I think I am in the minority that I find the website itself very nice and welcoming. I also do not buy for a moment that any agreement to keep the Royal Family out of commercial endeavors could somehow be construed to mean that Harry could not say that his father modeled compassion for him. I do appreciate Curryong's insight that perhaps that decision was made to avoid highlighting that Thomas would inevitably be missing from any mention of "parents." Even if this is the case, I still think it is a terrible slap in the face to Charles and a wrong decision, but I think Curryong is probably on to something in terms of how and why the decision was made.
Osipi, you may feel differently (or perhaps not) when you look at the site. While I am in the minority here in thinking the site itself is quite nice, the messaging is- to be frank- just bizarre. If the idea was to promote how empowering motherhood is, one wonders why not just leave it at that: We are two people whose mothers modeled compassion for us. Or, indeed, mothers and other strong, enlightened, women. Instead, they said they had compassion modeled by their mothers and by complete strangers, so indeed, they are going to pains to point out that they are not just focusing on mothers, but on everyone who models compassion. This makes the exclusion of Harry's father, one of the world's foremost servant-leaders, absolutely bizarre.
For those who follow the Royal Family and have done for decades and for whom Charles's philanthropy, charity, care for others- yes, his compassion- is well known, for his son to start an organization based on this concept and say outright, this is based on how compassion was modeled "by my mother and complete strangers" has taken me, and perhaps others, aback. I am not saying I "fault" Harry or "have a problem" with it, just that I am... taken aback.
? 
