The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

I've read people say that it would be wrong for him to pay for security. If the Queen is forking out cash for the son that has done more to damage the prestige of the Monarchy than the Sussex's have done then I find that incomprehensible! People talk like their interview is the worst Royal Scandal ever. I wouldn't put it in the top 100.

I've seen some of those posts but are you sure that those people don't think it is wrong for the Queen to fund Andrew's security? Moreover, as Yukari pointed out, there is a big difference in the cost of Andrew's security versus Harry and Meghan's.

[kathia_sophia]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

I've read people say that it would be wrong for him to pay for security. If the Queen is forking out cash for the son that has done more to damage the prestige of the Monarchy than the Sussex's have done then I find that incomprehensible! People talk like their interview is the worst Royal Scandal ever. I wouldn't put it in the top 100.

It certainly isn't the worst Royal Scandal ever, but it generates a lot of interest. Even my mom talked about it as she saw it on the news But I guess we can blame social media and everything related to it for this excessiveness. If it were 30 years ago, all of this would not have been that impactful.

[Curryong]

Charles no longer funds Harry and Meghan though, Osipi. (I’m talking about now, 2021.) And certainly not for working expenses. That naturally ended when the couple ceased to be working royals. The only royals Charles is supporting at the moment are Camilla and the Cambridges.

And of course it is up to the Queen how she spends her private income. It just seems odd that one royal (a disgraced one) gets an allowance and security paid by a parent while another, with a wife and young family, got suddenly cut off. And, let me make it clear here I am myself not against Harry paying for his family’s security as he is living abroad with all its complications. Just pointing out the contrast that’s all!

[KrissyM]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

Like H&M, their fans are busy desperately trying to creat a victim narrative for them. Charles, apparently, does not want to pay for H&M’s security and given that it’s his money, it’s his choice.

Um I don't think of them as victims if the PoW doesn't pay. I just think comparing the two situations, The Duke of York has truly damaged the monarchy while the Sussex's have not.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

That is correct! Perception matters more than fact for a monarchy to remain relevant in today's world.

Know what surprised me a lot? When all this cropped up after the Sussex interview, to actually see a staunch British republican being quoted as stating "I'm with Team Queen on this one" (paraphrasing). How the monarchy remains relevant matters in the UK. Its an issue for the kingdom, not the globe.

[Moran]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

Like H&M, their fans are busy desperately trying to creat a victim narrative for them. Charles, apparently, does not want to pay for H&M’s security and given that it’s his money, it’s his choice.

He's funding them even now. Where do people think Diana's money came from?

Except for Charles, the Queen's other's working royal (or ex-working royal) children receive their funding from her, not money in bulk. They don't have Charles' money. Harry received his money from his mother who got it from his father, in bulk. He also received money as working royal. His fans behave as if Charles has left him in the gutter to starve, demanding just the same for Andrew and failing to see that the two situations are vastly different. Due to Charles and Diana's divorce, Harry already got money from Charles once. He doesn't want to spend it, so he called for more and more until Charles got so fed up that he stopped taking his calls.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

That is correct! Perception matters more than fact for a monarchy to remain relevant in today's world.

Well, it's an interesting and perceptive observation.

Unfortunately, the situation is complicated by the fact that Meghan has contributed to the "its based on race" argument, something I don't think the Queen or her advisors would ever have predicted. I wonder how the rules were explained to her, or what her reaction was at that time. Something we will never know.

[KrissyM]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Know what surprised me a lot? When all this cropped up after the Sussex interview, to actually see a staunch British republican being quoted as stating "I'm with Team Queen on this one" (paraphrasing). How the monarchy remains relevant matters in the UK. Its an issue for the kingdom, not the globe.

I disagree. If Charities like The Prince's Trust that need to court international funding want to keep getting money, then the monarchy has to be relevant everywhere. Major corporations donate to their initiatives, and are answerable to their stock holders. If the monarchy gets too out-of-touch. All that funding could vanish.

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

That is correct! Perception matters more than fact for a monarchy to remain relevant in today's world.

You were given a response that the British Royal Family does not really have to worry about their perception in the US. You chose to ignore it. This is quite a habit with you isn’t it?

I’m noticing this a lot with people on Twitter. They keep ignoring facts about which particular public’s opinion really matters to the BRF and TPTB. They’re shocked that their outrage hasn’t managed to “cancel” the BRF. Social media problems I guess— keyboard warriors thinking they are much more powerful than they really are.

[UglyAmerican]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

Ideally in a perfect world this is true. But the world isn't.

Wait, the Queen pays for The Duke of York's security out of her private wealth. But if the PoW did that for the Sussex's it's wrong? Okay... Why didn't she make it conditional that he help the FBI? The Duke of York's controversy is 1000 times worse than the Sussex's.

I don't think the situations are comparable for several reasons. First, the Duke of York hasn't been gallivanting around Hollywood buying $15 million mansions. If he had, I suspect the Queen would have objected to paying for the increased costs. As far as I know, he's been living like a hermit on already-secured palace property, making his security costs pretty minimal.

Second, while what Harry and Meghan did is nowhere near as bad as what Andrew is accused of doing, there's no real doubt as to what Harry and Meghan did. Andrew maintains his innocence, his mother the Queen probably believes him, and there's no solid proof of him doing anything worse than being friends with someone who was later convicted of serious crimes.

Third, I've always believed Charles would have been willing to pay for Harry's reasonable security costs (for a small property somewhere cheap, not an LA mansion) had Harry left on reasonable terms. But publicly announcing that they'd be part-time when they knew no such deal had been reached was such a transparent attempt to force Charles's hand that at that point, it would have been bad parenting to accede to those demands.

[Curryong]

Where did that scenario come from? When Harry stated in the interview that Charles stopped taking his calls (temporarily apparently) he didn’t state that it was due to him asking his father for money. I know that is the conclusion that a tabloid came to but it’s not part of the interview.

[Moran]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

Um I don't think of them as victims if the PoW doesn't pay. I just think comparing the two situations, The Duke of York has truly damaged the monarchy while the Sussex's have not.

I disagree. All Andrew managed to damage was himself and his own reputation. Possibly because he wasn't aiming to damage the monarchy, unlike the Sussexes who arranged an interview with this exact purpose.

[Sunnystar]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

I've read people say that it would be wrong for him to pay for security. If the Queen is forking out cash for the son that has done more to damage the prestige of the Monarchy than the Sussex's have done then I find that incomprehensible! People talk like their interview is the worst Royal Scandal ever. I wouldn't put it in the top 100.

Oh, heck, people act like Andrew's various misdeeds and association with Epstein/Maxwell is going to cause the downfall of the monarchy and it will not, not anymore than this ill-advised Oprah interview that M&H gave. But, feel free to check out the PA & Epstein thread if you want to see how everyone here reacted to the ongoing scandal and especially his ill-advised interview. I'll give you a hint - not well.

The absolute worst thing to have happened to the BRF in the last 100 years wasn't PA/Epstein, Sussexit, the War of the Wales, or 1992 (annus horribilis) but the abdication of Edward VIII. If that didn't take down the monarchy, none of the current scandals (PA/Epstein or Sussexit) will.

The big difference between PA/Epstein and Sussexit is that PA at least had the sense to recognize that he screwed up, big time, and was willing to pay the price - no longer a working royal & no public profile but his lavish lifestyle is still funded by the Queen. The Sussexes do not seem to have recognized that stomping their feet and airing 'the Firm's' dirty laundry makes them look worse in the long run than 'the Firm'. The Sussexes are temporal. The Crown is eternal (or at least has a lot more longevity than the Sussexes).

I said it in the other thread and it bears repeating... The Crown always wins.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Charles no longer funds Harry and Meghan though, Osipi. (I’m talking about now, 2021.) And certainly not for working expenses. That naturally ended when the couple ceased to be working royals. The only royals Charles is supporting at the moment are Camilla and the Cambridges.

And of course it is up to the Queen how she spends her private income. It just seems odd that one royal (a disgraced one) gets an allowance and security paid by a parent while another, supporting a family, got suddenly cut off. And, let me make it clear here I am myself not against Harry paying for his family’s security as he is living abroad with all its complications. Just pointing out the contrast that’s all!

Absolutely. Perhaps the Queen is a softie and easily swayed whereas Charles is more of an astute businessman and believes that independent means independent. My brother may choose to use his money much differently than I do but we each have the right to determine how it's spent.

The Sussexes and the Cambridges both though have received funding for things from the Sovereign Grant (the Queen's business account to run the monarchy). The Sussexes now get zilch and the Cambridges continue to receive what they need from that account.

So much of this in and out and who pays for what should have been clearly worked out *before* Harry and Meghan sailed off into the sunset to sunny California via Canada. I wonder if they knew that by being totally out and independent that they'd be totally on their own financially. That's the big question.

[kathia_sophia]

Hmm, the thing about Andrew and Harry. I do understand the point. But, even though it is the Royal Family, we are talking about two family nucleus. Why would I be upset with my grandmother if my father cut me off financially when she finances my uncle? Same royal family, but two different family nucleus, which are separated from each other financially. Or am I missing something here?

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

I disagree. If Charities like The Prince's Trust that need to court international funding want to keep getting money, then the monarchy has to be relevant everywhere. Major corporations donate to their initiatives, and are answerable to their stock holders. If the monarchy gets too out-of-touch. All that funding could vanish.

If the international community stops donating to the Prince's Trust, it will be a smaller charity, which would be a loss but it would still exist. If the monarchy values the opinion of the international community (which I am not sure is that sympathetic to Harry and Meghan) more than the opinion of the British public, it will cease to exist and there will be no Prince's Trust.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

Um I don't think of them as victims if the PoW doesn't pay. I just think comparing the two situations, The Duke of York has truly damaged the monarchy while the Sussex's have not.

I don’t really agree with that honestly. I think Andrew damaged himself more than the monarchy. It reflected poorly on him. Say what you want about Andrew’s poor choices in friends and the interview- he didn’t attack his parents or the monarchy. He didn’t do that interview with the intent of causing harm IMO. The monarchy didn’t need another scandal, but I don’t think he truly damaged it.

Meghan and Harry have attacked the family and the institution directly and intently IMO. They accused them of being racist, not helping her when she was suicidal, practically accused them of holding her prisoner, etc.

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

I disagree. If Charities like The Prince's Trust that need to court international funding want to keep getting money, then the monarchy has to be relevant everywhere. Major corporations donate to their initiatives, and are answerable to their stock holders. If the monarchy gets too out-of-touch. All that funding could vanish.

And, pray tell, how does this affect Charles? In you imagination, does he somehow stop being Prince of Wales if The Prince’s Trust closes down?

Major international corporations and donors, donate to The Prince’s Trust to get recognition from the BRF, the publicity they get from donating to a charity founded by a future head of state etc. Only someone seriously naive would think that this is going to ever change.

Remember Meghan’s great friends, George and Amal Clooney? Have you heard them utter a single word in support of her since the got involved with The Prince’s Trust? It’s been total silence from them since then- because they know which relationship is more important and even more so, more mutually beneficial.

[KrissyM]

Originally Posted by UglyAmerican

Second, while what Harry and Meghan did is nowhere near as bad as what Andrew is accused of doing, there's no real doubt as to what Harry and Meghan did. Andrew maintains his innocence, his mother the Queen probably believes him, and there's no solid proof of him doing anything worse than being friends with someone who was later convicted of serious crimes.

He was asked to help the authorities and refused. How does that make the Monarchy look good? How is that upholding the values of the Queen?

No, there is no way that the Sussex's actions are worse than The Duke of York's none.

Originally Posted by Eskimo

You were given a response that the British Royal Family does not really have to worry about their perception in the US. You chose to ignore it. This is quite a habit with you isn’t it?

I most certainly did not ignore it. I explained my opinion the the BRF needs to think internationally if they keep on lobbying for international funding for their international charities. Is that unreasonable?

[kathia_sophia]

Originally Posted by KrissyM

I disagree. If Charities like The Prince's Trust that need to court international funding want to keep getting money, then the monarchy has to be relevant everywhere. Major corporations donate to their initiatives, and are answerable to their stock holders. If the monarchy gets too out-of-touch. All that funding could vanish.

At the end of the day, it will be British people who will vote if they want the Monarchy or not in case of a referendum, not the whole world...