Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

[Vagabond]

UK readers not happy

An "overwhelming" number of people who took the time to respond to an online poll, run by a newspaper obsessed with the Royals. Not an unbiased sample at all ?

Plus, this isn't a democracy we're talking about. It's a monarchy.

 

[starrynight]

The exclusivity clause in their contract with Netflix must have teeth.

Although, honestly, Harry’s association with things like Invictus have probably run their course given he’s not a working royal anymore.

 

[taf2002]

UK readers not happy

Why would you post a link to a tabloid like this that has no credibility? If I had known I wouldn't have given them the click. On 2nd thought, I should have known.

 

[Lorac]

Why would you post a link to a tabloid like this that has no credibility? If I had known I wouldn't have given them the click. On 2nd thought, I should have known.

Well the Daily Express is one of our main stream daily papers here in the UK, not a tabloid persay. That being said it has a habit of posting click bait headlines on the web on a regular basis especially about the royal family. To be honest it's worse than the Daily Mail for that.

 

[MacMadame]

It's an online poll.

 

[clairecloutier]

Harry and Meghan have repaid the crown in full for the renovation of Frogmore Cottage:

Prince Harry Repays $3.1 Million Frogmore Cottage Renovations Back to the Royal Family in Full

A spokesperson for the Sussexes confirms to BAZAAR that the duke recently repaid the full amount to the Sovereign Grant.

www.harpersbazaar.com

This article also confirms that they are no longer supported by the Duchy of Cornwall (aka Charles's funds).

ETA: As to that idiotic poll posted above, I think there is a segment of British society that will never really be satisfied until Meghan & Harry are homeless and perhaps tarred & feathered as well. As to the question of why they feel that way ....

 

[Lorac]

Harry and Meghan have repaid the crown in full for the renovation of Frogmore Cottage:

Prince Harry Repays $3.1 Million Frogmore Cottage Renovations Back to the Royal Family in Full

A spokesperson for the Sussexes confirms to BAZAAR that the duke recently repaid the full amount to the Sovereign Grant.

www.harpersbazaar.com

Famly
This article also confirms that they are no longer supported by the Duchy of Cornwall (aka Charles's funds).

An interesting move on Harry's part. I saw a headline on one of our more tacky daily papers - yep there are ones worse than the Mail and Express - over the weekend as I waited in line to pay at the supermarket having a huge dig at Harry and Meghan for buying a $14 million house and signing a multi million dollar deal with Netflix but not paying for the renovation to Frogmore Cottage. At least that is now off the table and if it is true they are not taking any money from the Duchy of Cornwall then the tabloids will have to find something else to dig at them about!!!

 

[Vagabond]

if it is true they are not taking any money from the Duchy of Cornwall then the tabloids will have to find something else to dig at them about!!!

"They're not taking any money from the Duchy of Cornwall!!!!"

 

[Lorac]

"They're not taking any money from the Duchy of Cornwall!!!!"

The article says 'a separate source' - not one I have seen elsewhere as of yet - so for the moment I stand by my comment - which wasn't at all insulting to them or denying the point. Though why you need to be so angry with me is more you issue then mine

 

[Vagabond]

The article says 'a separate source' - not one I have seen elsewhere as of yet - so for the moment I stand by my comment - which wasn't at all insulting to them or denying the point. Though why you need to be so angry with me is more you issue then mine

I was making fun of those who criticize Harry and Meghan for everything they say. Take a chill pill. ?

 

[Lorac]

I was making fun of those who criticize Harry and Meghan for everything they say. Take a chill pill. ?

Fine - I wasn't aware I was criticizing them though!!

 

[Vagabond]

Fine - I wasn't aware I was criticizing them though!!

Did you even read what I quoted? ?‍

 

[Lorac]

Did you even read what I quoted? ?‍

Yes - and you basically shouted at me stating that they weren't taking money from the Duchy of Cornwall which I saw - and still see - as you getting on a high horse regarding my post and implying I was attacking them - which I wasn't. So back at ya!!!

 

[overedge]

The last financial reports from the Duchy of Cornwall (I posted the link earlier in the thread) showed large financial payments to H&M and William and Kate's household. Personally I would wait until the next set of financials are released before being sure that H&M are no longer getting any money from the Duchy.

 

[jamesy]

Yes - and you basically shouted at me stating that they weren't taking money from the Duchy of Cornwall which I saw - and still see - as you getting on a high horse regarding my post and implying I was attacking them - which I wasn't. So back at ya!!!

FWIW, I didn't read Vagabond's post as shouting at you. It looks like Vagabond was actually mocking the people who normally criticize Harry and Meghan: now that they can't be criticized for taking the money, they now have to be criticized for NOT taking the money. I don't think it was meant to be anything more than a joking post.

 

[starrynight]

Seems that announcing the bulk repayment of Frogmore is damage control for the Invictus thing.

 

[overedge]

Seems that announcing the bulk repayment of Frogmore is damage control for the Invictus thing.

Sorry, I missed this - why does Invictus need damage control?

 

[kittyjake5]

Sorry, I missed this - why does Invictus need damage control?

It has been reported (no idea whether it is true or false) that there was a big star studded fundraiser planned by Harry
regarding the Invictus games for June 2021, including Beyonce, Ed Sheerin, and other musical guest and Harry approached
Amazon prior to the pandemic to stream the fundraiser and they said yes. Supposedly now that H&M have signed with Netflix his legal
team has cancelled Harry's participation in the the concert citing conflict of interest.


A spokesperson for the Invictus games said it has been cancelled due to COVID.
So there you go. Folks will make a mountain of a molehill and believe what they believe. No judgment.

 

[starrynight]

The story was published by the Sunday Times.

The relevant quote given to the Sunday Times was:

Officials at the foundation were reportedly 'stunned' after a lawyer for the Sussexes informed them they would not be going ahead with the event last week, shortly before the Netflix deal was announced. The lawyer cited a 'conflict' of plans with another streaming service.

A source involved in the planning of the event told the publication: 'It's very bad form and everyone at Invictus is gutted.
'Harry said yes to doing this last year and everything was still moving forwards until a few weeks ago. 'This was going to be a big moment for Invictus where the pot is pretty empty, and it has left them in the lurch. Harry needs to pull his finger out to find another way to raise funds for them.'

So basically, the view of the Sunday Times article was that due to an exclusive access clause in the Netflix contract, the involvement in the Invictus fundraiser had to be ended due to it being streamed on a rival streaming service - Amazon.

The exclusive access part is entirely plausible, if not a given. No way would Netflix pay that much money for the rights to use Harry and Meghan's image and then let Amazon have them for free. Same way athletes sponsored by Nike 100% cannot be seen in Adidas or Under Amour clothes etc.

Of course, there may also be other factors in a 2021 fundraiser being cancelled.

Overall, this is big business and big bucks and there are realities to commercial impacts of contracts. That's often where royalty and commercial interests conflict. Netflix, a corporation, probably can control to an extent where Harry and Meghan appear.

 

[antmanb]

Overall, this is big business and big bucks and there are realities to commercial impacts of contracts. That's often where royalty and commercial interests conflict. Netflix, a corporation, probably can control to an extent where Harry and Meghan appear.

I don't think that its a conflict between royal and commercial interests. If they were still "royal" there's no way they'd be allowed to do a commercial thing like a deal with Netflix so its simply the fact they've signed an exclusive contract as individuals with Netflix.

The Invictus games thing is interesting because Harry definitely supported that as a member of the Royal family. I forget what they said would happen when they stopped representing the Royal family - would they keep the charities on? It would seem that a charity that is support by the royal family would want actual working royals to be involved rather than ones that aren't. Would Invictus games have to have been giving to a working royal to support anyway?

 

[taf2002]

I'm waiting to hear what Piers Morgan has to say about the repayment for the renovation. There has to be something to criticize in this. 3...2...1...

 

[kittyjake5]

Prince Harry denies allegations in Sunday Times.

Prince Harry Denies Fundraising Event for Invictus Games Was Axed Because of Netflix Deal

Prince Harry denies fundraising event for his Invictus Games was Axed because of his new Netflix Deal

people.com

 

[Lorac]

I don't think that its a conflict between royal and commercial interests. If they were still "royal" there's no way they'd be allowed to do a commercial thing like a deal with Netflix so its simply the fact they've signed an exclusive contract as individuals with Netflix.

The Invictus games thing is interesting because Harry definitely supported that as a member of the Royal family. I forget what they said would happen when they stopped representing the Royal family - would they keep the charities on? It would seem that a charity that is support by the royal family would want actual working royals to be involved rather than ones that aren't. Would Invictus games have to have been giving to a working royal to support anyway?

The thing about Invictus is that it has always been Harry's baby. He came up with the concept and then championed it to it's current state - utilising money from the Royal Foundation he founded with his brother. When he stepped back from being a senior royal he was very specific that he would continue to champion the Invictus Games - I suspect the original plan was to move it under the SussexRoyal foundation at some point - but as that never took off - or rather was stopped in it's tracks - I'm unsure where it stands in regards to support from the Royal Family going forwards.

It was originally determined when Harry and Meghan stepped back from being senior royals that they would continue to be patrons of certain charities - but that was on an assumption they would be visiting/living in the UK for extended periods of time. One of Meghan's is the National Theatre - handed to her by the Queen - and that needs all the help it can get at the moment with the arts being seriously endangered with the CV issues. Not sure how they feel having their royal patron so far away when they could do with all the help they can get.

 

[MsZem]

The Invictus Games are so well-suited to Harry's background, personality and interests, and it's a great cause. I really hope it's something he can keep working on, in whatever capacity.

 

[starrynight]

It was originally determined when Harry and Meghan stepped back from being senior royals that they would continue to be patrons of certain charities - but that was on an assumption they would be visiting/living in the UK for extended periods of time.

I think the divorce from the UK and the royal family has been so messy that it’s probably going to take a great deal of time before things calm down to the point of them coming back to the UK for any kind official engagements. If that ever happens.

The concern with UK charities is that such a patronage would in fact entirely overshadow the charity itself and its workers- and not in a positive way.

The issue is that if charities want royal endorsement, they need it from working royals. Harry and Meghan are, at least amongst their supporters, loved for being ‘anti-royals’ who have snubbed the system. So it’s not a good match for anything that wants the support of the Crown.

 

[overedge]

Regardless of whether Harry is still a royal, he's still an ex-serviceman. So there's no logistical reason that I know of why he couldn't continue running the Invictus Games as a private citizen.

And yes, I know that having a Royal involved brings in more sponsorships, attention, and so on. But the Games don't need Royal approval to keep going.

 

[Yehudi]

Question, was Diana still officially a royal after she and Charles divorced?

 

[miffy]

Question, was Diana still officially a royal after she and Charles divorced?

Well... as she kept ‘Princess of Wales’ but lost the ‘Her Royal Highness’ - kind of?

 

[overedge]

Well... as she kept ‘Princess of Wales’ but lost the ‘Her Royal Highness’ - kind of?

And she was still the mother of the future king. Another kind of "kind of".

 

[MacMadame]

Well... as she kept ‘Princess of Wales’ but lost the ‘Her Royal Highness’ - kind of?

I think it's exactly the same as Harry and Meghan. They lost the HRH titles but kept the Duke/Duchess of Sussex titles. Diane was not considered royal after she lost HRH so that means H+M aren't either.