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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
They have a huge mortgage. Apparently that is something the media can look up.

Yes, that is something that is absolutely able to be looked up by the media. I am a mortgage closer by profession and any land title deeds must be recorded with the county recorder, and you can look them up by property address, APN (Assessor's Parcel Number), or even the name of the homeowner. At minimum, there would be a Bargain & Sale Deed or a Warranty Deed (they're both essentially the same thing) transferring the ownership of the property from the seller to the buyer. That deed will include the legal property description and APN. From there, it's a matter of doing a Chain of Title search to see what other deeds are on record for the property, and the Chain of Title search would pull up the Mortgage Deed (if they did take out a mortgage to purchase the property) which would show who their lender is as well as how large the mortgage was that they took in order to purchase the property.

Most county recorders and tax assessors have websites with the county tax information readily available - probably at least once a week I find myself Googling some random county tax assessor's website to look up property tax information to verify we are collecting the correct amounts for escrows or that the homeowner is current on their property taxes. Property taxes are based on current property value and in California property taxes only increase when the property has had an ownership transfer, so H&M are going to have a pretty hefty property tax bill in addition to their mortgage.

All of this information is a matter of public record and I'm not sure how they can keep any of it private. There WILL be a record of the title transfer and even if they themselves didn't take ownership but instead put the ownership of the property in a trust or an LLC, there will be a mortgage deed on record too if they had one for the purchase of the property. I assume that the statements "they had to take a mortgage to buy the Montecito property" have been properly researched by interested reporters but I also am pretty sure that if I was inclined (totally 1000% not, lol), I could find the necessary information (subject property address) and confirm it myself.
 
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.:ohmy:

I don't think many of us have said that it would be wrong from Charles to pay for Harry's security. He gave them money to get them settled in their new life. The issue is whether Charles was a bad father because he wouldn't pay security for his 36-year old multi-millionaire son who has the funds to buy a mansion with 14 bathrooms.
 
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.:ohmy:

The Queen has always funded Andrew as a working royal and if she has chosen to fund his security from her private wealth, that's her prerogative.

The way it works is that the Prince of Wales has his Duchy of Cornwall income and with that he's responsible for the funding of his wife and his children and their families. *Most* of what Charles funds for William and Harry is their expenses as working royals. It is a tax deductible business expense for him. If Charles had four children, like the Queen, when he became King, he'd still fund the three younger ones while William, as Duke of Cornwall would be responsible for his own family. This is one reason when the Royal Foundation was split up and William and Harry's joint office and staff were split up, Harry's was moved to Buckingham Palace under the jurisdiction of the Queen. It was, to me, a preparation to plan for the future when Charles would be responsible for Harry but no longer for William.

What Charles does with his own personal funds is up to him and him alone. Any security paid for to guard Harry and Meghan and family would come out of his *personal* expenditures and no longer a "business expense". The Queen has no say whatsoever on Charles' finances. The Queen however, could be talked by Andrew into backing him in a scheme to colonize Mars and it'd be her own personal choice to back him on that one. :D
 
Well, exactly KrissyM. One rule for Andrew one exception for the Sussexes I suppose.

TBF, if the Sussexes also live in Windsor (just like Andrew), I think Charles would pay their security cost. The thing is, security cost in Santa Barbara is more expensive than in Windsor and although Charles is rich, but he's not THAT rich that he can pay it indefinitely.
 
As an Asian, sometimes I wonder what "racist" actually means in the west (especially in US). Does racism only apply for "white" against "non-white"?

Because in my mindset (as I've been taught since young), being racist means to discriminate or have prejudice to someone/group on the basis of their race or ethnicity. An Indian can be racist towards a Chinese despite the darker skin tone just like Japanese can be racist towards Korean despite the similar skin tone. And with that in mind, if the BRF made an exemption based on the fact that Archie (and his future sister) is biracial (because of his race, not his birth order), in my Asian's mind, wouldn't it make the BRF as an institution as racist since in a way they had discriminated the other great-grandchildren who aren't biracial?
That makes sense. You are right about what "racist" really means. I saw a Korean program where a foreign woman (I think she was from Iran) moved to South Korea, and she explained the hard life she had there because of racism and prejudice (and she was fair-skinned). It really isn't about being "white" or "non-white", but as you pointed out, discrimination or have prejudice to someone/group on the basis of their race or ethnicity.
 
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.
 
Okay this is my first real 'opinion' rather than just playing devil's advocate. Putting on my CJ Cregg hat, if I was an advisor, the minute I heard The Sussex's were expecting I'd sit down with the Queen and this would be the scene...

"Ma'am, I strongly urge you to re-write the LP's to say that starting from this birth all Great-grandchildren on the Monarch are automatically granted HRH unless specifically refused by their parents,"

"Why?" Her Majesty would reasonably ask.

"Ma'am, if you don't, someone, somewhere could and likely would say that this child isn't given it because of his ethnic makeup."

Possibly Her Majesty would say "But that's untrue, and ridiculous. The rules were made in 1917."

"That's correct ma'am. However, in 1917 people of color were lynched in the US and couldn't even use the same lavatory until the late 60's. Someone will bring it up, and the only way not to have a horse in that race, is to cancel the race. This is the world we live in now."

So if I understand you correctly, you make a distinction between public perception versus facts.

Not granting Archie an HRH can be perceived by the public as racism despite the fact that the decision is actually based on rules that were set in place before the Queen was born. Furthermore, as Tatiana Marie has pointed out, these rules are not based on race (but do discriminate by gender).

The general public does not understand or even know about these rules (especially Americans) and only see that Archie, Charles' only mixed-raced grandchild, is NOT an HRH while his other grandchildren ARE, and wrongly conclude this exclusion is based on RACE.

Is this correct?
 
I am not familiar with Californian Law and Santa Barbara County Police, but why was the trespasser not fined, but being let off with warning after he was caught in his first attempt? Surely, he should have been fined for breaking the law by entering a person's property without permission.


I'm likely way off with my response but this might have been an attempt this past year to keep more people out of the county jail due to COVID restrictions. Many suspects are being let out on a $1.00 bail. Also there has been a tremendous increase in the homeless population in SB Co., with people camping out in all sorts of places in the area.
 
Last edited:
That is correct! Perception matters more than fact for a monarchy to remain relevant in today's world.
 
The Queen has always funded Andrew as a working royal and if she has chosen to fund his security from her private wealth, that's her prerogative.

The way it works is that the Prince of Wales has his Duchy of Cornwall income and with that he's responsible for the funding of his wife and his children and their families. *Most* of what Charles funds for William and Harry is their expenses as working royals. It is a tax deductible business expense for him. If Charles had four children, like the Queen, when he became King, he'd still fund the three younger ones while William, as Duke of Cornwall would be responsible for his own family. This is one reason when the Royal Foundation was split up and William and Harry's joint office and staff were split up, Harry's was moved to Buckingham Palace under the jurisdiction of the Queen. It was, to me, a preparation to plan for the future when Charles would be responsible for Harry but no longer for William.

What Charles does with his own personal funds is up to him and him alone. Any security paid for to guard Harry and Meghan and family would come out of his *personal* expenditures and no longer a "business expense". The Queen has no say whatsoever on Charles' finances. The Queen however, could be talked by Andrew into backing him in a scheme to colonize Mars and it'd be her own personal choice to back him on that one. :D

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.
 
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.
 
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 :eek: 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.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.:ohmy:

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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...:whistling:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom