An explanation of "The Sussex Saga" for Italians

I've been asked to explain the current Netflix documentary by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to Italians, who do not know what to make of it. I have not watched it myself not being a subscriber to Netflix, but I have read up on reports about it.

Money is the issue: they are no longer funded by the British taxpayer

Since The Sussexes left the Royal Family as public members of 'The Firm', they are no longer eligible for the £5m a year that they received from their father's Duchy of Cornwall (buildings, farm products and agricultural land) in the financial year 2018-2019 (the first year of their marriage). Prince Charles's Duchy of Cornwall paid this to cover their lifestyle and public duties. The British taxpayer's Sovereign Grant made up the other 5%.  This is the funding which comes from the Royal Family's surrender of the profits of the Crown Estates to the Treasury, in return for which working members of the Royal Family get an assured income to carry out duties, maintain palaces and castles and pay staff. The financial arrangements are complex but this is roughly how they operate.

Due to the age of the Queen, the Sussexes could envisage that their funding would soon come not from King Charles, but from Prince William, who has now become Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall i.e. he controls funds from the lucrative The Duchy of Cornwall. I eat organic food created by the Duchy (and, actually, the Duchy is commercial). 

Reliant on the Duke of Cornwall

This means that Harry would be reliant for funding on his elder brother (unless the King took those costs over from William).  We know the two brothers fell out really badly, probably over William not wanting Harry to marry Meghan Markle - or asking him to think carefully about marrying her, for longer. I cannot imagine that this is the only reason. Probably, jealousy plays a part.  Meghan, as an actress, is used to being in the spotlight and she does not want to play 'second fiddle' to the Princess of Wales who has not earned a living but who is ideally cut out for her part, looking very fine in British designer clothes.  Knowing them better now, it is clear that the Sussexes are not really suited for dutiful if sometimes tedious roles in the Royal Family.  Prince William and Kate came to our home town this week, meeting local people, largely unpublicised, where Diana opened its shopping centre 30 years ago. I cannot imagine Harry and Meghan doing that.

The Sussexes wanted their income to come from another source, so they tried to negotiate staying in public life and receiving funding for their duties and expenses while also being commercial.  The Queen informed them that they could not mix the two because only working members of the Royal Family can keep patronages and their 'HRH' title. So these were removed, or put in obeyance. The Sussexes have ended up in in a grand mansion in California earning their own commercial income.   

They were rich in our terms - but not in theirs

Meghan and Harry together were worth probably in excess of £30m, but £30m is not a lot in the world that they move in. Security is an issue and costs a lot. If they had stayed doing their royal duties, their security costs would have been covered, but now they are not covered. They were funded for the first year by their father, Prince Charles, but this funding reportedly stopped as they developed their own commercial plans.  Members of the Royal Family are representatives of the Monarch and because they are funded for carrying out their public duties and putting up with press coverage, they do not charge for their services (while Meghan wanted to be funded, for whatever she did). 

The Monarch does not treat his or her children equally because the lion's share, as in most aristocratic families, goes to the first born to continue the royal line and legacy. The late Queen bought country mansions for her 'spare' three children, Anne, Andrew and Edward and presumably, their living costs came from the Sovereign Grant (or personal income of the Sovereign). My impression that is such mansions in England would not have satisfied the grander ambitions of the Sussexes. There has been talk that Meghan wants to become a future Democrat President of the USA (hence her woke politicising). She would need huge funding for that. The Sussexes were not given a country mansion, possibly because of security but they were leased Frogmore Cottage at Windsor, which was initially was renovated for them at taxpayers expense, on the presumption that they would stay and serve as Royal Family members in the UK, supporting the King and Prince William and living on a meagre £5m a year. This probably does not satisfy them especially in comparison with Prince William's much larger income.  Their ambitions are clearly 'global'. When it became clear they would not want that, the money for renovations of Frogmore Cottage (about £3m) was repaid to British taxpayers.  They still hold the lease to Frogmore Cottage, which could be terminated. 

