The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I never trust pictures. Publishers have agenda's and post some pictures and not others to promote that.
Eg. "Hey, XX looked grumpy all evening" Yes, that is because the publisher only posted the pictures in which he/she didn't smile. Ignoring all the pictures in which that person DID smile. Doesn't matter who the target is: H&M, W&C, even the King and Queen. They have all been the victim of it.
Always refreshing to hear someone say this.

I will never understand extrapolating (quite seriously, too!) emotions and circumstances from pictures. It's like, do you not know how pictures work?

Or, similarly with videos --> often, people will say, "See? X person is such a narcissist, always looking for the camera."

Unless you're in the same exact location that person is in, and basically, in the same body, it's very, very, VERY difficult to determine exactly what that person was looking for/at.

I'm far from the biggest fan of the Sussexes, but the same assumptions made of their glances just from pictures and 3-second videos are the same assumptions I could make from any given picture of other royal couples.
 
I never trust pictures. Publishers have agenda's and post some pictures and not others to promote that.
Eg. "Hey, XX looked grumpy all evening" Yes, that is because the publisher only posted the pictures in which he/she didn't smile. Ignoring all the pictures in which that person DID smile. Doesn't matter who the target is: H&M, W&C, even the King and Queen. They have all been the victim of it.
Hear, hear.

(And viceversa. Look how happy, because no non smiling pic is chosen.)
 
I am sure the monies will be put to good use: building a future next egg for their children, charitable endeavours etc. And none of it, IMO, will go towards PR, Backgrid, buying awards and funding unnecessary security!
I am not sure if he is getting 8 million dollars or pounds, but, either way, that doesn't go a long way in California. I recall the press mentioning that Harry and Meghan's home in Montecito alone cost 14 million dollars.

Harry's inheritance also pales in comparison with the amount the Sussexes are supposed to be gettng from their deal with Netflix. Of course, the Netflix money goes, however, into their TV/movie business, Archewell Productions, rather than their personal accounts, and is used to pay for the company's projects and operating costs.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure if he is getting 8 million dollars or pounds, but, either way, that doesn't go a long way in California. I recall the press mentioning that Harry and Meghan's home in Montecito alone cost 14 million dollars.

Harry's inheritance also pales in comparison with the amount the Sussexes are supposed to be gettng from their deal with Netflix. Of course, the Netflix money goes, however, into their TV/movie business, Archewell Productions, rather than their personal accounts, and is used to pay for the company's projects and operating costs.

My comments were entirely intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Whilst $8m does not go far in their lifestyles, it could pay off a substantial chunk of their mortgage.

The would have made a substantial sum of money from Netflix and from the publishing deal, but it is difficult to estimate, with any level of precision, how much it might be. Outside of the whine-a-thon, few others projects were delivered to Netflix. They have also probably spent a lot of money on litigation, security, PR, awards, failed ventures etc, so it is difficult to tell what their true financial position actually looks like.

Also, it remains a grey area as to what revenues and costs are personal to them and what is put in their companies
 
I am not sure if he is getting 8 million dollars or pounds, but, either way, that doesn't go a long way in California. I recall the press mentioning that Harry and Meghan's home in Montecito alone cost 14 million dollars.
Yes, if he is paying millions for security per year, that sum won't go far. Still, it is probably a very welcome income.
 
Everything I’ve read, (and I don’t know that I believe that the media has any knowledge of these trust funds at all) has stated that the sum Harry will receive is eight million pounds, not dollars.
 
After the statement on Archewell from Harry and Meghan. urging US citizens to vote, Harry is next week, in New York, attending and speaking at the Clinton Foundation and then also making a speech with the Queen of Lesotho, and finally heading to the UK for the Well Child awards.

I can't see any specific dates for his speeches in NY, but Well Child is September 30. It seems like a full programme from the 23 onward. None of the reports say that Meghan will be accompanying him to New York or the UK.
 
Everything I’ve read, (and I don’t know that I believe that the media has any knowledge of these trust funds at all) has stated that the sum Harry will receive is eight million pounds, not dollars.
I agree that it is guesswork, that is a great deal of money considering how many were to benefit from the trust. If we assume that everyone with the exception of William were to receive equal shares it amounts to some amount of money.
We cannot be sure about children not yet born when it was set it up but even without those it is a great deal of money. Also it was a second payout. Allegedly.
I would have thought Princess Margaret’s family would benefit as well.
 
I agree that it is guesswork, that is a great deal of money considering how many were to benefit from the trust. If we assume that everyone with the exception of William were to receive equal shares it amounts to some amount of money.
We cannot be sure about children not yet born when it was set it up but even without those it is a great deal of money. Also it was a second payout. Allegedly.
I would have thought Princess Margaret’s family would benefit as well.
As I recall, the children of David and Sarah were also part of the great-grandchildren trust.
 
The Duke of Sussex spoke at the One805Live Fall Concert in Carpinteria, California on September 20:


** gettyimages gallery **
It appears Prince Harry was on stage giving away an award at the One805Live Fall Concert. Harry and Meghan are a part of the One805 community.

One805 is a permanent 501(c)(3) corporation, raising funds for all three First Responder groups – Fire, Police, and Sheriff –in the Santa Barbara Community. Purchasing equipment, supporting public safety & taking care of those who take care of us.
One805 - Supporting our First Responder community
 
A nice video of Harry and Meghan’s Montecito home.

This property was identified pretty early on when the couple first brought it.

There were many photos of the different rooms and the grounds at that time, but the sales promotion video was not available.

I think this eight minute video is from that time, before the Sussexes brought the property.

There are now quite a few versions of this video on the internet, people have created their own YouTube’s from this footage.

Some good drone film, though there are also parts that are just slow zoom ins, or outs, of photos.

If you know this estate you may remember the British press showing photos of a small plastic playhouse, a “Wendy House”, and saying this was the “Children’s Playhouse”.

That was not correct.

There is footage of the actual “Children’s Playhouse” towards the end. A proper building that has a statue of a boy hanging from a lamp post with a dog on the ground.

As this is old footage, the furniture and decor is not Harry and Meghan’s.

There is also footage of the tea-house with fish pond, and the guest-house Meghan’s mother is thought to stay in. (Outside. Interior photos of that are in another thread, can’t remember where I posted them, a few years ago now.)

I would suggest, if you have an interest in property and watch this, to mute the music. It truly seems out of place with the footage and does not add a good atmosphere.

(I posted this version as it seems the longest, and the others have narration which doesn’t add anything anyway, in my opinion at least.)

 
A nice video of Harry and Meghan’s Montecito home.

This property was identified pretty early on when the couple first brought it.

There were many photos of the different rooms and the grounds at that time, but the sales promotion video was not available.

I think this eight minute video is from that time, before the Sussexes brought the property.

There are now quite a few versions of this video on the internet, people have created their own YouTube’s from this footage.

Some good drone film, though there are also parts that are just slow zoom ins, or outs, of photos.

If you know this estate you may remember the British press showing photos of a small plastic playhouse, a “Wendy House”, and saying this was the “Children’s Playhouse”.

That was not correct.

There is footage of the actual “Children’s Playhouse” towards the end. A proper building that has a statue of a boy hanging from a lamp post with a dog on the ground.

As this is old footage, the furniture and decor is not Harry and Meghan’s.

There is also footage of the tea-house with fish pond, and the guest-house Meghan’s mother is thought to stay in. (Outside. Interior photos of that are in another thread, can’t remember where I posted them, a few years ago now.)

I would suggest, if you have an interest in property and watch this, to mute the music. It truly seems out of place with the footage and does not add a good atmosphere.

(I posted this version as it seems the longest, and the others have narration which doesn’t add anything anyway, in my opinion at least.)

Great video of The Sussexes' Monticeto, CA home prior to their ownership. "The Chateau of Riven Rock" has an interesting history.

 
Great video of The Sussexes' Monticeto, CA home prior to their ownership. "The Chateau of Riven Rock" has an interesting history.


I was really taken with this place when it first became know to the general public Lady Daly. (I like property and travel.)

From memory … it’s been a few years … it’s one of the few places that not only has a stream running through it, but actually also has four wells.

