The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 - Apr. 2023

[ACO]

Meghan receiving another honor. Gala in NYC on May 16th. Looks like a busy month for the Sussexes.

https://apnews.com/article/meghan-d...dation-award-abd9d8e7c6607c45acf56ac4c05f2358

 

[Ghost]

Meghan receiving another honor. Gala in NYC on May 16th. Looks like a busy month for the Sussexes.

https://apnews.com/article/meghan-d...dation-award-abd9d8e7c6607c45acf56ac4c05f2358

She’s on a shopping spree! ))

 

[caethi]

She’s on a shopping spree! ))

Right on.

No doubt they have noted that some criticize Archewell's modest productivity and feel the need to emphasize the work; perhaps they see awards as the best form of publicity. In my view, the Duchess thrives on public affirmation. I don't hesitate to add that public affirmation is a great thing--if it is deserved.

 

[Lee-Z]

if it attracts new sponsors and that enables the foundation to support more projects, i'd say that's what it's all about

 

[muriel]

She’s on a shopping spree! ))

Might the "cost" of the award be tax deductible? ?

 

[irish_royalist]

Meghan receiving another honor. Gala in NYC on May 16th. Looks like a busy month for the Sussexes.

https://apnews.com/article/meghan-d...dation-award-abd9d8e7c6607c45acf56ac4c05f2358

I'd like to see their criteria for defining Meghan as an 'incredible leader'

 

[Granada]

I don't think we should be surprised that the Ms Foundation is giving Meghan an award. One of The Ms Foundation "founding mothers" is 89 year old Gloria Steinem, who will be presenting her the award.

They have been friends for a few years now, bonding over voting rights. Gloria, who Meghan calls "Glo", is the one who gave Meghan the bracelet that says ' We are linked not ranked'..... that .....I find that SO VERY ironic.
They were photographed last July having lunch too in NYC.

Just another patting each other on the back event......

 

[FigTree]

I don't think we should be surprised that the Ms Foundation is giving Meghan an award. One of The Ms Foundation "founding mothers" is 89 year old Gloria Steinem, who will be presenting her the award.

They have been friends for a few years now, bonding over voting rights. Gloria, who Meghan calls "Glo", is the one who gave Meghan the bracelet that says ' We are linked not ranked'..... that .....I find that SO VERY ironic.
They were photographed last July having lunch too in NYC.

Just another patting each other on the back event......

I find the use of 'Glo' on par with the use of the Queen to gild their own lily. Pretty repugnant. Gloria is an old woman now. I find it an a par with elder abuse. No matter how brilliant they were, they are elderly and ripe for exploitation.

I was thinking today of last Maundy Thursday when Harry came to see the Queen and Charles insisted he saw him first. It really wasn't fair to try to corner her amd fet her to agree to what he wanted.

 

[Granada]

Fig Tree, exactly agree.
I think The Sussex's are in danger of falling into a comparable situation to Prince Michael and wife Marie Christine in their money making ventures known as "Rent A Kent". Its a very fine line they are treading now anyway. I will be very curious to see where the Sussex's are in 5 years or so.
Global reach with stature and credibility ? Or faded , irrelevant and yesterday's news. Mocked on late night shows in their bid for significance. And power plays against the now Prince and Princess of Wales. Specifically his 'arch nemesis' William.

I still believe Harry (and Meghan) certainly did not anticipate the reaction to his Book and the Netflix Docu-series.

Instead of showing him to be thoughtful and a person of substance, the takeaway is INSTEAD a entitled, jealous and petulant guy with deep family issues. Specifically regarding his decades long inability to come to terms with his Mother's death, and deal with his brother William's role as a king in waiting. That wasn't his place to be in the " hierarchy ", simply because Harry was born a Spare.

Not to mention his anger issues, substance abuse problems and his flagrant inability to keep private revelations and salacious stories out of the Public domain between him and his immediate Family. I think that rubbed MANY the wrong way.

Great for $$$$$$ cash, sales and publicity......but for his reputation as a Corporate Leader and Advisor on Mental Health Care ? Ummm, don't think so.

