The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April-June 2021

[PetticoatLane]

The Kate crying article was such a non-entity at the time I'd actually forgotten about it until the interview. My group of friends and work colleagues ranging in ages from 20-45 literally never talked about it at the time and I'd wager a good 90% of the British people would say it never even entered their radar. The BRF know that today's papers are tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers, complaining about it gives the story air and a life of its own that it wouldn't have if you'd just let it go.

That article certainly didn't carry the massive emotional weight of, say, a 4-year-old Princess Elizabeth doing a Nazi salute on the front page of the Sun, the many, many articles accusing Prince Philip of being involved in ordering an MI6 assassination of Diana, a pic of Harry wearing a Nazi uniform to a party or literally anything Charles or Camilla have ever been accused of (which let's remember led to Camilla being physically assaulted by members of the public when doing her groceries).

Meghan clearly had mental health challenges during her time working for the RF but equally cared little to nothing about the mental health of people she attacked so brutally in that Oprah interview.

 

[Denville]

Ae something he can speak to. Didn’t Anne and Edward write an Op-Ed in The NY Times disputing what their brother had said?

Not to the best of my knowledge. I think that Anne did make some remarks to the effect that generally the family didn't air their grievances in public, and that not everyone had the same experiences with their parents as Charles had had. But Charles was mainly unhappy about the way he felt he'd been pushed into marriage. He didn't criticize everybody.. Diana criticked the RF, but she was on her way out of the RF...

 

[Erin9]

I agree with that - and if Harry and Meghan had kept it behind the scenes, I would not feel as negatively as I do towards them. Up until a few days before the interview, I generally supported them.

But Harry, Meghan, and their supporters can't have it both ways. If Meghan and Harry can publicly criticize their family and encourage friends to publicly do so, they shouldn't complain when they are publicly criticized (the royal family has not publicly criticized them). It is interesting to read thoughtful posts from people I don't agree with. Everyone has the right to post their thoughts as long as it is respectful and follow forum rules.

I was fairly supportive of them until the Africa interview. I pretty much ignored tabloid reports (including ones that turned out to be true: William and Harry weren’t getting along). I thought they did some good things, had some interesting ideas. Didn’t really care about any issues around Archie’s birth, the baby shower, etc. Ignored Meghan is difficult. Forgot entirely the crying story. And so on.

Their decision to start complaining in Africa led me to start viewing them differently. It all went downhill from there. They made a decision to start really putting themselves and their point of view out there. The price you pay is: some people aren’t going to like what they see. I didn’t. Their choice. They opened themselves up to criticism IMO. I do agree you can’t have it both ways: you can’t put yourself out there, make public criticisms.... and not expect criticism to publicly reverberate back. Though the royal family hasn’t done so, others have and will. It is what it is- as long as it is respectful.

 

[Mbruno]

Agreed. Also, Charles apparently already closed his checkbook when it comes to providing for his son - who is still in good shape financially. That’s why Harry said what he said on air. I believe H is insecure in general, and that may be why he has been so upset about William getting more attention/“power”. I also think it’s why he was upset about Charles “cutting him off”, equating that to his (H) not being important enough.

William getting more attention and, more specifically, "more power" is unfortunately beyond anyone's personal reach. It is just how hereditary monarchy works. There can be only one king and one heir presumptive at any given time and, by law, when Charles is king, William will be the heir if he is still alive and not otherwise disqualified; after that, if William outlives Charles, he will be the king and George will be the heir, again as long as neither one is disqualified (e.g. by joining the Catholic Church or contracting marriage without consent). If Harry can't grasp that basic concept, I'm afraid there is no way forward and any further discussion is pointless.

On the issue of being cut off, I also fail to see where H&M stand. On one hand, they claimed thet wanted to be financially independent and were presumably leaving full-time royal work to pursue opportunities of securing a private income (which they have indeed, e.g. with the Spotify and Netflix deals). On the other hand, Harry is frequently complaining about his father having cut him off and his having to rely on the money "his mother left him". It looks like he wants to have it both ways, which is not possible.

