Supposedly, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are living in a borrowed or rented house somewhere in the Los Angeles area.
Supposedly, they are parents to a child named Archie who is about to turn one year old, who lives with them in California.
Supposedly, they're working hard to launch a new charity venture, assisted by Catherine St-Laurent, a former employee of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who focused on women's health issues.
Supposedly, Meg is looking for acting jobs and Harry is still maintaining connections to his veteran's charities.
Are any of the above true? All of them? None of them?
How much money do you think they have left? And, given that a lot of it seems to go for PR, what do they use it on? Food, security, fashion, drugs? Health care or health insurance?
How many staff do you think they have left? Are they doing their own online food ordering, cooking, child (?) care, cleaning? Do they get any physical exercise?
How much of Harry's trust fund from Diana has he spent?
Meg's entire family - mom, dad, her cousins, herself - has flirted with either deep debt, tax problems, or bankruptcy. Are the Sussexes on their way there now?
And if so, how far will Prince Charles let them fall?
Supposedly, they are parents to a child named Archie who is about to turn one year old, who lives with them in California.
Supposedly, they're working hard to launch a new charity venture, assisted by Catherine St-Laurent, a former employee of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who focused on women's health issues.
Supposedly, Meg is looking for acting jobs and Harry is still maintaining connections to his veteran's charities.
Are any of the above true? All of them? None of them?
The Sussexes' finances
Also, while I generally believe it is poor manners to peek into other people's finances, I'll make an exception for the Sussexes.How much money do you think they have left? And, given that a lot of it seems to go for PR, what do they use it on? Food, security, fashion, drugs? Health care or health insurance?
How many staff do you think they have left? Are they doing their own online food ordering, cooking, child (?) care, cleaning? Do they get any physical exercise?
How much of Harry's trust fund from Diana has he spent?
Meg's entire family - mom, dad, her cousins, herself - has flirted with either deep debt, tax problems, or bankruptcy. Are the Sussexes on their way there now?
And if so, how far will Prince Charles let them fall?
Comments
I’d give anything to be a fly on the wall in their house.
I think they’re near broke, their lifestyle isn’t the simple life. She won’t want to go back to the life she had before Harry, let alone worse.
I hope the Cybersquatter continue! The dubious duo will hopefully learn a very painful and public lesson (wishful thinking). Perhaps then the Youtube redirection will take us to Money’s too tight by Simply Red
Lol
Much like how you and me have "kitty litter" & "Apple Music" on our monthly budgets.
How much do those things cost a pop, does anyone know?
Asking for a friend. 😂😂
I'm triggered ⭐❤
Hapless is worth millions (trusts) that are locked away from him for the time being.
To live in a marvelous Mansion they have to cut back in other areas. They will be renting, not buying in Malibu or wherever they will alight.
Money is not coming in from anything Hollywood, due to the Kung Flu situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=W3qcj2MzPYc&feature=emb_logo
whilst humming Queen “Another one bites the Dust”
Megs is on her phone 24/7 suffering RSI from her incessant speed dialling of everyone, & anyone to take her calls.
Her wedding video is on constant loop, as she swigs from a Tig bottle, & listens to her speeches dressed in her commonwealth veil.
Archie? Nanny is teaching him the words to ”Gold Digger” & the art of calligraphy using avocados, caliados, green mess.
Harrywood & Megibu suck it up, & bugger you!
I don't think they're allowed to touch the principal of Harry's trust fund, but I think they'll petition to be able to do so in order to buy a house and the trustees may let them do this.
I don't think they're fighting yet, but I think they're probably trying to stay out of each other's way because they've been cooped up together too long, and they can both feel the anger building between them.
I don't think MM has realized that PC won't be showering them with money anymore, that he had been doing so when he thought they were staying, and this might ultimately be the reason they break up: PC's telling Harry that he won't cover their debts.
There was some "tea" on TCD saying that MM was ultimately kicked out of the Soho Farm House because she had too many men coming and going. Another piece of it was that she owed a lot of money to one man who was threatening to sue her. I'm not sure I believe that she went back to her former profession, but I do believe she owes money to other people that Harry doesn't know anything about. Maybe for drugs? Maybe she wanted to pay for them via another person or in a different country thinking that would enable her to avoid prosecution.
"I think I was one of the first to cuddle him outside the family."
Gee, beat Hillary, Ellen, Auntie Elton, and the rest of the celebs to it?
But this isn't possible. No way you can "make" a 2-month old "wave" except by grabbing his arm and flapping it.
Dr Goodall continued: 'I made Archie do the Queen’s wave, saying, “I suppose he’ll have to learn this”. Harry said, “No, he’s not growing up like that.”'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8208095/Jane-Goodall-reveals-Prince-Harry-hinted-Megxit-summer.html
I guess I could order a PR puff piece on the DailyMail in which Christian Bale slides into my DMs too then. 🤣🤣
Celebrity PR hype is so funny in that dark, absurdist kind of way. Imagine dedicatedly hyping yourself up like that. At least salespeople sell something other than their narcissistic selves. (I'm so fascinated by the subject I actually own a parody PR Twitter account posing as a fan. My tweets are rarely funny because real life is just stranger than fiction.)
I don't even know what to believe anymore, all I know for sure is I believe none of it.
I was disgusted at the way they used Jane Goodall - presumably they had `a' baby, even if he wasn't `the' baby...
Flowers of the Commonwealth?
She lifted that idea from HM's Coronation gown. Pure hubris.The only throne either of them will ever sit upon is the one in the bathroom.
The veil itself? As someone is reputed to have said `I knew Doris Day before she was a virgin'.
As for the dress, it's the sort of thing my chums were wearing in the late 1960s - what Simplicity would have called `Q &E - Quick 'n' Easy', a style for the home dressmaker.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8150405/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-planning-3m-Costwolds-bolthole-near-Soho-Farmhouse.html
Apologies if I've repeated myself
@Unknown
I think Charles has had enough, I do believe he has cut off supplies.
He will honour whatever was set up for Megxit, that’s it.
Charles has lived, & served his whole life waiting to be King.
As much as he loves his son, enough is enough.
Harry & his ”Grande Horizontale” have gone too far.
The leaker(courtier) also mentioned that Meghan isn't worth much. Harry has blown his money and it's evident.
this will come up:
We will surrender this domain upon the immediate and safe return of Prince Henry Charles Albert David, Duke of Sussex to Her Majesty's United Kingdom:
Buckingham Palace
Westminster
London
SW1A 1AA
United Kingdom
Yours faithfully
archewellcharity@protonmail.com
They are always squatting. Don't forget they haven't paid back the 2.4m spent on frogmore. They can't afford to outrightly buy a $10m house. They don't have that kind of money that is why they are looking for Japanese adverts. Harry and Meghan don't have the kind of money they need to live a luxury life. Heck, they don't even have money to start a foundation that is why they are opting for a charity.
' Harry has less than 20m pounds to his name.' So he started out as a pauper?
Now all depends on Cashpoint Charlie?
The only good thing about that wildly-expensive beige muumuu-for-the-Oscars was that at least it hid her bloody armpits.
I completely agree. I have no idea why so many Nutties think he or William don’t have full access to their money. They both had access from the age of 30, I personally don’t think Harry can have much left. I don’t think Prince Charles would see Harry homeless, but I’m increasingly finding it difficult to think he’s subsidising their entire lifestyle.
Don’t know what Harry is worth. But I’m sure whatever it is would be securely tied up.
The RF aren’t daft when it comes to money.
Meghan isn’t & wasn’t, ever worth much.
Thanks for the new post, Nutty. IMO MM isn't panicking yet about money although PH may be. I think they're going into debt, including credit card debt, believing -- at least on MM's part -- that PC won't let them default. They're probably at one of Mischa Nonoo's husband's houses which has a limited gym which Harry uses, but not MM. Most of their money is probably being spent on PR and staff salaries. I'll guess they have a nanny, a housemaid, and at least 1 PA.
Like! Like veddy much! The concept of the Dumbarton Duopoly hashing up their credit cards to a fare thee well. Then PC "rescuing" by paying them off. If for no other reason than to avoid personal embarrassment to PC. This is the Tori Spelling and family way. Her father Aaron made zillions that all went to his wife when she died. Tori is also married to a useless husband but she has done her duty, producing four, so lets give her credit. Grandma is very tight but it seems that the way she supports her four grandchildren is to periodically pay off the family credit card debt. This will become the ex-Royale way of getting. Getting from Cornwall Duchy/Charles.
I had high hopes that Mr Money Bags Nonoo would come through. Money inherited from his dad, Marvelous Marvin Davis, the rare Jewish tycoon in the oil business. And so, so nice that this is all Jewish marriage. To keep the religion going, being that there is so much Jewish inter-marriage. Then the kids grow up as confused half-breeds. I mean this humorously. And Hollywood already has many of such.
I thought the Nonoos were a lock to come through with the freebie gated mansion but now look at it as 50/50 or lower.
Marvin Davis - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Davis
Marvin H. Davis (August 31, 1925 – September 25, 2004) was an American industrialist. He made his fortunes as the chair of Davis Petroleum and at one time owned 20th Century Fox, the Pebble Beach Corporation, the Beverly Hills Hotel, and the Aspen Skiing Company.
^^^^^ "Money's Too Tight To Mention" has some amazingly dynamic live versions on you-tube. This was composed in 1982 during the Reagan recession by a black group, The Valentine Brothers . It *must be* the next redirect!
