That might have been reported by the media to be the price of the dress, but I doubt that the true price was anything near one hundred thousand dollars. The British tabloids used to delight in taking a guess at the price of Meghan’s clothing, shoes etc and then inflating it all about three times.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 - Apr. 2023
- Thread starter Marengo
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
That might have been reported by the media to be the price of the dress, but I doubt that the true price was anything near one hundred thousand dollars. The British tabloids used to delight in taking a guess at the price of Meghan’s clothing, shoes etc and then inflating it all about three times.
SirGyamfi1
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
- Messages
- 2,333
- City
- London
- Country
- United Kingdom
A Dior dress doesn’t come cheap and that caftan was custom made for the trip to Morocco. Custom made designer dresses or bespoke cost a lot of money especially by big name brands like Dior.
Claire
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2003
- Messages
- 2,073
- City
- London
- Country
- United Kingdom
The think is even if we believe it was said and even if we know the context of the phrase - Harry likes to remove items from context and its timing to stir thinks up. See for example Charles saying that he might not be his father - that was said in context of him visiting an isalum and visiting people who believed they were God and Jesus and the Prince of Wales - in nuance of the conversation went above Harry's head and all he can remember is the preceived insult.
Thanks to All for different thoughts and theories. I find this whole situation just strange. Mostly that I'm defending Harry and Megan.....LOL.
The latest serialization of this news in Robert Jobson's new book on Charles clearly states that this *alleged* conversation happened when Harry told Charles ( and William) that he wanted to marry Meghan. So.....BEFORE the engagement was official and announced. "That he (Charles) couldn't afford to pay for Meghan in the future".......
I completely understand that the Firm-Family thought about easing (American) Meghan in, AND that She was offered the chance to continue working. But in Meghan's own words, She wanted "to hit the ground running".
BUT if this is true, WHAT does that even mean ? Couldn't afford ? Talk about setting off on a wrong foot.
If I were Charles and this wasn't true OR somehow taken out of all context I would be livid.
The latest serialization of this news in Robert Jobson's new book on Charles clearly states that this *alleged* conversation happened when Harry told Charles ( and William) that he wanted to marry Meghan. So.....BEFORE the engagement was official and announced. "That he (Charles) couldn't afford to pay for Meghan in the future".......
I completely understand that the Firm-Family thought about easing (American) Meghan in, AND that She was offered the chance to continue working. But in Meghan's own words, She wanted "to hit the ground running".
BUT if this is true, WHAT does that even mean ? Couldn't afford ? Talk about setting off on a wrong foot.
If I were Charles and this wasn't true OR somehow taken out of all context I would be livid.
Last edited:
How likely is it that Charles would say this if Harry wasn't even engaged to Meghan and hadn't I presume told C that he wanted to marry her? He DID pay for M's expenses during her year or so of royal work. so why would he say anything like this prior to their getting married? And if He DID say it, why did Harry not say "Dad, I'm a working royal. If I have a wife and kids to support I will need money from you to pay their expenses? After all Dad, you have X millions in income from the Duchy. " Did he just stand there like a stock? if so why? Considering that he still expected either Charles or the tax payer to pay his security when he had left royal life I cant imagine that he just said nothing when told that Charles could not pay for his wife.
Last edited:
Alison H
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 2,802
- City
- Manchester
- Country
- United Kingdom
I find it very hard to believe that Charles said he wouldn't be able to support Harry's future wife. He would have expected Harry and his future wife - be that Chelsy, Cressida, Meghan or anyone else - to be full time working royals, and so he'd always have expected to support them.
I suspect that if there IS a grain of truth in this story it might be that Harry wasn't engaged to Meghan and it wasn't even clear what was going to happen but that H asked Charles for money to support her, while she lived as his girlfriend. CHarles might reasonably have said then that no, he wasn't going to support a girlfriend, she could go on acting, or work at something and while he was well to do, he didn't have infinite funds.. so H migth have interpreted that as Charles saying that he did not have enough money to support Harry Meg, the Cambridges and himself and his wife.
SirGyamfi1
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
- Messages
- 2,333
- City
- London
- Country
- United Kingdom
I think this is more reasonable explanation.
Maybe Denville is onto something that it was in the run up to the Engagement. Don't really know. I do believe that Harry wanted protection for Meghan but was told that would ONLY happen once they were officially Engaged.
Harry could have paid for protection privately, if he wanted to. That's on him that he didn't.
I also have read that multi millionaire Harry was considered cheap. It was recounted in some Harry Biography that one of Cressida Bonas dissatisfactions with Harry was his cheapness. Didnt take her out much, and He expected her to pay for an expensive plane ticket to accompany him to his friend Guy Pelly's Jamaican Wedding. She didn't rely on her Parents to support her and wasn't making much in her acting jobs either. So it contributed to their breakup ....allegedly.
Money, money, money seems to be a reoccurring theme with the Sussex's and the Firm. Apparently from the get go, it seems.
In hindsight, it just seems that for whatever AND many reasons, The Sussex's were NEVER going to be able to join in as reliable committed Team Members, to me anyway. It just wasn't in the Cards. I think William recognized that from the very beginning.
Personally, I'm glad it ended so early on. Married in May 2018 and notified the Family-Firm in Dec 2019 they wanted HI-.HO. Had they stayed even a year longer, I fear the breakup would have been even worse.
Harry could have paid for protection privately, if he wanted to. That's on him that he didn't.
I also have read that multi millionaire Harry was considered cheap. It was recounted in some Harry Biography that one of Cressida Bonas dissatisfactions with Harry was his cheapness. Didnt take her out much, and He expected her to pay for an expensive plane ticket to accompany him to his friend Guy Pelly's Jamaican Wedding. She didn't rely on her Parents to support her and wasn't making much in her acting jobs either. So it contributed to their breakup ....allegedly.
Money, money, money seems to be a reoccurring theme with the Sussex's and the Firm. Apparently from the get go, it seems.
In hindsight, it just seems that for whatever AND many reasons, The Sussex's were NEVER going to be able to join in as reliable committed Team Members, to me anyway. It just wasn't in the Cards. I think William recognized that from the very beginning.
Personally, I'm glad it ended so early on. Married in May 2018 and notified the Family-Firm in Dec 2019 they wanted HI-.HO. Had they stayed even a year longer, I fear the breakup would have been even worse.
Last edited:
SirGyamfi1
Heir Presumptive
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2022
- Messages
- 2,333
- City
- London
- Country
- United Kingdom
Post deleted. Mistake
Last edited:
Denville, I believe Harry wanted Meghan to have Royal Protection Office Protection BEFORE They got engaged. He claimed it was needed do to the racial element. That was denied, since they were not Engaged.
But, I don't believe She ever, while just Harry's "girlfriend", and living with him in Nottingham Cottage, was ever given private security PAID for by him. When she was out and about solo. If he was so concerned he could have easily paid for it himself. But he didn't.
Just like when he DID NOTHING when he claims he didn't know how to help her, when The Firm allegedly ignored her supposed mental health issues.
But, I don't believe She ever, while just Harry's "girlfriend", and living with him in Nottingham Cottage, was ever given private security PAID for by him. When she was out and about solo. If he was so concerned he could have easily paid for it himself. But he didn't.
Just like when he DID NOTHING when he claims he didn't know how to help her, when The Firm allegedly ignored her supposed mental health issues.
Last edited:
I find that hard to believe. Of course she wouldn't get tax payer funded security as Harry's girlfriend, but she would share his guards when they were out together. But if she wanted to go out on her own, would Harry really refuse to pay for a private bodyguard for her? Do you know that he didn't?
Harry's RPOs would know ex RPOs who were now working privately, and Im sure it would not be difficult to hire one if Meg wanted to go shopping on her own.
Last edited:
Never once in the time before they became Engaged did I see pictures of her with Security in The UK. Denville. Or Harry saying he got it for her. I'm sure that would have been a great talking point too. Another notch against The Family-Firm, and chivalrous Harry, coming to girlfriend Meghan's rescue.
I do *vaguely* remember that after news broke that Meghan was Harry's girlfriend, working on Suits in Toronto, The Show provided her with Security.
That's simply my understanding and recollection. Of course, I could be wrong.
I do *vaguely* remember that after news broke that Meghan was Harry's girlfriend, working on Suits in Toronto, The Show provided her with Security.
That's simply my understanding and recollection. Of course, I could be wrong.
Last edited:
Queen Claude
Serene Highness
- Joined
- May 29, 2015
- Messages
- 1,487
- City
- USA
- Country
- United States
Charles stating that he could not afford to support Meghan has been reported by sources, including Harry himself, and now by KCIII biographer Jobson.
I take it to mean that he could not afford to support another full-time working royal, which goes beyond clothes and hosting social events, bringing on another full-time working royal also meant paying for the staff needed to support that family member carrying out royal duties, as well as developing and implementing programs that support the causes the royal wants to take on, and lastly handling media relations relating to that royal.
I am thinking that Charles' wanted Harry's spouse to be like Princess Anne's husband Timothy Laurence, someone who had another job / career but had enough flexibility to support his / her royal spouse when needed.
If my take is correct, to me Charles is not wrong for having this point of view, but if he had not had discussions with Harry over the years about the role he saw Harry's spouse playing (or not playing), that represents a major misstep on Charles' part IMO.
I take it to mean that he could not afford to support another full-time working royal, which goes beyond clothes and hosting social events, bringing on another full-time working royal also meant paying for the staff needed to support that family member carrying out royal duties, as well as developing and implementing programs that support the causes the royal wants to take on, and lastly handling media relations relating to that royal.
I am thinking that Charles' wanted Harry's spouse to be like Princess Anne's husband Timothy Laurence, someone who had another job / career but had enough flexibility to support his / her royal spouse when needed.
If my take is correct, to me Charles is not wrong for having this point of view, but if he had not had discussions with Harry over the years about the role he saw Harry's spouse playing (or not playing), that represents a major misstep on Charles' part IMO.
Last edited:
But you wouldn't necessarily see them would you? I dont remember any pics of Meghan for example being out shopping during her girlfriend days, on her own... Her romance with Harry prior to the engagement was carried on fairly discreetly, almost secretly, and in any case, security men are supposed to blend in, so you might not know if she did have someone with her. Harry might be saving that story for a later book.. Ie Dad woudlnt do anything for me, he told me that He couldnt afford to pay for anything for Meghan so I had to find her security guards myself when she was visiting me.. etc etc.
But is it all that likely that Charles saw Meghan as being at best a part time wroking royal? He DID presumably pay for her to have staff and clothes and all the support she would need, during the time between the wedding and them giving up royal life...? AND more to the point, Charles was almost certainly cutting back, yes but cutting back as in he saw the RF consisting of himself, Camilla, Will and Kate, and Harry and Mrs Harry, whoever she might be. That would be 6 people working and needing support and financing, plus some money for the older royals who would be gradually moving towards retirement, and who might need financial support to do their jobs, OR a pension.
I think its beyond question that Charles wanted to cut back on his fellow workers, but given that there IS a lot of work that the RF have traditionally done, he can't cut it down to the bone. Even 6 full time people together with the older people like Anne, the D of Kent, D of GLoucester etc, would be just about enough to carry the workload.
I think its beyond question that Charles wanted to cut back on his fellow workers, but given that there IS a lot of work that the RF have traditionally done, he can't cut it down to the bone. Even 6 full time people together with the older people like Anne, the D of Kent, D of GLoucester etc, would be just about enough to carry the workload.
Lilyflo
Royal Highness
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,882
- City
- England
- Country
- United Kingdom
If Charles DID say that he couldn't support Meghan as a working royal then I take that to mean 'while I'm Prince of Wales', as he made his intentions for his future reign clear when he orchestrated the reduced balcony appearance at QE2's jubilee in 2012. His gave a clear message to the public that the core of the working BRF under Charles III would be him and his sons and their spouses (despite Harry still being single then).
There might have been discussions around the idea of Harry's future wife not joining 'the firm' until after Charles became king, or maybe there were moves behind the scenes to fund Meghan's role from BP, as Charles 'couldn't afford to support an additional member from his own income'. That sort of discussion would spill out to aides and beyond to the press.
Whatever the intricacies of the discussions around funding, Harry and Meghan were given a splendid wedding and offered a choice of 'grand houses' to live in. Their security was paid for and they were provided with highly skilled and experienced staff. They certainly didn't have any money worries because Meghan's public appearances often involved new and expensive designer clothes and accessories.
If there was an intention to keep the Sussexes on a tight budget, they wouldn't have been funded to undertake foreign tours and visits. Instead, they would have been restricted to day trips within easy travelling distance from London that didn't require evening gowns and a large entourage.
Any complaints from either of them about Charles is unwarranted, disloyal and totally devoid of any understanding of their hugely privileged life.
There might have been discussions around the idea of Harry's future wife not joining 'the firm' until after Charles became king, or maybe there were moves behind the scenes to fund Meghan's role from BP, as Charles 'couldn't afford to support an additional member from his own income'. That sort of discussion would spill out to aides and beyond to the press.
Whatever the intricacies of the discussions around funding, Harry and Meghan were given a splendid wedding and offered a choice of 'grand houses' to live in. Their security was paid for and they were provided with highly skilled and experienced staff. They certainly didn't have any money worries because Meghan's public appearances often involved new and expensive designer clothes and accessories.
If there was an intention to keep the Sussexes on a tight budget, they wouldn't have been funded to undertake foreign tours and visits. Instead, they would have been restricted to day trips within easy travelling distance from London that didn't require evening gowns and a large entourage.
Any complaints from either of them about Charles is unwarranted, disloyal and totally devoid of any understanding of their hugely privileged life.
Last edited:
I think that while Chlares might have DISCUSSED the idea of how many royal helpers he could support as POW, you are right in your last paragraph. As far as I can see, even if Charles did have his misgivings, he did not stint the Sussexes when they started their royal life.
I think it definitely had to do with what money was being asked for.
Charles paid for the official role of both sons and their wives.
As far as we can see he didn't give them personal money. How either paid for such things as school fees, households etc is probably their inheritance.
He probably refused Harry extra money for his lifestyle.
Charles paid for the official role of both sons and their wives.
As far as we can see he didn't give them personal money. How either paid for such things as school fees, households etc is probably their inheritance.
He probably refused Harry extra money for his lifestyle.
Thursday abroad are paid for by the foreign office. There would have been plenty of those.
Leopoldine
Serene Highness
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2017
- Messages
- 1,225
- City
- New York
- Country
- United States
This is what I believe as well. It certainly would be a misstep to broach the subject with Harry AFTER he declared his intention to marry Meghan. That makes it seem like a personal judgment.
Seems to me that you cant really do both. I do think that acting is not a career you can really combine with royal work.. just as it woul be difficult to be say a poliitican or a judge or the like. and in point of fact Meg has not gone back to her career now that she is free to do so.
Last edited:
It would be very difficult. Sophie Winkleman maintains her acting career, but she is not a working royal.
As for going back, I think it is different in the USA than in the UK. In British films and shows, I see the same actors over and over. They just keep on going no matter their age.
But in the USA, unless an actress is Meryl Streep, the leading roles tend to dry up when she hits forty. It might not be easy for Meghan to resume an acting career. Though there is always voice work, I suppose.
You cant compare Sophie Winkelman to Meghan the wife of a senior working royal. I dont think it wold be appropriate for a senior royal wife to be in sex scenes, for example, and even if Meg were a better actress than she was, I think she would be open to accusations that she got the parts because of who she was. Im very surprised that the RF do appear to have at least considered the idea of Meghan going on acting. Perhaps they envisaged some serious theatre parts?
Lilyflo
Royal Highness
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,882
- City
- England
- Country
- United Kingdom
Some members of the British Royal Family might argue that Meghan is a highly talented actress, who deserves an Oscar for her role as the poor, victimised Duchess of Sussex...
zarat
Courtier
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Messages
- 912
- City
- Poznań
- Country
- Poland
Yes, regarding this aspect Meghan is "talented"- she knows how to smile broadly, when to shed a tear....
I suspect the comments about her working were made when they were still only dating, it felt very much that she gave up her job early on to their relationship becoming public. She could have worked through the engagement period.
I also wonder if maybe the late Queen and Charles didn't think maybe she could do something more full time - a NGO or not for profit linked with acting etc that she could work for a few days a week and still have the flexibility to go to some royal duties when needed, foreign tours etc but something a bit short of full time royal but her other job (crucially) would not be commercial.
I'm surprised there is so much upset at Charles' comments - it seems to me that is exactly what played out. We know (or have heard from numerous places) Harry and Meghan wanted their own full household like the then Cambridges and this was refused as apart from direct heirs - i.e. the two future kings- the rest of the family all came under the late Queen and sovereign grant or Privy Purse funding. Charles may well have said as part of this discussion that he couldn't afford to pay for another full household like the Cambridges had, in the end they got an office, under the Queen and BP purview which may well have had some funding from both the Sovereign grant, Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy fo Cornwall funds. In other words - Charles seems to have been right in what he said - that he couldn't pay for a full household, but a solution was found that allowed Harry and Meghan to still do duties for the RF so wasn't really a big deal.
Sounds to me like once again Harry and Meghan taking a comment made by the family and trying to turn it into a huge snub and example of how badly they were treated when in fact the family and Household found a workable solution to accommodate them. Sounds to me like they wanted a bigger office and household than anyone else, more like William's than Anne, Edward etc and Charles said no, whilst still funding a decent sized operation for them.
Their own website during their great "Sussexit" sulk laid it out pretty clearly
How has the Office of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex been funded up to now?
Since the establishment of The Office of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, 95 percent of the funding received for their Office expenditure is derived from income allocated by HRH The Prince of Wales, generated through the Duchy of Cornwall. This provision has been in place since Prince William and Prince Harry first established their offices in support of The Queen, and is the responsibility of The Prince of Wales. This information continues to be available on The Duchy of Cornwall website.
Where does the other five percent come from?
As described above, the remaining five percent of funding for the Office of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, covering costs associated with employing members of their official office, is received through the Sovereign Grant...
I also wonder if maybe the late Queen and Charles didn't think maybe she could do something more full time - a NGO or not for profit linked with acting etc that she could work for a few days a week and still have the flexibility to go to some royal duties when needed, foreign tours etc but something a bit short of full time royal but her other job (crucially) would not be commercial.
I'm surprised there is so much upset at Charles' comments - it seems to me that is exactly what played out. We know (or have heard from numerous places) Harry and Meghan wanted their own full household like the then Cambridges and this was refused as apart from direct heirs - i.e. the two future kings- the rest of the family all came under the late Queen and sovereign grant or Privy Purse funding. Charles may well have said as part of this discussion that he couldn't afford to pay for another full household like the Cambridges had, in the end they got an office, under the Queen and BP purview which may well have had some funding from both the Sovereign grant, Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy fo Cornwall funds. In other words - Charles seems to have been right in what he said - that he couldn't pay for a full household, but a solution was found that allowed Harry and Meghan to still do duties for the RF so wasn't really a big deal.
Sounds to me like once again Harry and Meghan taking a comment made by the family and trying to turn it into a huge snub and example of how badly they were treated when in fact the family and Household found a workable solution to accommodate them. Sounds to me like they wanted a bigger office and household than anyone else, more like William's than Anne, Edward etc and Charles said no, whilst still funding a decent sized operation for them.
Their own website during their great "Sussexit" sulk laid it out pretty clearly
How has the Office of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex been funded up to now?
Since the establishment of The Office of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, 95 percent of the funding received for their Office expenditure is derived from income allocated by HRH The Prince of Wales, generated through the Duchy of Cornwall. This provision has been in place since Prince William and Prince Harry first established their offices in support of The Queen, and is the responsibility of The Prince of Wales. This information continues to be available on The Duchy of Cornwall website.
Where does the other five percent come from?
As described above, the remaining five percent of funding for the Office of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, covering costs associated with employing members of their official office, is received through the Sovereign Grant...
Last edited:
Perhaps they do but that's not really the issue. From what I can see, Meghan was no great actress and she idd not have the x factor to be a super star without acting talent.
And in all honesty, for me she just always seemed fakey... I saw somethig about Harry last night where he came out to tell the press that he had a son, and he looked genuinely happy. When Meg appeared with him and the baby, she looked as if she were acting.
Yet overall I cant help feeling that Harry too has been acting a part for years, playing the jolly jokey good hearted bloke... when he was very differnet in private. But he has some genuine feelings, I think and Meghan seems to have very little
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
