General News about the Sussex Family, Part One: May 2019 - March 2020

[Alison H]

It can look hypocritical, but their power to influence opinion derives from the fact that they are well-known, and well-known people generally lead lives of luxury because the two things go together. If an ordinary person living in a small house in a small town speaks out about something, however sincere and well-informed they may be, no-one will hear them. If Prince Harry or Meghan or George Clooney speaks out about something, it's all over the international media. I don't know why they all had to fly in on private jets, though! I went to Sicily on holiday last year - there are loads of commercial flights there at this time of year!

 

[TLLK]

Interesting how the same story ran yesterday said it was William and Kate who were there and now its Harry?

Yes the DM seems to be very confused.
First they claimed the Cambridges were attending.
Next they had to claim that the Cambridges were NOT attending.
Now it's Harry who is at Google Camp.


C'mon DM you need to find a better source.

 

[Ista]

There will always be the Haves and Have-nots.

But what is irritating is when the Haves preach about what everyone else should be doing, while refusing to abide by it themselves.
They want to save the environment- as long as it doesn't personally inconvenience them. (Private jets, for example?)

So it isn't a shock when people call them out on it, and point out the hypocrisy.

It's that fine line I was talking about, and one that Harry and Meghan will have to grapple with at some point, if they haven't already. They are not operating in a vacuum, and every choice they make has implications. For example, Meghan chose to do the guest editing gig for Vogue. That's fine and worthwhile, but Vogue is a magazine that appeals to and is largely read by people with an interest in (expensive)fashion and a lifestyle of very conspicuous consumption. It's more elitist than, say, Women's Weekly. Most of the women profiled in that editorial also occupy positions of a certain amount of privilege, even if the work they are doing is worthy. It's fair enough for there to be commentary about that, I think, and they will need to be conscious of the optics of their choices going forward.

 

[Lilyflo]

Here’s the latest headline:

“Backlash at barefoot Prince Harry and 'hypocrite Greenerati': Eco-warrior elite who turned up at secret climate change Google camp in 114 private jets, helicopters and mega yachts are mocked for leaving their own carbon footprint”

This is the kind of thing you want to avoid lest you get labelled a hypocrite.

Prince Harry going barefoot is irrelevant & he doesn't have a private jet does he?

 

[Rena M.]

Yes the DM seems to be very confused.
First they claimed the Cambridges were attending.
Next they had to claim that the Cambridges were NOT attending.
Now it's Harry who is at Google Camp.


C'mon DM you need to find a better source.

Source of DM story is "a source" of Page Six. We live in a madhouse

 

[Osipi]

I'm more than glad that Harry is being active at the climate change conference. That is what matters to me. How he got there or how other people got there is irrelevant to me. Its a case of the good outweighs the bad. I am extremely happy that Meghan has found the ways and means to help Smart Works even more and has kept active during her maternity leave and that outweighs every other little thing about this incentive that fault can be found with. Harry didn't have to share that he and Meghan have decided on a family of two children. That's personal to them. Why they came to that decision is actually none of my business.

Keep calm, Harry and Meghan, and carry on. You're a couple that have the will, the passion and the means to make a world of difference wherever you go. That is what matters to me most. ?

 

[soapstar]

The rumor that William and Kate were attending the Google camp was shut down quickly, so it’s curious that Harry’s attendance hasn’t been denied. Especially since more and more outlets are picking up on this story.

I’m leaning towards this being true. Harry attended in 2017, so it’s not impossible to believe he would attend this year. Plus KP hasn’t denied it (at least so far). Their response was, "This is not something we are commenting on.”

 

[Dman]

It can look hypocritical, but their power to influence opinion derives from the fact that they are well-known, and well-known people generally lead lives of luxury because the two things go together. If an ordinary person living in a small house in a small town speaks out about something, however sincere and well-informed they may be, no-one will hear them. If Prince Harry or Meghan or George Clooney speaks out about something, it's all over the international media. I don't know why they all had to fly in on private jets, though! I went to Sicily on holiday last year - there are loads of commercial flights there at this time of year!

The thing is, I’m fully okay with wealthy people being wealthy. I don’t feel the need to make the rich royals feel like they can’t talk about and help with everyday issues. I’m more interested in the royals and even celebrities putting their money and influence to work by helping those who’s less fortunate and who don’t have the luxuries the royals and others have.

The royal family have dedicated themselves to the charities and organizations they’re royal patron and president of. What Harry and Meghan, and the rest of the family, are doing is great work for others. They’re efforts shouldn’t be punished or dismissed because fly on private jets, helicopters and have a nice house and title.

Also, let’s not forget, Meghan, has been helping people since she was a little girl. She was raised to do what she’s doing. She just now have a more global platform and opportunity to do what she’s being doing for years.

 

[Dalriada]

General News about the Sussex Family, Part One: May 2019 -

Dripping with celebrities and carbon footprints: you couldn’t make it up.
Google Camp: Prince Harry 'delivers speech about climate change at secretive star-studded summit' | London Evening Standard - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...at-exclusive-summer-google-camp-a4202986.html

 

[Osipi]

I think I'd word it a bit different and state "dripping with movers and shakers and deep pockets". That's what needs to be accentuated IMO.

 

[Rudolph]

Dripping with celebrities and carbon footprints: you couldn’t make it up.
Google Camp: Prince Harry 'delivers speech about climate change at secretive star-studded summit' | London Evening Standard - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...at-exclusive-summer-google-camp-a4202986.html

It’s a clearly do as I say and not as I do conference lol.

 

[Lilyflo]

Dripping with celebrities and carbon footprints: you couldn’t make it up.
Google Camp: Prince Harry 'delivers speech about climate change at secretive star-studded summit' | London Evening Standard - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...at-exclusive-summer-google-camp-a4202986.html

These people all have influence in a variety of ways so it'd be great if Harry's speech & the conference as a whole has an impact on them that ripples outwards through interviews, blogs, campaigns etc.

They could all just be at a knees-up in the sun, indulging themselves in immense luxury & not learning anything about important issues so I'm glad it has a focus on climate change because that's going to harm all of us. The more they learn, the better they can influence others & also work on their own carbon footprint, which they can't hide from and they're not stupid so they know that. All power to Princes Charles, William & Harry every time they highlight our climate crisis.

 

[_Heather_]

I agree and I think being a relevant, "non-political" spare to the heir (even if that's fairly meaningless today) is difficult thing to figure out. And I am positive that "just make the same decisions the previous two generations did" is a non-starter in the modern world. Never-mind that the previous two generations (and Will and Kate as well) had lots of missteps as they figured their jobs out.

But I also understand why people are anxious. I like the Sussexes a lot and I support many of the things they seem to back. I think they have done much much good.

I just think there is a bit too much "have my cake and eat it" going on. Too much playing the royal trump card while wanting to be seen as everyday folk. Too much willingness to give flip answers (tweet style) that are easily misinterpreted in another context. Too much kvetching about how they are so wronged or about how others are not exactly like them. In my world we all get to make our own decisions and then live with them.

I've increasingly decided to just lay back in the weeds and give the Sussexes time to figure out their path. I am quite sure it will change and flex as changing seems to be what they do very well. I am willing to give them time and space. Rather than rabid adoration or loathing or microscopic analysis.

In ten years it will be interesting to see how all this works out.

I absolutely agree with this. While the causes they've chosen to champion are incredibly worthy and admirable, there's far too much of the "do as I say and not as I do" happening and it's a bad look. And, as with all things royal, the look and perception is everything. Championing environmental causes and reduction of carbon footprint is a wonderful thing. Following that up with private jet trips (whether paid for by the Sussexes/BRF or by a friend) smacks of hypocritical smugness. Wanting to connect with ordinary everyday people and, in particular, women is a fabulous thing. Doing a guest editorial stint with an elitist magazine like Vogue and choosing to feature mostly wealthy and well known women reeks of snobbishness, particularly if it's true that this didn't in any way benefit any charity as I've read in recent days. Often these things are much like the cookbook which directly benefited a charity in which the Duchess has been personally involved. However, it appears that no proceeds from the sale of this issue of Vogue are earmarked for charitable dispersion. Wanting to be seen as inclusive, friendly, down to earth, and forward thinking is a terrific thing. However, then making demands such as not being photographed in a public place, refusing to allow the public small things like the name of their dog or the names of their son's godparents or even where he was born then smack of an elitist entitlement. See where I'm going with this?

Overall it's not that the Sussexes are making bad choices with the causes they choose to champion, support, and interact with. They're making poor choices with regard to perception and have certainly often given off a "do as I say and not as I do" look and that's simply bad PR. What they will have to eventually realize is that as a member of the BRF, your public and private lives are blurred and that's just the nature of the beast. You don't get to put on your work persona of saving the planet, super woke, down to earth inclusiveness and then behave completely differently when you're "off duty" because it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the public and when it boils right down to it, without the support of the public the BRF cease to exist.

It definitely will be interesting to see where things stand with the Sussexes in five or ten years and what kind of public perception is out there then. With any luck they'll have decided that maybe it's acceptable to walk that line between having a private life and still giving those happy little tidbits that keep the public satisfied while still managing to do lots of good work for good causes and following the paths that don't give them that "have my cake and eat it too" feel.

 

[tommy100]

Hmm, I understand the desire to make the world a better place in every way possible, I really do.
But people in glass houses and all that. I think maybe it doesn't help that H&M are relatively new to public duties, I mean when Charles and the Queen talk of making the world a better place they have decades of years of doing down to earth good work.

If this is true it is awful timing so close to the Vogue work, both are pretty high class IMO - Vogue with its ££££ clothes and a celebrity retreat for the wealthy who arrived in their private jets.

 

[Duchessblack]

I am relatively new to following the coverage and editorials of the royal family(so far I am very disheartened in what i see) so my question is about the criticism of promoting global change and how the royals travel. Is this a new issue? I see Charles flying private planes often as well as William. They are both proponents of environmental causes. Or is it okay for them but not for the Sussex branch?

 

[JR76]

I am relatively new to following the coverage and editorials of the royal family(so far I am very disheartened in what i see) so my question is about the criticism of promoting global change and how the royals travel. Is this a new issue? I see Charles flying private planes often as well as William. They are both proponents of environmental causes. Or is it okay for them but not for the bad Sussex branch?

Regarding the issue of the effect airtravel has on the environment this is something that we started talking about only last year meaning that there aren't a lot of precedence in criticising the royals for it. What criticism we've seen about airtravel have been about costs with especially Prince Andrew getting the flack for it. It's a bit telling that the environmental criticism we've seen have been directed at Meghan when she went to New York for her babyshower and now Harry going to Italy while nobody criticised William and Catherine for flying to Mustique on holiday. Regarding Google Camp I do find the criticism justifiable since Harry, and all the other participants, are going there to talk about climate change.
To finish off what surprised me the most about the Royal Financial report was that everyone made the cost for renovating Frogmore cottage the big scandal when, to me, the really big scandal was how the carbon print from airtravel had gone up 98% from the year before. This, again to me, is unacceptable as we're facing a climate disaster of indescribable magnitude.

 

[soapstar]

A number of posts have been deleted. The opinion articles about Meghan’s Vogue issue (both the positive and negative ones) have become repetitive. And as stated in yesterday's mod note:

Please note, it is unnecessary to post every single negative (or positive, should the situation arise) opinion piece on the subject of Meghan's Vogue guest editing spot. It is repetitive, and agenda-driven. Both of which are outside of the guidelines for the Sussex forum and TRF.

At this stage, unless anything new comes about from the Vogue stint, any opinion pieces are now repeating what has already been said in the press, and will be deleted as such.

 

[Ista]

I am relatively new to following the coverage and editorials of the royal family(so far I am very disheartened in what i see) so my question is about the criticism of promoting global change and how the royals travel. Is this a new issue? I see Charles flying private planes often as well as William. They are both proponents of environmental causes. Or is it okay for them but not for the Sussex branch?

It'e been an ongoing issue for years. Charles and William both have come under fire for exactly the same things, which you will see if you take stroll through different threads here, and articles and editorials and books about Charles, especially. So in this case, the criticism directed at Meghan and Harry is very much what has been leveled at other members of the BRF. Actually, if you want to look further out, these same kinds of discussions occur for other royal families, too, when they talk about environmental issues--it puts their own practices under a microscope.

 

[Duchessblack]

Regarding the issue of the effect airtravel has on the environment this is something that we started talking about only last year meaning that there aren't a lot of precedence in criticising the royals for it. What criticism we've seen about airtravel have been about costs with especially Prince Andrew getting the flack for it. It's a bit telling that the environmental criticism we've seen have been directed at Meghan when she went to New York for her babyshower and now Harry going to Italy while nobody criticised William and Catherine for flying to Mustique on holiday. Regarding Google Camp I do find the criticism justifiable since Harry, and all the other participants, are going there to talk about climate change.
To finish off what surprised me the most about the Royal Financial report was that everyone made the cost for renovating Frogmore cottage the big scandal when, to me, the really big scandal was how the carbon print from airtravel had gone up 98% from the year before. This, again to me, is unacceptable as we're facing a climate disaster of indescribable magnitude.

Thank you for your answer, I understand your view that it is justifiable for criticism regarding Google Camp for Harry and anyone depending on how they traveled there. What I go back to is if it is not okay for one or two it should not be okay for others in the same position. ?

 

[Rena M.]

I am relatively new to following the coverage and editorials of the royal family(so far I am very disheartened in what i see) so my question is about the criticism of promoting global change and how the royals travel. Is this a new issue? I see Charles flying private planes often as well as William. They are both proponents of environmental causes. Or is it okay for them but not for the Sussex branch?

The Cambridges jetted to Mustique and back for fun and it's ok. Harry flew to Sicily for work and it is a big problem.

 

[JR76]

Thank you for your answer, I understand your view that it is justifiable for criticism regarding Google Camp for Harry and anyone depending on how they traveled there. What I go back to is if it is not okay for one or two it should not be okay for others in the same position. [emoji2]

It was my pleasure.
I agree in that if we're handing out criticism for holiday travels it should be all round and not just for some.

 

[Somebody]

The Cambridges jetted to Mustique and back for fun and it's ok. Harry flew to Sicily for work and it is a big problem.

The Cambridges didn't fly to Mustique to combat climate change, while Harry's purpose of flying to Sicily was to specifically address the issue of climate change. So, that's a big difference and makes Harry's actions more questionable. However, normally Harry travels by commercial airplanes, so if he did so this time as well, most other guests were far bigger hypocrites (arriving by private jet?!) and I wouldn't really blame Harry.

 

[_Heather_]

The Cambridges didn't fly to Mustique to combat climate change, while Harry's purpose of flying to Sicily was to specifically address the issue of climate change. So, that's a big difference and makes Harry's actions more questionable. However, normally Harry travels by commercial airplanes, so if he did so this time as well, most other guests were far bigger hypocrites (arriving by private jet?!) and I wouldn't really blame Harry.

This is very, very true. And while I'm not sure about this particular year's vacation, typically the Cambridges fly via British Airways as far as possible and then take the planes owned by Mustique to the island as it is (from my limited understanding of that particular destination) the only way in. So if Harry flew commercial as far as possible (or all the way) to the Google summit then good for him. Just as I'd say good for the Cambridges for flying British Airways as far as possible. I think what we're really discussing is the idea of Harry flying private into a summit about climate change and reducing carbon footprint because, come on, that's a bad look and there's really no defense that can turn that into a good look. Same thing happened a while back when he gave a speech about carbon footprint and then turned around in the same week and flew privately. Same argument about Meghan using the private jet for the New York baby shower. I don't care who paid for it. Whether it was Meghan, Amal Clooney, or the man in the moon it's hypocritical.

On the same note, it's hypocritical for William, Charles, or any other member of the BRF to actively speak out against climate change and carbon footprints and then make a habit of flying privately when commercial flights are available and there aren't significant security concerns. Because, let's be real here, they are royalty and there are sometimes significant security concerns or lack of availability for commercial flights that might factor into the decision and, at least in my view, those times are far less egregious than the decision to fly by private jet when there are no significant security concerns or lack of commercial availability.

 

[Duchessblack]

The fact the William flew for vacation does not make it better, imo. He has also been known to make statements about climate change.

BTW: it is not just the royal families. I believe strongly that the environment is important also.Yet there are areas where I could be seen as hypocritical also.

 

[soapstar]

Let’s get back to discussing Harry and Meghan and not get into comparing royals. If you wish to discuss the Cambridge vacation/travel arrangements, you can take it to their General News thread.

 

[JR76]

Personally I'm not just talking about flying private jet. I feel we all should have a good think about if we really need to fly when the world is literally burning.
To put things into perspective the ice melting on Greenland today, Thursday, will raise the world's sea levels with 1 mm.

 

[peanutbutterfly]

I think until we invent new ways to travel long distances all this aeroplane talk is silly, especially because we can all do things to individually and collectively offset our carbon footprints. This is what large corporations meet to discuss...things like ethical supply chains, reforestation etc. As individuals however we can still all do our part.

 

[BlackHat]

The Sussex team is not as...prompt in reacting to media reports so wouldn't be surprised if this story was actually not true. If they responded to everything that was said about them, they'd need more staff. It could be true, I just wish there was more vigorous thought processes applied before we jumped on every story as completely and irrefutably true. Because as it stands, Meghan was playing lawn bowls at FC and Harrry was barefoot in Italy. Without doubt...

 

[Osipi]

A thought has occurred to me in regards for just how Harry traveled to this climate change conference/Google Camp thing. Perhaps Harry had no say in his method of transportation but rather it was decided for him by his RPOs that travel with him everywhere. If the Met Police bosses/RPOs deem the safest way for Harry to travel is by private jet (whomever owns the jet), Harry has no choice but to comply with what they deem is best.

His protection squad will do everything they possibly can to ensure their charges are safe and well protected. With so many high powered and well known figures attending this conference, it may have been deemed better to be safe than sorry as to how Harry got there and returns.

Just a thought. ?

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I admit when all these snobby rich people get together to give speeches it doesn't necessarily inspire me. But I at least think what Harry is doing is better than Meghan using her name to get a guest spot at Vogue. As for the apparent spotlight on only rich women, I am not a woman's activist so I don't need to see any more spotlights on women especially rich ones.