DYNAMIC! By Mick and Company! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtXoAZ2kYhk
living sinks in and MM realises she is not as hot as she thinks she is and the projects she expected to happen haven't materialised. The reality of how much money they actually need to survive will become apparent to them both as well.
A time limit on all trusts, being no longer than 21 years after the death of a person living at the time of the trust
was originally set up.
This became known as the “Rule”
Whatever Harry had will soon be gone.
Hehehe, delicious, pay back for that sad, sack of a dress.
Whose next?
What happened was the the queen mother preferred William and this made Harry very resentful even as a child. But as Harry grew, his PR narrative was the hero Harry who was the queen and the queen mother's favorite. Some of these tales were told by Paul Burrell and because it is so often told, everyone assumed it was the truth even though there were no facts to back them up.
It is not in the character of the BRF to enrich non heirs. The wealth and power usually resides with the heirs. That's why Andrew, Edward and Anne are not really rich. If Harry had up to 20m, he won't be squatting from one mansion to the other. He doesn't have much in his trust and please he has had unfettered access to his trust for a long time.
Meghan isn't worth 5m US dollars either. If she was worth that amount, she would have owned a house in Canada, at least a 1m house. She wasn't even driving a fantastic car. Rita Ora isn't worth up to 10m, yet she was able to buy a house for her parents for 1m in London. Hero Harry and feminist Meghan are a PR creation. They don't have as much money as people think
The BRF and other European monachies usually concentrates it's wealth in the hands of the heir. It has been their tradition from time. No spare has had much money and no one will make an exception for Harry. Name one millionaire spare or minor royal that you know. It's not done. They don't empower the spares with wealth so that those spares won't become problematic for the heirs. It's a deliberate policy.
The wealth of the BRF is in the hands of the Queen and Charles and will be passed on to William. Spares and minor royals only enjoy perks and subsidised living but they don't have immense wealth because it's a policy that all the money and power should reside with the heir.
Imagine that someone like Harry has millions upon millions, don't you know he will become a problem to William in future? Even Andrew who is the Queens favourite had to depend partly on Charles for sustenance if not that the queen always came to his aid by turning a blind eye to his shenenighans.
Let me state again that based on the tradition of European monarchs to center the wealth and power of the monarchy in the hands of the heir, and based on leaks from Clarence House and other signs like their continuous mooching, there is no evidence whatsoever that Harry is worth up to 20m. And he has access to his funds too. There are no funds tied anywhere.
"Meghan isn't worth 5m US dollars either. If she was worth that amount, she would have owned a house in Canada..."
Agree. The only way MM Could have had a net worth anywhere near 5 million when she met Harry was to have been paid an absurd amount for a non-lead in Suits (50K per episode for all 7 years, yeah right), to have avoided paying all income taxes, and to have had essentially no expenses (no agents, attorneys, accountants, publicists, travel, food, entertainment, clothing...) Oh, and maybe to have gotten a big divorce settlement from Trevor.
Some observations --
1) I'm in the camp that the Harkles are going broke. Expenses are high -- staff, PR (that Gates woman cannot be cheap by any means), etc. -- Harry must have been running through his trust like water, and 20 or 30 million doesn't last long at his lifestyle. Which is basically party till you drop. He never left his late teens/early 20s. Not to mention Meghan -- Spenderella indeed!
2) They've hired some of the best PR in the world, supposedly, but A) they don't listen to them or B) once they left the protective umbrella of the palace staff, their blunders are on view for all the world to see. (Doesn't help that most of their PR is American, with no understanding of how the BRF or Britain itself operates/views the RF.)
3) Both of them are impulsive on the one hand, and extremely paranoid on the other. Their modus operandi seems to be trying to control the media, and to an extent they've managed it, but truth will out.
4) The bank of Charles can't last forever. It's telling that rents have gone up on the Duchy of Cornwall's tenants. Sooner or later, there will be rebellion. I know that Americans are ignorant of the fact that Charles' income largely derives from the Duchy -- nor how it operates (tenants coughing up the dough). Not even sure average Britons have made the connection that the Duchy is basically financing the Harkles. In this age of coronavirus, though, when jobs are vanishing, recession going into full swing, etc., this convenient ATM for the Harkles can't last. If Charles continues to finance them with millions of pounds, the funds are going to run out sooner or later. Britons are increasingly getting fed up with the BRF as it is -- the virus will accelerate it toward a republic if something isn't done. Charles and HM the Queen can be the doting father and grandmother all they want -- when the Harkles' expenses begin to bite their own wallets, as I think they are, I would think (hope) they finally clamp down.
5) Re: the Harkles squatting everywhere, getting freebies -- echoes of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor (yet another parallel) -- numerous proven instances of them getting paid for everywhere they went by "friends" who just wanted the cachet of being close to royalty.
Okay, I've nattered on long enough :)
Why does anyone think that of all the spares and minor royals, Harry is the only special one who has millions tied up somewhere?
Why not Beatrice and Eugene? Why not Peter and Zara? Why only Harry? What is special about him that millions will have to be tied up somewhere for him. No dears.
Yes Diana left some money for him and William but they both had access to it as soon as they became adults.
Diana was able to get more money after her divorce because she was the wife of the heir and the mother of the heir. In fact, at the time, Charles was low on funds after he paid her off. He had to sell some of his stocks and shares to raise the millions he paid her.
Fergie wasn't that lucky because Andrew didn't have much in the first place. Yet Andrew was the queens favourite. Fergie couldn't survive with the pittance she got after the divorce and had to continue depending on Andrew.
If Harry had 30m, he could easily have used 5 or 6m to start a foundation. But they don't have funds for a foundation that's why they are doing a charity and we can see that they don't even have the staff to pull it off. A foundation gives grants to charities. Charities receive grants from foundations. There is a difference between the two.
The Sussexes are now advertising that they are ready to do Japanese adverts. That leak in the DM was just them shopping for offers. They need money just like Scoobie and Lainey said.
They were being heavily subsidised by the RF when they were still working royals but now all they have is the 2.4m from Charles which may just be for a year. Charles was paying for their staff, cooks, food, clothes etc which didn't include the the yearly 2.4m. The taxpayers were paying for their tours, security etc.
But now, they have to pay for their staff themselves. They have have to pay for clothes, food, baby food,PR, etc etc. Don't forget they are paying for all these without any income besides the 2.4m Charles is giving them.
Also the hero Harry, jolly good fellow, hot ginger, queens favourite grandson whom the queen mother bequeathed millions to and all that were also mostly lies. It was just an image that the BRF through Edward Lane Fox created for him.
Both of them are MEDIA/PR creations. That persona doesn't exist. They don't have millions tied up anywhere just like Kylie Jenner isn't worth 1b dollars. She isn't even worth 400m dollars as she and her mum lied about her company's networth and the company, COTY that bought 51 percent of her company shares for 600m has put a hold on the deal. They are already making moves to collect back their 600m after they discovered the lies.
Let me say again at the risk of sounding like a broken record that Harry doesn't have up to 20m in his entire life and there are no funds tied anywhere for him.
I didn’t state that Harry was worth $$$ ?
But I’m sure there is money tied up somewhere.
Even if they're not paying for their house, I do think they're either in serious debt or headed that way, simply because of their expensive tastes. Private jets instead of commercial flights! Designer clothes! The best of everything! Will Prince Charles bail them out? Probably. Should he? Hell to the no! In my practice, I've seen parents bail out their adult children when they get into financial difficulties. It's one thing to help your child when he or she can't make ends meet because of circumstances beyond their control, such as serious illness. However, if the parent bails out a child who has lived beyond their means and it seldom ends well. The child hasn't learned how to manage money; all they've learned is that they can spend with abandon and when they can no longer pay their bills, mommy and daddy will come riding to the rescue, checkbook in hand.
It goes by the time setting by Nutty herself. I’m in the UK, so if it was my blog I’d set it as GMT, but we’re on British Sumner Time (BST), so we’re an hour ahead of GMT.
Good Day where ere you might be. Thanks for the new post Nutty.
I am thinking, yeah, they are still couchsurfing and haven't figured out just what their current lifestyle really costs for them even without paying "rent". Throw it on the card mentality is part of the not good fiscal planning mentality. She didn't bring good money skills (the everyday kind suggest by planners) to the marriage - she brought get someone else to pay for me and he grew up in a cocoon where he was not likely taught how to manage money from either parent for various reasons.
Are they still together? I could go either way, probably more with her as I think he's cut off everyone who might have opened their door to him. I think his internal pressures of not wanting to be where he could have someone say: We told you so is greater than the tension between the couple.
I think everyone is right that when they are together, the tension is thick and escalating as the job offers don't come (especially after all the hype of how they will get rich this way) or her calls out don't get returned. Blaming each other as neither appears to be open to owning their decisions.
side thought: about not owning the website> what if they had applied but they made a typo when filling out the application? So they own the typo version.
Music: when I now think of her, back on what she thinks of as her turf, I think Eagles and You belong to the City https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TToLgW7zuc
I just googled stairwell global and there are 28 posts. There is a referral to Sussex as well. It looks legit to me, but I try to avoid their accoints. They enrage me.
So....I wonder if Charles knew about the desperate flight to LA (or, as other nuttiers suggested the fact that they were heading to LA without touching base in Canada)
It would be one thing to agree to finance the couple for a year in a quiet life in Canada. Harry keeps claiming that's why he left the BRF....especially for his son. Charles must see the attraction there. And if Harry and Meghan live quietly tgere, it could only minimize their worse impulses.
I see no reason why they wouldnt lie to Charles as well as the rest of the world.
By the time they supposedly flew to LA Charles was already dick, and has to have faced his own mortality, if even for only a few minutes.
Imagine then his anger and disappointment at being conned again.
He may have agreed to a house in wholesome Canada. I don't think he would buy one in LA. Especially since its such a set up for the inevitable divorce. In essence, he would just be buying one for Meghan.
All their money right now is going to PR stating that they are fielding incredible offers, as well as the Gates hire (who, if she was paid up front is one smart cookie) Meghan will have convinced Harry it's the only way to generate more income. She is right in that PR convinces at least half the world into believing whatever you want them to believe.
The problem is, the people she wants to convince won't fall for it. They use PR themselves. They INVENTED it.
Meghan grandiosity will not let her backtrack at all, ever. There will be no scaling backbone to Coronavirus. Meg is convinced she can take on a pandemic and somehow win.
And really, what else does she have to do? Play with the baby? Make love with Harry? Deliver food baskets (with no photog)?
Again the nuttiers make me consider something in a new light.
The deliberate withholding of wealth to the other royal children seems a bit mad to me.
I can see where they would want to prevent those children from
Mounting bids for the throne. But honestly, would that happen in modern times?
Instead, since they can't earn money in a straightforward way, they resort to strategems like Andrew used/uses and Harry's situation. They are brought up in insane luxury and then kind of poor relations forever.
I suppose this is one reason other monarchies are also slimming down. It's good optics, and it takes a pretty strong person to live on sufferance their whole life. Ann seems to have handled it well, but not very many others.
Plus there is the "purpose" issue. Does one (aside from someone like Ann) really live happily fulfilling someone else's purpose?
Even spell check hates that name!
I apologize for the typos. On my phone in the sunshine!
@Lt. Nyota, Good morning/afternoon/evening Nutties -- I never know what time people are actually posting, as the stamps are all over the place -- does it go by Greenwich Mean Time?
It goes by the time setting by Nutty herself. I’m in the UK, so if it was my blog I’d set it as GMT, but we’re on British Sumner Time (BST), so we’re an hour ahead of GMT.
___________________________
Thanks for the clarification!
Those freebies! I wonder if Harry gets embarrassed by her overt greediness.
But of course, he has a pretty sweet sense of entitlement going for himself as well, doesn't he?
Meghan is used to blowing every dime she ever made, and she comes from a family who all routinely have gone to bankruptcy court. Harry has never had to learn how to budget money for everyday needs. Everything was taken care of for him--groceries, gas in the car, housing, clothing, health insurance. Put a spendthrift and a person with no life skills with money together, and disaster results.
-------------------------------------
Seabee666 said...
I believe H$M thought if Kiley Jenner can build 1B empire, imagine what we can do? Not a completely crazy idea except Kiley has a known name and products millions of silly girls and drag queens want to buy. H$M lost its favored umbrella brand Sussex Royal, reverted to the subsidiary Archewell which is now not only a laughing stock but evidently lifted from the Arche Well Foundation. Their products don't exist and their services are psychobabble.
Point being, even if Harry has 20M and Meghan 5M and Charles is good for 3M per year it's not enough to launch an endeavor that will need a slew of experts from lawyers to accountants, and capital to start manufacturing their hats and tshirts. Not to mention the lifestyle they feel they deserve.
Everything these two touch imploded, the fashion line, the Vogue cover, the documentary, Harry's 8nterview with "Greta" the Elephant movie, sussexRoyal and now Archewll. Even the weddindvdress designer got fired. Wow. It is an embarrassment of riches. So, I am Camp Dead Broke and Desperate. I believe their PR team consists of Meghan thst Scoobie Do chap with the tragic eyebrows.
______________________________________________________
^^These.
“Going forward, Buckingham Palace will no longer comment/guide on Sussex related enquiries”
Says it all. The Queen, nor Charles will help.
🐛
ie currently 2hrs ahead of BST, as far as Brits are concerned.
That makes sense, the latest post (Glowworm ) came in at 5:17pm (17:17); it's 15:19 in UK/3:19pmm.
(Well, it was, I've read a bit more & it's now 15:23 here/17;23 in Estonia) Add I min for corrections!
I still question whether an infant is with them. If so, I am concerned because no parent uproots a baby that often unless circumstances are dire. Even if one is selfish or even a narcissist, because moving with an infant - even if you have a shrinking staff’s help - is a total pain in the arse.
April 11, 2020 at 5:20 PM
Of course, that's how primogeniture works, in order to keep big estates going, rather than the family getting smaller and smaller bits of land and shares of money going on.
Think of Jane Austen's world for example. The male heir got the estate, 2nd son went into the Army, the third into the Church. Females had to marry well or they could look forward to poverty. Worse, if the family consisted of unmarried daughters, when their father died, they and their mother could be kicked out by a more distant male relative who got the lot.
Small wonder Mrs Bennett was so worried.
It's only since married women in UK acquired the right to money and property of their own (Married Women's Property Act 1882, IIRC) that they were able to bequeath money to younger sons by Will, as the QM & Di did (and what H got from D was probably C's money originally - he is reported to have had to borrow it from HM to pay off D).
Balmoral, Sandringham and possibly Highgrove are owned by members of the RF in much the same way as the rest of us own property; most other Royal residences are own by the Crown, that's different.
This information is in public domain but the PR machine of the Kardashians are pulling the stops to ensure it doesn't go viral. But I can tell you for free that Kylie isn't worth 400m not to talk of 1b. Don't forget that Forbes had to put a disclaimer saying they couldn't authenticate Kylie's actual net worth.
If you want to appear on Forbes rich list, just pay the right amount to the magazine and you will be featured.
Remember Wilbur Ross, one of Trump's cabinet members who has always appeared on Forbes billionaire list for years? How did he do it? Lolol.
It was just last year that it was discovered that he was actually just worth about 350 to 400m and not the 4billion that he claimed to have. Lol.
Anyone can appear on Forbes rich list if you have the right PR machine behind you.
REMEMBER when Cardi B said that many celebrities aren't as rich as they claim? She is right. Many celebrities inflate their net worth just like Meg inflated hers and said she was worth 5m. A person who is worth 5m US dollars should own a house in Canada. But Meg has no assets to her name. Not even a two bedroom. Yet we are to believe she was worth 5m? Story.
Even if Harry has 20M and Meghan 5M (which they don't) and Prince Charles is good for 3M per year for now, it is nowhere near enough to fund H$M's grandiose lifestyle and business schemes. Oh, and they're toxic, too. Everything they've touch implodes almost on a daily basis: banana therapy, fashion line, Vogue cover, South Africa documentary, Harry's interview with Greta, Meghan's Elephant movie, SussexRoyal and Archewell is DOA. Even the wedding designer got fired? WOW! Their PR team consists of Meghan and Omid Scobie of the unfortunate eyebrows. It's down to throwing some cash at on-line news outlets and some bloggers for any press at all.
So if the only thing H$M had to trade on was their allure, connections and public good will, uh oh. I am Camp Dead Broke and Desperate.
Nelo said...
@LT Nyota Uhura, the Kylie is a billionaire narrative which her PR paid Forbes to push is a lie. As we speak, COTY, the company that bought 51 percent shares of Kylie's company for 600m has put the entire deal on hold after they discovered that Kris Jenner inflated the worth of the company. The company is already filing legal papers to get back their 600m because Kylie's company is not even worth 500m.
This information is in public domain but the PR machine of the Kardashians are pulling the stops to ensure it doesn't go viral. But I can tell you for free that Kylie isn't worth 400m not to talk of 1b. Don't forget that Forbes had to put a disclaimer saying they couldn't authenticate Kylie's actual net worth.
If you want to appear on Forbes rich list, just pay the right amount to the magazine and you will be featured.
Remember Wilbur Ross, one of Trump's cabinet members who has always appeared on Forbes billionaire list for years? How did he do it? Lolol.
It was just last year that it was discovered that he was actually just worth about 350 to 400m and not the 4billion that he claimed to have. Lol.
Anyone can appear on Forbes rich list if you have the right PR machine behind you.
REMEMBER when Cardi B said that many celebrities aren't as rich as they claim? She is right. Many celebrities inflate their net worth just like Meg inflated hers and said she was worth 5m. A person who is worth 5m US dollars should own a house in Canada. But Meg has no assets to her name. Not even a two bedroom. Yet we are to believe she was worth 5m? Story.
____________________________________________
Sorry, should have clarified that I believe it to be true about inflated incomes (makes a wannabe star, or even established stars, look better) -- but what I agreed with was this part --
"Point being, even if Harry has 20M and Meghan 5M and Charles is good for 3M per year it's not enough to launch an endeavor that will need a slew of experts from lawyers to accountants, and capital to start manufacturing their hats and tshirts. Not to mention the lifestyle they feel they deserve."
Everything these two touch imploded, the fashion line, the Vogue cover, the documentary, Harry's 8nterview with "Greta" the Elephant movie, sussexRoyal and now Archewll. Even the weddindvdress designer got fired. Wow. It is an embarrassment of riches. So, I am Camp Dead Broke and Desperate. I believe their PR team consists of Meghan thst Scoobie Do chap with the tragic eyebrows."
-------------------------------
Thanks for pointing out the difference.
LOL
Neither you nor I are privy to RF money & how it’s disbursed.
Forbes has devolved into a mega-blog with many contributors. Far different than the Old Forbes mag. Which I understand was sold by Forbes family to Asian investors in 2013 for about 300 million, an out of bounds valuation.
More on Forbes-
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/business/dealbook/forbes-sues-integrated-whale-media-over-deal.html
Even when King Edward abdicated, he wasn't given multi millions and there was no millions tied up anywhere for him. He was just given a few millions and a house was got for him by King George. Even Wallis was paid some stipends. Eventually they couldn't live the luxurious life they felt they deserved as the money eventually ran out. Both of them ended up bitter and full of resentment.
Why did Andrew become a sleazeball cutting deals with despots all over the world if he was really a multi millionaire? Why did Peter have to do adverts for Chinese companies to get money to pay for his divorce is his mother Anne was a multi millionaire princess or if his mother had millions tied up for him somewhere? Why do you assume that of all the royals, only Harry has millions somewhere?
Why wouldn’t I ?
They can't have multi millions tied up somewhere and won't dip into it to hire enough staff to at least ensure that they buy domain names.
Just watch out the value of the house they will end up buying of they even buy at all. It won't be more than 3m cos they can't afford any 10 or 15m dollar house.
*sigh. I googled Archewell global
Even spell check hates that name
Oh, I thought it was deliberate and delightfully droll. It's certainly more pronounceable!
Question, is it possible that they are overestimating their security detail needs? I really have no idea, have never lived in California, but do they really need $20 million / year for security?
I really hope PC practices some tough love in this matter and NOT quietly cover their bills. He won't of course as it would embarrass the Royal Family to have the Harkles financial situation made public (the uses and abuses of money given to them, money they did not earn). Unfortunately, it would make PC seem weak and would have some questioning if he really is fit to be king
archewellcharity.uk
Goes to: “You are a smelly pirate hooker” on YouTube.
Royal Foibles said years ago before Meghan came on the scene that Harry had some serious mental health issues.
While it might be fun to paint Meghan as the villain in all of this, Harry is not a victim.
This is not to say that Meghan isn't a shallow, self absorbed person, but Harry has a lot of his own problems which revolves about finding his place in the world. He is doing a lousy job without the assistance of the palace making mistakes e.g. the "Greta" phone call.
Meghan is no Kris Jenner in terms of management and entrepreneurial skills.
Just saw several photos of MM on Twitter wearing the EXACT SAME clothing as Ivanka Trump. Not similar, but the exact piece. She has a lot of nerve being so critical about her father!
Question, is it possible that they are overestimating their security detail needs? I really have no idea, have never lived in California, but do they really need $20 million / year for security?
______________________________________
I can't speak to Markle copying Ivanka Trump (tho' I'm not surprised in the slightest -- Markle seems to have even copied Princess Angela of Lichtenstein's wedding dress!
Personally speaking, I saw a montage of Markle photos of her laughing, and I'm d**ned if she didn't look like she was trying to copy the Duchess of Cambridge!
As far as security goes, I'm no expert by any stretch -- but just offhand, assuming round-the-clock staffing, at least 2 agents per shift, paid 5 or 6 figures, plus expenses, housing allowance, etc., could run into some bucks. I wonder if any other Nuttier knows the breakdown?
I think this has gone a bit too far. They have made their point about Markle, there is no need to descend into personal insults. They risk turning her into victim and generating sympathy for her instead. They also risk giving credit to her accusations of making her the victim of hate and racism.
If it goes further I can almost believe they did it themselves to generate sympathy and turn the tide.
Before H&M could not point to genuine nasty criticism of them. Now they have it. I'm suspicious because this comes on the heels of their graffiti art. It looks like they are shifting gears with their PR.
However, I think it was made
when they were still using RPOs in Canada. And it was in £ not $.
RPOs served on two-week rotating shifts in Canada. So they had to be flown back and forth to the UK, housed in Canada, and fed in Canada just as any business would do for employees engaging in business travel. So that added costs. A "locally hired" team may not have all those additional costs on a regular basis just as RPOs serving in the UK don't.
Also, the estimate covered periods where H&M traveled separately from each other and Archie was left in Canada. More agents are needed if the 3 of them are in different countries/places. That will continue to be true. Last (and this is still true too) security is needed at any house they own, rent, or squat in even when they aren't there. So Frogmore is supposedly being guarded 24/7, for example.
Seems it could be quite pricey, particularly if they continue to scatter in 3 directions. Not sure about 20mil/year (£ or $) though.
@Nutty! this post will give us all something to ponder.
I'm going to start my comments with IMO, because of course, I have no idea. I'm going to give my where/what/how bit some time, but I did skim the comments above and have worked extensively in trust (though mostly business not personal - big differences, same concepts). Also, I do not work in GB nor know the law of it, but there is significant similarity. On the surface, in the UK as in the US, it appears that the trust can be established by the settlor (in this case, Diana and The Queen Mother) with the trustee for the beneficiary in any manner that the settlor requests, as long as it is legal.
In personal trust, in GB and in the US, the trustees in personal trust have fiduciary duty, and they must act as the settlor directed and in the best interest of the beneficiary. "Best interest" does not mean doing whatever the beneficiary asks. In fact, personal trusts are often set up to protect the beneficiary from themselves. There are still ways to get cash out in advance, but most of those would be ill-advised.
Here is some basic info on trusts, in case anyone is interested: https://www.inbrief.co.uk/estate-law/special-duties-of-trustees/.
The settlor can structure the trust in any legal way. Monies are not necessarily distributed when someone becomes an adult. I have checked several sources, and it looks like (repeat, looks like) that Diana made sure her second son did not have full access to the money until he was at least 30.
Here's one quote that I found several places:
According to Forbes, Princess Diana reportedly left both Prince William and Prince Harry $10 million after taxes, and they started receiving annual dividends at age 25 to the tune of $450,000 a year.
There are various accounts online about when the trust became available. This says at age 30:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trialandheirs/2014/09/16/as-remainder-of-princess-dianas-estate-passes-to-harry-troubling-questions-remain/#1c9a2cc15f05
Other sources state that he's still receiving trust interest and the principal remains. I just don't know.
If he did get the principal at age 30, then it would be interesting to know what Harry did with it then. It's hard to imagine he spent it all on strippers and sex on the beach shots, but anything is possible. I'd imagine that he transferred it to another sensible financial vehicle.
The QM's trust pays out twice, it seems. Once at 21, once at 40.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/apr/03/queenmother.monarchy2
Rache has to hold on for another 5 years to get an amount that wouldn't pay her security for one year. I don't see her being impressed with a few million, not a duchess of her stature and abilities ... (oh, wait...)
This is a nice analysis of the Malibu Dumbartons' financial options, and it was written pre-dissolution when Sussex Royal still seemed an option:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/meghan-and-harry-are-already-raising-red-flags-say-financial-advisers-who-counsel-wealthy-families-2020-01-24
My own experience with very rich people is that those who worked hard for their money are able to keep it, especially when the money was a by-product of doing what they love. The money was never the reason. TFKs tend to have a rougher go. If the whole family is inherited wealth, then the whole "where the money comes from" bit has always been a given, and no one really gets it. First generation TFKs seem to have the toughest bit because often their parent(s) made the money the hard way, and the TFK lives in the shadow of the uber-successful. So, that's just personal experience, don't know that it's worth much, but I have enough interaction with all of the above to have found my generalizations to be true. They could also be complete biased schlock lol.
As for the Statute of Uses, that seems to be a moot point, but again, this is only google talking:
The whole Act was declared, by section 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Law of Property (Amendment) Act 1924, to have been repealed by the Law of Property Act 1922.
The whole Act was repealed by section 207 of, and Schedule 7 to, the Law of Property Act 1925. The repeal of the Statutes of Uses did not affect the operation thereof in regard to dealings taking effect before the commencement of the Law of Property Act 1925.[26]
The Statute of Uses is still valid law in Canada.
So, how much the Duke of Malibu has cash on hand, beats me. He has always been frugal, and I could see money being the breaking point between the two of them. I don't think she's the "mend her cashmere" type, and I don't think Harry has a clue about money, but I do think his reputation of being cheap might have some basis in fact.
The Duchess of Sussex will be deservedly slammed if she takes £1 million to give a “warts-and-all” tell-everything interview on ‘Oprah’ suggests Matthew Steeples.
https://www.thesteepletimes.com/editorial/a-million-for-moolah-minded-megain/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-offered-1m-tell-21849085
I have a question, and does anybody know the answer to this - Why is Meghan calling herself Duchess of Sussex, as she is American, and not a British or Commonwealth citizen? Angelina Jolie was awarded a Damehood from the Queen, but is she called Dame Jolie? Bill Gates, Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower and George H. W. Bush were also knighted by the Queen, but none of them call or called themselves Sir whomever in the world. It is just an honor for Americans, not a title. Can you imagine Bill Gates calling himself Sir Bill Gates? He would be mocked and laughed at by everybody, especially if his wife called herself Lady Melinda Gates. Why is Meghan calling herself a Duchess in the United States? Americans are not allowed to have a foreign title, by the way.
And as for the $1m tell-all interview offer, I'm guessing MM put that out there to shop it, that $1m is her price. She's so desperate for money she'd take only 1m because they're so deep in debt already. Bargain basement price, yeah? Seems lower than what she had been dropping/shopping/threatening the RF with before. Anything for a few bucks to skate by on the thin ice of a new day. Plus, once she does it, it's out there, that is the end of that particular revenue stream. It's a one and done kind of thing. To me, everything points to them being broke and heavily in debt-the Japanese/Asian commercials, couch surfing, strangely still haven't bought any kind of property after all this time, etc. Desperation (and faking it til you make it) has a certain pong to it.
I hope everyone is well! Thank you for your wonderful posts, Nutty, and the great comments from the gang. I do enjoy reading them.
"Americans are not allowed to have a foreign title, by the way."
That's not quite true. Naturalized citizens (like Harry would be IF he wanted to become a US citizen) must give up foreign titles and allegiance to foreign countries but those who are already citizens by birth like M may accept them unless they hold certain public offices. In those cases, approval of Congress is required. (Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution)
There was a "Titles of Nobility Amendment” passed by the Senate and House in 1812 that would have stripped ANY American of citizenship for accepting a foreign title without congressional approval. But amending the Constitution, in addition to 2/3 votes of approval by both houses of Congress, also requires ratification by 2/3 of the states' legislatures. That never happened.
So M can call herself anything she wants to.
What exactly is she going to say that she hasn't said before? Racism? She has said it? What else?
Oftentimes when money is placed in a trust, it is invested for years, not months. Long-term buy-in and a substantial sum will earn a sweeter rate. It's likely the money was placed in a variety of investment vehicles with varying degrees of risk (but not too risky, because fiduciary duty), but of course, I've no idea.
It looks like the trust was paying about 4.5% annually between their 25-30 year birthdays. Of course, the entire amount had been earning interest for the many years prior (11 for Wills, 13 for Harry?, is that correct?), so depending on the trust language, there could have been a tidy sum to reinvest and interest paid only on total principal at the time. There are many ways to word and structure it.
It's impossible to say without a deep dive into the document details (for example, accrued/arrears/interest calculation method/on which sum, etc.) can vary greatly and make a big difference. For ex, if I only receive interest on the original principal of $10M and all investment income prior to my first disbursement is held in the account for future investment, that's a vastly different payout than if I'm receiving interest on the original principal and all investment earnings to that point. I've also seen trust documents that allowed for a payout on a certain birthday IF specified conditions and goals are met. Otherwise, no. The one thing we can be sure of is that this is not just a straight-line interest calculation based on today's rates and assumptions. I know from recent professional experience that there are bonds still paying out at 14% interest rates because they've not been refunded/reissued. There are old investment agreements paying at 8% because LT agreement. To assume everything in today's dollars with a flat $10M is probably not a solid starting point.
Nelo: good point about what does she have left to sell to the public?
Just about anything else might put her at risk or that she is somehow "involved" - if she mentions drug use, Archie was by surrogate - which are things that most would really like to know about.
Unless she throws JH under the bus? It's all him and this is all because of his problems.
Thank you for your answer. I ind it hysterically funny that a two-bit American actress, married to a minor prince for a year and a half, calls herself Duchess. Yes, she can call herself Duchess. My next door neighbor’s dog is called Duchess. But Duchess Dog is very loyal, never runs away, and is very friendly and happy. Duchess Dog has been with our neighbors for seven years, too.
Elle, your comments about the trusts, investments diversified, long term outlook and so on jives with my exposure to working around trusts as well. I knew someone who managed 3 trusts for a while (theirs and for 2 others) and there were problems with the spouses of the 2 other beneficiaries demanding money, knowledge. That trustee finally gave up trusteeship for the 2 they were not a beneficiary and the next listed trustee (back up according to the trusts) was more compliant with the beneficiaries demands.
I rarely speak with certainty, and I always qualify my answers, but this is one area where I've been paid well in a niche role for years, so I feel like my comments are ballparkable. If it moves, I've read/reviewed it lol. My biggest claim to fame is that I managed to stay awake during most of it (it's kinda dry).
Also, I just did a quick straight-line calculation ($10M, invested at 4.5% annually, first interest payment 1999 and reinvested annually (P&I, same rate). Payouts beginning for Wills in 2007, Harry 2010. That interest adds up. And I feel like 4.5% was a conservative number b/c, as I said, this could've been tied in at a much higher rate. It's just a starting point to see the money grow, but I can see various scenarios with how it was paid out, and I would assume that both Wills and Harry just rolled it over into some other investment vehicle since, until now, they've not really needed the money.
Either way, Rache can't get her hands on what The Duke had before marriage, but commingling of funds can really FUBAR him, so hopefully, there are some advisors out there with a realistic strategy for the future, and by that I mean, when the gold digger swoops in to grift her share at the divorce. If the frugal stories re JCMH are true, then he's probably reluctant to tap the principal.
I posted previously (twice - by accident - deleted first for all the typos but not soon enough before it was reposted). Any hoot, I commented on why I think H$M are broke and desperate. Now, there's all this talk about Meghan floating a tell-all interview for 1M which would carry them for about a month. So it seems blackmail may be her last resort. So all you smart Nutties, what do you make of this? Just a threat for more royal cash, last ditch before divorce? I've got to believe whatever she gleaned over the past few years can't compare to what they have on her.
______________________________________________
My first thought was "only a million?" as well.
I am convinced MI6 has everything on her, probably our own FBI as well. I wouldn't think she'd dare even float such a bluff, but this is Markle *shrug*.
My opinion is even mentioning such a thing is another shovelful of dirt on her public image grave. Going through with it sends a bad message to anyone who might want to hire her after the coronavirus crisis. (Not that they were lining up beforehand!) Who's to say she wouldn't "tell all" on future employers?
She must be getting pretty desperate.
Another redirect from
archewellcharity.uk
Goes to: “You are a smelly pirate hooker” on YouTube.
Thanks for this! It’s even better than Gold Digger. LOL.
The second issue is that, although he is being mocked and he is not as admired and loved as he was, Harry is the one people are really interested in. Meghan is just a 'not very talented ageing was an actress who played a minor role in a cable TV series (moderately successful) and who married a prince and then messed it up'. Harry is the one who was charismatic, who 'had everything', including influence and a huge presence in major charitable endeavours ... and then threw it all away, including his family and country, and dissed the Queen of the UK and Commonwealth realms, for a trashy ambitious second-rate actress, and ended up aimless and living in LA. Meghan wants the interview to be all about her, to set her up, but it is Harry people want. She will have to share the limelight with Harry and play act 'the greatest love story ever told', yet again.
I can't see Meghan agreeing to such a small fee as one million dollars and whatever fee she gets will not fund her lifestyle. Harry will want to donate the money and since Meghan does not actually have a cause or organisation with which she is linked, who does she give the money to? (The Disney money went to the organisation that Disney was going to give it to anyway - Elephants Without Borders, as they assisted in the making of the movie - gave Disney access to the elephants.) Meghan not only wants the money for herself, but she wants far more than one million dollars AND she wants some kind of deal that takes her into the future to come from the interview (a big merching deal or a big advertising campaign or a TV talk show ...).
So, in my opinion, Meghan wants to do the interview (and of course the leak comes from her as she talks and talks to whoever) but the three issues described above are stalling the big production. This is the perfect time - with CORONA-19 lockdown, she has a huge captive audience, but I think it is highly likely that she will miss the boat, ruin the moment, mess it up!
It will be interesting to see where they will be in a year's time, when the novelty of his "freedom" wears off and the reality of LA living sinks in and MM realises she is not as hot as she thinks she is and the projects she expected to happen haven't materialised. The reality of how much money they actually need to survive will become apparent to them both as well.
Yes, the one year mark is going to be the most telling.
The BRF has agreed to a one-year review (unfortunately). How did H & M think the review would go? I'm sure they thought they would make tons of money and behave themselves and would earn the right to use HRH freely.
How did the BRF think the one-year would go? They probably thought that H & M would make a lot of money, and if they did that tastefully and without exploiting the royal-connection, then they would be free to carry on. No HRH, no part-time royal role.
Neither party counted on COVID-19 or even considered that the twosome wouldn't be getting any offers and that the Sussexes would have the same net worth as me in 2021.
So, the one year review will be very, very interesting. I expect that out of concern for Harry and Archie's security, and out of a desperate need to ensure the Sussexes don't become like Tori Spelling and family (excellent comparison xxxxx!), Charles will continue to fund them. They will forever be pathetic.
While I think she'd want more than a million, I don't think she'd do it just for the money. Rather she'd do it because she thinks she's always right. I think she'd like to directly tell "her side" and trash anyone and everyone in the RF she thinks has done her wrong. (We got a bit of that with the Africa interview and with their published manifestos, after all.) And that likely means trashing everybody with the possible exception of Lady Louise and her brother, James.
Who wouldn't want to hear about how a barely 3 years old bridesmaid was a brat at a dress fitting threatening to ruin M's big day? Who wouldn't want to hear about recalcitrant staff who resented getting 5am texts? Who wouldn't want to hear that every possible desire of a second/third time bride wasn't completely satisfied at the £30million+ wedding she was gifted? Who wouldn't want to hear about a recently pregnant sister-in-law who failed to offer needed "support" at the drop of a hat? Or how the sister of the sister-in-law didn't quickly supply an invitation to her wedding? Or a 90+ year old grandmother-in-law who holds "unreasonable" expectations about proper dress? Who among us wouldn't cry right along with her if she related how hard it was to read mean stories about her messy bun hairstyle while living a life filled with private jets, chauffered cars, and exotic vacations? Who wouldn't want to hear M trash an entire country?
