The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June-July 2021

[Royalist.in.NC]

Personally, I wouldn't have gone. If my child is hiding me, IMO that means that they are ashamed of me. Harry never meeting Thomas when the relationship became serious speaks volumes. You don't come to me with, "That's H., mom, we've known each other for a year and we decided to marry!" If I'm not important enough to show me to the new most important person in your life when you had the chance (Harry and Meghan weren't people forced by circumstances to barely see their parents), then I'm not maintaining the farce that we're so close and I should come to your wedding.

These are excellent points. If she never bothered to introduce Harry, what does that say about her relationship with her dad?

Moran, HOw did Meghan "hide" her father? He is a grown up not a child. He made his choices to hide out. And yes, he is responsible for his own decisions. They would have welcomed Tom to the UK and sent him an airline ticket. HE chose not to return their calls.

Denville, Tom is not shy, he went before the cameras and appeared in newspapers and on websites he even starred in his own "special." For all that is known, Tom did not want Meghan and Harry coming over to see him. The man makes his own choices and decisions and apparently cannot be forced to do what he does not want to do, he does what suits himself the best.

Sandy, do you have a source indicating that Meghan’s dad did not want Meghan and Harry to visit him? I hadn’t heard that - thanks!

 

[Denville]

These are excellent points. If she never bothered to introduce Harry, what does that say about her relationship with her dad?

Perhaps he is a bit of an embarrassment, but it seems like Meg was willing to talk about him on social media, and I think he did his best for her when she was a kid...
I still t hink that if he coudl go to the wedding, he should have gone but obviously there were strains in the relationship....

 

[Heavs]

These are excellent points. If she never bothered to introduce Harry, what does that say about her relationship with her dad?

As of father's day 2016 Meghan posted a gushing tribute to him on The Tig which was either just before or just after she met Harry. So it seems that even though they may not have seen each other much she was still close to him, or at least wanted her readers to think that.

I don't see why she wouldn't have wanted to introduce him to Harry before the engagement. He seemed fine up until a few weeks before the wedding. Of course that might have had something to do with her siblings rather than him. But it does seem odd that he was going to be meeting Harry literally at the wedding. They were flying around the world to meet each other without the press being there, surely they could have sneaked into Mexico and gone over the details of everything?

At this point it's all water under the bridge. He doesn't seem very well at all but he's not helping by going these interviews any more than they are.

 

[TLLK]

Meghan's childhood book will be displayed in an exhibit with the Library of Congress this summer.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ed-freckles-unearthed-book-wrote-copyrighted/

Thank you for sharing ACO.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Meghan's childhood book will be displayed in an exhibit with the Library of Congress this summer.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ed-freckles-unearthed-book-wrote-copyrighted/

Thanks for posting this! If anyone has a link to the archive I’d appreciate it - thanks in advance

 

[ACO]

I feel nothing for Thomas Markle because it is clear their relationship was strained long before he posed for the photographers. And watching his many interviews and TV specials... meh. This is also the man who called TMZ instead of his daughter to say he was not coming to her wedding. The fact he barely knew Meghan's first husband Trevor, never met her boyfriend of 2 years Corey, and also has never met Harry. That speaks volumes. And Thomas said this himself.

 

[stunking]

Not meeting her father, what a mistake. Not taking phone calls hear say.

 

[Sandy345]

These are excellent points. If she never bothered to introduce Harry, what does that say about her relationship with her dad?


Sandy, do you have a source indicating that Meghan’s dad did not want Meghan and Harry to visit him? I hadn’t heard that - thanks!

He did not return their phone calls during the run up to the wedding. But during that time he was photographed by the media and later admitted they paid him $30,000. He did not use the airline ticket that was sent him so he could spend time with them in the UK.

 

[Curryong]

Court documents filed show that Harry repeatedly tried to contact Thomas Markle in the run up to the wedding.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...le-on-eve-of-wedding-show-court-papers-meghan

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Court documents filed show that Harry repeatedly tried to contact Thomas Markle in the run up to the wedding.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...le-on-eve-of-wedding-show-court-papers-meghan

Curryong, thanks for sharing this -I’d not seen nor heard this. The documents do indeed show that Harry and Meghan reached out to her father numerous time in the days before the wedding. IMO the tone shows that Meghan loves her dad and is very concerned about him but obviously can’t do much if he won’t communicate with her - he is indeed odd.

I do wish Harry had had the opportunity to meet him much earlier on when their dating became serious (pretty quickly) so that perhaps Harry and the “suits” could have better prepared Mr. Markle for what was going to happen. But I am glad to hear that Meghan tried.

Thanks again!

He did not return their phone calls during the run up to the wedding. But during that time he was photographed by the media and later admitted they paid him $30,000. He did not use the airline ticket that was sent him so he could spend time with them in the UK.

Curryong has posted documents confirming what you said about them trying to contact Mr. Markle and his not responding.

However, I don’t think that is the same thing as not wanting them to visit him. I am not talking about the wedding, i know they sent him an airline ticket. I am talking about visiting him much much earlier when their relationship became serious, before they were engaged.

 

[Moran]

Curryong has posted documents confirming what you said about them trying to contact Mr. Markle and his not responding.

However, I don’t think that is the same thing as not wanting them to visit him. I am not talking about the wedding, i know they sent him an airline ticket. I am talking about visiting him much much earlier when their relationship became serious, before they were engaged.

So did I. I thought I had made it clear but I see I hadn't.

 

[yukari]

Clarence House has released the Annual Review of the Duchy of Cornwall.

https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/annual-review/2020-2021/income-expenditure-and-staff

One interesting point, it mentions "Funding for the activities of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, other expenditure including capital expenditure less depreciation, and transfer to reserves" with the amount around £4m+. So basically, up to March 2021, the Sussexes still got money from Charles.

Now, I'm wondering about the "being cut-off financially". Or was it only happened just before the interview?

 

[AC21091968]

Clarence House has released the Annual Review of the Duchy of Cornwall.

https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/annual-review/2019-2020/income-expenditure-and-staff

One interesting point, it mentions "Funding for the activities of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, other expenditure including capital expenditure, and transfer to reserves" with the amount around £5m+. So basically, up to March 2020, the Sussexes still got money from Charles.

Now, I'm wondering about the "being cut-off financially". Or was it only happened just before the interview?

If I'm not mistaken, I interpreted that the Sussexes were cut off from the Charles' funding (Duchy of Cornwall) (and Sovereign Grant, though not directly mentioned from the report) from 31st March 2020, the date the Sussexes ceased to be working royals. I'm still a bit confused on the row of the table of "Year to 31 March" in terms of the start and end date/year. I think this latest report is between March 2019 and March 2020. The Oprah interview was on 7th March 2021, so I don't think the Sussexes were cut off on 31st March 2021.

 

[yukari]

If I'm not mistaken, I interpreted that the Sussexes were cut off from the Charles' funding (Duchy of Cornwall and Sovereign Grant) from 31st March 2020, the date the Sussexes ceased to be working royals. I'm still a bit confused on the row of the table of "Year to 31 March" in terms of the start and end date/year. I think this latest report is between March 2019 and March 2020. The Oprah interview was on 7th March 2021, so I don't think the Sussexes were cut off on 31st March 2021.

Sorry, I posted the wrong link. I opened several tabs side by side to make comparison from 2019 and mixed it up (and for some reason my brain thinks it's still 2020, and the interview also happened in 2020 )
There's no significant difference of the expense for the two sons since 2018 (it's around £5m).
Edit: I'm just checking one from before Harry married, it's around £3m and considering Covid (less travels and engagements), I take it means Charles gave his sons money in bulk.

I've edited my previous post.

But you're right. The report was for 31 March 2020 to 31 March 2021, so the cut off could happen anytime between those date, not necessarily on 31 March 2021. Still it means that between those dates, the Sussexes still received money from the Duchy, they not only lived by Diana's money (as Harry stated during the enterview).

 

[AC21091968]

Sorry, I posted the wrong link. I opened several tabs side by side to make comparison from 2019 and mixed it up (and for some reason my brain thinks it's still 2020, and the interview also happened in 2020 )

I've edited my previous post.

No it's ok. Thank you for your quick correction.

Now I could see the difference between the 2020 and 2021 Annual Review, where the latter one excluded The Duke and Duchess of Sussexes as the recipients of Charles' private income of Duchy of Cornwall. And by comparing these two, I could safely assumed that the Sussexes were cut off from the Duchy of Cornwall, not just The Sovereign Grant at 31st March 2020 (i.e. the last day they were funded by Charles).

2020's Annual report (1st April 2019 - 31st March 2020)

This summary describes how the official and private activities of The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall are financed. The majority of staff and official and charitable work, including the official offices of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and The Duke and Duchess of Sussex activity, are paid for from His Royal Highness’s private income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

2021's Annual report (1st April 2020 - March 2021)

The official duties and charitable work of The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, including the office of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, are paid for from His Royal Highness’s private income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

I have also edited my previous post.

 

[Curryong]

As far as Frogmore Cottage is concerned

An unexpected payment from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex saved the palace from having to dip into its savings more than it feared.
Their unplanned decision to pay back £2.4million of public money spent on the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage was described by senior royals aides as a 'good deal' for taxpayers.
Harry and Meghan announced last year that they had decided to reimburse the cost of turning five staff cottages into their family home at Windsor as part of their 'clean break' with the Royal Family and to prevent further public criticism.
The financial report further suggested that the Sussexes paid five months of rent on the property after stepping down as working royals and have the lease at least until March 2022. As a result, Buckingham Palace needed to 'draw down' on its reserves only to the tune of £2.3million.
Sir Michael Stevens, keeper of the privy purse, said yesterday: 'We will not be going into the detail of the commercial arrangement for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's use of the house but please remember the payment covers all their current obligations.
'We are confident that it represents a good outcome for the sovereign grant. The return on investment in the refurbished property has been determined with reference to independent property specialists and the accounting treatment signed off by Her Majesty's Treasury and the National Audit Office.'

I had to get the above about paying the money back from The Fail as no other news outlet seemed to be referencing it.

 

[UglyAmerican]

The financial report further suggested that the Sussexes paid five months of rent on the property after stepping down as working royals and have the lease at least until March 2022.

I don't understand how they're getting these dates. They "stepped down as working royals" in either early 2020 or March 2021, depending on what meaning one ascribes to that phrase. Since the report only covers up to March 31, 2021, I don't think it's talking about them paying five months of rent after them officially finalizing their "stepping down" decision that same month. But if it's using the early 2020 date, and they're paying rent on the property, there should have been 12 months of rent paid on it during that time, not just five. Maybe Eugenie and Jack are paying it now? Five months more or less lines up with when they moved in... I think.

 

[UglyAmerican]

No it's ok. Thank you for your quick correction.

Now I could see the difference between the 2020 and 2021 Annual Review, where the latter one excluded The Duke and Duchess of Sussexes as the recipients of Charles' private income of Duchy of Cornwall. And by comparing these two, I could safely assumed that the Sussexes were cut off from the Duchy of Cornwall, not just The Sovereign Grant at 31st March 2020 (i.e. the last day they were funded by Charles).

2020's Annual report (1st April 2019 - 31st March 2020)


2021's Annual report (1st April 2020 - March 2021)


I have also edited my previous post.

I think this may be jumping the gun a little. Under the "Other Expenditure" heading of the 2021 report, it says:

Funding for the activities of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, other expenditure including capital expenditure less depreciation, and transfer to reserves

It's interesting that they aren't mentioned anywhere else in 2021, but it looks to me like Charles may have still been giving them money from the Duchy of Cornwall at some point after March 2020.

 

[yukari]

As far as Frogmore Cottage is concerned

An unexpected payment from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex saved the palace from having to dip into its savings more than it feared.
Their unplanned decision to pay back £2.4million of public money spent on the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage was described by senior royals aides as a 'good deal' for taxpayers.
Harry and Meghan announced last year that they had decided to reimburse the cost of turning five staff cottages into their family home at Windsor as part of their 'clean break' with the Royal Family and to prevent further public criticism.
The financial report further suggested that the Sussexes paid five months of rent on the property after stepping down as working royals and have the lease at least until March 2022. As a result, Buckingham Palace needed to 'draw down' on its reserves only to the tune of £2.3million.
Sir Michael Stevens, keeper of the privy purse, said yesterday: 'We will not be going into the detail of the commercial arrangement for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's use of the house but please remember the payment covers all their current obligations.
'We are confident that it represents a good outcome for the sovereign grant. The return on investment in the refurbished property has been determined with reference to independent property specialists and the accounting treatment signed off by Her Majesty's Treasury and the National Audit Office.'

I had to get the above about paying the money back from The Fail as no other news outlet seemed to be referencing it.

This makes me think that maybe the money from Charles went here, not to Montecito, hence their "can't pay security, and only depend on Diana's money".

 

[Curryong]

’Sir Michael Stevens, keeper of the privy purse, said yesterday: 'We will not be going into the detail of the commercial arrangement for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's use of the house but please remember the payment covers all their current obligations.
'We are confident that it represents a good outcome for the sovereign grant. The return on investment in the refurbished property has been determined with reference to independent property specialists and the accounting treatment signed off by Her Majesty's Treasury and the National Audit Office.'

