General News about the Sussex Family, Part Two: April-August 2020


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
A custom made maternity gown worn one evening in Morocco by a French fashion house is meant to have cost clost to £100,000. The dress worn for the engagement photoshoot was meant to have cost c£50,000. The annual numbers were not small.

Oh my goodness. I was going off Kate's annual wardrobe expenditure which is about 120k. Up that to 500K.

Kate's clothes too has gotten more expensive over the years but she still tends to wear high quality high street. Meghan tends to designer. Not just for ball gowns.
 
Oh my goodness. I was going off Kate's annual wardrobe expenditure which is about 120k. Up that to 500K.

Kate's clothes too has gotten more expensive over the years but she still tends to wear high quality high street. Meghan tends to designer. Not just for ball gowns.
.

Meghan's time as a working member of the BRf wa so short, that it was difficult to draw meaningful themes (couture vs high street etc), other than the fact that the bulk of her ensembles were foreign as opposed to British labels.
 
.

Meghan's time as a working member of the BRf wa so short, that it was difficult to draw meaningful themes (couture vs high street etc), other than the fact that the bulk of her ensembles were foreign as opposed to British labels.

Quite. I remember those first years of Kate and she would turn up dressed in Topshop. Those days are gone. But that is a lot of money. And particularly so when she isn't promoting the British fashion industry.

Even stuff like that make me think that it is no wonder that it all spun out of control. Supporting British fashion in what you wear is a small thing but so high in terms of examini g how all this just didn't work.
 
Last edited:
Numerous sources are reporting that the couple are openly supporting a boycott of Facebook advertsing & by extension involving themselves in thorny questions over social media platforms & censorship. Who decides what is acceptable & what is not? How are these gatekeepers chosen? Who are they accountable to?

These are not issues that should involve members of the royal family however it would appear that the couple view their position differently. I presume that this is an example of the “progressive new role” they referred to.

Further down the rabbit hole I think. Quite surreal really.
 
The royal family themselves famously don't. I dont know about William and Harry but the generation above them hardly spend money at all. William and Harry were a bit...let's pop to Africa for a weekend safari. Bea and Eug were always on holidays in their 20's. But also they were of that generation. William now appears to spend nothing beyond a plush summer holiday and occasionally a skiing holiday. They spend all their time at Amner. Harry still has quite the lifestyle.

While this is true, that is not what I meant. I was talking more about the stuff that the RF do not have to pay for: the palaces, the transportation, the security etc. etc.

It takes tens of millions of dollars to replicate even a Frogmore Cottage in LA, forget about the palaces. The mortgage on the Tyler Perry property would be more than a million dollars a year. The maintenance would run several hundred thousands of dollars per year.

They need as much, if not more, security that most A-list celebrities. This would be a lot of $$$.
 
While this is true, that is not what I meant. I was talking more about the stuff that the RF do not have to pay for: the palaces, the transportation, the security etc. etc.

It takes tens of millions of dollars to replicate even a Frogmore Cottage in LA, forget about the palaces. The mortgage on the Tyler Perry property would be more than a million dollars a year. The maintenance would run several hundred thousands of dollars per year.

They need as much, if not more, security that most A-list celebrities. This would be a lot of $$$.

Well yes. Untold money Harry probably doesn't even consider.
 
Numerous sources are reporting that the couple are openly supporting a boycott of Facebook advertsing & by extension involving themselves in thorny questions over social media platforms & censorship. Who decides what is acceptable & what is not? How are these gatekeepers chosen? Who are they accountable to?

These are not issues that should involve members of the royal family however it would appear that the couple view their position differently. I presume that this is an example of the “progressive new role” they referred to.

Further down the rabbit hole I think. Quite surreal really.



As independent people, they are no longer accountable to anybody. Their “gatekeepers” are Sunshine Sachs.
 
As independent people, they are no longer accountable to anybody. Their “gatekeepers” are Sunshine Sachs.

The main caveat in all of this, is that Harry and Archie are still relatively high up in the line of succession, so need to take that into account even though they decided to no longer 'work' for the royal family.
 
It's a flagrant disregard of the usual conventions. And as I say incredible that members of the royal family should be doing this.
 
Last edited:
Trump is posting hate ads. His people took a video of white child and a black child about the same age running to each other and hugging. Trump's people change into the white child running from the black child. The father of one of the children had Facebook take down legally.
 
I understand your point but issues around the policing of social media sites like Facebook is nothing to do with members of the British royal family. Wherever they happen to live.

Members of the royal family are not activists. If they were we would have become a republic long ago.
 
It's a flagrant disregard of the usual conventions. And as I say incredible that members of the royal family should be doing this.

What I'm curious about is just how H&M could be supporting a boycott of social media if they've actually don't have a social media account active at this present time or have been using social media at all (that I know of).

Let's face it though. 2020 is a year so far in the US where people are getting up in arms boycotting, protesting, demonstrating about what seems to be a million different things.

Personally I'm in favor of banning all mosquitoes from existing the US and feeding on its citizens. Anyone want to join me? It'll make 1,000,001 things to get up in arms about. :D
 
What I'm curious about is just how H&M could be supporting a boycott of social media if they've actually don't have a social media account active at this present time or have been using social media at all (that I know of).

Let's face it though. 2020 is a year so far in the US where people are getting up in arms boycotting, protesting, demonstrating about what seems to be a million different things.

Personally I'm in favor of banning all mosquitoes from existing the US and feeding on its citizens. Anyone want to join me? It'll make 1,000,001 things to get up in arms about. :D

The Independent report on this is here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ott-online-hate-speech-campaign-a9590041.html

I think in a time of upheaval it's even more important that members of the royal family remain above the fray so to speak.
 
Thanks, Durham, for the link to the Independent.

After reading the article, I have to agree with you that H&M should not be found to be taking sides in how a social media outlet censors its content. I do agree that finding and deleting hate content is up to the owners of the social media outlets especially if it in the US where we're supposed to have freedom of speech but H&M joining and encouraging commercial advertisers to boycott is overstepping the line and will not only reflect on them but also on the British Royal Family by default.
 
But we have been told countless times by posters, on this thread and others, that both Harry and Meghan are 'no longer royals', 'not members of the Royal family any more', 'are irrelevant', 'going to fade away' etc, so why the anxiety about their promotion of this cause or indeed others?
 
But we have been told countless times by posters, on this thread and others, that both Harry and Meghan are 'no longer royals', 'not members of the Royal family any more', 'are irrelevant', 'going to fade away' etc, so why the anxiety about their promotion of this cause or indeed others?

Fair point. I guess the answer is that they are members of the royal family whatever any of us on here may think. In the Independent article there is a link to a civil rights campaigner who refers to the couple as the "Duke & Duchess" & not by their first names, so he clearly thinks of them as royal. And his tweet will be read by others.

Supporting aids charities is a whole world away from the acute controversy over the policing of the internet. That's very political.
 
Why on earth did we need to know about Harry sending a message to the charity. Just stop putting yourself in the media.
 
Why on earth did we need to know about Harry sending a message to the charity. Just stop putting yourself in the media.

Because this is a thread for general news about the Sussexes, not a thread for constant criticism about them or speculation about their future sources of income. This was a news item about Harry supporting the fight against HIV and AIDS, something which he has done for years, and which I posted for those interested and still supportive of Harry.
 
Why on earth did we need to know about Harry sending a message to the charity. Just stop putting yourself in the media.

It doesn't seem likely. They seem to still see themselves as royals but this time formally only representing themselves I guess (although still in line to the British throne in Harry's case) instead of the British Head of state and Head of the Commonwealth.

They really put themselves in an impossible position. They still want to be treated as royals giving 'support' to causes they care about but are -somewhat- on their own while they will need to stay away from controversy as that might negatively impact the British royal family.

I guess it is a complicated journey if they thought that they could do all of this and still remain active members of the royal family but had to choose... It looks like they figured that they could still set up their own unofficial court (which seems to be what they wanted previously within the firm while also 'earning professional income') even though or especially now they are no longer part of the firm.
 
Because this is a thread for general news about the Sussexes, not a thread for constant criticism about them or speculation about their future sources of income. This was a news item about Harry supporting the fight against HIV and AIDS, something which he has done for years, and which I posted for those interested and still supportive of Harry.

... I think you misunderstood the post to which you're responding. She wasn't asking why you posted the news item here.
 
It doesn't seem likely. They seem to still see themselves as royals but this time formally only representing themselves I guess (although still in line to the British throne in Harry's case) instead of the British Head of state and Head of the Commonwealth.

They really put themselves in an impossible position. They still want to be treated as royals giving 'support' to causes they care about but are -somewhat- on their own while they will need to stay away from controversy as that might negatively impact the British royal family.

I guess it is a complicated journey if they thought that they could do all of this and still remain active members of the royal family but had to choose... It looks like they figured that they could still set up their own unofficial court (which seems to be what they wanted previously within the firm while also 'earning professional income') even though or especially now they are no longer part of the firm.

They thought many things. A lot pretty embarrassing.
 
Thanks, Curryong. It’s good to see Harry continuing his good works during the pandemic.
 
The main caveat in all of this, is that Harry and Archie are still relatively high up in the line of succession, so need to take that into account even though they decided to no longer 'work' for the royal family.

H&M have chosen to go down a certain path, with the line of succession to the throne not a major factor as they see it. In their judgement, that is the right path for them. IMO, either he does not understand the ramifications of some of his actions, or does not care.

Either way, the path that he is going down, a different path to his brother, as he set out in the Africa documentary with Tom Bradby last year, will take him further away from the responsibilities and restrictions that life in the BRF bring. Good luck to them!
 
Please be reminded that this thread relates primarily to General News for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Accordingly - as with all other General News threads - small items of news that do not fall into the Current Events category such as charitable support are welcome to be discussed.
 
Last edited:
I am sure a life changing decision, like the decision to step down, would have been taken after careful consideration of all the facts. I have no doubt H&M would have fully considered things like their income, likely expenditure, their titles, security, charitable patronages and military associations before making their decision. ?

Imnot sure they did, as I recall, it was said that they didn't really consider the finances all that well, when saying that they wanted to leave and could do wihtout the Sovereign Grant as that was only a small part of the money they got.. They got much more from the Duchy of Cornwall.
 
Post deleted, duplicated by mistake
 
Last edited:
Imnot sure they did, as I recall, it was said that they didn't really consider the finances all that well, when saying that they wanted to leave and could do wihtout the Sovereign Grant as that was only a small part of the money they got.. They got much more from the Duchy of Cornwall.

I said that somewhat tongue in cheek.

It was clear, to me, from the pronouncements on the Sussexroyal website, that whilst the move had clearly been contemplated for a while (as evienced by the registering of the website months beforehand), none of the detail had been considered, let alone agreed with The Firm. So to that extent, it was truely shocking.

Anyways, I do not want to revisit some of those events, they are off-topic here, and the appropriate threads have since been shut down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom