The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: Aug. 2021- Oct. 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does Beatrice no longer live there? I know she's in the UK currently, but her job was originally based out of New York, and she lived there for several years. I don't recall her ever being greeted like a visiting dignitary, because she wasn't one. There were no DHS motorcades, either.

I think if we really look at this objectively through the eyes of someone that isn't a royal watcher like us and didn't stay up to the minute on the antics of this couple over the past two years and read a report on what this couple is doing in NY, why they are there, and all the trimmings that come with these reports, we'd probably go "meh..." and move on to something more interesting in the news.

As I've stated before, I don't believe that anything that has come to pass has anything to do with being given the royal red carpet and courtesies. The very high security could have been for anything from chatter on the DHS of possible terrorists attacks to a whole lot of other things they don't make public every day. I'm linking a good article containing a speech by Christopher Wray, Director of the FBI as he addressed the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C., September 21, 2021.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/...-the-landscape-20-years-after-911-wray-092121

To us, it's easy to think that because Harry and Meghan still *do* remain royal that any *special" treatment must be due to their royal status. I don't think that's so if you really look at other possibilities of the possible causes for things such as the DHS motorcade, high security at the time etc.

I'm trying to remain objective in all this. Put aside anything I think of the couple personally and follow this weekend's events with a clear mind.
 
Does Beatrice no longer live there? I know she's in the UK currently, but her job was originally based out of New York, and she lived there for several years. I don't recall her ever being greeted like a visiting dignitary, because she wasn't one. There were no DHS motorcades, either.

Beatrice has never lived permanently in the US, though she was there frequently as her mother has been over the years. And Beatrice was certainly not married when she did.
 
Last edited:

It's hard to believe that Harry perceives this as anything other than a PR op after pushing the little children away in the beginning of the video. I've never held a positive opinion about the Sussexes but now I'm beyond shocked.
 
Beatrice has never lived permanently in the US, though she was there frequently as her mother has been over the years. And Beatrice was certainly not married when she did.

And she is much less famous worldwide than Harry.
 
I believe there are enough Americans who are happy Meghan and Harry live not only in the US but do public appearances there.

The fact that the Kennedys have been called "American Royalty" tells me there is a wish to have some sort of aristocracy/royalty for their own and Harry is, as son of the future king of the UK, a direct line descendant of the king who lost the US to freedom (whatever that means when it comes to that in the US) and independance. His wife is beautiful, they are in love and they bring a message of doing good and helping the poor. What's to be against that?

Not all posters here like them and say they pretend to be "above their station", but how can you be above your station when you are a British Royal prince and meet with American dignitaries? These people are all upper crust for most Americans, so let them meet!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[-][/-]
I believe there are enough Americans who are happy Meghan and Harry live not only in the US but do public appearances there.

The fact that the Kennedys have been called "American Royalty" tells me there is a wish to have some sort of aristocracy/royalty for their own and Harry is, as son of the future king of the UK, a direct line descendant of the king who lost the US to freedom (whatever that means when it comes to that in the US) and independance. His wife is beautiful, they are in love and they bring a message of doing good and helping the poor. What's to be against that?

Not all posters here like them and say they pretend to be "above their station", but how can you be above your station when you are a British Royal prince and meet with American dignitaries? These people are all upper crust for most Americans, so let them meet!

Harry may be a prince but he’s not representing the British government or the royal family here. This basically removes substance from this visit. They are basically two celebrities walking around in expensive clothes and asking attention for stuff that they feel is important. Just like George Clooney and Angelina Jolie have done for years, except I believe they sometimes go on assignments for the UN (correct me if I’m wrong). And I feel like Harry and Meghan are hoping to become UN representatives as well.

They should do what they want with their lives but this visit has nothing to do with Harry being a royal. If anything I think his poor grandmother is probably praying they won’t cause more damage.
 
As I watched the recent events with Harry & Meghan, I can't help but make comparison to the cemetery visit/photoshoot in 2020, more specifically the meeting with Bill de Blasio. In other words, without sounding too critical and disparaging, they are doing things that they walked away from as working royals. From a more sinister point of view, as expressed by those who are anti-Sussexes, Harry & Meghan are trying to rival with the British Royal Family whilst residing in America.

As previous posters have pointed out, the Sussexes are now less likely to be bound by the UK government & Palace staff when it comes to meeting/discussing with politicians, ambassadors or dignitaries in comparison to working royals.
 
Last edited:
https://www.un.org/sg/en/node/259643

Read out of the conversation that Harry and Meghan had with the UN Ambassador on their trip to NY. Nothing anyone could object to there.

Harry also met the President of Angola on this trip. The conversation was about wildlife, land mines and climate change but nothing untoward was reported about that conversation either.


