for the rest of their lives! This had obviously not been agreed at all.

Disagree, that's purely your opinion and is not backed up with any facts. Harry's comments about security related to Archie's birth and before Archie's birth, when they were both still working royals. I see zero evidence they expected to be supported in the long run.

Besides, how was anything supposed to be "agreed" when the Cambridge household leaked the news about the exit to the press prematurely, and Charles refused to speak to his son?

ohforarainyday · 16/07/2021 16:00

What was the point of this transitional year anyway.

Because the BRF are massively arrogant and never accepted Harry's marriage, and can't believe that anyone can survive without 'The Firm.'

They assumed Harry would fall flat on his face, the marriage would end, and Harry would abandon his wife and kids and come crawling back with his tail between his legs humbly begging for a chance to be William's whipping boy again.

The BRF have had a very rude awaking!

And to add insult to injury, Harry and Meghan's Oprah interview was nominated for an Emmy, while William submitted his own documentary for Emmy consideration but the Emmy board decided to snub William. No wonder there are so many articles about William fuming, furious, incandescently angry, etc. Again!

smilesy · 16/07/2021 17:55

The Emmy nomination is for the makers of the documentary though. Not for Harry and Meghan themselves.

CatherineAragon · 16/07/2021 18:31

@ohforarainyday

The point is that in order to receive a living as a Royal there is an expectation that you will work within the system for the British public.

That clearly isn't accurate. Plenty of non-working royals either receive public money (eg the York Princesses having state-funded security until well into adulthood) and/or live in royal properties for a peppercorn rent. Plenty of so-called "working royals" barely work yet are given access to a multi-millionaire lifestyle for doing the equivalent of barely one day a week, or for counting attending movie premieres, Wimbledon finals, or close family events as "work."

Charles paid for them for six months or so , after that they were expected to self fund.
Then how come they had to rely on Tyler Perry when they first left? Anyway they did go out and work and landed a £70 million Netflix deal just months after leaving.

Harry obviously expected his father to pay for security for the rest of their lives! This had obviously not been agreed at all.

Disagree, that's purely your opinion and is not backed up with any facts. Harry's comments about security related to Archie's birth and before Archie's birth, when they were both still working royals. I see zero evidence they expected to be supported in the long run.

Besides, how was anything supposed to be "agreed" when the Cambridge household leaked the news about the exit to the press prematurely, and Charles refused to speak to his son?

As far as I am aware, the York sisters do not receive security paid for by the Queen and never have had as adults. As the grandchildren of the Queen and the children of a working Royal at the time, they did receive security as children. They aren't working Royals, they have ordinary jobs, so don't receive money from the Royal purse.

Other non working Royals get houses at a pepper corn rent, but do not receive money from the Civil List. In fact the whole issue of grace and favour houses came under scrutiny when one of the Queen's cousins was shown to be paying far too little, so the rent was increased.

I have no idea why they chose Tyler Perry's house, but it seems to have been because he offered them his security, presumably for free , or cheaply. They only moved to that house after they had lived in Canada , again in a free house we assume. They lived in Canada for six months or so if I remember rightly, and their security was provided by the Canadian govt and Met officers. The latter were paid for by Charles I assume, though why the Metropolitan Police are able to cover security for foreign Royals in another country is beyond me. It must have cost an absolute fortune, as they were doing three weeks on, three weeks off, and being flown home each time, according to reports. The Metropolitan Police are supposed to protect the public, not members of the Royal family who have decided to jump ship and live in another country.

Harry seems to have a particular axe to grind about the fact that his father pulled the funding for his 'securidee'. It's all there in the interview. Why was he moaning about funding having been stopped if he wasn't expecting it to be paid for on a never ending basis? It doesn't make sense. So it's not my opinion, its the words from his own mouth if you bother to listen properly.

There is absolutely no factual evidence that the Cambridge household leaked the news that H and M were moving abroad! This was done by themselves because they knew the Press had got hold of the information. Through leaked emails supposedly. No evidence the Cambridges even knew of their plans.

PurpleOkapi · 16/07/2021 19:49

Because the BRF are massively arrogant and never accepted Harry's marriage, and can't believe that anyone can survive without 'The Firm.'

Every person in the entire world who doesn't have an HRH in front of their name survives without 'The Firm,' and most of them do fine, so I very much doubt anyone thought that. The other adult grandchildren all seem to have done fine for themselves.

They left Canada on short notice after seeing the writing on the wall about border closures and covid restrictions. It would've been difficult to make housing and security arrangements they considered acceptable so quickly, even with unlimited funds.

Besides, how was anything supposed to be "agreed" when the Cambridge household leaked the news about the exit to the press prematurely, and Charles refused to speak to his son?

Why would their exit being public knowledge - regardless of who leaked it - prevent those involved from discussing who would pay for what going forward? Charles doesn't need anyone else's agreement to spend or not spend his own money. Harry and Meghan need Charles's agreement to spend Charles's money. This is nowhere near as complicated as you're making it.

ohforarainyday · 16/07/2021 23:00

The Emmy nomination is for the makers of the documentary though. Not for Harry and Meghan themselves.
Doesn't change the fact their major interview got the validation of an Emmy nomination, while William's documentary was submitted but snubbed.

As far as I am aware, the York sisters do not receive security paid for by the Queen and never have had as adults.
Incorrect. The York sisters' security was stripped from them in 2011, an incident that garnered much media coverage. In 2011 Beatrice was 23 and Eugenie was 21. 23 is well into adulthood!

The Metropolitan Police are supposed to protect the public, not members of the Royal family who have decided to jump ship and live in another country.
No, the Metropolitan Police are supposed to protect those who need it. What kind of person would object to a child who's the target of Neo Nazi terrorist death threats receiving security? And funnily enough none of the people who object to Meghan and Archie having security ever seem to have a problem care with the rest of the royals having state-funded security.

Why would their exit being public knowledge - regardless of who leaked it - prevent those involved from discussing who would pay for what going forward?
Because the exit becoming public knowledge before any of the details had been arranged put pressure on them to finalise those details. As for what prevented them from discussing it - you'd need to ask Charles why he refused to speak to his own child.

This is nowhere near as complicated as you're making it.
It's nowhere near as complicated as the BRF insisted on making it, you mean.

Anyone who doesn't see Jason Knauf's sticky little fingers all over the leak (and please bear in mind Will and Kate's press secretary's boyfriend was busted - with black and white proof - selling stories to the Sun), I have a lovely bridge to sell you!

CatherineAragon · 16/07/2021 23:08

The Met are not supposed to protect people living in America.
They are a London based Police force. How ridiculous.

omgthepain · 16/07/2021 23:09

Who knows and quite frankly - who cares
He's hardly skint is he?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page