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

[Kellydofc]

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').

If you go on the born into the Royal Family argument for security then ALL the royals deserve it. Clearly they don't go by that rule. Princess Anne works more than most royals and she doesn't have her own security. This is a HUGE reason why the "I was born royal" holds no weight with me.

So were loads of other royals. Royals who are still working royals. Royals who only get security when they are at events. Yet none of them have complained except Andrew and Harry.

 

[Lucy Scot]

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.

Exactly. And I will go beyond that. It is so easy to say that Charles should not pay for Harry's security expenses now that he is no long a working royal. But the issue is larger than that. The monarchy has never addressed the problem of "the spare". That's why I think Charles should have bent over backwards to consider Harry's feelings about having security cut off.

 

[melsamanton]

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. ?

My first post here but I have been following this thread for the past few days and this brings up something that has been bothering me. Harry and Meghan have made the financial independence argument multiple times and referred to other members of the RF having jobs. They seem to be referring to Beatrice and Eugunie but there are some issues with that. They both have jobs as private individuals and occasionally represent the Queen at events but beyond having residences on Royal grounds they do not receive income from the Sovereign Grant. M&G also received a home and they were looking to commercialize their connections to the RF when they sought a half in half out model. The York girls' work is not connected to their roles as members of the RF. Peter Philips also got into hot water for his milk commercial recently and was accused of commercializing his connection to the RF. If I recall correctly, Sophie and Edward had tried a half in half out model at the beginning of their marriage with E's film production company and Sophie's consultancy firm. The subsequent controversies with these jobs were what led to their becoming Senior Royals and doing more overseas trips on behalf of the Queen. M&H seem to misunderstand the differences in these situations and the there are precedents to show why what they wanted is a problem.

 

[TLLK]

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.

What is the Duchy of Cornwall?

The Duchy of Cornwall is a well-managed private estate, which was established by Edward III in 1337. The revenues from the estate are passed to HRH The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, who chooses to use them to fund his public, charitable and private activities and those of his family. The Duchy consists of around 53,000 hectares of land in 23 counties, mostly in the South West of England. The principal activity of the Duchy is the sustainable, commercial management of its land and Properties. The Duchy also has a financial investment portfolio.

It's not all about funding his family as there are many people not related to the PoW who are involved in the business side of the Duchy: agriculture, commercial work related to agriculture, etc..

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

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.

This is where I am interested. I interpret that as Prince Edward's children, who are, or at least one is under-aged, currently receive protection until their 18th birthday. This protection may be RPO or sponsored via the Queen from the Duchy of Lancaster.

If this is the case, I completely understand why Meghan is beside herself regarding security for Archie. Technically, Louise and James are HRH Princess and Prince of Wessex, as stated by Sophie in an article last year. So, this makes sense in regards that without a HRH and princely title, Archie would not receive protection, which was reported as the case when the Sussex family went to Africa.

I truly, truly, truly hope this isn't the case. Because if so....

 

[amaryllus]

Exactly. And I will go beyond that. It is so easy to say that Charles should not pay for Harry's security expenses now that he is no long a working royal. But the issue is larger than that. The monarchy has never addressed the problem of "the spare". That's why I think Charles should have bent over backwards to consider Harry's feelings about having security cut off.

That would be enabling an adult child who had already been given in to plenty; Sometimes a parent has to just let his chick fall so they can learn to fly on their own. I would also argue it takes two:Harry is a grown man and needs think of his fathers feelings and be realistic about where he is in life. I have seen painfully little of either from him.

 

[TLLK]

An interesting perspective from Sir Kenneth Olisa the first non-white Lord Lieutenant of Greater London, who shared his own experience of when his mother-in-law innocently asked what colors might suit her biracial grandchild. She wanted to choose the best colors to knit garments for the baby.


He's asking for calm since the context of the remark said to Prince Harry in 2017 are not known to the public.




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.

 

[Lucy Scot]

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

I cannot find where it says that they have to be working members of the royal household.

I found this article but I do not know if it is accurate:

THE DUCHY of Cornwall is an estate that helps fund the Prince of Wales’s family and his public, private and charitable activities. Some of those funds are given to members of the Royal Family, including Prince Harry.

In a shock announcement on their Instagram, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle said they plan to “step back” as senior royals and split their time between the UK and North America.

However, the Duke and Duchess will still be members of the Royal Family.

That means the Sussexes are still expected to receive money from the Duchy of Cornwall.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...duchy-of-cornwall-prince-charles-prince-harry

 

[Eskimo]

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.

I read somewhere that security costs for them in California can be as high as $10 million a year. I don’t think Charles can afford that

 

[Mirabel]

If you go on the born into the Royal Family argument for security then ALL the royals deserve it. Clearly they don't go by that rule. Princess Anne works more than most royals and she doesn't have her own security. This is a HUGE reason why the "I was born royal" holds no weight with me.

So were loads of other royals. Royals who are still working royals. Royals who only get security when they are at events. Yet none of them have complained except Andrew and Harry.

True, but many royals require less security since they live in a policed area like KP.
If Harry and Meghan had remained at Frogmore Cottage, which is on the Windsor estate, security would be less expensive.

But living in California means security costs are huge.
I don't think they have any right to demand that.

I really hope the Queen doesn't pander to Harry and give in to his demands in the interest of peace.
Appeasement never works.

 

[Kellydofc]

This is where I am interested. I interpret that as Prince Edward's children, who are, or at least one is under-aged, currently receive protection until their 18th birthday. This protection may be RPO or sponsored via the Queen from the Duchy of Lancaster.

If this is the case, I completely understand why Meghan is beside herself regarding security for Archie. Technically, Louise and James are HRH Princess and Prince of Wessex, as stated by Sophie in an article last year. So, this makes sense in regards that without a HRH and princely title, Archie would not receive protection, which was reported as the case when the Sussex family went to Africa.

I truly, truly, truly hope this isn't the case. Because if so....

Archie's protection was never tied to him having the title of prince or an HRH. It would have been tied to a risk assessment. He most likely would not have gotten his own security when he was a baby, because he was a baby, would have been one of his two parents and would haven been covered by their security as working royals. Last year in Africa he was still covered by the security of his parents. It's just one of them had one less person on their protection detail.

As he got older his risk assessment would have been reevaluated. He doesn't get any security now because his parents are no longer working royals.

True, but many royals require less security since they live in a policed area like KP.
If Harry and Meghan had remained at Frogmore Cottage, which is on the Windsor estate, security would be less expensive.

But living in California means security costs are huge.
I don't think they have any right to demand that.

I really hope the Queen doesn't pander to Harry and give in to his demands in the interest of peace.
Appeasement never works.

I think if they were going to give in it would have happened already. The official statement seems pretty firm to me.

I read somewhere that security costs for them in California can be as high as $10 million a year. I don’t think Charles can afford that

There's no way Charles can afford that. He's not that rich.

 

[Eskimo]

This is where I am interested. I interpret that as Prince Edward's children, who are, or at least one is under-aged, currently receive protection until their 18th birthday. This protection may be RPO or sponsored via the Queen from the Duchy of Lancaster.

If this is the case, I completely understand why Meghan is beside herself regarding security for Archie. Technically, Louise and James are HRH Princess and Prince of Wessex, as stated by Sophie in an article last year. So, this makes sense in regards that without a HRH and princely title, Archie would not receive protection, which was reported as the case when the Sussex family went to Africa.

I truly, truly, truly hope this isn't the case. Because if so....

You added 2+2 and came up with 7 ��

I cannot find where it says that they have to be working members of the royal household.

I found this article but I do not know if it is accurate:

THE DUCHY of Cornwall is an estate that helps fund the Prince of Wales’s family and his public, private and charitable activities. Some of those funds are given to members of the Royal Family, including Prince Harry.

In a shock announcement on their Instagram, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle said they plan to “step back” as senior royals and split their time between the UK and North America.

However, the Duke and Duchess will still be members of the Royal Family.

That means the Sussexes are still expected to receive money from the Duchy of Cornwall.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...duchy-of-cornwall-prince-charles-prince-harry

The Duchy of Cornwall provides an income to the heir to the throne- Charles and no one else. Charles can give some of the money to fund his children if he so wishes but is under no legal obligation to do so

 

[amaryllus]

Queen is smarter than that. Like with spoiled nagging children if you give in once you’ll always be giving in. Give in with this, they will want a nicer bigger home next, then traveling expenses paid for and on and on.

 

[Lucy Scot]

You added 2+2 and came up with 7 ��


The Duchy of Cornwall provides an income to the heir to the throne- Charles and no one else. Charles can give some of the money to fund his children if he so wishes but is under no legal obligation to do so

Yes, I understand that. But he has a source of income to fund his children.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Archie's protection was never tied to him having the title of prince or an HRH. It would have been tied to a risk assessment. He most likely would not have gotten his own security when he was a baby, because he was a baby, would have been one of his two parents and would haven been covered by their security as working royals. Last year in Africa he was still covered by the security of his parents. It's just one of them had one less person on their protection detail.

As he got older his risk assessment would have been reevaluated. He doesn't get any security now because his parents are no longer working royals.

On the Africa trip, Harry and Meghan had events where Archie would be away from his parent. As is the case, security would have to be with Archie and his nanny wherever they were staying. As a result of Archie not receiving protection, it is reported that one of the protection officers for Meghan or Harry needed to step in. What this creates is a vulnerability to either Meghan or Harry security as a potential attack vector was created. Luckily, this information was not known at the time because being very senior royals with a very high interest, there is an inherently high risk for ALL of the family.

Whenever Meghan was in public with Archie, she had her own protection, but not for Archie - again creating a potential new attack vector. I remember seeing photos of Kate, with George in the pram and having two protection officers close to her - one for her and one for George.

Archie would not be deemed low-risk. But also - we have no idea what the assessment criteria is. And we will never know

 

[amaryllus]

His children are nearly middle aged men with children with more money than most people will earn in 5 lifetimes. One will be a King. If Harry and Wife can’t adjust his head space to reality and learn to live within his means that’s on them not Charles’s

 

[Kellydofc]

On the Africa trip, Harry and Meghan had events where Archie would be away from his parent. As is the case, security would have to be with Archie and his nanny wherever they were staying. As a result of Archie not receiving protection, it is reported that one of the protection officers for Meghan or Harry needed to step in. What this creates is a vulnerability to either Meghan or Harry security as a potential attack vector was created. Luckily, this information was not known at the time because being very senior royals with a very high interest, there is an inherently high risk for ALL of the family.

Whenever Meghan was in public with Archie, she had her own protection, but not for Archie - again creating a potential new attack vector. I remember seeing photos of Kate, with George in the pram and having two protection officers close to her - one for her and one for George.

Archie would not be deemed low-risk. But also - we have no idea what the assessment criteria is. And we will never know

I don't think we should know. The United States Secret Service always says they never discuss details about the security of a protectee. I think that's how it should be for all people who are protected. The details should never be released, it opens up to many security concerns, even if the event is passed.

 

[Frelinghighness]

This is where I am interested. I interpret that as Prince Edward's children, who are, or at least one is under-aged, currently receive protection until their 18th birthday. This protection may be RPO or sponsored via the Queen from the Duchy of Lancaster.

If this is the case, I completely understand why Meghan is beside herself regarding security for Archie. Technically, Louise and James are HRH Princess and Prince of Wessex, as stated by Sophie in an article last year. So, this makes sense in regards that without a HRH and princely title, Archie would not receive protection, which was reported as the case when the Sussex family went to Africa.

I truly, truly, truly hope this isn't the case. Because if so....

prince Edwards children are grandchildren of the monarch and are princes. Harry’s children are great grandchildren and will become princes when they are grandchildren of the monarch, when Charles is king. This is according to the letters patent of 1917 from George V

 

[Fem]

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).

Of course she is still bitter about it, she wouldn't mention it otherwise Tbh it makes it easy to believe the sources who claim Meghan slammed the door when Catherine came with flowers to apologize. She's not over it and will never be over it, as I believe her issues with Catherine are much bigger - position, popularity, being the wife of the older brother... - so any small issue seems like a big insult in Meghan's eyes.

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.

Okay then I'm feeling deeply unhappy about Prince Charles not paying the rent for my apartment, can something be done about that too?

I honestly don't understand the logic "Harry believes he should be given something so we have to give him something". Why? The British public doesn't want to pay for his lavish lifestyle in California. His father doesn't too. And in this situation all that matters are the people who are paying, not the people who are receiving.

 

[Kellydofc]

I honestly don't understand the logic "Harry believes he should be given something so we have to give him something". Why? The British public doesn't want to pay for his lavish lifestyle in California. His father doesn't too. And in this situation all that matters are the people who are paying, not the people who are receiving.

Thank you. I am failing to understand this logic myself.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

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).

Seriously, you didn't understand why she mentioned it? It was clear as day - that the palace will pick and choose when to comment on untruths. That is why she mentioned it. Because the hate toward her in the media was unbearable and The Firm allowed this lie, and many many others, to be perpetuated. How do we knows this - read below:

Of course she is still bitter about it, she wouldn't mention it otherwise Tbh it makes it easy to believe the sources who claim Meghan slammed the door when Catherine came with flowers to apologize. She's not over it and will never be over it, as I believe her issues with Catherine are much bigger - position, popularity, being the wife of the older brother... - so any small issue seems like a big insult in Meghan's eyes.

Understand now? I'll be the first to admit that it's easier to believe what is written in the media than thinking about whether it is true or not. But Meghan highlighted that an untruth, a blatant lie, was allowed to be perpetuated by those who knew the truth. We have been there before - someone knowing a lie but not saying anything - but imagine that on the world stage

 

[amaryllus]

Huh. The single British mother with two kids and mounting bills who just lost her job x 30,000 believes she should get something but let’s send millions to Cali so Archie kins can go to the most trendy preschool and Meg can go the designers that A list actresses do

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Seriously, you didn't understand why she mentioned it? It was clear as day - that the palace will pick and choose when to comment on untruths. That is why she mentioned it. Because the hate toward her in the media was unbearable and The Firm allowed this lie, and many many others, to be perpetuated. How do we knows this - read below:

Understand now? I'll be the first to admit that it's easier to believe what is written in the media than thinking about whether it is true or not. But Meghan highlighted that an untruth, a blatant lie, was allowed to be perpetuated by those who knew the truth. We have been there before - someone knowing a lie but not saying anything - but imagine that on the world stage

I agree that is why she brought it up but she could have just told Oprah that it wasn't true and left it at that. Why say that Catherine made her cry? Catherine isn't going to respond, so it is a she said/she said situation. Some reports are standing firm that Catherine cried. Meghan didn't go into any details that would allow us to evaluate whether Meghan may have overreacted or misunderstood.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

I agree that is why she brought it up but she could have just told Oprah that it wasn't true and left it at that. Why say that Catherine made her cry? Catherine isn't going to respond, so it is a she said/she said situation. Some reports are standing firm that Catherine cried. Meghan didn't go into any details that would allow us to evaluate whether Meghan may have overreacted or misunderstood.

Because it showed the severity of the lie - i.e. the Firm allowed the complete opposite to stay as a truth.

The Firm could have easily released a statement, like they did with Catherine in regards to the Tatler's article completely denouncing the lie, but they didn't.

 

[Queen Ester]

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.

You are right, and not only fathers and sons, Princes of the Tower, Mary I,
Henry the VIII, Lady Jane, Henry VI

 

[American Observer7]

prince Edwards children are grandchildren of the monarch and are princes. Harry’s children are great grandchildren and will become princes when they are grandchildren of the monarch, when Charles is king. This is according to the letters patent of 1917 from George V

I am sick to death reading about the Letters Patent of 1917 from George V. So what? Times have changed. Both William and Harry's children are all great-grandchildren of the Monarch. William's children would not have been titled if the Queen had not stepped in. If Harry's children can wait until Charles becomes king then William's children could have as well and should have. The Queen should not have done it for one brother's children and not the other. Had it been done when Archie was born, this so-called royal family crisis may have been averted. And before anyone says it, I don't care about who is where in the line of succession.

 

[Erin9]

I find it interesting that the Sussexes complain about feeling unsupported.

These 2 haven’t proven to be great at communication.

Off the top of my head:

Harry didn’t talk to his family about Meghan’s mental health issues.

The supposed racism comment that was so upsetting that they had to broadcast a vague version of the story to millions apparently wasn’t worth discussing with the person who supposedly said it.

Meghan’s stories about being unprepared with basics- like how to greet his grandmother. That falls on Harry.

There are more examples, I’m sure.

But just how are people supposed to help you if your communication skills are this poor?

 

[Lucy Scot]

Huh. The single British mother with two kids and mounting bills who just lost her job x 30,000 believes she should get something but let’s send millions to Cali so Archie kins can go to the most trendy preschool and Meg can go the designers that A list actresses do

We're not talking about taxpayer money. We're talking about Charles' money.

 

[Eskimo]

I am sick to death reading about the Letters Patent of 1917 from George V. So what? Times have changed. Both William and Harry's children are all great-grandchildren of the Monarch. William's children would not have been titled if the Queen had not stepped in. If Harry's children can wait until Charles becomes king then William's children could have as well and should have. The Queen should not have done it for one brother's children and not the other. Had it been done when Archie was born, this so-called royal family crisis may have been averted. And before anyone says it, I don't care about who is where in the line of succession.

You might be shocked to learn that the British Royal Family does not care about what us non-Brits think.

 

[Kellydofc]

I am sick to death reading about the Letters Patent of 1917 from George V. So what? Times have changed. Both William and Harry's children are all great-grandchildren of the Monarch. William's children would not have been titled if the Queen had not stepped in. If Harry's children can wait until Charles becomes king then William's children could have as well and should have. The Queen should not have done it for one brother's children and not the other. Had it been done when Archie was born, this so-called royal family crisis may have been averted. And before anyone says it, I don't care about who is where in the line of succession.

But who is where in a the line of succession is of vital importance for them. I know it doesn't matter to you but it does to them. And they're not terribly concerned with everything being equal. I know it boggles American Republican, and I mean that in the strictest sense of the definition not in regards to a political party, minds and ideologies but there it is. I'm sure you would strive to make everything extremely equal between all your children, grandchildren, etc. but that is not at all how it works in monarchies. There are always going to be members of the family who are of greater and lesser rank.