Royal News and Views

Royal News and Views
[ Royal News and Views ]

March 17 - Sussex Thread

Posted by Susan T on March 17, 2023, 2:51 pm

n/t

This message is locked.

Oprah Winfrey needs to butt out of royal business

Posted by Susan T on March 17, 2023, 2:59 pm, in reply to "March 17 - Sussex Thread"

Oprah Winfrey is now a sworn enemy of the British Royal Family.

So while she might regard herself as the queen of the US chat show, it's high time she shuts her big gob when it comes to highly sensitive matters relating to the coronation of King Charles.

In yet another bid to destabilise our monarchy, following her despicable TV hit piece where she allowed Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to utter countless mistruths, including fantastical racism claims, without a hint of journalistic pushback, she has now weighed in on the crisis surrounding the Sussexes potential attendance at the event of great significance.

Speaking on US breakfast TV, she insisted: 'I think they should do what they feel is best for them and their family. That's what I think.

'That's what the bottom line comes down to: 'What do you feel like is the right thing for you?'

I'm no fan of Oprah's, but she has as much right to give her opinion as Dan Wootton does.

And the Take I got from her comments was 'Oh, no, I'm not going to say one way or the other. If the couple is unhappy with the way things go, they can't turn around and blame me for giving them "bad" advice.'

Link: Daily Mail

This message is locked.

Re: Oprah Winfrey needs to butt out of royal business

Posted by LindaC on March 17, 2023, 4:39 pm, in reply to "Oprah Winfrey needs to butt out of royal business"

I believe Oprah thinks she is entitled. She can say anything she wants and never has to explain.

This message is locked.

Re: Oprah Winfrey needs to butt out of royal business

Posted by Hollie24 on March 17, 2023, 9:01 pm, in reply to "Oprah Winfrey needs to butt out of royal business"

Oprah's allowed to have her opinion, and I'm allowed to snort derisively at anything she says,

This message is locked.

Re: Oprah Winfrey needs to butt out of royal business

Posted by karenl on March 18, 2023, 12:30 am, in reply to "Re: Oprah Winfrey needs to butt out of royal business"

If Harry and Meghan were expecting a decisive "Yes, go to the Coronation and hold your heads high" or No, stay away from the awful Royal Family", they didn't get it. Oprah threw the question back at Gayle or the person asking. I noticed she pointed stated they hadn't asked or sought her opinion. After "the" interview, Oprah's not going to get involved, her reputation has taken a real hit.

This message is locked.

Rent deal on Frogmore

Posted by Susan T on March 18, 2023, 9:26 pm, in reply to "March 17 - Sussex Thread"

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex struck a deal with Buckingham Palace to pay no further rent on Frogmore Cottage after refunding the £2.4 million taxpayers paid for its refurbishment, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

It had been reported that the Sussexes would pay a 'commercial rate' for the five-bedroom mansion on the Windsor estate. But Palace officials last night confirmed that the lump-sum payment wiped out the couple's rental obligations as the increased value of the property following the work was taken as 'rent in lieu'.

It's estimated the property would cost between £150,000 and £230,000 a year to rent, which means that the Sussexes may have saved up to £690,000. They will not renew their lease when it ends later this month.

A Palace spokesperson said: 'The Duke and Duchess of Sussex made a contribution of £2.4 million to the Sovereign Grant which covered the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage. They have fulfilled their financial obligations in relation to the property.

'In line with usual practice for the Sovereign Grant report, the accounting treatment was scrutinised and signed off by the National Audit Office and the Treasury. As with any such agreement between landlord and tenant, further details regarding the Sussexes' tenancy arrangements would be a private matter.'

Link: Daily Mail

This message is locked.

Re: Rent deal on Frogmore

Posted by Hollie24 on March 18, 2023, 10:52 pm, in reply to "Rent deal on Frogmore"

Andrew cut a similar deal with Royal Lodge. The difference is, he stayed put and didn't cut and run. So was the announcement that they'd pay market rate put out by them (likely) to make them look impoverished?

This message is locked.