 

[Heavs]

I was supporting them the hour before the announcement came out and even then I wanted them to be half in half out at first until I realised the stunt they'd pulled and how it wouldn't work for them to do Hollywood commercial work and be working royals at the same time. I think if they were unhappy they had the right to leave but the way they did it was probably the worst way possible.

I still think things like "Together" and the Smart Works Collection were good ideas. And I've always loved the idea of Invictus and Sentebale.

Here's a piece from Vanity Fair and well, I have a few issues with it.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/04/may-cover-story-a-continental-royal-rift

 

[UglyAmerican]

On the issue of being cut off, I also fail to see where H&M stand. On one hand, they claimed thet wanted to be financially independent and were presumably leaving full-time royal work to pursue opportunities of securing a private income (which they have indeed, e.g. with the Spotify and Netflix deals). On the other hand, Harry is frequently complaining about his father having cut him off and his having to rely on the money "her mother left him". It looks like he wants to have it both ways, which is not possible.

If I remember correctly, by "financially independent" they originally meant giving up funding from the sovereign grant, which was only 5% of their income to begin with. The other 95% came from Charles, and they seemed to assume they'd be keeping it.

Somehow, this is still up:

https://sussexroyal.com/funding/

 

[Mbruno]

If I remember correctly, by "financially independent" they originally meant giving up funding from the sovereign grant, which was only 5% of their income to begin with. The other 95% came from Charles, and they seemed to assume they'd be keeping it.

Somehow, this is still up:

https://sussexroyal.com/funding/

Well, i guess that, if you have a rich dad, you may feel entitled to be privately funded by him in perpetuity even though you are no longer working for him or his "Firm". I suppose that is a private matter for the family and, if the rich dad is OK with that, it is none of our business. Apparently, Charles is no longer OK with it though and that is his right too.

 

[Denville]

If I remember correctly, by "financially independent" they originally meant giving up funding from the sovereign grant, which was only 5% of their income to begin with. The other 95% came from Charles, and they seemed to assume they'd be keeping it.

Somehow, this is still up:

https://sussexroyal.com/funding/

I suppose it might be simply that Harry hasn't got a clue about money, and even when he was told last year that Charles supplied the vast majority of his income, he didn't realise that Charles might not always do so.... and now a year later, he is still feeling peeved that his father has called a halt...

 

[amaryllus]

What kind of Middle aged couple, what kind of husband and father much less, with a child and one on the way expects their dad to financially fund them permanently(?)

I’d be embarrassed

 

[Denville]

What kind of Middle aged couple, what kind of husband and father much less, with a child and one on the way expects their dad to financially fund them permanently(?)

I’d be embarrassed

I think he just doesn't know much about money. Possibly Meghan advised him that if they left royal life they could make their own money, and she was at first anyway the one who was pro active about making the move and looking around ofr business opportunities.. but Harry perhaps felt that Charles would continue with the allowance for life, or at least for a long time.. and now he's saying that they only did the Netflix deal when told that noone was going to pay for their security and that they'd have to find the cash themselves.
Or perhaps they thogut of Meghan being the one who did the business deals and earned the money, and Harry only came round to it reluctantly...

 

[UglyAmerican]

Now that I think on it, it's kind of strange. When they first made the announcement, there was a lot of back and forth on here about whether Charles should cut them off. Many felt strongly that he should, but far fewer thought he actually would. But apparently he did, and around that same time, too.

 

[Betsypaige]

William getting more attention and, more specifically, "more power" is unfortunately beyond anyone's personal reach. It is just how hereditary monarchy works. There can be only one king and one heir presumptive at any given time and, by law, when Charles is king, William will be the heir if he is still alive and not otherwise disqualified; after that, if William outlives Charles, he will be the king and George will be the heir, again as long as neither one is disqualified (e.g. by joining the Catholic Church or contracting marriage without consent). If Harry can't grasp that basic concept, I'm afraid there is no way forward and any further discussion is pointless.

On the issue of being cut off, I also fail to see where H&M stand. On one hand, they claimed thet wanted to be financially independent and were presumably leaving full-time royal work to pursue opportunities of securing a private income (which they have indeed, e.g. with the Spotify and Netflix deals). On the other hand, Harry is frequently complaining about his father having cut him off and his having to rely on the money "his mother left him". It looks like he wants to have it both ways, which is not possible.

