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!

I did link some blackfaces - not that many, it was North African gear they were wearing, I was referring to the proper black faces that I had seen previously regarding the DM article.

I did link a picture of William in a Zulu outfit. As well as an article describing him buying a Zulu outfit. I also linked the article of his comment about no crocodiles.

I did link an article describing W in black leotard with Zulu outfit, and I said he could not be an animal because the them was Zulus and colonisers (something along those lines), humans not animals, so he was 'blackbody'. I said we would never find a picture leaked of W in blackface. I pointed out that instead we had a picture of H as a 'coloniser/opressor - dressed as an African branch of the Nazi instead. And an article said he was takin the theme too literally . I also said it was W party with his own controversial theme.

No, I do not keep old pictures, so I don't have this, but you seem to recall it well, I assume you saw it here on MN.

As I said, it was a costume party. Maybe nowadays people would be offended by a Captain Hook costume if you are able bodied. Ultimately, I do not see why this is being held so much above H's head when everyone was dressing up, and he apologised, but no one else did.

Anyway it was all discussed.

[quote BringBackThinEyebrows]@mummy194

I know how to work Google which is why I asked you directly. You've quoted Prince William saying some shocking things that Google simply doesn't back up. It's perfectly reasonable for me to ask for the source(s).[/quote]
Apologies @BringBackThinEyebrows

But there are people who come back to these thread over and over in different names. They ask the same questions they asked before over and over. It then becomes hard to tell who is who. Sorry if you really missed it, but I did do the links as the other poster confirms.

mummy: It was certainly discussed and I recall your summary was "it's been deleted off the internet to protect W whilst H's is left to look like a racist idiot" - etc conspiracy theory etc etc

I remember well.

I said and still believe, because at some point I did see them, that the numerous blackfaces were deleted. Even then, I said W's one would not have been leaked like H was. It was the friends I was referring to. I remember these because they were clear shots looking at the camera.

I said then, there were no blackface of William. There were descriptions of him in black leotard and Zulu gear. I even pointed out that some articles pretended he was an animal, which I disputed that the theme was about people not animals. I also linked a picture of W in a Zulu outfit.

The whole party was in poor taste. I wonder if they would do it now, wear ‘African Fancy dress’ whatever that is. Is there European fancy dress? Or it’s assumed we all wear feathers and animal skin plus eat crocodile?. I have not seen photos of blackface from that party but I maintain that the theme was just ridiculous .

Mummy194
Erm because it was part of the MH project.

Just as I don't believe other royals don't get paid for programmes they do for a certain cause.

Erm the working Royals don't get paid. M&H aren't working Royals. Its not hard to understand.

I'm sure Justin Trudeau would like some help in how to wipe from existence all evidence of black face - he has countless photos of his many times he thought it was "hilarious" in his younger days.

I'm 100% convinced you're convinced you saw RF in black face. Doesn't mean you actually did though - cognitive bias and all that.

Matthew Hopkins found lots of witches when he went looking too.

@Mummy195 you said;

William made people blackface for his Savage Zulus party and said don't worry we won't be eating crocodile. Then he blacked up for the Natives party.

You got the name of the party wrong. You said he “blacked up”. You said he “made people blackface”.

Then you put a link that showed not a single party attendee in “blackface”.

All of these things that you say about Prince William you cannot back up! Your allegations are serious! I want to know if he did this. Even if it was nearly 20 years ago. It is a disgusting thing to do. But you have never been able to provide any evidence and when this is pointed out, you say they “must have been taken down”.

You can’t even give the WAY in which he “demanded guests blackface”. You must remember? Did he pop that on the invitation perhaps along with directions to the venue? Did he email all his guests, or ask an equerry to let them know they must blackface at his behest? Perhaps he rang the guests individually to tell them over the phone? Come on. You said it, you must know how he did it? There must be lots of journalists interested to know too.

The things you say are not an opinion of yours - they are claims that are libellous if untrue.

The fact that there was a plot to kill someone doesn't necessarily make it a danger to them

That is some special twisty turny logic right there.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

Tbh I think security should probably still be funded - he isn't less of a target because he's relocated to America. Regardless of family fall out I'd think a father would still want to protect the physical safety of his kids.

The problem arises from security costs (which are huge) coming out of what are essentially public funds - the RF would have come under huge scrutiny had these funds been used to pay for security for someone who wanted to step away from public duties. H&M shot themselves in the foot when they declared they wanted to move toward financial independence - they never stipulated they still wanted security - arguably one of their biggest costs.

@PicsInRed I think the point there is that an assessment was made and they were not in immediate danger. The group that was decrying Harry for marrying someone of mixed race had made many and varied threats and calls to arms to and about lots of people and had glorified other acts of terror, although they hadn’t “organised”” any. Harry and Meghan were in the headline because they were among the more prominent names talked about. Obviously their (the teenage boys) behaviour was beyond abhorrent and things could have escalated to a point where someone was motivated to take things a stage further, but it would seem that the assessment made was that there was no imminent threat to HaM. Anyway the fact is still that HaM left the Royal Family, moved to the States and as such were no longer entitled to protection by the Met on behalf of the UK.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-48672929

I also can't get that worked up about when they were 'cut off' (or stopped receiving payment in support of a role they had stopped performing ) - Q1 fiscal year or duchy accountancy terms really not that big a deal

It's the very fact of a millionaire man in his late 30s stating this at all and expecting us to feel sorry for him.

Yes he needs security because he chooses to remain in the public eye.

I do wish all the non stories would stop. I don't care what nail polish she wears, what they called their kid, who made who cry - it's all silly.

@PicsInRed

The fact that there was a plot to kill someone doesn't necessarily make it a danger to them

That is some special twisty turny logic right there.

Why? Anyone can 'plot' - but if they don't have the knowledge / equipment / contacts / whatever to carry to through, then they aren't a high risk.

That is why risk assessment is different from a criminal conviction. The plot can be criminal without the likelihood it can be carried out successfully.

That's why, back in the day, the IRA had code words for their bomb warnings - they had the capability to plant bombs. Random member of the public calling in a bomb warning would be a lower risk. In responding to the call any information about who was calling in would contribute to the risk assessment.

To add, I have no idea whether the threat to H&M was credible, and what information the risk assessment was based on - and I seriously doubt anyone on this thread does either.

I was responding to the claim the a successful conviction for plotting = proof that their lives were in danger.

[quote smilesy]@PicsInRed I think the point there is that an assessment was made and they were not in immediate danger. The group that was decrying Harry for marrying someone of mixed race had made many and varied threats and calls to arms to and about lots of people and had glorified other acts of terror, although they hadn’t “organised”” any. Harry and Meghan were in the headline because they were among the more prominent names talked about. Obviously their (the teenage boys) behaviour was beyond abhorrent and things could have escalated to a point where someone was motivated to take things a stage further, but it would seem that the assessment made was that there was no imminent threat to HaM. Anyway the fact is still that HaM left the Royal Family, moved to the States and as such were no longer entitled to protection by the Met on behalf of the UK.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-48672929[/quote]
So, from what the BBC reported - they were inciting violence against a range of people (including H&M), and were in possession of bomb making instructions.

Utterly abhorrent, of course. But there's quite a step from that to someone having the capacity to mount an attack.

MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously
Tbh I think security should probably still be funded - he isn't less of a target because he's relocated to America. Regardless of family fall out I'd think a father would still want to protect the physical safety of his kids.

The problem here as pp said is one of cost to the UK and also a question of how the security should be provided. I don’t think it would be practical to have the Met providing security. They would have no jurisdiction on the States presumably, so would have to act as a private security force. Also, officers and their families would have to relocate to the States. There would have to be enough officers to cover shifts and so on. It would almost necessitate setting up a special division for HaM. I don’t see how the UK would be in a position to pay for American private security either.
The issue we keep returning to is that they left. Of their own accord. You cannot continue to be paid or receive benefits from an employer if you leave and this is the same situation. As pp said, Harry seems to have assumed that because he was born into a world famous institution he automatically is entitled to security. If he had stayed here then that would have been practicable but as he didn’t that could not happen. He left his job as it were so privileges were lost.

"Also, the reports are made in such a way that you cannot tell if the cut off was in July or beginning of April. So most likely the cut off happened in April - which it seems was around the time H&M had to scramble to go to the US."

Meghan herself said they moved to LA in 'March' during the Oprah interview:

Oprah: So, you all have been living in sunny California now for . . . 
Meghan: Since March.

So the Sussexes were in LA somewhere between one and three months before the funding from Prince Charles ended.

I think Prince Charles and the Queen could probably stretch to financing private security in the states. Certainly making a significant contribution towards cost at any rate. They are his family, not only his employer. I agree that it wouldn't be appropriate for the Met to provide it though.
I think that maybe Harry acts first and thinks later. He's also enjoyed enormous privilege and I think has taken a lot for granted. He's pissed off the people with real power and is experiencing some consequences.

@MarthaJonesPhone

Mummy194 Erm because it was part of the MH project.

Just as I don't believe other royals don't get paid for programmes they do for a certain cause.

Erm the working Royals don't get paid. M&H aren't working Royals. Its not hard to understand.

Erm Harry got into the project as a working royal.

but if they don't have the knowledge / equipment / contacts / whatever to carry to through, then they aren't a high risk.

Which this group had, hence the judge going down heavy on them.

When did the Met decide that there was no threat though, because H said at the interview, he asked if the assessment had been changed to lower and was told it had no it had not.

@goldierocks

"Also, the reports are made in such a way that you cannot tell if the cut off was in July or beginning of April. So most likely the cut off happened in April - which it seems was around the time H&M had to scramble to go to the US."

Meghan herself said they moved to LA in 'March' during the Oprah interview:

Oprah: So, you all have been living in sunny California now for . . . 
Meghan: Since March.

So the Sussexes were in LA somewhere between one and three months before the funding from Prince Charles ended.

So if H&M left on the 29 March and the report came out on the 5 April? Assuming that coming out in April means it was concluded sometime in before that.

Also, did they say who told them when the cut off is, and when exactly?

Clarence House does not seem to be disputing what H is saying. Harry said on the first quarter of the year - Lent term.

Also don't know why they are referring to Netflix etc., as those came later because of the cut off.

twitter.com/GMB/status/1407928368927019009

The trouble with the Queen or PC paying privately for security is it sets a bit of a precedent for if anyone else in the future decides they’ve had enough and moves abroad (Williams children for example) then they would expect their security to be paid. I think that even if the Queen paid privately, the public perception would be that the Queen is state funded so we are indirectly paying for it. Costs for security have been estimated from £1.7m to £20m, depending on what the couple are doing on a daily basis. I’m not sure HMQ and PC’s finances are that elastic 🤣.

They seem elastic enough for Andrew.

*“but if they don't have the knowledge / equipment / contacts / whatever to carry to through, then they aren't a high risk.

Which this group had, hence the judge going down heavy on them.”*

Not exactly. If you read the BBC report they had instructions to make a bomb and they promoted terrorism, which are crimes in themselves which is why they were prosecuted. HaM are one set of names in their list of targets. When the Met said to Harry that the threat had not changed, that does not mean that the threat was critical in the first place 🤷‍♀️