Thanks for the facts.:flowers:

The BBC news. Harry and Meghan in New York.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58672204

And in Australia, on our national broadcaster, the ABC, covering their presentation at the Global Citizen concert.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09...tizen-live-concert-vaccines-climate/100492566

BBC cut off most of Harry & Meghan's speech.:lol:

I guess it was late in the day.

But the response to them was glorious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It looks like Harry may be taping for Netflix or Spotify?

https://pagesix.com/2021/09/25/prin...rkle-taping-nyc-trip-for-netflix-documentary/

And I’ve seen nothing on their visit in The NY Times - if anyone else has found something, please let me know. BBC did not carry it either.

Yes - there were large camera crew with them and Harry was visible using audio equipment.

BBC cut off most of Harry & Meghan's speech.:lol:

I guess it was late in the day.

But the response to them was glorious.

I must admit that where I was standing they were meet with lots of boos and other phases as well. Mind you the majority were yelling for Billie Elish and BTS over all the speakers. That been said there was a sign saying when you must applaud or cheer. I also noticed, as have many, that canned cheers were added to some places. There was no applause for the speech of the French prime minster - however when you watch the video you are given a different idea of what was happening. I was on the ground and could only hear what was going on around me however.

That been said. I was a bit confused. Only 10 countries have vaccines - I can name more than 20 countries with roll out programs. Did Meghan mean ability to make the vaccine themselves, 10 countries in Africa?

And I actually think that the big bad pharmaceutical companies have been great - brilliant actually in providing the vaccine at cost, for free and allowing trademarked priority intellectual property to be manufactured outside of their own labs.

I would love to wave my magic wand and have billions of vaccines fall into my lap. But I current have several thousand doses and am having trouble moving it from point A to point B safety and securely. And even when I get it to point B - I have no guarantee that it will be used. I do not believe in yelling, screaming and insulting people that do not believe in what I believe in - whether this be the corona vaccine or the MMNR jab. I listen to peoples fears and try to understand their reasoning and conclusions. Nothing good comes from telling people that are fools in believing what they believe in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.un.org/sg/en/node/259643

Read out of the conversation that Harry and Meghan had with the UN Ambassador on their trip to NY. Nothing anyone could object to there.

Harry also met the President of Angola on this trip. The conversation was about wildlife, land mines and climate change but nothing untoward was reported about that conversation either.



Thank you for the links Curryong.


That’s entirely fair comment & I agree that there’s nothing obviously problematic here but the concern is that this will not always be the case. Indeed they have already courted controversy with some of their conduct & comments since leaving Britain. Those issues were of course discussed on here at the time.

The problem as I see it is highlighted by reports like this:

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainmen...han-visit-amid-world-leaders-meeting-80231814

which starts – “Britain’s Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, have met with a top United Nations official amid the world body’s biggest gathering of the year”

It’s clear how this can be interpreted.

The ambiguity inherent in his British princely status (& the potential pitfalls for the monarchy & indeed for the UK) is an issue that’s not going to go away. It can be resolved quite easily of course (ie Patricia of Connaught) but neither the couple (for obvious commercial reasons) nor seemingly The Queen wish to cross that particular Rubicon.

I sense an evolving disappointment in The Queen over this & “the other” issue. All very sad & unnecessary.

At the same time, American superstars are fawned over in the UK by politicians, which must greatly displease their constituents. Angelina Jolie buddying around with William Hague when he was in office, for instance. He always had time for her. She and her children also got a private tour of Buckingham Palace.

Like Harry and Meghan, she has philanthropic interests.

Oh yes I remember that. Hague made a right spectacle of himself.

Really embarrassing for a British Foreign Secretary.

I think Jolie had been doing the work for which she was recognised for many many years. So maybe not quite the same situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It looks like Harry may be taping for Netflix or Spotify?

https://pagesix.com/2021/09/25/prin...rkle-taping-nyc-trip-for-netflix-documentary/

And I’ve seen nothing on their visit in The NY Times - if anyone else has found something, please let me know. BBC did not carry it either.

I'm not particularly surprised, they have to do something for Netflix beyond Invictus and the Pearl series. Both are potentially worthy but not blockbusters. I also wonder if Harry and Meghan would want to film a potential trip back to the UK for Lili's christening. There were already rumours that he was filming something when he went back for the Diana statue unveiling. Admittedly all of this was speculation but it might make sense given they are filming this "quasi royal" tour.

One of the biggest problems with vaccine equity is a lack of infrastructure and facilities in many countries. It's not necessarily about just demanding pharmaceutical companies give it - they already are - but about storage at the right temperature, records and potential corruption among many other things so whilst events like this have worthy goals it's not as simple as their speech made it out to be.

which starts – “Britain’s Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, have met with a top United Nations official amid the world body’s biggest gathering of the year”

It’s clear how this can be interpreted.

Among the media that have covered it (which isn't actually a lot of the mainstream US media) there does seem to be some confusion about their status. The Today show compared it to the Queen's visit and couldn't understand why the UK press were not as supportive.

