Sussex Royal - The Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by muriel

After the events of Sep 11, Prince Charles was advised by the Home Office to not fly on commercial jets, and has since pretty much only flown on private planes.

So Charles is following the advice of his security team when he flies private, but Harry and Meghan cannot be doing the same?

Charles has preached about the environment for decades and flies private, but he should advice Harry about talking about the environment and flying private?

[BaiSoSo]

Originally Posted by muriel

After the events of Sep 11, Prince Charles was advised by the Home Office to not fly on commercial jets, and has since pretty much only flown on private planes.

So what makes people think that Harry (and his family) aren't advised to do the same on occasion (when threats are high). We know that there have been threats to both Harry & Meghan, some serious enough to land people in jail. Think of all the ones we don't know about.

Like Harry said he is trying to find a balance....his family's safety will always come first (like it should be for everyone) and when he does fly by private jet he tries to balance it out with the sources available to him right now. Talking about it may bring even better resources to the table in the future and he is bringing that to the forefront.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze

So Charles is following the advice of his security team when he flies private, but Harry and Meghan cannot be doing the same?

Charles has preached about the environment for decades and flies private, but he should advice Harry about talking about the environment and flying private?

Originally Posted by BaiSoSo

So what makes people think that Harry (and his family) aren't advised to do the same on occasion (when threats are high). We know that there have been threats to both Harry & Meghan, some serious enough to land people in jail. Think of all the ones we don't know about.

Like Harry said he is trying to find a balance....his family's safety will always come first (like it should be for everyone) and when he does fly by private jet he tries to balance it out with the sources available to him right now. Talking about it may bring even better resources to the table in the future and he is bringing that to the forefront.

I don't know if security services have specifically advised Harry to not fly on commercial planes, but if that were indeed be the case:

a) Harry would not have flown on a commercial plane to Amsterdam
b) Harry ought to have worded his explanation on private planes differently.

My own view is that Harry is perfectly entitled to fly on as many private planes as he can afford to fly on, or get others to pay for. However, he just has to be clear if there are any inconsistencies in those flights and the environmental campaigning he undertakes to avoid claim of being hypocritical.

[BaiSoSo]

Originally Posted by BaiSoSo

So what makes people think that Harry (and his family) aren't advised to do the same on occasion (when threats are high). We know that there have been threats to both Harry & Meghan, some serious enough to land people in jail. Think of all the ones we don't know about.

Like Harry said he is trying to find a balance....his family's safety will always come first (like it should be for everyone) and when he does fly by private jet he tries to balance it out with the sources available to him right now. Talking about it may bring even better resources to the table in the future and he is bringing that to the forefront.

Originally Posted by muriel

I don't know if security services have specifically advised Harry to not fly on commercial planes, but if that were indeed be the case:

a) Harry would not have flown on a commercial plane to Amsterdam
b) Harry ought to have worded his explanation on private planes differently.

My own view is that Harry is perfectly entitled to fly on as many private planes as he can afford to fly on, or get others to pay for. However, he just has to be clear if there are any inconsistencies in those flights and the environmental campaigning he undertakes to avoid claim of being hypocritical.

My quote said that there may be times when threats are higher and then at those times security may warrant private travel. So there may indeed be times when it is okay for Harry to fly commercial (especially if it is just him).

He didn't need to word his explanation differently....it was very clear he will travel commercial the majority of the time but there are times, especially when it comes to the safety of his family he will need to travel privately. What needs to be clearer in that statement?

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by BaiSoSo

My quote said that there may be times when threats are higher and then at those times security may warrant private travel. So there may indeed be times when it is okay for Harry to fly commercial (especially if it is just him).

He didn't need to word his explanation differently....it was very clear he will travel commercial the majority of the time but there are times, especially when it comes to the safety of his family he will need to travel privately. What needs to be clearer in that statement?

Yeah, I thought his answer was perfectly clear.

We aren't wary to their security team's decisions, and I'm perfectly fine accepting family safety as a reason for them to fly private.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze

So Charles is following the advice of his security team when he flies private, but Harry and Meghan cannot be doing the same?

Charles has preached about the environment for decades and flies private, but he should advice Harry about talking about the environment and flying private?

Perhaps the royal family should invest in a eco friendly bus that's run on Highgrove wine that's secure to the max much like the "Beast" our President rides around in. They all pile on the bus with their RPOs and the bus goes to different destinations where the different royals have engagements that day.

Something along these lines. If they get stranded, they can always drink the fuel.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...e-powered.html

[Duke of Marmalade]

When you say something it better is the right thing to say. Of course 99%is not correct.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-private.html

There is no way they will be getting the jeannie back into the bottle any time soon.

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

When you say something it better is the right thing to say. Of course 99%is not correct.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-private.html

There is no way they will be getting the jeannie back into the bottle any time soon.

And they're not even bothered to try. This is not controversy or a scandal, no matter how it's being spun like it's one.

[Rudolph]

Two things. Harry Just should of said from time to time logistics require the use of a private jet and leave it there.

To use security as an ‘excuse’ while also stating he flies commercial 99% of the time is disingenuous and misleading.

[Claricecolin]

I don't like to think about it but it wouldn't surprise me if threats were much higher and taken more seriously with Meghan. They may not be published but could be a real concern. If this is the case, Harry and his team will do anything to minimize the risk, as they should. I am all for doing my bit for the planet but I too call short. For example, I could take the train/bus from NY to FL to check on my Dad monthly. However, if I am only going for 2 days that adds another 2 days to trip and that isn't always feasible I can fly in under 3 hours.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by muriel

I don't know if security services have specifically advised Harry to not fly on commercial planes, but if that were indeed be the case:

a) Harry would not have flown on a commercial plane to Amsterdam
b) Harry ought to have worded his explanation on private planes differently.

My own view is that Harry is perfectly entitled to fly on as many private planes as he can afford to fly on, or get others to pay for. However, he just has to be clear if there are any inconsistencies in those flights and the environmental campaigning he undertakes to avoid claim of being hypocritical.

Harry and one (or even two) RPOs flying somewhere is vastly different than Harry, Meghan, Archie and nine RPOs minimum and a nanny flying somewhere.

[Duchessblack]

some of the other articles I am reading besides DM are saying that this hire was made to help promote Travelyst. Perhaps I am slow but what is the issue this time?

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Two things. Harry Just should of said from time to time logistics require the use of a private jet and leave it there.

To use security as an ‘excuse’ while also stating he flies commercial 99% of the time is disingenuous and misleading.

Couldn't agree more!!

[O-H Anglophile]

...
Chris Ship's tweet: re PR firm

"On the @danwootton story that Harry and Meghan have hired American PR firm Sunshine Sachs, the firm has been asked by the Palace to help promote to America the new ecotourism project Prince Harry is launching today.
Travelyst is the first Sussex Royal Foundation project."

Originally Posted by Duchessblack

some of the other articles I am reading besides DM are saying that this hire was made to help promote Travelyst. Perhaps I am slow but what is the issue this time?

Because some articles are trying to make it be personal for Meghan's "image."

[Duchessblack]

I don't think there is anything he could say really to stop the view that he is being an hypocrite. He is not the only member of the royal family who flies private jet. Does Charles ever fly commercial? There may be times when it is easier to fly private with a baby and wife in tow. He says he offsets the carbon when he flies private. If that is not good enough for some people than that can not be helped at this point. A few private jet rides by one family is not going to undo the damage that has already been done.

[Somebody]

40% (an inaccurate number of course as Harry also travelled to Amsterdam in May by commercial flight, which isn't included; and there might be other 'known' flights missing) instead of 99% is a big difference; although it could be that he flies much more and therefore his percentage is higher than calculated based on 'known' flights

However, it seems very unlikely that safety alone is the reason for all private jets taken. I assume it's a combination of factors including safety but also convenience.

It seems that so far all flights with Archie have been private, so either that's assessed as a far higher risk or convenience (and/or a desire for privacy) kicks in in those cases as well. Flights to Morocco and Australia/New Zealand were commercially - so, at least previously Meghan could fly commercially as well. Nonetheless, it seems that Harry also flies private when solo at times, so again, it seems that safety/security isn't the only reason that plays in to the decision.

What Harry forgets to mention is the alternative of not travelling that often... There is little reason to travel back and forth to lots of different holiday destinations only days apart; and in some cases other alternatives than flying are readily available. So, even flying commercially is not the best thing to do. [And yes, I am well aware that most of us, including me, also fly - sometimes out of 'necessity' and sometimes for pleasure (vacation/holiday for example) and/or out of convenience (Harry could for example have taken the train from London to Amsterdam).]

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by Duchessblack

I don't think there is anything he could say really to stop the view that he is being an hypocrite. He is not the only member of the royal family who flies private jet. Does Charles ever fly commercial? There may be times when it is easier to fly private with a baby and wife in tow. He says he offsets the carbon when he flies private. If that is not good enough for some people than that can not be helped at this point. A few private jet rides by one family is not going to undo the damage that has already been done.

I agree. The only way to satisfy some people is to have the private frequent fliers [and there are many CEOs, millionaires, etc. who do] to prove the amount of money sent to "tree planting charities" to offset and have them document by charity where these trees will be planted. Just to send money to their own Foundation Charity won't cut it. Short and sweet. If they are doing as they claim, not a bit of problem and people will shut up.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze

And Charles would advice them to follow his example, right? Which would be to talk A LOT about protecting the environment, I mean for decades, and STILL flying on private jets, when need be. Didn't the recent report on royal spending say that Charles flew on planes, private planes, most out of all the royals.

Imho it's weird to suggest that Sussexes are creating negativity toward the firm, when Andrew's visits were cancelled by the charities and hosts due to the actual controversy hes bringing to the firm.

Comparing the heir to the throne to any other member of the family is comparing apples to oranges. I know you have rejected my saying that in the past as "an excuse that stinks," but I am surprised that this is even a controversial statement. Charles' position, and what he is and is not able to do, and what people realize he is and is not able to do, and how what he does and does not do is received by the public, is just not comparable to Meghan and Harry (or his own siblings, his elder son, or any other member of his family). This can be my "stinky excuse" all day long, and people can accuse me of just making up excuses for the media's ill treatment of the Sussexes, but the truth of it is borne out every single day.

Some actions are just "ok" (generally accepted by the public) when done by the 70+ years old heir to the British throne and not when done by his 30-something, 6th-in-line son, daughter-in-law, and grandson. Some actions are also "ok" (see definition above) when done by the heir's heir and his family, but not "ok" when done by the other branches of the family. Andrew faced this. My gosh, did Edward face this. Anne. Beatrice. Eugenie. This is people looking at actions in context, and it is not hypocrisy. People who fail to see this are going to be blue in the face trying to "defend" the Sussexes against criticism like this for the rest of the Sussexes' public lives, because it will always happen. People will criticize one, both, or all of them for actions that others take without being criticized, because those people exist and act in different contexts. The great news is, it works the other way too. Because of their own contexts and experiences, the Sussexes will be able to do and be praised for things that, if any family member did them, they would be criticized heavily.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Duchessblack

I don't think there is anything he could say really to stop the view that he is being an hypocrite. He is not the only member of the royal family who flies private jet. Does Charles ever fly commercial? There may be times when it is easier to fly private with a baby and wife in tow. He says he offsets the carbon when he flies private. If that is not good enough for some people than that can not be helped at this point. A few private jet rides by one family is not going to undo the damage that has already been done.

It was a made up controversy. For months now, everything Harry and Meghan do and say is now considered wrong and a rebel against the Monarchy. Outside forces are controlling the narrative.

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

. Because of their own contexts and experiences, the Sussexes will be able to do and be praised for things that, if any family member did them, they would be criticized heavily.

Could you please give an example of this. Because to my eyes it looks like the Sussexes can't do what other royals do, they get criticism for it, AND if they dared to do something that other royals don't do, they get criticized even more.