Omid Scobie: The Sussexes are not moving anywhere, they’re staying in the UK

New Zealand House Book of Condolence

Omid Scobie has sources deep in the Sussex camp. Scobie is to the Sussexes what Katie Nicholl is to the Cambridges: an official spokesperson/sympathetic journalist for a certain royal court. Well, Scobie barely breathed a word about the “send them to Africa” story which broke over the weekend, but that’s because he was lining up his own Harper’s Bazaar exclusive with, obviously, sources deep within Camp Sussex. I take this as Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan clapping back at William’s bullsh-t, but I’m sure there are other interpretations. You can read the full piece here. Some highlights:

The Sussexes aren’t moving anywhere: “Britain is their home and where they want to raise their family,” says a friend of the couple. “If they are to work abroad it would be a short stint.”

Would the Sussexes move away for a year or longer? While a source close to the pair tells that the Commonwealth—and projects across several of its states—“will absolutely” play a large role in the couple’s work over the next few years, leaving the U.K. for more than a year is not the plan. “These discussions, which the couple are driving, are very much embryonic,” says the source, who is familiar with a number of their future endeavors. “Both the duke and duchess are keen to balance projects in Britain and overseas, particularly countries in Africa. There are many exciting possibilities … but moving away for years? That’s not an idea they are throwing around. We’re talking a few months away or a series of trips.”

They have commitments in the UK: “Let’s not forget that they are already committed to a number of charitable projects and patronages domestically. As well as being their home, the U.K. is still somewhere they have responsibilities they wouldn’t neglect.”

They’ll continue to do work in Africa too: “They have no plans to change this pattern,” says an insider. “Africa will always play a lead role in their humanitarian work.”

Whether William & Harry are fighting: A separate exposé in The Times suggested tensions between the Sussexes and Cambridges are the real reason Prince William is putting his full support behind a move for the couple. As well as placing further distance between himself and Harry and Meghan, a transfer would stop their popularity posing a threat to his own. “Not the case,” says a Kensington Palace source. “Prince William has nothing to do with these plans. The Duke supports whatever the couple choose to do.”

The Sussexes will make their own decisions: The source says, “Let’s be clear about one thing: Any decision the couple make about their future will be made by themselves for themselves. Harry and Meghan have always wanted to reach people on a global level and that is the only thing that’s motivating them. Aside from the Queen and Prince Charles, they’re not looking to other family members, or their teams, for guidance.”

[From Harper’s Bazaar]

The funniest part is that after quoting extensively from an unnamed Sussex friend who detailed Harry and Meg’s thinking, that same source would not say one word of denial about how William is the one who wants them exiled. The denial came from a Kensington Palace source, meaning William is trying to cover up the fact that he’s been pushing the “let’s exile the Sussexes!” plan. As for the rest of it… I’m glad the Sussexes are pushing back on this bullsh-t. I’m glad they’re not just going to go along with whatever stupid plan William comes up with to hide their sparkle.

Royals Xmas Day church

Photos courtesy of WENN and Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

114 Responses to “Omid Scobie: The Sussexes are not moving anywhere, they’re staying in the UK”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Nev says:

    of course.

  2. Beli says:

    “Aside from the Queen and Prince Charles, they’re not looking to other family members, or their teams, for guidance.”

    Boom! Smackdown.

    • Sharon Lea says:

      Yes, this was the clarifying/confirming sentence – they don’t want William weighing in.

    • Mego says:

      It is possible that KP had nothing to do with this crazy rumour yet this statement is still an important reminder of who the ultimate bosses are and it ain’t William. The media tend to focus far too much on William and his importance, skipping over the fact the Queen still reigns and Charles is the heir apparent. I suspect William does nothing to discourage this or even encourages it which shows his arrogance.

      • Bluthfan says:

        KP was on the record in a couple of the articles. So, they had something to do with it.

      • Nic919 says:

        If Case is named in an article and he went rogue then William should fire him. Outside of that he was speaking with permission of KP, which is William.

  3. Christina says:

    William is a selfish weirdo. Charles was always called a weirdo, but Charles appeared to enjoy actually engaging with his subjects, at least that’s how it looked from the United States. Charles seemed to care more about that than his wife, Diana, and it was reported that he was jealous of his wife because he worked hard to be engaged with the people and his people seemed to prefer her emotional accessibility. Now everyone knows it was that AND that he was never going to stop adoring Camilla, even as a married man. In this, Harry appears to be more like his father. William could care less until Harry married a charismatic woman like their mother.

    Just care about your country and the people in it, Wills. That is all Harry and Meghan do. Instead of being jealous, he needs to mind his business (treat his people and the commonwealth people like friends, don’t be pompous, sit and LISTEN to the people about what they feel and need). William wants to be an entitled rich, powerful dude instead of a leader of his people, and has done nothing to hide that until Harry and Meghan became a “thing” organically. Harry and Meghan will always be fine, because the people they know personally know their character and will always rise to correct the BS coming from the Cambridge camp.

  4. Who ARE These People? says:


  5. broodytrudy says:

    All of this seems to be such an obvious distraction from Will’s alleged affair. Swift and forceful change of the narrative.

  6. Toot says:

    I loved the quote about the only family being involved is the Queen and Charles. That’s a straight smack to Will and his crew’s spin.

  7. Ty says:

    My take on these stories is that Kate is not part of this. William like his father wanted to be the popular one and didn’t want to be overshadowed like Diana overshadowed Charles. While I do believe William ego is bruised, I also wonder if Charles has a hand in this as once the Queen
    passes he will be King and he wants to be popular. My take is The Queen is not so innocent in this as well. She has the power to stop this and all the racist attacks from the media or to cover it like she did for her son Andrew, but she has not done a single thing. The BRF are all complicit in the racism that has played out against Meghan.

    Maybe the Sussex shouldn’t look to the Queen and Charles.

    • FC says:

      Honestly, Kate isn’t part of ANYTHING. I think she’s always known her role — be thin/pretty, smile, have babies, and let William do whatever he wants. The most shockingly human thing about Kate is that she actually reacted to the Rose affair, something she’s not allowed to do. $50 says Wills is angry at HER for the story leaking.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Was over at Royal Foibles early today. The gossip dude on that gossip site also believes the Kate isn’t part of ANYTHING and that there is no real problem between Meghan & Kate as they do not really know each other that well.

        IMHO, with respect to Rose Hanbury, Rose Hanbury is the one who is pissed at Kate not Bill Cambridge

    • R says:

      Not sure the Queen is any part of this- but I also don’t think she is getting involved to stop any of it because its probably more work then it is worth to her.

      I have long thought all these stories have been coming from Charles, Andrew (he is the biggest culprit IMO), the staff and some William and a massive amount from the aristocracy group.

      But I truly don’t think Kate has had anything to do with any of it or her family.
      1. She doesn’t look good in any of them and its traditional for the RR to pit the heir and the spare’s wives against each other
      2. Her family is having business issues so don’t want to be in the public to much because if they upset the wrong people all their issues are public
      3. And like others have said she knows her roll it was very much laid out don’t upstage William. Don’t pull a Diana.

      Now here is why I think the aristocracy group is a big factor:
      1. They never liked Kate because she was “commoner” (please know I am rolling my eyes at this) but since William would allow them to be rude to her to a degree they dealt with her (I also think they like having someone to look down on)
      2. But when Harry brought in an American “commoner” who he defended they were out for blood.

      I think it is obvious why Charles, Andrew the grey coats and William are doing this.

      Sorry this was long oops

    • Yvette says:

      @Ty, As I recall, Charles didn’t really have a problem with Diana’s popularity until she began deliberately scheduling events the same time as his, therefore drawing attention away from whatever he was sponsoring/supporting due to her popularity. Diana was on many fronts a wonderful woman, but she wasn’t exactly an innocent flower in their drama.

      • R says:

        oh no she wasn’t at all, she also wasn’t innocent in the media stuff.

        I do think he was always jealous- I think he thought she’d be a good wife for him because she was so meek and quiet at 19 (shocking) and he’d be the star.

        I think there is a lot of issues for the Windsor men when the women upstage them. Harry seems not to mind but I think we will see.

      • entine says:

        charles was subtly complaining how people preferred Diana, how they would take one side of the street each to greet and the people were disappointed that they got Charles, and were clamoring for her to come and greet them instead. How he had become sort of Mr. Diana I don’t remember well, but that was the idea. It must have been fun at the beginning, seeing that your spouse is popular, but it must be annoying if that happens every single time, especially given how Charles has a big ego.
        Diana had her issues, too, and she needed leverage against the gray men, so she worked with what she had, public appreciation, everything was going down hill anyway.

    • Tina says:

      The Queen is 93. Can we please ask the young people to address their own adultery, foreign travel and work (or lack of it) on their own? Do you know who I bet the Queen really loves? Anne. Because Anne never, ever gives her any trouble. And Sophie is much the same.

      • LahdidahBaby says:

        Yes, you have a definite point there.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Of the whole lot, Anne would make the best constitutional monarch. However, I must admit, Charles’s stock value and appreciation of his work ethic has really risen with me over the last 5 years.

  8. Dee says:

    “Their sparkle”. Love this!

  9. Valiantly Varnished says:

    That final quote: “Aside from the Queen and Prince Chrles, they’re not looking to other family members, or their teams, for guidance.”

    Now if that is not a “you’re not that important” message to William I don’t know what is. Because William is acting like he has power when in reality – he has none. He is NOT Prince of Wales or King.

    • PlainJane says:

      A G R E E @Valiantly Varnished!

      Even when William does become king, H + M may still outshine William with their national and global endeavors. They DO work, not just talk about doing work. There’s a really big difference.

  10. FC says:

    In addition to Omid via Hearst (and CB, of course), I wish more American outlets would start covering Royals. Since US outlets are enamored with Meg and have no creepy loyalty to the BRF, they could actually provide a solid, necessary counter narrative to all of this. I guess I’m just sick of reading abusive British tabs so obviously skirting around the affair story. It’s unbalanced coverage by a long shot.

    • TeamAwesome says:

      I think part of the reason Omid is always so nice about the Sussexes is that he used to work for US magazine, and had professional interactions with Meghan BEFORE Harry.

      • Himmiefan says:

        You hit upon the word “nice.” That’s exactly why I like Omid, because unlike a good many of the royal reporters, he is nice and pleasant.

      • Hikaru says:

        He is a personal friend of Meghan and her SOHO friend Markus. Aside from him, she is also personal friends with the LG blog chick.

        They are the reliable sources.

  11. Inas says:

    William was always there for his brother. It’s harry’s Words , he was the one always supported him after his mother death. Why no one believes that William has nothing to do with Harry decisions. Before the marriage if you all remember vanity fair Harry and Meghan words wanting to change the world and help Africa. But How would gossip sites and media make money unless they creat fake hate stories. These are brothers guys it’s not nice to be part of hate campaign. Harry and Meghan are just starting their family and plan.
    Why no one pointing finger at the real beneficiary of such exile. next king that might be he is the one to be #1 in Uk.
    In Easter there are many photos and videos shows Harry ,Kate and William laughing with each other.

    • Mich says:

      There are literally no photos showing Harry and William laughing together. There aren’t even any photos of them making eye contact.

      • R says:

        @ Mitch but there are several photos and video of Kate and Harry going out of their way to laugh and chat with each other.

        Yes William just looks at them but Kate and Harry seem quite close and to enjoy each other.

    • notasugarhere says:

      William has used his little brother for PR for decades and Harry knows it. Harry took it for years, but now he’s matured beyond that. The new Harry, the confident one who is openly crazy about his wife and dedicated to charity work? William doesn’t like that Harry, who makes William look bad with little effort.

    • pat says:

      I feel its a shame that they even consider such a thing.this women is going to deliver her baby and to send them to Africa with all the health issues for their child is down right vindictive and evil, if William can’t stand the heat he and the rst of the family should get out of the kitchen.

  12. Guest says:

    Omid Scobie was smart. He treated the Sussexs with respect and kindness and now he usually gets the goods. If other RR followed his lead then maybe they wouldnt have to be left in cold.

  13. Guest says:

    Lol there is so much backhanded comments in this. 😂 I definitely see harry being the one to say this.

    William is such an @as. He showed just who he is this weekend and I cant wait until karma comes knocking.

  14. BlueSky says:

    William reminds of that mediocre coworker, the one who wants praise for showing up and doing the bare minimum. Then they hire someone with a work ethic and goes above and beyond. Instead of stepping up his game he schemes to sabotage anything that person does because he is disrupting his cushy job.

    I’ve been watching the docuseries on Netflix “The House of Windsor” It’s just history repeating itself.

  15. HK9 says: **facepalm**

  16. MrsBanjo says:

    “Aside from the Queen and Prince Charles, they’re not looking to other family members, or their teams, for guidance.”

    👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 This is the best response to the bullshit.

  17. snowqueenM says:

    Lainey Gossip’s interpretation of the situation is interesting: that the courtiers are playing the brothers against each other like Littlefinger tried to do with Sansa and Arya. Harry’s wise to it; Will, not so much. Thus, creating the rift. If true, it’s time for someone, anyone to rein in the courtiers and set-up a come to Jesus meeting with the brothers. Get this resolved, please.

    It’s definite something is happening. And it’s sad that Will might be letting his ego run away with him right before his baby brother is going to be a first-time dad.

    • MrsBanjo says:

      You’re right. Someone seriously needs to rein in the courtiers, if that’s what’s going on.

      Lainey’s take is weird. She ends her piece with suggesting that the brothers using the media to communicate is a bad look. Thing is, Harry has been silent while the media attacked the hell out of his wife. Is he just supposed to stay silent, especially when it doesn’t seem anyone else is willing to put a stop to William’s bullshit?

    • Bluthfan says:

      I think that is just bending over backwards to not put the blame on William. KP was clearly behind this exile story and that didn’t happen without William’s sign-off.

    • CynicalCeleste says:

      Lainey’s also interesting because: Meghan >> Jessica >> Lainey

    • MA says:

      Lainey has a tortured explanation that twists itself trying to absolve William of any involvement, conveniently ignoring the quotes about Meghan’s smear campaign being to his liking and how he wants the Sussexes far away. Her take doesn’t make sense.

  18. Zazu says:

    I also like that they added Harry and Meghan aren’t taking direction from anyone’s teams. Obviously that’s targeting some of the Kensington Palace courtiers who have been taking digs at them since day one. You kind of wonder what would happen if Harry and William could just be locked in a room together with Charles, no courtiers or media. My guess is that the courtiers whispering in people’s ears, leaking inflammatory stories to the media and generally backstabbing have escalated the drama between Harry and William significantly. There’s probably a kabal of them between Kensington Palace, Clarence house and Buckingham Palace, and of course they’re working the biased Royal reporters. If Harry and William are predominantly communicating through media articles, then of course the arguments will only get worse. Not that I blame Harry at all, it might be the only thing he can do at this point. In the long-term though he is going to have to work with William, especially once he becomes the Prince of Wales. They need to work out some kind of truce. And for that to happen William has to stop working alongside the courtiers to publicly undermine Harry and Meghan!

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I have a question: Did Charles really throw Harry & Meghan out of his garden party celebrating his 70th birthday or is this just a wild rumor compliments of “Harry Markle”?

      • Bluthfan says:

        Total insane made up rumor.

      • MsIam says:

        Harry gave a speech at that party honoring his father, I hardly think PC would turn around and throw them out. These rumor sites can put out any crazy story they want.

      • MA says:

        Tinhat conspiracy theory. There’s video of very warm interactions between C&C and H&M, both before the speech, during, and after when they leave.

        Also, H&M couldn’t just not gone like the Cambridges if Charles didn’t want them there.

    • Humbugged says:

      No Charles did not throw them out

      Harry and Meghan delayed their honeymoon by a few days to attend the party.

      Harry gave a speech praising his dad ,was attacked by a bee (with Meg,Cam and eventually Charles all in stitches at Harry’s plight) ,the two couples then mingled with the guests for a while and then left to go fly out to wherever they went

  19. notasugarhere says:

    Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg has passed away, funeral May 4th a few days before Charles and Camilla arrive in Germany. He served in the Irish Guards at the end of WWII, and celebrated St Patrick’s Day with the Irish Guards and the British royals many times.

    • Lady D says:

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it Kate who is the royal figurehead for the Irish Guards and St. Patrick’s Day? So will it be her and William or Charles and Camilla who attend the funeral? Is it Crown or Country who sends a rep, or both?

  20. ChiaMom says:

    Kate has nothing to do with this mess and should she be so lucky as to divorce she can do so much ACTUALLY better (balding wimpy cheating king is still balding wimpy and cheating ) and YUCK poor princess Diana rolling in her grave

    • Bluthfan says:

      How do you know Kate is innocent in all this? There have been a lot of articles insulting Meghan while building up Kate. I’m sure she had a hand in some of them.

      • Becks1 says:

        Now, THIS I will agree with you 100%. I am not sure if Kate is involved with this particular story, but I don’t think her hands are clean with all these anti-Meghan stories, not at all.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        Yup. Her own mother made a snide comment like “being royal isn’t just about making speeches” in that interview that came out a month after Meghan made several speeches on the Oceania tour. Funnily enough, Kate started giving more speeches shortly afterward. I sincerely doubt that she is innocent in all of this.

  21. Lolo says:

    I said on the other thread that I think Harry was angry at Easter not because of the story but the way it was being spun and, to me, this Omid “scoop” basically confirms this. He’s not denying the main thrust of the story (that the Sussexes might be in the planning stages for spending larger chunks of time not in the U.K.) but he’s putting the Sussex spin on it (it’s not an exile, it’s a choice). And that’s fine. The reason H&M got their own media office was supposedly because they didn’t like the “never complain, never explain” way of doing things. So now we get these steroids that paint them a certain way and then about 24 hours later we get a “response” that basically says the opposite. Like most things I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, but between everyone’s competing interests we’ll never hear that version.

    • Bluthfan says:

      The article absolutely did push back on the main thrust of the story that the Sussexes would be leaving the UK for large chunks of time. They took repeated pains to state that the UK is their home and they had responsibilities in the UK that they take seriously. The truth doesn’t lie in the middle here at all.

      • Becks1 says:

        The article specifically says they aren’t considering moving away “for years,” but that what is being discussed is visits of several months; they would never move away for more than a year, etc.

        It doesn’t really say that they will live in England for 52 weeks out of the year. It actually leaves the door open for the idea that they will move to another country for several months at a time.

      • Lolo says:

        Sorry, I was confusing. The original story (Sunday Times) said 1-2 years. Then came the BP non-denial, then that seemed to have been clarified by “sources” saying it would more likely be months, not years. Omid does dispute the several years claim, but I guess in my mind I had already moved on because I do think the months-long stretches are/were a possibility and thank you @Becks1 for your much more concise correction of exactly what I was thinking.

    • 90sgirl says:

      Omid absolutely shoots,down the Move story.

      I only believe what Omid writes. I don’t even read the old British reporters anymore, their agenda has been obvious from the start. I have noticed Omid never parrots what the other journos write on theSussex”s on the first day of any of these stories. He goes to his inside sources and gets what is really happening and most of what the british reporters initially say, is usually shot down by Omid.
      I think Omid is one of the only Royal journos who has a direct contacts into the Sussex’s

      I never believed the story about the move, because from what I’ve read , to keep the permanent citizenship residency ,you have to intitilally comply to certain living in Within the UK time conditions.

  22. A says:

    Well, as the one meme goes, “Finally some good fcking food.”

    Omid Scobie is a voice of reason among a sea of frantic yelling, and I’m glad he’s come through with the sources to nip all this BS in the bud. These are some very pointed comments from the Sussex camp, and they’re very telling regarding the current state of affairs over at the palace.

    As for the Queen and Prince Charles–this sounds far-fetched, even to me, but I honestly feel like perhaps neither of them knew about these plans? If they were truly in on it, it would have been nipped in the bud a LONG time ago. I think maybe they kind of figured that whatever this was, it wasn’t a permanent thing, but they didn’t know the true extent of the intentions until the article in the Times. It sounds like something William would do because he knows the Queen wouldn’t approve, and the Queen’s senior staffers were in on it because they also don’t like Meghan. It’s not unheard of to keep things from the Queen, but I do feel like there’s been a lot of miscommunication between certain parties, on multiple levels, hence why this is such a fcking disaster.

  23. Loretta says:

    “Aside from the Queen and Prince Charles, they’re not looking to other family members, or their teams, for guidance.”

    OMG the shade LOL Harry and Meghan ended Kensongton Palace

  24. manta says:

    Wouldn’t being abroad so long be a hindrance to get her british citizenship?
    When on your way to gain citizenship , aren’t you required to spend a minimum consecutive months on the territory the years following your permanent move in the counry?
    It seems a full year abroad would just make the process harder/longer.

    • Lisa says:

      Yes which is why the original story was nonsense. Meghan can’t live abroad for years during this process and on top of that with s young child.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Will Polo Baby Sussex automatically be a citizen of the UK?

        I know Polo Baby Sussex automatically will be a citizen of the USA as I do not believe Meghan has renounced her USA citizenship to date. I do not think I could renounced my USA citizenship; not even for Prince Carl Philip of Sweden! LOL!

      • Cee says:

        USA citizenship is not inherited. My sister in law’s mother is american, her daughters were born and raised abroad and are not american citizens. Sussex baby will be British.
        Point of reference, the Grimaldis. None of Princess Grace’s children have american citizenship.

      • Himmiefan says:

        I’m not an expert, but I think it was CNN that recently had an article saying that Meghan’s children would be US citizens, and that’s why there could be tax problems.

      • notasugarhere says:

        All of Princess Grace’s children have US citizenship.

        US State Department

        Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

        A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

      • Tina says:

        Nota is right, H&M’s baby will be a US citizen. S/he will also be a UK citizen. And Meghan can’t live abroad for more than 270 days in the five years (since April 2018) that will make up the time in her Indefinite Leave to Remain application (which is a prerequisite for citizenship).

    • 90sgirl says:

      That’s why I knew the story was b.s.
      To initially keep citizenship , residency the new person granted it must comply with living within UK for a certain amount of years continuosly. They can travel outside yes, they can go away for a few’months, but not a complete move to another Country for the first five years, I believe.

  25. aquarius64 says:

    I am glad to see the Sussex response. It shows the willingness to fight back and their smartness in their choice of allies. Billy can stick with the old heads. And this stench will not go away any time soon.

  26. Murekatete says:

    I’m sorry ~ I’ve lived in both “Africa” (several countries, now living in Rwanda) and the UK, and Rwanda is lovely. Other commonwealth countries like Uganda or Kenya would be amazing places to live as well. I’m really grated at the way they are talking about living over here as if it’s a punishment, when it could be the most incredible thing for this couple. Who met in Rwanda, I believe, by the way! Maybe they’d be out of the way but it would be a good experience for them both.

    • sunny says:

      I don’t think they met in Rwanda. I think they spent time in Botswana in their early courtship. I don’t think the general thrust of it is that living in Africa somewhere would be a punishment but being forced to live outside of Britain in an area not of their choosing due to some behind the scene royal machinations would be punishment.

      • MsIam says:

        @Sunny exactly. It’s the whole being forced to live somewhere else for a while so people will forget you exist thing that’s distasteful. Not the idea of living in an African country. If anyone shows contempt for Africa it’s Team William though, since they evidently consider it the back of the beyond.

  27. Princessk says:

    Anyway we now have firm confirmation, that Doria arrived in the U.K. on April 16th.

  28. Becks1 says:

    This is all just so messy. I know, I know, I keep using that term, but I cant think of another way to put it.

    I feel like we know two things – the story from Tom Shipman was sanctioned by KP/Cambridges (that’s who had the article with all the direct quotes, right?) and this article was sanctioned by the Sussexes (I’m assuming with approval of BP, but who knows at this point.)

    So, if we accept that the basic thrust is the same – Sussexes considering extended stays in commonwealth countries as part of their duties/role – why such widely different stories? There’s a really big difference between “exile” and “lets go to Botswana for 3 months to work with a local charity.”

    The only thing I can think of is that the Tom Shipman quotes were not intentional. Like someone was just talking to him and then they were like, “oh crap, you mean we’re on the record?” Because that article makes William look really bad but it seems like it CAME from William’s camp, and I cant figure that part of it out. If the move/extended visit/whatever was something being discussed between House Sussex and BP/Clarence House, then why the original stories about William’s ego and trying to control the Sussexes, etc. It just made the entire BRF look really bad, like they were willing to banish the queen’s grandson because William was feeling jealous and insecure. Now, it sounds like that is not what is happening at all.

    But that first story seemed to be from a respectable source. So….what happened there?

    Like I said, messy.

    • Bluthfan says:

      No, the quotes in the Shipman article were intentional and it was William trying to take credit for whatever the Sussexes have in the works right now. And the thrust isn’t the same. The Omid article doesn’t say they’ll be out of the country for an extended period. It says the opposite.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah, you are probably right about the quotes. I cant see them being THAT incompetent. But I wouldn’t say it was William trying to take credit, considering how bad he came off in that article.

        Anyway, I do think the thrust is the same. Not exact, but close. I said in another post (before the Scobie story) that I thought it was possible Harry and Meghan were planning an extended stay of a few months in another country, and that got twisted into the whole “exile” thing and moving out of England permanently etc. The Scobie story says that they have been discussing stays of a couple of months, not more than a year, etc.

        So I can see how THAT is being discussed – the extended visits, not just a quick tour – and for some reason William is spinning it this other way, which I guess he thought would be to his favor? But its not.

    • MsIam says:

      I bet that Tim Shipman guy is going WTF! Lol! He’s probably thinking, ” Let me just stay in my lane and stick with Brexit, it’s less complicated! “. Whoever thought of this whole story idea really botched it up big time.

      • Olenna says:

        He should be embarrassed. People elsewhere were going on about how Shipman is not a RR, but an editor/journo; could’ve fooled me. The article was premature, irresponsible and careless with “facts”. Another case of #mypalacesource making a member of the British press look like a fool. If they’d just leave the Sussexes alone, they’d save themselves the constant negative criticism and ridicule.

    • A says:

      I think there’s a degree of overestimation here regarding the worldviews of both William and the Queen’s senior advisors. I think people are really inclined to assume that they would both know how bad this looks from a PR standpoint, ESPECIALLY to the countries of the CW that they’re treating in such a dismissive and patronizing manner. But I frankly don’t think that this is the case. I think either William, or someone who was advising William, absolutely thought this was an excellent idea that would go over really well, with no trouble or hitches at all, that everyone from the Queen to Parliament to whatever part of the world that Harry & Meghan would get sent to would receive this with open arms and friendly smiles. There is no way that they would have chosen to speak on the record to a journalist otherwise. It would not surprise me at all if these were a group of people who genuinely thought they were brilliant and that this was a GREAT plan. The government is filled with those types, and they all move in the same circles after all.

    • MA says:

      Here’s what I think happened: The first story (the cover story in the Sunday Times) was sanctioned by KP and written by Roya Nikkah. The more in-depth second story from Tim Shipman (political journalist with other royal contacts) used some of her reporting but dug deeper and didn’t just parrot what KP wanted and had the damaging quotes, not just the insulting Africa comments but the smear campaign, etc.

      There are discussions ongoing, and different palaces/royals have different motivations. BP and H&M are talking about it. BP may have mixed motivations, H&M do want to go but not for years at a time. It’s plausible like other have theorized that KP wanted to leak it purposefully as a years’-long vacation and rile up the old taxpayers’ costs narrative. But KP did their job poorly and the spin backfired. Shipman did some more investigating and here we have a whole mess laying bare how messed up the BRF is and how terribly Meghan has been treated.

      The only thing refuted by BP is that any concrete plans have been made. Just brainstorming/discussions are taking place. BP did not refute any of the feud revelations or that William was behind the smear campaign (or more accurately, smearing Meghan was taking KP’s side). KP is in full meltdown and panic mode. Notice all the traditional RRs are spinning like a top for any take that takes the heat off of William.

  29. Beach Dreams says:

    And now there’s even more damage control attempts by KP, this time with an article from Camilla Tominey. I saw some screenshots on Twitter and it doesn’t exactly help them. It even included a bit where a Lord Lieutenant apparently requested a visit from Kate, but Catherine Quinn declined, saying that Kate was being more “selective” about her engagements.

    • Bluthfan says:

      That article is hysterical. It’s supposed to spin Harry as self-involved but instead just shows the Cambridges as petty and lazy. They got their feathers ruffled because Harry posted photos he took to celebrate Earth Day. Apparently that stole the thunder from the Louis pictures a day later. And Kate apparently owns all mental health issues and is upset that Harry is working on mental health issues with Oprah.

      • MA says:

        I saw those screenshots. I’m confused–as of late most of the RRs have been propping up the Cambridges. Is Tominey being shady to them or does she thing that the line about K being a hands-on mother so that’s why she can’t work–does she think that’s makes K look good?

      • MsIam says:

        My, my, my! How dare Uncle Harry post Earth Day pictures on Earth Day! The outrage! The nerve! Besides I thought Louis’ birthday is today, why did they post the pictures a day early anyway?

      • Nic919 says:

        The Louis pictures were embargoed until very late in the day so this is such a dumb thing to comment about.

      • Bluthfan says:

        Toomey is a giant racist and definitely wrote the article to support the Cambridges. However, it Just made them look petty, lazy and uncharitable.

    • Nic919 says:

      That Tominey article is a mess. It makes Kate look lazy and she wasn’t even a part of the original messiness from the weekend articles.

    • V. says:

      Why is it “damage control by KP” (!!) and not simply Camilla Tominey publishing click bait,milking the current stories?
      She doesn’t like Meghan and Harry,and it’s clear,but she’s also the one who in one of her recent articles literally said that M&H wanted the offices split because they were overwhelmed by the Rose/Kate rivalry rumors.. lol She likes the petty drama.

      • norah says:

        all the reporters seem to be pro cambridge and this tominey chick is just another one – same woman who said that the cookbook was done in a terrorist place

  30. Jinjie says:

    Of course. The British public will be further up in arms about the excessive cost of security shipping them overseas. We’re already up in arms about public spending for an irrelevant 6th in line to the throne and a designer pregnancy wardrobe. Knife crime and burglary has significantly increased not to mention the need for more nurses and doctors, support services for the elderly, more teachers for state schools and restoration of historical architecture. THOSE are the issues where public money needs to be spent. As far as I’m concerned, only those in line to the throne and their spouses need to remain on the civil list. BRITISH TAXES ONLY for BRAND BRITAIN for the public and only for the Sovereign/sovereign to be. Everyone else needs to be taken off it and made to work for their own living just like Andrew and the York princesses. It is our taxes that need to be FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. As to the Sussex stans, we’d LOVE for you to use your own taxes to support their life of privilege. As a matter of fact, why don’t you all start a GoFundMe to relocate them both to the US so us Brits can get rid of them. I highly doubt you’d all be cooing over them if you had no money for medical insurance while someone else flaunts a designer pregnancy wardrobe.

    • gingersnaps says:

      Who made you the spokesperson for the entire United Kingdom?

      • Jinjie says:

        I note you haven’t taken up the challenge of volunteering your own monies to pay for the expenses of the Sussexes. Ask me that again when you put your own money on the line.

    • Goofpuff says:

      Wow lots of hate toward Meghan and her expenses but none for Kate and her huge expenses? She wears a lot of bespoke designer pieces and expensive jewelry too.
      It’s just nobody reports on it anymore with Meghan in the picture.

      Since Charlotte and Louis aren’t in line, want to throw them out now? At that point just get rid of the monarchy. Harry will thank you because then he’a not forced to be councilor until the kids come of age.

      • Jinjie says:

        I would LOVE to get rid of the monarchy and become a republic like France and Germany. They got rid of their monarchies and they are just fine as independent republics. The very least I will tolerate are the monarchs/monarchs in waiting. Since you don’t seem to understand the line of succession, until George has children, Charlotte and Louis remain major players in line to the throne therefore monarchs in waiting. With the birth of the Cambridge children, Harry is officially irrelevant. Besides, I don’t hear anyone taking up my dare – volunteer your own monies to support Meghan and Harry and we’ll see how you feel about your taxes being spent on irrelevant extended family members.

    • JadedBrit says:

      @Jinjie A gentle economics lesson is needed here, I think, before you jump on the All-Brits-Think-That bandwagon. Do you honestly think that under the current or any government there will ever be enough money to pay for the poorly administered and top-heavy monolith that is the NHS, one of the world’s largest employers that resists basic logistical change? That the PFI bills will ever be settled? That the government(s), which has already proven itself unworthy to administer current and future funds since the 1990s, is going to spend an iota more than it wishes on public health, including mental health, while it is wasting 56+ billion on HS2? No. Any moneys recouped would go to servicing the national debt or bailing out in-debt Trusts. The general public would not feel any difference whatsoever, save the loss of soft power that the monarchy has (formerly, before all these petulant and undignified shenanigans) possessed. The upkeep of the buildings and their administration would be the same. Were the monarchy to be eliminated altogether Parliament would be tied up in knots for years and pay the Civil List bill many times over to constitutional lawyers, plus additional costs for creating, electing and maintaining a presidency. Government distribution of tax funds, or the creation of funds via QE et cetera, does not imply that money will be taken from Pot A and be paid into Pot B. Remember, in real terms – there haven’t been *any* cuts whatsoever. We’ve managed to reduce the deficit somewhat. That’s it.

      • Jinjie says:

        Jaded Brit, thank you for the “gentle” economic lesson but your solipsistic recitation doesn’t change the fact that public monies will be better spent for the public than an irrelevant 6th in line to the throne. If someone said they were going to take the estimated £500thou spent on someone’s designer maternity wardrobe and re-allotted it to the annual salaries for 10 nurses – you’d be LYING to say 10 more nurses for a ward in one year will not make an iota of difference whatsoever.
        Britain is where we are at because of filibustering and excessive love of bureaucracy/state policy as evidenced by your recitation.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        It will cost the same amount of money to wash the windows at Buckingham Palace no matter whose face (QEII, Jacob Rees-Mogg or Boris Johnson pick one) is looking out of said windows.

    • norah says:

      first of all harry and meghan arent going anywhere – and if they did it will be for short trips so why are u getting so het up about it – they have things to do in the uk so calm down

  31. JadedBrit says:

    @Jinjie I’m afraid you’ve missed the point entirely. Money will not be automatically allocated to new nurses, presuming that we could recruit them in sufficient numbers in the first place. That money would have to be approved within the scope of the Budget. The Budget is predicated on what is “available” after deficit and other payments. A yearly percentage increase in NHS funding already exists. Much of it goes to service debt, PFI, procurement, management and agency pay. Those who receive the least percentage wise are… The patients. Your figure of five hundred thousand may, were it a simple matter of taking someone’s wardrobe costs and allocating it directly to the health spending pot, might cover a single trust’s paracetamol bill. It certainly wouldn’t pay for ten nurses, given the associated costs of training, insurance, management, pensions etcetera.

    • JadedBrit says:

      I’ll just add one final (non-emotive – my preferred method of debate) here. The NHS deficit is nearly a billion. Yearly spending for 2018/19 is at 126.269 billion, and is protected to increase for the fiscal year 2019/20 over 127 billion. The shortfall of ca 30bn will be covered by government. This merely patches a system shredding at its core. One of the gravest concerns is geriatric care, the needs surrounding which in fiscal terms grow on a yearly basis. GP recruitment is another – A&E is overburdened in real terms through triaging patients with minor health issues. Mental health is suffering a real shortfall in the billions which has a direct and negative effect on individual wellbeing and overall GDP. We need to have a national conversation, using logic and reasoning, and to dissolve the sacred cow-ism that surrounds the NHS as an institution, in order for it to run effectively – particularly in such areas as procurement (a problem which it shares in almost equal measure with the British Army and Education), management, recruitment and training, not to mention bed availability (2.8 vs 8.9 per 1000 in Germany, for example). Yes, while we can feel outraged that money seems to be squandered on pretty people’s outfits, the real issue is – I think – that “our” NHS (which is nothing of the sort: we have no say in the running and maintenance of the system whatsoever) is collapsing under the strain of population density, advances in medicine and associated costs (be it drugs, treatments, equipment or specialists et cetera), an increasing geriatric population and mental health issues. Could that be agreed upon?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @JadedBrit, While your at it you need to address Social Care versus Medical Care. Based on the number of comments posted, his seems to be a hot topic in the Guardian. From what I can understand, Social Care is dumping patients on Medical care which in-turn dumps patients back on Social Care. None of the “Care” agencies seem to want to provide the services they are required under law to provide. In different ways the Healthcare System of the UK is just as screwed-up and bonkers as the Healthcare System in the USA.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @JadedBrit, While you are at it you need to address Social Care versus Medical Care. Based on the number of comments posted in the Guardian, this seems to be a hot topic in the UK. From what I can understand, Social Care is dumping patients on Medical care which in-turn re-dumps patients back on Social Care. None of the “Care” agencies seem to want to provide the services they are required under law to provide. In different ways the Healthcare System of the UK is just as screwed-up and bonkers as the Healthcare System in the USA.