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

[AC21091968]

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?

Exactly, I wish people would stop dragging Andrew's into the Sussex's thread and vice versa. These two are completely different like chalk and cheese. They are disliked for different reasons.

Andrew never publicly vowed to be financially independent and continued to live in Palace/Castle grounds (already secured), whereas Harry & Meghan live in Santa Barbara (which required high security cost) and did include "financial independence" in their public statement.

 

[Erin9]

.



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.

I’m sure her involvement with the Prince’s Trust plays a part in their silence.

I tend to think of George as a fairly intelligent, classy guy anyway - I have trouble believing he would applaud an interview like this.

 

[Sunnystar]

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.

I think the question has mostly been answered, though, by the Oprah interview. I think they thought they would get funding and, when it started to become apparent that their funding was going to dry up to large extent, they tried to force the Crown's hand with that website unveiling. Then, they didn't get their way and thus, they signed the Spotify & Netflix deals, bought the Montecito mansion, and decided to air their 'truth' to the world with Oprah. They honestly didn't think they'd be financially cut off. Of course, BP made it clear in their statement that "recollections may vary".

By the way, can we also be clear here that Santa Barbara is NOT Los Angeles? It's not even the same county and it's a good 90 miles from LA, and I imagine the drive is at least 2 hours if not more on most days. It's a little closer than Palm Springs or San Diego but not a hop, skip, jump.

 

[Sunnystar]

I’m sure her involvement with the Prince’s Trust plays a part in their silence.

I tend to think of George as a fairly intelligent, classy guy anyway - I have trouble believing he would applaud an interview like this.

Yes, George is a savvy, thoughtful businessman, not to mention legit Hollywood royalty given his family connections. Meghan can only aspire to Clooney level connections and respect.

 

[Zonk]

Let's stay on topic...which is the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Its not about the referendum on the Monarchy, Andrew or anything else.

All off topic posts will be deleted without notice.

 

[Fem]

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

I think you didn't understand the discussion surrounding Sussexes security. There is nothing wrong with Prince Charles paying for their security out of his own pocket. What people strongly objected to was the Sussexes keeping their taxpayers funded Met Police security - which they were expecting to keep, per the interview with Oprah.

Prince Charles can do whatever he wants with his private money. But he apparently decided that paying millions for Sussexes security is not something he wants to do, and as these are his private money, he can do whatever he wants.

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.

Yes, I think the reaction from the press, from republican figures as well as british public did not react well to the interview. If we consider YouGov polls, aside from Prince Charles no other royal suffered a big drop in popularity. It says a lot about how the interview is considered in the States as opposed to UK and Europe.

 

[Osipi]

What would the British public vote to do if suddenly the BRF couldn't raise the cash for charity? Let them sit around Balmoral drinking gin?

It's in the the memories of most of the older members of BRF when the income from the Duchy of Cornwall for the, then, Duke of Cornwall was used at his will and pleasure. It was Charles that defined and wrote the book on how to make the Duchy of Cornwall a profitable entity. For centuries, there were no charity work or royal duties or walkabouts among the people. I believe that the British public actually values the charity work and the service that the monarchy provides for the people.

 

[Moran]

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.

That's the conclusion I came to. Harry's rather incoherent ramblings weren't any good for establishing any times and connections. Meghan was more precise.


This is, however, the least important part of what I wrote. Charles has been funding Harry for years and Harry can well afford to support his wife and family, although perhaps he might have to scale down. The comparison in the article was incorrect.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I think the question has mostly been answered, though, by the Oprah interview. I think they thought they would get funding and, when it started to become apparent that their funding was going to dry up to large extent, they tried to force the Crown's hand with that website unveiling. Then, they didn't get their way and thus, they signed the Spotify & Netflix deals, bought the Montecito mansion, and decided to air their 'truth' to the world with Oprah. They honestly didn't think they'd be financially cut off. Of course, BP made it clear in their statement that "recollections may vary".

By the way, can we also be clear here that Santa Barbara is NOT Los Angeles? It's not even the same county and it's a good 90 miles from LA, and I imagine the drive is at least 2 hours if not more on most days. It's a little closer than Palm Springs or San Diego but not a hop, skip, jump.

Montecito is about the same distance as San Diego...a two hour drive north rather than south.

Maybe you meant San Francisco, which is about a 7 hour drive north from Los Angeles?

 

[Eskimo]

https://pagesix.com/2021/03/14/markle-claims-during-oprah-interview-debunked-by-2014-blog-post/

 

[Sunnystar]

Montecito is about the same distance as San Diego...a two hour drive north rather than south.

Maybe you meant San Francisco, which is about a 7 hour drive north from Los Angeles?

No, I know the difference between SF and Santa Barbara. I used to live in the Central Valley.

My point is that no one considers San Diego or Palm Springs to be synonymous to LA and Montecito/Santa Barbara is approximately the same distance (mileage it's about 25-30 miles closer than either SD or PS) from LA as either of those cities. SoCal is, as you know, being from LA, huge and very spread out. But saying "LA mansion" when the Sussexes live in Santa Barbara is like me saying "Portland mansion" when someone lives in Eugene. Uhm, no, not even close.

 

[Kataryn]

IMO- it’s one of those things that they’re not outright saying, but you can see coming anyway based on what is and is not happening.

Louise and James do not use the HRH style that they’re entitled to, unlike Beatrice and Eugenie. A decade made a difference in expectations.

Beatrice and Eugenie, despite the HRH, are not working royals. Unlike male line grandchildren of the monarch in other generations, such as the Queen’s cousins.

Things have clearly changed. They’re saying it without saying it IMO.

Times have changed from 1917. It only took one year and the war to end to finish off all the German "equal" families, they lost their political power. From then on, you didn't need princesses anymore to form political alliances. The king of the UK and the Tsar of Russia were first cousins as their mothers were sisters. Did this help the Russians? The German emperor and the king of the Uk were first cousins because they were both grandchildren of Queen Victoria. So what?



Later it seems only the "Of Greece and Denmark"-family managed some noble, international marriages with reigning houses (Sofia, queen of Spain, Philip, Elisabeth's husband, Marina, duchess of Kent, Anne-Marie of Denmark as queen of Greece) while the members of other Royal families started to look elsewhere for husbands and wifes. The whole system ended with some "punishments" for minor members at first, but later on the families accepted their new members.



Like the abdication, but then Elisabeth marrying Prince Philip, Charles marrying Diana (a peer's daughter), William marrying Catherine (a British commoner) and Harry marrying Meghan (a divorced, bi-rascial American).



So why should there be more princesses beyond the monarch's daughters?

Chances that they marry another monarch are next to nothing, so they marry "down" anyway.

 

[UglyAmerican]

No, I know the difference between SF and Santa Barbara. I used to live in the Central Valley.

My point is that no one considers San Diego or Palm Springs to be synonymous to LA and Montecito/Santa Barbara is approximately the same distance (mileage it's about 25-30 miles closer than either SD or PS) from LA as either of those cities. SoCal is, as you know, being from LA, huge and very spread out. But saying "LA mansion" when the Sussexes live in Santa Barbara is like me saying "Portland mansion" when someone lives in Eugene. Uhm, no, not even close.

My fault. I do know the difference, it's just that I keep forgetting where exactly they live! ?

 

[Erin9]

The Duke & Duchess of Sussex & Family - General News March 2021 -

Why We Care About the Royal Family Feud
The British monarchy has endured for more than a millennium, and the queen is a symbol of stability.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...-care-about-the-royal-family-feud-11615507719

I though this opinion column in the Wall Street Journal by Peggy Noonan was quite interesting.

IMO- she nailed how Meghan sees herself: as a moral instructor and ethical leader.

This was an interesting point about the damage done when he painted the family as frightened:

“Harry and Meghan famously leveled two big charges, that the House of Windsor is racist and that it is weak. Previous incarnations of criticism painted it as invincible—the sharp-elbowed courtiers, the coldhearted family, they can crush you like a bug. No, Harry said, they are the bugs, trapped in fear of the tabloids that control whether they’ll keep the throne. “There is a level of control by fear that has existed for generations. I mean generations,” he said. “My father and my brother”—Prince Charles and Prince William —“they are trapped. They don’t get to leave. And I have huge compassion for that.” That must be a comfort to them.

No immediate-family heir to the British throne has ever talked like this. You are made quite vulnerable when people suddenly see you as weak. What remains of your mystique is lessened when you’re seen as just another group of frightened persons.”

 

[KrissyM]

That doesn't mean The Duke of Sussex was wrong though. Nor does it mean he set out to destroy the family business.

 

[yukari]

This argument just cross my mind.

If the reason why Archie should get HRH Prince at birth because he'll be HRH Prince anyway when Charles becomes king as a monarch's grandson, but what if (god forbid) Charles predeceases his mother (say, he didn't survive Covid last year)? Archie would never be a monarch's grandson, no?

But in this same hypothetical scenario, if George were born as Georgiana and Charlotte as Charles and last year both Charles and William didn't survive Covid, then without the 2012 LP there'd be Lady Georgiana Moutbatten-Windsor as the heir apparent to the throne and with her brother HRH Prince Charles as the spare.
(Edit: or other scenario if it's Georgiana - Charlotte - Louis then it'd be Lady Georgiana as heir apparent, Lady Charlotte as the spare, and HRH Prince Louis as the spare of the spare, hence why 2012 LP is necessary).

And if Archie gets the title mainly because he's bi-racial, in my interpretation of racism, by doing it I say the BRF is racist.

 

[Osipi]

This argument just cross my mind.

If the reason why Archie should get HRH Prince at birth because he'll be HRH Prince anyway when Charles becomes king as a monarch's grandson, but what if (god forbid) Charles predeceases his mother (say, he didn't survive Covid last year)? Archie would never be a monarch's grandson, no?

But in this same hypothetical scenario, if George were born as Georgiana and Charlotte as Charles and last year both Charles and William didn't survive Covid, then without the 2012 LP there'd be Lady Georgiana Moutbatten-Windsor as the heir apparent to the throne and with her brother HRH Prince Charles as the spare.

And if Archie gets the title mainly because he's bi-racial, in my interpretation of racism, by doing it I say the BRF is racist.

Very sensible and logic reasoning here. And one thing that's never been mentioned that is a real kick in the back of the front. Racism doesn't just work one way, it can and does work *both* ways between groups of people. ?

 

[Erin9]

That doesn't mean The Duke of Sussex was wrong though. Nor does it mean he set out to destroy the family business.

It’s one more reason why he shouldn’t have done the interview. One of many. Some things could and should have been left unsaid.

I’m not sure about Harry’s intentions with this interview. I can give him more benefit of the doubt than Meghan though. They were both angry, venting, lashing out, looking for sympathy IMO. I’m willing to believe Harry at least may not have fully thought through the consequences of what he was saying.

 

[UglyAmerican]

If the reason why Archie should get HRH Prince at birth because he'll be HRH Prince anyway when Charles becomes king as a monarch's grandson, but what if (god forbid) Charles predeceases his mother (say, he didn't survive Covid last year)? Archie would never be a monarch's grandson, no?

But in this same hypothetical scenario, if George were born as Georgiana and Charlotte as Charles and last year both Charles and William didn't survive Covid, then without the 2012 LP there'd be Lady Georgiana Moutbatten-Windsor as the heir apparent to the throne and with her brother HRH Prince Charles as the spare.

And if Archie gets the title mainly because he's bi-racial, in my interpretation of racism, by doing it I say the BRF is racist.

Interesting! But if Archie went directly from being the great-grandson of the monarch to the nephew of the monarch, then I guess he would never at any point have been close enough to have an HRH. Whereas even if William and Charles had both predeceased the Queen, William's younger children would still be the siblings of the monarch.

 

[Queen Claude]

Meghan zigzags throughout the discussion with Oprah about Archie's title. For those who can access it, here is a link to the interview - the discussion about Archie's title starts at the 27 minute mark.

The discussion starts off with Meghan stating that it is important that Archie have a title because if he does not have a title he will not get security. So at this juncture the implication is that Archie needs to be a prince from birth in order to get security. Then Oprah asks how was it explained to her that the great-grandson of The Queen will not be a prince. Interestingly, Meghan's response is more about what is going to happen when Charles ascends and Archie is the grandson of a monarch as opposed to what is going to happen at Archie's birth when he is the great grandson of a monarch. So even though Meghan uses the word safety throughout the discussion, she is now taking issue with some future event. So now the issue is that Archie will not become a prince when Charles ascends because the convention is going to be changed resulting in one set of grandchildren, the Cambridges, having Prince and Princess titles and another set, the Sussexes, not having Prince and Princess titles. Then Oprah asks about there not being a photocall on the hospital steps and then we're back to present day and Meghan states that the hospital steps photocall is a tradition for Princes and Princesses, and since Archie is not a prince, then that tradition does not apply to him and furthermore why offer him up when there is no intention to keep him safe.

My reaction:
* There are HRH / Princes and Princesses who do not have security, so I am not seeing how Meghan is under the impression that being a Prince or Princess means you get security.

* To me it seems like it would have been a more productive discussion for Harry and Meghan to advocate for their children to get security regardless of whether they have titles, assuming that there is some level of threat. The tour of South Africa was at the request of the Foreign Office, security for Archie should have been part of the discussions before a final agreement was made.

* Meghan takes issue with being told that the George V LP that stipulates that male line grandchildren are HRH / Princes and Princesses is going to be replaced with a Charles III LP that will limit the HRH / Princes and Princesses and her children will not become HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess X. She is incredulous as to how that can happen, but if George V can do it for whatever reasons he had in 1917, then Charles III can do it for whatever reasons he will have in 202X. And that is another thing, Meghan wants the viewers to believe that the idea of revising the LP came about because of Archie's impending arrival when the writing was on the wall (to me) that this is how things were going to be when the Wessex children were not given the HRH / Prince and Princess title and styling.

* To me there may be some legitimate concerns about security, but I find it hard to believe that if Harry and Meghan were UK based working royals, and there was a credible threat against their children that security would be provided, whether it be taxpayer funded security or privately funded security.

* To me linking their children's safety to them having titles does not hold water. I think that Harry and Meghan wanted their children to have the HRH / Prince and Princess title and styling from birth like the Cambridge children and are unhappy that Archie was not given a prince title at birth. Their grievance was further compounded by Meghan being informed (I think Harry already knew) that their children will not get the HRH / Prince and Princess title and styling when their grandfather ascends due to it being Charles' intent to issue new letters patent.

* Note: since I doubt that Charles plans to issue the new LP within seconds of his ascension, there will be a window of time where the Sussex children will technically be HRH / Prince and Princess but I suspect that TPTB hope that the Sussex children continue to use their birth names until the new LP makes it official that they are not HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess X.

 

[texankitcat]

I see. This all is very confusing, because when Archie was born they clearly said that they wanted their son to be a private citizen. They are contradicting themselves. So it seems Meghan wanted Archie to be HRH Prince but it was not possible, then why didn't they let their son be titled son of a Duke? Is it really if "I don't have the cake but only a slice, then I don't want anything at all?".

The Duke of Sussex title is hereditary and therefore Archie will inherent that title when Harry passes. In the meantime, he is entitled to use the secondary title of Earl of Dumbarton, therefore, he isn’t being cheated of a title or being discriminated against due to his ethnicity.

What I find so infuriating and sad is Meghan and Harry are using their son in their war against the BRF. This little boy will grow up believing he was cheated out of his Royal heritage, title and security due to his ethnic DNA just so his parents can get their way. That is inexcusable,

The more you see what the long term affects of what Meghan and Harry have started, the more disturbing it is.

 

[Lee-Z]

Why We Care About the Royal Family Feud
The British monarchy has endured for more than a millennium, and the queen is a symbol of stability.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...-care-about-the-royal-family-feud-11615507719

I though this opinion column in the Wall Street Journal by Peggy Noonan was quite interesting.

IMO- she nailed how Meghan sees herself: as a moral instructor and ethical leader.

This was an interesting point about the damage done when he painted the family as frightened:

“Harry and Meghan famously leveled two big charges, that the House of Windsor is racist and that it is weak. Previous incarnations of criticism painted it as invincible—the sharp-elbowed courtiers, the coldhearted family, they can crush you like a bug. No, Harry said, they are the bugs, trapped in fear of the tabloids that control whether they’ll keep the throne. “There is a level of control by fear that has existed for generations. I mean generations,” he said. “My father and my brother”—Prince Charles and Prince William —“they are trapped. They don’t get to leave. And I have huge compassion for that.” That must be a comfort to them.

No immediate-family heir to the British throne has ever talked like this. You are made quite vulnerable when people suddenly see you as weak. What remains of your mystique is lessened when you’re seen as just another group of frightened persons.”

The bolded part imo is spot on, and can actually be found on the Archewell website
https://archewell.com/about

"At Archewell, we unleash the power of compassion to drive systemic cultural change."

My feeling is that the intention with the Oprah interview was that M&H were going for systemic cultural change, starting with the BRF and how they were obstructed doing it
(if i'm cynical i might say, that i felt more of the 'unleashing' in the interview than the 'compassion' but that's just imo)

I just wish there was more news about them moving on, and actually showing the 'compassion thing' (my words) in practice.
Even our discussion here would probably have died down by now (or at least gotten less) if there had been one or two new Archewell activities in the last week..

 

[yukari]

A friend sent me this.
It's DM, but it's quite a good read.

The parallels are striking - a stunning Californian who fell for an aristocrat. Here, she says: I'm an African American who married into the British upper-class and made it work. It's sad Meghan couldn't, too

(...)

Like Meghan, Rose was also an independent, dynamic, successful and beautiful African-American thirtysomething woman who fell for a thoroughly blue-blooded Brit.

The year before the Royal Wedding, Rose — CEO and founder of ScreenHits TV — had married into the British aristocracy; and the wedding was an elegantly grand affair which featured in the pages of society bible Tatler magazine.

(...)

A former figure-skater, accomplished youth classical musician and studio executive, she credits her parents for her strong ‘self-worth’ and refusal to live ‘in the shadows of victimhood’.

‘At home, they closed out the noise of negativity from the world. We were made to feel as though we could do anything,’ says Rose, whose parents have been married for more than 50 years.

‘That gave me the backbone to let certain comments not affect me. I remember someone once called me a very derogatory word in front of a friend. I was so embarrassed and ashamed, but when I told my mother and father, they said: “Don’t pay any mind to meaningless words from meaningless people. Surround yourself with those who will support and love you and you will amount to great things.”’

(...)

‘There was the odd remark or snobbery shown towards me, but I chose to take the higher ground and give these people an opportunity to truly get to know me so they could shape their opinions on fact, versus preconceived notions.

‘Racism is a global problem: there is no escaping the reality of it. I’ve had a few shocking experiences, but they do not reflect the majority of people I’ve met here. Sometimes it just comes down to someone not liking you for something that has nothing to do with your skin colour.’

(...)

While she understands the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s upset over questions that were raised about the colour of their unborn children’s skin, she says: ‘I think there’s a big difference between racism and ignorance. I also think there is a big difference between racism and “concerns”.

‘What I remember from my own experiences is a valid concern that people had regarding a future member of our family and how racism would affect them if the child came out more like me — which is a beautiful, deep-brown, cinnamon colour.

‘The questions asked were, “How will they be perceived? How will they be treated? What will people say? How will you protect them from this unfair world we live in?”

‘Now is that racist or is that someone who is concerned for the wellbeing of a future family member? For someone who has never experienced racism, they may have concerns on how this will affect the young child’s life, and what they could do to protect them.

‘I’d be more concerned if they didn’t ask these questions, because they would not be prepared for what to expect.’

Rose adds: ‘There’s no point not talking about the elephant in the room and hiding behind politically correct statements.

‘We all know that the world treats people differently based on their skin tones, and in the privacy of one’s home, people have the right to bring up their concerns for what to expect.

(...)

This lady surely has a good insight and wisdom.

 

[Roslyn]

Maybe some good would come of deflecting Meghan's attention from the HRH Prince issue and to the fact that as things stand Archie will one day be a peer and his status will then rise above that of mere commoner. In the meantime he is entitled to use his father's secondary title as a courtesy title. Without a peerage to inherit, he would forever remain a commoner even if he became HRH Prince Archie. An HRH Princess - such as Beatrice, Eugenie & Anne - is still a commoner and will always be a commoner, and so is a Prince without a peerage, such as Prince Michael of Kent. So Meghan and Harry ought to tread lightly and not upset any more applecarts, for Archie's sake. If Harry's peerage is removed, Archie won't have one to inherit.

I don't know what Meghan and Harry really want... and I'm not sure they do, either.

 

[Curryong]

News on Archewell links to UK charities.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1409515/meghan-markle-prince-harry-uk-archewell-charity-evg

 

[Denville]

It’s difficult to make the argument that Harry is as ignorant as Meghan pretends to be since he was born into it and raised within its protocols, rules and history. There is just no way he doesn’t know how things work and there is no way she is truly ignorant since these rules either considering the special team that was put in place to educate her on all areas of being a Royal duchess.

her happy. Either way, Harry’s complicity in these deceptions is inexcusable.

I agree that he should NOT be ignorant.. but either he is, or he pretended to be. Like when he said that he "never thought that they'd cut off his secuirty". He MUST Have known that many of the working royals only get security when they are working.. so why would he think that he'd get it, when he had decided to give up working?
Honestly, watching part of the interview. I don't know which of the 3 of them was more fake sounding. Meghan sounded fake. Oprah sounded fake.. with her ""oh my God" face.. and Harry must have known perfectly well that Archie would not be a Prince and that security is not tied to have the rank of Prince... and that if he was a working prince he'd get security. if he wasnt.. then the taxpayer is not going to pay his security...
and clearly Charles felt that he should not be asked to pay either....

 

[Minea]

I don't know If this has been linked already, but The Behavior Panel analyzed parts of the interview in the latest episode.

I think they are overanalyzing occasionally, but they make some interesting points, like the one of shuffling all responsibility off everything on someone else (Meghan even on Harry, If not squarely, then backhandedly).

 

[Alison H]

Until Meghan claimed - entirely falsely - that Archie was not given the style of HRH and the title of prince because of his ethnicity, I had not heard even one person come anywhere close to suggesting that that was the case.


Some radical republican groups will level all sorts of false claims at the monarchy, and some people will claim that racism exists where it doesn't in order to try to discredit someone, or are so sensitive on matters of race that they will genuinely believe that something is intended in a racist way when it isn't, but I had never heard even one person suggest that, because it's just so far from the truth that no-one would think it.

There's been a great deal of talk in the last year, as a result of the Black Lives Matter protests, about racial inequality in various areas of society, and many genuine concerns have been raised. But no-one ever suggested that there was any connection between racism and Archie's style and title. That's because there isn't. And, in claiming that there is, Meghan does nothing to help people who have been the victims of genuine racism.


Until Meghan made that claim, had it ever occurred to anyone here that Archie wasn't a prince or HRH because of his ethnicity? Or had anyone ever heard anyone else make that suggestion?

 

[Estel]

I don't know If this has been linked already, but The Behavior Panel analyzed parts of the interview in the latest episode.

I think they are overanalyzing occasionally, but they make some interesting points, like the one of shuffling all responsibility off everything on someone else (Meghan even on Harry, If not squarely, then backhandedly).

Thanks, I'm watching it.

I was going through the comments and came across one that says the Queen Mother left Harry $10 million, is this true?

 

[Denville]

not sure how much the QM left him but she did leave him some money, probably a few million. He also had half of Diana's fortune.. so he should have enough to live in comfort...His father also gave him a Large amount to start up life abroad, but it seems that it is not enough for H and he wants Charles to sub him for the rest of his life. It seems according to him, that he ONLY did the Netflix deal to provide money when Charles cut off funds.. so what did he think he'd live on when he moved away? Was he not planning on doing anything to earn a living in the US?