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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
On 30 October 2024, the Invictus Games Foundation briefed the NATO Military Committee at NATO Headquarters on the role of Invictus in supporting wounded, injured and sick service members and veterans. Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, addressed the Military Committee via VTC, with a delegation attending the meeting in person.
Click to expand...
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_230178.htm
 
moby said:
If I was in charge of Pivotal's press, I would be incensed by the People article and the Archewell release. It's such a scummy move to piggyback on Melinda Gates' name.
Click to expand...
I'm no fan of Meghan, but I looked at the People article and the Archewell release, and I see nothing inappropriate about either, although the press release is bad and very amateurish.

The People article focused on Meghan, and that makes sense, because celebrity is what she can add to a partnership like this. She made a visit to the Girls Inc chapter in Santa Barbara, which created some photo-worthy moments to illustrate the announcement of the partnership. People -- and the #HalfTheStory news release -- both referenced it. That's fine. If Oprah or Melina Gates wants similar coverage, I'm sure People will be happy to oblige.

Archewell's press release fails to tell the provide a single morsel of information related to the lead sentence, "In celebration of International Day of the Girl, The Archewell Foundation, Pivotal Ventures, and the Oprah Winfrey Charitable Foundation announced their contributions to support a partnership between Girls Inc. and #HalfTheStory, aimed at providing digital wellness programming for young girls in underserved communities across America." Nowhere does it mention what Archewell's contribution actually is. (Was Meghan's fly-past the only contribution?)

It also serves up such a big "word salad" that it barely makes sense. What are "more balanced relationships with technology?" What is a "strength-based program?" How is Archewell "committed to uplifting girls?" What does Archewell's decision to "continue to listen to young people" actually do for anyone (and what does it actually mean)? How are they providing "the tools they need to thrive?"
 
kalnel said:
I'm no fan of Meghan, but I looked at the People article and the Archewell release, and I see nothing inappropriate about either, although the press release is bad and very amateurish.

The People article focused on Meghan, and that makes sense, because celebrity is what she can add to a partnership like this. She made a visit to the Girls Inc chapter in Santa Barbara, which created some photo-worthy moments to illustrate the announcement of the partnership. People -- and the #HalfTheStory news release -- both referenced it. That's fine. If Oprah or Melina Gates wants similar coverage, I'm sure People will be happy to oblige.

Archewell's press release fails to tell the provide a single morsel of information related to the lead sentence, "In celebration of International Day of the Girl, The Archewell Foundation, Pivotal Ventures, and the Oprah Winfrey Charitable Foundation announced their contributions to support a partnership between Girls Inc. and #HalfTheStory, aimed at providing digital wellness programming for young girls in underserved communities across America." Nowhere does it mention what Archewell's contribution actually is. (Was Meghan's fly-past the only contribution?)

It also serves up such a big "word salad" that it barely makes sense. What are "more balanced relationships with technology?" What is a "strength-based program?" How is Archewell "committed to uplifting girls?" What does Archewell's decision to "continue to listen to young people" actually do for anyone (and what does it actually mean)? How are they providing "the tools they need to thrive?"
Click to expand...
Essentially is Archewell just paying "lip service" or are they contributing any actual money?
 
There's a chance we might see a photo of the Sussex family out tomorrow night for Halloween. They've released a few of those pictures in recent years.
 
Celebrities' fans (and stans) love every little snippet they can find about their idols, and especially in an informal setting.
And many celebrities are not so eager anymore to share their kids' faces on social media because they don't want kids to have to deal with fans who can't respect boundaries in real life, because some fans loose sight of reality and think because they know so much about a celebrity, the celebrity knows all about the fan too..

That celebs don't show their kids' faces i actually think is quite sensible
 
Lee-Z said:
Celebrities' fans (and stans) love every little snippet they can find about their idols, and especially in an informal setting.
And many celebrities are not so eager anymore to share their kids' faces on social media because they don't want kids to have to deal with fans who can't respect boundaries in real life, because some fans loose sight of reality and think because they know so much about a celebrity, the celebrity knows all about the fan too..

That celebs don't show their kids' faces i actually think is quite sensible
Click to expand...
I do not disagree with your main point, probably very sensible, I just do not see the point of a photograph where everybody has their head turned, or we see a babys' toes or their hands. Do not bother with a photograph then, I find it patronising, like being thrown crumbs from the table.
 
I think the photos of a newborn baby's little hand holding a parent's finger, which seem to be very popular these days, are quite sweet. It's a bit frustrating when you only see the back of a child's head, but I understand the reluctance to show a child's face on social media.
 
Alison H said:
I think the photos of a newborn baby's little hand holding a parent's finger, which seem to be very popular these days, are quite sweet. It's a bit frustrating when you only see the back of a child's head, but I understand the reluctance to show a child's face on social media.
Click to expand...
Within a family context they are lovely, I have one myself of my grandchildren. The issue I have is with celebrities issuing these photographs to the press or in X or wherever as in ‘insight’ to their family. Why bother.
 
Pots about the book ´Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story´ by Robert Hardman have been moved to the thread about this book. You can find the thread in the Library forum:

Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story

Robert Hardman has a new book out. It looks in depth at the events around the late Queen's death. It is obviously well sourced, Princess Anne was interviewed for it. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12957313/Queen-died-Goodwood-Meghan-ROBERT-HARDMAN.html Key points: -Charles wasn't...
www.theroyalforums.com www.theroyalforums.com
 
muriel said:
As the spouse of a US citizen, I suspect his right to stay in the US is pretty safe. Unless he has lied or made misrepresentations in his application.
Click to expand...
That is why the request is being made. It is a fishing expedition to see if Harry lied on his application about his drug use. The flip side is if he disclosed his drug use then the question is was he given favorable treatment to be allowed in the U.S.?

The irony is is that Trump was president when Harry came to the U.S., so if he got favorable treatment it was by the previous and incoming administration.
 
Queen Claude said:
That is why the request is being made. It is a fishing expedition to see if Harry lied on his application about his drug use. The flip side is if he disclosed his drug use then the question is was he given favorable treatment to be allowed in the U.S.?

The irony is is that Trump was president when Harry came to the U.S., so if he got favorable treatment it was by the previous and incoming administration.
Click to expand...


High possibility that at the time he was (maybe he still is) holding an A type visa.
 
Ghost said:
High possibility that at the time he was (maybe he still is) holding an A type visa.
Click to expand...
That would be interesting. He's been earning money, there would be serious conflicts if he's on an A visa and earning a living in the US.
 
Mirabel said:
The DM is speculating that Harry fears deportation, but I can't say how credible that is.
Click to expand...
Harry's fear is justified, but I don't think deporting Harry is Trump's priority at the moment, especially when he has to figure out first how he will deport 13 million undocumented immigrants as he (unwisely) promised his supporters on the campaign trail.

moby said:
That would be interesting. He's been earning money, there would be serious conflicts if he's on an A visa and earning a living in the US.
Click to expand...
A-1 is a visa for foreign government employees that guarantees leave to remain in the USA as long as the person's "tour of duty" lasts, but does not allow you to work in the United States, except in whatever official business you are doing on behalf of the government of your country of origin. As far as I understand, that is the visa that foreign diplomats or foreign military officers that are seconded to US military units have.

I don't see how Harry could have an A-1 visa unless the British government certified him as a diplomat for example. And, in any case, I don't think he could do private business in the US, as he current does, under that type of visa.

Harry does not qualify for an A-1 as head of state either, since he is not one. Whether he might qualify as a member of a foreign royal family or not would again depend on the British government upholding his status (for example, not taking away his diplomatic passport).
 
Last edited:
Charles is head of state, Harry is son of head of state, so immediate family.

“Diplomats and Officials Requiring A-1 Visas - Examples:
-Head of State or Government, regardless of the purpose of travel
-Ambassador, Public Minister, Career Diplomat or Consular Officer coming to serve at a foreign embassy or consulate in the United States, such as an ambassador or consul
- Certain government ministers in positions equivalent to U.S. cabinet level secretaries coming to the United States to perform official, government related duties for not more than 90 days
- European Union (EU) and African Union (AU) delegation representatives
- Immediate family members of an A-1 visa holder”

Visas for Diplomats and Foreign Government Officials

travel.state.gov travel.state.gov
 
Can't he stay in the US because of his marriage to a US citizen? I think it's two years and after that he could apply for a Green Card.
Maybe other rules apply because he is royal?
 
Queen Claude said:
The irony is is that Trump was president when Harry came to the U.S., so if he got favorable treatment it was by the previous and incoming administration.
Click to expand...

I would personally be surprised if the world-famous son of the British king and husband of a popular American public figure did not receive and continue to receive favorable treatment from the US federal and state administrations, regardless of which persons or parties may be in charge of those governments at any given moment.
 
Ghost said:
Charles is head of state, Harry is son of head of state, so immediate family.

“Diplomats and Officials Requiring A-1 Visas - Examples:
-Head of State or Government, regardless of the purpose of travel
-Ambassador, Public Minister, Career Diplomat or Consular Officer coming to serve at a foreign embassy or consulate in the United States, such as an ambassador or consul
- Certain government ministers in positions equivalent to U.S. cabinet level secretaries coming to the United States to perform official, government related duties for not more than 90 days
- European Union (EU) and African Union (AU) delegation representatives
- Immediate family members of an A-1 visa holder”

Visas for Diplomats and Foreign Government Officials

travel.state.gov travel.state.gov
Click to expand...
Charles is not a permanent A1 visa holder who lives in the States and Harry doesn't live or travel with him, so he doesn't qualify for the last example.

I agree with TM, however, that it is not unlikely that he received/s favorable treatment.
 
I can bet that Charles does not apply for a visa every time he travels to the States. He might have a 10 year long one, he might have an indefinite one. Neither does Harry need to be accompanying his father in order to qualify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
Princess Theodora of Greece and Matthew Kumar - 28 Sept. 2024
6 7 8
Replies
211
Views
27K
Moonmaiden23
Moonmaiden23
Marengo
Princess Märtha Louise of Norway and Durek Verrett: 31 August 2024
9 10 11
Replies
304
Views
42K
caethi
C
Marengo
  • Locked
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 - July 2024
103 104 105
Replies
3K
Views
508K
Ista
Ista
iceflower
Princely Family of Monaco: Current Events Part 11: November 2024 -
Replies
21
Views
2K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
iceflower
Louis, Pauline and Camille Current Events Part 7: November 2024 -
Replies
8
Views
1K
iceflower
iceflower

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom