The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 1: September-December 2020

[Alison H]

William and Kate were together for a long time before they got engaged. If your relative or friend is with a partner for a long time, then you're going to get to know them. I doubt that Harry and Kate were particularly friendly when Kate and William had only been together for a few months. I'm not criticising anyone, just saying that the two scenarios were completely different. Kate and William were part of each other's families long before they got engaged - reports say that William even called Carole and Michael "Mum" and "Dad". Harry's family hadn't even met Meghan until she moved to the UK. That's no-one's fault, and it doesn't mean that anyone did anything wrong, but the two relationships panned out very differently.

 

[UglyAmerican]

Oh, and another thing that often gets left out of a lot of these comparisons:

Kate and William dated for a very long time, and lived together for part of it. Harry had lots of chances to spend time with her, so of course they were comfortable and friendly with each other. I’m not sure William and Meghan were ever even in the same room before Harry’s engagement to Meghan was announced. Maybe if she’d stayed in the UK for longer, they’d have eventually developed the same type of friendship as Harry and Kate. I understand why they didn’t want to wait to marry, and I don’t think there’s a right or wrong decision there. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect William to be as comfortable and friendly with Meghan after knowing her a few weeks as Harry had been with Kate after knowing her for several years.

EDIT: Alison beat me to it!

 

[Jacknch]

Time to move on from discussing the relationship amongst members of the Royal Family - there is a separate thread for that. Thank you.

 

[carlota]

good news that eugenie and jack are moving to frogmore cottage. it has been newly restored and it would be a shame for it to be vacant. it would seem like the sussexes have made their mind up and plan to stay in the US long term, maybe with only short trips to the UK for key events, and i guess for that amount of time they can stay in any other residences.

it is slightly unfair on the sussexes too though as they had to pay privately for the renovation, when someone else from the royal family is now using the property (although i would assume that a lot of the reformation was to do frogmore up to H&M's taste).

I can imagine for Meghan to get used to new customs and a new way of life was hard for her - at least for Kate, it was just royal life she had to get used to, and not a new country and culture.

there's plenty of examples of foreign royal brides adapting great to their new countries and royal life (maxima, mary, marie, charlene come to mind). but of course, none of them wanted to impose their way of doing on a centuries old institution which surely ruffled feathers and made M feel like she wasn't accepted/belonged.

 

[muriel]

it is slightly unfair on the sussexes too though as they had to pay privately for the renovation, when someone else from the royal family is now using the property (although i would assume that a lot of the reformation was to do frogmore up to H&M's taste).

We do not know the nature of the transaction between the Sussex' and the Brooksbanks. It may well be that the £2.4m has been refunded to H&M, possibly by HM.

 

[Denville]

We do not know the nature of the transaction between the Sussex' and the Brooksbanks. It may well be that the £2.4m has been refunded to H&M, possibly by HM.

Why would the queen repay the money? It was owed by H&M for the decoration of Frogmore to their taste and they agreed at first to pay it off in instalments.. Then they got their Netflix deal and paid it in full. Clearly they wanted to be clear of all debts in the UK as they were settling in America and didn't want to be seen to be owing money within the UK.. They were getting criticism over the issue. They wanted to stand on their own feet financially so they paid up. If the queen restores the money, she's subsidizing them. If Eug and Jack are taking over the place it may be on temporary basis until Covid clears up and everyone can make plans for the future.. If in a year or 2, Eug and Jack want to settle in Windsor for some years and Meg and H want to stay in California, possibly they will take over the tenancy formally....

 

[evolvingdoors]

good news that eugenie and jack are moving to frogmore cottage. it has been newly restored and it would be a shame for it to be vacant. it would seem like the sussexes have made their mind up and plan to stay in the US long term, maybe with only short trips to the UK for key events, and i guess for that amount of time they can stay in any other residences.

it is slightly unfair on the sussexes too though as they had to pay privately for the renovation, when someone else from the royal family is now using the property (although i would assume that a lot of the reformation was to do frogmore up to H&M's taste).



there's plenty of examples of foreign royal brides adapting great to their new countries and royal life (maxima, mary, marie, charlene come to mind). but of course, none of them wanted to impose their way of doing on a centuries old institution which surely ruffled feathers and made M feel like she wasn't accepted/belonged.

I mean, the original work on Frogmore was just supposed to be structural with no additional work or redoing the place from 5 small apartments to one single house. which meant the crown spend more money, than they originally allocated for.
The deal was: free housing in exchange for being a working royal. Harry and Meghan are no longer working royals, they left within 6 months of the house work being done. so yes, it was only right that they pay that money back to the crown.

Non working royals do not get free housing, and if the place they move into does not need any work, than naturally no money would need to be spend.

Besides E&J are not leasing the house from the queen, H&M name are, but they are subletting it to E&J. Whether they be paying the sussex any rent is any ones guess (i'm gonna go with yes).

We do not know the nature of the transaction between the Sussex' and the Brooksbanks. It may well be that the £2.4m has been refunded to H&M, possibly by HM.

For the monarchy sake I dare hope not, the people will be outraged to learn the couple was handed back their money while their name is still on the lease and they get to keep the house and sublet it to someone else, potentially making money off from that sublet. I doubt the queen advisors are foolish like that.

 

[Denville]

I mean, the original work on Frogmore was just supposed to be structural with no additional work or redoing the place from 5 small apartments to one single house. which meant the crown spend more money, than they originally allocated for.
The deal was: free housing in exchange for being a working royal. Harry and Meghan are no longer working royals, they left within 6 months of the house work being done. so yes, it was only right that they pay that money back to the crown.

Non working royals do not get free housing, and if the place they move into does not need any work, than naturally no money would need to be spend.

Besides E&J are not leasing the house from the queen, H&M name are, but they are subletting it to E&J. Whether they be paying the sussex any rent is any ones guess (i'm gonna go with yes).



For the monarchy sake I dare hope not, the people will be outraged to learn the couple was handed back their money while their name is still on the lease and they get to keep the house and sublet it to someone else, potentially making money off from that sublet. I doubt the queen advisors are foolish like that.

Agree, i think it would look very bad if the queen paid back the money to them...
Possibly at present E and Jack are just taking over maintenance expenses and not actual rent.. and the queen may still be thinking that M and H might come back in a year or 2 when Covid is over... If she is OK with this situation in the meantime, she's probably tinking that as the house is not one that can easily be let, it iwll give a home to E and Jack for a time and will be looked after, rather than standing empty....

 

[Mbruno]

good news that eugenie and jack are moving to frogmore cottage. it has been newly restored and it would be a shame for it to be vacant. it would seem like the sussexes have made their mind up and plan to stay in the US long term, maybe with only short trips to the UK for key events, and i guess for that amount of time they can stay in any other residences.

it is slightly unfair on the sussexes too though as they had to pay privately for the renovation, when someone else from the royal family is now using the property (although i would assume that a lot of the reformation was to do frogmore up to H&M's taste).



there's plenty of examples of foreign royal brides adapting great to their new countries and royal life (maxima, mary, marie, charlene come to mind). but of course, none of them wanted to impose their way of doing on a centuries old institution which surely ruffled feathers and made M feel like she wasn't accepted/belonged.

I just don't think Meghan would ever suit the role. Can you imagine a fiercely independent, woke American woman like Meghan curtsying for the rest of her life to the Queen (or later Charles or William & Kate) and to other European and Asian monarchs on state visits? Mary Donaldson does it effortlessly as did Letizia when she was still Princess of Asturias, but, with Meghan, even though she did it in public several times, it always looked awkward.



In any case, I now think Meghan never intended to make a lifelong committment to royal duty. Her goal was to stay for a while to build up her brand and then fly away to the US where she could monetize it and enjoy her newly-found fame and celebrity. I know I cannot prove that and that I am being too harsh, but that is how I feel about her behavior over the past year or so.