Even Oprah Winfrey’s Montecito place doesn’t have that much available water … and keeping those gardens alive in that climate is an issue apparently.

Anyway, I was pleased to get to see the actual footage after all this time.

I can see if someone else is doing the gardening and cleaning, what an enjoyable place it would be to live. Especially with the bright light, blue sky and nearby ocean.
 
After the statement on Archewell from Harry and Meghan. urging US citizens to vote, Harry is next week, in New York, attending and speaking at the Clinton Foundation and then also making a speech with the Queen of Lesotho, and finally heading to the UK for the Well Child awards.

In a different thread, I argued that European royals (in this case British royals in particular) in practice have to give up certain civil rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech, freedom of association. or the right to vote, even though they are not strictly speaking required by law to do so, or may face actual statutory limitations on the exercise of other civil rights and freedoms such as freedom of religion or the right to marry. In fact, Meghan once famously mentioned on American TV, with an apparent sense of indignation, that " her husband had never voted".

Harry, however, is no longer a working royal or a resident of the United Kingdom, and no longer has any official role in the UK. To what extent then do the usual limitations on the civil rights and freedoms of royals apply to him now or not?

Harry of course is not a US citizen and, accordingly, does not have the right to vote in US elections. As the First Amendment applies to all persons who live in the United States and are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and not just to citizens, I suppose Harry is entitled to voice his opinions on US politics although, if he is still seen as having an official connection to the British Crown (i.e., the British State), that could be interpreted as a possible foreign interference on the US elections, which can be a diplomatically sensitive issue.

As an expatriate (i.e., non-resident) British citizen, Harry has, on the other hand, the right under UK law to register to vote by mail from abroad in British national elections (note: he can't vote in either local or supralocal elections). He doesn't need to have been on the UK electoral roll before either, as he can be registered as a voter in the constituency (i.e., electoral district) where his last permanent address in the UK was located. I suppose that, in Harry's case, that would be the constituency where Frogmore Cottage is located.

Should Harry register to vote in the United Kingdom then? And, in the United States, should he get involved in US election campaigns?

Please feel free to move the discussion to another forum if necessary.
 
Last edited:
Do you even need to register in order to vote in the UK? I have only ever heard that this was the case in the US.
 
Do you even need to register in order to vote in the UK? I have only ever heard that this was the case in the US.
You need to be on the voters role, I just confirmed very recently who resides in my house , who is of voting age. You receive a voting card nearer the time of an election which up until recently was not required at the polling station, for the first time this year we needed to provide proof of identity before we received our voting slip at the polling venue.
 
In a different thread, I argued that European royals (in this case British royals in particular) in practice have to give up certain civil rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech, freedom of association. or the right to vote, even though they are not strictly speaking required by law to do so, or may face actual statutory limitations on the exercise of other civil rights and freedoms such as freedom of religion or the right to marry. In fact, Meghan once famously mentioned on American TV, with an apparent sense of indignation, that " her husband had never voted".

Harry, however, is no longer a working royal or a resident of the United Kingdom, and no longer has any official role in the UK. To what extent then do the usual limitations on the civil rights and freedoms of royals apply to him now or not?

Harry of course is not a US citizen and, accordingly, does not have the right to vote in US elections. As the First Amendment applies to all persons who live in the United States and are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and not just to citizens, I suppose Harry is entitled to voice his opinions on US politics although, if he is still seen as having an official connection to the British Crown (i.e., the British State), that could be interpreted as a possible foreign interference on the US elections, which can be a diplomatically sensitive issue.

As an expatriate (i.e., non-resident) British citizen, Harry has, on the other hand, the right under UK law to register to vote by mail from abroad in British national elections (note: he can't vote in either local or supralocal elections). He doesn't need to have been on the UK electoral roll before either, as he can be registered as a voter in the constituency (i.e., electoral district) where his last permanent address in the UK was located. I suppose that, in Harry's case, that would be the constituency where Frogmore Cottage is located.

Should Harry register to vote in the United Kingdom then? And, in the United States, should he get involved in US election campaigns?

Please feel free to move the discussion to another forum if necessary.
The answer to that is an emphatic no. At least not as a prince & duke. Unfortunately he’s so puffed up with his own sense of importance that he can’t help himself when it comes to his opinion on registering to vote.

Being born in the brf & having the moral decency to remain humble with at least a smidgeon of self awareness is a real test of character. It’s the Achilles heel of monarchy.

We can all recognise the traits of the ones who fail this test.
 
Last edited:
Everything I’ve read, (and I don’t know that I believe that the media has any knowledge of these trust funds at all) has stated that the sum Harry will receive is eight million pounds, not dollars.
How on earth did the qm amass such a large fortune in the first place? I presume it must have been from savings from the old civil list, first as queen consort & then queen mother.

She would have been left something by her husband as well I would think. She must have had a sizeable amount of money in the 90's to create substantial trust funds for her then living gt grandchildren & childless grandchildren - ten in all I think.
 
Last edited:
I personally don't mind if Harry wants to register to vote in the UK. Senior members of the BRF don't usually vote, because the Crown has to appear neutral in politics, but Harry is now effectively a private citizen, and no longer represents either the BRF or the British government. So, if he wants to vote, he should be allowed to vote. Just as I am allowed to vote in the UK, even though I currently live abroad. He should keep it as a private thing, though. Nobody needs to know if and how and when and why he has registered, or who he wants to vote for. That's none of our business.

As for US politics? That's a very different kettle of fish. He lives in the US, has an American wife and kids, but he's not a US citizen himself. Speaking out on political stuff would inevitably cause aggravation, especially if he did so as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. Better to steer clear of the subject completely, I think.
 
Last edited:
I was wondering the same thing myself Durham. That is an awful lot of money to have and yet have substantial debts. Hopefully someone can answer this question for us
 
With respect to the size of the Queen Mother's fortune, let's not forget what an amazing role time and compound interest plays. If she had invested $10 million in 1997, by 2024, with an annual return of 5% and monthly compounding, the fund would have grown to over $38 million.
 
I personally don't mind if Harry wants to register to vote in the UK. Senior members of the BRF don't usually vote, because the Crown has to appear neutral in politics, but Harry is now effectively a private citizen, and no longer represents either the BRF or the British government. So, if he wants to vote, he should be allowed to vote. Just as I am allowed to vote in the UK, even though I currently live abroad. He should keep it as a private, though. Nobody needs to know if and how and when and why he has registered, or who he wants to vote for. That's none of our business.

As for US politics? That's a very different kettle of fish. He lives in the US, has an American wife and kids, but he's not a US citizen himself. Speaking out on political stuff would inevitably cause aggravation, especially if he did so as Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. Better to steer clear of the subject completely, I think.
But the electoral roll is open to public viewing so I would imagine it would come to light eventually if he did register.
 
With respect to the size of the Queen Mother's fortune, let's not forget what an amazing role time and compound interest plays. If she had invested $10 million in 1997, by 2024, with an annual return of 5% and monthly compounding, the fund would have grown to over $38 million.
Yes I can see that. Even so ten million in 1997 was still a pretty hefty fortune & it would be interesting to know how she came by it.
 
Yes I can see that. Even so ten million in 1997 was still a pretty hefty fortune & it would be interesting to know how she came by it.
She’d been Queen (consort then mother) for 60 years by the time the trust fund(s) have been set. 15 of these she had access to the income from the duchy of Lancaster. I imagine she didn’t have a problem to save some of it.
 
She’d been Queen (consort then mother) for 60 years by the time the trust fund(s) have been set. 15 of these she had access to the income from the duchy of Lancaster. I imagine she didn’t have a problem to save some of it.
Indeed & in addition she had a personal (very generous) civil list allowance since 1937.

If she managed to save so much maybe the allowances were to high in the first place.
 
Indeed & in addition she had a personal (very generous) civil list allowance since 1937.

If she managed to save so much maybe the allowances were to high in the first place.
It started almost 90 years ago, before the war. Different times
 
Last edited:
Indeed & in addition she had a personal (very generous) civil list allowance since 1937.

If she managed to save so much maybe the allowances were to high in the first place.
Not all of her net worth was cash based.
 
Back
Top Bottom