Sir Michael Stevens seemed to emphasise in his statement that ‘the payment covers all their current obligations’ so I would say that the rent is being paid up to now, June 2021.

However, he also states that they would not be going into the detail of the commercial arrangement for the Sussexes’ use of the house, so it is possible that the Sussexes paid five months rent in advance, when they left in 31st March 2021, and therefore their new set of rental payments will appear in next year’s SG accounts. That may include a sub-let to Eugenie and Jack. Possibly the Brooksbanks have taken over the rent since they moved in earlier this year.

 

[muriel]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...DNT-axe-Prince-Harrys-cash-accounts-show.html

A Clarence House spokesman has confirmed that H&M were provided a "substantial sum" of money by the Prince of Wales to finance their transition to financial independence.

So whilst H&M may not have been receiving ongoing funding, there was a lump sum provided as a one-off. Whilst specifics were not provided, and IMO, are not required, this is clearly a mis-truth or half-truth set out by H&M in their interview with Oprah.

 

[Alison H]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57589216


A bit more detail from the BBC:



A senior Clarence House spokesperson said: "As we'll all remember in January 2020 when the duke and duchess announced that they were going to move away from the working royal family, the duke said that they would work towards becoming financially independent.

"The Prince of Wales allocated a substantial sum to support them with this transition.

"That funding ceased in the summer of last year."


So that's yet another thing that Harry and Meghan have lied about. And it was really very good of Prince Charles to give them anything at all, given that they were not doing royal duties in the spring and summer of 2020.

 

[MARG]

Sussexes confirm they bought ‘Lilibet Diana’ domain before Queen’s approval

Edit: okay, here is the archive



Poor baby ....
Wouldn't this potentially cause genetic pain?

PS: I kind of hope that she'd be Doriana (Doria+Diana); a cute and unique name after the grandmothers. But alas ...

Isn't it possible that this action was taken not to capitalise on Lili but to ensure other people don't. I have to admit that was my first thought when I heard they had purchased the domains, thinking they were looking ahead and ensuring nobody could exploit her name but, as ever, "if you look for the bad in life you will surely find it".

Innocent until proven guilty. She was never reported to be "abusing" staff before she married in. Certainly those "vetting her" before she and Harry got engaged would have discovered that with concrete proof.

I have yet to read any articles written by anyone present when any of the evil doings took place. There is only second, third, or fourth hand hatchet jobs which, by dint of sheer repetition, are accepted as gospel truth. Nothing would hold up it a court of law and a court of law wouldn't hear the case because the media and their little leaking loveys from the palace have well and truly poisoned the water.

As to the fuss about Frogmore? That started when it was announced they were moving there, away from Kensington Palace. When HM's children got married she gifted them with wonderful homes and then William as the heir's heir was given KP Apartment 1A and Amner Hall, both of which had to undergo extensive renovation as listed properties and yes the media huffed and puffed but it all came to nothing as the Queen is required to keep these properties in good repair within the scope of their Listing. Thus the millions spent were required as indeed were the millions for the very extensive renovations required to make Frogmore Cottage even habitable let alone anywhere near palatial. Yet TPTB let the erroneous claims stand and never clarified the Sussexes situation (interior decoration was to be paid for by them as indeed the Cambridges had for Apt 1A).

 

[Heavs]

"That funding ceased in the summer of last year. The couple are now financially independent."

During the couple's interview with Winfrey in March, Harry said "my family literally cut me off financially" in "the first quarter of 2020".

Quizzed about the timeframes, the Clarence House spokesperson said: "I wouldn't acknowledge that they are dramatically different. All I can tell you are the facts."

Even in official statements to the BBC the spokesperson sounds fed up with the Sussexes personal "truth" on this particular matter.

And at pains to point out that they themselves wanted to be financially independent, a dream which they have achieved.

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...DNT-axe-Prince-Harrys-cash-accounts-show.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...mbarton-title-Archie-contained-word-dumb.html

Royal Accounts published today, show how much money Charles gave to Harry and Meghan.

Royal couple did not want Archie to be called Earl of Dumbarton.

 

[Kataryn]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...DNT-axe-Prince-Harrys-cash-accounts-show.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...mbarton-title-Archie-contained-word-dumb.html

Royal Accounts published today, show how much money Charles gave to Harry and Meghan.

Royal couple did not want Archie to be called Earl of Dumbarton.

I personally found the "Earl of Dumbarton" and Baron "Killkeel" really strange, too. Like "Dumb-a**, first I kill you, then you keel over...-stupid. As if a courtier had made a joke and the queen didn't realise while all around her grinned, waiting for a little baby to be born, to be called Dumb-A**, ääh arton...


If that was planned as it was received, I can imagine that many little stitches led to a big hurt. Oh, I can equally imagine how Meghan came, did not really see but wanted to be victorious and annoyed the elder, senior Royal servants (or however the "grey men" à la Sir Humphrey Appleby were called.) And they were there, probably talking over tea with each other how the new Duchess had such a lot to learn before they could allow her to make her first steps alone. The Palace is a world of its own and when you marry into the Royal family, they will break and mould you so you fit in with theirideas. With the principal in her 90ties, a lot of things surely are done there as they had be done at the time of the queen's grandfather, because that's Court life as the queen grew up in. And Harry as a single man could laugh them off, but Meghan as an "American divorcee" had to deal with them and not many choices.



I still think Harry and Meghan should have kept quiet, a dignified silence and stayed away from journalists. But I strongly believe there is responsibility for that failure of a working Royal-relationship on all sides, not only on H&M.

 

[yukari]

Isn't it possible that this action was taken not to capitalise on Lili but to ensure other people don't. I have to admit that was my first thought when I heard they had purchased the domains, thinking they were looking ahead and ensuring nobody could exploit her name but, as ever, "if you look for the bad in life you will surely find it".

(...)

Well, this is from the article (which I also quoted in my original post just in case some people didn't bother to click on the article and made conclusion only by the headline):

A spokesman for the couple told The Telegraph: “Of course, as is often customary with public figures, a significant number of domains of any potential names that were considered were purchased by their team to protect against the exploitation of the name once it was later chosen and publicly shared.”

In my understanding, the article is not really about capitalising the Queen's nickname, but questioning (based on the timing in registering the domain) whether the Sussexes asked her permission to use the name or they told her that they're going to use the name.

Honestly, I never understand parents who name their kids with a (potentially) controversial names (eg. those celebrities who names their kids "Apple" or "Bear Blue". Don't they realise what the kids feel about the names in the future?). As for Lili, internet is forever and this is exactly why it'd problem. What would Lili feel if she found all those ridiculous articles about her, not because what she did but because her parents gave her her name?

 

[Nico]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...DNT-axe-Prince-Harrys-cash-accounts-show.html

A Clarence House spokesman has confirmed that H&M were provided a "substantial sum" of money by the Prince of Wales to finance their transition to financial independence.

So whilst H&M may not have been receiving ongoing funding, there was a lump sum provided as a one-off. Whilst specifics were not provided, and IMO, are not required, this is clearly a mis-truth or half-truth set out by H&M in their interview with Oprah.

"Some recollections may vary" isn't it ?

I'm shoked to learn that the Sussexes somewhat overdramatize their financial situation on live TV in their self-pitying quest against the BRF (not).

Those are the new "Alternative facts" californian style i guess.

Anyway, thanks for this much needed morning laugh.

 

[yukari]

I personally found the "Earl of Dumbarton" and Baron "Killkeel" really strange, too. Like "Dumb-a**, first I kill you, then you keel over...-stupid. As if a courtier had made a joke and the queen didn't realise while all around her grinned, waiting for a little baby to be born, to be called Dumb-A**, ääh arton...

Dumbarton is a town in Scotland, from Scottish Gaelic Dùn Breatann or Dùn Breatainn, meaning 'fort of the Britons'

And it's "Baron Kilkeel". Kilkeel is town in Northern Ireland, from Irish: Cill Chaoil, meaning 'church of the narrow'.

Imagine what people in those towns think of they were told that the name of their town were not good enough for royal because it sounded like a joke.

 

[Denville]

Dumbarton is a town in Scotland, from Scottish Gaelic Dùn Breatann or Dùn Breatainn, meaning 'fort of the Britons'

And it's "Baron Kilkeel". Kilkeel is town in Northern Ireland, from Irish: Cill Chaoil, meaning 'church of the narrow'.

Imagine what people in those towns think of they were told that the name of their town were not good enough for royal because it sounded like a joke.

Presumably the queen approved of them?

He did not return their phone calls during the run up to the wedding. But during that time he was photographed by the media and later admitted they paid him $30,000. He did not use the airline ticket that was sent him so he could spend time with them in the UK.

but why did Meghan think he would? If he was so difficult, why did Meg think he was going to turn up ot the wedding and walk her down the aisle?