? That’s the report in one outlet this week.Globe
reports Prince Harry may not have been telling the truth when he claimed to have been financially cut off by his father, Prince Charles. According to the tabloid’s inside sources, an audit of Clarence House has shown that Prince Charles allocated $6.25 million to his sons last year, and a “substantial sum” of that total reportedly went to Harry.
The tabloid notes that Charles was still supporting his youngest son financially throughout his move to California despite the couple repeatedly insisting they were working towards becoming financially independent. But in the time since, the Sussexes have inked deals with Netflix and Spotify worth close to $100 million and are reportedly “projected to earn more than $850 million in the next decade.
The report wraps by noting Prince Charles was deeply upset by the couple’s comments since he was sincerely aiding them financially. An insider explains, “Initially he didn’t cut them off and he went on to provide for some time,” adding, “But there was a point when Charles decided enough was enough. The bank of dad couldn’t keep handing out indefinitely.”There’s a lot to unpack here. First of all, this story officially broke weeks ago, making it old news in the world of royal gossip.
A spokesperson for the Sussexes explained, “The Duke’s comments during the Oprah interview were in reference to the first quarter of the fiscal reporting period in the UK, which starts annually in April. This is the same date that the ‘transitional year’ of the Sandringham agreement began and is aligned with the timeline that Clarence House referenced.” So, while the tabloid is partially correct in the facts, its aggression towards the duke and duchess is unwarranted.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: Gossip Cop - 🏆 398. / 53 Read more »
Source: hellomag - 🏆 24. / 68 Read more »
Source: hellomag - 🏆 24. / 68 Read more »
Source: hellomag - 🏆 24. / 68 Read more »
Source: hellomag - 🏆 24. / 68 Read more »
Source: VanityFair - 🏆 391. / 55 Read more »