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

[Ghost]

Lets hope she is successful selling flower petals and runny jam. And the podcasts, where the guests are mere props for Meghan to speak about herself!

I honestly, from all my heart, wish her well in her endeavours. If she finds peace everything will be better.
(I don’t hold much hope, I think that what she’s craving the most is validation of her opinion of herself from other people.)

 

[muriel]

I honestly, from all my heart, wish her well in her endeavours. If she finds peace everything will be better.
(I don’t hold much hope, I think that what she’s craving the most is validation of her opinion of herself from other people.)

I join you in wishing her well. One can only hope that financial success might give her focus and satisfaction, and a way of moving on from the life she got through marriage, but she carelessly walked away from.

 

[Mirabel]

Have to say quite a few media outlets are pointing out the hypocrisy of saying he isn't safe in the UK then travelling straight to Ukraine. I'm not sure it will help his case tbh.

It does appear to undermine his case. What was he thinking? He's afraid to be in the UK but is perfectly happy to visit a warzone?

 

[OwlBranch]

It does appear to undermine his case. What was he thinking? He's afraid to be in the UK but is perfectly happy to visit a warzone?

Nobody knows the security arrangement that Harry received while in Ukraine. Don't forget other members of the royal family has visited Ukraine recently. As long as there is adequate security, visit to Ukraine is possible for royalties, government officials, etc.

The visit was not announced until Harry has already left Ukraine, which is another layer of protection that was provided to Harry.

 

[Alison H]

It does appear to undermine his case. What was he thinking? He's afraid to be in the UK but is perfectly happy to visit a warzone?

He's been back to the UK for umpteen court cases, as well as to attend funerals and memorials. So is he really as frightened as he claims?

 

[moby]

I never really thought Harry should be stripped of his princely title, but I think this visit has made me pro him becoming officially JH. Visiting a warzone as the son of a British monarch isn’t just a personal choice, it’s inherently diplomatic. These kinds of visits are usually carefully coordinated by diplomats and timed to support official government positions, even ones we don't see outright. Harry’s visit to Ukraine is, I'm sorry to say, so pointless, and could complicate what the Foreign Office and other relevant UK offices are trying to do there. If he had gone simply as Harry Mountbatten-Windsor the celebrity, that might have come across as more neutral and respectful of the UK government, rather than carrying the weight of a royal title into a sensitive geopolitical space.

 

[OwlBranch]

I never really thought Harry should be stripped of his princely title, but I think this visit has made me pro him becoming officially JH. Visiting a warzone as the son of a British monarch isn’t just a personal choice—it’s inherently diplomatic. These kinds of visits are usually carefully coordinated by diplomats and timed to support official government positions, even ones we don't see outright. Harry’s visit to Ukraine is, I'm sorry to say, so pointless, and could complicate what the Foreign Office and other relevant UK offices is trying to do there. If he had gone simply as Harry Mountbatten-Windsor the celebrity, it might have come across as more neutral and respectful of the UK government, rather than carrying the weight of a royal title into a sensitive geopolitical space.

What does "officially JH" mean?

Harry visited Ukraine at the invitation of the CEO of The Superhumans Center. Apparently the invitation was offer twice, once last year and again at the Invictus game earlier this year. Clearly the CEO thinks a visit from Harry is meaningful regardless of his title.

Harry can not change who his parents are. Even if he does not have a title, he is still the son of a King and will be the brother of a King. He should definitely be mindful of who and where he visits. We are all aware of the awful visit that Duke of Windsor made to Germany. If Harry visited Russia, it would be a totally different story, even if he does not have a title.

 

[TLLK]

What does "officially JH" mean?

Harry visited Ukraine at the invitation of the CEO of The Superhumans Center. Apparently the invitation was offer twice, once last year and again at the Invictus game earlier this year. Clearly the CEO thinks a visit from Harry is meaningful regardless of his title.

Harry can not change who his parents are. Even if he does not have a title, he is still the son of a King and will be the brother of a King. He should definitely be mindful of who and where he visits. We are all aware of the awful visit that Duke of Windsor made to Germany. If Harry visited Russia, it would be a totally different story, even if he does not have a title.

I believe it means "Just Harry." I recall that around 2020, Harry had asked an audience to call him "Just Harry" at one time.
Here's an article about it.

'Just call me Harry', prince tells tourism conference in Edinburgh

The Queen's grandson speaks at an event in Edinburgh weeks ahead of stepping down from royal duties

www.bbc.com

 

[Tatiana Maria]

On the last day of the court hearing, YouGov conducted a public opinion poll:

Do you believe Prince Harry should or should not be entitled to police protection when in Britain? | Daily Question

Do you believe Prince Harry should or should not be entitled to police protection when in Britain?

yougov.co.uk

Do you believe Prince Harry should or should not be entitled to police protection when in Britain?

22% He should be entitled to police protection funded by the state
39% He should be entitled to police protection, but only if he pays for it himself
24% He should not be entitled to police protection
15% Don’t know​

From the Duke's perspective, the good news is that at least 39% of the public agrees with him that hiring police protection should be an option, while the bad news is that 63% of the public (39%+24%) thinks he should lose the state-funded police protection that he currently receives on a part-time basis while in the UK.

 

[moby]

What does "officially JH" mean?

Harry visited Ukraine at the invitation of the CEO of The Superhumans Center. Apparently the invitation was offer twice, once last year and again at the Invictus game earlier this year. Clearly the CEO thinks a visit from Harry is meaningful regardless of his title.

Harry can not change who his parents are. Even if he does not have a title, he is still the son of a King and will be the brother of a King. He should definitely be mindful of who and where he visits. We are all aware of the awful visit that Duke of Windsor made to Germany. If Harry visited Russia, it would be a totally different story, even if he does not have a title.

Sure but we all agree here that titles matter, so PRs on “Harry Mountbatten-Windsor” would show more sensitivity towards the RF and the UK government than “Prince Harry” doing these visits. But this whole reasoning is tied to whether Harry should keep his title or not, which I’m sure has been discussed to death here.

As to what value these visits have, well, the Superhumans Center got some PR out of it, at least.

 

[taogg]

He's been back to the UK for umpteen court cases, as well as to attend funerals and memorials. So is he really as frightened as he claims?

If the UK is that dangerous, then I hope he never returns for heaven's sake.

 

[tommy100]

I don't think it matters. Judges are only interested in points of law.

Which is why him using the court to moan about his protection is pretty much a waste of time in the first place. The judges will only consider whether RAVEC came to their decisions fairly and within the law (which personally I am not really sure they can be held to over internal decisions), so Harry's lawyers saying his life is in danger, harking back to the "car chase" etc is pretty much irrelevant. The judges aren't deciding what security he should get, just whether or not the way it was handled is fair.
TBH the trip to Ukraine if anything, just means the judges are likely to ignore all this posturing and emotional blackmail as the trip to Ukraine undermines all of the irrelevant points anyway.

 

[tommy100]

Harry has given an interview to the Telegraph, in which, amongst other things he claims he was denied royal security "to trap him in the royal family"

Prince Harry: Police protection was withdrawn to trap me

Duke tells The Telegraph his ‘worst fears have been confirmed’ by secret evidence heard in court over security

www.telegraph.co.uk

The Duke of Sussex believes his police protection was withdrawn in an effort to prevent him and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, from leaving the Royal family to start a new life.

Speaking to The Telegraph, the Duke described the moment he was told of the decision as “difficult to swallow”, having previously hinted that it was at the heart of the rift with his father, the King.

He suggested he would find it hard to forgive his treatment, adding that his “worst fears have been confirmed” by secret evidence he had heard in court.

The Duke believes his taxpayer-funded security was removed in a failed attempt to force him and Meghan to stay in Britain after he announced that they were stepping back from public duties and moving to the US.

I knew he'd try to use the evidence, given in private to protect Harry and others by not revealing details of their protection, as a conspiracy.

 

[Prinsara]

Just because you’re a paranoid conspiracy theorist who can’t do critical reasoning doesn’t mean they are out to get you…

 

[tommy100]

“People would be shocked by what’s being held back,” he said, adding that his “worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure in this case and that’s really sad”.

he is playing a very dangerous game

 

[muriel]

Harry has given an interview to the Telegraph, in which, amongst other things he claims he was denied royal security "to trap him in the royal family"

Prince Harry: Police protection was withdrawn to trap me

Duke tells The Telegraph his ‘worst fears have been confirmed’ by secret evidence heard in court over security

www.telegraph.co.uk

Harry's delusion about his importance in the Firm (and not the family, on a personal level) never ceases to amaze me.

 

[TLLK]

Harry has given an interview to the Telegraph, in which, amongst other things he claims he was denied royal security "to trap him in the royal family"

Prince Harry: Police protection was withdrawn to trap me

Duke tells The Telegraph his ‘worst fears have been confirmed’ by secret evidence heard in court over security

www.telegraph.co.uk

I knew he'd try to use the evidence, given in private to protect Harry and others by not revealing details of their protection, as a conspiracy.

Now I am confused. Just recently Harry’s legal team claimed that the Sussexes were forced out of the BRF. Now he's trying to state that the BRF was trying to "trap them?"

 

[iceflower]

The Duchess of Sussex went to see Gypsy on Broadway:

Gypsy on Broadway on Instagram: "Thank you for visiting us at the Majestic, @meghan 🌹 It was an honor to have you in the audience for #GypsyBway! 📸: Michaelah Reynolds"

2,889 likes, 135 comments - gypsybway on April 11, 2025: "Thank you for visiting us at the Majestic, @meghan 🌹 It was an honor to have you in the audience for #GypsyBway! 📸: Michaelah Reynolds".

www.instagram.com

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex on Instagram: "If you get a chance to see @gypsybway, you absolutely must. Congratulations to the tremendously talented cast and crew for creating magic on that stage. And meeting @audramcdonald for the first time last nig

meghan on April 11, 2025: "If you get a chance to see @gypsybway, you absolutely must. Congratulations to the tremendously talented cast and crew for creating magic on that stage. And meeting @audramcdonald for the first time last night….🥹 Her performance will leave you absolutely speechless...

www.instagram.com

 

[tommy100]

What is it Judge Judy always says - if you always tell the truth you don't need a good memory?!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wonder why interviewer Victoria Ward mostly does not quote the Duke of Sussex directly and instead paraphrases most of his comments. Without quotation marks, a casual reader could easily confuse claims made by the Duke with facts reported by The Telegraph.

Now I am confused. Just recently Harry’s legal team claimed that the Sussexes were forced out of the BRF. Now he's trying to state that the BRF was trying to "trap them?"

The interview does not make clear whom he is accusing of trying to “prevent them from leaving” by saddling himself and his wife with “crippling” private “security costs on this scale": Elizabeth II? Charles? The courtiers? RAVEC officials? Then Prime Minister Boris Johnson?

But the interview also reiterates his opinion that his father has the power to make the Government reinstate his former level of taxpayer-provided security, so perhaps he sees no meaningful distinction between his family and the UK government.

 

[TLLK]

I wonder why interviewer Victoria Ward mostly does not quote the Duke of Sussex directly and instead paraphrases most of his comments. Without quotation marks, a casual reader could easily confuse claims made by the Duke with facts reported by The Telegraph.



The interview does not make clear whom he is accusing of trying to “prevent them from leaving” by saddling himself and his wife with “crippling” private “security costs on this scale": Elizabeth II? Charles? The courtiers? RAVEC officials? Then Prime Minister Boris Johnson?

But the interview also reiterates his opinion that his father has the power to make the Government reinstate his former level of taxpayer-provided security, so perhaps he sees no meaningful distinction between his family and the UK government.

I had a chance to read an archived version of the article. It does appear that Harry doesn't differentiate between those you mentioned.

 

[taogg]

But the interview also reiterates his opinion that his father has the power to make the Government reinstate his former level of taxpayer-provided security, so perhaps he sees no meaningful distinction between his family and the UK government.

Previously, this former soldier has no clue about intelligence. Now, as a former working royal and the son of a constitutional monarch, he has no sense of what a constitutional monarchy actually means. Let's send him back to school for history 101.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Harry has given an interview to the Telegraph, in which, amongst other things he claims he was denied royal security "to trap him in the royal family"

Prince Harry: Police protection was withdrawn to trap me

Duke tells The Telegraph his ‘worst fears have been confirmed’ by secret evidence heard in court over security

www.telegraph.co.uk

Other points of interest from the interview (I am quoting from the article, not necessarily directly from the Duke of Sussex):

He compares himself to former prime ministers “including Liz Truss” who receive taxpayer-funded police protection after stepping back from their public roles. He says that like them, he deserves taxpayer-funded police protection [which he currently receives on a part-time basis] because “No one views him as [a private citizen], not the press, nor the public, nor the millions spouting forth and shaping opinions on social media.”

He considers the Ravec process “archaic and perhaps fixated more on international terrorism than the domestic threat”. [Presumably he means the bespoke process that Ravec currently undertakes for him, since he is asking in court for Ravec to apply their standard process to him instead.]

He feels he “[has] to hide in hotels” when visiting the UK and cannot visit as often as he would like.

He acknowledges that even a legal victory would not force Ravec to rewrite its policy. Nonetheless, if he does not secure the outcome he seeks, he will fight on because he is “driven by exposing injustice” and “If he can’t fix it for himself, perhaps he can fix it for others”. Specifically, he would consider “talking publicly about the experience and what he has learnt, putting together the pieces of the puzzle, writing a second book or making a podcast.”

 

[taogg]

Writing a second book? I knew it.

 

[HRHHermione]

If he can’t fix it for himself, perhaps he can fix it for others”. Specifically, he would consider “talking publicly about the experience and what he has learnt, putting together the pieces of the puzzle

This one made me laugh out loud. How many people does Harry think go through this incredibly specialized process to receive police protection?

And former Prime Ministers, like former Presidents, receive lifetime security specifically because of the matters of national security they are briefed on and knowledgeable about. It’s a poor comparison, comparing an elected Head of Government to the second son of the King.

 

[Somebody]

So, he is now threatening the court, RAVEC, the BRF and the government with another 'tell-all' in an attempt to blackmail them to just do whatever he asks?

 

[Lee-Z]

It's been said many times before: why does he never acknowledge that persons who are most comparable to him wrg family and background are persons who don't get security at all when they're not working, like P.Anne.

He's fixated on his belief that he has been wronged and is blind to anything else

 

[tommy100]

The proceedings that weren't made public were because they were talking about matters that directly exposed details about Harry and others security arrangements - is he seriously saying they should be made public? Does no one else's security but his matter?
He isn't in the same position as Liz Truss - she was chosen by her party to be leader and thus Prime Minister and was (no matter what we might think) legitimately the Head of Government of the UK. TBH her short tenure makes it quite likely in time she will get much reduced security to a PM like say Tony Blair anyway.
A better comparison would actually be to a Secretary of State in the cabinet who resigns part way through their tenure - would you really still expect the country to pay for their security forever, with no reviews or limits to it? No, you would expect it to be done on a risk assessment on their specific needs and threat level and for it to be withdrawn/pared back over time.
As far as I can tell the only people in the UK who get armed protection without any sort of threat assessment (i.e. simply by virtue of their position / former position) are:

• The Sovereign (and spouse)
• The Prince of Wales and their family as direct heirs
• The Prime Minister
• Certain Secretaries of State in high risk roles
• Former Prime Ministers

Other members of the Royal Family, members of the Cabinet, Prime Minister family members etc are all provided security on a risk assessed basis. I fear Harry is really out of his depth on this one. That said, his talk of Liz Truss is to obviously to try and get the public on side by making them question why Truss gets protection and he doesn't. In fact there are clear cut reasons for that. He is also relying on the fact that everyone else but him will play by the rules and not discuss other people's security publicly, so not start pointing out that Anne and others don't get the security he is demanding.

 

[caethi]

Other points of interest from the interview (I am quoting from the article, not necessarily directly from the Duke of Sussex):

He compares himself to former prime ministers “including Liz Truss” who receive taxpayer-funded police protection after stepping back from their public roles. He says that like them, he deserves taxpayer-funded police protection [which he currently receives on a part-time basis] because “No one views him as [a private citizen], not the press, nor the public, nor the millions spouting forth and shaping opinions on social media.”

He considers the Ravec process “archaic and perhaps fixated more on international terrorism than the domestic threat”. [Presumably he means the bespoke process that Ravec currently undertakes for him, since he is asking in court for Ravec to apply their standard process to him instead.]

He feels he “[has] to hide in hotels” when visiting the UK and cannot visit as often as he would like.

He acknowledges that even a legal victory would not force Ravec to rewrite its policy. Nonetheless, if he does not secure the outcome he seeks, he will fight on because he is “driven by exposing injustice” and “If he can’t fix it for himself, perhaps he can fix it for others”. Specifically, he would consider “talking publicly about the experience and what he has learnt, putting together the pieces of the puzzle, writing a second book or making a podcast.”

This statement really takes the cake. Based on his words, there are a lot of words that one could use to describe the Harry in this statement: narcissistic, delusional, entitled and not very bright. I feel quite sorry for him actually, as he appears to be a very tortured soul.

By the way, by his own acknowledgement, he is a public figure with a very high profile parentage. Since that is the case, he should NOT have visited Ukraine, even in response to a private agency invitation, without clearing it with the foreign office. Maybe he did--but if he didn't he needs to realize that he cannot have it both ways.

 

[Hallo girl]

Other points of interest from the interview (I am quoting from the article, not necessarily directly from the Duke of Sussex):

He compares himself to former prime ministers “including Liz Truss” who receive taxpayer-funded police protection after stepping back from their public roles. He says that like them, he deserves taxpayer-funded police protection [which he currently receives on a part-time basis] because “No one views him as [a private citizen], not the press, nor the public, nor the millions spouting forth and shaping opinions on social media.”

He considers the Ravec process “archaic and perhaps fixated more on international terrorism than the domestic threat”. [Presumably he means the bespoke process that Ravec currently undertakes for him, since he is asking in court for Ravec to apply their standard process to him instead.]

He feels he “[has] to hide in hotels” when visiting the UK and cannot visit as often as he would like.

He acknowledges that even a legal victory would not force Ravec to rewrite its policy. Nonetheless, if he does not secure the outcome he seeks, he will fight on because he is “driven by exposing injustice” and “If he can’t fix it for himself, perhaps he can fix it for others”. Specifically, he would consider “talking publicly about the experience and what he has learnt, putting together the pieces of the puzzle, writing a second book or making a podcast.”

Now where else did he say he would fight for others , that’s right against the Murdoch press, he didn’t last the game there , he folded and walked.
He needs to be careful , depending on what was discussed on secret, could he be committing treason by revealing all. This is of course what he does , threatens his family now RAVEC , playing the victim yet again.