Netflix and the pressure to  ceate a story 

The Sussexes made a contract with Netflix (which was already making 'The Crown' which was critical of the Royal Family, in later episodes) for a reported £75m. This was to make a 'docuseries' lasting 6 hours in two parts about a) their relationship and b) why they left the UK.  Nowhere, do they discuss the funding issues. 

They clearly need < <£20m a year to run their high lifestyle,  PR, staff, private planes, polo, security, a mansion with 16 bathrooms so this income will last them only a few years.  They need more money or need to downsize, but what have their got left to sell? They have to fund the rest of their lives outside the Royal Family e.g. 50 years.  No one knows how much, they were left in the Queen's Will or what they will be left in the Will of King Charles. Therefore the Duke of Sussex is writing a book called "Spare" to make more money while there is any remaining public interest in him.  Meghan Markle has been doing podcasts.  

I can imagine that the Royal Family are not willing to 'pay them off'  with a huge lump sum to silence them. They are not legally 'gagged' by signed confidentialy agreements like Royal staff but let's face it, there is no assurance that they will stay the course.  We have to presume that the issue of funding of what to us is their unsustainable (and contradictory) lifestyle is behind most, if not all their increasing provocative actions.  The rest is driven by resentment.

What is their USP?

To earn megabucks via the media you need USP (unqiue selling points) i.e. star quality".  Meghan was a little recognised cable TV actress who was never going to become a Hollywood star. She was pretty enough to marry a prince but has an unappealing 'woke' agenda (which has put off most of her fans). She is now over 40 when acting roles for women become scarcer.  Harry is the son of charismatic Princess Diana, but lacks her star quality. 

Breaking a taboo on 'family'

Harry appears willing to say almost anything about his family, unsupported by any hard evidence, including that they are 'racists'  in spite of his father leading the muti-racial Commonwealth. So his slurs are politically damaging to British interests overseas. He must also know that calling someone a racist is now almost worse than labelling them a pedophile or sex offender.   What about the fifth Commandment ('so things go well with you') to honour your father as well as your mother (however bad your father has been)?

What is there left to say? 

The difficulty is that the Sussexes have already divulged most of their (largely false) narrative and probably they have little left to divulge i.e. to sell for millions of dollars.  Therefore, because watching them 'in love' is not entertainment (being inappropriately intimate), they are throwing in some 'political views' to justify earning their vast payment, such as: 

• insinuating that the Royal Family is filled with "unconscious bias"; 
• bowing to the Monarch is 'medieval' and demeaning; 
• the Commonwealth created by the late Queen's tireless diplomacy is 'British Empire 2.0', when it is a voluntary organisation of mostly small, island states (not power blocs) which attracts new member countries that were never part of the British Empire.  

All this creates a 'noise' which makes people watch what has been described as a "three hour borathon"  and then watch the second series of three progammes next week. It builds anticipation that the Sussexes will finally spill some terrible revelation, with evidence, such as: Princess Diana was murdered by the Royal Family. In fact, she died because she was in a car accident, possibly caused by clipping another car in the early days of airbags which momentarily blinded the driver, who wrongly put the automatic engine into neutral, losing steering control. She would have lived if she had been wearing a seat belt, as required by law.  Her death was not actually directly caused by being chased by paparazzi. The car was illegally speeding anyway.

Summary

In my view, the Sussexes are building up a false narrative of 'unbearable' harrassment by the British press, being put "in danger of their lives in the UK" (which they never were, due to having full royal security which Princess Diana cast off partly due to paranoia largely created by BBC's Martin Bashir). This is to cover up the fact that the real reason for their flight from the UK is all about money plus the superior status of Prince William and his wife.

Would I like my income to come from my brother, The Prince of Wales?  Probably not, but there are always ways of ensuring fairness. One gets the impression that there is a lot of resentment involved i.e. William is the heir apparent and Harry is just 'the spare'. There seems to be a lot of ambition to be mega-rich in Califormia and moving among mega-rich stars like Ophrah Winfrey. Meghan probably never wanted to live in 'stuffy', wet England which clearly she is not cut out for, being 'a hugger'. The rest appears to be a money-making 'cover story' but a malicioius, damaging and false one.  

