The Duke & Duchess of Sussex with Oprah III - Post-Interview, March 9th 2021 -

[QueenMathilde]

There is this, published by the Fail, just after it was discovered that Harry was dating Meghan. It’s references to gang-scarred Compton would be read by many as a racial attack on Meghan’s mother’s background. Doria in fact lived/lives in Windsor Hills.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...arry-s-girlfriend-actress-Meghan-Markles.html

And this, which refers to Rachel Johnson’s comments about ‘rich, exotic DNA’ in an article which also spoke about Doria being ‘a dreadlocked lady from the wrong side of the tracks’.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...ent-prince-harry-exposes-quiet-racism-n825516

But they got what they wanted. They wanted to leave the royal family. No one stopped them. Also NBC is famously liberal.

 

[Eskimo]

The Daily Mail is now reporting the Queen plans to 'reach out to Harry for peace talks'.

Is there any chance this could all end with Harry and Meghan back in the fold? I would say no, but stranger things have happened...

Family fold? Quite possibly. As working royals-- I just don't see how/why the UK taxpayers would tolerate paying for them after every thing that has gone on..

I have seen many online posts referring to Meghan's friend interview this morning as an out and out attempt by Harry and Meghan to blackmail the RF. The thought process being that they expected the Bank of Dad to open back up after the interview and were shocked by TQ'S response.

So 72 hours after the interview, the tide might be turning against them- or at least that is my impression of it

 

[kathia_sophia]

There is one thing that I don't understand about the issue with Meghan and Catherine. I mean, Meghan says that Catherine made her cry but forgave her. So my question is, why mention it to the public? I'm not quite sure Meghan understand the word "forgive", because if she "forgave" Catherine, she would move on, and yet, she brought it up in the interview (which means she is still bitter about it).

 

[Queen Ester]

I would call the attacks on Catherine are mostly snobbery, especially when the tabloid sneered about Carole's great-grandfather being a coal miner at Durham, her previous job as a flight attendant or accusing her being a "pushy" mother. There was also the description of "Wisteria Sister" and social climber on Catherine and Pippa.

Sadly, snobbery from the press will probably continue whenever a newcomer married into Royal Families. Daniel Westling, Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano are just some examples. Even Prince Philip faced opposition from the press and public when he married The Queen, though there was also criticism towards his sister's husbands especially after WWII.

But that's exactly what I mean, I am sure Kate was also distressed, but she did not go running to the media with "the big bad Firm is not protecting me" from evil tabloids. That's why I think Harry and Meghan were looking for any excuse to get out. If they wanted to stay, they would have just ignored the tabloids, because from what I saw they were getting a lot of adulation whenever they went.

 

[Lucy Scot]

It is actually the British government that pays for the families RPO's and yes Charles could have paid privately, but again why? It is almost like having your children move out of the family home and you paying the bills for them for the rest of their lives. Real life does not work that way.

Is that what Andrew says to Beatrice and Eugenie, or does he pay for their security?

And regarding Andrew, does anyone know if his security is paid for by the British government now that he has stepped back from being a working royal? If not, does he pay for it himself? Does the Queen pay for it?

You said "and yes Charles could have paid privately, but again why?"

Because this is an issue that Harry is deeply unhappy about. As he said, he felt let down by his father. We can discuss all day whether or not Charles should pay for it. All that matters is that Harry believes that it should be paid for, either by the public or by his father. He said in the interview that he should have security because he was born into the royal family. To say he should keep working as a working royal to have security, is to say he should remain trapped as a working royal for the rest of his life.

Do you think that the Queen and Charles liked hearing Harry and Meghan say that they were worried about security? Do you think that Charles liked hearing Harry say that his father stopped taking his calls, cut him off financially, and let him down? Especially since the Queen and Charles are both very wealthy and could afford to pay for security. I think it shows a lack of awareness on Charles part of the depth of his son's feelings. Well, he knows it now. I'm assuming that Charles cares about Harry. Of course, maybe he doesn't care. They cut him adrift and the result is you get an interview like this.

 

[Kellydofc]

Family fold? Quite possibly. As working royals-- I just don't see how/why the UK taxpayers would tolerate paying for them after every thing that has gone on..

I have seen many online posts referring to Meghan's friend interview this morning as an out and out attempt by Harry and Meghan to blackmail the RF. The thought process being that they expected the Bank of Dad to open back up after the interview and were shocked by TQ'S response.

So 72 hours after the interview, the tide might be turning against them- or at least that is my impression of it

That's the way I see it. They could be welcomed back into the family so they could attend family events like maybe The Trooping but they'll never be working royals again. And I think financially they'll very much be left to make their own way.

I think the more they talk or the more their friends talk and the more the stories contradict each other the worse it looks for them.

 

[Lucy Scot]

And it is much more than what Meghan herself said about her father when announcing he would not attend their wedding. She only expressed "I have always cared for my father".

I thought it sounded strange. But then I wondered if she meant it in the sense of "I have always taken care of my father". At the time, he was doing interviews and photos for money. I believe that her sister said that Meghan should be supporting him. It was later revealed that Meghan had been sending him sums of money when she was working as an actress. So she was taking care of him.

Of course, maybe after all that he had put her through, she couldn't bring herself to say the word "love".

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

Is that what Andrew says to Beatrice and Eugenie, or does he pay for their security?

And regarding Andrew, does anyone know if his security is paid for by the British government now that he has stepped back from being a working royal? If not, does he pay for it himself? Does the Queen pay for it?

You said "and yes Charles could have paid privately, but again why?"

Because this is an issue that Harry is deeply unhappy about. As he said, he felt let down by his father. We can discuss all day whether or not Charles should pay for it. All that matters is that Harry believes that it should be paid for, either by the public or by his father. He said in the interview that he should have security because he was born into the royal family. To say he should keep working as a working royal to have security, is to say he should remain trapped as a working royal for the rest of his life.

I don't think Beatrice and Eugenie have security. There are lots of pictures of them out & about in London - no security.

No, Andrew's security is not paid for by the British government anymore. Neither is Anne's, Edward's & Sophie's, except for when they are on royal engagements.

Harry expects to get things that most people in the BRF don't - that came across very clearly in the interview. He thinks that as a non-working royal, he is entitled to have his security paid for by the tax payer, even though even working royals like Anne, Edward & Sophie don't get that in their spare time.

Harry feels let down by his father because he won't keep handing over millions of £ while Harry is publicly attacking the family.

 

[roseroyal]

I want to apologize. It has come to my attention that I started a disruptive and offensive conversation by stating that a certain word wasn’t offensive. I truly did not know it was. Now that I have had the meaning explained to me I agree it was.

 

[Osipi]

Charles floated the Sussex lifestyle as long as they were working for the "Firm" as full time royals. The duties and engagements they performed as royals did not earn them any income so Charles paid for their lifestyle, their working expenses, their office and staff and their wardrobe. It was like having a job with all expenses paid. When a high profile executive leaves a corporation, he is not able to take his expense account with him nor the company car/jet or residences. Whatever Charles pays out for himself, Camilla, William, Catherine, their children now are deemed "business expenses". This is what has been cut off for Harry and Meghan as they wanted "financial freedom".

Charles not paying for Sussex security in the US as private citizens shouldn't have surprised Harry nor being cut off from an "allowance". They wanted to be free to do things their way and make their own money. They now have that. They're 100% on their own from here on out. I wish them loads of success and hope things work out good for them. The birdie has left the nest and now needs to learn how to fly. ?

 

[tommy100]

A really interesting read (IMO) by the Queen's first black Lord Lieutenant taking about why he doesn't believe the RF are racist based on his experiences and talking about race in the UK in general:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...ord-Lieutenant-not-believe-royals-racist.html


One of the most contentious claims made in Meghan Markle’s interview with Oprah Winfrey this week was that one about race.

A member of the Royal Family is alleged to have raised questions or concerns about ‘how dark’ the skin of Meghan’s child might be.

And the uproar that ensued has been deafening, with the word ‘racist’ recurring in almost every news report.

But I would ask for a moment’s pause and reflection. Before we leap to the conclusion that this was a vulgar, racist question, we should recognise that we know neither the context nor the intent behind the supposed inquiry.

I’m drawing on first-hand experience here. My wife Julia and I were asked exactly the same question — in a spirit of benign interest — by my mother-in-law Muriel shortly before the first of our two daughters was born in 1980.

I should point out here that, like Meghan and Harry, I am black and Julia is white...

 

[Kellydofc]

Is that what Andrew says to Beatrice and Eugenie, or does he pay for their security?

And regarding Andrew, does anyone know if his security is paid for by the British government now that he has stepped back from being a working royal? If not, does he pay for it himself? Does the Queen pay for it?

You said "and yes Charles could have paid privately, but again why?"

Because this is an issue that Harry is deeply unhappy about. As he said, he felt let down by his father. We can discuss all day whether or not Charles should pay for it. All that matters is that Harry believes that it should be paid for, either by the public or by his father. He said in the interview that he should have security because he was born into the royal family. To say he should keep working as a working royal to have security, is to say he should remain trapped as a working royal for the rest of his life.

Do you think that the Queen and Charles liked hearing Harry and Meghan say that they were worried about security? Do you think that Charles liked hearing Harry say that his father stopped taking his calls, cut him off financially, and let him down? Especially since the Queen and Charles are both very wealthy and could afford to pay for security. I think it shows a lack of awareness on Charles part of the depth of his son's feelings. Well, he knows it now. I'm assuming that Charles cares about Harry. Of course, maybe he doesn't care. They cut him adrift and the result is you get an interview like this.

Does anyone know if Beatrice and Eugenie still have private security anymore? I know Prince Andrew paid for it when they were younger but do we know if this is still the case? Because it might be entirely possible they also no longer have security paid for by their father.

As for paying for something just because your child is not happy I'm sorry but that's a poor excuse to pay for anything, especially when they're a grown adult with a substantial fortune of their own. Diana's estate when she died was worth $31.5 million dollars. Harry got a substantial amount of that as well as money from the Queen Mum. He has money.

Harry is free to believe anything he wishes, he is free to feel he is entitled to anything he wishes. His father is equally entitled to tell his son that he is a 36 year old man who wanted his financial freedom and part of that is providing for his own security. Harry is of course, allowed to feel upset and hurt by his father's refusal to pay, he can rant and pout all he wants. But that does not mean that Charles then has to cave to his demands. Harry is not entitled to his father's money.

 

[camelot23ca]

Family fold? Quite possibly. As working royals-- I just don't see how/why the UK taxpayers would tolerate paying for them after every thing that has gone on..

I have seen many online posts referring to Meghan's friend interview this morning as an out and out attempt by Harry and Meghan to blackmail the RF. The thought process being that they expected the Bank of Dad to open back up after the interview and were shocked by TQ'S response.

So 72 hours after the interview, the tide might be turning against them- or at least that is my impression of it

I think that, if nothing else, the past year and a bit has shown the BRF that Harry and Meghan are not suited to life as working royals. They could never be trusted. You'd never know what would come out of their mouths from one day to the next, you'd never know what they'd choose to find offensive, you could never do any medium or long term planning around them because they might decide to leave on short notice, you couldn't be sure they wouldn't mistreat the staff, you couldn't be sure they wouldn't call Oprah again and misconstrue private conversations, they'd be suing every media outlet in the country and would try to stifle any persistent push back by calling you racist or saying they wanted to die.

I hope that, behind the scenes, Harry can find a way to reconcile with his family after the dust has settled. And I would expect the couple to be welcome at family events with public components. Walking to church at Christmas and so on. But anything beyond that is asking for trouble for everyone involved.

 

[American Observer7]

Charles floated the Sussex lifestyle as long as they were working for the "Firm" as full time royals. The duties and engagements they performed as royals did not earn them any income so Charles paid for their lifestyle, their working expenses, their office and staff and their wardrobe. It was like having a job with all expenses paid. When a high profile executive leaves a corporation, he is not able to take his expense account with him nor the company car/jet or residences. Whatever Charles pays out for himself, Camilla, William, Catherine, their children now are deemed "business expenses". This is what has been cut off for Harry and Meghan as they wanted "financial freedom".

Charles not paying for Sussex security in the US as private citizens shouldn't have surprised Harry nor being cut off from an "allowance". They wanted to be free to do things their way and make their own money. They now have that. They're 100% on their own from here on out. I wish them loads of success and hope things work out good for them. The birdie has left the nest and now needs to learn how to fly. ?

I agree with this post. Anyway, the Sussexes have multimillion dollars deals going on. So, they hardly are hurting for money.

 

[UglyAmerican]

Am I the only one who thinks Charles would have happily paid for security out of his own funds if Harry had quietly negotiated an agreement like an adult, then moved somewhere isolated and lived a private life? Not that he'd have needed to, because Harry's own funds would have more than covered it, but that at least would be reasonable for Harry having been born into the risk. Whatever risk remained after he'd retired into obscurity would be due to his birth rather than his actions. But of course, that's not what he did.

 

[texankitcat]

Is that what Andrew says to Beatrice and Eugenie, or does he pay for their security?

And regarding Andrew, does anyone know if his security is paid for by the British government now that he has stepped back from being a working royal? If not, does he pay for it himself? Does the Queen pay for it?

You said "and yes Charles could have paid privately, but again why?"

Because this is an issue that Harry is deeply unhappy about. As he said, he felt let down by his father. We can discuss all day whether or not Charles should pay for it. All that matters is that Harry believes that it should be paid for, either by the public or by his father. He said in the interview that he should have security because he was born into the royal family. To say he should keep working as a working royal to have security, is to say he should remain trapped as a working royal for the rest of his life.

Do you think that the Queen and Charles liked hearing Harry and Meghan say that they were worried about security? Do you think that Charles liked hearing Harry say that his father stopped taking his calls, cut him off financially, and let him down? Especially since the Queen and Charles are both very wealthy and could afford to pay for security. I think it shows a lack of awareness on Charles part of the depth of his son's feelings. Well, he knows it now. I'm assuming that Charles cares about Harry. Of course, maybe he doesn't care. They cut him adrift and the result is you get an interview like this.

It was Harry and Meghan’s decision to leave the UK and move to California to seek their fortunes, which they have. Why should Prince Charles pay ONE dime to them for anything? Harry, is wealthy in his own right. They are adults, they are have signed multi million dollar contracts selling their souls to Netflix and Spotify and yet they are whining about having to foot their own security? Absolutely ludicrous. Harry’s is a petulant spoiled entitled brat who quite obviously is determined to destroy his family in order to force them to kneel to his and Meghan’’s demands. My hope is the BRF will deal with these two in the manner that they deserve. We shall see.

 

[Kellydofc]

Am I the only one who thinks Charles would have happily paid for security out of his own funds if Harry had quietly negotiated an agreement like an adult, then moved somewhere isolated and lived a private life? Not that he'd have needed to, because Harry's own funds would have more than covered it, but that at least would be reasonable for Harry having been born into the risk. Whatever risk remained after he'd retired into obscurity would be due to his birth rather than his actions. But of course, that's not what he did.

If it had been in the UK I think that would have been doable. I think a huge part of the problem is that H&M chose to live in California. I'm sure that would make security more expensive and problematic.

 

[Osipi]

I agree with this post. Anyway, the Sussexes have multimillion dollars deals going on. So, they hardly are hurting for money.

They're not hurting now and have contracts that I do hope are a success for them. It'll be work though to keep those kind of contracts coming in to sustain them through decades. We all know too well too how life can change overnight. No one could have predicted a pandemic like we've had in their future.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Because this is an issue that Harry is deeply unhappy about. As he said, he felt let down by his father. We can discuss all day whether or not Charles should pay for it. All that matters is that Harry believes that it should be paid for, either by the public or by his father.

I don't think that Harry's belief is all that matters. Charles' beliefs should factor in as well.

He said in the interview that he should have security because he was born into the royal family.

I didn't understand Harry's argument here. Charles was also born into the royal family, so why should he have to pay for Harry's security.

Especially since the Queen and Charles are both very wealthy and could afford to pay for security.

Harry is also very wealthy. He inherited millions of dollars from his mother and his great - grandmother. The money has been invested for all this time because Charles has been paying his bills up until he stopped working. I don't now what your personal situation is but most adults I know pay their own way - especially when they can afford it.

I think it shows a lack of awareness on Charles part of the depth of his son's feelings. Well, he knows it now. I'm assuming that Charles cares about Harry. Of course, maybe he doesn't care. They cut him adrift and the result is you get an interview like this.

On the contrary, I think this interview demonstrated a lack of awareness on Harry's part. It also shows how self-centered Harry and Meghan are if Harry believes that only his feelings matter but no one else's feelings do.

 

[Queen Ester]

That's the way I see it. They could be welcomed back into the family so they could attend family events like maybe The Trooping but they'll never be working royals again. And I think financially they'll very much be left to make their own way.

I think the more they talk or the more their friends talk and the more the stories contradict each other the worse it looks for them.

How are they going to make a living in the UK, or do they expect Charles to support their lavish lifestyle. I just don't see that happening, they are better off in the US with contracts in place. Anyway, I don't think Netflix will let them out of the contract after such a heavy payment

 

[Lucy Scot]

I was not aware of that Harry said this, but I have not re-watched the interview. Can you provide the quote where Harry said this? That the comment was made by someone linking a concern about his future children's skin color to concern about the reputation of the family?

I am unable to find it myself.

Meghan said that Harry told her about the conversation. Harry would not say what was said when he was asked by Oprah.

This is what Meghan said:

Oprah: You certainly must have had some conversations with Harry about it and have your own suspicions as to why they didn’t want to make Archie a prince. What are . . .  what are those thoughts? Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because of his race?

Meghan: (Sighs)

Oprah: And I know that’s a loaded question, but . . . 

Meghan: But I can give you an honest answer. In those months when I was pregnant, all around this same time . . .  so we have in tandem the conversation of ‘He won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title’ and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.

Oprah: What?

Meghan: And . . . 

Oprah: Who . . . who is having that conversation with you? What?

Meghan: So . . . 

Oprah: There is a conversation . . . hold on. Hold up. Hold up. Stop right now.

Meghan: There were . . . there were several conversations about it.

Oprah: There’s a conversation with you . . ? 

Meghan: With Harry.

Oprah: About how dark your baby is going to be?

Meghan: Potentially, and what that would mean or look like.

Oprah: Whoo. And you’re not going to tell me who had the conversation?

Meghan: I think that would be very damaging to them.

Oprah: OK. So, how . . . how does one have that meeting?

Meghan: That was relayed to me from Harry. Those were conversations that family had with him. And I think . . . 

Oprah: Whoa.

Meghan: It was really hard to be able to see those as compartmentalised conversations.

Oprah: Because they were concerned that if he were too brown, that that would be a problem? Are you saying that?

Meghan: I wasn’t able to follow up with why, but that — if that’s the assumption you’re making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one, which was really hard to understand, right? Especially when — look, I — the Commonwealth is a huge part of the monarchy, and I lived in Canada, which is a Commonwealth country, for seven years. But it wasn’t until Harry and I were together that we started to travel through the Commonwealth, I would say 60 per cent, 70 per cent of which is people of colour, right?


This is what Harry said:

Oprah: Well, what is particularly striking is what Meghan shared with us earlier, is that no one wants to admit that there’s anything about race or that race has played a role in the trolling and the vitriol, and yet Meghan shared with us that there was a conversation with you about Archie’s skin tone.

Harry: Mm-hmm.

Oprah: What was that conversation?

Harry: That conversation I’m never going to share, but at the time . . . at the time, it was awkward. I was a bit shocked.

Oprah: Can you . . . can you tell us what the question was?

Harry: No. I don’t . . . I’m not comfortable with sharing that.

Oprah: OK.

Harry: But that was . . . that was right at the beginning, right?

Oprah: Like, what will the baby look like?

Harry: Yeah, what will the kids look like?

Oprah: What will the kids look like?

Harry: But that was right at the beginning, when she wasn’t going to get security, when members of my family were suggesting that she carries on acting, because there was not enough money to pay for her, and all this sort of stuff. Like, there was some real obvious signs before we even got married that this was going to be really hard.

 

[amaryllus]

You know... has anyone else observed Harry and Charles are repeating the same curse that has plagued British Royal History: Fathers and Sons at war, disappointed, antagonistic or just dysfunctional and toxic? Some times it’s been the fathers, sometimes the sons, sometimes both. And rarely has a happy ending for either party. Hopefully William and his sons will break the cycle.

 

[AC21091968]

I found some articles (unsure about the reliability) on Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie's security.

From Vanity Fair, Beatrice and Eugenie apparently now paid for their own security (or with the help of their husband)

The debate around security for members of the royal family is an old one, and there are no publicly available rules about who does and doesn’t get it. Until 2011 Prince Andrew’s daughters, Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice, had received protection at a reported cost of £500,000 per year; since then they have provided their own, and both princesses and their husbands make their own incomes. A police task force, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, handles a list of essential public figures and royals who have round-the-clock protection funded primarily by the state.

Why Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s Security Protection Was Such a Big Deal
The debate over who protected them while they were in Canada went public—but according to Meghan, it started when she was pregnant with Archie.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/03/prince-harry-meghan-markle-security

From Honey Nine News, Andrew lost his royal protection (tax-payer funded) after ceasing to be a working royal. I'm not quite sure if he still pays for his own security or does The Queen pay it from her own personal pocket. The article also mentioned about other members of the royal family.

Prince Andrew, Duke of York
When Andrew retired from royal duties in November 2019, after his disastrous BBC interview about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, he lost his armed protection.

Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice
As part of Prince Charles' plans to strip back the monarchy, and as a way to cut costs, the York sisters lost their security in 2011.

They support Her Majesty on various occasions but are not working royals and do not receive any public money, instead holding private jobs.

Princess Anne, Princess Royal
The only daughter of the Queen and Prince Philip, Princess Anne is entitled to security on all official engagements. She is frequently the busiest of all the working royals.

Prince Edward and Sophie, Earl and Countess of Wessex
The Queen's youngest son and his wife receive protection on official duties but their children Lady Louise, 17, and James, Viscount Severn, 13, won't be protected when they turn 18.

Zara and Mike Tindall
Princess Anne's daughter Zara does not have royal protection despite being a high-profile member of the royal family and sportswoman. Nor does her husband Mike, a former English ruby player.

Why some royals get security and others don't
https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/br...xplainer/251c8f0b-0d45-4622-8682-8b39efe0c056

According to some royal commentators/contributors in the Channel 5's documentary, Beatrice and Eugenie: Pampered Princesses?, Prince Charles reportedly decided that the York Princesses will not be working members of the royal family. This (possible indirectly) led to their royal security (tax-payer funded) being removed. There was also the controversy around Eugenie's security during her gap year.

Biographer Angela Levin said that Prince Charles decided that Eugenie and Beatrice, were not required to have such costly security arrangements especially since they likely won’t ever be senior royals.

“Prince Charles decided that as they were not likely to be very senior royals, that this was too much for the public to pay, so he stopped that,” Levin revealed.

Prince Charles and Prince Andrew have been at odds for years. But things got pretty ugly in 2016 when it was reported that the Prince of Wales had revealed his future plans to “slim down the monarchy” which would only include himself, Camilla, his sons, and their families representing the Crown. Andrew was so worried about how this move would affect his daughters that he wrote a letter to the queen requesting that the princesses receive full-time royal duties. That request, however, was denied.

Prince Charles Put His Foot Down Over Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice’s Outrageous Security Costs
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertai...ess-beatrices-outrageous-security-costs.html/

 

[Somebody]

I don't think that Harry's belief is all that matters. Charles' beliefs should factor in as well.

I didn't understand Harry's argument here. Charles was also born into the royal family, so why should he have to pay for Harry's security.

Harry is also very wealthy. He inherited millions of dollars from his mother and his great - grandmother. The money has been invested for all this time because Charles has been paying his bills up until he stopped working. I don't now what your personal situation is but most adults I know pay their own way - especially when they can afford it.

On the contrary, I think this interview demonstrated a lack of awareness on Harry's part. It also shows how self-centered Harry and Meghan are if Harry believes that only his feelings matter but no one else's feelings do.

I do somewhat understand Harry's argument. However, I am quite sure that he could have continued to benefit from the basic level of protection offered by living at Frogmore Cottage. So, it is primarily his decisions that lead to much more expensive bills.

However, if Harry sh/would be entitled to at least a minimum level of security because part of his need for security is at least at first still based on him being born in the BRF (based on what he might need if he had chosen to live a mostly anonymous life from now on), the question is who should pay for that type of security? Would that be the British tax-payer as they keep his family in office; his father because he at least earns an income from being a member of the royal family; the queen as head of the family; someone else? It seems the other royals do indeed fund it themselves (including Andrew who was also born in the family and due to his own decision is now 'outside').

 

[Kellydofc]

How are they going to make a living in the UK, or do they expect Charles to support their lavish lifestyle. I just don't see that happening, they are better off in the US with contracts in place. Anyway, I don't think Netflix will let them out of the contract after such a heavy payment

Sorry, I don't expect them to come back to the UK permanently perhaps occasionally for events like the Trooping, a funeral or a coronation. Otherwise I very much expect them to never be working royals again and to have to make their own way in life.

I meant welcome back into the family in a general sense as in a being seen at any public events at all. Not in a working sense.

 

[Lucy Scot]

Charles floated the Sussex lifestyle as long as they were working for the "Firm" as full time royals. The duties and engagements they performed as royals did not earn them any income so Charles paid for their lifestyle, their working expenses, their office and staff and their wardrobe. It was like having a job with all expenses paid. When a high profile executive leaves a corporation, he is not able to take his expense account with him nor the company car/jet or residences. Whatever Charles pays out for himself, Camilla, William, Catherine, their children now are deemed "business expenses". This is what has been cut off for Harry and Meghan as they wanted "financial freedom".

Charles not paying for Sussex security in the US as private citizens shouldn't have surprised Harry nor being cut off from an "allowance". They wanted to be free to do things their way and make their own money. They now have that. They're 100% on their own from here on out. I wish them loads of success and hope things work out good for them. The birdie has left the nest and now needs to learn how to fly. ?

I seem to remember that part of the setting up of the Duchy of Cornwall was so that it would generate an income to pay for family members of the Prince of Wales.

 

[Kellydofc]

I seem to remember that part of the setting up of the Duchy of Cornwall was so that it would generate an income to pay for family members of the Prince of Wales.

Yes, as long as they were working members of the royal household. Harry isn't so he's now on his own.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I do somewhat understand Harry's argument. However, I am quite sure that he could have continued to benefit from the basic level of protection offered by living at Frogmore Cottage. So, it is primarily his decisions that lead to much more expensive bills.

However, if Harry sh/would be entitled to at least a minimum level of security because part of his need for security is at least at first still based on him being born in the BRF (based on what he might need if he had chosen to live a mostly anonymous life from now on), the question is who should pay for that type of security? Would that be the British tax-payer as they keep his family in office; his father because he at least earns an income from being a member of the royal family; the queen as head of the family; someone else? It seems the other royals do indeed fund it themselves (including Andrew who was also born in the family and due to his own decision is now 'outside').

I understand what you are saying but Harry's wealth is also tied to his being born in the BRF. He got money from his great-grandmother and most of Diana's money was the divorce settlement paid by Charles. If the UK were to abolish the monarchy tomorrow, Harry would still be high profile but should British taxpayers, who have a lot less than Harry fund his security for the rest of his life and possibly his children's lives. At what point does it end.

Life is not fair. There are a lot of innocent people who feel unsafe. In the United States, we generally don't pay for round-the-clock the security of domestic violence victims of people who are being stalked - none of them asked to be in that position either Many of them do not have a fraction of the money Harry has..

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I seem to remember that part of the setting up of the Duchy of Cornwall was so that it would generate an income to pay for family members of the Prince of Wales.

From www.duchyofcornwall.org:
The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate established by Edward III in 1337 to provide independence to his son and heir, Prince Edward.

 

[TLLK]

I want to apologize. It has come to my attention that I started a disruptive and offensive conversation by stating that a certain word wasn’t offensive. I truly did not know it was. Now that I have had the meaning explained to me I agree it was.

roseroyal. Likewise today I learned a little more about that particular word and the emotions that are attached to it. Over the years I have found this site to be an excellent learning opportunity and not just about royals.