As I said before royals who live in the US and don't work for their families don't do "royal tours" representing themselves, celebrities don't get presidential motorcades and billionaires with foundations don't go around dropping in to schools with boxes of veg for growing.

It's all a weird hybrid that hasn't really been seen before. And then you add in whatever they appear to be filming for Netflix - a for profit venture - which further muddies the waters. They may pull it off but the potential pitfalls are already there. It will be interesting to see if they do more of these.
 
The filming aspect makes me think that there's a plan for a few of these "tours" as a documentary series.
 
I'm not particularly surprised, they have to do something for Netflix beyond Invictus and the Pearl series. Both are potentially worthy but not blockbusters. I also wonder if Harry and Meghan would want to film a potential trip back to the UK for Lili's christening. There were already rumours that he was filming something when he went back for the Diana statue unveiling. Admittedly all of this was speculation but it might make sense given they are filming this "quasi royal" tour.

One of the biggest problems with vaccine equity is a lack of infrastructure and facilities in many countries. It's not necessarily about just demanding pharmaceutical companies give it - they already are - but about storage at the right temperature, records and potential corruption among many other things so whilst events like this have worthy goals it's not as simple as their speech made it out to be.



Among the media that have covered it (which isn't actually a lot of the mainstream US media) there does seem to be some confusion about their status. The Today show compared it to the Queen's visit and couldn't understand why the UK press were not as supportive.

As I said before royals who live in the US and don't work for their families don't do "royal tours" representing themselves, celebrities don't get presidential motorcades and billionaires with foundations don't go around dropping in to schools with boxes of veg for growing.

It's all a weird hybrid that hasn't really been seen before. And then you add in whatever they appear to be filming for Netflix - a for profit venture - which further muddies the waters. They may pull it off but the potential pitfalls are already there. It will be interesting to see if they do more of these.

All of this amplifies what I've been thinking for a bit here. Right now, Harry and Meghan don't completely fit into any kind of concrete "mold" of who they are and so many different questions arise. Are they quasi-royals? Are they philanthropists in their own right? Are they in this for themselves and their Netflix projects? This brings their motives and their goals to a state where it's almost something totally opaque and there's a lack of transparency.

We have to remember too that this kind of situation where very popular and "in the news" working royals decide to leave the "fold" and strike out on their own. It was a nuclear bombshell for us in the royal watching world. It's new and shiny and as much as *they* are finding their way forward, *we* also have to remember that after a staid conviction that "this is how things are supposed to stay", we're dealing with something totally never done before in our lifetimes (most of us were born after David and Wallis) and our thinking has to have time to adjust and adapt to the new way of things.

This is where objectivity rather than subjectivity works for me. Trying to see everything in the perspectives of how things really are right now for the Sussexes rather than the old parameters that I've held for so long basing everything on their prior life before the bomb fell. As their life has changed drastically and completely, so does my thinking need to change to adapt to that reality.

Just a few thoughts here. I need more coffee. :D
 
These photos at Ground Zero, do a lot of Us celebs visit and pose like the Sussex couple did?
Reminds me of the cemetary thing, "acting as if they still were royals" trying to catch attention from who exactly?
Questions LOL
 
These photos at Ground Zero, do a lot of Us celebs visit and pose like the Sussex couple did?
Reminds me of the cemetary thing, "acting as if they still were royals" trying to catch attention from who exactly?
Questions LOL
Not really, no. US politicians (like current and former presidents), visiting politicians and heads of state, these kinds of people get the chance to do a photo op at Ground Zero. Celebrities? Not really.

That said, people can go there and pay their respects if they wish to do so. It's not locked only for specific people, but I'd say it's one of the few places in the world where photo ops should be kept only to official occasions.


The whole mini-tour reeked of a very desperate "look at me" attitude. The amount of clothing changes (just so that the press would publish more photos), the unbelievable prices of everything Meghan wore, and not enough substance. Sad.
 
Personally, to me, they aren't that unusual or hard to categorize. They are celebrities. And there isn't anything inherently bad about that.

Celebrities are famous for many reasons. Harry and Megan are celebrities because of who Harry's parents and grandparents were/are. They can use their status to raise awareness of worthy causes, and/or make their own money. Many celebrities do both.

What's interesting, from a royal watching perspective, is that they are engaging in activities that are intentionally similar to what working royals do. And I'm curious to see if that helps or hurts them in the long run. It may just run neutral. Us royal watchers are a small community- we may be the only people who are making this connection. I will say that there wasn't any press about them the past few days in my neck of the woods, other than People magazine. So it may not be a good strategy for them in the long run, as they need publicity.