Agreed, and Harry should know that...that it’s nothing personal, that William is not more loved by his father or grandmother, even if he’s getting more attention/“power”. Of course, I understand what it’s like to be insecure, and in general, no matter how many times people tell you you’re loved and valued, you might not believe it. That doesn’t excuse H’s behavior, but it might explain it.

I think H is equating money, again, with being loved and valued. I guess it’s possible that all of a sudden, with Meghan, he became truly spoiled, greedy, and entitled, but he never, ever struck me as that before.

 

[Betsypaige]

I was supporting them the hour before the announcement came out and even then I wanted them to be half in half out at first until I realised the stunt they'd pulled and how it wouldn't work for them to do Hollywood commercial work and be working royals at the same time. I think if they were unhappy they had the right to leave but the way they did it was probably the worst way possible.

I still think things like "Together" and the Smart Works Collection were good ideas. And I've always loved the idea of Invictus and Sentebale.

Here's a piece from Vanity Fair and well, I have a few issues with it.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/04/may-cover-story-a-continental-royal-rift

I posted abut this in the Future thread. I saw this on Twitter - I will not be reading. I think it’s nothing but the print version of clickbait, and so, so wrong. The BRF has gone on with their business for a year - they aren’t missing Harry and Meghan in the sense that they are falling apart. The Sussexes are also incredibly unpopular in the UK. There is no Republican uprising.

Anna P. must have been hanging out with Robert Lacey too much.

 

[amaryllus]

They still would have enough money to live much more comfortably for the rest of their lives than 90% of Americans if the lost the California mansion and trappings and stopped trying to keep up with the Hollywood and inherited wealth set. But I suppose that crazy outrageous thought would never occur to them.

Going to raise rescue chickens in Topeka does not sound glamorous does it?

 

[Betsypaige]

Not to the best of my knowledge. I think that Anne did make some remarks to the effect that generally the family didn't air their grievances in public, and that not everyone had the same experiences with their parents as Charles had had. But Charles was mainly unhappy about the way he felt he'd been pushed into marriage. He didn't criticize everybody.. Diana criticked the RF, but she was on her way out of the RF...

I’m trying to find it...maybe it was in response to his biography, but I know they did respond to say that Charles’ portrayal of their parents was unfair, like you said. My main point, though, was that Charles knows what it’s like to get blowback from comments he maid

 

[Erin9]

The Kate crying article was such a non-entity at the time I'd actually forgotten about it until the interview. My group of friends and work colleagues ranging in ages from 20-45 literally never talked about it at the time and I'd wager a good 90% of the British people would say it never even entered their radar. The BRF know that today's papers are tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers, complaining about it gives the story air and a life of its own that it wouldn't have if you'd just let it go.

That article certainly didn't carry the massive emotional weight of, say, a 4-year-old Princess Elizabeth doing a Nazi salute on the front page of the Sun, the many, many articles accusing Prince Philip of being involved in ordering an MI6 assassination of Diana, a pic of Harry wearing a Nazi uniform to a party or literally anything Charles or Camilla have ever been accused of (which let's remember led to Camilla being physically assaulted by members of the public when doing her groceries).

Meghan clearly had mental health challenges during her time working for the RF but equally cared little to nothing about the mental health of people she attacked so brutally in that Oprah interview.

Indeed. I said it before: the majority of people watching the Oprah interview had absolutely no idea there was ever a story on Kate crying. Those who had overall forgot it and dismissed it as tabloid garbage. Since I’ve been on this forum for a long time, I’m sure I heard about it. I can’t say I really remember that though. Letting things go doesn’t seem to be a quality Harry or Meghan possesses in abundance. But- they’d have been wise to do so IMO.

Good grief. I’d forgotten about the Philip ordering Diana’s death stories. I remember them now though. That, other stories listed, and many more do put a lot of the Sussex complaints even deeper into the petty categories IMO.

I hadn’t really thought of it that way: Meghan and Harry have had their own mental health issues, but neither seemed to think about the mental health of those they publicly attacked. Ouch. Revenge seems to have won out.

