The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 -

[Katariina]

Has Meghan done some genealogical and dna research linking her ancestry to Nigeria? Or someone else on her behalf.

 

[Snowangel]

I read that she took a genealogy test back in 2022, that showed she was 43 % per cent Nigerian.

 

[Ghost]

I read that she took a genealogy test back in 2022, that showed she was 43 % per cent Nigerian.

I think it was the kind of test that says that one has 43% probability to have Nigerian ancestors.

 

[Snowangel]

I think it was the kind of test that says that one has 43% probability to have Nigerian ancestors.

I have no idea how these tests works....

 

[Somebody]

I think it was the kind of test that says that one has 43% probability to have Nigerian ancestors.

That seems a very unlikely outcome. These tests typically claim 99% accuracy. Nobody would take a test with such a low probability.

Snowangel's initial statement seems correct. If these numbers are correct, the test showed that 43% of her DNA matches with the DNA generally found in the Nigerian population. So, it seems the large majority of her mother's ancestors have Nigerian roots.

 

[Ghost]

That seems a very unlikely outcome. These tests typically claim 99% accuracy. Nobody would take a test with such a low probability.

Snowangel's initial statement seems correct. If these numbers are correct, the test showed that 43% of her DNA matches with the DNA generally found in the Nigerian population. So, it seems the large majority of her mother's ancestors have Nigerian roots.

Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know how these tests work, nobody said what kind of test she took and so on. Like always with them it’s never clear.

 

[Toledo]

I don't get the use of non-official Royal tour used on the article. As I understand it, a royal tour is when you represent a country with an existing monarchy and they are part of the authorized family members that can say 'royal tour', right? But this is a private trip for Harry and Meghan to work on their business ventures with absolutely nothing to do with King Charles sending them over there to represent the UK.

What am I missing here? The Daily Mail (owned in majority by Jonathan Harold Esmond Vere Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere) continuous need to steps on the nerves of the UK public?

 

[Hallo girl]

I don't get the use of non-official Royal tour used on the article. As I understand it, a royal tour is when you represent a country with an existing monarchy and they are part of the authorized family members that can say 'royal tour', right? But this is a private trip for Harry and Meghan to work on their business ventures with absolutely nothing to do with King Charles sending them over there to represent the UK.

What am I missing here? The Daily Mail (owned in majority by Jonathan Harold Esmond Vere Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere) continuous need to steps on the nerves of the UK public?

The uk public just ignore it, best way.

 

[Ghost]

Well, they WERE invited by an official structure. Yes, as Invictus representatives, but there’s so much hype about “the Nigerian princess”. Both the Nigerian government and the Sussexes know exactly what they are doing.

 

[Alison H]

The test will have shown that 47% of her DNA matched DNA generally found in Nigeria.

These tests do seem to be pretty accurate. There've been TV programmes in which people who were adopted, or never had any contact with one side of their family, e.g. people born from wartime relationships in which the dad went home without knowing that the mum was expecting, have used them to trace their birth relatives, and been successful.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know how these tests work, nobody said what kind of test she took and so on. Like always with them it’s never clear.

It's quite clear, actually. Tests like 23 & Me (I don't know which company she used, but they all do the same thing) use genetic markers in your DNA to tell you what your ancestry is. For anyone with African-American blood, it can be vital to finding out what part of Africa your ancestors came from before they were brought to America (or other parts of the world) on slave ships.

So, 43% of her DNA shows that she has Nigerian ancestry.

 

[Ghost]

It's quite clear, actually. Tests like 23 & Me (I don't know which company she used, but they all do the same thing) use genetic markers in your DNA to tell you what your ancestry is. For anyone with African-American blood, it can be vital to finding out what part of Africa your ancestors came from before they were brought to America (or other parts of the world) on slave ships.

So, 43% of her DNA shows that she has Nigerian ancestry.

It all depends on what database they have to compare your dna against, isn’t it?

 

[Kaye1850]

The test will have shown that 47% of her DNA matched DNA generally found in Nigeria.

These tests do seem to be pretty accurate. There've been TV programmes in which people who were adopted, or never had any contact with one side of their family, e.g. people born from wartime relationships in which the dad went home without knowing that the mum was expecting, have used them to trace their birth relatives, and been successful.

Yes, they’ve also been used by law enforcement to find a familial match. My brother gifted me an Ancestry.com test to see how closely our results would match. (I was quite disappointed when my DNA was not instrumental in solving a cold case or two!)

 

[Ghost]

What I mean is that I don’t trust much tests which are not endorsed by authorities. These commercial ones where you send a sample by post.
And I come back to the database they have in order to establish relation to a group. I read somewhere that, for example, there’s not a large database for french ancestry because the french law does not give access to such a database. So if someone has, let’s say, 10% french ancestry it will not show in a commercial test.

 

[Sister Morphine]

What I mean is that I don’t trust much tests which are not endorsed by authorities. These commercial ones where you send a sample by post.
And I come back to the database they have in order to establish relation to a group. I read somewhere that, for example, there’s not a large database for french ancestry because the french law does not give access to such a database. So if someone has, let’s say, 10% french ancestry it will not show in a commercial test.

Just because you don't trust them doesn't mean they're inaccurate. As Kaye said, genetic databases have been used for years by law enforcement to help solve cold cases, from murders to rapes to missing persons. You're not going to find a test that is endorsed by a government (if that's what you're alluding to) because by and large, people don't want genetic databases in the hands of any country's government, no matter who is in charge.

 

[HRHHermione]

Let’s move on from off-topic discussion about the perceived accuracy of genetic testing.

 

[Asteria12]

I don't get the use of non-official Royal tour used on the article. As I understand it, a royal tour is when you represent a country with an existing monarchy and they are part of the authorized family members that can say 'royal tour', right? But this is a private trip for Harry and Meghan to work on their business ventures with absolutely nothing to do with King Charles sending them over there to represent the UK.

What am I missing here? The Daily Mail (owned in majority by Jonathan Harold Esmond Vere Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere) continuous need to steps on the nerves of the UK public?

Yes!

They also get a lot of clicks, a lot of comments, and a lot of money from their Sussex articles.

 

[shady lady]

Presumably they will be travelling without their children - yet again. I would be pleased to be proved wrong if they appear, but I'm astounded at how often they go away without them. Hopefully those little kids have stable and loving people who are a constant presence in their lives.

Also, since when was travelling to Nigeria safer than travelling to the UK? The UK government via its Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) advises against all travel to about one third of Nigeria, advises against all but essential travel to roughly another third, and isn’t terribly keen on anyone travelling to the remaining third. See info (including map attached):

Nigeria travel advice

FCDO travel advice for Nigeria. Includes safety and security, insurance, entry requirements and legal differences.

www.gov.uk

Note that (amongst other things) it goes as far as to point out to Britons that their travel insurance could be invalidated if you travel against FCDO advice.

Similarly, the US Travel Advisory rates travel to Nigeria as Level 3 "Reconsider travel" and recommends as follows:

"Reconsider travel to Nigeria due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping, and armed gangs. Some areas have increased risk. Read the entire Travel Advisory."

Nigeria Travel Advisory

travel.state.gov

It adds: "Violent crime – such as armed robbery, assault, carjacking, kidnapping, hostage taking, roadside banditry, and rape – is common throughout the country."

The point I am trying to make here is that how on earth can PH keep going on about the UK not being safe for him and his family to visit, yet is presumably quite content to travel with his spouse to a very unsafe country like Nigeria? It makes a mockery of his own argument, and as for said spouse, she is “afraid” to return to the UK because she will likely (and justifiably) be booed - due to a situation of her own making - but is quite happy to run the risk of civil unrest, kidnapping, armed gangs and all the rest of it in Nigeria. Personally, given the choice, I’d take the boos any day; but then, I’m not desperately trying to make myself relevant on the world stage of course.

And let's be realistic here; unless things dramatically change, how can Nigeria host an Invictus games in the future if the athletes' countries advise them not to go there and they can't get insurance? Which begs the questions: Why are H&M going (and spending time apart from their children, again?) and who is paying for this trip? Unlikely to be H&M personally, but not the Invictus Games, I hope!

There's nothing "official" or "royal" about this trip, it is two private citizens choosing to travel to an unsafe country for promotional purposes and/or to make money.

It would be good if PH took the opportunity whilst on this "jolly" to make a statement as President of African Parks apologising to the Baka people in Congo and others people who have been abused by his staff, but sadly I do not see this happening. Again I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but my gut feeling is that if it doesn’t affect him personally, he couldn't care less.

Just my opinion as always, and I will not respond to flames

 

[Hallo girl]

I really do not care where Meghan and Harry travel to, but as an observation he is not doing his security case any good at all, assuming he is still going to appeal the decision. He is travelling to various places around the world, with whatever security is arranged , but he claims it is unsafe for him to come to the UK> where he will receive a certain level of government security, dependent on the situation.

 

[Anna1519]

Really happy to see Harry traveling in support of Invictus. He is at his best when focused on Invictus/helping veterans and I hope he continues to focus on this area and move on from the chaos of the last few years. There's so much he can do with Invictus and other areas to support veterans and servicemembers - I think he'll be much happier if he is focusing on something he is genuinely passionate about. There is absolutely no evidence, beyond the mumblings of the unhinged on Twitter, that Harry and Meghan have ever exploited Invictus for financial purposes.

I loved the enthusiasm of Team Nigeria at the last games and am not surprised that he and Meghan were invited to visit. I'm not sure they will be the next hosts though - Washington DC and South Korea are said to be the front runners for the 2027 and 2029 Games respectively. That being said, I hope they are taking precautions given the travel advisories because I do agree that to travel to a dangerous region (and, honestly, to live in the US with our gun problem) does undermine Harry's already tenuous at best claim in his security case. There's a lot of vitriol and hatred targeted at Meghan and the kids coming from the UK but that is also true unfortunately in the US as well. I don't think he's made a solid argument yet that they are physically less safe in the UK than they are elsewhere. Lili and Archie are no doubt happy, safe, and surrounded by love with their close and chosen family in California but it would be a shame for them to miss out on knowing Harry's maternal family and the country he spent most of his life in.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Wasn't one of the issues with regards to TRH The Sussexes' security is that they couldn't have armed security unless it was police protection, and the police would only offer protection on a case-by-case basis depending on their own study of the necessity? My guess is that neither of those will be problems in Nigeria.

Also, in spite of the fact that Nigeria's "more dangerous" (I'm uncomfortable treating any country like a monolith), HRH The Duke of Sussex, exaggerated or not, has always been worried about the vocal minority within the UK who dislike his wife on a virulent level. Presumably, Nigerians don't have that level of investment in TRH The Sussexes one way or the other, and the ones who are pushing to host the Invictus games are very fond of them. So I understand why TRH The Sussexes would travel to a "generally dangerous" country rather than a country with a group of people who could be specifically dangerous to them.

Plus, it's a win-win situation on both ends. Many Britons don't want TRH The Sussexes in Great Britain (although I may be wrong about that), and TRH The Sussexes don't really want to go there.

 

[Alison H]

Plus, it's a win-win situation on both ends. Many Britons don't want TRH The Sussexes in Great Britain (although I may be wrong about that), and TRH The Sussexes don't really want to go there.

Agreed! I can't see that anyone here is "dangerous" to Harry and Meghan, but I'd rather they weren't here, unless they were bringing the children to see the King.

 

[Anna1519]

Wasn't one of the issues with regards to TRH The Sussexes' security is that they couldn't have armed security unless it was police protection, and the police would only offer protection on a case-by-case basis depending on their own study of the necessity? My guess is that neither of those will be problems in Nigeria.

Also, in spite of the fact that Nigeria's "more dangerous" (I'm uncomfortable treating any country like a monolith), HRH The Duke of Sussex, exaggerated or not, has always been worried about the vocal minority within the UK who dislike his wife on a virulent level. Presumably, Nigerians don't have that level of investment in TRH The Sussexes one way or the other, and the ones who are pushing to host the Invictus games are very fond of them. So I understand why TRH The Sussexes would travel to a "generally dangerous" country rather than a country with a group of people who could be specifically dangerous to them.

Plus, it's a win-win situation on both ends. Many Britons don't want TRH The Sussexes in Great Britain (although I may be wrong about that), and TRH The Sussexes don't really want to go there.

My understanding was always that they may not necessarily receive armed protection if there was no credible physical threat against them but they would likely receive some form of protection (even if it did not involve armed guards) which would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So they wouldn't be left entirely without protection even if it's not the level that Harry may want. I could be completely wrong about this and am happy to be corrected but that's how I've understood it.

The travel advisories were pretty severe which is why I was a little taken aback but you are right, there is no need to treat any country like a monolith and my apologies if that's how my response came across. I'm sure the visit will be fine - they haven't had many issues in the US with our virulent gun issues. You make a good point about the vocal minority and their levels of hyperfixation on the Sussex family that I did not originally consider.

I agree, there is clearly no appetite on either side for Meghan to return and I think she has moved on. Given how hard Harry has been fighting these recent decisions about his security, though, I get the impression he genuinely wants to be able to bring Archie and Lili to the UK. I hope he can find some way to do that, though obviously their safety comes first.

 

[shady lady]

According to a new article published earlier today by Richard Eden in the Daily Mail, it is the Nigerian Government who will be paying for the security side of H&M's visit next week. I haven't linked the article here as it presents as an opinion piece, but it is so far the only information I have found relating to who is paying for the visit (and it is well worth a read if anyone is interested even if it is the Daily Mail!). It is easy to find albeit behind the paywall part of their website but I was able to access an archived version easily.

From the article (in relation to the security bill):
"...the security tab will be paid by the government of Nigeria, a country where an estimated 87million people live below the poverty line."

If the above is correct, that clarifies one aspect of the trip, but still leaves the question of who will be paying for their flights (whether commercial or private), accommodation, entertainment, MM's wardrobe etc. etc.

The article also drew my attention to the fact that I made an error in my last post when I referred to PH as the President of African Parks; he was President for six years then elevated (in AP's words on their website) to the Board of Directors in 2023. My mistake - and I'm not sure anyone else noticed! - but I mention it to put the record straight.

 

[OwlBranch]

I really do not care where Meghan and Harry travel to, but as an observation he is not doing his security case any good at all, assuming he is still going to appeal the decision. He is travelling to various places around the world, with whatever security is arranged , but he claims it is unsafe for him to come to the UK> where he will receive a certain level of government security, dependent on the situation.

Harry and Meghan were invited by the Nigerian government. It is a very specific work/charity related trip and a short-term security arrangement.

On the other hand, Harry probably wants to be able to visit UK more frequently than he visit Nigeria, so his security needs are different due to frequency and length of his visits.

The two situations are like apples and oranges, similar but not equivalent.

 

[OwlBranch]

According to a new article published earlier today by Richard Eden in the Daily Mail, it is the Nigerian Government who will be paying for the security side of H&M's visit next week. I haven't linked the article here as it presents as an opinion piece, but it is so far the only information I have found relating to who is paying for the visit (and it is well worth a read if anyone is interested even if it is the Daily Mail!). It is easy to find albeit behind the paywall part of their website but I was able to access an archived version easily.

From the article (in relation to the security bill):
"...the security tab will be paid by the government of Nigeria, a country where an estimated 87million people live below the poverty line."

If the above is correct, that clarifies one aspect of the trip, but still leaves the question of who will be paying for their flights (whether commercial or private), accommodation, entertainment, MM's wardrobe etc. etc.

Why do we need to know who is paying for their flights, hotels, etc? They are not on the government pay roll, so our tax dollar is not used. What purpose would it serve to have a full accounting of their trip expense?

 

[shady lady]

Why do we need to know who is paying for their flights, hotels, etc? They are not on the government pay roll, so our tax dollar is not used. What purpose would it serve to have a full accounting of their trip expense?

Transparency and integrity.

If H&M aren’t paying for anything themselves, then who is paying matters on many different levels.

And with respect, it’s not so much U.S. dollars that interest me as much as other currency, including the British pound. PH is a British prince by birth remember; no longer a working royal but still demanding to be treated like one, as we’ve seen many times. I think I can safely say there are plenty of other UK citizens who will also be very interested in this.

The 87 million people living below the poverty line in Nigeria might be interested too; the money would be better spent on them to improve their lives rather than being wasted on another H&M pretend royal visit/publicity tour/vanity project. Just my opinion.

Some of the veterans who take part in Invictus might be interested also. After all, how many new clothes does MM really need to promote the Games when they are already well known worldwide?

I have my own thoughts about why they are doing this trip, but apart from what I have already said I will now keep my own counsel, and wait and see what transpires.

Just my opinion, as always, and I will leave it there. I’m more than happy to agree to disagree on this

 

[Ghost]

Transparency and integrity.

If H&M aren’t paying for anything themselves, then who is paying matters on many different levels.

And with respect, it’s not so much U.S. dollars that interest me as much as other currency, including the British pound. PH is a British prince by birth remember; no longer a working royal but still demanding to be treated like one, as we’ve seen many times. I think I can safely say there are plenty of other UK citizens who will also be very interested in this.

The 87 million people living below the poverty line in Nigeria might be interested too; the money would be better spent on them to improve their lives rather than being wasted on another H&M pretend royal visit/publicity tour/vanity project. Just my opinion.

Some of the veterans who take part in Invictus might be interested also. After all, how many new clothes does MM really need to promote the Games when they are already well known worldwide?

I have my own thoughts about why they are doing this trip, but apart from what I have already said I will now keep my own counsel, and wait and see what transpires.

Just my opinion, as always, and I will leave it there. I’m more than happy to agree to disagree on this

I feel like Jamaica once again for that film that never got any other recognition.

 

[carlota]

about their plans at invictus and nigeria, i am finding it quite telling that meghan isn't coming to the UK for the invictus event, but it joining her husband just after in nigeria. she really doesn't seem to want to set foot in the UK, even when it is about a cause so allegedly important for her husband. they (or M, at least) seem to feel so incredibly wronged by the UK. at the same time, they lean on their royal connections, so a part of me finds it all very confusing/hypocritical. surely if the institution and the country you represent treated you so bad, you'd want to distance yourself from all of it.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Yeah, I wonder why HRH The Duchess of Sussex wouldn’t want to step foot in a country where she has an approval rating in the negative tens for stuff she said 1.5+ years ago. The suspense is killing me.

TRH The Sussexes have not been supported by the British people in four years. How Nigeria handles the poverty in their own country has nothing to do with them. And I highly doubt that former soldiers participating in Invictus to heal both physically and mentally care about how HRH The Duchess of Sussex is dressed, let alone how much it costs.

I can’t wait for the visit. I hope they get something cute for HRH Prince Archie’s birthday.