M thinks she's a great actress and a sympathetic character. I expect she thinks telling all would solidify her spot in the woke world of Hollywood. And maybe it would for all I know. That's a foreign world to me.
Still, she managed to live in the UK for barely two years, with about 18 months of that time married to Harry. That's just not enough time to show she "gave it her all" IMO. It also doesn't do much for her image as a "citizen of the world" if she can't understand and doesn't respect cultural differences. And the timeline is hardly on par with Diana's interview after 15 years of marriage. (It's not as though that interview did Diana much good either.)
Floating the story now may be intended as blackmail but I do think she'd love to be paid to "give her side." If I were the RF I'd let her do it. Giving into more blackmail is a bad idea.
Somehow I can hear the Palace all the way across the pond going into overdrive about this. Certainly HM the Queen will not be amused. Maybe even Prince Charles will finally grow a set. (I know, that's mean. But IMO he let this go on too long.)
IMO x 2, Harry is teetering on the brink of a mental breakdown. He doesn't have any drinking buddies in LA, for one thing. For another, he never was very sharp to begin with. Trotting him out on the TV circuit is different from royal engagements.
I see your point about the excessive trolling via phony Archewell accounts.
But the Will Ferrell clip had me in stitches. Who can resist Anchor Man? Well, maybe it’s just me...
Blind Item #7
The alliterate former actress has the best, if not the best team you could hire in town. Apparently though she has sent word out through her media mouthpiece to the north that she isn't happy with them. Why? No one wants to hire her at the rate she thinks she deserves. No one wants to hire her for the projects she thinks she deserves. Her demands are much higher than reality. Oh, and as a side note. Since she can't use the title any longer, the movie studio asked if she wanted to change the name under which she is credited. She said of course not and that is who she is even if she "can't use" it any longer
The title was not something awarded to her by the Queen on her own merits ... she has the title because she is married to Harry, who was awarded the title. Wallis Simpson was Duchess of Windsor because she was married to David, who was given the title Duke of Windsor.
I think that American citizens can use titles awarded to them or acquired through marriage but not if they choose to be elected to public office? It has no power or influence in the USA (the title) other than social value. Whatever Angeline Jolie may be, she is not a socialite, nor are Bill Gates, and so on,so they probably could use the title if they wanted to but it does not have any value for them at all as Americans and they only accepted the awards and titles that went with them out of respect for the Queen. Perhaps an American could refute or affirm?
I find that there are two kinds of people: those who use honorary titles (e.g. an honorary doctorate awarded by a university) and those who never do (and there even have been people with integrity who have refused to accept an honorary degree).
It sounds like MM is crashing down to earth. To me, these are the delusions of grandeur of a narcissist.
https://my-instastalker.com/instagram/archewellglobal
"I have read several stories that claim QE will leave $15 million to Harry after her death. $10 million to William. $5million to Bea and Eugenie...."
To me that story sounds like a rehashed variant of "Harry is the Queen's favorite." Did the article suggest she'd leave nothing to Peter and Zara? Nothing to Louise and James? I don't doubt you read it but I think it's BS. Palace sources leak but I don't buy this as reliable insider info.
Her Maj is stepping up to a leadership role in the time of coronavirus. Her audio Easter message (the first ever) ...
…. The article claimed it was to make sure the spare was taken care of.
__________________________
Princess Charlotte is now the spare, if I'm not mistaken, and Prince Louis after her.
Regarding how much money Harry had or has, he’s not managing it himself and he’s not responsible for his own finances. He may not even know how much he has, since paying for things is always somebody else’s problem. I don’t think he’s frugal, I think he’s enormously entitled and spends a lot of time with people who rush to pay the dinner check, comp his drinks, or lend him a car.
If I had brokered Megxit, I would have provided unlimited funding in exchange for retaining the right to manage Harry’s personal finances. They get 12 months, then they’re own their own with what they can earn or take from Harry’s inheritances. This time is very obviously a bit Meghan establishing herself as a money earner and not at all about Harry finding gainful occupation.
https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/the-signs-that-signal-you-are-too-obsessed-with-making-money-now
So, okay, this particular link is funny and harmless. Smelly pirate hooker is not as amusing IMO and just seems meaner, and I don't want Rache to get any traction out of victim.
...
Regarding how much money Harry had or has, he’s not managing it himself and he’s not responsible for his own finances. He may not even know how much he has, since paying for things is always somebody else’s problem. I don’t think he’s frugal, I think he’s enormously entitled and spends a lot of time with people who rush to pay the dinner check, comp his drinks, or lend him a car.
_____________________________________
This is exactly what I've thought since the "Fab 3 Days" (William, Catherine and Harry). Since his days at Eton, he was a party animal and is still one to this day, IMO. As long as the money was coming in, he couldn't care less.
I think he truly thought that he could do whatever he wanted and *pretend* it served Royal Family values -- chafing all the while against those *meanies* who expected him to serve the British people. Once Markle came along, voila! The exit door! (Didn't hurt that she schmoozed him but good, *wink-wink*)
Well, a *real* exit door requires planning. I don't think Harry has planned much more than 5 minutes ahead -- same with Markle, except I'll give her a week or so.
The pair of them are a couple of dysfunctional babies expecting mama's teat to always be there. It is both disgusting and sad.
Ouch, even someone whose earned a Ph.D from Oxbridge or even M.I.T? I have a family member who has earned their Ph.D from Oxbridge, they use it (or when required). Anyone who has an honorary one, well that’s a different matter entirely, it’s not even worth the paper it’s written on. We know ole Megsy wouldn’t pass it up.
She had to give up her title when she remarried (and as far as I know applies to all divorcees who marry and gain a title through marriage). Even though the very short marriage was a disaster I don’t think she can still call herself Countess anymore.
Great posts, thanks very much for the financial analysis.
I find that stuff fascinating and like you am always amazed that people don't understand the power of compound interest (in the same way people don't understand the power of compound inflation but that's another story).
I actually own some of those mythical beasts aka bonds with a high % payout, mine are at about 9%. It's realistic that bonds such as these and earnings on properties/dividends etc would earn far morw than 4.5% per year as you've mentioned. And it's also not clear what income tax is paid by lower Royals (the Queen only volunteered to start paying this quite recently).
Due to historic returns and yield based on assets bought years ago, with little to no income tax, I think it's safe to say that the yield would be approx 8% per year.
Compound that by 10 years and you're looking at almost double the money. Harry is not short of cash, and as I have mentioned many times before, the RF are extremely secretive about their wealth with good reason. If they say they're worth x amount then it's safe to assume they're worth MUCH more. Don't want to annoy us peasants too much...
I loved today's CDAN. She does have a very high opinion of herself. And she definitely thinks she is a better actress than she is. I mean, she's terrible. I've said it before, if after 7 years as a supporting character in a C+/B- cable show you don't land a better role, even once - it's not going to happen. And you really are quite terrible.
As far as though wealth estimates ago, I've always thought they were high. $5mil for Meghan meant that's how much she would've made in her life, not including expenses. Clearly, she was spending money on clothes, travel, and PR even way back when. Sure, some of her yachtings would've had expenses included, but still. I'm sure she mooched off her husband and her previous boyfriend, but she's an expensive, materialistic lady.
As for Harry, I think it's hard to know whether his money is untouchable to him or not. I would think it had an age limit like others have mentioned. But he is 35. I would think he has full access or near full access at this point. At one point I heard he was worth $35mil. That has always seemed excessive. But he also courted Meghan for about a year right? That's a lot of private jets back and forth, to Africa. Staying in secluded lodges, etc. That's all very pricey and something he'd have to pay for out of pocket. All the private jets add up.
I would say they are "borrowing" houses, no rent. Maybe that's one reason they had to leave Canada. They overstayed their 6-week break and weren't paying rent and the owner got mad. Who knows. I do know one reason rich people stay rich is that they are cheap as hell.
As far as her title, it means NOTHING here in America. She can be the Princess of Dog Shit and it would mean more. She might legally be allowed to "have" it, but it means nothing. We don't honor them, we don't recognize them, we don't care. No one needs to curtsy or call her ma'am or anything else. Her status in America hasn't changed at all.
In the matter of Diana's Will probate documents are public court records and may be viewed by anyone although Diana's executors did vary her will.
"Oftentimes when money is placed in a trust, it is invested for years, not months. Long-term buy-in and a substantial sum will earn a sweeter rate. It's likely the money was placed in a variety of investment vehicles with varying degrees of risk (but not too risky, because fiduciary duty), but of course, I've no idea.
It looks like the trust was paying about 4.5% annually between their 25-30 year birthdays."
It was explained to me by my brother, a financial planner in Southeast, that it would be highly unlikely for a trust to have been earning 4.5% Annual percentage yield (APY) due to the fact (in laymen's terms) most trusts need to have stable very conservative vehicles for investment not only to ensure growth but to prevent volatility (especially protect against loss). If you look up now even during excellent growth in the US economy (before Covid-19) you might get 1.65-1.85% APY. In addition there are fees associated with managing trusts and they can be not necessarily insignificant especially to a member of the BRF. So the ROI has to be considered depending on the specific monetary vehicle used.
Snippy wrote this, not me "In my experience even people with an earned doctorate don’t use the “Dr.” prefix even though they could. It’s considered pretentious to use it unless you are an actual M.D."
My reply to Snippy was underneath the above comment.
Sorry. I'll try to delete.
Apologies if someone posted earlier, I've been quarantine busy today (for a change)...
https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2020/04/blind-item-7_11.html
As soon as I figure out how to make an account or a replacement name here, I will. But in the mean time, you may call me BG, for BlondeGator. I'm new here, but loving your fabulous site.
I think the links have gone far enough. At some point it becomes piling on and plays right into her narrative.
Title after divorce: I though that the divorced wife of the Earl of XXXXX, may properly style herself, Daphne, Countess of XXXX. If she remarries, I believe she then loses the title. The Earl’s (current) wife would call herself “The” Countess of XXXX.
Someone from England: Please tell us which is correct.
"Bill Cosby was awarded an honorary “Doctorate.” He always insisted that people refer to him as “Dr. Cosby.” The University took back the title when he finally was arrested for raping women."
Bill Cosby's honorary degrees (think he had 60 or so) were rescinded by many different universities after his conviction on sexual assault charges. But he's still Dr. Cosby. He earned an Ed.D. from the University of Massachusetts in 1977.https://people.com/archive/that-doctorate-after-bill-cosbys-name-is-no-honorary-freebie-vol-7-no-22/
He has never been proven right especially when it comes to the Sussexes unlike blind gossip. Enty himself has admitted that he doesn't have Sussex sources, so take any Sussex blind from him with a pinch of salt.
I'd also add that there are non-taxable vehicles that could potentially benefit the guys. One does not need to be a US Citizen to invest in US debt (hello, China, step right up). I could also talk about issuances and trends I've seen, but I do not want to make life more unpleasant and boring for all of us.
I agree about interest calculations, too - but I have friends who ask me to do simple calculations for them all the time. I've worked with people who didn't understand the various interest calculation methods, too. It can make all the difference. I don't mind helping or explaining with those things because there are some things I cannot do to save my own life, so trade off. I hate when they ask for legal advice, however, because I can't do that, and explaining why is painful.
People often think that fiduciary responsibility means "the most conservative", but it does not. It means both ethical and legal, and to make the best choice for one's client within those parameters. As an example, investing in a 2% savings account rate at a local credit union when the market rate on AAA bonds is higher would not be responsible. Trusts allows for investments within a specific framework of risk, and that risk is laid out in the documents. In fact, many trusts (and any decent one) will outline potential types of investments allowed and not allowed. Pretty much high-risk hedge funds are off the table, but long-term GICs, or bonds with great rates, etc., not a big risk, depending on the ratings, etc. Some will even spread the action over risk categories, hoping to take advantage of a sweet market but keep the stodgy stuff. It's why one must read the documents and know the client's intentions.
Anyway, thank you, Bootsy, for sharing your experience. I rarely speak with certainty, and I always check my facts (I even looked at interest rate trends), but I do have a lot of experience and have been paid against my will to do "one more" project lol.
Honorary degrees are a great honor, as they recognize someone’s outstanding achievement.
Stay healthy!
@Flooper, I'm not going to argue with you. I will simply refer you to the interest rates available for substantial sums of money between 1997 to date. I know what was what. And I did not choose the $450,000 paid to Wills and Harry; that was from an article I cited. Simple math, 10M and $450,000, 4.5%. Also, I do not know you, and because you have not been here long and we have had issues in the past with anonymous Nuttiers and Nuttiers using multiple handles, I make it a policy not to engage with Nuttiers I don't "know". The only reason I'm responding now is because this is one area where I've worked extensively, and I did not just go ask my brother. I have the receipts. Thanks, and have a great weekend. Cheers, Elle
I have been a long time lurker and have rarely posted. I am sorry you seem to frame things arguing just because someone has different facts. I am so sorry you don't accept my facts while others can have opinions but you accept them. I happened to have set up an Irrevocable trust for my daughter so I benefited from my brother's expertise; earned quite the tidy sum when she turned 21. He/we did something right as she obtained an $800,000 just a couple years later (quite the receipts as you say.) Toodles, F
So maybe with their move he will be more accurate?
In an often crazy world, Meghan Markle provides much needed comic relief https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/in_an_often_crazy_world_meghan_markle_provides_muchneeded_comic_relief.html#.XpJZ7SKT3p4.twitter
An anon summed up all the trolling of the archiewell 'brand' ...
So far they've connected to the golddigger video, the Queen's speech, a ransom note, the direnstrait song money for nothing, a site for people whose partners obsessively sp me money, 10 signs of narcissism and a person imitating Meghan as well as Sussex royal and the Dixie Chicks gaslighting. Is that it?
I read that it also re-directed to a Covid help line??
Happy Easter Everyone
What else to do in the time of lockdown?
An anon summed up all the trolling of the archiewell 'brand' ...
So far they've connected to the golddigger video, the Queen's speech, a ransom note, the direnstrait song money for nothing, a site for people whose partners obsessively sp me money, 10 signs of narcissism and a person imitating Meghan as well as Sussex royal and the Dixie Chicks gaslighting. Is that it?
______________________________________
I hope not!
I know others have tutted about too many misdirections, worried that it may turn the tide in Markle's favor -- I argue that she is well past any tide turning, no matter how brilliant her PR team may be. Too much lipstick on a pig. Hardly anyone reads the gushing sugar mags. Stick a fork in her. She's done. Everyone with any sense knows it.
Meanwhile, I am laughing my head off at the equal brilliance of the misdirectors -- and schadenfreude-wise, the best of it is, I just know Markle is spitting nails, *grin*
Sorry not sorry … ;)
Okay … tomorrow is Easter, when Jesus rose from the dead after paying for our sins on the Cross, with the promise that "whosoever believes in Me shall not die." I believe this with my whole heart. I will have to spend a good deal of time from now on to ask forgiveness for this ill will I feel toward the Harkles, who, after all, will pass away someday the same as us all.
I'll also pray that those two don't do any more damage to the Royal Family, an institution that has lasted for more than 1,000 years and gave the world the Magna Charta, which laid the foundation for the fundamental rights of man- and woman-kind -- and paved the way for the Enlightenment, which gave us so many scientific discoveries and the most beautiful poetry ever written.
A blessed Easter, all, or Passover, another miracle given by God.
Dear Terry Wogan was given an honorary knighthood but when he became a dual Irish/UK citizen it became a substantive one. Alastair Cooke (BBC, `Letter from America') was born British but relinquished it to be American - he got an honorary one only.
Barons are almost at the bottom of the Peerage (Life peers are also called `barons' - less said about that the better, IMO) Generally they are just referred to as `lord' as in Lord Montagu or Lord Clinton.
As for Megsy, as Wallis was formerly known as Duchess of Windsor (but not HRH altho' hubby kept this handle) I suppose it's OK, until she remarries (God willing). Fergie's still a duchess, but not HRH.
OTOH, thespians here stick to their stage names in billings, altho’ others may refer to them using the honour.
For instance, we may refer to Dame Judi Dench and Sir Michael Hordern but on the cast list or on posters they’d be plain Judi Dench & Michael Hordern.
Did MM change her official stage name for the Disney doc? Whether she did or not, she couldn’t even get that right – either `(First name), Duchess of Loamshire… ‘) or `The Duchess of Loamshire’. Name or definite article, not both.
"an institution that has lasted for more than 1,000 years and gave the world the Magna Charta, which laid the foundation for the fundamental rights of man- and woman-kind -- and paved the way for the Enlightenment, which gave us so many scientific discoveries and the most beautiful poetry ever written."
I used to admire the Queen but now I am beginning to wonder if the BRF is suffering from some retribution for things the family didn't do right by people in the past. I am not saying the UK public because they are great. However. I don't believe in karma but maybe there is some other force that has brought about scrutiny and comeuppance for how certain wives have been treated thru the ages (no sympathy for Meg in my book however) and for the sins of certain royals (including Harry). I have faith in William and Catherine but I hate to see that Camilla is rewarded for being the other 'woman' with the ultimate honor, spouse to the King of England. *sigh* *eye roll*
@Lt. Nyota Uhura,
"an institution that has lasted for more than 1,000 years and gave the world the Magna Charta, which laid the foundation for the fundamental rights of man- and woman-kind -- and paved the way for the Enlightenment, which gave us so many scientific discoveries and the most beautiful poetry ever written."
I used to admire the Queen but now I am beginning to wonder if the BRF is suffering from some retribution for things the family didn't do right by people in the past. I am not saying the UK public because they are great. However. I don't believe in karma but maybe there is some other force that has brought about scrutiny and comeuppance for how certain wives have been treated thru the ages (no sympathy for Meg in my book however) and for the sins of certain royals (including Harry). I have faith in William and Catherine but I hate to see that Camilla is rewarded for being the other 'woman' with the ultimate honor, spouse to the King of England. *sigh* *eye roll*
_____________________________________________________
@Flooper --
You bring up an interesting argument --"I used to admire the Queen but now I am beginning to wonder if the BRF is suffering from some retribution for things the family didn't do right by people in the past."
Actually, some of the things the Royal Family have done in the past 1,000 years have been -- well, pretty bad.
Including nowadays, though nowadays, they don't cut off people's heads, thankfully :)
------------------------------
I think we are lucky that the only things to worry about the monarchy are loony Harry and his manipulative wife. It was far, far worse in history.
Which kind of is the point. We have gotten to the point where the monarchy ought to represent the best of Britain, and be an ideal to look toward. They may fall a bit short, but they mustn't allow one of their own to up-end the whole thing and threaten to ruin it just because of a pair of dysfunctional babies who never grew up.
They are definitely going to use the virus to cash in like the Clinton's did with their foundation and Haiti.
Just like right now, she doesn’t have the Princess title.
I thought they already made it clear that Camilla will never have the “Queen” title.
_________________________________
I know that in history, the "morganatic" option was available -- but it seems that the Duke of Windsor could not have it. I'm not sure Charles should as well.
if I wasn't certain before, I am now. It is like being stalked, but weirder.
Visually good. No verbiage until the site is complete or rolled out, I guess. I wonder about the logo, however, with the crown on the top. A little much.
Thanks, @elle, I had read your earlier comment.
Speaking of Camilla, in the DM, Camilla has listed her ten favorite books as a way to escape the current climate--from a Charles Dickens classic to a book about elephants that her brother wrote.
I am sure MM is working on her top eleven (not to be outdone by Camilla of course) books to recommend, as we speak! What would be on her list--The Diana biography by Andrew Morton, of course, and THE book about her, Meghan: A Hollywood Princess by Andrew Morton, and perhaps she would include, Wallis in Love by Andrew Morton. I am sure she would try to include HER Vogue issue, not realizing it is a magazine, not a book.
Everything done today has been done before. Everything new was new before. Every generation thinks its ideas are fresh. Every scandal has had one much better yeas ago. I like the oft-used phrase “I do not care what people do in private, as long as they do not do it in public and scare the horses.”
I believe our standards of morality have fallen...for everybody but the very rich, “posh people”, aristocrats and royalty. I personally have no patience with people who think shy Di “Virgin” was innocent in the breakdown of her marriage. I especially dislike people who hate Camilla, without doing the basic Googling and - WOW - finding out that Diana cheated first in her marriage, using the excuse that Churls never loved her, but she forgetting she never loved him, too; Diana made it her goal to go after married men, and personally destroyed at least three marriages; Diana was mentally unstable, probably bi-polar, and if an ordinary citizen, would have been jailed for her stalking of her lovers’ wives, and their children.
Camilla has proven her worth as a future Queen many times over. Frankly, she will be Queen Consort. She is the Princess of Wales, but as she is smart, unlike her predecessor who struggled to be the equivalent of a tenth grade drop out in the United States (and Diana was proud to be such a person) Camilla is sensitive to her husband’s first wife, and frankly, Camilla does not give a damn, and thus is called Duchess of Cornwall, not Princess of Wales. Don’t get me wrong - Diana was physically beautiful; was incredibly media savvy; and most of all, was a hero to people that society shunned, with AIDS sufferers the best known of her courage in helping the sick and shunned.
Camilla is a hero, too, especially for her hard, hands-on work with abused women. She personifies grace under pressure, being able to take the rocks literally thrown at her, the spitting into her face by strangers, and untold misery as the “Rottweiler” Diana named her (Diana later deeply apologized for that remark, and many other lies, too, she spread.). At the end of Diana’s life she and Charles were shedding their 𝐌𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 bitterness, were friendly, and each loved their children and wanted to be happy for their boys’ sake. It has been mentioned by many people that if Charles had a long, friendly relationship with Diana, as William had with Catherine, they might have married and been the “great team.” Diana and Charles apart had differences in tastes, talents, etc.; together, they had no weaknesses, but a true example of missing pieces filled by each other.
Yes, I completely agree with you on Camilla, who has stood up to decades of abuse. For what it is worth, I always liked her, and always thought she and Charles were meant for each other.
It's a sad thing that the Royal Family in those days insisted on following very antiquated traditions of "virgin" brides. I mean, really. As if the previous ones throughout the thousand years were pure …!
In the days when Charles and Camilla fell in love, I am not sure why she and he could not have married. Perhaps some Briton can enlighten.
But, whatever, they both married others, and contravened royal laws. Then they made Charles marry the young Diana.
I'm perfectly happy with Charles and Camilla finally being together. They belong together. They love each other.
But I am not sure they adhere to royal law. I'm an American, so Britons are better able to answer the question of law. As far as I can see it, it is not.
But the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were so as well.
Should the law allow for Camilla to be Queen Consort when the law did not allow the same for Wallis?
”I personally have no patience with people who think shy Di “Virgin” was innocent in the breakdown of her marriage. I especially dislike people who hate Camilla, without doing the basic Googling....”
I second those sentiments. Diana was unstable and manipulative, and I believe Camilla is in a different league from her altogether (in a good way). She will make a fantastic Princess Consort (?) for Charles when he becomes King.
Can Camilla become Queen? Under law? If so, I will rejoice! Charles and she should always have been together. But they are Royals. How can the law be changed? Should it be changed?
British law means everything in Britain, I am thinking. There is no way Charles, nor Harry, nor ANY of them, can twist the rules to their own liking.
https://www.history.com/news/royal-family-divorce-remarry-meghan-markle-wallis-simpson
The legal issue is because of the overlap with the monarchy. It's not just a single statute, but the overlapping roles as head of church and state.
In the days when Charles and Camilla fell in love, I am not sure why she and he could not have married. Perhaps some Briton can enlighten
She was probably not considered suitable as she did not come from an aristocratic family (Diana was the daughter of an Earl, not as good as a Duke, but of higher social standing than Camilla) and they did have a hang up about virginity (not only was Camilla not a virgin, but Charles had not been her only lover).
However, Charles was not thinking of getting married at the time - not to Camilla or anyone at all, so permission was not refused for what was never asked. I don't think Charles or Camilla realised at the time that they were actually soul mates.
Charles went off to sea to do his thing in the navy. Camilla had no reason to wait for him (wait for what anyway), met Andrew, fell in love with him and ended up marrying him (Charles was at the wedding, as a friend). Camilla had found a fabulous husband and went on to have a mostly good marriage and two children whom she adores; Charles enjoyed many more relationships with women before succumbing to pressure and hastily marrying someone who seemed to be a suitable young woman.
The Diana/Charles marriage was an odd one because in some ways they were completely unsuitable, the most significant being that, she was needy, whereas he was used to lots of independence and freedom, but they did have a lot in common, such as a love of classical music. However, they were not a couple who were ever going to grow old together, not happily anyway. I suppose sometimes you have to be with the wrong person to realise who your soul mate is, and for Charles it is Camilla.
William learnt a lesson from his parents failed marriage and took his time to make sure that him and Catherine built a solid basis for marriage, including a close friendship. Harry rushed into marriage for all the wrong reasons.
@Lt.
https://www.history.com/news/royal-family-divorce-remarry-meghan-markle-wallis-simpson
The legal issue is because of the overlap with the monarchy. It's not just a single statute, but the overlapping roles as head of church and state.
_______________________________________
So what changed from then till now?
@Lt. Nyota Uhura:
In the days when Charles and Camilla fell in love, I am not sure why she and he could not have married. Perhaps some Briton can enlighten
She was probably not considered suitable as she did not come from an aristocratic family (Diana was the daughter of an Earl, not as good as a Duke, but of higher social standing than Camilla) and they did have a hang up about virginity (not only was Camilla not a virgin, but Charles had not been her only lover)
________________________________
I see. A bad situation all around. No wonder the Royal Family … imploded.
Well, it won't be the first time.
If David had married Wallis in defiance, the government would have resigned and there would have been a constitutional crisis (never mind the Church of England refusing to bless the marriage as she was twice divorced). There was no law stopping David from marrying Wallis, nor from making her his Queen consort, but the pressures from the conservatives in government, the church and the Commonwealth were immense and so he chose to abdicate.
All I can say is God save the Queen, and I wish she would live forever.
And as for the Harkles, well ………...
Lt. what changed is that the church is no longer entirely unforgiving of divorced people with spouses still alive. As Sandie said, as head of the church and the commonwealth, the monarch can't exactly lead one and not the other, and being head of one while being in violation of its very tenets was problematic.
________________________________________
Times have changed, I guess -- I wouldn't have given divorce any kind of weight for the Royal Family, but I can see that it has been a factor through the ages.
Too bad for Charles and Camilla, who only loved each other.
I hope the laws can be changed.
Lt., it's less of an issue now with the church, but it's bigger than just changing a law. To avoid the overlap entirely would require a different structure of the government altogether.
_________________________________________
To me, there is nothing bigger than the changing of the law. Here in the U.S., it requires a great deal to change the law. Once it is changed, it is changed, unless it is changed again, which requires a great deal.
I always thought the same thing happened in Britain. As far as the King or Queen is involved, there are laws that involve their succession, which begins with their parents. I'm quite ignorant of these traditions. I know that there are situations where a morganatic situation might be appropriate, etc. -- I just don't know whether, or how, the Duchess of Cornwall fits in.
Lt., it's less of an issue now with the church, but it's bigger than just changing a law. To avoid the overlap entirely would require a different structure of the government altogether. The UK is a constitutional monarchy. The monarch is also the Supreme Head of the Church of England, a power vested in the head of state, so it's not separate like in the US. That's a structural difference, not just one statute that requires revision. I think that's unlikely to change, but if it does, it might mean no monarch at all. I'm sure that if Charles wanted Camilla to be queen, it could happen, but I also think Camilla doesn't care.
-----------------
To avoid the overlap entirely would require a different structure of the government altogether.
-----------------
This is what I don't understand. WHAT "different structure?"