 

[muriel]

In any case, I now think Meghan never planned to make a lifelong committment to royal duty. Her goal was to stay for a while to build up her brand and then fly away to the US where she could monetize it and enjoy her newly-found fame and celebrity. I know I could not prove that and that I am being too harsh, but that is how I feel about her behavior over the past year or so.

I fear you are right. She just did not seem to make any serious commitment to the role and give it time.

 

[ashelen]

I just don't think Meghan would ever suit the role. Can you imagine a fiercely independent, woke American woman like Meghan curtsying for the rest of her life to the Queen (or later Charles or William & Kate) and to other European and Asian monarchs on state visits? Mary Donaldson does it effortlessly as did Letizia when she was still Princess of Asturias, but, with Meghan, even though she did it in public several times, it always looked awkward.



In any case, I now think Meghan never intended to make a lifelong committment to royal duty. Her goal was to stay for a while to build up her brand and then fly away to the US where she could monetize it and enjoy her newly-found fame and celebrity. I know I cannot prove that and that I am being too harsh, but that is how I feel about her behavior over the past year or so.

I think she is a very ambitious woman, liked the phantasy of becoming a princess but without doing the work a princess does. I am sure also that Harry wanted to scape the firm a long time ago, then came Meghan alone and helpd him to take the decision to go through it. Nevertheless I think she is the big engine behind all. And I agree with your comment here she never intended a life commitment. Specially not to be under Kate thumb.

 

[Betsypaige]

I just don't think Meghan would ever suit the role. Can you imagine a fiercely independent, woke American woman like Meghan curtsying for the rest of her life to the Queen (or later Charles or William & Kate) and to other European and Asian monarchs on state visits? Mary Donaldson does it effortlessly as did Letizia when she was still Princess of Asturias, but, with Meghan, even though she did it in public several times, it always looked awkward.



In any case, I now think Meghan never intended to make a lifelong committment to royal duty. Her goal was to stay for a while to build up her brand and then fly away to the US where she could monetize it and enjoy her newly-found fame and celebrity. I know I cannot prove that and that I am being too harsh, but that is how I feel about her behavior over the past year or so.

I don’t think you’re being too harsh, I think you’re spot on.

I’ll never be able to get past the fact that H and M left after 18 months of marriage, which means that they’d been planning an exit for awhile before that, which means they must have been unhappy before that. I also believe Meghan wanted to put her own stamp on the BRF, she wanted to actually create even a minor revolution. Ultimately I believe that she thinks the monarchy is outdated, and she wanted to bring it into her 21st century.

It seems to me that everything about Meghan - and Harry- is about their brand. Hence we read about their ideas to create products using the Royal Sussex brand. I’m sure it’s a large part of why she never truly gave Royal life a shot. I almost wonder why she even agreed to date Harry at all ....I say “almost” because I think the above explains it.

 

[Heavs]

It's good that Harry and Meghan paid back the money for the renovations whether or not they then sublet it or whatever the arrangement is. It was given to them on the expectation that it was for working royals. They decided not to be so it was up to them to pay it back, not Eugenie and Jack.

It certainly doesn't seem as though the house was taken away from them, they all came up with this arrangement then informed the Queen/Estates according to all sources and they are all benefitting in some way, H&M possibly financially.

As for the debate. I do think Meghan might have been sincere about wanting to be a working royal. At least on her terms. She may well have imagined it like the Gates and Clooneys and Oprah etc. Having a platform and good/social causes and being a figurehead/advisor/benefactor to charities and action groups. And possibly the idea of a Sussex Royal brand ala The Tig to make a lot of money from their fans. Always follow the money.

They were popular and would revolutionise the way the monarchy did things by getting involved and being progressive and all that jazz. Which didn't work out like that because she/they failed to take in to account the necessary apolitical nature of a constitutional monarchy, their place in the hierarchy and most of all the fact that it takes more than 1 year -18 months to change something so old and huge to your liking, even if you're HM/Charles/William - to a certain extent anyway.

But they must have started talking an exit strategy quite early on, maybe the first time they were told "no" and got their noses out of joint and everything else from there was just timing and planning and building petty resentments ala FF. Which means this gift of a house should have been turned down before millions was spent on it, even with half in/half out it wasn't worth it.

Everything about their current events screams "we want to be our own Monarchy and get involved in politics and social causes and make a lot of money doing it" and we definitely don't like to be told "no".

 

[acdc1]

I don’t think you’re being too harsh, I think you’re spot on.

I’ll never be able to get past the fact that H and M left after 18 months of marriage, which means that they’d been planning an exit for awhile before that, which means they must have been unhappy before that. I also believe Meghan wanted to put her own stamp on the BRF, she wanted to actually create even a minor revolution. Ultimately I believe that she thinks the monarchy is outdated, and she wanted to bring it into her 21st century.

It seems to me that everything about Meghan - and Harry- is about their brand. Hence we read about their ideas to create products using the Royal Sussex brand. I’m sure it’s a large part of why she never truly gave Royal life a shot. I almost wonder why she even agreed to date Harry at all ....I say “almost” because I think the above explains it.

They basically confirmed that they had been planning their philanthropic foundation from the early days of their marriage and probably long before that. They said that the concept of "arche" and the foundation that they hoped to build with it as the center concept was around even before they had their son, which was basically immediately after they got married.

I think that Meghan came into the family thinking that she was going to revolutionize the monarchy, and, as you say, bring it into the 21st century but I think she underestimated the power that the institution has and vastly overestimated the power that she has as an individual. I think she also just hated living in the UK and didn't enjoy the "boring" aspects that make up the bread and butter of royal work.

 

[Mbruno]

I think that Meghan came into the family thinking that she was going to revolutionize the monarchy, and, as you say, bring it into the 21st century but I think she underestimated the power that the institution has and vastly overestimated the power that she has as an individual. I think she also just hated living in the UK and didn't enjoy the "boring" aspects that make up the bread and butter of royal work.

In my opinion it is not just a matter of the monarchy living in a previous century, but a somewhat deeper issue. The type of agenda that Meghan wanted/wants to pursue and has been pursuing to a certain extent since she moved back to California is simply incompatible with the constitutional position of the Royal Family.

Although royals can discreetly draw people's attention to certain social issues, they cannot be social activists or overtly political in the way I think Meghan wants to be. That is not necessarily bad BTW or something that needs to be "reformed". The greatest asset of the European constitutional monarchies and the reason why they have endured is precisely their neutrality.

Meghan probably misunderstood that from the start because she was not familiar with the British system of constitutional monarchy (most Americans quite frankly aren't), and she probably got frustrated when she realized she couldn't do much of what she wanted to do.

 

[Denville]

Or she wasn't all that bothered about reforming the monarchy (Unless she could do so and find time to make money as well). I think her heart was in the USA.. and she never intended to live full time in the UK

 

[Betsypaige]

In my opinion it is not just a matter of the monarchy living in a previous century, but a somewhat deeper issue. The type of agenda that Meghan wanted/wants to pursue and has been pursuing to a certain extent since she moved back to California is simply incompatible with the constitutional position of the Royal Family.

Although royals can discreetly draw people's attention to certain social issues, they cannot be social activists or overtly political in the way I think Meghan wants to be. That is not necessarily bad BTW or something that needs to be "reformed". The greatest asset of the European constitutional monarchies and the reason why they have endured is precisely their neutrality.

Meghan probably misunderstood that from the start because she was not familiar with the British system of constitutional monarchy (most Americans quite frankly aren't), and she probably got frustrated when she realized she couldn't do much of what she wanted to do.

I don't think she misunderstood at all. I'm not saying that she understood all the ins and outs - by no means. However, I'm sure she knew enough (even if she's not a Royal historian, surely she gleaned info from Harry) to know that the kind of active progressivism she's interested in was never going to work. Not only that, I think she knew enough about the general way the monarchy works to know that she wanted to "revolutionize it". She wanted to change the system, and that I find offensive.

 

[UglyAmerican]

I don't necessarily think it's offensive that she wanted to change the system (though maybe I'd feel differently if I were British). But I do think that if Plan A is "convince everyone to let me radically overhaul everything," Plan B needs to be "suck it up and do what I actually signed up for," not "quit and run away to another continent." Maybe sucking it up and dealing with the things she disliked was her original Plan B and she just found it too difficult. But she/they only gave it about 18 months before moving to Canada, and as you said, they must have been planning it for a while before that. If she'd come in intending to really try, that's not a very long time.

On the other hand, it's also not a very long time to completely give up on changing everything about the monarchy. If that was her plan, she can't have been very committed to it.

 

[AC21091968]

I think that the term "revolutionise" comes from the fact that Meghan want to bring change for gender/racial equality. I know this is a big stretch, because one could bring change without knocking the whole system down. However, I just want to point out the reasons behind why "revolutionise" was even used in the first place.

For example, "15 Forces For Change" in Vogue cover, chosen by Meghan. As some Meghan critics have pointed out, most of these women were progressive activist, none of them were conservatives. This could possibly explain why they think that the editorial is political (or political bias).
https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/forces-for-change-british-vogue-september-issue-cover

Or supported a campaign to decolonise the curriculum in "male, pale and stale" universities
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...at-male-pale-and-stale-universities-p8znzs5gl

Or perhaps Meghan critics associate herself with her and Harry fan group (Sussex Squad), where at least half of them are Republicans and wanted to bring down the monarchy (in the UK and the Commonwealth countries with The Queen as the head of state). Here, I'm talking about the #SussexSquad on twitter, not those who supported Harry and Meghan in moderation.

At one point, Harry and Meghan were closed to the Jeremy Corbyn, according to the book, Left Out: The Inside Story of Labour Under Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn has labelled himself as a socialist and a republican, but also mentioned that given the Royal Family's popularity, "it's not a battle that I am fighting". From looking through the extract of the book, the tabloid treatment of Harry and Meghan seem to be the main reason for their friendship towards the Corbyns. Similar political ideologies seem to have come second. Harry & Meghan seems to be close to other moderate left-leaning political leaders, but not right-leaning politicians. However, I would not call Justin Trudeau as a staunch socialist. Too often, being a socialist is associated to stating a revolution to knock down the system.

...hypocrisies of the colonial classes had made her a target for establishment hate. In Sister Juana, Alvarez hoped Meghan might find a kindred spirit. The Corbyns had privately offered sympathy for the duchess's treatment at the hands of the tabloid press, whose misdemeanours they felt similarly familiar with. The following day, the Sussexes sent a personally signed note of 'great thanks to Jeremy and Laura' for their support and said they look forward 'to learn more about her life and works!' Such was Corbyn dislike of the mainstream press that it had even convinced him to moderate his lifelong republicanism

Like other posters have mentioned earlier, Meghan probably was not committed to become a senior working royal in the long-term or even rest of her life (i.e. being politically neutral, fully grasp the role of constitutional monarchy, duty serve the UK citizen regardless of gender, race, class or political opinions). There could be a possibility that she thought she could be lasted for a few years to gain popularity and status before moving back to LA.

 

[Curryong]

I thought that this thread was dedicated to the posting of news about the Sussex family (in the sense of what is being posted being new) or about current events involving the family. Perhaps I'm wrong.
However, it seems over the last couple of days to have turned into a rehash of why people think (because obviously nobody really knows) Meghan left the ranks of working royals. Surely that subject has been done to death on this and other threads months ago?

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Windsor-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-left.html

A question?
Why was Frogmore Cottage left by the previous tenants (who ever they were)?
In such a terrible state,whereby the Sussexes had to spend millions to get it habitable again?

I'm assuming it's stood empty for years?