Happily, most people in the UK see their narrative as a lot of nonsense. In their Winfrey TV interview, they jointly told a number of falsehoods and they need constant 'fact checking'.

The Royal Family has never been perceived by the public as racist.  The British people are not racists, though a few closet racists still exist, as they do all over the world.  The Royal Family travel the world and talk to everyone with respect. Protocol ensures they treat everyone equally.  Meghan was initially feted by the British press because she was glamorous and mixed race: there was little or no overt racism.  Their complaints lack any substance and British people are not just bored but outraged by slurs on not just the Royal Family but on themselves - as if they are all rampant racists.  They feel that American divisiveness is wrongly being imported to Britain, for no reason.  

Finally, to sell one's family down the river for any amount of money is a taboo, for us. You do not speak openly about your family being horrible, let alone being racist, though you might call a relative "a bit difficult". Over-entitled Harry does not seem aware of this.  

For all these reasons, over 90% of British seem to want the Sussexes to lose their Ducal titles and to become merely "Prince Harry and Princess Henry" like minor Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.  It is unlikely to happen.  What is more likely to happen is that Harry will be seen as a very damaged individual whose perceptions cannot be trusted. 

An insult to "Sussex"?

We reside in Sussex and it is one of the most blessed and beautiful of English counties. The Sussexes are doing nothing for it.

Did hope in God get us through the pandemic?

Advent, the start of the church year,  has two different themes a) the Second Coming of Christ and b) His First Coming. 

The first theme falls on the first two Sundays of Advent and the second theme falls on its second two Sundays.  Hence carol services (which in the UK would normally clash with the World Cup Final at 3pm on the 18th December) celebrate the First Coming. They are held on the last but one Sunday of Advent. (Christmas Day itself falls on a Sunday this year).  Throughout Advent, the communion table remains purple.

Yesterday was about prophecies of the Second Coming. The set Lectionary passages remembered John the Baptist prophecying about the Messiah being "greater" than himself and Isaiah prohecying about lions lying down with lambs and children playing with nasties which are now harmless.  

There is hope delivered via prophecies and hope is a integral to faith which is why hope is mentioned numerous times in the New Testament.  What is hope but holding fast in the dark before dawn when all you have is prophecies and promises?  It is how the church has held on, through the ages.

One thinks back to the pandemic.  Did we have sufficient hope in God - or any hope? Did we hope, at its start, in early 2020, that by its third Christmas  i.e. 2022 we would again be gathering around Christmas tables and singing in church, alongside the elderly.  Probably not, as we were under the false impression that it would all be over in three weeks. One lady in our ad hoc carol choir on 18th December is 94. 

Omicron dawned on the world last Christmas and it has literally freed those sitting in chains and walking in the shadow of death (except, it seems, in China).  Did the world thank God for it?  I did not hear it. However, I am confident that millions of prayers from the start of the pandemic were for God to "weaken" the virus and that they were mercifully heard. 

Maybe this Christmas we will all realise how precious hope is and how we must consciously cultivate it, in all circumstances. 

On top of that is the blessed hope of a better world, the unseen eternal world, lit not by the sun but by the presence with his people of The Lamb.

December 2022

An apology means nothing today

The most prominent news in the last few days relates to Baroness Hussey (Lady Susan Hussey), a lifelong believer and one of the late Queen's best friends.  She is an Anglo-Catholic and for years has attended a reportedly '90% ethnic minority' church, St Agnes Church, Kennington (Church of England). The church has now spoken up for their much admired member.

This week, Lady Susan resigned over offending Ms Fulani through socially chatting to her, while acting as a voluntary hostess at a reception at Buckingham Palace on domestic violence. Ms Fulani claims she did not want to 'cancel' Lady Hussey in spite of posting the intimacies of their conversation all over social media, (rather than expressing her feelings to her, privately). Yet, reportedly, an offer by Lady Hussey to apologise to her directly has not been taken up.

Nevertheless, Lady Hussey has apologised, but these days an apology and losing one's role (including one's reputation, status and community) is not sufficient. The offender has to be 'hung out to dry', even if she is aged 83, partially deaf and born into another age. 

The Royal family themselves, probably out of fear, are hanging their intimate insider 'out to dry', probably on account of threats from Harry and Meghan who are accusing them of 'institutional racism'.  As The Times has said, the Royal Family should have resisted the temptation of 'the knee-jerk reaction'.

Christianity teaches forbearance, toleration, respect for the elderly and understanding of the kind of world that people come from.  It teaches that someone apologising and repenting  (vowing to change course) results in complete forgiveness by God, Himself.  Also, God does not forgive us our sins unless we forgive others who have apologised to us.  Being merciful is central to the Christian faith (and to civilisation).  No one running any kind of vendetta can claim to be a Christian.

Reflecting on that teaching, the only person who has apologised is Lady Hussey - but she cannot be forgiven or restored.  Her reputation must be left in tatters and she must put up with being called "disgraced" (albeit by the Daily Mail) - even after having apologised.

There is nothing more precious to someone than their reputation: not money, not past achievements, not possessions. To lose a lifelong good reputation is spiritually crushing, even for believers.  To be labelled 'a racist'  is something so unendurable, so alienating, that one might as well be called 'a thief', or 'sexual predator', or worse. 

What is being forgotten here is that even if someone is a proven racist, if they apologise, to withhold restoration and forgiveness from them is wrong, before God. God condemns those who run campaigns against the repentant. That means that vendettas of all kinds will fall under His judgment.

"Vengeance is mine (i.e alone)", says the Lord.

A helpful piece of advice is "Before you conduct a campaign of revenge against someone, dig two graves (one for yourself)."

"FearExpress" and how to get off it

Mental Health England, in a seminar last week, listed events in 2022 which are driving people into a state of hyper-anxiety and indeed into mental illness.  It goes like this:

• lockdown New Year
• confusion over Omicron
• sole focus on 'Covid' suddenly switching to 'Ukraine'
• people getting Covid themselves (and some becoming mentally ill afterwards)
• news of inflation and energy/food price hikes
• travel restrictions which cancelled many summer holidays
• 'killer' heatwave
• National Health Service in deep trouble - difficulty getting doctor appointments
• Queen's death, her funeral and a new King
• a second elected PM (this year) brought down
• threats of nuclear war
• sitting in the cold facing higher taxes and interest rates, no trains, 'work until you drop', no post on Saturdays or for Christmas
• Bird 'flu threatening Christmas turkeys and 'rationed eggs'. 

The 24/7 news keeps coming (for those who still listen to it).  Many people are thinking "Stop the World, I want to get off!"

Underlying it all, is still the dubious work of the Covid 'Nudge' campaign which intentionally created exaggerated levels of fear. This was led by Governments and the media and it was never reversed nor explained, unlike a hypnotist who clicks his or her fingers to release a subject from a trance. The result is that people have not just floating anxiety but real difficulty in risk assessing whether something is really a threat to them (or more likely not).

As a result, there is a general 'hunkering down' in the population, a refusal to return to the workplace or even to go out.  Their 'still point' has vanished or has weakened, whether it was the Queen, the family, culture or the church which itself seems to be falling apart. Trust and nervous systems are in disarray - and yet the 24/7 global news machine keeps ploughing on, day after day, seeking the next mesmerising headline.   

States of fear diminish people, economies and societies. Fear hampers risk- taking and deters talent.  But there is a quick, effective remedy!   It is the "Fear not" and "Fear God" (alone) texts of Scripture which abound.  Here is just one of between 100-365 of them (depending on your Bible translation) below:

"When I am afraid, I will trust in you. In God, whose Word I praise. In God I trust; I will not be afraid. What can mortal men do to me?"Psalm 56 3-4

That just about sums it up. Meditating on a "Fear Not" text with the morning coffee will effectively counter 'the terror campaign out there'. So what, if you are cancelled on Twitter when the Bible says this:

"I will not fear though tens of thousands assail me on every side" (Psalm 3) 

After all, what can Man do, when set against an eternal perspective and His power to deliver. As for society becoming atomised, which seems to be the aim, what text can equal this one which says when you feel alone - you are in the Best Company:

"And Lo! I am with you always even unto the end of the world"Matt 28.18

There is a Higher Power and insight than media insight, which cannot see beyond next Tuesday. We are urged, nay commanded, not to fear or to be anxious about anything because believers need to get out there and share Good (not bad) News - with a terrorised world.