Re: Rent deal on Frogmore

Posted by Susan T on March 19, 2023, 7:44 am, in reply to "Re: Rent deal on Frogmore"

I think the announcement that they would pay market rent was announced before they had snagged the Netflix deal which enabled them to repay the money spent on renovations.

Once that money was repaid, a new lease was signed and neither side released the terms of the new lease, the media just assumed they were still paying market rate,

This message is locked.

Re: Rent deal on Frogmore

Posted by Arlene on March 19, 2023, 9:11 am, in reply to "Re: Rent deal on Frogmore"

I find this a bit confusing so let me ask: They paid for the renovation costs and then had Toad Hall rent free. Then they charged Eugenie and Jack rent on the cottage. Or were they still paying rent while Eugenie and Jack lived there (if they ever actually lived there?)

This message is locked.

Re: Rent deal on Frogmore

Posted by Susan T on March 19, 2023, 9:39 am, in reply to "Re: Rent deal on Frogmore"

We don't know that they charged Jack and Eugenie rent.

Usually, the rental agreement would specify that the lease was non-transferable, or that it could only be transferred upon death to royal's spouse or children. And that the place couldn't be sublet.

This message is locked.

Role for their children at the Coronation?

Posted by Susan T on March 19, 2023, 8:04 am, in reply to "March 17 - Sussex Thread"

Seriously? What "roles" would a not yet two-year-old and a just turned four-year-old be able to perform?

If Charles is daft enough to allow children of those ages to attend the Abbey service, he deserve4s the upstaging he is sure to receive, when their mommy allows them to get down from their seats and toddle up to give "grandpa" a hug during a solemn moment, forcing mommy to also leave her seat to retrieve her wayward children.

If anything's under discussion, it's which of the peripheral events, private and public, they will be invited to.

Link: Daily Mail

This message is locked.

Re: Role for their children at the Coronation?

Posted by Hollie24 on March 19, 2023, 1:59 pm, in reply to "Role for their children at the Coronation?"

More story plating by the dimwits once they learned Louis will be taking part in the processional out of the Abbey?

I doubt Louis will be there for the whole shebang. I suspect he'll be brought to the Abbey at a certain point by his nanny and then join his parents and siblings as they process out. I suspect that plan may have been suggested to the Sussexes for Archie, at least (Lili is just way too young, period) if they attend and Meghan's narcissism has rejected it because of the need to be front and center.

I've read that people are pitching fits because Camilla's grandchildren are all invited, but not Archie and Lili. Apparently it hasn't occurred to anyone that Camilla's grands are all teenagers who can behave themselves.

This message is locked.

Re: Role for their children at the Coronation?

Posted by Susan T on March 19, 2023, 2:22 pm, in reply to "Re: Role for their children at the Coronation?"

I think it's the media stirring things up. For some reason, they just love assigning "starring roles" to children and declaring that the kids "stole the show" at weddings, jubilees, funerals, and now coronations.

I doubt Archie has been invited to the Abbey. Nobody has a clue whether he's well-behaved or not, and his internal clock will be screwed up from the 8-hour time change. His parents aren't going to arrive days before the event to allow enough time for their kids to overcome jet lag. And Charles isn't going to want to share the spotlight with the birthday boy.

This message is locked.

Re: Role for their children at the Coronation?

Posted by karenl on March 19, 2023, 6:39 pm, in reply to "Re: Role for their children at the Coronation?"

It's the press stirring the pot and it's a slow news day. Why would Archie and Lili have roles in the Coronation when they're parents will have no role due to them being non-working Royals?
Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie have no role, non-working Royals. If the Sussex children participate, then Beatrice and Eugenie participate. Carry out the rules for all.

This message is locked.

Re: Role for their children at the Coronation?

Posted by Cynthia on March 19, 2023, 8:14 pm, in reply to "Re: Role for their children at the Coronation?"

Here's a list of the British dignitaries at the 1953 coronation. I'm sure there's another list somewhere with the royal occupants of the carriages. Even the pages have to be at least old enough to deal with stuff. So no toddlers!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_participants_in_the_coronation_procession_of_Elizabeth_II

This message is locked.

Re: Role for their children at the Coronation?

Posted by Susan T on March 19, 2023, 8:28 pm, in reply to "Re: Role for their children at the Coronation?"

Beatrice and Eugenie are Charles's nieces, whereas Archie and Lili are his grandchildren. I would expect them to be treated differently.

If the Californians do attend, it's possible Charles would want a photo of himself and Camilla with all his descendants, and the photo may or may not be released to the media. I doubt he will want a photo of himself with his nieces and nephews.

I'm hoping for a photo of Charles, William, and George. It's been a while since we've had a line of succession photo.

This message is locked.

Re: Role for their children at the Coronation?

Posted by Candace on March 19, 2023, 6:00 pm, in reply to "Role for their children at the Coronation?"

Royal Musings account of the coronation plans with regard to the children

http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2023/03/prince-george-siblings-to-be-in.html

This message is locked.

Harry Wrote To The Queen's Private Secretary He Could Not Pay For Private Security Without A Job

Posted by karenl on March 20, 2023, 12:32 am, in reply to "Re: Role for their children at the Coronation?"

"Prince Harry sent an email to Sir Edward Young, the late Queen’s private secretary, in April 2020 in which he says he “made it clear we couldn’t afford private security until we were able to earn”.

The message was disclosed in legal documents relating to the Duke’s libel claim against the Mail on Sunday, which hinges on a “false claim” concerning his willingness to pay for his own police protection in the UK."

".............Prince Harry insists that he offered to pay for his own security during the so-called Sandringham Summit in January 2020, a meeting at which the late Queen and King Charles were present, but that the offer was dismissed.

He reiterated the offer at a meeting with Sir Mark Sedwill, then cabinet secretary and UK home security adviser, the following month, he says.

An email then sent to Sir Edward is also said to have referred to his offer to pay, but at the same time suggested that he could not afford to do so until he and Meghan had become financially independent."

Hard to be taken seriously when offering to pay for security, then saying you can't afford it out of the other side of your mouth.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/03/17/prince-harry-argues-could-not-pay-private-security/

This message is locked.

Re: Harry Wrote To The Queen's Private Secretary He Could Not Pay For Private Security Without A Job

Posted by Susan T on March 20, 2023, 8:22 am, in reply to "Harry Wrote To The Queen's Private Secretary He Could Not Pay For Private Security Without A Job"

I would love to know if anybody asked him just what sort of a job he thought he could get with his skill set (or lack thereof) that would command a salary large enough to pay for private security (along with everything else he and his wife felt they needed to thrive and not merely survive).

This message is locked.

Re: Harry Wrote To The Queen's Private Secretary He Could Not Pay For Private Security Without A Job

Posted by Arlene on March 20, 2023, 8:48 am, in reply to "Re: Harry Wrote To The Queen's Private Secretary He Could Not Pay For Private Security Without A Job"

I wonder how he thought he could pay the British police for security when he claims he couldn't pay for his own in the US. Did he think they would give him a discount because he was royalty?

This message is locked.

More Made Up Problems From Harry

Posted by karenl on March 21, 2023, 12:07 am, in reply to "Re: Harry Wrote To The Queen's Private Secretary He Could Not Pay For Private Security Without A Job"

The "video" of the "paps" is a hoot. Liars and grifters. Harry has gone on to state that the security provided when he and William unveiled the statue of their mother was "sketchy". Neil Sean was at the ceremony and has called Harry out. He stated security was tight.

This message is locked.

Heritage Foundation Calling For Investigation Into Harry's Visa Application

Posted by karenl on March 21, 2023, 11:45 pm, in reply to "More Made Up Problems From Harry"

The YouTube headline is misleading as well as the rest of the tabloid stories. They are claiming "Harry is under investigation", to my knowledge, that is not happening as of this time.
The video also discusses Boris Johnson's hearing tomorrow which was interesting. Note: I had a hard time with Tom Bower because I kept looking at his socks when the camera would pull a long shot.

This message is locked.

« Back to index

116

[ Royal News and Views ]