 

[Osipi]

Sometimes when a person faces something for the first time in his life, it brings on panic attacks and mental stress and worry and the result of that can manifest as anger. Anger against anything and everything without clear, rational thought.

They wanted the half in, half out and the method of obtaining it as a manifesto failed miserably. They were either in or they were out and they opted for out. However, they were given a year and things would be reviewed again. Perhaps Harry and Meghan felt that "review" would swing in their favor and that they were so missed and needed by the "Firm", that they'd be given what they wanted. I sincerely believe that the interview came about because the review did not swing in their favor and they found themselves totally on their own with no financial help coming in and having to pay for any security they wanted.

Meghan did not fit into the royal world and they've left that. Now Harry has left the royal world he knows and has moved over to the celebrity culture world and that's a totally different world for him. There'll be no deference to him because he's a "prince". He'll be responsible for taxes as much as the rest of us are. He's living in Meghan's world now. As they both have seemed to estrange most of their families, they've left no one to blame in the future except themselves. I hope their marriage is strong enough to withstand what lies ahead for them (whatever that may be).

 

[Moran]

I think H is equating money, again, with being loved and valued. I guess it’s possible that all of a sudden, with Meghan, he became truly spoiled, greedy, and entitled, but he never, ever struck me as that before.

I suspect you might be right and if so, it doesn't reflect well on the RF to not have taught him the difference. It isn't as if he was left to beg his bread by the side of the road while William was swimming in bucks. And it shouldn't have been this hard either. Why, when I was in my early teens, my brother got the best food, literally. I got the crap in comparison. It never occurred to me to complain or think I was less loved and valued. I could see that it was a matter of life and death. An ailment that necessitated certain foods. And with the economic crisis, coupons and so on the best for the two of us just wouldn't cut it, so the healthy one went with the crap option. It was just how things were. It's beyond me why someone who has had all his needs and likely whims met would have been allowed to form an opinion that money equaled love.

From where I stand, Harry has been going down Andrew's path for a while and it isn't a good look. I've always got a soft spot for Andrew and Fergie despite their massive mass of glorious failures but I never had much patience for his insistence to underline Beatrice and Eugenie's royal prominence. I only hope Diana's money hold so we won't see any shady business from Harry as well.
It's about time the BP learned their lesson but I suppose we'll see after some 20 years or so.

 

[Mbruno]

I suspect you might be right and if so, it doesn't reflect well on the RF to not have taught him the difference. It isn't as if he was left to beg his bread by the side of the road while William was swimming in bucks. And it shouldn't have been this hard either. Why, when I was in my early teens, my brother got the best food, literally. I got the crap in comparison. It never occurred to me to complain or think I was less loved and valued. I could see that it was a matter of life and death. An ailment that necessitated certain foods. And with the economic crisis, coupons and so on the best for the two of us just wouldn't cut it, so the healthy one went with the crap option. It was just how things were. It's beyond me why someone who has had all his needs and likely whims met would have been allowed to form an opinion that money equaled love.

From where I stand, Harry has been going down Andrew's path for a while and it isn't a good look. I've always got a soft spot for Andrew and Fergie despite their massive mass of glorious failures but I never had much patience for his insistence to underline Beatrice and Eugenie's royal prominence. I only hope Diana's money hold so we won't see any shady business from Harry as well.
It's about time the BP learned their lesson but I suppose we'll see after some 20 years or so.

I think it is a systemic problem that has to do with how younger children of monarchs (or future monarchs) are raised in the UK and what is expected of them. Other monarchies have/had this problem too, but most of them are now moving in the next generation to the "Dutch model" where younger siblings are cut off from state funding when they come of age, so they already grow up knowing they will have to have a career in the private sector.

The fact that some royal families, including the Windsors, are privately wealthy does help because, even if they are cut off from state funding, the collateral branches can tap on the family's private money and maybe, as other posters said, that is what Harry expected.

Note: for the purposes of this discussion, I am counting the income from the Duchy of Cornwall as "private money" although I understand that is controversial.

 

[amaryllus]

I suppose Kate at least is trying if the recent reports of the Cambridge children coming in to shop with their own money and budgeting are correct. You know she will understand money matters and how people people have to save, budget and make wise choices than most of her in-laws, husband included. It’s a small but vital step in assuring her children are taught what Harry evidently was not and maybe history won’t repeat itself in that regard.

 

[UglyAmerican]

They wanted the half in, half out and the method of obtaining it as a manifesto failed miserably. They were either in or they were out and they opted for out. However, they were given a year and things would be reviewed again. Perhaps Harry and Meghan felt that "review" would swing in their favor and that they were so missed and needed by the "Firm", that they'd be given what they wanted. I sincerely believe that the interview came about because the review did not swing in their favor and they found themselves totally on their own with no financial help coming in and having to pay for any security they wanted.

I remember reading that the one-year review was moved up, so it wasn't quite a full year. This was just before the interview aired, and the consensus was that Harry and Meghan had timed it that way so they could do the interview without violating any rules, though that was never confirmed.

 

[Betsypaige]

I suspect you might be right and if so, it doesn't reflect well on the RF to not have taught him the difference. It isn't as if he was left to beg his bread by the side of the road while William was swimming in bucks. And it shouldn't have been this hard either. Why, when I was in my early teens, my brother got the best food, literally. I got the crap in comparison. It never occurred to me to complain or think I was less loved and valued. I could see that it was a matter of life and death. An ailment that necessitated certain foods. And with the economic crisis, coupons and so on the best for the two of us just wouldn't cut it, so the healthy one went with the crap option. It was just how things were. It's beyond me why someone who has had all his needs and likely whims met would have been allowed to form an opinion that money equaled love.

From where I stand, Harry has been going down Andrew's path for a while and it isn't a good look. I've always got a soft spot for Andrew and Fergie despite their massive mass of glorious failures but I never had much patience for his insistence to underline Beatrice and Eugenie's royal prominence. I only hope Diana's money hold so we won't see any shady business from Harry as well.
It's about time the BP learned their lesson but I suppose we'll see after some 20 years or so.

It could be an unconscious thing - I certainly don't blame the BRF IF Harry thinks that way. I think it goes hand in hand with his jealousy/resentment over William getting more attention/power...I'm sure his parents and his family as a whole made sure he knew he was loved, but as the spare, he didn't get as much attention as his brother, etc.. Harry is human - who knows why he developed those feelings?

I think it is a systemic problem that has to do with how younger children of monarchs (or future monarchs) are raised in the UK and what is expected of them. Other monarchies have/had this problem too, but most of them are now moving in the next generation to the "Dutch model" where younger siblings are cut off from state funding when they come of age, so they already grow up knowing they will have to have a career in the private sector.

The fact that some royal families, including the Windsors, are privately wealthy does help because, even if they are cut off from state funding, the collateral branches can tap on the family's private money and maybe, as other posters said, that is what Harry expected.

Note: for the purposes of this discussion, I am counting the income from the Duchy of Cornwall as "private money" although I understand that is controversial.

I think this makes a lot of sense.

 

[RandyDrx]

I have never said that I expected a true reconciliation right away - that’s going to take time. You have to start from somewhere, though - and this was a good start.

We could go back and forth all day with “what if’s”...What if positive steps in these relationships are taken? What if lessons are learned? You’re getting too far ahead of yourself, and you’re only thinking negatively. Charles and his father managed to forge a close relationship despite many issues between them. This idea that Charles especially should throw his hands up and give up just doesn’t make sense to me. Keep in mind that he’s the head of the family now - I’m sure he wants to set a good example for his family.

You're right, I was getting ahead of myself and believe me, I'm trying to think more positively, but it's hard to do when you have been pessimistic for a long time. That said, I also think that reconciliation is the best path for both sides to take so this drama can finally be consigned to the history books.

 

[camelot23ca]

What kind of Middle aged couple, what kind of husband and father much less, with a child and one on the way expects their dad to financially fund them permanently(?)

I’d be embarrassed

I don’t think Charles would have had a problem funding part of Harry’s lifestyle indefinitely. What may have been murky was what Harry was getting the money for. Charles may have seen the money he gave Harry as sort of a salary for his work as a royal, while Harry saw it as just money from dad, with no conditions or strings attached. When Harry upset the apple cart with very little notice and expected the funding to continue, or even increase to cover the security costs, Charles may have balked.

That said, there were articles that came out just after the Oprah interview that refuted the idea that Charles had abruptly cut Harry off. These were anonymous sources, so who knows if they were accurate or not, but I tend to think it was the expectation that Charles would significantly increase the amount of money he gave to Harry, (again with very little warning), as well as - just a hunch - the somewhat entitled attitude coming from Team Sussex that may have led to discord.

To me there would be nothing embarrassing about Harry expecting Charles to fund him as long as he remained a working member of TRF. What’s embarrassing is that funding became an issue at all - Harry and Meghan should have made sure they had their financial ducks in a row well before they decided to leave. If that meant they couldn’t leave for another year or two, well, so be it.. plenty of people have to remain in much more difficult situations while they’re figuring out finances.

 

[Sandy345]

I don't think Harry was jealous of William. Will's life was preordained the moment he was born. It's like when Princess Margaret said "poor you" to Princess Elizabeth after the abdication of Edward VIII and Elizabeth was direct heiress. Diana And Charles did make sure that the spare was treated the same as the heir.

 

[Hallo girl]

Yes, but Harry and Meghan didn’t just get up one morning and decide they didn’t want to undertake royal duties any more. It’s what led to their decision that causes debate

Some observers contend they were goaded out of the UK by tabloid persecution of Meghan while others hold directly opposite views and believe that they just wanted to become wealthy early in their marriage and consistently worked towards that.


I just think that much of what has come out has been coloured (tainted if you like) by media coverage and things may have been a lot more nuanced that any of us might countenance.

I have always wondered at what point they really decided to leave, until the interview when they said quite clearly that they had not side lined the family with their decision as it had been under discussion for 2 years.

They made the announcement in 2020 so 2 years takes it to 2018 either before or after the wedding. That is where I now have the problem as it appears there was always a plan, so I am not sure how they can say it was due to media coverage or the treatment Meghan received by the family/ institution or the media.

 

[amaryllus]

Treated exactly the same way maybe the root of some of the issue. They aren’t the same and never will be.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I don’t think Charles would have had a problem funding part of Harry’s lifestyle indefinitely. What may have been murky was what Harry was getting the money for. Charles may have seen the money he gave Harry as sort of a salary for his work as a royal, while Harry saw it as just money from dad, with no conditions or strings attached. When Harry upset the apple cart with very little notice and expected the funding to continue, or even increase to cover the security costs, Charles may have balked.

That said, there were articles that came out just after the Oprah interview that refuted the idea that Charles had abruptly cut Harry off. These were anonymous sources, so who knows if they were accurate or not, but I tend to think it was the expectation that Charles would significantly increase the amount of money he gave to Harry, (again with very little warning), as well as - just a hunch - the somewhat entitled attitude coming from Team Sussex that may have led to discord.

To me there would be nothing embarrassing about Harry expecting Charles to fund him as long as he remained a working member of TRF. What’s embarrassing is that funding became an issue at all - Harry and Meghan should have made sure they had their financial ducks in a row well before they decided to leave. If that meant they couldn’t leave for another year or two, well, so be it.. plenty of people have to remain in much more difficult situations while they’re figuring out finances.

I saw those articles as well. My theory is that Harry and Meghan were receiving a certain amount of money from Charles but that was not just for their personal spending but to cover staff, work clothing, transportation, etc. They had no housing expenses other than the cost of remodeling Frogmore. Security was provided by the government.

The Canadian Prime Minister initially said that the government would fund Harry and Meghan's security, which created a huge backlash and he had to withdraw the offer, so Harry and Meghan were caught by surprise.

I also saw articles that indicated Charles gave them some money and would be willing to give them more. Harry obviously felt that he should not be expected to pay for his own security because that the need was due to an accident of birth (of course, his wealth was also due to an accident of birth). I suspect that Charles declined to cover the cost of Harry and Meghan's security, which was considerable. That is what led to Charles refusing to take Harry's calls for a while.

 

[Sandy345]

Although, some royals like the QUeen Mother would pay attention to William and ignore Harry.

 

[Hallo girl]

Although, some royals like the QUeen Mother would pay attention to William and ignore Harry.

WE do not know that,