Royal family: How much does it cost for them to fly on official trips?

Richard Corrigan

GoBankingRates.com

Traveling like royalty comes with a king-sized price tag. GoBankingRates.com looked at how much it costs British taxpayers to send the British royal family overseas and around the United Kingdom on official trips in recent years.

The study did not drill down into the travel costs for official trips by Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan, who have made official visits to Ireland, Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Fiji. But after stepping down as full-time working royals earlier this month, the couple will soon be traveling on their own dime – or on friends' private jets.

But here's a look at the cost of past trips by the queen and her family:

Israel

Total cost of trip: $96,958

Who went: Prince Charles

Method of travel: Charter

Members of the royal family don’t often travel to Israel, but Prince Charles traveled there in late January for the fifth World Holocaust Forum. He also went there in September 2016 for the funeral of former Israeli President Shimon Peres, alongside heads of state from other countries such as then-President Barack Obama.

Charter flights from Aberdeen to Ben Gurion Airport and back made the trip a costly one. But it gave Prince Charles a rare opportunity to visit the grave of his paternal grandmother while in Jerusalem.

France

Total cost of trip: $63,496

Who went: Prince William and Duchess Kate, Prince Harry, Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla

Method of travel: Charter

On June 30, 2016, Prince William and Kate Middleton winged their way to France in the company of William’s brother, Prince Harry, on the eve of the Battle of the Somme Centenary commemorations.

The three young members of the royal family were among thousands who gathered at the Thiepval Memorial the following day to honor those who fell during one of the bloodiest battles of World War I. They were joined on July 1 by Prince Charles and Camilla, along with Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester.

Blame separate charter flights for the two generations of royals for the high price tag on this short trip across the English Channel.

Vietnam

Total cost of trip: $49,383

Who went: Prince William

Method of travel: Scheduled flight

Prince William took the time to kick a soccer ball around with some local schoolchildren during his first official FCO visit to Vietnam, which is one of the most budget-friendly vacation spots. But the three-day trip was anything but a vacation.

His flight from London touched down in Hanoi on Nov. 15, 2016, and the visit focused on efforts to protect endangered wildlife. Prince William, who is president of United for Wildlife, met with Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc before attending a two-day international conference on the illegal wildlife trade.

Oman, UAE and Bahrain

Total cost of trip: $96,224

Who went: Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla

Method of travel: Charter

Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, had a packed schedule during their official FCO visit to the Middle East. The couple attended 50 engagements in Oman, the UAE and Bahrain between Nov. 4 and 11, 2016.

Chartered flights from Royal Air Force Brize Norton to Muscat, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Bahrain made it an expensive trip as well as a busy one. But Prince Charles and Camilla appeared to get the most out of their extended visit. Along the way, Camilla befriended a tiny owl, Prince Charles took part in a traditional Omani sword dance and both found time to do some shopping.

London

Total cost of trip: $26,635

Who went: The queen and the Duke of Edinburgh

Method of travel: Royal Train

Even traveling within the United Kingdom can come with a hefty price tag, as Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip’s trip to the National Vigil at Westminster Abbey goes to show.

The couple took the Royal Train to attend the service and vigil, during which Her Majesty the Queen placed a wreath at the Grave of the Unknown Warrior on the eve of June 30, 2016, marking the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme. Afterward, the train rolled on, carrying the queen and Prince Philip to their Edinburgh residence at the Palace of Holyroodhouse.

Lancashire and Yorkshire, U.K.

Total cost of trip: $60,894

Who went: Prince Charles

Method of travel: Royal Train

Prince Charles hopped aboard the Royal Train to partake in two packed days of engagements on March 20 and 21, 2017, making numerous stops throughout Lancashire and Yorkshire.

The trip included visits to the D. Byrne & Co. Wine Shop and Cowmans Famous Sausage Shop in Clitheroe, along with a selection of retailers from the Clitheroe Annual Food Festival. The Prince of Wales then went on to visit BAE systems in Samlesbury and stopped in at Dewlay Ltd. to see the artisanal cheese-making process.

Though the trip was strictly a domestic one, it was costly all the same. The Sunday Post was quick to skewer the journey’s high price tag, noting that the cost of the Royal Train voyage clocked in at roughly $126 per mile.

Dorchester, U.K.

Total cost of trip: $29,147

Who went: Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla

Method of travel: Royal Train

While the price tag might seem steep for a trip of less than 140 miles, the royal family’s visit to Dorchester on Oct. 26 to 27, 2016, was an emotional one. The queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, accompanied by Prince Charles and Camilla, took the Royal Train to Poundbury, an experimental new town of sorts that began construction in 1993, based on Prince Charles’s vision for a better-quality living environment.

Prince Charles and Camilla officially opened The Duchess of Cornwall Inn, a pub for the new community in the aptly named Queen Mother Square. The Prince of Wales also gave a speech at the opening of Queen Mother Square, inviting the queen to unveil the square’s statue of his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Russia

Total cost of trip: $53,998

Household: Princess Anne

Method of travel: Charter

According to the Telegraph, no member of the royal family has made more trips to Russia than Anne, Princess Royal – the second child and only daughter of Queen Elizabeth II.

Her official FCO visit on Aug. 30 to 31, 2016, took her to the northern city of Arkhangelsk to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the First Arctic Convoy, which carried essential supplies between Britain and the Soviet Union during World War II. Princess Anne was accompanied on the trip by her husband, Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence.

Prince Harry, Meghan Markle repay $3M in public funds for UK ...

Associated Press

LONDON (AP) — Prince Harry has repaid 2.4 million pounds ($3.2 million) in British taxpayers’ money that was used to renovate the home in Windsor intended for him and his wife Meghan before they gave up royal duties and moved to California.

A spokesman for the couple said Monday that Harry had made a contribution to the Sovereign Grant, the public money that goes to the royal family. He said the contribution “fully covered the necessary renovation costs of Frogmore Cottage,” near Queen Elizabeth II’s Windsor Castle home, west of London.

He said Frogmore Cottage will remain the home of Harry and Meghan, also known as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, when they visit the U.K.

Royal accounts for 2019 show that 2.4 million pounds was spent renovating the house, including structural work, rewiring and new flooring. Harry and Meghan agreed to pay back the money and start paying rent as part of the plans drawn up when they quit as senior working royals in March.

Frogmore Cottage:What we know about Harry and Meghan's previous U.K. home

Previously:Prince Harry, Meghan's Frogmore Cottage home renovations cost taxpayers $3 million

They recently bought a house in Santa Barbara, California and last week announced a deal with Netflix to produce a range of films and series for the streaming service.

Queen Elizabeth II to trim costs as royal family faces $45 million hit ...

Staff and wire reports

LONDON — Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II and her family are facing a 35 million pound ($45 million) hit from the coronavirus pandemic, partly due to a shortage of tourists, the monarch’s money-manager said Friday.

Releasing the royal household’s annual accounts, Keeper of the Privy Purse Michael Stevens said a lack of income from visitors to royal buildings was likely to bring a general funding shortfall of 15 million pounds ($19 million) over three years.

He said the impact of the pandemic is also likely to cause a 20 million-pound ($25.4 million) shortfall in a 10-year, 369-million-pound program to replace antiquated heating, plumbing and wiring at Buckingham Palace, the queen’s London home.

Officials have said the palace’s aging infrastructure, which had its last major upgrade after World War II, is at risk of a catastrophic failure if it’s not replaced.

Stevens said the royal household would not ask for more government money but would “look to manage the impact through our own efforts and efficiencies.”

Buckingham Palace has already introduced a staff pay freeze and a halt to hiring.

More:Barbados announces plan to remove Queen Elizabeth as head of state next year

More:Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip departing remote Balmoral Castle, will return to England

The accounts show that the monarchy cost British taxpayers 69.4 million pounds ($88.2 million) in the year to the end of March, an increase of 2.4 million ($3.1 million) on the previous financial year.

In a statement released by the palace, Stevens said the majority of the year under review took place before the impact of the coronavirus pandemic set in. Among a variety of engagements, the queen hosted President Donald Trump on a state visit and led national commemorations for the 75th anniversary of D-Day and for Armistice Day.

“Although COVID-19 has temporarily changed the format of engagements and events, it has not changed the sense of continuity, reassurance and recognition they provide," Stevens said. "Her Majesty’s program, supported by her family, will continue to develop meaningful ways to lead the nation through this time.”

Despite squabbles over money involving Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan of Sussex, and notwithstanding the anti-monarchy views of republicans, most Brits believe the queen and the monarchy in general give good value for money, says royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams.

More:It's been 6 months since Harry and Meghan moved to LA post-Megxit: Are they happy now?

"The monarchy is an invaluable symbol of national unity," Fitzwilliams said. "The benefit to Britain through using it to further soft power in trips abroad, work for charity, having the headship of the Commonwealth, and tourism is enormous. It is worth bearing this in mind when considering the cost of monarchy."

The accounts confirm that Harry and Meghan paid an undisclosed sum to reimburse the public purse for rent and refurbishment of their Frogmore Cottage home on the Windsor Castle estate, which remains their base in Britain even though they are now living in California. The exact sum they paid will appear in next year’s accounts. The renovation costs alone for the home were 2.4 million pounds ($3.1 million.)

Harry, 36 and the former Meghan Markle, 39, married at Windsor Castle in May 2018. The couple announced early this year they were quitting royal duties and moving to North America, citing what they said was the unbearable intrusions and racist attitudes of the British media. They recently bought a house for more than $14 million in Santa Barbara County.

Harry and Meghan signed a mega deal this month to produce nature series, documentaries and children’s programming for streaming service Netflix.

Contributing: The Associated Press; Maria Puente, USA TODAY

More:Princess Eugenie, husband Jack Brooksbank expecting first child

More:Prince Harry, Duchess Meghan draw criticism, disparaging Trump comments for video urging voting

Fact check: U.K. paid off debts to slave-owning families in 2015

The claim: The U.K. government only just finished paying its debts to slave owners in 2015

Recent fatal police shootings in the United States have led to a global reckoning on the role of race and injustice in society. In the United Kingdom, this dispute has centered on the country's imperial history and legacy of slavery.

“In 1833, Britain used 40% of its national budget to buy freedom for all slaves in the Empire. Britain borrowed such a large sum of money for the Slavery Abolition Act that it wasn’t paid off until 2015,” a graphic posted by the political activist Raheem Kassam reads.

“This means that living British citizens helped pay for the end of the slave trade with their taxes,” the graphic continues. The post has been shared almost 20,000 times.

The story is echoed in an article by the website Your Black World.

When the United Kingdom abolished slavery, the government compensated slave owners for the value lost from freeing enslaved people. It is true the Bank of England only recently paid off these debts.

Fact:Congress did not designate Confederate veterans as U.S. veterans

Slavery and abolition in the British Empire

The British played an integral role in building the Atlantic slave trade, which enabled chattel slavery, the brutal practice that defined most societies in the Atlantic world.

"Portugal and Britain were the two most ‘successful’ slave-trading countries accounting for about 70% of all Africans transported to the Americas. Britain was the most dominant between 1640 and 1807 when the British slave trade was abolished," the British National Archives found.

In total, about 3.1 million African people were transported to British colonies across the Americas and Caribbean, though only 2.7 million people survived the harrowing "middle passage" in the confines of slave ships across the ocean.

Fact check:The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves

Anti-slavery sentiment grew in the Britain during this same period, with many British and African abolitionists agitating for an end to the trade and abolition of slavery. In 1807, the British Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act, which outlawed the slave trade in the British Empire.

"Many, however, simply evaded its restrictions. Slave ships were regularly fitted out in British ports like Liverpool or Bristol. In fact, until 1811 carrying slaving equipment like shackles was not considered proof of involvement in the slave trade," Marika Sherwood found in her 2007 work "After Abolition: Britain and the Slave Trade Since 1807."

British slavers and capital were still involved in the trading of African people to plantations in major slave societies like Brazil, Cuba and the United States for years after the slave trade's official abolition.

Fact check:Yes, Kente cloths were historically worn by empire involved in West African slave trade

In 1834, the British government outlawed slavery in Britain and its American possessions, though not in its Asian colonies such as British India and what would become Sri Lanka.

The British government also paid 20 million pounds – the equivalent of around 17 billion pounds today – to compensate slave owners for the lost capital associated with freeing slaves. This payout was a massive 40% of the government's budget and required many bonds to slave owners to effectuate the law.

These obligations to slave owners and institutions are the debts that were paid off by the UK government only in 2015.

More:25 books for kids and adults to reflect on history of slavery

Compensating slave owners after abolition

The UK Treasury continued to compensate the descendants of slave owners for decades after the abolition of slavery in the empire. The payments were not scrutinized until the British Treasury tweeted out the historical fact in 2018.

"The amount of money borrowed for the Slavery Abolition Act was so large that it wasn't paid off until 2015. Which means that living British citizens helped pay to end the slave trade," the tweet read.

The tweet was widely criticized at the time, with many outraged that current British tax dollars were compensating the descendants of slave owners. The Treasury later deleted the tweet.

While the British government hasn't disclosed a complete list of the recipient individuals and firms of bonds related to compensation for slaves, researchers at University College London have compiled a list of over 46,000 current individuals and groups who have received government payouts related to the abolition of slavery. Many powerful British families, including current business and political elites in the United Kingdom, are among the recipients uncovered by the UCL team.

Yet not all recipients were already wealthy or became so due to the payouts; UCL records show many middle-class Britons also benefited from the bonds.

"Britain stood out among European states in its willingness to appease slave owners, and to burden future generations of its citizens with the responsibility of paying for it," Kris Manjapra wrote for The Guardian in 2018.

Recently, economists and political scientists have debated whether the payouts were necessary for the successful abolition of slavery, some arguing that political will would have been better used to compensate Black slaves instead.

Our ruling: True

The British government only paid off its obligations to former slave-owning families and organizations in 2015. When this fact gained public attention, it turned into a major controversy in the United Kingdom, which has since been reignited by international reckoning over anti-Black racism and social justice. We rate this claim TRUE because it is supported by our research.

Our fact-check sources:

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here.

Our fact check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

Ten Things You Need to Know Today: 30 June 2022 | The Week UK

Meghan findings won’t be published

Buckingham Palace has refused to release the findings of an investigation into bullying allegations made against the Duchess of Sussex. The review was launched in March 2021 to explore what “lessons could be learned” after it was alleged that she had driven out two personal assistants and “humiliated” staff. Although the palace initially said that any changes in policies or procedures recommended by the review would be published, a source has now said that those taking part needed to have “confidentiality”.

Is public money being used to fund Prince Andrew's sexual abuse ...

The disgraced duke had faced “increasing pressure” from the Royal Family to settle and bring the case to an end after it “threatened to overshadow the Queen’s jubilee celebrations ”, according to The Times . Prince Charles, his older brother, is thought to have been a particularly “prominent voice” on the matter.

But in reaching the settlement he agreed to make a “substantial donation” to Giuffre’s charity for victims of abuse, pledging to “demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein” by supporting the “fight against the evils of sex trafficking and by supporting its victims”.

Andrew has always denied the allegations that he sexually abused Guiffre after she was “trafficked by his friend and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein”, said The Guardian.

“I am going to take the opportunity to raise this issue in parliament because the issue isn’t going to go away until people have that information and receive assurances that public money is not going to be used to in any way contribute to the settlement.”

“We don’t know the precise figure but there is a risk that this will be at the public’s expense so we need to have that resolved,” he warned. “We need to know exactly where this money is coming from.

During an appearance on the BBC’s Newsnight McDonald described Prince Andrew as “a person of very high profile involved in a case where his position of authority and privilege has been allegedly abused and it is an enormous sum of money.

The deal means Prince Andrew will avoid a public trial and will not be forced into an “admission of guilt” over the allegations of sexual abuse against him, said The Guardian . Andy McDonald, Labour MP for Middlesbrough, said he would raise the issue in parliament next week when MPs return after the February recess.

An out-of-court settlement for an undisclosed sum, reportedly up to £12m, was announced by lawyers representing the Duke of York and Giuffre this week.

A Labour MP has demanded “assurances” that public money will not be used to fund Prince Andrew’s out-of-court settlement with Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre.

One legal source told the paper that the settlement would be “worth its weight in gold” to the Queen, as embarrassing trial proceedings are likely to have gone ahead amid planned celebrations marking her 70th year on the throne.

Who’s paying?

Andrew’s finances have “long been shrouded in mystery”, royal finances expert David McClure told The Sun.

He officially receives an allowance from the Queen worth about £248,000 a year, as well as a naval pension of around £20,000 annually. But he will have “other sources” to draw on to pay the settlement, McClure said.

One of those sources is likely to be the sale of a £17m Swiss ski chalet he bought with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson in 2014. But “he is not yet believed to have received any money for it”, The Sun said, and is likely only to receive a “fraction” of the total sum.

He “has made a few million from that”, said McClure. “But he will have to split that with Fergie, and had a mortgage to pay on it, so he is likely to have lost money on it.”

He also “likely has money left over” from the 2007 sale of Sunninghill Park, the home he formerly shared with Ferguson, the paper said, which sold to a “Kazakh oligarch for £15m, £3m over the asking price”.

A source with knowledge of the settlement between Andrew and Giuffre told the Daily Mirror that it was only signed when Andrew was “able to provide proof” that any remaining funds from the sale of the ski chalet would be available.

The Daily Mail reported that a “bridging loan” was offered to Prince Andrew from Prince Charles and the Queen “so his US lawyers could do a quick deal” with Giuffre, but said it remained “unclear” how the duke would fund the settlement.

Much of the money is likely to come from the Queen, possibly from her Duchy of Lancaster estate or private funds from her considerable investment portfolio.

Bank of Mum & Dad

The Queen receives a taxpayer-funded sovereign grant, paid to her by the government every year, which last year totalled £51.5m.

But the grant must be spent “by the royal household in support of Her Majesty’s official duties” and so “clearly” does not include “paying out-of-court settlements”, said Craig Prescott, a lecturer in law at Bangor University, on The Conversation.

The Queen separately receives the surplus from the Duchy of Lancaster estate, which grew to a substantial £22.3m in 2020-21. But there is some argument to be had over whether funds derived from the estate should be considered “private or public” money, Prescott said.

At times acting like “a family trust” and at others like a “commercial business”, the Duchy of Lancaster estate has frequently left MPs who have tried to “scrutinise” its accounts “scratching their heads”, said Town & Country.

The Mirror said that the Queen has already given her “shamed son” £2m as a donation to Giuffre’s charity, agreeing to help him “as long as she was not connected to any personal payment to Giuffre”.

“She could not be seen to be making a payment to a victim of sexual assault, who accused her son of being an abuser,” a royal source told the paper.

“But a deal was structured in such a way to arrange a sizeable financial contribution to the settlement by way of a charitable donation instead.”

Prince Harry, Duchess Meghan's home repairs cost taxpayers $3 ...

Danica Kirka

Associated Press

LONDON (AP) — The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s home was renovated with 2.4 million pounds ($3.06 million) of taxpayers’ money, royal accounts revealed Tuesday.

Prince Harry and his wife Meghan’s residence near Windsor Castle, called Frogmore Cottage, underwent major work to turn five properties back into a single home for the couple and their baby son Archie. Fixtures, fittings and furnishings at the Victorian-era structure were paid for by the royal couple.

The figures were part of the release of the royal family’s accounts, which showed that the British taxpayers spent 67 million pounds ($85.2 million) on the monarchy during 2018-19, a 41% increase on the previous financial year.

“The property had not been the subject of work for some years and had already been earmarked for renovation in line with our responsibility to maintain the condition of the occupied royal palaces estate,” said Michael Stevens, the keeper of the Privy Purse, who is responsible for the monarchy’s accounts.

“The building was returned to a single residence and outdated infrastructure was replaced to guarantee the long-term future of the property,” he said. “Substantially all fixtures and fittings were paid for by Their Royal Highnesses.”

Anti-monarchy campaign group Republic questioned why so much money was spent on the renovations at a time when public services are under financial pressure.

“It is particularly galling that they’re allowed to get away this whilst public services need money,” said group spokesman Graham Smith.

Overall, spending rose primarily because of higher levels of expenditure devoted to critical renovations for Buckingham Palace in London. The iconic structure is in the second year of a 10-year project after a Treasury report concluded the building’s infrastructure was in danger of a catastrophic failure.

The total Sovereign Grant, which funds Queen Elizabeth II and her household’s official expenses, was 82.2 million pounds, or 1.24 pounds per person in the U.K. That figure includes 15.2 million pounds ($19.3 million) set aside for future phases of the palace renovation.

The palace says the royal family took on 3,200 official engagements during 2018-19 and welcomed 160,000 guests to royal palaces and events.

More:Duchess Meghan changed her engagement ring and we didn't even notice

More:Prince Harry to throw first pitch at London Series MLB game

Meghan Markle, Prince Harry post-Megxit: Are they happy now?

It's been six months since Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan moved to Southern California to build a new kind of royal lifestyle, one bolstered by more independence, more control over their image and new Hollywood business partners.

So, Harry and Meg, how's it going so far?

Meghan, the Los Angeles-born former actress, hinted about how she feels in recent online interviews. "It's good to be home," she sighed contentedly.

And that was before the news on Sept 2 that the couple signed a multiyear mega-deal with Netflix to become Hollywood producers of scripted series, docuseries, documentaries, features and children’s programming. For the first time, a British royal couple are set to become players in the global entertainment industry.

"This is a massive unparalleled historical deal," said Jonathan Shalit, chairman/founder of InterTalent Rights Group, who bills himself on Twitter as "London's Most Influential Talent Manager." He says he knows Harry and Meghan because one of his clients, The Kingdom Choir, sang at their 2018 wedding. "Meghan could not have been more warm and charming," he says, comparing her compassion and empathy to that of the late Princess Diana, whom he also knew.

So, time to take a look back at what's happened since "Megxit," the tabloids' mocking epithet for the couple's shocking announcement in January that they were stepping back from their senior royal roles. Are Harry and Meghan happy now? Do they have agency over their new lives and their new purpose?

USA TODAY reached out to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's media reps, who declined to comment.

Others were more willing. "Yes, independence and a role they clearly want in life has been achieved with the Netflix deal," says Shalit, who says he and many others in the U.K. think Harry and Meghan have "a right to happiness and a right to carve their own path in life."

More:Prince Harry, Meghan Markle repay $3M to British taxpayers for renovations on their UK home

But the couple may never redeem themselves with some of their fiercest critics.

"Many resent and blame Meghan for the manner in which they feel she ‘crashed’ herself into the royal family and then tried to change an institution that has existed for 800 years," Shalit says. Their split from royal life seems inevitable in retrospect, he adds.

Hollywood royals:

In less than six months, Harry, 36, and Meghan, 39, have morphed from second-tier royals to media moguls-in-waiting.

More:Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan sign multiyear Netflix deal to 'shine a light' on causes

“Through our work with diverse communities and their environments, to shining a light on people and causes around the world, our focus will be on creating content that informs but also gives hope," they said in a statement.

“The deal will make Meghan and Harry prima donnas of Hollywood," predicts Eric Schiffer, chairman of Reputation Management Consultants in Los Angeles. "It’s the hottest power play of modern Tinseltown.”

Financial independence

The price tag of the Netflix deal was not disclosed, but it has already helped defuse one reason for lingering resentment: They paid off about $3.2 million in taxpayers' money spent to renovate their Windsor home, Frogmore Cottage, which remains their base when they are in the U.K. They had already said they would pay back the costs monthly over a few years, but their critics insisted that wasn't good enough. Now that issue is moot.

The couple's partnership with Netflix will help make it possible for them to live a grand lifestyle without help from Harry's father, Prince Charles, or British taxpayers. They were both millionaires anyway (he inherited many millions from his late mother, Princess Diana and from his great-grandmother, the Queen Mother, and she made a few million as an actress on cable show "Suits"), but their expensive requirements, especially security costs, meant they needed to up their game in America.

Stand and deliver

Howard Bragman of La Brea Media says Harry and Meghan, as neophyte producers, still have a lot to prove. Now they have to put together an experienced Hollywood production team and some genuine quality projects, as their friends, former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama, did when they signed a mega-production deal with Netflix after leaving the White House.

"People are not going to watch just because it’s them – they'll get a ton of promotion because it’s them, (viewers) might sample because it's them, but it could backfire; they could be more critical, too," the longtime Hollywood PR management expert says.

"The real challenge is to take their woke concepts and translate that into entertainment that is going to be compelling, because in the end if it's not good entertainment people are not going to watch it no matter how much promotion you give it."

A new palatial estate

They moved in June to their "new family home," as they described it, a 19,000-square foot Mediterranean-style villa in pricey Montecito in Santa Barbara County, near where their pal Oprah Winfrey lives, about an hour northwest of Los Angeles.

It was their fourth abode since January, and the price tag was just under $15 million, according to Variety and the Los Angeles Times.

Their new wealth means they can hire personal, professional and security staff loyal to them alone, unlike those employed in the royal palaces in Britain, some of whom have been known to leak to the media.

Media matters

One of the reasons Harry and Meghan were fed up with the royal life, according to a recent biography, "Finding Freedom," by two sympathetic journalists, was the palace media operation, which they felt did not do enough to counter the negative, even racist coverage of the couple in British tabloids and on social media.

Now they have a new media team, funded by the Sussexes and working out of the Sunshine Sachs PR firm, well-known in Hollywood. They are helping the couple set up their new non-profit organization, Archewell, and are working on building their new Twitter and Instagram social media platforms.

The Sussex media team is anonymous and totally under the couple's control. Now that Harry and Meghan are no longer working royals, they can set their own rules about how they present themselves to the public.

Meanwhile, the standard media pools organized by the palace to cover royal engagements are gone; instead, the couple announce engagements only after they're over (to help foil paparazzi) and encourage whoever they're visiting to post positive sentiments on social media.

More:Duchess Meghan reveals Prince Harry calls himself a feminist, too, during Gloria Steinem chat

More freedom to speak out

The price of being royal is a constrained life; you can't say or do or wear anything you like whenever you like, and you can't talk about politics and other topics off limits for royals.

"When they left they were looking for fewer layers of palace interference in what they wanted to do. Now that can be (organized) without clearing it through 18 levels of palace sign-off," says Lainey Lui, a Canadian TV personality and founder of Toronto-based Laineygossip.com, who closely follows royal news.

Harry and Meghan also have more freedom to speak up about causes they believe in. Since arriving in the USA, Harry has been campaigning publicly for reform of social media, while Meghan has been talking about empowering women and urging them to vote.

"We all know what's at stake" in November, she warned in an online get-out-the vote appearance last month.

More:Harry, Meghan threaten legal action over published paparazzi pictures that show baby Archie

Privacy still elusive

It was one of the issues the couple cited in their reasons for seeking to build a new life in North America – their desire to control when and where they are left alone. So far, they've been "paparazzied" only a few times in Los Angeles.

"It's not just about where the paparazzi are, it's about the people around you who are selling you out," Lui says. "It's when the people assigned to protect them or who are around them (as staff) are allegedly leaking to newspapers about their private business."

Still, Los Angeles is the capital of the paparazzi. Only months after they moved into a borrowed mansion overlooking the Beverly Hills area, Harry and Meghan were alarmed to see low-flying drones buzzing the backyard for pictures of 16-month-old son, Archie.

In July, they filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles aimed at stopping the "disgusting and wrong" publication of a picture, taken by an unknown photographer, of baby Archie.

California law bans photographers from invading people's privacy by peering into private homes. But it's yet another legal battle with the media – they are suing three tabloids in London in two separate lawsuits – that could end up being Pyrrhic legal victories.

Shalit points out that the Netflix deal could also challenge their much-desired privacy.

"The price they will have to pay is media and personal intrusion into their lives for so long as they live public lives in show business," Shalit says. "They will need the fuel of publicity and media support to promote and maximize attention for what Netflix have paid for."

The new Yacht Britannia | The Week UK

What is being proposed?

In July, the Defence Secretary Ben Wallace formally announced plans for a new national flagship to “promote British businesses around the world”. Commissioned at a cost of £200m to £250m, it would be designed and built in the UK. Boris Johnson said it would reflect “the UK’s burgeoning status as a great, independent maritime trading nation”. The boat is to be a replacement for the Royal Yacht Britannia, which reached the end of its working life in 1997. The idea, first proposed in 2001, was taken up by Tory MPs in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, and has received vociferous backing from The Daily Telegraph. It was supported by Johnson after he became PM, and given the go-ahead in May. The Government said it would be used to host trade fairs, ministerial meetings and diplomatic summits. The vessel would be crewed by the Royal Navy, and is expected to be in service for about 30 years.

Why wasn’t the last one renewed?

The Royal Yacht Britannia was in service from 1954 until 1997, a period during which it travelled more than a million nautical miles across the globe. But in 1994, the Government announced its retirement, citing the estimated £17m cost of completing a major re-fit (just seven years after the last one), which would only prolong its life by five years. In January 1997, the Conservatives promised to replace the yacht if re-elected that year, but Tony Blair’s victory spelt the end of the plan. His Labour government declined to spend public money on renewing it, citing the fact that the Queen had “made clear” that a yacht wasn’t needed for royal travel. Today, the ship is a tourist attraction in Leith, Edinburgh, with some 300,000 visitors a year.

What would a new one be like?

The details have yet to be fleshed out: the tendering process for design and construction began in July. However, the brief is to deliver “a vessel which reflects British design expertise and the latest innovations in green technology”. (Wallace said that it might have hybrid engines, or even a sail, like some modern superyachts.) The intention is to start building next year in a British shipyard, to create jobs and “help drive a renaissance in the UK’s shipbuilding industry”; at present, Britain has many top yacht designers and a thriving leisure boat industry, but most superyachts are built abroad. The yacht will have a “national security function”, too; Britannia was designed to double as a hospital ship. The ship’s name has yet to be announced: it was reported that the PM wanted to name it after the Duke of Edinburgh in tribute, but that the proposal was greeted with coolness in royal circles.

What’s the point of it?

Advocates of the ship say it will glide gracefully into ports around the world, where it will be used to wine and dine officials, thereby smoothing the way for trade deals, defence agreements and the like. They cite the example of Britannia, which they say helped bring in an estimated £3bn of trade deals between 1991 and 1995. “The world’s top investors will fall over themselves to visit a new flagship for a new type of commercial diplomacy,” said Johnson. A report last year by the think tank the Henry Jackson Society said the yacht could help “project Britain’s image around the world”; Lord Digby Jones, the former head of the CBI, said it would give the nation a “morale boost” after the pandemic.

Is everybody convinced?

No. Labour leader Keir Starmer labelled it a “vanity yacht” and called on the PM to spend the money tackling antisocial behaviour instead; the former Tory minister Ken Clarke called it “silly populist nonsense”. Many commentators are scathing. “I don’t think the world’s most successful exporting nations – Germany, Japan, China – ever needed a floating gin palace to get the world to buy their cars, steel or smartphones,” said Sean O’Grady in The Independent: quality, price, innovation and reliability, he argued, were more important. The ship doesn’t even enjoy the backing of senior members of the royal family, The Sunday Times reported. “No one wants this vessel at the Palace,” said a royal source. Courtiers, it seems, do not want it to be presented as a new “royal yacht”, which is regarded as “too grand” a symbol for the modern monarchy. They would not use it for their personal travel or holidays – though Wallace hopes it would be used for royal visits, to “showcase the royal family as one of our exports”.

How would it be paid for?

When the idea was originally proposed, the cost was estimated at £100m and was to be covered by private donors, with no burden on the taxpayer. However, the Government has now confirmed that the ship would be paid for out of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget – despite insisting that it would be primarily “a trade ship”. The original invitation to tender in July put the budget at £150m. However, a week after that, it was raised to £200m-£250m. Hugo Andreae, editor of Motor Boat & Yachting, thinks that, knowing the economics of superyachts, the price will rise to around £600m – unless the national flagship is to risk being “overshadowed by a tasteless megayacht belonging to some shady despot”.

Will it actually be built?

The project reportedly drew ire from the MoD, where officials asked No. 10 what they could scrap to pay for it. Chancellor Rishi Sunak is also said to be reluctant to pay for it. Johnson, however – a fan of statement projects – is said to “love the plan”. And Wallace is on board, too. He argues that the cost is a fraction of the MoD’s £42bn annual budget, and has dismissed criticism as “basket-weaving, leftie, Islington nonsense”. He insists construction will begin as soon as next year, and it will be “in the water by 2024 or 2025”.

Britannia: the original national flagship

The Royal Yacht Britannia was a symbol of British prestige, said the FT – a “glamorous nod to a lost age of naval superiority and to a different era of deference”. Built in Clydebank, Dunbartonshire, it was used for a combination of “glittering state visits, official receptions, royal honeymoons and relaxing family holidays”, according to its official website.

The ship’s first official engagement was to carry Prince Charles and Princess Anne to Malta in 1954, where they met their parents at the end of a Commonwealth tour. It was the first of 968 state voyages that the ship carried out over its 44 years of service, during which every conceivable effort was made to ensure it was as comfortable and tranquil as possible for the royals: the crew wore soft-soled plimsolls and communicated using hand signals to reduce noise. An on-board garage housed the Queen’s Rolls-Royce and a 26-strong Royal Marines band was stationed on the ship at all times.

People visiting it in Leith today will see that every clock on board has been stopped at 3.01pm – the time the Queen last disembarked following the ship’s 1997 decommissioning ceremony in Portsmouth. The Queen is said to have been at her happiest on the ship, and at that event, she famously shed a tear.

Meghan Markle, Harry show how families struggle with financial ties

Aimee Picchi

Special to USA TODAY

Corrections & Clarifications: An earlier version of this story cited the wrong year for the Northwestern Mutual Planning & Progress study.

Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan of Sussex have a lifestyle that’s beyond what most Americans can imagine. But their struggle to break away from their family – and its financial control – is close to home.

No matter a family’s income level, disagreements about money, independence and roles crop up.

That’s even more the case in family businesses, which John Davis of the MIT Sloan School of Management says account for half of U.S. publicly traded companies and two-thirds of the world’s businesses. The royal family's "business" is largely to provide ceremonial leadership in the U.K., which one brand consultancy estimates is worth $2.3 billion a year through its boost to tourism and other industries.

Families not running a business together also get enmeshed in each other's financial lives. Older generations are increasingly tied up in younger generations’ finances, an issue that can come to a head at life junctures such as marriage or the birth of a child, financial experts say. Such events can cause adult children or their parents to reassess their priorities.

Tax season 2020:Most Americans don't understand how tax refunds work, and it might cost them

More:Millennials lag older generations in the amount of expected wealth they should have, a new study shows

In the case of Harry and Meghan, their decision to break away came eight months after the birth of their son, Archie. In their Instagram post last week announcing their decision, the couple cited their desire for "geographic balance" in raising their son between the U.K. and North America.

For members of family-owned businesses, “there are expectations of you, not just in your job but in your lifestyle,” such as which neighborhood you live in, says Davis, who is the faculty director of the Family Enterprise Programs at MIT’s Sloan School and advises multigenerational family businesses.

Those expectations “can feel confining – not only to the blood family member but especially to the spouse,” Davis says. “It’s a bind.”

In announcing their decision, Meghan and Harry said they wish to become "financially independent." That means they'll give up their share of the Sovereign Grant, the taxpayer-supplied fund for members of the royal family, which has covered 5% of their expenses. Their remaining income comes from Harry's father, Prince Charles, according to their website.

While they live on a much grander scale, Meghan and Harry still share an experience that's increasingly common for millennials: relying on financial support from parents. And even if the royal family's wealth is hard to relate to, the tensions from such arrangements are increasingly felt by many American middle-class families.

Family funding

About one in six Americans say they receive financial support from their family members, including one-third of millennials, according to Northwestern Mutual’s 2018 Planning & Progress study.

Americans' views on when young adults should gain financial independence have changed. Only a quarter believe adulthood begins at 18, while one-third says it starts at 25, according to a Country Financial survey last year.

“It's often some sort of life event that gets them to trigger that independence,” such as getting married, says Troy Frerichs, vice president of investment services at Country Financial.

That can lead to discussions about financial goals and boundaries for a number of reasons, experts say. For instance, parents may decide that marriage signals an adult child's readiness for financial independence, while adult children may want to set goals for moving out of the parent's house if they find a better-paying job.

“It's awkward for American families, and it's awkward for royals, too,” says Chantel Bonneau, wealth management adviser at Northwestern Mutual. “I have many clients who are 21, 30, 40 years old who say, ‘My parents still pay for my cellphone,’ or ‘My parents will give me a down payment for a house, but then they have a say in the location of the house and the style.’ It's a double-edged sword.”

Of course, in the case of millennials who receive support from their parents, it’s frequently the older generation that’s looking to break things off – rather than the younger generation seeking to remove themselves from the situation – because of their concerns about saving for retirement.

But whatever the situation, experts point out guidelines that can help adult children and parents navigate discussions about finances, independence and expectations.

Be clear on what you want to achieve

To avoid unwelcome surprises, tell your family what you want to discuss before the conversation, says Bonneau of Northwestern Mutual. “If a child is going in with the expectation to ask for help buying a house, and the parent didn't expect that, then all of a sudden they are fighting,” she says.

Understand the intent

Like Meghan and Harry, adult children may be “more emotional and drastic than their parents” as they try to find their own path, Bonneau says. And parents may try to give unwanted advice. But the key is to assume positive intent, she adds. For instance, the unwanted advice from parents is likely coming from a desire to help their children avoid pitfalls.

Do your research

If you have a financial proposal, make sure you’ve run the numbers, Bonneau says. For instance, young adults asking their parents for help with a down payment on a house or car could show they can handle the monthly payments.

Set up plans for family businesses

Families with multigenerational businesses are often coping with diversity in views, geographic locations and careers, says MIT’s Davis. In that case, consider creating a formal family governance plan can help create a cohesive family culture, such as setting up annual family meetings. Says Davis, “Create good gatherings so the family stays together and enjoys each other.”

Aimee Picchi is a business journalist whose work appears in publications including USA TODAY, CBS News and Consumer Reports. She previously spent almost a decade covering tech and media for Bloomberg News. You can follow her on Twitter at @aimeepicchi.


Is Vladimir Putin's invasion down to 'toxic masculinity'? | The Week UK

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a “perfect example of toxic masculinity” and wouldn’t have happened if the Russian president was a woman, Boris Johnson has said.

The prime minister was speaking at a Nato summit in Madrid when he described the invasion as a “crazy, macho war” and called for “more women in positions of power”.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace later supported this assessment by telling LBC Radio that Putin had “small man syndrome” and that a “macho” view of the world had caused the war.

'Hypermasculine performances'

It is not the first time Putin has been denounced for his “hypermasculine performances of power”, as Alia E. Dastagir described them at USA Today; performances that have become “part of his persona and crucial to his brand”. Since the beginning of the war, a debate has emerged over whether “Putin’s brand of manhood” has been a causing factor in the invasion as he attempts to justify his motives.

Past images of the Russian leader horse-riding shirtless, shooting guns, and competing in judo matches are all part of the “PR machine for toxic masculinity” wrote Brad Slager at conservative US blog Red State, making up for a lack of “charisma”.

This public persona of Putin has been starkly juxtaposed with his counterpart in Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, since the war began. Putin is an example of masculinity the “modern world is trying to leave behind”, said Annalisa Merelli at Quartz, while Zelenskyy – who once appeared in a pink suit on the Ukrainian equivalent of Strictly Come Dancing – is unafraid to show “empathy and vulnerability”. Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s “oppression and authoritarianism” fits into a wider movement to “push back against and replace patriarchal values”.

It is what Ukraine stands for, “its assertion of autonomy”, that has been the causing factor in Putin’s “patriarchal belief that Ukraine’s proper ‘feminine’ role was to submit to the will of its stronger neighbour”, wrote four political science experts at The Conversation. Ukraine’s democracy, and adoption of more progressive gender rights, are a threat to Putin’s “cult of masculinity” and Russia’s reliance on “unequal gender roles”, said political science professors Valerie Sperling, Janet Elise Johnson, Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom and gender studies expert Alexandra Novitskaya.

‘Blinkered’ by identity politics

Of “all the ill-informed explanations” for why Putin invaded Ukraine, this is “perhaps the most absurd”, argued Jessa Crispin at UnHerd shortly after the war began. Viewing a geopolitical conflict through the lens of “the very Western, very modern framework of identity politics” is “shockingly irresponsible”, she said.

Ten Things You Need to Know Today: 29 June 2022 | The Week UK

Philippines to close news site

Authorities in the Philippines have ordered the closure of an investigative news site. Rappler, which was founded by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa, is one of the country’s few media outlets that is critical of president Rodrigo Duterte, who is poised to be replaced by his ally, Ferdinand Marcos Jr. In a defiant statement, Rappler said it wouldn’t be closing and would challenge the order in court. “We will continue to work and to do business as usual,” said Ressa. “We will follow the legal process and continue to stand up for our rights. We will hold the line.”


Deborah James: tireless cancer campaigner dies aged 40 | The ...

Podcaster and cancer campaigner Deborah James, whose frank account of living life with bowel cancer raised millions for cancer research and saw her awarded a damehood, has died at home aged 40.

James had been receiving end-of-life care at her home since revealing she had stopped treatment for her bowel cancer in May.

Her family announced her death in a post on her Instagram page, describing her as “the most amazing wife, daughter, sister, mummy”.

The host of the BBC’s You, Me and the Big C podcast had won plaudits for her “no-nonsense approach to talking about cancer”, having shared her experiences of living with the illness since her diagnosis in 2016, said the BBC.

After announcing her treatment was to end, she launched the Bowelbabe fund which raised £1m in less than 24 hours, and has gone on to raise more than £7m for research into personalised medicine for cancer patients.

Her family said James shared her experience of cancer to “raise awareness, break down barriers, challenge taboos and change the conversation around cancer”.

“Even in her most challenging moments, her determination to raise money and awareness was inspiring,” they added.

Bowel Cancer UK, of which James was a patron, said she had turned her bowel cancer diagnosis “into an incredible force for good” and would save countless lives through her campaigning.

Social media star

James, a mother of two and former deputy headteacher, was diagnosed “late” with incurable bowel cancer in December 2016, said the Daily Mail. She then began to share her experiences of living with the disease on social media under the name “Bowel Babe”, before becoming one of the three hosts of Radio 5 Live’s You, Me and the Big C in 2018.

The hit show was the brainchild of its late co-host Rachael Bland, who died of terminal breast cancer aged 40, just six months after the show’s launch.

James was praised for her candid approach to discussing cancer on the show, which she continued to co-host after Bland’s death alongside Lauren Mahon and Steve Bland, Rachael’s husband.

The show, which has featured a string of celebrities, has won plaudits for its “frank discussion” of cancer and how to deal with practical matters such as hair loss, finances and telling loved ones about the illness, said the BBC.