All in all, I definitely believe they will be at The Coronation too. AND on their best behavior. I think they want and need the Royal Fairy Dust and positive Royal Sussex PR Spin. And pictures of Prince Archie-Princess Lili with Grandpa King Charles too.
Question is.....how much will Charles give in ?

 

[suztav]

Fig Tree, exactly agree.
I think The Sussex's are in danger of falling into a comparable situation to Prince Michael and wife Marie Christine in their money making ventures known as "Rent A Kent". Its a very fine line they are treading now anyway. I will be very curious to see where the Sussex's are in 5 years or so.
Global reach with stature and credibility ? Or faded , irrelevant and yesterday's news. Mocked on late night shows in their bid for significance. And power plays against the now Prince and Princess of Wales. Specifically his 'arch nemesis' William.

I still believe Harry (and Meghan) certainly did not anticipate the reaction to his Book and the Netflix Docu-series.

Instead of showing him to be thoughtful and a person of substance, the takeaway is INSTEAD a entitled, jealous and petulant guy with deep family issues. Specifically regarding his decades long inability to come to terms with his Mother's death, and deal with his brother William's role as a king in waiting. That wasn't his place to be in the " hierarchy ", simply because Harry was born a Spare.

Not to mention his anger issues, substance abuse problems and his flagrant inability to keep private revelations and salacious stories out of the Public domain between him and his immediate Family. I think that rubbed MANY the wrong way.

Great for $$$$$$ cash, sales and publicity......but for his reputation as a Corporate Leader and Advisor on Mental Health Care ? Ummm, don't think so.

All in all, I definitely believe they will be at The Coronation too. AND on their best behavior. I think they want and need the Royal Fairy Dust and positive Royal Sussex PR Spin. And pictures of Prince Archie-Princess Lili with Grandpa King Charles too.
Question is.....how much will Charles give in ?

So very true ... however, I do think Charles will invite them to the Coronation for a few reasons: 1.) they can't appear on TV as commentators; 2.) it will their invitation to reject;[.....]
Ball is in their court despite what Harry said on one of his TV interviews.

 

[victor1319]

I'd like to see their criteria for defining Meghan as an 'incredible leader'

Maybe "their criteria" was, that Meghan is so "incredible leading", that she will draw a lot of attention to this award ceremony. The "15 minutes of fame" for the Sussexes are far from over! And then the coronation too - They are still very newsworthy!

 

[ladongas]

I find the use of 'Glo' on par with the use of the Queen to gild their own lily. Pretty repugnant. Gloria is an old woman now. I find it an a par with elder abuse. No matter how brilliant they were, they are elderly and ripe for exploitation…

.

I think you would find that most people call the egalitarian Ms. Steinem by her first name. And she is still brilliant. And it is highly unlikely that she could be exploited by anyone. At the very least, she has an army of supporters who would protect her.

 

[FigTree]

I think you would find that most people call the egalitarian Ms. Steinem by her first name. And she is still brilliant. And it is highly unlikely that she could be exploited by anyone. At the very least, she has an army of supporters who would protect her.

An army of supporters worries me too. She's a human being like everyone else and of course people have exploited her and her reputation for their own ends. Of whichbI am sure she is aware. She probably did a fair bit of it with people herself.

 

[Denville]

I think you would find that most people call the egalitarian Ms. Steinem by her first name. And she is still brilliant. And it is highly unlikely that she could be exploited by anyone. At the very least, she has an army of supporters who would protect her.

Brilliant?

 

[yukari]

This is for lawsuit against the Mirror:

Prince Harry due to testify in phone hacking case in June

(...)

A trial in a case involving the Duke of Sussex and three others against the publisher of The Mirror is due to start May 9 in the High Court and last six to seven weeks.

While the trial begins three days after the coronation of his father, King Charles III, Harry is is not expected to take the witness stand until early or mid-June, according to a preliminary schedule of witnesses. (...)

So presumably there will be cross-examination and his legal team would coach him beforehand. Let's hope he listen and follow their advice instead of going off the script because he thinks he know better.

If the late Queen still around, I bet she'd push to settle this lawsuit out of court. But would Charles?

 

[Marengo]

An article from a tabloid has been deleted. The policy for this thread will be explained in the opening post.

Responses to the deleted post have been removed too.

 

[Toledo]

For those outside of the USA, Attorney Emilyh D. Baker discussed the dismissal of Meghan vs Samantha's court case and explained in detail and non-bias the court documents. Emily D Baker is giving us a class of the USA judicial system on a civil court case.

I cue the clip when it starts with Meghan's at the 58:36 mark since her weekly YouTube show today also discussed other cases in the USA news.

Markle Defamation Suit Dismissed at the 58:36 mark

At the 2:28:39 Mark Attorney Baker starts the Question and Answer section

from the live online audience on the specifics on the Samantha Markle vs Meghan Markle case and if SM can refile the case and go against the Finding Freedom book writers instead.

As a note, when Emily starts, she warns the chat she won't tolerate attacks on Meghan, which happened the last time she discussed this court case, and her Mods were overwhelmed deleting the negativity on the live chat.

Emily D. Baker is amazing explaining the court decision in simple terms line by line and points out Samantha can't never bring up this case again per court decision.

 

[Curryong]

I live in Australia and am a regular watcher of attorney Emily Baker on Youtube. She is always fair in and clear in her explanations of cases and various points of law. Enjoy her very much. She doesn’t hold out much hope of Samantha’s case succeeding, even after amendments.

 

[Ista]

A link to a tabloid has been deleted. Please review the rules regarding posting links to avoid deletion.

 

[Granada]

I keep reading media reports that Charles allegedly told Harry ( when told of his plans to marry) that "he couldn't afford to pay for Meghan in the future, as well as Camilla and William, Catherine and their Family". And it infuriated Harry. For once in a very long time, I'm seeing why Harry and Meghan would be hurt and perplexed.

Does that make sense to anyone ? Harry and whoever his wife to be was expected to be WORKING Royals. Funded by Charles, out of The Duchy of Cornwall, and to be given a suitable residence and allowance for Staff and expenses. Clothing for the women, on official engagements and gala events isnt cheap. I remember that was a real problem for Fergie versus Diana's "attire" in the 80's. Diana had a giant budget via Charles Duchy money. Fergie had a MUCH smaller amount that she couldn't or wouldn't budget with. Leading her to giant financial pressure and problems.

Charles has two children, the Queen had four to provide for.
On top of her Working Cousins that supported her. She even picked up Prince Michael of Kent's market housing costs at Kensington Palace for years.

It really makes no sense, to me if true. Why would Charles have said that ? And if he did say it, he didn't keep to it because Meghan's wardrobe costs in her short time as a Working Royal were NOT cheap. It was reported on and criticized.

Could Charles have been joking and Harry didn't realize it and took him seriously. I find this baffling.

 

[Somebody]

I am pretty sue Harry would have included it his documentary or book as a justification for leaving if true.

 

[Denville]

Or could this all be tosh? It is possible that Harry was looking for expenses to be paid for Meg during their engagement, and CHarles said no, as traditionally that would not be done. But yes of course Charles expected to pay for his 2 sons and their wives and his own wife.. and he problaby would help the older royals who were getting on and needed financial help. BUt I think he DID want to draw the line at that and make it clear to the non working royals that they were on their own.. and could not expect help unless it was a very serious need.

 

[Denville]

I am pretty sue Harry would have included it his documentary or book as a justification for leaving if true.

I think he tends to spread out his stories. He has ohter books to write, he will leave something for them.

 

[Claire]

I suspect that there might be some truth in the statement - but once again requires infomation about the conversation where it was said ect.
Say for example - Charles's expitures teams had added up all of Meghan's clothing, jewelry, handbag ect bills for the first year as a royal and had said to Harry, I cannot afford to look after Meghan. It is very different from when she arrives in the UK - and Charles said that they will not be paying for her.
I believe that the Palace and Charles had an issue with the amount of money Meghan spend her first year as a royal - excluding the royal dress. Meghan has expensive taste in everything - food, clothes, holidays, and she had to do on better than all her celebrity friends and of course the Wales. I was shocked at the menu and detail of the royal shoot she organised. Not because Meghan was organising the royal shoot - all royals organise them in turn, but there is unspoken budget. Meghan's shot was easily 20 times more expensive as the Queen's organised shooting party. And that is a shooting party. How many parties and dinners do you think Meghan hosted as a royal?
Without freebies - she will financial ruin Harry. Several of the bioographies have list what Meghan wanted and was rejected from doing - luxury skiing holidays for 25 friends, a yoga retreat for her friends that she could get cheaper if she was to tweet about it, a private yacht. Charles is right the UK nor the world can afford Meghan's ambitions.

 

[Ghost]

I keep reading media reports that Charles allegedly told Harry ( when told of his plans to marry) that "he couldn't afford to pay for Meghan in the future, as well as Camilla and William, Catherine and their Family". And it infuriated Harry. For once in a very long time, I'm seeing why Harry and Meghan would be hurt and perplexed.

Does that make sense to anyone ? Harry and whoever his wife to be was expected to be WORKING Royals. Funded by Charles, out of The Duchy of Cornwall, and to be given a suitable residence and allowance for Staff and expenses. Clothing for the women, on official engagements and gala events isnt cheap. I remember that was a real problem for Fergie versus Diana's "attire" in the 80's. Diana had a giant budget via Charles Duchy money. Fergie had a MUCH smaller amount that she couldn't or wouldn't budget with. Leading her to giant financial pressure and problems.

Charles has two children, the Queen had four to provide for.
On top of her Working Cousins that supported her. She even picked up Prince Michael of Kent's market housing costs at Kensington Palace for years.

It really makes no sense, to me if true. Why would Charles have said that ? And if he did say it, he didn't keep to it because Meghan's wardrobe costs in her short time as a Working Royal were NOT cheap. It was reported on and criticized.

Could Charles have been joking and Harry didn't realize it and took him seriously. I find this baffling.

I think that was before their marriage, when options for Meghan were laid out. Remember, like she could have continued her career as an actress if she wished, then of course Charles was not going to financially support her. What disgusts me a lot with the Sussexes is the half truths, like “not paying for Meghan” - and that she could sew her clothes - but not saying that they had more than one option from which to choose before getting married.

 

[SLV]

I suspect that there might be some truth in the statement - but once again requires infomation about the conversation where it was said ect.

Say for example - Charles's expitures teams had added up all of Meghan's clothing, jewelry, handbag ect bills for the first year as a royal and had said to Harry, I cannot afford to look after Meghan. It is very different from when she arrives in the UK - and Charles said that they will not be paying for her.

I believe that the Palace and Charles had an issue with the amount of money Meghan spend her first year as a royal - excluding the royal dress. Meghan has expensive taste in everything - food, clothes, holidays, and she had to do on better than all her celebrity friends and of course the Wales. I was shocked at the menu and detail of the royal shoot she organised. Not because Meghan was organising the royal shoot - all royals organise them in turn, but there is unspoken budget. Meghan's shot was easily 20 times more expensive as the Queen's organised shooting party. And that is a shooting party. How many parties and dinners do you think Meghan hosted as a royal?

Without freebies - she will financial ruin Harry. Several of the bioographies have list what Meghan wanted and was rejected from doing - luxury skiing holidays for 25 friends, a yoga retreat for her friends that she could get cheaper if she was to tweet about it, a private yacht. Charles is right the UK nor the world can afford Meghan's ambitions.

Do we have actual numbers to compare.
I remember Catherine being criticised when first married because of her clothing expences. Argument was that she had to get a whole new wardrobe and expences would go down after a few years. Same goes for Megan, only she never got into the situation of 'after a few years'.

 

[Mbruno]

Or could this all be tosh? It is possible that Harry was looking for expenses to be paid for Meg during their engagement, and CHarles said no, as traditionally that would not be done. But yes of course Charles expected to pay for his 2 sons and their wives and his own wife.. and he problaby would help the older royals who were getting on and needed financial help. BUt I think he DID want to draw the line at that and make it clear to the non working royals that they were on their own.. and could not expect help unless it was a very serious need.

I don't know the context but maybe what Charles meant at the time is that Meghan would not get a separate allowance, but would have to be supported out of Harry's. Catherine, as the heir's wive, and Camilla, as the queen consort, probably get their own individual grants. Would that make sense?

 

[Heavs]

I keep reading media reports that Charles allegedly told Harry ( when told of his plans to marry) that "he couldn't afford to pay for Meghan in the future, as well as Camilla and William, Catherine and their Family". And it infuriated Harry. For once in a very long time, I'm seeing why Harry and Meghan would be hurt and perplexed.

Does that make sense to anyone ? Harry and whoever his wife to be was expected to be WORKING Royals. Funded by Charles, out of The Duchy of Cornwall, and to be given a suitable residence and allowance for Staff and expenses. Clothing for the women, on official engagements and gala events isnt cheap. I remember that was a real problem for Fergie versus Diana's "attire" in the 80's. Diana had a giant budget via Charles Duchy money. Fergie had a MUCH smaller amount that she couldn't or wouldn't budget with. Leading her to giant financial pressure and problems.

Charles has two children, the Queen had four to provide for.
On top of her Working Cousins that supported her. She even picked up Prince Michael of Kent's market housing costs at Kensington Palace for years.

It really makes no sense, to me if true. Why would Charles have said that ? And if he did say it, he didn't keep to it because Meghan's wardrobe costs in her short time as a Working Royal were NOT cheap. It was reported on and criticized.

Could Charles have been joking and Harry didn't realize it and took him seriously. I find this baffling.

I think the key wording here and with most of the things the Sussexes say is "IF it's true" or "what context might this have been said in." Considering the amount of things that have either been proven lies, gross exaggerations or taken entirely out of context.

"There's no money for her, she'll have to keep working" was a claim by them during Oprah that was allegedly said by an aide before their marriage We have no idea what context this might have been or even if it was said as a joke if it was true at all. We also have heard (from them and others) that aides offered Meghan a variety of options to keep working or ease in rather than forcing her to become a full time working royal right away and that rather than take these for what they were - the palace trying to make her comfortable, both took offense and said she was going to become the best duchess ever right away (basically their words).

Charles may have said it as Claire speculates *after* they wracked up a lot of bills in their first year as a working royal couple. Not just for clothes and building a new wardrobe but everything. We know from Duchy accounts that Charles even paid for things like Numerology classes and that Meghan had more expensive designer tastes than either Camilla or Kate. We also know that he kept funding them even after they left until they were settled so I don't think being ungenerous with the finances can be laid at his door whatever may or may not have been said at some point by someone.

We know that Meghan didn't understand why she couldn't accept designer freebies, gifts from Saudi princes and merchandise stuff like celebrities do so that may not have helped any budget tensions.

 

[Curryong]

Harry does write in Spare that his father said there was not enough money (in the Duchy funds) to go round. On a shooting expedition at Sandringham as they were out in the fields, Harry writes that his father asked if Meghan was going to continue working.

Harry then pointed out that Suits was filmed in Toronto and that after their marriage he expected that his wife would join him in the royal round in England. Charles then says specifically that there is not enough money to go around as he has to support William and Catherine (and his wife and himself.) Harry is rather taken aback at this, but then writes about asking his grandmother’s permission to marry, after picking up dead birds and then returning to the car with the dogs on that same weekend shoot.

From US Weekly Magazine

The Duke of Sussex, 38, claimed that his father, 74, told him “there’s not enough money to go around” because he was “already having to pay” for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, both 40.

“Pa didn’t financially support Willy and me, and our families, out of any largesse,” the Invictus Games founder wrote in an excerpt from Spare exclusively obtained by Us Weekly. “That was his job. That was the whole deal. We agreed to serve the monarch, go wherever we were sent, do whatever we were told, surrender our autonomy, keep our hands and feet inside the gilded cage at all times, and in exchange the keepers of the cage agreed to feed and clothe us.”

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Do we have actual numbers to compare.
I remember Catherine being criticised when first married because of her clothing expences. Argument was that she had to get a whole new wardrobe and expences would go down after a few years. Same goes for Megan, only she never got into the situation of 'after a few years'.

I remember Catherine getting some criticism but she has always tended to favor "high street" brands. Meghan once spent close to $100,000 on a Dior maternity dress.