Buckingham Palace made a statement about Prince Harry’s ‘reject hate’ comments

Royal Ascot, Portrait of TRH Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex and TRH Meghan the Duchess of Sussex in front of HRH Queen Elizabeth the Second

Before Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan’s Time Magazine video – where they urged Americans to “reject hate” during the election – I actually thought the British media was getting suspiciously quiet about the Sussexes. Maybe the media was treading water, slowly waiting for the next big thing they could jump on, wildly misrepresent, then attack the Sussexes based on that wild misrepresentation. That’s exactly what’s happened. Not only has the media twisted the Sussexes’ words, but they’re now putting their own spin on what was a relatively simple shrug from Buckingham Palace:

Buckingham Palace has washed its hands of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle after they ‘told Americans to vote out Trump’. A spokesman said it refused to comment on ‘not a working member of the Royal Family’ in a stinging response to the couple.

It comes after Royal insiders said the Duke and Duchess of Sussex ‘crossed a line’ by speaking out about the US election on November 3. Prince Harry told voters to ‘reject hate speech’ while Meghan called the presidential race the ‘most important election of our lifetime’.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: ‘We would not comment. The Duke is not a working member of the Royal Family and any comments he makes are made in a personal capacity.’

[From The Daily Mail]

First of all, AGAIN, the Sussexes did not “tell Americans to vote out Trump.” Nowhere have they said that. Sure, it’s been indicated. Sure, people can understand H&M’s clear meaning. But saying that “reject hate” is explicitly equal to “reject Trump” is kind of a funny argument to make, especially when they’re doing it to bash the Sussexes. As for the palace’s comment… sure, it came across as terse, but where’s the lie? Harry was speaking in a personal capacity. And H&M are no longer working members of the Royal Family, because the RF refused to allow them to continue working.

Meanwhile, people are also talking about Harry’s careful word choice of “This election, I’m not going to be able to vote here in the US.” I saw on Twitter that members of the Sussex Squad theorized that Harry had applied for American citizenship and hoped to eventually vote in American election. Now the Daily Mail has picked it up and run with it, and of course they seem to think the very idea is absurd! I assume he has applied for citizenship. He probably doesn’t want to stay in America indefinitely on a visa.

Royal wedding

Lady Gabriella Windsor wedding

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid, Avalon Red.

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

99 Responses to “Buckingham Palace made a statement about Prince Harry’s ‘reject hate’ comments”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Bettyrose says:

    “In my role, I don’t vote.” – Not what Harry said. He basically said “I couldn’t vote in Britain and can’t yet vote in the U.S.” Translation: leaving behind royal life and fully embracing being a private citizen. He knew what he was saying and how it would be interpreted.

  2. yokoohno says:

    I don’t think the statement from Buckingham palace is terse at all, just formal which is appropriate.

    • C-Shell says:

      It is formal and spare. It would be naive to expect anything more from BP, which has never shown a tendency to support or defend Harry and Meghan, but not *necessarily* a rebuke.

    • Babe says:

      It’s not terse at all. I just find it funny how they’re quick to “distance” themselves… but were silent on providing support. #muppets 🤡🤡

    • Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

      It is formal, factual, neutral, and is the only thing they could possibly say.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Its as neutral a statement as you can get but still the UK rags will tie their knickers in a knot about it anyway.

    • emu says:

      yeah – it’s formal and letting everyone know that H&M are not working royals and therefore not tied to those silly rules and therefore nothing is wrong with their statement

    • bluemoonhorse says:

      Agree. I’d match rather have this simple statement than a lot of baloney. So I’m fine with this.

  3. Becks1 says:

    LOL at that statement. It was a little terse, but I imagine BP is also probably annoyed with the press at this point. The Sussexes have a media rep, and BP isn’t going to comment every time Harry and Meghan make any type of move, and they’re probably annoyed at being asked about them constantly.

    Besides – what did the DM expect BP to say? “we disagree with them and we embrace hate?”

    • Merricat says:

      Lol. “We’re quite racist, you know.” — TQ

    • BabsORIG says:

      ROTFALMBO, “we disagree with them and we embrace hate” 😂😂😂😂😂 Thanks for the morning laugh @Becks1

    • Ainsley7 says:

      I don’t think they would have been quite so annoyed if Harry hadn’t talked about how he couldn’t vote in the UK. He’s bringing it up entirely out of context as if he was part of an oppressed group. He was in a very privileged position and was able to get the government to fund things that they wouldn’t have for just anyone. It’s not like he couldn’t get his voice heard when he wanted to. Which is better? The ability to get the government to fund projects that actually make a difference or the ability to vote?

      • Merricat says:

        I think you missed the point. The right to vote is precious, and fundamental to a democracy. That’s what Harry was supporting, not the “ability to get the government to fund projects….”

    • LahdidahBaby says:

      Lolol, Becks1!

  4. Case says:

    The Buckingham Palace comment is simply factual. Anything Harry says does not reflect the views of the BRF and he’s free to express his personal views now because they wouldn’t allow H&M to continue working under them.

    Even thought they’re not working royals anymore, H&M are still behaving as such. They’re not taking political sides or endorsing a candidate.

    • mytwocents says:

      Am I the only one who reads the statement almost like they’re on H&M’s side? Like, in saying they’re not working royals, leave them alone? Or am I being too hopeful here?

      • Bella DuPont says:

        I saw that as well. Especially because of the use of his titles. I suspect they are taking the opportunity to pass on another message as well ie, their titles are going nowhere.

      • TeamMeg says:

        I, too, read it as almost a stamp of approval—Harry did nothing wrong or off-protocol. The DM can spin it however they want, but in this case, BP has the last word. And honestly, getting your panties in a twist over an appeal to reject hate? Sinful!

      • bamaborn says:

        Honestly believe they realize now they let things get out of hand. From Charles’ point of view, he’d probably much rather have two charismatic, not afraid of work royals when he ascends, as opposed to two documented lazy ones. He’s probably trying to keep the door open to some degree.

      • Sarah says:

        I think so. I’m sure the Royal Reporters were sharpening their pens to write stories saying the Queen didn’t approve of what Harry was doing. Now they can’t.

  5. Merricat says:

    H & M should get a restraining order against Piers Morgan. He’s a mouth-frothing lunatic.

    • atorontogal says:

      I agree! His hate and vengefulness know no bounds. He comes off as a seriously deranged ex, yet they only went on 1 date ffs!!

    • Lizzie says:

      Amen Merricat.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      They should get a private investigator to dig up his shit. There’s absolutely no way he doesn’t have a clutch of women he’s harassed in his past. Someone this abusive must have quite a few. Find them and out him. Hopefully he would be too toxic for even ITV, the home of suicides.

      • Noki says:

        They need to call up Omorosa,he truly met his match with her. She fights dirty and below the belt,when i watched Apprentice back then i felt so bad for him,before he showed himself to be a jerk.

      • Courtney B says:

        @noki I did too. I thought he was pompous but amusing and she was awful. Now it’s the reverse. She still has a ton of flaws but she’s an interesting commentator on tv at least. He makes me shudder whenever I see him.

  6. Amy Bee says:

    The Royal rota was saying yesterday that BP was distancing themselves from Harry and Meghan, like that was a bad thing. This is what Harry and Meghan want but the press is still having difficulty accepting that they’re gone and that the palace doesn’t speak for them.

  7. MsIam says:

    Daily Mail is so pathetic talking about Buckingham Palace has “washed Thur hands” of Harry and Meghan. Uh, excuse me but I believe the Sussexes said on their way out the door that the Palace no longer speaks for them.

    • Merricat says:

      “No, I broke up with YOU!” The DM is absurd.

    • bamaborn says:

      These people!! You almost feel sorry for someone who can’t get on with their lives and let others, who are living their best lives, alone. smh

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      The DM are desperate to change the narrative of H/M walking away to H/M was thrown out. They refuse to accept that H/M is finished with them and is completely on to better things in their lives.

      • ABritGuest says:

        Agree. I didn’t think pushing their website in January was best strategy but it was obvious the press would say they were sacked if they hadn’t. After Andrew’s newsnight interview the press kept talking about need to streamline monarchy ASAP. Only reason press were upset & courtiers promised punishment after January announcement is because their sacking narrative didn’t quite work out.

        I see no need for Harry to comment on his voting (or lack thereof).

        I think the Firm is trying to draw a line because the Sussexes are taking lots of attention away & think they want the press to refocus. Who knows why courtiers thought the constant briefing & therefore keeping Meghan in the press was a good way to ‘put her in her place’

    • anance says:

      This is much ado about nothing. A few days ago the journalists were circling around W & K and Middletons, where the real scandal is.

      But now — nothing, really. H&M are finally doing what they sacrificed much to do. Bucks says it’s none of their business.

      But the tabloids need a consequence-free royal to attack, no here we are.

  8. Rose says:

    I didn’t know Dlisted was full of Meghan hatred. My surprised this morning.

    I’m amazed how telling people to vote triggers people especially the mega crowd.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      An abusive partner NEVER wants you to use YOUR voice, esp. *against* them! Why…that might mean you’re finding YOUR power…and we can’t have that, can we???? NOOOOOO… you try to repeatedly smack them back down and denigrate them. THIS is the relationship the press (abusers) have with H&M (abused partner). And never forget the lengths abusers go to keep you tied to them.

      • Amy Too says:

        And by going to Buckingham palace for comment on the couple who no longer live there or work for them, who are no longer supported financially or otherwise by them, and who have specifically stated that the palace doesn’t speak for them anymore, it’s like the abusive ex boyfriend who gets mad at you and calls your mom or dad to tattle on you and demand that they “do something about your daughter,” even though you’re in your late thirties, haven’t lived with your parents in years, and your parents have absolutely no way to punish or control you. And in this case, it sounds like BP is as confused and taken aback as the parents would be. “Um…. we’re not getting involved with this. We’re not in charge of them anymore, they’re their own private, individual, adult people, and also, they do have their own voice to answer any of your ‘concerns’ so why are you asking us?”

      • Jane's Wasted Talent says:

        Ha! The loser ex-boyfriend is a *fantastic* analogy. There are so many comments here that I wish the rota were forced to read. They obviously need to be mocked and ridiculed more- they are swollen with self-importance, ‘trying to rise above their station’- and after all, this is their own prescribed method of correcting that behavior. Who could object?

    • Melissa says:

      Dlisted is a lot of things – a MAGA crowd is not one of them. That site absolutely loathes Cheeto and his band of merry thieves.

  9. Serinekat says:

    Agreed – Buckingham Palace just underlined the facts. They can’t offer sweet personal in depth comments – that’s not how any of this works. I imagine the Royal family could give two Fs about the video. At best they probably say good for him… Trumps a disaster.

  10. Mtec says:

    “A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: ‘We would not comment. The Duke is not a working member of the Royal Family and any comments he makes are made in a personal capacity.’”

    —Do they understand what “no comment” means? ‘cause what they’re saying here is they won’t comment, but immediately followed it up with a comment. How much are they paying this spokesperson? —W.e it is, it’s too much lol.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Just like when they said the weren’t going to comment on Finding Freedom. No comment never really means no comment for the Royal Family.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The ‘would’ there is important. They’re saying they wouldn’t make comments about whatever Harry says, simply because he’s not a working member of the royal family. They’re clarifying, that *they’re not commenting on what he said nor will they in the future*.

      Setting the expectation they’re not going to give statements or comments about Harry and Meghan’s activities from now on, so the press can stop trying.

    • equality says:

      I would be more impressed if they underlined the fact that Harry is no longer a working royal but also issued a statement agreeing about on-line etiquette. Will once had a cyber-bullying platform that seems to have vanished.

  11. Guest says:

    The British press is running wild. I have no doubt Harry may very well apply to become an LPR but to become a citizen he would have to indicate he’s willing to give up his titles (it’s a question on the N400) and I can’t imagine the furor that would be caused by that in the British press. Piers’ knickers would be in such a twist! And he’d have to hold LPR status for 3 years before that was even an option. At the rate USCIS is moving these days it could be a year to even get an interview. I would love if Harry became a politically active American but i wonder if he will.

    • El says:

      I was coming to say the same thing, but you said it better. It is interesting to me how often getting a green card is conflated with getting citizenship. My husband became a citizen about 8 years ago and I forgotten or never noticed that there was a question about giving up titles (obviously not an issue for us).

    • Snuffles says:

      What is LPR status?

    • notasugarhere says:

      The Dollar Princesses kept their US citizenships while also getting titles by marriage. Their children had US and UK citizenship and received UK titles.

      Grace Kelly didn’t give up her US citizenship and she accepted foreign titles. Her three kids are all dual US/Monaco citizens and have foreign titles.

      Princess Madeline of Sweden’s eldest daughter is a US citizen and holds a foreign title.

      The former Kendra Spears (now Salwa Aga Khan) is a US citizen, has two US citizen children, and they all have foreign titles.

      I doubt Harry would be denied US citizenship unless he gives up his titles.

      • Guest says:

        @nota I didn’t say he would just that the question is on the N400, he would have to answer it, and that would be the story. And I’m also not saying it should be the story btw just that the question is asked and the British media would pounce. You don’t have to give up the titles necessarily just indicate a willingness to. Princess Grace, the dollar princesses, etc weren’t applying for US citizenship. The N400 is the naturalization application for non-citizens so it wouldn’t apply to them. Also I imagine it’s changed in the past 50 or 100 years, I wasn’t practicing back then. As an immigration attorney it’s a question I see every time I fill out the form and always just fly by it because I haven’t had any titled clients.

        LPR= Legal Permanent Resident

      • Guest says:

        Double post

      • TaraBest says:

        You’re correct that I doubt he would actually have to give up his titles. I think the issue is more that he has to say he is willing to do so.

        I have a UK friend who got her US citizenship as an adult and now has dual citizenship. Even though she retained her UK citizenship, she still had to renounce her allegiance to foreign states and sovereigns. She said it still felt strange to have to renounce the Queen, even if she was keeping her citizenship.

        I would imagine it might be hard for Harry to swear the same, even if it’s just ceremonial, and that’s the issue people are raising in him becoming a US citizen.

      • notasugarhere says:

        This goes hand-in-glove with the constant hater argument that Meghan should never get any titles because she’s a US citizen, based on an old non-ratified Amendment to the US Constitution.

        Whatever the rules may be, there are plenty of modern royals who are allowed to both 1) be US citizens and 2) have foreign titles. They didn’t lose citizenship while gaining titles, so why would he lose his titles if he gained citizenship?

        And let’s face it. Wealthy white men and their citizenship applications, I’m sure, are treated differently. If Harry does apply for citizenship, he’d likely get citizenship and keep his titles. Unless the US government plans to strip US citizenship from all those other royals, because Harry would likely have a legal case if they didn’t. If he applies for LPR, why on earth would that form be allowed to be made public? If he does or doesn’t answer that question, or how he does so, shouldn’t be public info.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “The Dollar Princesses kept their US citizenships while also getting titles by marriage.”

        I could be wrong but I think Consuelo Vanderbilt did have to give up her USA citizenship and become a British citizen when she married the Duke of Marlborough in 1895 but I could be wrong.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @Nota & Guest – I went and looked this up on Wikipedia and it is complicated. If you are applying for US citizenship and actively have/hold a foreign title you must surrender or give up the title to become a naturalized US citizen.

      However if you are are already a US citizen by virtue of being native born, you may “inherit” a title. See Wikipedia entries for The Earl of Essex and The Earl of Wharncliffe.

      The 5th Earl of Wharncliffe is a general contractor in Maine. The current heir to the Earl of Essex is a retiree in Yuma, California. It is very confusing but it is true. The heir to the current Earl of Devon holds dual US-British citizen as his mother is a Yank. Jack Courtenay, Lord Courtenay will not have to give up his US citizenship to become the Earl of Devon.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I have to doubt the validity of wikipedia. And even if correct? I doubt whether or not that would be followed through on for Harry, Bay.

      • Guest says:

        @Bay Right as I said, he doesn’t HAVE to give up his titles, but the question is asked on the naturalization application (so only relevant IF he decides to apply for citizenship 3 years after getting his LPR status) and that’s what I think the British press would jump on REGARDLESS of how he answered or if he got a special dispensation to skip it. They would make a whole story out of the mere fact that the question exists. That’s all.

        Signed, a US Immigration Attorney who is actually really enjoying this convo as an escape from the dumpster fire that is the current state of US immigration law.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Nota & Guest – I agree with doubting Wikipedia. However, I just wanted to a quick search and see if I could find anything pertaining to the topic and/or any examples. I did so I posted. Hopefully someone with way more information and knowledge on this matter than me will chime in.

      • Guest says:

        @bay that person with more info is me, I am a US immigration attorney. The issue only comes up when filling out the N400 which is the Application for Naturalization. If you are a natural born US citizen or entitled to citizenship through a parent then it is not an issue UNLESS you are holding an “office of profit or trust” under the US and then you are prohibited from accepting a foreign title without consent of Congress under the Emoluments Clause. A US citizen can inherit a foreign title so long as it does not conflict with their ability to swear Allegiance to the United States. Also there is nothing that says he has to give up his titles, just that he has to indicate a willingness to on the N400. My point was merely that the question exists on the application and THAT will become the story. His applications should never be made public but if it turns out that he does naturalize I can imagine that pages will be written about the fact that that question exists and how he may or may not have answered.

        @nota I think we agree on this. I don’t think he should or would be prevented from becoming a US citizen or be required to give up his titles, I just think that the British press will have a field day with the fact that that question is asked on the application without having any idea how it was answered or if it was answered. It will just be fodder for more lies from them, and that was my only point. Honestly, the whole thing is bs and just another way to attack Meghan.

      • equality says:

        He could apply to be a dual citizen of the US and UK.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Guset – Thanks for the informative posts!

        You are correct but I love the discussion on citizenship because so many reporters both Tabloid & Broadsheet very often get it wrong. such as in the cases of Ted Cruz, John McCain & Barry Goldwater.

      • Candikat says:

        My husband’s best childhood friend is a titled American! His dad was something like the 6th Baron of Somewhereshire. Apparently a previous Baron emigrated generations ago and kept the title which has been passed down. So, in this friend’s family, Dad was Baron Somewhereshire, Mom was Lady Somewhereshire, and the kids were Honourables.

        You’d never know though. They never EVER talk about it, I mean, the whole family came to my wedding. If there’s one time you should know someone’s title, it should be for formal invitations and place cards! But I had no idea until very recently. They’re very nice people who all work hard at normal jobs.

        Since then, the dad has passed on so now the oldest brother is the 7th Baron Somewhereshire, the Mom is the Dowager Baroness, and the SIL is Lady Somewhereshire. Their kids are Honourables. My husband’s friend was a younger brother, so while he’s still an Honourable his wife and kids get nuttin’. I can definitely see how, in families where rank is important, this kind of dynamic could tear a family apart. Luckily they just think of it as a cosmic joke and are all fine with it.

  12. Seraphina says:

    For them to say Meghan cannot or should not comment on the upcoming American election is BS. She is an American and she no longer a working royal. Get over it and yourselves BRF.

  13. Sofia says:

    Well BP isn’t wrong. Harry isn’t a working member of the family nor does he represent HM anymore – he’s as free to say and do whatever since he’s pretty much a private citizen

  14. Marumkie says:

    Speaking as an immigrant who went through the process myself, my guess is that he applied for a green card via marriage when they arrived in the US. Legally, he is allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates (which I recognize he’s not actually doing) , voice his political opinions, and do everything but vote. In 3 years, he can apply for US citizenship, which is probably why he said he can’t vote in THIS particular election.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “Legally, he is allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates (which I recognize he’s not actually doing) , voice his political opinions,”

      Did not some Russian national that worked for the NRA get in trouble for doing exactly this?

  15. Myra says:

    Now that BP has clarified what was pretty clear since January this year, can we no longer hear from the “they’re breaking royal protocol” crowd? It’s so annoying to hear from the people who used to say they’re not royals anymore, shout about royal protocol whenever the Sussexes does anything.

    • Amy Bee says:

      For this to happen, the press and the palace will have to accept that Harry and Meghan are gone and not coming back. It doesn’t seem that they have accepted that yet.

      • bamaborn says:

        Think they’re still in the Kubler-Ross stages of grief. Anybody’s guess when they might get through that.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Cannot wait for outcome of the one-year review.

      • booboocita says:

        @bamaborn — I can’t WAIT to see what the “bargaining” phase looks like. “Okay, so don’t get divorced — but maybe you could leave the wife and kid in the USA, and we’ll see to it that they never set foot on British soil, like, EVER? And we’ll all pretend they don’t exist …” “No? Well, how about you can bring her back to the UK, but she has to work as the scullery maid, and Archie can stay with Doria in the US?”

      • bamaborn says:

        BooBoocita…needed that laugh, thanks😅

  16. Yvette says:

    I think the British Tabs are trying to rile up the American press so they will start after Harry and Meghan as well.

  17. aquarius64 says:

    BP knows if they go ham on the Sussexes it could blow up on the Firm. The courtiers with half a brain know the BRF look bad in many quarters. The Firm has to look to a possible Biden administration which may not look too kindly to how American women (Meghan and Andrew’s possible victims) have been treated by some members of the UK population. As president Biden woild have the power to fire Barr as AG. Others too.

  18. Gracie says:

    When “reject hate” is an implicit endorsement, that tells you all you need to know about the other side.

  19. MissMarierose says:

    I just think it’s hilarious that The Daily Mail admits that Trump = Hate.
    ROFLMAO!

    • notasugarhere says:

      The Fail readership is filled with racist Brexiteers and MAGATs. That’s where the Fail makes their money. I doubt either of those groups is going to stop using that platform for their hate speech, seeing as the Fail lets them say whatever they want without moderating anything.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Blows my mind that the commentariat of the Daily Fail just seem to love Donald Trump. I think many of theses people must be employees of The Fail, bots or paid posters.

  20. Nyro says:

    BP should have been this direct back in March. I think they finally realize they’re losing. The royals loved it when the press was totally on Meghan and Harry’s case but now they’ve created a monster and can’t get any light shone on anything they do. Kate had an engagement the other day and it was barely covered by the rota rats. Bare bones, stating Kate went to this place and a pic or two. And if you look at the tweets, there’s little to no engagement. Like…nothing. And Kate’s covid portrait project totally flopped. Not even her “stans” really talked about it. And the few who did tweet about it made it all about Meghan, LOL. They brought the queen out and everything, and yet it still didn’t garner a fraction of the attention HM got for a two minute recorded message on voting. That’s pathetic. So I think the BRF are very much feeling their irrelevancy these days and probably want the monster they created to calm down and focus on their work now. Too late though. Lol

    • JT says:

      I was really surprised that the portrait competition didn’t get any more coverage, because it was actually a really good project for the gallery. What the hell is the point of the RR when the can’t even do their jobs? They hardly cover any of the “real” royals work anymore. They’ll have days of stories about
      H&M and then a little blip for the RF.

  21. Islandgirl says:

    I just can’t…anyone following the tabloids should be accustomed to this type of reporting.
    It reminds me of “the queen hits back at Barbados” when all BP said was that the decision was a matter for the government and people of Barbados.
    I don’t think the tabloids understand or maybe they don’t care that the more they continue in this vein, the more Harry will not be returning.

  22. atorontogal says:

    I agree! His hate and vengefulness know no bounds. He comes off as a seriously deranged ex, yet they only went on 1 date ffs!!

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      If you are speaking of Pierce Morgan, it wasn’t a date. She joined him for a drink as part of a promotional effort for her show, Suits.

      • Amy Too says:

        I think she means piers Morgan is acting LIKE a crazy person who stalks and harasses you and assumes you had some kind of special relationship even though you’d only been on one date. I don’t think she’s implying that Meghan’s work meeting with Piers was a date and he’s now her ex. But I did have to read the comment twice because I interpreted it as you did the first time.

  23. Lauren says:

    “The Sussexes have stated that they reject hate. We, the REAL BRF, would like to remind the public that we still fully-embrace hate.”

  24. Meg says:

    This feels like when Barr said any BLM protesters are trying to overthrow the government, does he realize hes admitting our government is inherently racist?
    Rejecting hate speech is not political, associating it with Trump theyre admitting he engages in hate speech

  25. Nic919 says:

    You would think the British media would focus on the story of the Queen getting more money than last year despite the Crown Estates being far less profitable this year than last year. So UK taxpayers will have to sacrifice even more for this privileged woman despite their own more difficult situation due to the pandemic. Whatever Harry says is pretty irrelevant in that context.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      SHE’S GETTING WHAT????? You must be kidding? This is not going to sit well with Brits who are no longer able to access Furlough Benefits which are set to expire very soon.

    • Sid says:

      It is incredibly sad. The charity that takes of Kensington Palace, the Tower of London, and some other sites recently stated they will likely have to let some staff go because of decreased revenue. Meanwhile the Queen will be sitting just dandy and won’t see any decrease in the Sovereign Grant, even though the Crown Estate profits have decreased. It makes zero sense, especially considering that the Queen and the BRF’s expenses should theoretically be lower for the next year or two as I can’t imagine they will be able to do major tours and engagements at the same level as pre-COVID until things are truly stable. And I don’t buy the “property repair” excuse because she has been getting money all along to maintain those properties, but it just wasn’t done. So what is going on here?

  26. Ann says:

    Statement, ok, whatever, “against” supporting anti-hate. That’s what they chose to get up in arms about? They should have sent out a statement when Archie was compared to a monkey, but they didn’t. They should have sent out a statement when Randy Andy was outed for raping a teenager, but they didn’t. And so on.

  27. Dl says:

    Could this simple statement from BP shut down any negativity that PWT and KeenKaren may want to throw at H over this?

  28. Mariane says:

    I was suprised to read the BP statement especially seeing how they used their titles. Knowing that Sarah is working as communications director makes me glad to know that they at least have one ally inside & close to the queen.

  29. Le4Frimaire says:

    Man, this benign statement really poked the bear, even NPE mentioned it. I think the Sussexes knew they were testing it when they said what they said, although why they said it is the question🤔.