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
kalnel said:
The stories from the BBC and the Sun don't entirely make sense to me, since the judge issued a sealed ruling and terminated the case two weeks ago. I can't tell from reading these more recent stories whether they are rehashing the order from two weeks ago or reporting on a new development.

Here's Newsweek's report from two weeks ago: Prince Harry visa drugs case closed after secret ruling
Click to expand...
The media is still talking about the same case because Judge Nichols sealed his orders and closed the case. So...we know nothing about the determination of the case is how I interprete it.

"It is possible the orders may be at some stage be unsealed at which point it will become clearer what brought about the end of the lawsuit."
 
Curryong said:
The judge in Harry’s visa case has ruled in his favour. The case brought by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation against the Dept of Homeland Security to try and open Harry’s application etc to the scrutiny of them and the public has been dismissed. Of course the British tabloids are not happy with this decision.

www.bbc.com

Prince Harry's US visa application will remain private, judge rules

A US think-tank had sought the release of the records after Prince Harry wrote about drug use in his memoir.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

www.thesun.co.uk

Major update on Prince Harry’s visa ‘drugs’ row, as judge makes ruling over docs

PRINCE Harry’s visa documents will NOT be made public despite his admission that he took drugs, a judge has ruled. Harry’s reference to taking cocaine, marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms in his bo…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk
Click to expand...

No surprise there, but I think this was reported a couple of weeks ago? (as mentioned previously)

Of course, the British tabloids are the good guys when they publish a positive story about PH ;)

No doubt tabloids in other countries have reported this too.
 
The British tabloids never publish a positive story about Prince Harry if the editors can possibly help it! And they are never ‘good guys’ in a million years!

www.dailymail.co.uk

Harry on carrying on Diana's legacy: 'It's something I take seriously'

The Duke of Sussex , who recently celebrated his 40th birthday, gave the passionate address to a packed room at Halo Trust's anti-landmine event in New York.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Harry took over The (anti-landmine) Halo Trust after his mother’s death. He spoke at the event in aid of the charity in New York to a packed room.
 
Marengo said:
He is indeed not selfstyling, he simply is HRH the Duke of Sussex. However, he could have chosen NOT to use his title for business endeavours. Princess Mabel is simply ‘Mabel van Oranje’ for work, as are many other members of the Dutch RF. He made a different calculation, but it is obvious that monitizing the title is considered problematic and would be problematic in most other European monarchies too. Though at this particular event and for charities os is simply practical and gives the cause perhaps more attention than it would otherwise have had, which is good.
Click to expand...

There is one minor difference here. Harry was born as prince Harry. Mabel was born as Mabel. She was married to a prince who has died 11 years ago. She hasn't been an active member of DRF for years. Comparing them is like comparing apples and aubergines. They're both edible, but they're not fruit.
Also, I'm quite certain if William died Catherine would still call herself the Duchess of Cambridge in these type of events. Simply because it attracts attention to the cause.
 
Elenath said:
There is one minor difference here. Harry was born as prince Harry. Mabel was born as Mabel. She was married to a prince who has died 11 years ago. She hasn't been an active member of DRF for years. Comparing them is like comparing apples and aubergines. They're both edible, but they're not fruit.
Also, I'm quite certain if William died Catherine would still call herself the Duchess of Cambridge in these type of events. Simply because it attracts attention to the cause.
Click to expand...
Mabel has devoted years to various very important issues. What name she goes by is insignificant as her hard work speaks for itself.
 
Elenath said:
There is one minor difference here. Harry was born as prince Harry. Mabel was born as Mabel. She was married to a prince who has died 11 years ago. She hasn't been an active member of DRF for years. Comparing them is like comparing apples and aubergines. They're both edible, but they're not fruit.
Also, I'm quite certain if William died Catherine would still call herself the Duchess of Cambridge in these type of events. Simply because it attracts attention to the cause.
Click to expand...
Catherine would be called The Princess of Wales in such tragic circumstances. If Charles was still King at the time of a tragedy, because if it happened after William becomes King she would become Queen Catherine.
 
IMO people are just so used to him being referred to as Prince Harry that whatever happens going forward people will think of him in that way name wise. I think his dedication and passion for these causes also speak for themselves title or no title.
 
Harry and Meghan's support of the anti-bullying initiative is to be commended, but if the cause is so dear to their hearts, why do they associate with Ellen de Generes and Chrissy Teigen? Ellen lost her TV show because of bullying claims, and Chrissy Teigen's has exhibited dreadful behaviour to numerous people over the years, including telling a 16 year old girl to 'go to sleep forever' i.e. kill herself. I feel like their commitment to the cause would be more convincing, if they had better taste in friends.
 
The only people who care about Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex, identifying as such are the people who continuously harp on it. To each their own, but if neither of the institutions who granted him said titles care about him using them, why should I?
 
I understand your argument Gondor and I think part of the issue is that both Ellen and Chrissy Tiegen’s bullying claims are publicized but on the other hand if a high profile person is for the environment and all the issues that are happening to the environment should they not associate with people who own and fly on private planes? Does that take away from their own dedication to environmental causes?
 
I accept it's not a black and white issue with a clear answer, and it could lead to slippery slope arguments of 'if this, then why not this as well'.

I guess I just don't understand how anyone who cares about children being bullied online to the point of suicide could associate with someone like Chrissy Teigen, who has shown herself to be a deeply unpleasant person. Private plane use is (IMHO) not in the same category as telling a 16 year old to kill herself.
 
I didn't know that about CT and that is unforgivable. I haven't seen anything about them associating with her so maybe they are distancing themselves.
 
Maryrose said:
I didn't know that about CT and that is unforgivable. I haven't seen anything about them associating with her so maybe they are distancing themselves.
Click to expand...

She was one of the people who received a pot of Meghan's jam. Which I freely admit does not indicate they are BFFs, but they are obviously acquainted in some way.
 
Maryrose said:
IMO people are just so used to him being referred to as Prince Harry that whatever happens going forward people will think of him in that way name wise. I think his dedication and passion for these causes also speak for themselves title or no title.
Click to expand...
His legal name in the United Kingdom is "His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David, Duke of Sussex". We don't know what legal name he uses in the United States and probably will never know as his immigration records and other personal documents are private.

In connection with his professional life and public events in which he takes part, he seems to have adopted the style "Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex" (while Meghan goes by "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex"). That is clearly a choice as he could have equally called himself "Harry Mountbatten-Windsor", which is a family name that is available to him when needed. Prince William used "Mountbatten-Windsor" for example in his lawsuit in France and I believe Princess Anne (somewhat surprisingly) also used it when she got married.

The fact that Harry prefers to be referred to as a Prince and a Duke in a country where those titles have no legal standing suggests to me that he deliberately wants to remain associated with his royal identity/background.
 
HenRach Dominion said:
The only people who care about Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex, identifying as such are the people who continuously harp on it. To each their own, but if neither of the institutions who granted him said titles care about him using them, why should I?
Click to expand...
That’s not true.

Just to give one example, The Guardian (leftist, republican) had an article about this very thing last year Here’s a taste :

I don’t think anyone should be going around calling themselves Duke or Duchess in 2023. Unless they are a stripper or a dog

I won’t link the full article because we’re not supposed to post about it on here. But I’d be very surprised if you could find anyone at The Guardian who harps on about anything to do with the rf.

There’s plenty of reasoned & reasonable comment out there about what the issue is. Much of it from the non harpers on brigade. Not to mention posts on trf before such discussion was made against the rules.
 
Durham said:
That’s not true.

Just to give one example, The Guardian (leftist, republican) had an article about this very thing last year Here’s a taste :

I don’t think anyone should be going around calling themselves Duke or Duchess in 2023. Unless they are a stripper or a dog

I won’t link the full article because we’re not supposed to post about it on here. But I’d be very surprised if you could find anyone at The Guardian who harps on about anything to do with the rf.

There’s plenty of reasoned & reasonable comment out there about what the issue is. Much of it from the non harpers on brigade. Not to mention posts on trf before such discussion was made against the rules.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

At the end of the day, however, Prince Harry or the Duke of Sussex or Henry Mountbatten-Windsor was born special. He's admired or criticized for things he's done as an adult, but none of those things made him special in the first place. There are many people who have done the things that he's done with no fanfare. As soon as he was born to the future king of the United Kingdom, Harry was born special.

Harry was born into a society that places one family above all others due to the actions of their ancestors and was lucky enough to be born into that family. Just being born into that family made him revered, scrutinized, desired for different reasons, and influential.

Many have argued that being born into such privilege means that there's a greater responsibility to be the best person he can be to honor that privilege...but he never had to do anything to gain that privilege in the first place. He was literally born into it. He could have been a murderer or a drug trafficker and he would still be special because he's the son of a king, and the society he grew up in will not undermine the specialness of the one family on top for the sake of one person.

Harry will always be a prince. He will always be the son of a king. He will always be significant as long as the British Royal Family is still an institution that places value on those born within it. And people will forever want to associate with Harry regardless of his relationship with the BRF.

Luckily, Prince Harry is using his platform to bring more eyes and hopefully support to mental health in children and cyberbullying, two very important causes that will hopefully lead to discovering ways to interact with the internet, as ubiquitous as it is, in healthier ways.
 
www.dailymail.co.uk

Prince Harry jokes about 'getting in trouble' at Clinton event

The Duke of Sussex, 40, addressed the audience at the 2024 Clinton Global Initiative event this morning, warning of the 'crisis' faced by young people due to the online world.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Prince Harry has held his latest pseudo-royal engagement in New York where he joked about his misspent youth and spoke of his love for Archie and Lilibet in a plea to better protect children from the 'harm' caused by social media.

The Duke of Sussex, 40, addressed the audience at the 2024 Clinton Global Initiative event this morning, warning of the 'crisis' faced by young people due to the online world.

The DM sarcasm drips from every line of their articles, but they are still covering Harry’s NY engagements.
 
Last edited:
Curryong said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Prince Harry jokes about 'getting in trouble' at Clinton event

The Duke of Sussex, 40, addressed the audience at the 2024 Clinton Global Initiative event this morning, warning of the 'crisis' faced by young people due to the online world.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Prince Harry has held his latest pseudo-royal engagement in New York where he joked about his misspent youth and spoke of his love for Archie and Lilibet in a plea to better protect children from the 'harm' caused by social media.

The Duke of Sussex, 40, addressed the audience at the 2024 Clinton Global Initiative event this morning, warning of the 'crisis' faced by young people due to the online world.

The DM sarcasm drips from every line of their articles, but they are still covering Harry’s NY engagements.
Click to expand...

Well, sarcasm is a matter of opinion, especially when in PH’s case. I’d describe it as highlighting hypocrisy, when an organised gang elsewhere bully a sick mother of three and her family online using his name, and he hasn’t said a word in public to condemn this; but then he never said a word about the African Parks staff’s behaviour, either. And like it or not he is still the son of the king, and has hardly lived in quiet seclusion since he quit the BRF.

Unless they should pretend he doesn’t exist or something, why not report?
 
Last edited:
British tabloids are serving up clickbait with these articles. They aren’t after anything else and never have been. And that clickbait and the responses produce even more hateful, biased and twisted stories about the Sussexes in their rags.

As for the Sussex Squad, there isn’t anyone here that belongs to the Squad, I would bet. However there have also been hundreds of thousands of people on Twirtter/X , TikTok and elsewhere who have had a very very good time indeed since 2016 bullying, slandering and lying about another family with two adults and two children, day in and day out.

Those baseless stories continued in the media and without while Meghan was pregnant, and when she was a new mum with Archie. They continued when she had Lili.
 
Curryong said:
British tabloids are serving up clickbait with these articles. They aren’t after anything else and never have been. And that clickbait and the responses produce even more hateful, biased and twisted stories about the Sussexes in their rags.
Click to expand...
And the other side of the coin are all the People articles and NYT and whatever other venue the Sussexes use for PR. The Sussexes are willing to play the game with the press, it’s just that they don’t like that it’s not going as they would prefer.
 
shady lady said:
And all that makes the behaviour of the Sussex Squad and H&M’s silence OK?
Click to expand...
I have not paid much attention to the issues at hand so honest question: where has the term Sussex Squad originated from and who are the people that are part of that so called "squad" ?
 
Named staff, including their recent COO, have come out and defended the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on recent claims about Meghan as an employer in the Hollywood Reporter. They presumably aren’t members of the Sussex Squad.

www.express.co.uk

Harry and Meghan staffers reveal what it's really like working for them

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's current and former employees reveal what it's really like to work for them after the latest claims.
www.express.co.uk www.express.co.uk
 
The express article cites and links to a GB news article that says

“GB News has been handed an absolute denial of the allegations - as well as Meghan's message to her employees - and has confirmed with several current staffers that the "Duchess Difficult" moniker has never been used.

One Archewell source, who asked not to be named, said: "These quotes were fabricated by someone lacking knowledge of our company.”

It’s a press comm from archewell. Oh, well…
 
Curryong said:
British tabloids are serving up clickbait with these articles. They aren’t after anything else and never have been. And that clickbait and the responses produce even more hateful, biased and twisted stories about the Sussexes in their rags.

As for the Sussex Squad, there isn’t anyone here that belongs to the Squad, I would bet. However there have also been hundreds of thousands of people on Twirtter/X , TikTok and elsewhere who have had a very very good time indeed since 2016 bullying, slandering and lying about another family with two adults and two children, day in and day out.

Those baseless stories continued in the media and without while Meghan was pregnant, and when she was a new mum with Archie. They continued when she had Lili.
Click to expand...
Could I ask why you have such an issue with the British Media, as opposed to e.g USA or Australian media.
Are you really saying that these other media outlets never produce negative articles or for that matter clickbait.
If you may recall it was Australian media that revealed Harry was in Afghanistan, the British media respected his privacy and the seriousness of the situation. It was an Australian outlet that thought it was amusing to trick then ridicule a nurse at the private hospital to try and obtain information on Catherine, with a devastating outcome.
I would agree there have been stories that could have been handled better, but lets have some examples of the untruths.
Let us see examples of printed lies. NOT social media.
I am not prepared to be lectured on the British media, I know their faults but they are not alone
I also think we need to differentiate between social media and the print media.
Social media could be anybody on a keyboard, printed media is titled.
 
Curryong said:
Named staff, including their recent COO, have come out and defended the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on recent claims about Meghan as an employer in the Hollywood Reporter. They presumably aren’t members of the Sussex Squad.

www.express.co.uk

Harry and Meghan staffers reveal what it's really like working for them

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's current and former employees reveal what it's really like to work for them after the latest claims.
www.express.co.uk www.express.co.uk
Click to expand...
The Hollywood reporter are standing by their story.
 
So when people on social media attack the BRF in the name of the Sussexes, they're expected to unilaterally denounce said bad actors in spite having nothing to do with them, or they're seen as complicit/hypocrites/etc...

But when people on social media, including major journalists, attack the Sussexes in the name of the BRF, then it's a matter of opinion/social media being social media/the Sussexes' fault in the first place, etc..? When the BRF doesn't unilaterally denounce people attacking the Sussexes in their name, it's a dignified silence/not how things are do?
 
I think there is a (small) difference. The Sussexes have ocasionally aknowledged members of the squad. I have no idea if the BRF has ever done something similar. And the BRF DID react to published media. Not in the way the Sussexes or their supporters would have liked, but that’s always the case when you want someone else to come to rescue.
 
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
26K
Moonmaiden23
Moonmaiden23
Marengo
Princess Märtha Louise of Norway and Durek Verrett: 31 August 2024
9 10 11
Replies
303
Views
40K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
Marengo
  • Locked
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 - July 2024
103 104 105
Replies
3K
Views
504K
Ista
Ista
iceflower
Princely Family of Monaco: Current Events Part 11: November 2024 -
Replies
1
Views
397
iceflower
iceflower
iceflower
Louis, Pauline and Camille Current Events Part 7: November 2024 -
Replies
0
Views
240
iceflower
iceflower

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom