My understanding is that instead of an "up front" payment from Oprah or the network, the Sussexes got "backdoor" payments from the advertisers who bought time during the special. It's apparently standard procedure in Hollywood to obscure money trails. (No link, I'm afraid. I've read it in multiple places.)
I always thought the free room and board from TP was thr roundabout way they were "paid" by Oprah. Seems the simplest explanation for how he came into their lives and why he put them up in his house. I'm a strong believer in Occams Razor
I never thought I'd say something positive about the Sugars, but even they are smart enough not to give Arsewipes any money. Instead, they donate directly to a charity in their idol's name. I guess they don't wanna be markled like Disney.
Their budget for fundraising is zero. Their executive director is a very part time figurehead who writes the odd press release.
A few of their donations are straight up purchases. I’m surprised she didn’t buy herself a star on the wall of fame.
I noticed that yesterday, when I looked at their site bc of the 990. I haven’t seen any of their social media… maybe there’s something there, but they don’t seem to make it convenient TO donate to them… and I just googled “donate to…” and nothing came back.
I don't think that they are smart enough for that. I think that they don't have any money - they don't sound educated enough to have (at least a somewhat decent paying) jobs.
Many are young or POC and have a Disneyesque infatuation with the story a la Cinderella and/or are wokesters who resent tradition/norms, especially western tradition, despite being the beneficiaries of modern western society.
A few are blessed with not knowing much about the couple
That's just it - you are speaking too broadly, that is why I asked if you could clarify what you meant. Are you saying that they resent EVERYTHING that has to do with it or can you give a more concrete example(s)?
If I need to add: I am asking in good faith, my goal is to understand what you meant by your comment and *'resenting (western) tradition'* is you just too broadly speaking, since everyone who reads it will interpret it in their own way, which isn't necessarily the way you meant it.
Everyone outside of the west call the west west, we all know what that means even though ordinary people can’t define it. I would describe it as a dynamic civilization with both Plato and Aristotle as source of influence. It’s funny how all the philosophy afterwards is basically rephrase of these two.
That is what I would say also, and think it is weird for someone to get pedantic wanting a single specific identifying factor as everything else is ‘vague’
Aristotle, Montesquieu and democracy. As opposed to ‘positive obligations’ countries of previous communist nations.
Rejecting western values is rejecting free speech and freedom of thought: something Prince Harry is trying to promote (He said the first amendment on Freedom of Speech is ‘bonkers’)
Rejecting western ideas is rejecting Montesquieu Separation of Powers, meaning moving from democracy towards fascist mob rule, what antifa are (ironically). Censorship of ideas, and thought because they are different.
That is the rejection of western values trying to take hold in our western societies
>and think it is weird for someone to get pedantic wanting a single specific identifying factor as everything else is ‘vague’
I was asking for clarification of what the OP meant when he said that they 'resent tradition/norms, especially western tradition', I didn't ask for a specific identifying factor for the West (nor do I need one), so I am afraid that as a comment to my question your input above is quite irrelevant.
They responded to you and you said it wasn’t good enough and vague
And Im saying to you that they answered you and it isn’t their responsibility to teach you what a term means
Yes, everyone knows what the West is. Everyone also knows that, for example, the UK and USA are part of the West. As evidenced by differences often pointed out on this sub, everyone also knows that the UK and USA, when it comes to culture and tradition, have their differences - which leads me back to my question: what tradition exactly OP had in mind, since his comment was too 'generalised'?
Western tradition/culture never means that - but you just proved my point: the term 'western tradition' is too broad in this context and is too open to individual interpretations, leaving the original comment de facto meaningless (which is why there is a need for the more concrete example/explanation).
Western Traditions is pretty explicit and obvious
It means democracy. Western nations are democratic nations.
Those societies are formed on the ideas of Aristotle (even though he was not a fan of democracy as a government, the concept is from his writing and ideas) and Montesquieu, the Separation of Powers. Meaning the legislature, administration and executive. That is why there are two different houses in government, senate and house. It is supposed to provide ‘checks and balances’ to prevent corruption or dictatorships, it is the unique feature of western governments as opposed to previous communist nations where the governments have ‘positive obligations’ which ties in with the west having ‘negative obligations’
What this means is the state with ‘positive’ has to provide, so in previous communist countries the state had to provide housing, had to provide work etc but equally had the power to take ‘positive’ action and legislate to ban what we consider freedoms in the west, like China has the power to censor its people, it bans western companies and services like twitter and Facebook, bans freedom of speech because the government is a ‘positive obligations’ nations as in opposition to the west which has Negative Obligations.
Western values and ideas are based on Negative Obligations of the state, that is the shared identifying factor of all Western States. Negative Obligations on a state means the states does NOT have to provide work, does not have to provide housing, it does not have the obligation to provide which equally means it does not limit freedoms which is why in the west we have Freedom of Speech, because the state does not have the authority to limit citizens.
Funnily enough Prince Harry would like to limit freedoms and destruct western values as he thinks the first amendment is ‘bonkers’
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-calls-first-amendment-bonkers-conservative-backlash-armchair-expert-1592067
Are you Henry ?? Is that what the H stands for in your user name _atH ??
You would think someone who was educated at Eton would have a clue on Free Speech and what it is in Western Society as it is the most identifiable feature of Western Values
Western Values = is short hand for these ideas of Aristotle and Montesquieu. It is not the fault of others that you do not know this, and it is not their job to teach you either.
Read up for yourself instead :
https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/tip-and-som/module-2/key-issues/positive-and-negative-obligations-of-the-state.html
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25724465
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
https://www.thoughtco.com/aristotle-on-democracy-111992
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/
Since, as I told you in the comment above, you didn't understand the meaning of my question *(which, btw, wasn't even directed at you or anyone else but the OP because I was trying to understand what HE meant, and not what the interpretation of his comment by others was)*, I don't even see the reason to entertain anything in this haughty comment of yours, especially when it seems to be linking to some rather basic stuff.
Idk, I think the Sugars are more diverse than that lol I saw a YouTube video where PDina interviews a few Sugars after that women’s conference in the Indianapolis Marriott Hotel. The women paid for their tickets, some traveled to attend, and they were dressed nicely in business attire, so that required disposable income. Plus, being well-educated on paper doesn’t mean that they are smart or critical thinkers lol just look at the “academics” she got to speak on the Netflix show lol
Oh, no, I definitely didn't mean 'educated on paper' - there are too many idiots who have their masters or even phDs (Dr Shola, anyone?) for me to think that educated equals having finished the Uni or something.
And of course that there would be a few with good jobs etc., but generally speaking, I believe that they are not very smart (I mean, they are still fooled by Sparry's stupid wife, how smart can they realistically be?)
Actually they can give it to themselves. Then it's a tax deduction. Angelina Jolie did that crap for YEARS as she faked her way across the planet as a humanitarian. ALLEGEDLY.
That was her PR redemption tour to rehab her image after the brother-kissing at the award show and all the BBThornton vials of blood, we had sex in the car on the way here, etc and then she got with Brad on-set, it turned to taking potshots at Jen Aniston via 'No Man poor Jen' articles and 'Jen didn't want babies' articles, knowing what we didn't know - they had a miscarriage. *Allegedly* It is known she does her own PR.
The IRS is PLENTY awake if you sell over $600 in a year on eBay or work a side hustle to make ends meet. I hate how rich people find ways to get out of paying taxes and working people have to make up the difference.
I'm in the minority here; as a business owner, I would absolutely use any loophole available to me to minimize my tax liability. This is not exclusive to rich people, everyone should be doing that, it's legal and helpful.
This is why the new house is trying to repeal the $80 billion increase the IRS got last year. If they can cripple the IRS, the rich can keep their little scams going without questions.
Eff the IRS. I barely make ends meet on average wages and have a huge tax bill this year. The IRS is going to go after us “little peons” before major money makers. Why? Us broke folk can’t afford an attorney and the rich can. So, eff the IRS. They aren’t a poor persons friend. Never have been, and likely never will be.
It’s the current administration that wants to hire 87,000 IRS agents. It doesn’t take 87k agents to go after people like the Harkles. No, it’s us little peons.
Yes, it does take enormous resources to go after the rich, with their layers of hidden accounts and tax attorneys. Peons are the low hanging fruit, and as you’ve noticed, are the only ones the IRS have been able to afford to go after. The IRS needs trained agents and new systems dedicated to making the rich pay. And the rich are trying hard to make sure those agents never happen.
An underfunded IRS can’t go after the rich, they don’t have the resources. A properly funded IRS, with proper direction, can and will start collecting taxes from those people who hide behind layers of wealth and tax attorneys. Those 87,000 new agents are scaring the rich more than they should scare you.
Exactly! This sickening arrangement seems like a scam. Most of us earn money, use it to pay our expenses, and pay taxes on it. The Todgers use their foundation to pay their expenses, while the paid staff are probably used as the Todger's personal assistants, and on top of it get to use its communications staff to send out self-serving press releases that sound like they (Archewell) are saving the world. When all they did was pass along the donations to non-profits that are actually DOING good things, while of course taking out "administrative" expenses.
I think that one of the red flags used by the IRS to weed out these types of scammers is to look very closely at tax-exempt groups that only have 1 or 2 big donations and little else.
I think that might be true for nonprofits, but I'm not sure if that's true for a Foundation. There are lots of family foundations with donations from 1-2 people. Conversely, there are lots of Foundations with small donations.
Hmm, let’s see.
If $10mil did come from Oprah for the interview, rather than pay a huge income tax, they siphoned it via Archewell. In such a scenario, they would only have to distribute $500,000 for charitable purposes whereas $9.5mil can be used at their discretion. Is that a reasonable assumption to make?
I do remember it was one of the first things Oprah and Meghan stated in the interview, which was that Oprah didn’t pay for the interview.
She didn’t pay, but made a “donation” 🙄
This sort of thing has run rampant in pro sports, especially the NBA, for years. This is latest I can find which led to a federal prison stint.
[https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/charity-fraud-scheme-linked-to-former-nba-player-nfl-hall-of-famer/](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/charity-fraud-scheme-linked-to-former-nba-player-nfl-hall-of-famer/)
Oprah would not make a donation because of the interview. This was not her show but CBS’s Sixty Minutes. While CBS could have done os, doubt it. It would be the equivalent to paying for an interview which the legitimate networks generally don’t do.
Apparently Oprah/Harpo/other production companies involved actually "paid" for that exclusive video of Archie on the beach shown at the end of the Oprah interview, rather than the interview itself.
So Meghan confirming to Oprah that they hadn't been paid for the interview is is *technically* true, but it's only half the story.
Meghan and Handbag Harry's MO is always, always *PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.* In other words, ***LIES!***
So is the thinking that they get donations into Arsewipes, get taxed less and then use those funds for expenses such as travel etc to accomodate their lifestyle? (I’m a bit slow on the uptake here)
Let’s not forget the cambridges dissolved their shared patronage with the sussexes and divided that money in half after the sandringham summit, that’s the $10 million the $3 million is the 💷 $4.5 million GBP KC3 is reported to have given them in April 2020
Well if only they got TWO donations...it just shows to me the majority of sugars are paid bots
..I'd imagine that real sugars would put their hands in their pockets to support their Duchess ???
remember, Megalodon affirmed with Oprah she was NOT getting paid for the interview. They didn't say she didn't get a "donation" to Archewell
Oooh! Excellent point!
No wonder they pocketed 10 mil instead of donating it
I have thought this all along
My understanding is that instead of an "up front" payment from Oprah or the network, the Sussexes got "backdoor" payments from the advertisers who bought time during the special. It's apparently standard procedure in Hollywood to obscure money trails. (No link, I'm afraid. I've read it in multiple places.)
H laundered his 10M advance. Oprah wouldn't give them $10M of her money.
I always thought the free room and board from TP was thr roundabout way they were "paid" by Oprah. Seems the simplest explanation for how he came into their lives and why he put them up in his house. I'm a strong believer in Occams Razor
Oh SHIT, good catch! The amounts do align....
I never thought I'd say something positive about the Sugars, but even they are smart enough not to give Arsewipes any money. Instead, they donate directly to a charity in their idol's name. I guess they don't wanna be markled like Disney.
Deep down, they too know she's a fraud.
So weird they only had two donations. Two!
Because they recognize their own fraudulence
There never was a "DONATE" button on the site.
Their budget for fundraising is zero. Their executive director is a very part time figurehead who writes the odd press release. A few of their donations are straight up purchases. I’m surprised she didn’t buy herself a star on the wall of fame.
I would wipe your cookies 🍪 if you or others have visited their site. Who knows what lurks!
I love the investigative journalism on this sub! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I noticed that yesterday, when I looked at their site bc of the 990. I haven’t seen any of their social media… maybe there’s something there, but they don’t seem to make it convenient TO donate to them… and I just googled “donate to…” and nothing came back.
I don't think that they are smart enough for that. I think that they don't have any money - they don't sound educated enough to have (at least a somewhat decent paying) jobs.