What's also interesting to me is that I think they want to grow Archewell to the status of famous philanthropies (Annenberg Foundation, Gates Foundation, etc.) Most well-known philanthropists made huge fortunes first, then started their philanthropic endeavors (or inherited their money first). H&M are in the more unusual position of trying to create both empires at exactly the same time. I think it's possible to do both, but I also think it's going to create some criticism because of blurred lines.
 
I must admit that where I was standing they were meet with lots of boos and other phases as well. .

Odd.:huh:
My sister was there and she as well - as the local NY and Jersey news - said the Sussex appearance was met with the loudest uproar of the night.

BTS and the French PM were NOT in NY.

That only DeBlasio met with boos.

I guess people had very different experiences.

What's also interesting to me is that I think they want to grow Archewell to the status of famous philanthropies (Annenberg Foundation, Gates Foundation, etc.) Most well-known philanthropists made huge fortunes first, then started their philanthropic endeavors (or inherited their money first). H&M are in the more unusual position of trying to create both empires at exactly the same time. I think it's possible to do both, but I also think it's going to create some criticism because of blurred lines.


That's a good point.

The only logical thing, will be for them to partner with other more well funded organisations like they have with Rockefeller, and grow from there.

Still, philanthropic organisations are facing very dicey issues, right up to the Clinton Foundation.:ermm:
Even the Gates organisation has faced criticism of tax avoidance, and controversial associations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The filming aspect makes me think that there's a plan for a few of these "tours" as a documentary series.

Yes, and I’ll wager that the first time Lilibet is revealed to the public will be in a Netflix role…think of the viewer interest that would generate.
 
Yes, and I’ll wager that the first time Lilibet is revealed to the public will be in a Netflix role…think of the viewer interest that would generate.

I'd be the oddball out. Not something I'd flock to Netflix for. :D

All this though is earmarked for the days of future past (which means the old timeline has been erased) and yet to be anything but hopes, dreams, fantasies and a whole lot of "maybes".

I've packed away my crystal ball that perused the future. I've decided that I don't want to know the future. Getting there on the journey and seeing what happens next is one of the best parts of the journey. :D
 
Last edited:
I hope everyone they spoke with consented to being recorded. I guess if there was a cameraman tagging along, it was fairly obvious. But then why make such efforts to conceal the wires for their mics?
 
What's also interesting to me is that I think they want to grow Archewell to the status of famous philanthropies (Annenberg Foundation, Gates Foundation, etc.) Most well-known philanthropists made huge fortunes first, then started their philanthropic endeavors (or inherited their money first). H&M are in the more unusual position of trying to create both empires at exactly the same time. I think it's possible to do both, but I also think it's going to create some criticism because of blurred lines.

This is very sharply observed and I agree with what you’re saying about the blurred lines. I just looked up up the history of the Gates foundation and this is a quote from their ‘story’:

The challenge when we started out was how to do that in a meaningful and high-impact way. We were drawn to things that sprang from our experience, so we began donating PCs to public libraries across the United States to give everyone a chance to use one. As we read and traveled more, we also became curious about inequalities further from home.

I am sure Harry and Meghan have received this advice numerous of times because you have to fix the groundwork first before you can run on it. But they are in a rush because of the money situation.
 
I hope everyone they spoke with consented to being recorded. I guess if there was a cameraman tagging along, it was fairly obvious. But then why make such efforts to conceal the wires for their mics?

I would think that, with today's technology, microphones with wires would almost be a thing of the past but I really don't know much on that subject at all.
 
One of the biggest problems with vaccine equity is a lack of infrastructure and facilities in many countries. It's not necessarily about just demanding pharmaceutical companies give it - they already are - but about storage at the right temperature, records and potential corruption among many other things so whilst events like this have worthy goals it's not as simple as their speech made it out to be.

This is a very good point. Even in the US, vaccines end up going to waste because people don't show up at their appointed time. This is important for the vaccines that are stored frozen and have to be thawed. There's a certain window there.

H & M would have done well to remind the audience to be punctual for their vaccination appointments.
 
I would think that, with today's technology, microphones with wires would almost be a thing of the past but I really don't know much on that subject at all.

I would have thought so, too. But this past week was definitely not wool-overcoat weather in the northeastern US, and wearing those in summer weather is an odd choice for a fashion statement if that was all it was. Between that and the wires barely peeking out from under Harry's shirt, I have to wonder.
 
It's my understanding that this Global Citizen event took place simultaneously in different places around the world and not solely in NYC. Many performing artists and the French Prime Minister, to my understanding, appeared at the event in NYC virtually from (for BTS) Seoul, South Korea and from Paris for the French Prime Minister and not "in person" in NYC.

Over 60 artists performed in The Global Citizen festival in cities including New York, London and Seoul. Tens of thousands of people attended concerts around the world, and millions more tuned in to the broadcast. The event kicked off on Saturday in Paris, where Elton John performed in front of the Eiffel Tower.

Can't attest to the cue signs though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom