The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -

[Tatiana Maria]

I think it's more important than ever that a clear line be made between Meghan and Harry's activities and the British Royal Family. Attempts have been made with the working royals/member of the family distinction, but it needs to be crystal clear that they don't speak for His Majesty or His Majesty's Government.

I think one genuine silver lining of the couple's attacks on the British public, journalists, government officials, courtiers and senior royals is that they have made crystal clear to the majority of people that the couple speak and act independently and not as representatives of the British monarchy, government, or state. (This was not so clear when they were working royals who were outwardly on good terms with the monarchy and government and more popular with the public than they are now. Other people, including senior royals and courtiers, were thought at the time to be responsible for some decisions which, in hindsight, may actually have been driven by the couple.)

 

[Elenath]

So...Archewell is making money from the pictures of Harry and Meghan on a trip likely paid for by the Colombian taxpayers.

Any evidence of this? I did find out licensed photos of this tour are available to buy on Getty images and made by Eric Charbonneau. He has a contract with Getty Images. Was he asked by H&M to make photos? Maybe, but that doesn't mean H&M make a lot money this way. And even if they did, if that money goes to their foundation I have no problems with that.
And, there was also at least photographer from the office of the Vice President. Those photos and videos would be available for free, so it would make no sense if H&M would sell theirs. Both photographers would be at the same events, I think.

​

 

[Queen Claude]

I admit that I have eye-rolled and laughed at Meghan's word salad tendencies but Meghan can only dream of pulling off the gymnastics that Victoria Ward, Deputy Royal Editor for The Telegraph wrote in her article. She lays out how the Sussexes hand-picked an online reporter to feed information to the other media. I look at this from both sides, one it is not unprecedented, hellooo royal rota! The other side, is that if The Telegraph feels that scrutiny is warranted but access is being denied, surely there are resources that know how to deal with getting information. Has The Telegraph never reported on totalitarian states like North Korea or the USSR? Have they not broken stories of political or financial corruption in the UK? If so, were they only successful because the target granted them access?

So Victoria Ward writes:

With no access, there is no independent scrutiny.​

Immediately followed by:

The couple, now operating as private individuals no longer reliant on public funds, can do as they please.​

But the last section of the article with the subheader, "Call for slave trade apology" really had me scratching my head. So The Telegraph, a publication that carries the nickname "The Tory-graph," is asserting that Prince Harry and ADOS* Meghan were remiss because they did not address slavery, colonialism and reparations, rather they stated that they were there to “listen and learn”.

The Duke, too, was considered “uniquely positioned” to speak about reparations, with some even calling for him to apologise for his family’s role in the slave trade.​

​

I may be wrong but the only BRF person that was referenced on this trip was Diana, Princess of Wales. I don't think HLM was mentioned which is a good thing because IMO she has been Harry's go-to for clout.

So it seems to me that according to Ms. Ward, it would have been A-OK for Harry to re-activate his royal card and speak out on this very sensitive topic.

* American Descendants of Slavery.

 

[Elenath]

But the last section of the article with the subheader, "Call for slave trade apology" really had me scratching my head. So The Telegraph, a publication that carries the nickname "The Tory-graph," is asserting that Prince Harry and ADOS* Meghan were remiss because they did not address slavery, colonialism and reparations, rather they stated that they were there to “listen and learn”.

The Duke, too, was considered “uniquely positioned” to speak about reparations, with some even calling for him to apologise for his family’s role in the slave trade.​

​

Funny thing is if he had talked about the slave trade people would have accused him of being political, of not knowing what he is talking about, etc (2nd amendment anyone), and now that he doesn't talk about it they say it's a missed chance.
And that's the problem I have with this, there's no pleasing people.

 

[Alison H]

Known for her fierce advocacy for environmental justice and human rights, Vice President Márquez is a champion for marginalized communities and a defender of Colombia’s natural heritage. Her work has garnered international acclaim, including the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize, a testament to her dedication and impact.

(From the Sussexes' website.)

I certainly don't think that we would see working royals, or Beatrice, Eugenie etc making such a strong statement in favour of a politician. Harry and Meghan have distanced themselves from the Royal Family, but it's quite a delicate area.

 

[HRHHermione]

Funny thing is if he had talked about the slave trade people would have accused him of being political, of not knowing what he is talking about, etc (2nd amendment anyone), and now that he doesn't talk about it they say it's a missed chance.
And that's the problem I have with this, there's no pleasing people.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the point of Ms. Ward’s article. She wasn’t suggesting they SHOULD have spoken out, just that in choosing to visit this town with its history, many expected them to, including locals who were making calls on Harry to apologize. I think it was meant to highlight that the purpose of the trip was very unclear and open to interpretation.

 

[kalnel]

Funny thing is if he had talked about the slave trade people would have accused him of being political, of not knowing what he is talking about, etc (2nd amendment anyone), and now that he doesn't talk about it they say it's a missed chance.
And that's the problem I have with this, there's no pleasing people.

2nd amendment?

 

[Kaye1850]

2nd amendment?

You know he meant the first amendment:

Prince Harry criticised after calling First Amendment in USA ‘bonkers’

Duke of Sussex says anyone ‘can capitalise or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said,’ in podcast interview

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Kenya]

2nd amendment?

It was the First Amendment, which is fitting, since Harry has repeatedly made it clear (and this trip has reinforced) that he does not believe in and does not support the idea of a free press.

From the article:

No such references were made. Instead, the couple were there to “listen and learn”, it was said, and to experience the culture and community.

That's all well and good, but why should taxpayers pay for these two private citizens, who represent nothing and no one, to "listen and learn"? If the Sussexes believe these "listening and learning" trips are so vital for their work, then Archewell should be the ones funding them. It's fortunate for them that there are opportunistic politicians willing to pay their way and roll out the red carpet in exchange for photo ops, but I'd be outraged if my

It would be one thing if Harry and Meghan had the ability to drive investment, if they were looking to relocate a company, or if they were making huge Gates or McKenzie Scott-like charitable donations in the countries they're visiting. But they are offering literally nothing, other than some moderate press attention for a few days.

 

[Elenath]

You know he meant the first amendment:

Prince Harry criticised after calling First Amendment in USA ‘bonkers’

Duke of Sussex says anyone ‘can capitalise or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said,’ in podcast interview

www.independent.co.uk

Yes I did and thank you. The 2nd one is the militia thing.

 

[carlota]

It was the First Amendment, which is fitting, since Harry has repeatedly made it clear (and this trip has reinforced) that he does not believe in and does not support the idea of a free press.

what a strange comment to make. if he doesn't agree with a free press, does he suggest we go to dictatorship style media?

The Colombian tour is receiving international coverage. This tells me all I need to know about the relevance and reach of H and M.

reach and relevance, maybe. impact? it is arguable. aside from boosting the popularity of the vicepresident, and improving the image of H&M one would argue what this 'tour' has achieved for colombia.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

So Harry and Meghan are criticized for expecting to be treated as royals when they're private citizens, but when they do things that many wealthy private citizens do (hiring handpicked reporters to follow them, possibly lining up a sale of the pictures for profit, alluding to private political beliefs), all of a sudden they should be acting more royal (opening it up to all press in spite being a private visit, not selling pictures because royals grant most of them for free, staying politically neutral in spite not representing anyone but themselves)?

Of course, the Colombian people have a right to denounce their taxes being used to host the Sussexes, but the fault for that lies with the Colombian government, the Vice President specifically. If she offered to pay all of their expenses, why would the Sussexes turn that down? Why should they?

 

[Curryong]

The official reception they got? Great. The Colombian VP did her best as did other officials the Sussexes met. A 1.

The way they were wined and dined at the places they went? Again a 1.

Their attire? There were a few missteps (with the caramel satin,) otherwise Imo Meghan did well. A 3.

Their behavior in regards to the public and their hosts?
What they said? The Sussexes were absolutely fine with their hosts and the public. A 1.

How the two on them interacted with each other? A lot of affectionate gestures and looks. A 2.
Accomplishment, of the stated purpose of the visit?
There were a lot of moans from the media and other observers about this but the Sussexes attended wherever they said they were going to go, spoke about their aims, Meghan spoke to her target audience in a speech to Afro women well, and they met the Colombian Invictus team and Harry took part in a game with them.

Colombian culture, dance, the arts and locales were highlighted. A 1 from me.

 

[FigTree]

So Harry and Meghan are criticized for expecting to be treated as royals when they're private citizens, but when they do things that many wealthy private citizens do (hiring handpicked reporters to follow them, possibly lining up a sale of the pictures for profit, alluding to private political beliefs), all of a sudden they should be acting more royal (opening it up to all press in spite being a private visit, not selling pictures because royals grant most of them for free, staying politically neutral in spite not representing anyone but themselves)?

Of course, the Colombian people have a right to denounce their taxes being used to host the Sussexes, but the fault for that lies with the Colombian government, the Vice President specifically. If she offered to pay all of their expenses, why would the Sussexes turn that down? Why should they?

It’s a complicated situation. It just is. No one said you can have everything you want. We are all limited. It’s the way it is. He is royal…but he isn’t. I would find it odd if Eugenie or Beatrice did the same thing.

 

[Curryong]

Harry and Meghan's 'quasi-royal tour' puts King Charles in a tricky spot

Some commentators have suggested stripping Harry and Meghan of their royal titles to avoid being seen as royal emissaries. But is the House of Montecito really such a threat?

www.abc.net.au

Harry and Meghan’s tour of Colombia from ABC Australia’s point of view.

 

[Mbruno]

I think this is a misunderstanding of the point of Ms. Ward’s article. She wasn’t suggesting they SHOULD have spoken out, just that in choosing to visit this town with its history, many expected them to, including locals who were making calls on Harry to apologize. I think it was meant to highlight that the purpose of the trip was very unclear and open to interpretation.

Colombia was not a British colony. If anyone had to apologize for slavery in Colombia, it should be the descendants of the Colombians (or Spaniards) who owned slaves in that country, or, if you want to go further, maybe the King of Spain, who descends from the monarchs that reigned when slavery was legal in the Spanish Empire.

 

[Asteria12]

So Harry and Meghan are criticized for expecting to be treated as royals when they're private citizens, but when they do things that many wealthy private citizens do (hiring handpicked reporters to follow them, possibly lining up a sale of the pictures for profit, alluding to private political beliefs), all of a sudden they should be acting more royal (opening it up to all press in spite being a private visit, not selling pictures because royals grant most of them for free, staying politically neutral in spite not representing anyone but themselves)?

Of course, the Colombian people have a right to denounce their taxes being used to host the Sussexes, but the fault for that lies with the Colombian government, the Vice President specifically. If she offered to pay all of their expenses, why would the Sussexes turn that down? Why should they?

The simple answer to this would be why should the everyday Colombian, most of whom have no idea who the Sussex's are (nor, for that matter, most of the other wealthy/high profile visitors the VP has invited in the past) be expected to bear the burden of the expenses? Did the VP pay for the tour out of her own pocket? Is it morally right for the Sussex's, two wealthy private individuals, to accept what amounts to an all-expenses paid holiday? Their detractors will say no, their fans will say yes! In the end, the Colombian people didn't really get anything out of this tour only their VP and the Sussex's, but then, I don't think they were the target audience anyway.

 

[Lady Daly]

When I first heard about this trip to Colombia ...I thought save all that money! If they (the VP, Harry and Meghan) really cared they would spend the money on the poverty striken Colombians that have no flipping idea who Harry and Meghan are or should they even care. It's so easy to get burned out on these two

 

[kalnel]

You know he meant the first amendment:

Prince Harry criticised after calling First Amendment in USA ‘bonkers’

Duke of Sussex says anyone ‘can capitalise or exploit what’s not said rather than uphold what is said,’ in podcast interview

www.independent.co.uk

Obviously I didn't, or I wouldn't have asked!

 

[Marengo]

Lets move on from the first, second -or any other- amendement and focus on the topic of this thread, while respecting the framework of the discussion the moderators are willing and able to host, as set out in the opening posts.

Posts continuing the amendement-discussion above will be deleted.

 

[lookupdown]

It’s a complicated situation. It just is. No one said you can have everything you want. We are all limited. It’s the way it is. He is royal…but he isn’t. I would find it odd if Eugenie or Beatrice did the same thing.

But didn’t one of the York sisters do a trip to Sweden on behalf of a charity she is involved in?

 

[Toledo]

Colombia was not a British colony. If anyone had to apologize for slavery in Colombia, it should be the descendants of the Colombians (or Spaniards) who owned slaves in that country, or, if you want to go further, maybe the King of Spain, who descends from the monarchs that reigned when slavery was legal in the Spanish Empire.

Not to turn this into a debate but since the topic has been raised due to the visit to Colombia, it was the United Kingdom representatives that continued the slave trade deep into the XIX century with the help of rich landowners and governments from the former confederate states. Even our USA northern states profited and even expanded it during the era of building railroads to include Asian immigrants. And the most recent act of open genocide in the Americas against descendants of slaves was done here, in the USA in 1921: Tulsa race massacre

Re apologies: Five Times the United States Officially Apologized

In Spain we have the “law of historical memory” passed by the Congress of Deputies in 2007 which establishes measures in favor of those who suffered persecution or violence during the civil war and dictatorship, unfortunately it left out an apology for those submitted to slavery during the colonial times.

The visit from Meghan and Harry to Colombia was to focus on these major race issues but also, as the news shed more light on the visit, was to put H&M on the spotlight and get international attention also toward the controversial new vice-president. It was an excellent move that favored the politician and the Sussex couple in terms of getting international attention, even if people in Colombia had no clue or care on who these two California residents were nor why such expenses were bestowed upon them by the government.

But, it all worked out for both parties. The Vice Presidenta got international attention that she can later use in her political career as a future president or international diplomat, and Harry and Meghan controlled the news and pictures about the visit from start to finish so we only saw one side opinions.

What can I say, it was a brilliant move from both parties. Will things change for the better in Colombia thanks to this event? Did anything change in Nigeria from the ruling classes toward the poor when they hosted H&M? I'll give a no for my answer, but kudos on two great PR moves paid by a foreign government in just one summer.

 

[Alison H]

But didn’t one of the York sisters do a trip to Sweden on behalf of a charity she is involved

Beatrice attended the Brilliant Mind Conference in Sweden. So did Ellie Goulding, Halle Berry and various other well-known people. It wasn't specifically a visit by Beatrice, and I don't think she met any politicians whilst she was there. She did meet Princess Sofia, but that was only because she was also at the conference. I don't think that's comparable with Harry and Meghan's tour of Colombia.

I think she also attended a dyslexia conference in Sweden at one time - isn't Carl Philip also dyslexic? Again, that's totally different. If Harry had gone to Colombia purely to speak at a conference about, say, rehabilitating injured veterans, no-one would have an issue with it.

 

[FigTree]

But didn’t one of the York sisters do a trip to Sweden on behalf of a charity she is involved in?

She did and I beleive met the royals....who also have issues with dyslexia. The Swedish King is dyslexic as are all the children I beleive. It wasn't a state visit in amy way shape or form. She did pose with royals though.

 

[tommy100]

If I recall correctly she posed with CP and Sofia at the dyslexia conference they were all attending. She didn't have an "audience" at the Palace or anything. They all attended the same conference.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

She also did not endorse any Swedish politicians, as far as I know.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

To (hopefully) stop the thread from getting closed again by discussing other royals, I'll bring it back to Harry again.

Harry and Beatrice (though Harry moreso since Beatrice occasionally does represent the crown), along with the other cousins, are private citizens, and therefore can, unless criminal, support or not support, attend or not attend, anything or anyone they want without regard to how their actions would reflect on any political entity or constituency.

If other family members don't want to delve into politics or sell photos, they have the right to do, but that doesn't mean Harry has to follow their lead.

If Harry and Meghan can't expect to have the trappings of royalty without doing the work for them, then it also cant' be expected that Harry and Meghan follow royal protocol when it's been explicitly made clear that they're not royals anymore.

As stated before, they can't be half-in and half-out.

 

[Sun Lion]

That’s actually some good Salsa …

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02zfru6uh15DqDf2WyKeDsBvf45xESweLrVfLQCxopBQXYKTWK6G5s7MJbtKHy4gT2l&id=100050197102167

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Not to turn this into a debate but since the topic has been raised due to the visit to Colombia, it was the United Kingdom representatives that continued the slave trade deep into the XIX century with the help of rich landowners and governments from the former confederate states. Even our USA northern states profited and even expanded it during the era of building railroads to include Asian immigrants. And the most recent act of open genocide in the Americas against descendants of slaves was done here, in the USA in 1921: Tulsa race massacre

Re apologies: Five Times the United States Officially Apologized

In Spain we have the “law of historical memory” passed by the Congress of Deputies in 2007 which establishes measures in favor of those who suffered persecution or violence during the civil war and dictatorship, unfortunately it left out an apology for those submitted to slavery during the colonial times.

The visit from Meghan and Harry to Colombia was to focus on these major race issues but also, as the news shed more light on the visit, was to put H&M on the spotlight and get international attention also toward the controversial new vice-president. It was an excellent move that favored the politician and the Sussex couple in terms of getting international attention, even if people in Colombia had no clue or care on who these two California residents were nor why such expenses were bestowed upon them by the government.

But, it all worked out for both parties. The Vice Presidenta got international attention that she can later use in her political career as a future president or international diplomat, and Harry and Meghan controlled the news and pictures about the visit from start to finish so we only saw one side opinions.

What can I say, it was a brilliant move from both parties. Will things change for the better in Colombia thanks to this event? Did anything change in Nigeria from the ruling classes toward the poor when they hosted H&M? I'll give a no for my answer, but kudos on two great PR moves paid by a foreign government in just one summer.

Thanks for the historical info. In all of the history classes I took, I’d never heard of the horrific Tulsa Massacre.

Does anyone know anything about the President? I’ve not read anything about him/her and wondered about that.

 

[Toledo]

...If Harry and Meghan can't expect to have the trappings of royalty without doing the work for them, then it also cant' be expected that Harry and Meghan follow royal protocol when it's been explicitly made clear that they're not royals anymore.

As stated before, they can't be half-in and half-out.

They are full-in if it's in terms of leading them to the final goal of becoming A-listers in California as influencers, which translates to parties, money deals for home products we consider empty trends like, for me, the candle business and so-called Meghan's homemade jars of stuff.

As Machiavelli said, the end justifies the means. The end for any celebrity is to be the so-called A-Lister in California and be a regular guest on opinion shows, well, opinionated shows like The View and their kind, because that translates into money. And that takes me to these two promotional visits to sell Archwell founders H&M.

Just think for a second, after they left the schools and places with people in distress in Colombia and in Nigeria, would the government hosts and social classes bestow on these communities the equal or more amount of money they spend from public funds on the visit? I doubt it.

A year from now if we revisit the same exact places the photo ops took place, we will see no change in these communities because like most charities, the people and the towns they visit are just a photo background to sell a non-profit or for-profit idea. In the case in Colombia, it's all about two ideas: the VicePresidenta's political career and Archwell/H and M doing things on camera to show-and-tell back in California.

Maybe I'm too old and I've seen these self-serving tours from influencers passing for philanthropy too many times already we call all paint-by-numbers what we see and read with that lying detector test we call our eyes. As I said above, this was a brilliant PR move to benefit one politician using one company in need of credibility, and it all worked out fine for both of them.

The communities visited in Colombia don't know who these two were, nor will they remember them a year from now when the community used for photo ops shows no change nor progress despite of all the glorious, self-serving and self-congratulatory speeches said on camera.

Another successful PR visit is completed, and I wonder where they will head next.