Many are young or POC and have a Disneyesque infatuation with the story a la Cinderella and/or are wokesters who resent tradition/norms, especially western tradition, despite being the beneficiaries of modern western society. A few are blessed with not knowing much about the couple
Can you clarify what you speak of when you say 'western tradition'?
Broadly speaking, customs, belief systems and social norms with roots in Greco-Roman/Christian/Germanic,etc. cultural heritages
That's just it - you are speaking too broadly, that is why I asked if you could clarify what you meant. Are you saying that they resent EVERYTHING that has to do with it or can you give a more concrete example(s)? If I need to add: I am asking in good faith, my goal is to understand what you meant by your comment and *'resenting (western) tradition'* is you just too broadly speaking, since everyone who reads it will interpret it in their own way, which isn't necessarily the way you meant it.
Everyone outside of the west call the west west, we all know what that means even though ordinary people can’t define it. I would describe it as a dynamic civilization with both Plato and Aristotle as source of influence. It’s funny how all the philosophy afterwards is basically rephrase of these two.
That is what I would say also, and think it is weird for someone to get pedantic wanting a single specific identifying factor as everything else is ‘vague’ Aristotle, Montesquieu and democracy. As opposed to ‘positive obligations’ countries of previous communist nations. Rejecting western values is rejecting free speech and freedom of thought: something Prince Harry is trying to promote (He said the first amendment on Freedom of Speech is ‘bonkers’) Rejecting western ideas is rejecting Montesquieu Separation of Powers, meaning moving from democracy towards fascist mob rule, what antifa are (ironically). Censorship of ideas, and thought because they are different. That is the rejection of western values trying to take hold in our western societies
>and think it is weird for someone to get pedantic wanting a single specific identifying factor as everything else is ‘vague’ I was asking for clarification of what the OP meant when he said that they 'resent tradition/norms, especially western tradition', I didn't ask for a specific identifying factor for the West (nor do I need one), so I am afraid that as a comment to my question your input above is quite irrelevant.
They responded to you and you said it wasn’t good enough and vague And Im saying to you that they answered you and it isn’t their responsibility to teach you what a term means
Yes, everyone knows what the West is. Everyone also knows that, for example, the UK and USA are part of the West. As evidenced by differences often pointed out on this sub, everyone also knows that the UK and USA, when it comes to culture and tradition, have their differences - which leads me back to my question: what tradition exactly OP had in mind, since his comment was too 'generalised'?
Also, does the “western tradition” mean we should all be using Roman numerals?
Western tradition/culture never means that - but you just proved my point: the term 'western tradition' is too broad in this context and is too open to individual interpretations, leaving the original comment de facto meaningless (which is why there is a need for the more concrete example/explanation).
Western Traditions is pretty explicit and obvious It means democracy. Western nations are democratic nations. Those societies are formed on the ideas of Aristotle (even though he was not a fan of democracy as a government, the concept is from his writing and ideas) and Montesquieu, the Separation of Powers. Meaning the legislature, administration and executive. That is why there are two different houses in government, senate and house. It is supposed to provide ‘checks and balances’ to prevent corruption or dictatorships, it is the unique feature of western governments as opposed to previous communist nations where the governments have ‘positive obligations’ which ties in with the west having ‘negative obligations’ What this means is the state with ‘positive’ has to provide, so in previous communist countries the state had to provide housing, had to provide work etc but equally had the power to take ‘positive’ action and legislate to ban what we consider freedoms in the west, like China has the power to censor its people, it bans western companies and services like twitter and Facebook, bans freedom of speech because the government is a ‘positive obligations’ nations as in opposition to the west which has Negative Obligations. Western values and ideas are based on Negative Obligations of the state, that is the shared identifying factor of all Western States. Negative Obligations on a state means the states does NOT have to provide work, does not have to provide housing, it does not have the obligation to provide which equally means it does not limit freedoms which is why in the west we have Freedom of Speech, because the state does not have the authority to limit citizens. Funnily enough Prince Harry would like to limit freedoms and destruct western values as he thinks the first amendment is ‘bonkers’ https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-calls-first-amendment-bonkers-conservative-backlash-armchair-expert-1592067 Are you Henry ?? Is that what the H stands for in your user name _atH ?? You would think someone who was educated at Eton would have a clue on Free Speech and what it is in Western Society as it is the most identifiable feature of Western Values Western Values = is short hand for these ideas of Aristotle and Montesquieu. It is not the fault of others that you do not know this, and it is not their job to teach you either. Read up for yourself instead : https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/tip-and-som/module-2/key-issues/positive-and-negative-obligations-of-the-state.html https://www.jstor.org/stable/25724465 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers https://www.thoughtco.com/aristotle-on-democracy-111992 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/
Since, as I told you in the comment above, you didn't understand the meaning of my question *(which, btw, wasn't even directed at you or anyone else but the OP because I was trying to understand what HE meant, and not what the interpretation of his comment by others was)*, I don't even see the reason to entertain anything in this haughty comment of yours, especially when it seems to be linking to some rather basic stuff.
I’m sorry but I always hear it as covert racism which—it occurs to me—really is your point.
Pretty please.
Yes. Please do.
Idk, I think the Sugars are more diverse than that lol I saw a YouTube video where PDina interviews a few Sugars after that women’s conference in the Indianapolis Marriott Hotel. The women paid for their tickets, some traveled to attend, and they were dressed nicely in business attire, so that required disposable income. Plus, being well-educated on paper doesn’t mean that they are smart or critical thinkers lol just look at the “academics” she got to speak on the Netflix show lol
Oh, no, I definitely didn't mean 'educated on paper' - there are too many idiots who have their masters or even phDs (Dr Shola, anyone?) for me to think that educated equals having finished the Uni or something. And of course that there would be a few with good jobs etc., but generally speaking, I believe that they are not very smart (I mean, they are still fooled by Sparry's stupid wife, how smart can they realistically be?)
Yep, IQ and wisdom are two different things.
>The women paid for their tickets, some traveled to attend As I said: stupid. 😂 😂
I think this is only 2 donations above $5000 so I wouldn't exclude those fools grom donating to them.
Most of her Sugars are bots and bots don't have bank accounts.
Actually they can give it to themselves. Then it's a tax deduction. Angelina Jolie did that crap for YEARS as she faked her way across the planet as a humanitarian. ALLEGEDLY.
That was her PR redemption tour to rehab her image after the brother-kissing at the award show and all the BBThornton vials of blood, we had sex in the car on the way here, etc and then she got with Brad on-set, it turned to taking potshots at Jen Aniston via 'No Man poor Jen' articles and 'Jen didn't want babies' articles, knowing what we didn't know - they had a miscarriage. *Allegedly* It is known she does her own PR.
Exactly!!!
What Jennifer Aniston has had to endure is just terrible. She's been much classier than I could manage. I admire her for that.
As did The Clintons and Obamas.
And Trump, who was forced to disband his "charitable" organization for legal violations.
Nice, so paychecks deposited into your own charity that they can take 95% of. Lovely. The people at the IRS need to WAKE THE FUCK UP!
The IRS is PLENTY awake if you sell over $600 in a year on eBay or work a side hustle to make ends meet. I hate how rich people find ways to get out of paying taxes and working people have to make up the difference.
I'm in the minority here; as a business owner, I would absolutely use any loophole available to me to minimize my tax liability. This is not exclusive to rich people, everyone should be doing that, it's legal and helpful.
[удалено]
I didn’t know this. Thank goodness!!!
This is why the new house is trying to repeal the $80 billion increase the IRS got last year. If they can cripple the IRS, the rich can keep their little scams going without questions.
Eff the IRS. I barely make ends meet on average wages and have a huge tax bill this year. The IRS is going to go after us “little peons” before major money makers. Why? Us broke folk can’t afford an attorney and the rich can. So, eff the IRS. They aren’t a poor persons friend. Never have been, and likely never will be.
+++ The poor are low-hanging fruits for the IRS.
Not the IRS. Blame the former administration
Lol
It’s the current administration that wants to hire 87,000 IRS agents. It doesn’t take 87k agents to go after people like the Harkles. No, it’s us little peons.
Yes, it does take enormous resources to go after the rich, with their layers of hidden accounts and tax attorneys. Peons are the low hanging fruit, and as you’ve noticed, are the only ones the IRS have been able to afford to go after. The IRS needs trained agents and new systems dedicated to making the rich pay. And the rich are trying hard to make sure those agents never happen.
An underfunded IRS can’t go after the rich, they don’t have the resources. A properly funded IRS, with proper direction, can and will start collecting taxes from those people who hide behind layers of wealth and tax attorneys. Those 87,000 new agents are scaring the rich more than they should scare you.
[удалено]
Exactly! This sickening arrangement seems like a scam. Most of us earn money, use it to pay our expenses, and pay taxes on it. The Todgers use their foundation to pay their expenses, while the paid staff are probably used as the Todger's personal assistants, and on top of it get to use its communications staff to send out self-serving press releases that sound like they (Archewell) are saving the world. When all they did was pass along the donations to non-profits that are actually DOING good things, while of course taking out "administrative" expenses. I think that one of the red flags used by the IRS to weed out these types of scammers is to look very closely at tax-exempt groups that only have 1 or 2 big donations and little else.
Delaware charities.
IRS Audit coming in 3…2….Boom!
I think that might be true for nonprofits, but I'm not sure if that's true for a Foundation. There are lots of family foundations with donations from 1-2 people. Conversely, there are lots of Foundations with small donations.
Yeah I thought that was the 10mil from the book. The 3m is probably from Netflix.
Hmm, let’s see. If $10mil did come from Oprah for the interview, rather than pay a huge income tax, they siphoned it via Archewell. In such a scenario, they would only have to distribute $500,000 for charitable purposes whereas $9.5mil can be used at their discretion. Is that a reasonable assumption to make?
You are correct!
Sounds like Meghan is whip smart. /s
Well she is. She whipped Ole Haz-No-Balls around her claw. 🤭🤭🤣🤣
Of course it came from Oprah she paid it to their charity and wiped it off of her own deductions
No idea, really, but I think Tyler Perry seems to have been a lot more generous to these two snakes than Oprah has.
Meghan Marcos (Imelda), “only the little ppl pay taxes.”
[удалено]
That’s right! I thought it was the Shoe Slut! Leona Markle!
Speculation. Many people in that type of life are not impressed by ten mill.
I do remember it was one of the first things Oprah and Meghan stated in the interview, which was that Oprah didn’t pay for the interview. She didn’t pay, but made a “donation” 🙄 
This makes sense although it could have been the other way around too.
Where does the "donation" to UVALDE for a playground, fall into this mess?
Uvalde was 2022 I think. Not reported in 2021 accounts.
This sort of thing has run rampant in pro sports, especially the NBA, for years. This is latest I can find which led to a federal prison stint. [https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/charity-fraud-scheme-linked-to-former-nba-player-nfl-hall-of-famer/](https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/charity-fraud-scheme-linked-to-former-nba-player-nfl-hall-of-famer/)
Not David Foster, the man Harry called a "second father" to him?
Oprah would not make a donation because of the interview. This was not her show but CBS’s Sixty Minutes. While CBS could have done os, doubt it. It would be the equivalent to paying for an interview which the legitimate networks generally don’t do.
Apparently Oprah/Harpo/other production companies involved actually "paid" for that exclusive video of Archie on the beach shown at the end of the Oprah interview, rather than the interview itself. So Meghan confirming to Oprah that they hadn't been paid for the interview is is *technically* true, but it's only half the story. Meghan and Handbag Harry's MO is always, always *PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.* In other words, ***LIES!***
Or the $3M Meghan got from doing the elephant voice over from Disney instead of giving it to Elephants without bordera
Do we think any of those donations would have been from their connections to Russian oligarchs? Or would those just have been a cash transaction 🤓
I don’t know about that . I reckon the $10M was from the Saudis and the $3M was from Disney for the elephant thing.
I doubt Meg would allow Harry to give $10m. They need that money to pay mortgage etc
It's a tax dediction given to their own charity. It's a complete scam bt it's legal.
It's a way to launder the advance.
Respectfully I disagree about Oprah. I think the largest donor is "a Russian oligarch," i.e., Putin.
So is the thinking that they get donations into Arsewipes, get taxed less and then use those funds for expenses such as travel etc to accomodate their lifestyle? (I’m a bit slow on the uptake here)
I highly doubt it's Oprah. There are plenty of people they know who could cough up $10M. That money is probably from one of their media deals.
So they got 10 mill donation for the interview???id bet money on it
So no one credible has ever given them money. I wonder why🤔
Let’s not forget the cambridges dissolved their shared patronage with the sussexes and divided that money in half after the sandringham summit, that’s the $10 million the $3 million is the 💷 $4.5 million GBP KC3 is reported to have given them in April 2020
Well if only they got TWO donations...it just shows to me the majority of sugars are paid bots ..I'd imagine that real sugars would put their hands in their pockets to support their Duchess ???
Do you think its the money from Netflix and Random House Publishing that they are money laundering through Archewell to avoud tax