There is only one real King and our Queen knew it, all along

The end of the financial year ruins many an accountant's Easter; the school year ends in July; the Calendar Year ends with New Year's Eve but the Church calendar ends this week with The Feast of Christ the King.   

Next week, the altar in our local church changes from red to purple for Advent, the 'festival of coming'.   Incidentally, the Romans created Advent in the 6th century out of an earlier season of preparation and fasting for mass baptisms in January.  

The Feast of Christ the King links into the first two weeks of Advent which are not about the Nativity but about The Second Coming - The Son of Man coming on the clouds in glory.  It is only the last two weeks of Advent to December 24th that celebrate the Incarnation (Christ, the 'Baby King').  Until mid December, we focus on

a) Pantocritor, The Risen Christ, Ruler of the Universe; and
b) the way He interpreted kingship during his earthly ministry.  

2022 was all tied up with monarchy - a celebration, a death and an accession. It was a year which vastly expanded our idea of what a King (and Queen) is (for).   We found that our constitution is based on a hitherto unseen act : the Imperial State Crown being removed from a monarch's coffin and placed on an altar in readiness for the next 'recipient', a word the late Queen mysteriously once used in a BBC programme about the Crown jewels which only now makes complete sense.   

We were all astonished, if not dismayed, that after 70 years of one familiar feminine head being on all our stamps, our unchanging monarch could be replaced by another one. We suddenly realised that the previous 'recipient' goes to glory both uncrowned and unsceptred.


The Imperial State Crown Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64712804

We understand the concept of kingship from such acts, but Queen Elizabeth and King Charles had or have no real power.  The subtle difference is that Christ had power to rule the world as the true 'World King' but He did not seek it.  He rejected Satan's offer of ruling over world kingdoms, slipped away from an enforced coronation, never stood on ceremony, nor His innate titles, being satisfied with a simple "Lord!" or "Rabbi".  Yet even the Servant King who washed feet (as British monarchs once did, in imitation), showed glimpses of power, mostly when least expected. He drew on His power over storms and the sea, over diseases and disfigurements, over water and bread.  His power was  unleashed only when it was meaningful, because the focus of  His mission was to fully identify with those who had no power -  to draw them to His sacrificial and atoning Cross.

The Risen Christ is the same, yet different.  He wore a crown, but only a crown of thorns.  After death, He inherited real imperial power - the keys to hell and death and the seat from which He will judge Mankind.  His name was not etched on a black marble slab.   He has no tomb because He still reigns, both in heaven and on earth. As Bernard Levin once wrote "He still looms over the world"  - bookending us with both His royal servanthood and His majestic Kingship.  

Those who aspire to become 'World Kings' are fleshly imposters.  Their ephemeral empires will crumble as the Soviet Union's did through bankruptcy or through overreaching, war, Russian winters or madness.

There is only one real King, a fact that our much lamented late Queen always seemed to know. The time to think about it, in the Church calendar, is now.

Rediscovering al fresco living, my Norfolk ancestors and their pubs - August 2022

 I have built up my family tree over the last ten years and reached back to 1600-1800. There are no crowned heads, slave traders, criminals, artists, warriors or saints but, at least, I have nothing to hide. They were mostly husbandmen, yeoman, business people and craftspeople, with a sprinkling of small rural landowners.  There are many hardworking women with numerous household skills, long lost. They were all married, all law abiding and hard working people, a mix of Saxons/Angles (40%) and the native (Beaker) people of Britain (60%). There is a smattering of Scottish (16%) and Danish (5%) but nothing to set one’s heart racing or to confound one’s sense of being southern and East Anglian ‘English’. 

The article continues here

Has healing become too complex?

                                                      Culpeper's English Physician

4 Surely He took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered Him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.

5 But He was pierced for our transgressions,  He was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by His wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 53 is the most astonishing description and prediction of the death of Christ on the Cross embedded in the heart of the Old Testament. Many know its resonant words from Handel's Messiah, 

The Prince of Preachers, Charles Spurgeon, wrote about this text like this:

Gospel healing is so very simple; our text describes it: "With his stripes (wounds) we are healed." These six words contain the marrow of the gospel, and yet scarcely one of them contains a second syllable. They are words for plain people, and in them there is no affectation of mystery or straining after the profound. 

I looked the other day into old Culpepper's Herbal. It contains a marvellous collection of wonderful remedies. Had this old herbalist's prescriptions been universally followed, there would not long have been any left to prescribe for. Many of his receipts contain from twelve to twenty different drugs, each one needing to be prepared in a peculiar manner. I think I once counted forty different ingredients in one single draught. Very different are these receipts with their elaboration of preparation, from the Biblical prescriptions which effectually healed the sick such as these: "Take a lump of figs, and lay it for a plaster upon the boil," or that other one: "Go and wash in Jordan seven times"; or that other: "Take up thy bed and walk." 

One cannot but admire the simplicity of truth, while falsehood conceals her deformities with a thousand trickeries. If you would know the true way of having your souls healed, go to the word of God, and study such a text as this: "With his stripes (wounds) we are healed"...  

Modern medicine began during the first years of the 20th century. Complex holistic medicine like that of Culpeper was replaced by a merger of the highly profitable petroleum industry and pharmaceutical drugs using plants.  How successful has this merger been?  Does anyone balance the books and compare the side effects with the apparent benefits? If they did, should we not go back, in part at least to the older, simpler, cheaper, time-tested remedies? Surely the best healing is the simplest?   

I went in the late 80s to the London Healing Mission, during the depths of chronic fatigue, mostly for the sake of a curious friend. Most unexpectedly, because I am someone who shies away from showy, dramatic healings, I experienced a healing myself which took me up a whole level on my road back to health and financial viability. This healing, which, astonishingly, felt like someone's hand literally reaching inside my head while I fell backwards (happily on to a sofa) lasted no more than a minute. It was at a spiritual level, as well as 'chemical' level and visible. I recall when my mother met me later that day, she took one look at me and blurted out "What happened to you!?". I had clearly become more alive in some discernible way.  In fact, I did not realise beforehand that I had needed healing of the spirit as well as the body.  Afterwards, I knew I had.  

What healing is more sudden and effective and simpler than the healing at the foot of the Cross?  What we need, at the deepest level is indeed spiritual healing.  What are our deep griefs and sorrows that He "carries for us" on the Cross but spiritual griefs and sorrows such as: 

• our rebellion against Him 
• our detemination to do it "my way" rather than asking for His guidance - leading to 'dead ends', a sense of emptiness and alientation and finally despair
• our arrogance, obstinacy, pride, idolatry
• our disappointments, in ourselves and others 
• our failures, flaws and faults 
• our lies, our self deception, our half truths 
• our guilt and complacency
• our temptations and self defeats 
• our fear and anger 
• the scars of evil done to us 
• our sadness over things that cannot be undone. 

What is His healing ministry to us but spiritual healing? 

Easter is an ideal time to remember and reach out to this kind of healing because it is what we most need, even if we do not realise it. His healing is not made from drugs, or plants, or toxins or nanoparticles, but from something far deeper which is in tune with the Love that made and sustains the Universe. 

It is only accessible by way of the Cross because the sorrows He bore for us He bore on the Cross.  By turning to Him, in faith, we do not have to bear these burdens ourselves and by letting Him take them instead, we are healed of them - by his wounds.  "Simple", as the advert says.  

If you have not considered it. possibly now is the time?

Illustration above is: 

Public Domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3413241