Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Current Events 1: May 2018 - March 2020

[QueenMathilde]

Let's see, speaking at a high profile JP Morgan event in Miami, a meeting with the President of Stanford University, and guest editing an issue of British Vogue for Edward Enninful. Wow!! These are some powerful first steps!

Unless I missed something that last one they did while they were still working members of the BRF.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Marc Tessier-Lavigne, president of Stanford, is a Rhodes Scholar, McGill Graduate and a proud Canadian. The fact that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex visited Stanford is to be added to the check list of new initiatives by the Sussex family in North America on behalf of the Commonwealth; nothing more and nothing less.

They are not doing things 'on behalf of the Commonwealth' at all. They are doing things for the Sussex's only - nothing to do with the BRF or the Commonwealth of Nations.

Unless I missed something that last one they did while they were still working members of the BRF.

Working members of the BRF have their work recorded in the CC. Harry has done one engagement this year and Meghan none. Even Tim Laurence has done more - and no one claims he is a working member of the BRF.

 

[ACO]

I don't see the issue in them talking to people like colleges professors and investors. Other royals also do this as well. Many examples. It just seems people for whatever reason have double standards for them. It is okay if [insert royal] gets a billionaire to invest in a campaign of theirs (one fairly recently in fact!) but don't let Harry network with one himself. It is fascinating to watch.

 

[Denville]

I don't see the issue in them talking to people like colleges professors and investors. Other royals also do this as well. Many examples. It just seems people for whatever reason have double standards for them. It is okay if [insert royal] gets a billionaire to invest in a campaign of theirs (one fairly recently in fact!) but don't let Harry network with one himself. It is fascinating to watch.

There is a difference. Harry having been a full time royal, is now an independent businessman. His networking is now likely to be about makng money. He can't be surprised if it attracts some negative attention.

 

[Osipi]

There is a difference. Harry having been a full time royal, is now an independent businessman. His networking is now likely to be about makng money. He can't be surprised if it attracts some negative attention.

We don't know how "likely" anything is to be at this time. It could likely be in conjunction with setting up their foundation or it could be likely be in putting green dollars in their pocket or it could likely be something we've just not thought about yet.

 

[QueenMathilde]

They are not doing things 'on behalf of the Commonwealth' at all. They are doing things for the Sussex's only - nothing to do with the BRF or the Commonwealth of Nations.



Working members of the BRF have their work recorded in the CC. Harry has done one engagement this year and Meghan none. Even Tim Laurence has done more - and no one claims he is a working member of the BRF.

I meant that they did the last one with Vogue through their contacts with the BRF. Not with the contacts they are using now as ex members of the royal family or whatever they are.

 

[ACO]

There is a difference. Harry having been a full time royal, is now an independent businessman. His networking is now likely to be about makng money. He can't be surprised if it attracts some negative attention.

There really is no difference. If it is good enough for one then it is good enough for the other. So far we have zero proof any money has exchanged hands. In fact most of the press now saying they did not get paid for JP Morgan despite all the inaccurate reporting that went on. It was purely networking, which makes total sense.

People are making a lot of assumption but the fact is we really have no clue what they are doing. Heck even today Harry and Meghan were spotted twice on a plan flying home to Vancouver Island. So they were off traveling elsewhere since their last spotting.

They are meeting people and making connections for their foundation. They seems to be their main focus. And like most foundations of that size they need to investors and collaborations. No different than the Royal Foundation or the Prince's Trust. It is how it happens.

 

[Juno]

I, too, did not like much about the video.
Why release it now? If Meghan and Harry are to redeem anything about themselves to the once admiring public, they need to work in a genuine way for just causes. Their current events lack purpose and direction - at a time when they are being scrutinized.

Unless they don't wish to capture the hearts of the type of people who find royals worthwhile? To be successful Harry and Meghan need to capture the attention of the wealthy. Their current events will be honey to money.

I thought the video went along with Vogue's announcement that the issue Meghan edited was the fastest selling issue, so it seemed appropriate. I also thought the video showed Meghan to be very personable and natural. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Their just getting started and I’m wondering what you see as disingenuous. Their current events seem very purposeful- they are networking for their foundation, and we don’t really have any details to say it’s nefarious. The royals have networked with the wealthy in the past, so I don’t see why it’s a problem if Harry and Meghan do so well, especially if the networking is to help their charitable foundation.

 

[muriel]

Their just getting started and I’m wondering what you see as disingenuous. Their current events seem very purposeful- they are networking for their foundation, and we don’t really have any details to say it’s nefarious. The royals have networked with the wealthy in the past, so I don’t see why it’s a problem if Harry and Meghan do so well, especially if the networking is to help their charitable foundation.

Of course the royals have networked in the past with moneyed people with a a view to raising financing for their charitable endeavours. Through these efforts, Prince Charles raises in excess of £100m each year for charity. However, in this case, what is unclear is how much of the work that H&M are doing and intend to do is for their own finances and how much for their proposed foundation.

At this stage, I am not going to criticise them for any of this, as it is unclear on what their future plans are. It will be interesting to see how they propose to resolve any potential conflicts between monies raised for private finances and any proposed charitable foundation they may set up. Perhaps they may seek guidance from the Clinton's in this regard.

I thought the video went along with Vogue's announcement that the issue Meghan edited was the fastest selling issue, so it seemed appropriate.

In their new independent and free wheeling world, the endorsement of Vogue could well either be a paid endorsement, or with a tacit (or otherwise) agreement of a quid pro quo to follow.

 

[Denville]

Of course the royals have networked in the past with moneyed people with a a view to raising financing for their charitable endeavours. Through these efforts, Prince Charles raises in excess of £100m each year for charity. However, in this case, what is unclear is how much of the work that H&M are doing and intend to do is for their own finances and how much for their proposed foundation.

At this stage, I am not going to criticise them for any of this, as it is unclear on what their future plans are. It will be interesting to see how they propose to resolve any potential conflicts between monies raised for private finances and any proposed charitable foundation they may set up. Perhaps they may seek guidance from the Clinton's in this regard.





In their new independent and free wheeling world, the endorsement of Vogue could well either be a paid endorsement, or with a tacit (or otherwise) agreement of a quid pro quo to follow.

but part of tehir reason for leaving was to "raise a professional income".. which suggests that while they did presumably want to help charities, they also wanted to earn their own money. And the queen made it clear that if they went along that route, then they could NOT work as royals, doing charity and other representational work. Because it ends up with a grey area and she wanted to distance the Crown from this sort of money making. When Sarah Ferguson wrote her first book she claimed that she wanted to write and that she would use her talents and donate the money to charity. It then emerged that she didn't give much to charity at all, and she then claimed that she needed to earn money because she and Andrew weren't as wealthy as Charles and Diana.. so it didnt' go down well. So I think that the queen has been quite firm in stating that working royals, senior members of the family who are close to her in the sense that they represent her.. cannot take on big business projects and that if they get money from rich benefactors it goes to charity, not to themselves.
As Harry and Meg have stated that they want to make their own money, that is their choice and it has been made clear to them that they must not use their royal style of HRH in the money making process. but it may be that to make the sort of money, the "professional income" that they want, will be a big job and will take up a lot of their time and energy..

 

[Pranter]

There is a difference. Harry having been a full time royal, is now an independent businessman. His networking is now likely to be about makng money. He can't be surprised if it attracts some negative attention.

This makes little sense to me. If he's now an independent businessman (which is quite a reach) then of course he's going to be making money..why is making money negative if you are a businessman?

LaRae

 

[Lumutqueen]

People are making a lot of assumption but the fact is we really have no clue what they are doing.

Now this I 100% agree with, it is why I have refrained from commenting on anything I have brought to this discussion or anything that i've read about this transition period.

They are meeting people and making connections for their foundation. They seems to be their main focus. And like most foundations of that size they need to investors and collaborations. No different than the Royal Foundation or the Prince's Trust. It is how it happens.

And FYI even William worked with banks (including JP Morgan!) at one point for his Wildlife campaign. So lets be mindful of these double standards. Google is quite a tool for references.

My issue with the above is, currently we do know they're in a transition period where they still hold their HRHs an such. We don't know they're meeting people for their foundation, as you said above we simply don't know. Perhaps it's the cynic in me to assume that they're not, but something about this whole thing is off.

Now I'm fully aware that Sponsors/donors/investors were/are used for The Royal Foundation and The Princes Trust but they have a clear, defined, recorded outcome. We've seen this today with a collaboration (of sorts) between Mrs Gianna Fletcher and The Duchess of Cambridge to promote The Big 5 Questions.

I'm also aware that non royals have their own foundations Bill and Melinda Gates for example, where not everything is in the public domain to analyse and record.

I guess my point is, for me, they should be one or the other. A royal foundation or a non-royal one, what i'm seeing is them using their name to potentially garner support for either their own future income, or support for their foundation. A foundation which we have no definition of whom it will be supporting? If it's their UK charities, why are they supporting them from another country?

This is just me sounding out the thoughts in my own head, and are by no means directed at any one in particular, this post just brought this thoughts to the front of my mind.

This makes little sense to me. If he's now an independent businessman (which is quite a reach) then of course he's going to be making money..why is making money negative if you are a businessman?

LaRae

...I have no issues with Henry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor making money for their own foundation and supporting charities which are close to their hearts. As my post above goes to some length to explain. Right now they're still Prince Harry and The Duchess of Sussex, and whilst they will remain Duke and Duchess after Spring 2020 they are still as we're led to believe members of the RF who are supporting their "foundation" which was primarily formed from their royal days.

My issue, and I think they issue of some on here is that they're treading a fine line between using/abusing what they have.

