Royal Insight Forum

Welcome to Part 4 of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex TV, Interviews.

The previous thread can be found here.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex interviews, TV and other media events Part 3 (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=95348.0)

Netflix has announced that the Harry and Meghan doco series was the second most successful ever for the streaming giant.

Netflix reveals Harry and Meghan as most successful documentary ever (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/01/20/harry-meghan-becomes-second-successful-netflix-documentary-ever/)

Netflix has announced the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's recent series, Harry & Meghan, which revealed behind the scenes details of royal life as its second-highest ranked documentary ever.

Meghan's turn

(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1616925587892846593/Mi-pPrpS?format=jpg&name=small)

Trailer
Meghan Markle: Unforgiven (Official Trailer) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOTIS9nwsRU)

Director
Nick Randall
Writer
Nick Randall
Cast of actors
Meghan Duchess of Sussex
Prince Harry
Gemma Collins

An interview from Liz Garbus (director behind Harry & Meghan Netflix) for Vanity Fair.

The archive link is here Harry & Meghan Director Liz Garbus Wanted to ?Connect the Dots? to ?Larger Historical Issues? | Vanity Fair (https://archive.ph/2023.01.24-191002/https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/liz-garbus-netflix-harry-and-meghan?utm_brand=vf&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&mbid=social_twitter#selection-613.10-613.21)

Some quotes from the article....


?People are very happy to read everything about Harry and Meghan when it?s somebody else writing about them,? says the filmmaker. ?But when Harry and Meghan want to tell their story in their own words, it suddenly becomes an issue. People are not forced to watch a documentary. It?s not going to be required in school. It is your choice what you binge and what you don?t binge. There have been more documentaries and books written about Harry and Meghan than Harry and Meghan have produced themselves. So I think it?s an interesting kind of pearl-clutching that doesn?t quite add up with the public?s appetite for reading stuff about them from other people.?

Though she wasn?t a royal watcher, Garbus says that making the documentary was, at times, a surreal immersion exercise into the alleged palace mind games Harry and Meghan described to her. ?For instance, Buckingham Palace said that we didn?t reach out for comment [on the docuseries] when we did,? says Garbus. ?They did that to discredit us?and by discrediting us, they can discredit the content of the show.? We lived through some of those moments that were a little bit like Alice Through the Looking Glass.?

Garbus, meanwhile, did not direct her first scripted feature until 2020?s Lost Girls. ?Documentary has always been more open to women,? says the filmmaker. ?I think there?s a very cynical reason for that, which is that it?s lower-paid and [offers] smaller budgets.?

The first half of it is more Harry and Meghan centered and the second half talks about her works and views on film-making, etc and the industry.

Quote from: wannable on January 24, 2023, 03:12:15 PM
Meghan's turn

(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1616925587892846593/Mi-pPrpS?format=jpg&name=small)

Trailer
Meghan Markle: Unforgiven (Official Trailer) - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOTIS9nwsRU)

Director
Nick Randall
Writer
Nick Randall
Cast of actors
Meghan Duchess of Sussex
Prince Harry
Gemma Collins

Lol the level of narcissism is just laughable at this point.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on January 24, 2023, 10:47:03 PM
Lol the level of narcissism is just laughable at this point.

Why narcissism? This thing is a short doco ABOUT Meghan. It?s not made by her, endorsed by her or starring her. She has nothing to do with it. However the guy that has just made this has roped in Trevor Engelson, Meghan?s ex, to make something as well, so there are plenty of others wanting a slice of the pie.

Quote from: Curryong on January 25, 2023, 12:39:49 AM
Why narcissism? This thing is a short doco ABOUT Meghan. It?s not made by her, endorsed by her or starring her. She has nothing to do with it. However the guy that has just made this has roped in Trevor Engelson, Meghan?s ex, to make something as well, so there are plenty of others wanting a slice of the pie.

Agree.


Looking it up, the cast includes:

Gemma Collins      
Ingrid Seward      
Ashley Pearson      
Roya Nikkhah      
Robert Jobson      
Emily Nash      
Allyson Stewart-Allen      
Dani States      
Ruth Wrigley

Ingrid, Roya, Robert are openly and many times have talked about how awful Meghan is and how much they dislike her.

Emily Nash is a little more balanced.

I don't know the other names but googling Gemma Collins has only negative things to say.

There is no proof she has any connection to this.

And the only thing I know about Allyson Stewart-Allen is that she is a British based Californian author who has written a book called (presumably for a British readership) ?Working with Americans?. She is probably there to speak about Meghan vs BP. So fear not, somehow I don?t think this documentary will be filled with Meghan-lovers.

Well, whose next with their story, maybe Archie has tales to tell about the BRF.  What is Meghan trying to prove now........how big she is, how important, how intelligent she is, (that degree from NW really shows her smarts, right) how tough she is to take on the British Royal Family and the entire institution of over a 1,000 years old.  Just how long was she a member of the BRF that she has that many more lies to tell. 

Quote from: Nightowl on January 25, 2023, 02:49:44 AM
Well, whose next with their story, maybe Archie has tales to tell about the BRF.  What is Meghan trying to prove now........how big she is, how important, how intelligent she is, (that degree from NW really shows her smarts, right) how tough she is to take on the British Royal Family and the entire institution of over a 1,000 years old.  Just how long was she a member of the BRF that she has that many more lies to tell.

The Meghan documentary Unforgiven has NOTHING to do with Meghan. Nothing, nil, zilch. It?s made by a group of other people,  headed by Nick Randall. He has hired RRs and other talking heads to speak about her and that is clear when you Google it.

Quote from: Curryong on January 25, 2023, 12:39:49 AM
Why narcissism? This thing is a short doco ABOUT Meghan. It?s not made by her, endorsed by her or starring her. She has nothing to do with it. However the guy that has just made this has roped in Trevor Engelson, Meghan?s ex, to make something as well, so there are plenty of others wanting a slice of the pie.

Should have looked more closely as I thought this was related to the book she?s going to be publishing soon. Easy enough to do, I suppose, after the Oprah interview, and then a 6 part documentary about how difficult it is to be a duchess.

But you are right about people wanting a slice of the pie. Can?t complain much though when they?re selling their personal lives themselves.

To be fair to them, people were already happily grabbing a slice of the pie before either Harry or Meghan opened their mouths, so they were simply following the trends. If everyone else can make money off them, they in turn can make money off of their own story. More books, docs, tv shows, articles, podcast and etc, has been made about them than anything they've said themselves.

The documentary also wasn't a six part-series about how hard it was to be a a duchess, as Meghan never complained about the actual work. What she did take issue was the constant racism, harassments, palace leaking and bullying of the media, the death threats made and how the media fueled more racist and violent threats.

She didn't have an issue with showing up somewhere, chatting for a few minutes and waving as most work can be summed up. She was able to easily throw herself into working on the cookbook, vouge, smart works and etc. What was hard, was knowing that when people were calling her a knife wielding American and her child was being compared to a chimp, her new 'family' were silent and the new 'household' she moved into were happy to brief the papers against her while she was struggling and pregnant.

That's a little more than just being a duchess, that was being degraded as a human being.


Harry & Meghan Netflix documentary director accuses Palace of trying to 'discredit' series (https://archive.ph/DND3r)

the above link is more about the Harry & Meghan Netflix doc.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on January 25, 2023, 02:10:19 PM
Should have looked more closely as I thought this was related to the book she?s going to be publishing soon. Easy enough to do, I suppose, after the Oprah interview, and then a 6 part documentary about how difficult it is to be a duchess.

But you are right about people wanting a slice of the pie. Can?t complain much though when they?re selling their personal lives themselves.

It IS confusing, since weeks ago RR's were stating she is writing her autobiography, reports came through with the following information:

She wants to center the book about her short period experience with the BRF, which would be called ''Unforgiven''.  Publishers negotiating with MM state it has to be an autobiography from childhood to adulthood, including the short tenure with the BRF as a member, because just the short tenure isn't enough/18 months of experience.

Did Trevor register the name before or after, hard to tell.

*****

Liz Garbuz is creating a 'new' buzz over the Netflix docuseries because it wasn't nominated for an Oscar.

We're starting to drift off topic from The Sussexes' Interviews and Television events ie: Prince Harry's recent interviews related to the release of Spare or the series Harry and Meghan.  Discussion of the couple's relationship with the press, tabloids and social media should continue in this newly created thread or one of the others listed below.





New Thread for the Sussexes' relationship with the press, tabloids and social media.

The Sussexes' relationship with the press, tabloids, and social media. (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=95387.0)

To discuss the legal issues that the Sussexes have had with the tabloids ie The Daily Mail.

Duke and Duchess of Sussex All Legal Actions Part 2 (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=95073.0)

To discuss royals in general besides the Sussexes and the press/paparazzi etc...

The Royals & Television Media, Tabloid Press/Photographer Pack (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=89669.0)

To discuss specific royal reporters and commentators ie: Piers Morgan

Royal Commentators, reporters and authors (https://www.royalinsight.net/forum/index.php?topic=89231.0)

South Park
@SouthPark

Dumb Prince and His Stupid Wife
Kyle complains about a dumb prince and his stupid wife in the all-new episode, titled ?Worldwide Privacy Tour? premiering Wednesday, February 15 at 10:00p ET/PT on Comedy Central.

https://twitter.com/SouthPark/status/1625258880887566336

Ah yes, there have been so many satires on members of the BRF. There were the Spitting Image puppets of the days of Charles and Di and the QM, of course, then the Spitting Images reboot of the 2020s, also the Windsor Family TV series, taking all the senior royals off into comedy TV land. Followed by the satiric ?Prince George? US animated series. And so one episode of South Park is not likely to ruffle the feathers. And who could forget the Royle Family TV series!

Prince Charles & Camilla Royle Family spoof - BBC comedy - YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D6FU0cgg9ko)

Harry?s will probably laugh at himself, as he did on Steve Colbert?s show.

Hopefully they won't get angry. Some public people are tough skin. 

It's all about South Park in social media today

and this, trending

https://twitter.com/i/status/1625390382371463170

Enjoying this episode as well, where the late Queen shoots herself in the head because a British Invasion of the US failed?

South Park: God Save the Queen - YouTube (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F7UXRsQM39o)

And the episode where they made fun of William and Kate on Southpark is still rattling around the internet as well. 

Those are old whataboutisms, I was referring to today's social media trends.

How Prince Harry, Meghan Markle Made Themselves 'Fair Game' for TV Spoofing (https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-fair-game-tv-spoofing-1781729)

QuoteThe South Park episode presented take downs of Harry's memoir Spare as well as the Sussexes' use of private jets and antipathy for the media, from the perspective of a fictional "Prince and Princess of Canada," created to look just like the couple.

This is something that entertainment expert and founder of MarkMeets, Mark Boardman, told Newsweek that the couple may have to get used to.

"It's a brave move by South Park creators to ridicule the hypocrisy of Meghan and Harry, but I have to say the recent episode 'The World-Wide Privacy Tour' is spot on, and in so many ways," Boardman said.

Don?t watch South Park and never did, but it is kind of their schtick to mock celebrities and current events. Although, the Newsweek article does point to something that does tend to send some people over the edge: celebrities and wealthy people talking about doing things to help the environmental crisis and then doing the most hypocritical things. Or talking about any social cause without acknowledging exactly how their current position was gained by utilizing that inequality.

I think there?s an essence of people wanting to see them (and others) talk the talk and walk the walk because the talk comes off as virtue signaling. A lot of it is posturing or can be perceived that way. It rubs a lot of people the wrong way, myself included. I think it?s good to point out why the rest of the RF aren?t being targeted as much in this particular satire. They don?t talk. It?s difficult to find fault with people who just go on about their business. And when other RF family members have tried to take a similar road as Harry and Meghan, they?ve been hit back with criticism for the same reason.

Well, I do like South Park. However, fair?s fair! #PrinceOfPegging and #PrinceWilliam was trending ALL day and night on Twitter and so suddenly the mood changed. Apparently many of the people on Twitter who are anti-sussexites who were rejoicing because of the Sussex roast didn?t know, couldn?t remember the episode featuring William and Kate.

For defenders against fake news, the South Park headline about William the Sussex Squad is sharing on social media is photoshopped. The original article and headline are easily googled.

I hope one day Harry get's over his envy towards his brother. He is causing a lot of hurt, usually ends in karma.  His Bryony interview is very telling that he can't get over it that every family member is different, yes there are brothers who are goody two shoes, William (I would know, we are 6, 3 brothers, 3 sisters, all different character, behaviour, goals in life, independent thoughts, likes and what not, with the difference not one has gone mad or evil)

In both the Rose and Pegging, it is publicly and widely known to come from a Social Media Sussex supporter.  ^ PrincessofPeace is correct, Forbes wrote a piece on the Pegging, investigated the paper trail, a Sussex Instagram supporter.  That supporter is not as big (followers) so to speak as the Rose one, a unemployed journalist who said she was unemployed and a Sussex supporter and invented it, although her papertrail takes her to a Harry hunting weekend in Norfolk.

Lastly, IMO he has to be very careful, spouting a ''projection'' of his own self, just saying his Vegas trip with a naked picture behind someone about to peg is disgusting. He was absolutely wasted, piled with alcohol and very likely drugs.

Serious speculation by The Spectator as the Sussexes have not released a public statement on the South Park Episode.

Meghan Markle ?upset? at her depiction in South Park - The Spectator World (https://thespectator.com/topic/meghan-markle-upset-depiction-south-park/)

That?s not serious speculation, just the usual stuff printed by journalists in British newspapers for at least the last three years, casting the Sussexes in a negative light as usual. What?s more, carrying on about the Samantha case and how worried Meghan supposedly is about the depositions when the judge stated categorically that she could see no value in much of Samantha?s case. Of course that wasn?t mentioned in the article, just the depositions.

Do these journalists expect the couple to be ecstatic about the South Park episode? Seriously! It?s a pity some independent journalists doesn?t write an article naming names among the usual suspects from their profession and speculating about the minutiae of THEIR private lives and foibles of THEIR characters (starting with Dan Wootton, Angela Levin and Piers Morgan, plenty of material there for at least two of them) and how much they would enjoy an animated version of that appearing on streaming services all over the world. Would they all react well? Like heck they would! But of course that wouldn?t produce any clickbait for newspapers and that?s all that matters isn?t it!

I've never seen "South Park". Is that their usual style? When I saw the media shots of the episode I thought it was pretty rude, but to be honest, Harry and Meghan have put themselves out there. They have said and done some very controversial things themselves, as we have read on this site and others. If there are rude programs like "South Park", it isn't surprising they'd be highlighted on one.

South Park trashes all celebs, they weren't the first royals to be mocked.

It's just South Park, nothing the serious. The only people kicking up a fuss are the British Media because they "win" against the Sussex's and they need to prove that America hates them when really, most of America doesn't care. They gone from talking about the episode to writing fanfiction about them suing over the episode.

And yes, that's South Parks usual style, no famous person is safe from them. The show is made to be offensively, offensive. Anything that someone could or would be offended by, South Park as done. It's their brand and why people like it. (if one is into that type of humor). The episode isn't making waves in America because....we've already seen it all before.

And South Park got it wrong by falling into the British Press lies about them stepping back because they never said they wanted privacy or they'd stop being public figures. They said, they don't want to interact with the RR and didn't want to take tax-payer money so the British media could stop using that as a stick to beat them with.

I honestly didn't realize the show was still airing....but overall, South Park did what it does best and the british media are so desperate for something to talk about when it comes to the Sussex's (esp, Meghan because she hasn't been seen since Dec. 6). They want this South Park epsiode to be bigger than it is. Good luck to them.

I guess we have to wonder no more, they were contacted by people and their spokesperson responded,

"On whether Harry and Meghan are pursuing legal action against the show, a spokesperson for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex tells PEOPLE: "It's all frankly nonsense. Totally baseless, boring reports."

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry Not Suing Over South Park Episode (https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-not-suing-over-south-park-episode-its-all-nonsense/)

The article is a good read as it once again, highlights the privacy thing that people have taken and run with, in regards, to putting words in their mouths about privacy.

The difference between America and the UK, is America has the first amendment, the right to free speech. Which Harry called 'bonkers'.

It's one thing to take legal action in Britain, in America free speech, especially satire and parody, is protected

Harry didn't call free speech 'bonkers'

He said the way in which the media could get around free speech was bonkers. He said the ways in which laws could can be loop-holed and the entire conversation. At no point, was he saying that the first amendment itself was bonkers.

I can confirm because I just listened to that part of the podcast before I replied to you. That part, came as part of a larger conversation about laws, how the media gets around loopholes and etc. Of course the media, in bad faith, decided to say that he straight up called the 1st amendment bonkers without mentioning the larger context that was being discussed and people have run with it.

I didn't bring up the right to free speech, satire or parody or what is protected or not. I just wanted to say that their spokesperson said that they have plans for it because it's boring reporting because there has been an undercurrent of saying they're going to sue for South Park and more lies being talked about their reaction too it. They were never going to sue South Park because this is South Parks bread and butter and most don't care. The most annoying thing about the episode was South Park going along with the lie that they asked for privacy but it's not something they would've sued over and their spokesperson confirmed it.

Thanks for the correction on Harry's quote. My larger point on why they're not taking action is because of the first amendment.  At least imo.

^ Their pattern of suing has diminished to 0 in the states, the Cut lady was actually off for holiday and is back at her job, which to date was the only person royal watchers were on the look out for her, if she had been unemployed. IF they did weigh the options, I'm sure their lawyer told them especially the disadvantages of suing a USA company (Paramount Pictures, the parent company of Comedy Central), the cons are too much vs the pros. 

Matter of fact, the largest networks in the states have been very harsh with the couple, nothing has happened.  In the UK it WAS another story. I'm saying was, because the trashing hard has moved stateside.

I'd say People Magazine is friendly to the Sussexes, so the information is solid.

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on February 21, 2023, 09:29:01 PM
Thanks for the correction on Harry's quote. My larger point on why they're not taking action is because of the first amendment.  At least imo.

I?d agree that this is at least partially the reason. There?s a higher burden of proof in the US when it comes to slander or libel.

Neither Meghan nor Harry is or was in the habit of suing all media willy nilly. That is one lie the media has perpetuated, keeps getting repeated and so people believe it. In fact is has been less than a handful of times with fingers left over. What was it Goebbels  said during the war? I believe it was ?Repeat a lie often enough?.?

The other lie endlessly repeated is that the Sussexes asked for privacy and that was why they left the UK for the USA. As Changemhysoul has posted, they did not. It was the endless, unfair stream of lies and negativity directed towards them by the British media, especially against Meghan, that they found objectionable.

And I never believed they would sue South Park. Unfortunately, though they certainly wouldn?t have liked seeing themselves portrayed in that way, with all the needless lies and careless half truths that the show perpetrated that was objectionable, they have had to wear it and ignore it.

The media doesn't have to do anything, nor be blamed or pointed the finger for everything, the couple themselves make the news.  The US has had harsher press in the past 5 months, 0 suing. Two very prominent anchors from CNN and Fox decided to use the same wording as Piers, nothing.  Someone in the know decided to help the script at Comedy Central, they wouldn't have gotten it so precise, with just one little tiny mistake (I'm travelling very early tomorrow and will be basically in the jungle, back this coming Monday, will say if no one has captured it) and of course the suggestion of the ending, which meh, I think Harry is worse than her.

In a 3 year period, starting from the South African Tour where the couple decided to go unprofessional,  the combined is 10 lawsuits, 3.2 per year or 3 per 2 years, 4 in 1 year.

This article has a timeline of legal actions against the British media in the past three years. According to the article it amounts to five. However, one was a legal letter sent, not a law suit, and another was a letter of complaint to the BBC not a law suit. Two out of five leaves three.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/law/955885/timeline-harry-and-meghan-legal-action-against-uk-press

As far as the US goes there was the suit against the US photo agency for the taking of photos of Archie, which the Sussexes won. The other is Samantha?s suit against Meghan, which Meghan had no part in beginning.

Quote from: wannable on February 22, 2023, 01:56:25 AM
The media doesn't have to do anything, nor be blamed or pointed the finger for everything, the couple themselves make the news.  The US has had harsher press in the past 5 months, 0 suing. Two very prominent anchors from CNN and Fox decided to use the same wording as Piers, nothing.  Someone in the know decided to help the script at Comedy Central, they wouldn't have gotten it so precise, with just one little tiny mistake (I'm travelling very early tomorrow and will be basically in the jungle, back this coming Monday, will say if no one has captured it) and of course the suggestion of the ending, which meh, I think Harry is worse than her.

In a 3 year period, starting from the South African Tour where the couple decided to go unprofessional,  the combined is 10 lawsuits, 3.2 per year or 3 per 2 years, 4 in 1 year.

Interesting stat, especially for two people that have, let?s say an ?expansive,? view on facts and truth.

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on February 22, 2023, 02:40:36 AM
Interesting stat, especially for two people that have, let?s say an ?expansive,? view on facts and truth.

Except those stats are not true. See the timeline I linked in the post below, and the fact that two of the five ?law suits? they listed weren?t law suits at all!

Newsweek = American

The couple are double trouble = Harry and Meghan's 10 Lawsuits in 3 Years and What They Say About Couple

^ Who gets headlines like this in the USA?! No one famous gets/does 10 combined lawsuits in 3 years except criminals on the loose 'wanted' in different states OR professional victims.

Quote from: Curryong on February 22, 2023, 03:10:19 AM
Except those stats are not true. See the timeline I linked in the post below, and the fact that two of the five ?law suits? they listed weren?t law suits at all!

I?d say my comment still stands whether it be a lawsuit or a letter to cease and desist. The point is they?re quite keen to let everyone know when someone is ?lying about them,? but not so keen to own up to their untruthful or misleading statements.

Freelance writer R.S. Locke, claimed on Twitter Harry will make a new, pre-recorded, appearance on Mr Colbert's show on February 28 -

Prince Harry set to appear in new interview on Tuesday as Coronation question rumbles on | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1739041/prince-harry-interview-stephen-colbert-the-late-show?utm_source=express_newsletter&utm_campaign=royal_midday_newsletter2&utm_medium=email)

These are the questions from Colbert's segment. I agree with the guess that it was most likely recorded while Harry was in NYC

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpuU9KqXoAA69VL?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpuU92jX0AEhXGW?format=jpg&name=large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpuU-XxWYAATV6r?format=jpg&name=large)

Answer to Question #2...Harry has a well loved grey shirt that needs to be updated IMO.

Quote from: TLLK on February 24, 2023, 05:17:38 PM
Answer to Question #2...Harry has a well loved grey shirt that needs to be updated IMO.

Some other people on the twt have said that his brown shoes need to go.

The clip from the Colbert Q&A

https://twitter.com/colbertlateshow/status/1630798769796308992

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in New York, told the Jewish Chronicle: 'Whoever made the arrangements to have this individual appear with Prince Harry, did him no favours. If Prince Harry knew this man's record and still chose him for the interview, our Centre would criticise the prince for such an inappropriate choice'. -

Fury over Prince Harry's 'intimate' public chat with Dr Gabor Mat? who defended Hamas rockets | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11815909/Fury-Prince-Harrys-intimate-public-chat-Dr-Gabor-Mat-defended-Hamas-rockets.html)

Dr Mat?, a Hungarian-Canadian physician, has his own harrowing story. Born in Nazi-occupied Budapest in 1944, when he was five months old his maternal grandparents were among the Jews murdered in Auschwitz. He was taken from his mother and hidden with an aunt until the war ended. 

From the article you linked.


And for the record, I am no anti-Semite. I read Anne Frank?s diary at 14 and wept. However, I agree with Dr Mate over the Gaza Bank and some actions by the Israeli Govt, and  have considerable sympathy for Palestinians.

And another piece from the article about Harry?s appearance tomorrow with Dr Mate. The Sussexes may well be owed money by Charles.

?However, it has now prompted questions as to whether the Crown Estate, which leases out Frogmore to the Sussexes, might actually end up owing the couple money.

The Sussexes were given use of Frogmore Cottage in 2018 by Queen Elizabeth amid their explosive fall-out with William and Katherine.

It was originally five, run-down, staff residences but was knocked back into one large home with a private garden initially using ?2.4million in taxpayers' money.

The couple themselves paid for anything over and above basic fixtures and fittings.

At the time, the couple were said to be 'relieved and pleased' to refund taxpayers for the renovations.? 

'

Oh good lord, is this really being brought up? Some people really will complain about anything. Going into the topic itself would be entirely too political, but how about having a conversation with someone doesn?t mean you necessarily agree with every word that?s ever been uttered by them?

Quote from: HistoryGirl2 on March 03, 2023, 01:53:27 PM
Oh good lord, is this really being brought up? Some people really will complain about anything. Going into the topic itself would be entirely too political, but how about having a conversation with someone doesn?t mean you necessarily agree with every word that?s ever been uttered by them?

Oh it does where the Sussexes are concerned according to the tabloids!

Prince Harry Takes The Colbert Questionert link

Prince Harry Takes The Colbert Questionert - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiEifW_Gob0)

I love the Colbert auestionare! Perhaps because I too love the same sandwich with Dijon mustard. Harry was relaxed and cheerful and amusing here.

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on March 03, 2023, 01:25:02 PM
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in New York, told the Jewish Chronicle: 'Whoever made the arrangements to have this individual appear with Prince Harry, did him no favours. If Prince Harry knew this man's record and still chose him for the interview, our Centre would criticise the prince for such an inappropriate choice'. -

Fury over Prince Harry's 'intimate' public chat with Dr Gabor Mat? who defended Hamas rockets | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11815909/Fury-Prince-Harrys-intimate-public-chat-Dr-Gabor-Mat-defended-Hamas-rockets.html)

While I doubt that the current and historic situation in the Middle East especially between Israel and Palestine will be discussed, I can understand why Dr. Matte's presence is causing some raised eyebrows.

The youtube video of Russell Brand with that Doc calling Israel ''terrorists' will make all the Jews angry with the Doc.

^ I prefer to be grounded 6 hours than have a aircrash.

Israel is not, and should not be, beyond criticism for right wing and Zionist policies towards Palestinians.

Dr Mate is a Jew himself and a Holocaust survivor who had many relatives die in Nazi death camps. He is also a mental health expert. However it?s extremely doubtful that any of Israel?s policies will be coming up in the talk with Harry. Dr Mate is a distinguished author and expert on mental health and that?s what he and Harry are there to discuss.

And the passengers were not allowed to leave the plane, and were given very little food at drink. Many have said they will never fly with that airline ever again. And it?s not the first time the airline has stranded passengers. In fact it?s getting to be a regular occurence.

Follow 7NEWS on Twitter (https://7news.com.au/news/jetstar-passengers-wait-for-baggage-after-being-stranded-for-hours-in-alice-springs-because-of-medical-emergency-c-9890069)

Of course, every country that is criticized due to 'arms related' issues has their vocal detractors, peace lovers, right and left wing, etc. I'm just stating the obvious, it's on tape, so of course the Jews are angry.

Same with the Doc, not one public person is universally loved, there is always people who have a different view.  Legally he doesn't practice nor can receive patients, the drug he likes to use is illegal where 'he can lawfully practice'.

Quote from: Curryong on March 03, 2023, 02:29:00 PM
I love the Colbert questionnaire! Perhaps because I too love the same sandwich with Dijon mustard. Harry was relaxed and cheerful and amusing here.

Yes, it was fun. Harry is charming as always, natural charisma shines through. But also Colbert and Harry have great chemistry and were v good with playing off of each other. I also like the sandwich combo but I've never called it a toastie 

Quote from: wannable on March 03, 2023, 03:21:08 PM
Of course, every country that is criticized due to 'arms related' issues has their vocal detractors, peace lovers, right and left wing, etc. I'm just stating the obvious, it's on tape, so of course the Jews are angry.

Same with the Doc, not one public person is universally loved, there is always people who have a different view.  Legally he doesn't practice nor can receive patients, the drug he likes to use is illegal where 'he can lawfully practice'.

That?s hardly a scandal. The doctor is nearly 80 years old, and the vast majority of his colleagues of a similar age are retired anyway. He is hardly a pothead! And many Jewish people, not just Matte, disagree with Israeli Govt policy re the West Bank. As do many non Jews.

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 03, 2023, 03:30:52 PM
Yes, it was fun. Harry is charming as always, natural charisma shines through. But also Colbert and Harry have great chemistry and were v good with playing off of each other. I also like the sandwich combo but I've never called it a toastie

It?s called a toastie here in Aus as well. We have many English type expressions in this country. I agree Harry and Colbert had great chemistry. Who knows, maybe he will be a guest on the show again some day.

For 'uniform' industry/government, a warning is a warning that may lead to diminish a career in practice.

Anyone is allowed to not like it, but that doesn?t mean Harry or anyone else has to listen. He has a right to have an opinion or have no opinion at all and still have a conversation with the man about a completely unrelated topic.

And terrorist acts can be committed by anyone, regardless of their race, religion, or nationality. Your cultural identity does not magically make every action you take acceptable or appropriate.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/prince-harry-livestream-


I read this article about Harry's livestream.  So funny.  I wonder if he manages to blame his family for articles like this?  I guess we'll find out in the Spare part two. ( Or should i say waagh part two🤣🤣)

Quote from: Ayse on March 03, 2023, 08:24:40 PM
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/prince-harry-livestream-


I read this article about Harry's livestream.  So funny.  I wonder if he manages to blame his family for articles like this?  I guess we'll find out in the Spare part two. ( Or should i say waagh part two🤣🤣)

Article has been deleted or removed but I do hope for waagh part two. I'm sure it'll be another best seller, his charities would get more money, he'll have more money for his family.

Omid Scobie was probably upset on the Sussexes? behalf but the couple themselves are happy in California and aren?t and weren?t upset over the decision at all, unlike Andrew over the possibility of losing Royal Lodge.

The Mirror and other tabloids are now following The Times article with Valentine Low quoting contacts over in California stating that the couple recognise the reasoning behind it. Columnists and journalists at the British tabloids and elsewhere in the media who have been revelling in the imagined misery and humiliation of the couple (here?s looking at you Piers, Levin and Jan Muir who were so quick off the pot with their wholesale enjoyment of the situation) will be disappointed!

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals...ction-29369107

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 03, 2023, 09:55:22 PM
Article has been deleted or removed but I do hope for waagh part two. I'm sure it'll be another best seller, his charities would get more money, he'll have more money for his family.

For $33.09, Hear Prince Harry Unpack His Trauma Again (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/prince-harry-livestream-trauma.html)

It works for me.

I'm sure the second part will come if he can't find any other way to make money other than insulting his family and violating their privacy.  I wouldn't want the book I wrote to become best seller like this but hey it?s just me.

Omid's status with Harry seems to have fallen out.  Omid and Meghan are friends since way back.

(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/03/03/17/68310485-11812333-image-a-1_1677863304814.jpg)

Daily Mail

The journalist who put this together can?t even spell Sovereign Grant correctly. It?s Grant not Grand. And Harry certainly wasn?t receiving 2 million a year from the Sovereign Grant. That is only given to working royals for travel and other expenses while they undertake engagements.

And how does this person know how much Harry got each year from the Duchy of Cornwall? The allowances given by Charles to his two sons have never been detailed. Plus the 2.4 million for FC was paid back by the Sussexes, so that was hardly a perk, more an expense, especially as they also paid for furniture, paint, wallpaper, lighting, fittings for the Cottage as well.

Omid and Meghan haven't been friends since way back.

Omid was just the only RR who didn't arrange and harass them for access or turn into a bully about it. He was also another POC and would have some shared experience.

Omid didn't treat them like personal toys so Omid has been given access others haven't times. All of the royals have their favorite reporters that they run too when they want something to say.

Quote from: Curryong on March 04, 2023, 01:03:34 PM
The journalist who put this together can?t even spell Sovereign Grant correctly. It?s Grant not Grand. And Harry certainly wasn?t receiving 2 million a year from the Sovereign Grant. That is only given to working royals for travel and other expenses while they undertake engagements.

And how does this person know how much Harry got each year from the Duchy of Cornwall? The allowances given by Charles to his two sons have never been detailed. Plus the 2.4 million for FC was paid back by the Sussexes, so that was hardly a perk, more an expense, especially as they also paid for furniture, paint, wallpaper, lighting, fittings for the Cottage as well.

I thougth that Charles' accounts gave the income given to his sons, wich was approx 2 M each per year

Carly Ledbetter has a break down of Harry's live but it's really hard to understand if you weren't in the event.

Anywhoo, the talk with Dr. Mate was great, the bath and forth and ease they had made a great environment. The questions that were selected were also pretty good. It was an enjoyable event imo.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 04, 2023, 05:23:55 PM
I thougth that Charles' accounts gave the income given to his sons, wich was approx 2 M each per year

Yes, he may well have done that, but that was just guesswork on behalf of the media, and most of it was earmarked for the running of the Royal Foundation offices and later of the Sussexes? office anyway. And as William had three children and Harry only one at that time, the portion given to William to help out with his household expenses may have been larger. The point is, we just don?t know because it has never been detailed.

All these figures on both sides of the illustration are all over the place anyway. The Fail doesn?t know what Netflix, Spotify, the Random House publishers shelled out to Harry. It?s all guesswork, figures plucked out of the sky, and unless one day these organisations state what the deal payouts were and are, no outside body is ever likely to know, and that includes the Fail.

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 04, 2023, 06:57:13 PM
Carly Ledbetter has a break down of Harry's live but it's really hard to understand if you weren't in the event.

Anywhoo, the talk with Dr. Mate was great, the bath and forth and ease they had made a great environment. The questions that were selected were also pretty good. It was an enjoyable event imo.

That?s excellent. So glad you and the others enjoyed listening to the banter and the discussion on this really serious topic. A poster elsewhere was saying that as Dr Mate has been renowned expert on mental health issues for many years, he is a recipient of an Order of Canada.

Quote from: Curryong on March 04, 2023, 08:40:21 PM
That?s excellent. So glad you and the others enjoyed listening to the banter and the discussion on this really serious topic. A poster elsewhere was saying that as Dr Mate has been renowned expert on mental health issues for many years, he is a recipient of an Order of Canada.

Yes, it was great. When they first started, Dr. Mate was like "I don't care about the royal drama or the family or the melodrama and etc..." And it was funny because I saw a clip of someone from the BBC doing some news on it and she was like..."a lot of questions weren't asked, was he going to come to the coronation, is he talking to his father, his brother and step-mother and etc weren't mentioned." It made me laugh because if she watched the whole thing, she would know the Dr. Mate SAID, that wasn't his focus or concern. He didn't care about the all that glitters, he cared about the human experience.

But overall, it was a great talked. While Dr. Mate was understanding, he did challenge Harry on somethings. It was more like watching a therapy session instead of an interview.

It was said you weren't suppose to record but the BBC is airing clips...so maybe...people get to see. Either way, it was just an overall good event and someone said we can go back and watch so I'm going to do it again and take notes when I'm home and it's quiet because I had to watch it on the move.

'Cautious' Duke 'was careful not to attack members of the Royal family' says Royal watcher | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11821059/Cautious-Duke-careful-not-attack-members-Royal-family-says-Royal-watcher.html)

'He's drained of all his feisty ginger life-blood': JULIE BURCHILL'S verdict on Prince Harry | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-11821243/Hes-drained-feisty-ginger-life-blood-JULIE-BURCHILLS-verdict-Prince-Harry.html)

Prince Harry talks to 'toxic trauma' expert Gabor Mate | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11820279/Prince-Harry-talks-toxic-trauma-expert-Gabor-Mate.html)

Prince Harry extols the use of Class A drug in cosy chat with 'toxic trauma therapist' Gabor Mat? | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11821233/Prince-Harry-extols-use-Class-drugs-cosy-chat-toxic-trauma-therapist-Gabor-Mat.html)

Prince Harry says Meghan was 'from a different world' and she 'helped draw me out' of Royal life | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11820683/Prince-Harry-praises-wife-Meghan-exceptional-human-being.html)

'Once you sign up, you do what you're told': Duke of Sussex tells of soldiers' views on Afghanistan | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11820833/Once-sign-youre-told-Duke-Sussex-tells-soldiers-views-Afghanistan.html)

Prince Harry interview RECAP: Gabor Mate speaks to Duke | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11820087/Prince-Harry-interview-LIVE-Gabor-Mat-speaks-Duke-Frogmore-Meghan-Andrew-King-Charles.html)

Room used for Prince Harry's interview with Gabor Mat? boasts 'degree of informality' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11821061/Room-used-Prince-Harrys-interview-Gabor-Mat-boasts-degree-informality.html)

Prince Harry tells toxic trauma expert that he's NOT 'a victim' nor 'looking for sympathy' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11820577/Prince-Harry-tells-toxic-trauma-expert-hes-NOT-victim-nor-looking-sympathy.html)

Gabor Mate diagnoses Prince Harry with attention deficit disorder but tells him it CAN be cured | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11820657/Gabor-Mate-diagnoses-Prince-Harry-attention-deficit-disorder-tells-cured.html)

Prince Harry's 'exaggerated' gestures show he is 'desperate for his story to be heard', expert says | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11821365/Prince-Harrys-exaggerated-gestures-desperate-story-heard-expert-says.html)

Prince Harry says he 'smothers' his children with love when discussing the royals' lack of hugging | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11820967/Prince-Harry-says-smothers-children-love-discussing-royals-lack-hugging.html)

Prince Harry tells trauma expert Gabor Mat? of struggles to be his 'authentic true self' growing up | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11820585/Prince-Harry-tells-trauma-expert-Gabor-Mat-struggles-authentic-true-self-growing-up.html)

Harry opens up about drug use, saying marijuana 'really helped' but *** was 'a social thing' | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11820861/Harry-opens-drug-use-saying-marijuana-really-helped-***-social-thing.html)

Prince Harry opens up about being 'picked on' and having his nose broken on the rugby pitch at Eton | Daily Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11820653/Prince-Harry-opens-picked-having-nose-broken-rugby-pitch-Eton.html)

Prince Harry Answers Reader Question About Royal Life During Book Event (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-spare-book-event-palaces/)

Prince Harry Says He Prioritizes Affection for Archie and Lilibet (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-spare-archie-lilibet-affection-love/)

Prince Harry Says Wife Meghan Markle 'Saved Me': 'I Was Stuck' (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-says-wife-meghan-markle-saved-me/)

Prince Harry Says He Always Felt Different from Royal Family (https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-spare-princess-diana-royal-family/)

Prince Harry and Gabor Mate: ADHD, Archie and Lilibet and drug revelations - all the key moments from 'intimate' talk | HELLO! (https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20230304165921/prince-harry-grief-personal-loss-talk-key-moments/)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64850024

Prince Harry: 'I always felt different to the rest of my family... and my mum felt the same' | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-i-always-felt-different-to-the-rest-of-my-family-and-my-mum-felt-the-same-12825664)

Prince Harry's 'intimate conversation' felt more like watching a therapy session - and it cost us ?17.99 each | UK News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harrys-intimate-conversation-felt-more-like-watching-a-therapy-session-and-it-cost-us-17-99-each-12826075)

Prince Harry says some British soldiers did not ?necessarily agree? with war in Afghanistan | Prince Harry | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/04/prince-harry-says-some-british-soldiers-did-not-necessarily-agree-with-war-in-afghanistan)

Prince Harry gushes over Meghan and says she's an 'exceptional human being' | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1742398/prince-harry-news-meghan-markle-interview)

Prince Harry shields Archie and Lilibet from his childhood trauma | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1742440/Prince-Harry-Archie-Harrison-Lilibet-Diana-Meghan-Markle-Gabor-Mate-latest)

Prince Harry diagnosed with new condition during live interview with therapist Gabor Mat? | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1742432/prince-harry-news-gabor-mate-interview-attention-deficit-disorder)

Prince Harry insists he's performing 'an act of service' for others in tell-all interviews | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1742370/prince-harry-trauma-expert-Gabor-Mate-interview-zoom)

Prince Harry says 'huge weight is off my shoulders' after publishing Spare | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1742367/prince-harry-news-interview-spare-free)

Prince Harry hopes his openness will break harmful stereotypes of men's mental health | Royal | News | Express.co.uk (https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1742430/prince-harry-spare-male-mental-health)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1742393/prince-harry-interview-broken-home-army-career

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1742304/prince-harry-news-interview-gabor-mate-trauma

Doctor tells Harry he believes Prince has Attention Deficit Disorder in live Q&A - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/doctor-tells-harry-believes-prince-29373802)

Prince Harry fresh blast at dad Charles saying he and royals 'don't speak same language' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-fresh-blast-dad-29375105)

Harry claims he's never looked for sympathy and isn't a victim in livestream Q&A - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/breaking-harry-claims-hes-never-29373801)

Harry says marijuana 'really helped' him mentally but *** 'did nothing' for him - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/breaking-harry-says-marijuana-really-29374457)

Prince Harry claims speaking about trauma over mum Diana is act of service to world - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/prince-harry-claims-speaking-trauma-29375254)

Harry says he 'felt different' throughout life - and 'strange being in this container' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/harry-says-felt-different-throughout-29374319)

Harry launches fresh attack on Charles saying he grew up in 'broken home' & insists 'mum felt like I do' about Royals | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21595105/prince-harry-attack-king-charles-traumas/)

Harry's book should be renamed ?Spite? as he continues to monetise victimhood - painting Charles as cold & unemotional | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21595231/prince-harry-book-spare-renamed-spite/)

Prince Harry diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder by trauma expert Dr Gabor Mate in tell-all interview | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21593869/prince-harry-diagnosed-attention-deficit-disorder-dr-gabor-mate/)

I saved myself from Royal life, Harry says as he insists 'sharing's an act of service' after unleashing bio about family | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21592147/palace-decide-meghan-harry-coronation-interview-tonight/)

Harry is a very vulnerable man who is blaming everything on the past - he need to come into the present | The Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21596124/harry-vulnerable-man-blames-the-past/)

(https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-b9b254ee-3e03-48d7-bacd-74e68f2650fd.jpeg)
(https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-4be9ece6-5f90-46df-adb9-0ff2cda2c125.jpeg)
(https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-9808f4f5-b8a9-4c73-ad16-0829762d6b27.jpeg)
(https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-eb4abf98-3da4-4cd8-bab7-559d89e165ae.jpeg)
(https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-1b78fc9f-ec9a-4be7-9d80-3e61900e3cdb.jpeg)

Still slightly jarring to see that many headlines.

Still, that first daily mail one is funny. Harry isn't talking deeper about the members of his family because the man he's speaking too isn't interested in any of that, not because he's worried about being written out of the coronation. They already told us he was written out.

Of course the Fail had to put into the first paragraph on the front page of this latest Harry story that he ?was promoting Spare?. Nowhere in the promotional material for this event with Dr Mate does it state that he and the doctor were going to talk about the book. And Harry and Dr Mate made it clear as well. The project was a talk between the two men on issues surrounding mental health and various therapies that could help. But of course this rag can never report anything correctly if it has a vendetta against a principal!

Quote from: Curryong on March 04, 2023, 08:35:40 PM
Yes, he may well have done that, but that was just guesswork on behalf of the media, and most of it was earmarked for the running of the Royal Foundation offices and later of the Sussexes? office anyway. And as William had three children and Harry only one at that time, the portion .

If Charles' accounts are publicised how is it guesswork?

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 05, 2023, 09:28:51 AM
If Charles' accounts are publicised how is it guesswork?

In the Duchy accounts which were published each year in July, the accounts showed four and a half million per year was allocated to Prince William (and family) and Prince Harry (and, after he married, to his family,) for their Foundation/Office and their household expenses.

It didn?t state who got what. It just showed the total amount. It did not say two million went to Prince Harry and two and a half million went to Prince William or vice versa. It just said four and a half million to his sons, and that was it.

That's not guesswork, to me.  It states clearly that money was given to the boys which I understand is to help with their work and living expenses.  I suppose H will now be saying htat Will got 4.4 million and he only got a slice of toast and a few hundred pounds.
But I'd imagine that the money was divided equitably, perhaps H got less because he only had 1 child but I very much doubt if there was a massive difference in the money paid to them.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 05, 2023, 11:45:32 AM
That's not guesswork, to me.  It states clearly that money was given to the boys which I understand is to help with their work and living expenses.  I suppose H will now be saying htat Will got 4.4 million and he only got a slice of toast and a few hundred pounds.
But I'd imagine that the money was divided equitably, perhaps H got less because he only had 1 child but I very much doubt if there was a massive difference in the money paid to them.

Harry isn?t complaining about anything to do with that stupid illustration in the Fail about his expenses and perks. I was just pointing out the guesswork and anomalies in it.


.The Daily Mail guessed at the amount Harry got from Duchy accounts because, however much we may reason it out that Charles did divide the money equally it is not stated as so in the yearly accounts. Therefore it was a guess. I?m not saying whether he did or didn?t divide everything equally, but the fact is the Duchy accounts do not say so.

You could just as logically make an argument that William got more because there were many more Royal Foundation staff at KP that had to be paid from that money than the number of aides the Sussexes employed at BP. And that money was clearly  to be used to run the offices at KP.

It could be stated that the Cambridges? running expenses for Amner and the KP apartment in terms of heating and cooling costs (gas, water, electricity, phone) were much more that the Sussexes had to pay out for at FC.

You could say that they employed more domestic staff in their homes than the Sussexes did in their one house. One could say that Kate?s wardrobe had to be more extensive than Meghan?s in terms of evening gowns for official engagements etc. The Cambridges had school fee expenses for George while the Sussexes had none, and so it could go on.

We just don?t know how Charles apportioned this allowance. And neither does the Fail.

As I said, Im sure Charles divided it equitably,  that doesnt mean equally but reasonably and proporitionally to the needs of each son

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 05, 2023, 12:34:51 PM
As I said, Im sure Charles divided it equitably,  that doesnt mean equally but reasonably and proporitionally to the needs of each son

Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn?t. We simply do not know. And the Fail obviously doesn?t know anything either, or they wouldn?t have made such boo-boos.  And it?s a moot point now anyway as they are now both off his hands. William at forty with the Duchy money and Harry at 36 from 2020 onwards with financial independence.

William is the future King.  he is no different to any other royal heir, he lives on money from his own estate, Duchy of Cornwall and partly on money from the state.  Harry's financial independence has come at the cost of insulting hs family and making up things about them.

Hey, when you continuously leak his information or sit back idlily while it happens, I think everything is fair game.

That being said, I doubt money was given to them equally. Just for a the simple fact that when William got married, his expenses would naturally go up. As they would when he then got had kids, then more more depending on the number of kids, the number of homes and etc.

Harry had been single, some dating but not marriage. My financed things from their home off Meghan's credit card at the start. In fact, not guess work but in Spare Harry mentions that money given to him were for clothes for official duties. And when Harry and Meghan left, when the finical reports came out, there was barely a dip in expenses when you think about the fact that the line that the Sussex's were costing so much was being pushed.

Inherently, there was no treating them equally. As pointed out, William is the heir, more resources were going to go him naturally.

Either way, the fail still can't say how it was divided because they don't know.

The Daily Mail illustration is accurate, the moneys mentioned '2019' is based on financial statements that are available for the public from Duchy of Cornwall, Ministry of Defence UK, Diana's last will and testament published 2nd May 1998.

The ''equity'' with Prince William in reference to 'the Duchy of Cornwall WAS equal to that of the Duke of Sussex, BUT it changed 8th September 2022, when the Queen passed away.  Also William's RAF/EAAA is different to Harry's Army salary.

Cash in bank can/may be equitable, assets not as in Inheritance Tax.

really cant follow you. I said that the money was almost certianly divided proportionally. But H has repeatedly claimed in his book that William got more than he did and he clearly is angry about this.  WIll got a bigger bed, an extra sausage and so on.

Quote from: wannable on March 05, 2023, 01:52:49 PM
The Daily Mail illustration is accurate, the moneys mentioned '2019' is based on financial statements that are available for the public from Duchy of Cornwall, Ministry of Defence UK, Diana's last will and testament published 2nd May 1998.

The ''equity'' with Prince William in reference to 'the Duchy of Cornwall changed 8th September 2022, when the Queen passed away. different to Harry' Also William's RAF/EAAA is different to Harry's Army salary.

Considering that William donated all of his EAAA salary back to the charity, I'd say that it's definitely different.

^^The bigger bed, the sausage is just ridiculous, no wonder he is mentally ill.

IMO his therapists including this latest interview Doctor are only interested in making money out of him.  Harry during the session said he had a great childhood, the Doc corrected him reminding him about Divorce parents, Death of a Parent, Harry changed his tune right there....waiting for the media, especially psychologist journalists to pick on this.

^By donating his salary no tax deduction.

what do you mean no wonder he is mentally ill?  Are you suggesting that he became ill through getting less than his brother?

Part of it, the whole bits and pieces put together = mentally ill.  There never is just 1 item, it has to be several issues.

really can't follow this.    We dont know enough about Harry's childhood and past to work out why he has become mentally ill..  but i doubt if getting one less sausage has anything to do iwht it.

The Daily Fail illustration asserted that Diana left Harry 30 million pounds. So that is inaccurate for a start!

From The Independent.

Diana left an estate of ?21m, but more than ?8m was paid in inheritance tax, leaving ?12,966,022, according to the Press Association.

It was split equally between William and younger brother Harry, who were aged 15 and 12 when Diana died in a Paris car crash in 1997.

The money was invested by royal advisers, which saw its value rise to around ?20m by the time her sons reached the age when they could access it.

Changes agreed to the will in December 1997 meant that, upon reaching 25, William and Harry were entitled to the whole of the income of their share.

How much did Diana leave in inheritance for Harry? | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/how-much-money-did-diana-leave-harry-b1814315.html)

It is accurate, accumulated back interests for a huge number of years without touching the cash increases moneys. Bank deed of trusts for example in a bank (contract to not touch the money say for 20 years, you can easily increase that money from 21 to 30). 

I HAD one from my dad, it is hard not to touch, several of us did not touch, surely feels great when the 10 year contract expired.  All banks have deed of trust contract, the clause of breaking it, the individual cannot make a new contract. 

Anyway, we are talking about two minor children, when they reached the majority of age, they honored it and didn't touch it until the age which was requested/suggested by the parent.

Quote from: wannable on March 05, 2023, 02:14:09 PM
It is accurate, accumulated back interests for a huge number of years without touching the cash increases moneys. Bank deed of trusts for example in a bank (contract to not touch the money say for 20 years, you can easily increase that money from 21 to 30). 

I HAD one from my dad, it is hard not to touch, several of us did not touch, surely feels great when the 10 year contract expired.  All banks have deed of trust contract, the clause of breaking it, the individual cannot make a new contract. 

Anyway, we are talking about two minor children, when they reached the majority of age, they honored it and didn't touch it until the age which was requested/suggested by the parent.

The DM illustration had Harry inheriting 30 million from Diana. So, according to that, William didn?t get a share! Even if the entire sum that was left was increased to 30 million with investments by the time Harry was 25, which I personally doubt, he wouldn?t be getting the entire inheritance.

The illustration is about Harry.

The Daily Mail would need to make a 'separate' illustration of William with public financial statement availability as I mentioned with the noted differences of DOC, MOD and Commercial EAAA, including the 8th Sept 2022, death of HMQEII, 'God Save the King' makes a automatic domino effect, specifically speaking about this subject William and the DOC.

Quote from: wannable on March 05, 2023, 02:35:45 PM
The illustration is about Harry.

The Daily Mail would need to make a 'separate' illustration of William with public financial statement availability as I mentioned with the noted differences of DOC, MOD and Commercial EAAA, including the 8th Sept 2022, death of HMQEII, 'God Save the King' makes a automatic domino effect, specifically speaking about this subject William and the DOC.

What has any of that to do with the fact that Harry would not have been inheriting the entire bulk of what Diana left her sons, which the DM asserts, without any proof whatsoever, is 30 million pounds? She left a little over  12 million pounds. Even if the sum had grown from 12 million to 30 million in total after years of investments, Harry wouldn?t have inherited the ENTIRE SUM at 25 years old or even thirty years old.

It was estimated by broadsheets like the Times when Harry was nearing thirty that it was believed that he would be inheriting about 14 million pounds on his 30th birthday, and I reckon that is about right. If William inherited the same or a little less when he reached 30, then the whole sum available would have been around 28 million in total, which again sounds reasonably correct.

Can you please quote from the DM article to further the discussion.

From the DM written words vs the Illustration

Quote
It paid Prince Harry GBP2.3million-a-year - a figure he and Meghan would later claim contributed to 95% of their office expenditure.

Harry also received an estimated 2million-a-year from the Sovereign Grant.

The Sovereign Grant is the money taxpayers allocated by the King to fund the royal family and is set at GBP 86.3 million-a-year.

Harry's personal wealth before meeting Meghan was derived from the estimated GBP20million inheritance from his mother Princess Diana.

He also banked around GBP7million from his great-grandmother the Queen Mother, who paid it into a trust fund in 1994.

Prince Harry was also thought to have various sums tied up in trust funds until he is 40 and other investments giving him around GBP30million in total inheritance.

From 2005 to 2014, Prince Harry served in the British Army, for three years as an officer and then for seven years as a Lieutenant with The Household Cavalry (Blues and Royals) - netting him a total wage of GBP375.398.

Trust funds are Deeds of Trust as I said, the contract is tied to bank clauses of do not touch, if you touch, the contract is broken and you cannot make a new contract.

Trust funds from whom? The cogent words here are ?also thought to have? with reference to other trust monies etc. Thought by the tabloids, no doubt.

It was said by the Press for years after the QM?s death that she had put money aside for her grandchildren in trust funds. The Press stories grew over the years to many millions put in trust for all her great-grandchildren as well. (See the Guardian story below.)

I find that very difficult to believe myself, considering that she was not a wealthy woman on her own account, that the Queen and Charles, paid for expensive repairs to her homes over the years and it was stated that at the time of her death she had been living way above her income for years, and was in arrears to Coutts bank in London to the sun of about four million pounds. This trust fund of hers for Harry from 1984 leaving him millions seems to me to be more a product of journalistic imagination than anything else.

Who else would have left Harry millions in his minority? Can?t think of anyone. As a grandchild of the late Queen and Prince Philip he may have been left a few million by them, but that isn?t relevant to 2019, which is what that coloured illustration is about.

The coloured illustration also shows ?an estimated? two million a year from the Sovereign Grant (a name butchered on the illustration) which is ridiculous. The Sovereign Grant is there to help royals with clothing and travel expenses when on royal engagements. It is not an automatic allowance and there is no way that Harry would be pulling those sorts of expenses out of the SG as a fulltime royal. Anne does hundreds of engagements a year and wouldn?t be getting that amount.

As for Diana?s inheritance having grown to 20 million pounds for Harry that means it would have grown to 40 million in total if William had his share.  I?ve already stated what I think of that.

The gamble that foiled the taxman | UK news | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/apr/03/queenmother.monarchy2)

The funds stated in the DM are public knowledge due to financial statement disclosures and inheritance disclosures, the DM have not added what 'may' be from PP and QEII last will and testament related to ''cash'' inheritance.

My last comment, not all the time tabloids get it wrong.

The QM?s Will was sealed for at least 90 years, as the Queen and Prince Philip?s have been. As such any details of trust funds set up for younger royals and inheritances remain unknown.

And when discussing royal finances British tabloids have the unfortunate habit of plucking figures out of mid air that don?t stand up to any scrutiny, like the 30 million inheritance from his mother that Harry seems to have received lol, cutting his brother out altogether.

The illustration doesn't say the inheritance is from his mother, it say ''inheritance''. 

It is ME that commented 'where' the moneys can be found in internet; financial statements and disclosures of inheritance to date, so if you look back to my comment the date of Diana's disclosure.  Plus factually moneys earn interest if you don't touch it.

I?ve been in therapy since I was 12. I have had a psychiatrist since I was 18. If either of them ever coddled me this way and fed me lines, I would have walked out and found another.

This was a farce. A slap in the face of actual mental health patients and their providers.

@chefjohnny84

^ I see I am not the only one who noticed

Quote from: wannable on March 05, 2023, 03:59:47 PM
The illustration doesn't say the inheritance is from his mother, it say ''inheritance''. 

It is ME that commented 'where' the moneys can be found in internet; financial statements and disclosures of inheritance to date, so if you look back to my comment the date of Diana's disclosure.  Plus factually moneys earn interest if you don't touch it.

And I said, in several posts, that Diana?s money left to her sons was never likely to add up to 30 million for Harry alone. Nor was there any royal or other near relation who was likely to leave Harry so many millions that it would add up to 30 million altogether. Even if the QM (a woman who died in debt) had left money in trust funds for her great-grandchildren it would hardly be likely to be more than a couple of million each. Even if Diana with her 12 million and the Queen Mother with say 3 million (being generous) had left Harry that amount it would not have added up to 30 million for Harry alone by the time he was say thirty. And that ignores that William had to have his share.

I will continue to believe that both Princes received about 14 million EACH at 30 years of age, and that would include any scraps of money from Earl Spencer, the QM, elderly family friends etc. Because Harry getting 30 mill on his own from all possible sources is just plainly ridiculous.

Diana got 17 M for her divorce settlement and I suppose she had money of her own.  she was oly divorced a year before she died so its not liklely she had spent any of it. They did have to pay taxes on the money when she died, but since they were only kids, te money was allowed to  accumulate for a long time so probalby it was more than 17K when they inherited it.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 06, 2023, 08:44:24 AM
Diana got 17 M for her divorce settlement and I suppose she had money of her own.  she was oly divorced a year before she died so its not liklely she had spent any of it. They did have to pay taxes on the money when she died, but since they were only kids, te money was allowed to  accumulate for a long time so probalby it was more than 17K when they inherited it.

Diana left a little over 20 million in her will. She directed that it be left to her sons, with a little for godchildren (which in the event they didn?t get, though that?s another story.). There was over seven million that was paid in death duties and other taxes.

It was a bit over 12 Million that was invested for her boys, according to that report I linked. William was 15 and Harry was almost 13 at the time of their mother?s death, so if they inherited the sum left to them at the age of 25, that is ten years of the money being invested for William and 12 years for Harry. And please remember the total was halved, (half for each son) so even if the entire sum had gone from twelve million to say 25 million in those 10 to twelve years that does not add up to Harry inheriting anything like 30 million total for himself alone, especially as there is no evidence anyway of any other inheritance of 5 million or so for each Prince being left to them. 

I never siad that he inherited 30M.  he inherited half of Diana's money, adn even if they had to pay taxes on it, he still got a decent sum when he inherited.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 06, 2023, 10:45:50 AM
I never siad that he inherited 30M.  he inherited half of Diana's money, adn even if they had to pay taxes on it, he still got a decent sum when he inherited.

No no, I never said you did. The Fail stated Harry had a 30 million pounds inheritance. Wannabie seemed to believe the Fail?s figures, so we were discussing it. I think he and William probably inherited about 12 million each from Diana and maybe (and it?s a bit iffy) another two million or so apiece from the QM as well, making it about 14 million pounds or so for each brother. That is indeed a decent sum.

We'll have to see if the Duchess and Archewell choose to pursue the application to trademark "Archetypes."

Meghan Markle Suffers Legal Blow Over Her Podcast (https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-suffers-legal-blow-podcast-archetypes-1786028?s=09)

QuoteMeghan Markle has been dealt a legal blow over her hit podcast as the United States Patent and Trademark Office has refused her application to trademark the word "Archetypes."

In a non-final action filed on January 18, the royals' podcast production company Archewell Audio, was informed that its application was being refused on the grounds that there was a "likelihood of confusion" with a trademark already in existence.

Meghan announced her Archetypes podcast, which aimed to "dissect, explore, and subvert the labels that try to hold women back," in the spring of 2022, releasing weekly instalments beginning that August.

QuoteThe first podcast series ended in November, winning a People's Choice Award later that year, with no plans for a second yet announced.

Archewell Audio filed an application to trademark "Archetypes" in March 2022, principally in connection with "entertainment services, namely, an ongoing podcast series in the fields of cultural treatment of women and stereotypes facing women."

The patent and trademark office's initial refusal suggests that Meghan's proposed trademark of "Archetypes" is "identical in appearance, sound, and meaning," to one currently held by U.S. based Project Miracle IP Holdings. This was registered in May 2018.

The duchess' production company has until April to pursue the application, extend or abandon it.

^ We'll have to see how it goes.

Archetypes has already passed so maybe no season 2 or there will be a name change.

Also, Sentebale posted for International Woman's Day

The digital divide & unsafe online spaces keep adolescent girls & young women from fully unlocking & utilising technology?s full potential. This #IWD2023, we call on government & partners to make the digital world safer, more inclusive and more equitable. #PowerOn #EmbraceEquity

https://twitter.com/Sentebale/status/1633418556376330242

African Parks also posted, highlighting the only female ranger on the team, Ortencia Manuel who will be running in the Lodon Marathon next month.

Today on #InternationalWomen?sDay, we celebrate all women, particularly those who are part of the African Parks rangers. Like Ortencia Manuel, the only female ranger in our team, who will be running the London Marathon next month. Read more here: https://bit.ly/3F5T5zC

https://twitter.com/AfricanParks/status/1633428660999921665

Response to the Dr. Mat? - Prince Harry Interview: Debunking the Trauma Industry - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlZ9Zc7CY20)

Quote from: changemhysoul on March 08, 2023, 01:24:15 PM
African Parks also posted, highlighting the only female ranger on the team, Ortencia Manuel who will be running in the Lodon Marathon next month.

Today on #InternationalWomen?sDay, we celebrate all women, particularly those who are part of the African Parks rangers. Like Ortencia Manuel, the only female ranger in our team, who will be running the London Marathon next month. Read more here: https://bit.ly/3F5T5zC

https://twitter.com/AfricanParks/status/1633428660999921665

:high5: Excellent news! Thank you for the update.

I took a look for curiosity at the ratings for the Markle complainants Thomas snr and jnr and Samantha in Channel 7s Spotlight programme last night.

1. Seven News Seven 894,000
2. Nine News Sunday Nine 763,000
3. I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out Of Here! The Winner Announced
10 592.000
4. I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out Of Here! Grand Finale 10 562,000
5. Farmer Wants A Wife - Seven 550,000
6. Lego Masters: Grand Masters Nine 548,000
7. ABC News Sunday ABC 535,000
8. Bluey ABC Kids/ABC TV Plus 510,000
9. Grand Designs ABC 441,000
10. Midsomer Murders ABC 412,000
11. 7News Spotlight Seven 384,000
12. 60 Minutes Nine 357,000
13. The Sunday Project 7pm 10 289,000
14. Seven's AFL: Sunday Afternoon Football Seven 275,000
15. Sunday Afternoon NRL Live Nine 252,000
16. The Latest: Seven News Seven 244,000
17. Insiders ABC 244,000
18. Weekend Sunrise Seven 217.000
19. Kathleen Folbigg: Reasonable Doubt? Nine 200,000
20. The Sunday Project 6.30pm 10 195,000

Not even mentioned among the top shows. Footy and Rugby ruled Sunday, along with the finals of Farmer Wants a wife? and ?I?m a Celebrity?Get Me out of Here!?

TV Ratings April 30, 2023: I'm A Celebrity crowned king of Sunday (https://www.mediaweek.com.au/tv-ratings-april-30-2023-im-a-celebrity/)

The Mirror claims the Sussexes will do a film about their palace life - Netflix

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry 'planning feature-length movie on royal life for Netflix'
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will reportedly recount their experience of living inside the palace for a new Netflix movie on royal life
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are reportedly planning a new feature-length film on what goes on inside the palace.
The couple are said to be in talks with Netflix to produce new movie on their royal lives with a focus on their experience of living inside the palace.
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry 'planning feature-length movie on royal life for Netflix' - Mirror Online (https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/meghan-markle-prince-harry-planning-30055375)

They have nothing else to offer but trade on their royal connections.

''There are a lot of nuances from their story that they feel are still missing after the documentary and Harry's book''

The source added: ''Meg is really pushing for it to happen, while Harry wants to treat more carefully''


🤣🤣🤣

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on May 23, 2023, 06:13:33 PM
They have nothing else to offer but trade on their royal connections.

Not according to that gossip on royals and favourite of another poster here, Neil Sean. In his latest clip on YouTube he states that ?allegedly?, (his favourite word) ever since the couple have had their car chase in NY, their office has been besieged by all sorts of offers from legit companies offering very big bucks for sponsorship of all sorts of items, sunglasses, cell phones, you name it. Mr Sean Gossip (who as usual cites ?a very good? but unnamed source for his gossip, states that they could make an absolute fortune taking up these offers, especially if these sponsorships are shown in a humorous and good humoured way (presumably by Harry.)