 

[AC21091968]

I think there is even a claim that the royal staffs who used to live in Frogmore Cottage (before Harry and Meghan) move back to the property, after the Sussexes left the UK.

 

[Curryong]

In the 1920s/30s the Grand Duchess Xenia, George V's cousin, used to live at the Cottage. It began to be neglected then. It was used as Staff quarters after Xenia left and eventually, in the 1960s I think, it was converted into five flatlets for staff. However, nothing was done to the structure for years, and it was overflowing with asbestos, dry rot etc.

Everything from the wiring to the plumbing had to be fixed, and of course it had to be converted back to a sole occupancy home. Nobody has lived in it since Harry and Meghan left until now.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I wonder why they picked Frogmore House for Harry and Meghan. It was an awful expensive fix up.

 

[Alison H]

I think it was their obsession with "privacy", again - they thought Windsor would be quieter than London.


I believe there were plans to renovate it anyway, to be fair - although I don't know what would have happened to it had Harry and Meghan not moved in.

 

[Mirabel]

I wonder why they picked Frogmore House for Harry and Meghan. It was an awful expensive fix up.

I thought so too, especially since they could have moved into KP without all the fuss.
But it was said at the time that they preferred to live in Windsor.

As far as the lease and payment for renovations, well...we really don't know who paid for what, do we?

I think the whole business about the Sussexes repaying the money was contrived to quiet outrage about them leaving so soon after all the work was done. Who knows if they repaid it or didn't, if they handed the keys to the Brookbanks willingly...or if they didn't?

 

[poppy7]

I thought so too, especially since they could have moved into KP without all the fuss.
But it was said at the time that they preferred to live in Windsor.

As far as the lease and payment for renovations, well...we really don't know who paid for what, do we?

I think the whole business about the Sussexes repaying the money was contrived to quiet outrage about them leaving so soon after all the work was done. Who knows if they repaid it or didn't, if they handed the keys to the Brookbanks willingly...or if they didn't?

I would say they didn't. It was probably 'suggested to them.

They didn't want to live in KP...but I think Windsor in the end proved too isolating. It is very quiet there and they arent really that quiet.

Whatever it's gone now and the family have moved on. I find it said to see when people do but so necessary.

 

[Curryong]

BP would have denied that the lump sum had been paid back if it hadn't. And the accounts for Sovereign Grant expenditure are completely open. Every July the accounts are checked by audit and a report appears for public perusal.

If the Sussexes haven't paid, and I believe that they have, then it will be shown when the accounts are published in July 2021. The tabloids keep a sharp eye on these and publish articles on them every year.

And what evidence is there that Harry and Meghan have been forced to hand the keys of FC back and give them to Eugenie and Jack? That sounds like speculation I've read on anti Sussex Tumblr sites to me.

 

[poppy7]

BP would have denied that the lump sum had been paid back if it hadn't. And the accounts for Sovereign Grant expenditure are completely open. Every July the accounts are checked by audit and a report appears for public perusal.

If the Sussexes haven't paid, and I believe that they have, then it will be shown when the accounts are published in July 2021. The tabloids keep a sharp eye on these and publish articles on them every year.

And what evidence is there that Harry and Meghan have been forced to hand the keys of FC back and give them to Eugenie and Jack? That sounds like speculation I've read on anti Sussex Tumblr sites to me.

Didn't say forces. Said suggested. You don't really know how they tend to operate do you? An iron fist in a velvet glove. They would have smoothly done it.

 

[muriel]

I think the whole business about the Sussexes repaying the money was contrived to quiet outrage about them leaving so soon after all the work was done. Who knows if they repaid it or didn't, if they handed the keys to the Brookbanks willingly...or if they didn't?

All very possible. We do not know, and truth be told, we do not need to know whact actually went on, and who paid what. All we know is that the Sovereign Grant expenditure on FC of £2.4m has been repaid by the BRF. Whether that was Harry or the Queen or Eugenie who repaid it, we do not know, adn do not need to know.