 

[Alison H]

The timing's unfortunate because some people are getting very sanctimonious about big business at the moment. Roger Federer got a load of hassle last month over his longstanding sponsorship deal with Credit Suisse, because the Holier Than Thou brigade have decided that Credit Suisse's environmental credentials are not perfect. This is not a perfect world, and no organisation that can afford to pay Harry and Meghan or anyone else large sums of money for being "ambassadors" or for making films on You Tube or anything else is likely to be as pure as the driven snow. So they are going to be moaned at. I don't know what the answer to that is. But, if they aren't being funded by Royal Family sources, they will have to make money somehow, and I can't see Prince Harry taking a 9-5 job in a shop or a factory or an office.

 

[Denville]

This makes little sense to me. If he's now an independent businessman (which is quite a reach) then of course he's going to be making money..why is making money negative if you are a businessman?


LaRae

because businessmen often attract negative attention. Large scale business can be controversial, cut throat and ruthless and It is likely that someone engaging in commerce will be criticised .

 

[Lady Daly]

This thread would make for an excellent focus group for the Sussexes. I'm now of the opinion we are all really in the dark on Harry and Meghan's actual plans and alot of what we think we know might just be our own projections. I am, however, excited for their future to unfold!

 

[rominet09]

This thread would make for an excellent focus group for the Sussexes. I'm now of the opinion we are all really in the dark on Harry and Meghan's actual plans and alot of what we think we know might just be our own projections. I am, however, excited for their future to unfold!

You are quite right, we Don't know anything. All I can say is that I miss seeing them.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Current Events 1: May 2018 -

We have some upcoming events for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex;

Both are expected at Mountbatten Music Festival, other events as well have been posted in the appropriate threads.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1230168133991792641

 

[Somebody]

So, to sum up:

Harry will most likely be in the UK for 1 1/2 weeks (from Friday February 28 until Monday March 9) with activities on:
- Feb 28: Invictus Games Choir
- March 5: Endeavour Fund Awards
- March 6: Silverstone Experience
- March 7: Mountbatten Music Festival
- March 9: Commonwealth Day

Meghan will need to be in the UK for 5 days:
- March 5: Endeavour Fund Awards
- March 7: Mountbatten Music Festival
- March 8: International Women's Day
- March 9: Commonwealth Day

I wouldn't be surprised if they would leave Archie back in Canada given the above schedule; unless they extend it to include some more personal or formal visits.

Apparently, Harry will be back in the UK for the London Marathon on April 26; and both will be in the Netherlands in May for the Invictus Games (9 - 16 May).

 

[Alison H]

I really hope they bring Archie, for the sake of the Queen and Prince Philip.

 

[wyevale]

The Lady deigns to visit for 5 whole days ? There's 'commitment' for you...

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

At least they're visiting...!

 

[_Heather_]

The Lady deigns to visit for 5 whole days ? There's 'commitment' for you...

Well technically they're still in the transition period and are still currently "working royals" until March 31. If I'm understanding it correctly these five days will be before that date. It'll be much more interesting to find out how frequently these visits occur after March 31.

 

[Pranter]

The Lady deigns to visit for 5 whole days ? There's 'commitment' for you...

Who said it's only 5 days other than a person here?



LaRae

 

[ACO]

These are what’s announced so far. More could be the following week. Who knows? The official end is the 31st.

Some claimed she wouldn’t set fool in the UK at all, so clearly no one knows.

 

[stunking]

I'm sure P Charles would like to see his grandson also.

 

[Countessmeout]

Harry has to be back for almost two weeks. It makes most sense Meghan come with him when he comes. And bring Archie. Unlike their last trip, not only coming for three days. A few weeks won’t be as disrupting for Archie. Meghan has patronage’s to visit including Hubb (such visits wouldn’t be officially announced like the ones we know). She also has friends in the UK. Archie will be comfortable in his old nursery and get to see family.

They may also come back for a few weeks in May. There is less then two weeks between the end of Invictus and Beatrice wedding. They could head over to the Uk after the games for some more family time and patronage work. Go home after the wedding. Harry has been close to the York’s for years. I don’t think he will miss the wedding. And since it’s private he won’t steal thunder. Then go home after they are done.

 

[Frelinghighness]

I haven't clicked on anything that says Sussex since they bailed. I see Kate and William in the cold rain, smiles on their faces, and I think of Harry and Megan in their 14 million dollar mansion, "being homebodies", or their recent engagement in Miami where harry "revealed" his therapy, for how much?? they are gone

 

[QueenMathilde]

These are what’s announced so far. More could be the following week. Who knows? The official end is the 31st.

Some claimed she wouldn’t set fool in the UK at all, so clearly no one knows.

I didn't think she'd set foot in the UK so I'm surprised by the five days. I think they should bring Archie - let the Queen and Phillip see him.

 

[Pranter]

I didn't think she'd set foot in the UK so I'm surprised by the five days. I think they should bring Archie - let the Queen and Phillip see him.

Five days? Nothing announced has said she is only going to be in the UK for 5 days.


LaRae

 

[Jacknch]

Please be reminded this this thread is the Current Events thread - posts unrelated to the topic have been moved.

Where a thread discussing another topic is closed, please DO NOT bring that conversation over to any available open thread. Thank you.