General News about the Sussex Family, Part One: May 2019 - March 2020

[Dalriada]

Looks like the Miiror glibly reports to the taxpayer about the private jet trip to Ibiza with normal security team and the hiring “of five local escorts who know the local area” as-
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry 'take Baby Archie on secret holiday to Ibiza' - https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-ne...arebar&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sharebar

 

[Kataryn]

Would only be breaching privacy if photos were taken at the villa. If they were in public they woukd be fair game. We see the royals on holidays plenty.

If they flew in privately it would probably not be too hard for them to remain incognito in public.

But these Holliday stories pop up all the time who knows what is true.

In fandom circles it's: "pics or it didn't happen" when it comes to sightings of their stars. Works good with Royals as well.

 

[Osipi]

Yet another piece straight from a tabloid and not worth the time to even give it a glance.

My opinion is that if they went to Ibiza for a vacation as a family, on their own time and on their own dime, more power to them and I hope they had a fantastic time in the sun and Archie got to get his little toes squishy in the sand and then wiggle them in the water.

 

[muriel]

Yet another piece straight from a tabloid and not worth the time to even give it a glance.

My opinion is that if they went to Ibiza for a vacation as a family, on their own time and on their own dime, more power to them and I hope they had a fantastic time in the sun and Archie got to get his little toes squishy in the sand and then wiggle them in the water.

> I broadly agree. I do not see why anybody should have a problem with Harry and Meghan spending a few days on Ibiza on a private break.

> As regards private planes, it is really up to them how they get there. The tax payer will not be paying, so it is probably the plane of a friend.

> Where it could get tricky is if, as H&M try and develop the focus areas of their charitable work, and choose to focus on environment issues. That is where an argument for double standards could come into play.

The obvious counter-argument that Prince Charles flies privately, despite his environmental campaigning will not fly as the security services took a view after Sep 11 that Prince Charles could not fly commercially.

 

[Zaira]

The Cambridges in Mystique, Sussexes in Ibiza. I think I too need a beach holiday stat!

But its August, a lot of people go on holiday this time of year. I hope they enjoyed it!

 

[_Heather_]

> I broadly agree. I do not see why anybody should have a problem with Harry and Meghan spending a few days on Ibiza on a private break.

> As regards private planes, it is really up to them how they get there. The tax payer will not be paying, so it is probably the plane of a friend.

> Where it could get tricky is if, as H&M try and develop the focus areas of their charitable work, and choose to focus on environment issues. That is where an argument for double standards could come into play.

The obvious counter-argument that Prince Charles flies privately, despite his environmental campaigning will not fly as the security services took a view after Sep 11 that Prince Charles could not fly commercially.

Yes to all of this. If they took a beach holiday on their own dime and paid for all of their own accommodations, travel, etc. then good for them and I hope they had a fabulous time. However, if they somehow didn't pay for those things themselves and instead somehow billed them as a "working" or "research" trip, etc. then I agree that the taxpayer has a right to know what they were doing.

I do, however, see and agree that it comes across as hypocritical and very "do as I say and not as I do" if they did indeed get to that privately funded holiday on a private plane. Even on private and privately funded time the BRF are still very much public personalities and while we shouldn't expect to see pictures of their privately funded holidays, they shouldn't expect to be immune from criticism and accusations of hypocrisy if they very publicly preach about conservationism, saving the plant, reducing carbon footprint, etc. and then hop on a private plane when commercial travel is readily available. Sidenote: this only applies if their security teams have not determined that there is any credible threat to them traveling on commercial transportation. If there have been credible threats or reasons to believe that they are in danger then this no longer applies. Some will argue that there's always a threat and I suppose that in some ways that's true but I think there's a difference between a security-determined and highly credible threat vs. the general "this person is famous and I'm crazy" type of threat that happens every single time a famous person, be they royal or just famous, is in public.

 

[Kataryn]

Yes to all of this. If they took a beach holiday on their own dime and paid for all of their own accommodations, travel, etc. then good for them and I hope they had a fabulous time. However, if they somehow didn't pay for those things themselves and instead somehow billed them as a "working" or "research" trip, etc. then I agree that the taxpayer has a right to know what they were doing.

I do, however, see and agree that it comes across as hypocritical and very "do as I say and not as I do" if they did indeed get to that privately funded holiday on a private plane. Even on private and privately funded time the BRF are still very much public personalities and while we shouldn't expect to see pictures of their privately funded holidays, they shouldn't expect to be immune from criticism and accusations of hypocrisy if they very publicly preach about conservationism, saving the plant, reducing carbon footprint, etc. and then hop on a private plane when commercial travel is readily available. Sidenote: this only applies if their security teams have not determined that there is any credible threat to them traveling on commercial transportation. If there have been credible threats or reasons to believe that they are in danger then this no longer applies. Some will argue that there's always a threat and I suppose that in some ways that's true but I think there's a difference between a security-determined and highly credible threat vs. the general "this person is famous and I'm crazy" type of threat that happens every single time a famous person, be they royal or just famous, is in public.

I have yet to see proof that Harry was in Sicily and in Ibiza - there are no pics to prove it. Just the claims of tabloids and just the fact that someone travelled on a rented private plane from a small airport in Hampshire to Ibiza and back. But who that was and how the plane was payed for? No info - just the name and phone number of a DM representative to sell infors. Then there are claims that because they had to have their police officers with them and the taxpayer pays for them, all their travels are in the public domain and need to be justified. But that's not how the system works.



While William and Catherine and their kids were in the Caribbean (and transfered from the public airport on St. Lucia to Mustique in a private plane) and noone says anythings besides: hope they enjoyed their holidays.

 

[Rudolph]

If you’re going to use the ‘no pics so it didn’t happen’ excuse then you have to be consistent. There’s been no pics of the Cambridges in Mustique for years. So how do you know they were there?

 

[Tarlita]

I don't get why a very private couple would fly to a holiday island hotspot just crawling with Brit holiday makers. And other Europeans on holiday there who would easily recognise them. They wouldn't be able to go for a casual stroll anywhere without being recognised.
Nope I recon they may have gone somewhere very private that we haven't heard about or perhaps stopped back at Balmoral.

Must never forget how often these stories are made up, and then turn out to be untrue.

 

[Hallo girl]

To be fair I think private plane transfer is the only way to reach Mustique. Just saying.

 

[Lumutqueen]

To be fair I think private plane transfer is the only way to reach Mustique. Just saying.

Doesn’t belong in this thread but, normally you’d fly into a neighbouring island (St Lucia or Barbados) and then flight private/small plane to Mustique. But you are correct.

 

[carlota]

[...]
in the meantime, it seems that H&M relocated permanently to frogmore cottage. have they given up their cotswolds house? i remember there were concerns regarding security following some papps taking photos of the house. i wonder how they dealt with frogmore cottage security as from memory the only pictures that surfaced from the outside seem to be taken from a public footpath just outside... (maybe i am wrong, and they were taken from a more protected location inside the grounds of frogmore, which is not open to visitors most of the year anyway)

 

[ACO]

I mean didn’t William fly into Davos on a private plane to interview a man about the effects of climate change? They are all hypocrites in a way. That said, I have no issue with any of them going on holiday. Not sure what people expect of them. It’s their money. Excluding security which will always be with them, it doesn’t affect the tax payers. So this faux outrage by some is silly.

 

[muriel]

I mean didn’t William fly into Davos on a private plane to interview a man about the effects of climate change? They are all hypocrites in a way. That said, I have no issue with any of them going on holiday. Not sure what people expect of them. It’s their money. Excluding security which will always be with them, it doesn’t affect the tax payers. So this faux outrage by some is silly.

I take your broader point that often those that preach don't always follow what they preach, and I think that is the main thrust of the argument that is being made against H&M.

As regards William flying to Davos, a few points:

>As he is in the direct line of succession, there may well have been security implications to consider. We are not aware of the advice that KP may have received from the government.

> He may well have shared a plane with a minister or the PM flying to Davos. They do often share planes when travelling to the same location. These details would never be disclosed.

> William was travelling for work, not pleasure

 

[Winnie]

I don't get why a very private couple would fly to a holiday island hotspot just crawling with Brit holiday makers. And other Europeans on holiday there who would easily recognise them. They wouldn't be able to go for a casual stroll anywhere without being recognised.
Nope I recon they may have gone somewhere very private that we haven't heard about or perhaps stopped back at Balmoral.

Must never forget how often these stories are made up, and then turn out to be untrue.

Agree, they just might not want us to know where or for how long they will be away [remember their honeymoon] Plus actually none of our business. It is not as if they are future Monarchs. No one cares where Edward and family holidays or even Anne and Tim. All their private plans are really none of our business. They want privacy, give to them and their small family.

 

[Zaira]

I take your broader point that often those that preach don't always follow what they preach, and I think that is the main thrust of the argument that is being made against H&M.

As regards William flying to Davos, a few points:

>As he is in the direct line of succession, there may well have been security implications to consider. We are not aware of the advice that KP may have received from the government.

> He may well have shared a plane with a minister or the PM flying to Davos. They do often share planes when travelling to the same location. These details would never be disclosed.

> William was travelling for work, not pleasure

I don't think it's a security matter as Harry has often had higher security levels than his brother or father because security isn't really related as much to position as it is to threat level, position and threat level just often times coincide. And indeed, several reporters have commented on the higher levels of security for the Sussexes overall compared to other royals. You can perhaps imagine why.

And William and Harry (and their respective families and spouses) have both flown commercial many times before for both private time and for official work.

Perhaps, security is such that their RPOs felt it best they fly privately to Ibiza, perhaps not. My bet is that when a royal flies private its mostly down to their preference more than security issues tbh.

And while I really personally don't give two figs if Harry or any royal flies private (because at the end of the day private planes are not what will make or break climate change), I do agree that *optically* it isn't smart even if there are myriad of logical reasons for it.

 

[Hallo girl]

Doesn’t belong in this thread but, normally you’d fly into a neighbouring island (St Lucia or Barbados) and then flight private/small plane to Mustique. But you are correct.

You are correct it probably is the wrong thread but I was responding to a previous poster who commented on negative reports of the Sussexs travelling by private plane but no comments were made about the Cambridges using private plane to Mustique .

So I was trying to offer balance to the conversation.

 

[_Heather_]

I don't think it's a security matter as Harry has often had higher security levels than his brother or father because security isn't really related as much to position as it is to threat level, position and threat level just often times coincide. And indeed, several reporters have commented on the higher levels of security for the Sussexes overall compared to other royals. You can perhaps imagine why.

And William and Harry (and their respective families and spouses) have both flown commercial many times before for both private time and for official work.

Perhaps, security is such that their RPOs felt it best they fly privately to Ibiza, perhaps not. My bet is that when a royal flies private its mostly down to their preference more than security issues tbh.

And while I really personally don't give two figs if Harry or any royal flies private (because at the end of the day private planes are not what will make or break climate change), I do agree that *optically* it isn't smart even if there are myriad of logical reasons for it.

Very much agreed. Private jets alone won't make or break the issue of saving the planet but they are part and parcel of the whole package that will. And yes, optically, it does have a bad look to it.

I'd also agree that it more often that not probably is down to personal preference and I suspect that we'll see that personal preference continue no matter how back the optics. That being said if they are going to continue to use that method of transport both for work and private events, then they're going to need to get used to the accusations of condescending behavior, hypocritical behavior, elitist leanings, etc. because they really won't have a leg to stand on with the argument that it's somehow acceptable to not practice what they preach.

 

[ACO]

I take your broader point that often those that preach don't always follow what they preach, and I think that is the main thrust of the argument that is being made against H&M.

As regards William flying to Davos, a few points:

>As he is in the direct line of succession, there may well have been security implications to consider. We are not aware of the advice that KP may have received from the government.

> He may well have shared a plane with a minister or the PM flying to Davos. They do often share planes when travelling to the same location. These details would never be disclosed.

> William was travelling for work, not pleasure

I don’t disagree.

I would apply security to all of the royals. We really have no idea about any of that stuff. And as for work, it highlights it the more to charter private when the topic of your work in that case is the planet’s health and what we can do to protect it.

The same talking points about Google camp were made about Davos with the many private plane there. So overall I completely agree that a lot of public figures are hypocrites especially the royals.

The issue is that people pick and choose when they want to be faux offended. If you mad toward one then apply it to all.

 

[Ista]

I don’t disagree.

I would apply security to all of the royals. We really have no idea about any of that stuff. And as for work, it highlights it the more to charter private when the topic of your work in that case is the planet’s health and what we can do to protect it.

The same talking points about Google camp were made about Davos with the many private plane there. So overall I completely agree that a lot of public figures are hypocrites especially the royals.

The issue is that people pick and chose with they want to be faux offended. If you mad toward one then apply it to all.

I agree with all of this. I think Harry, William and Charles need to be careful about how their actions--in this case we are talking about use of private planes--tie in with their causes. I've criticized all of them in the past for the "do as I say, but those standards aren't for me" optics, and I think it is something that really weakens their very important message concerning environmentalism. I think the term "optics" can be overused, but I think it is perfectly applied in this case. Not a good month for optics for the Sussexes.

 

[tommy100]

There is a simple solution - don't pick causes you can't live up to yourself. I know people will think the royals should pick whatever causes they like, and of course they can. But they must also know and expect that picking something like the environment and then using private jets (with pretty good reasons to be fair) will look bad. It just does. Yes its unfair if that means they can't talk about something important to them (and indeed to us). Again, they can of course choose to talk about it anyway, but in doing some must accept the consequences. Charles got absolutely slated for travelling all the way across the atlantic to collect an award for his work for the environment and for using a private jet to travel on an "environmental" themed tour of South America. It certainly is nothing new the press criticising royals and others who use private jets when they speak about protecting the environment. Likewise (although on a different subject) Prince William was slated for talking of the need to stop hunting wild animals in Africa whilst being happy to hunt animals at home.

There is nothing new here.

Part of being a public figure is knowing there are some things the media will go after you for talking about.

The shame is that it drowns out the message and that, at the moment at least, it seems some of the things M&H talk about cause more aggravation in and to the media than they bring in awareness and education. There are lots and lots of other areas that H&M have genuine credibility and standing to talk about and IMO (and its only my opinion) its a shame some of the focus doesn't go back on to those causes.

 

[leene]

The discussion should not be about private jet of public transport but about them speaking ( preaching !) about saving the planet , not having more than two children etc and subsequently fly to the USA to have ( a rather) expensive baby shower, fly to Ibiza etc etc.
This is is as stupid as an article I read in a dutch vegan magazine covering nice vegan hotspots all over the world... From the Netherlands to Los Angelos... and most of them don't go sailing to the USA... so hypocrite

 

[Osipi]

The thing with me is that I don't think there's ever going to be a way to totally not ever leave a carbon footprint no matter who we are or where we go or how we get there. If leaving no carbon footprints anywhere was the goal, we'd have to revert back to the times such as portrayed on "Little House on the Prairie", use horses and kerosene lamps and cook our food over a hearth. Travel, anywhere of a distance, would take much, much longer and lets face it, the royals are always needed someplace today with a calendar of events for a week that span a lot of area to get to.

In this respect, I don't think its bad optics when Harry flies in a private plane to anywhere. When he talks about climate change, he's not saying that we need to totally move into a cave somewhere and give up modern technical advances that make our lives easier but to be aware enough to see where we *can* do things that at least cut down a bit on carbon footprints, preserving our natural resources and keeping our planet in a healthy shape for generations following us to live healthily.

Then again, an asteroid could be looming on a collision path with the Earth and we go the way of the dinosaurs or the ozone layer will collapse and we'll be bombarded with radiation from the sun. We need to keep calm and carry on and enjoy our planet but become aware of the changes that we *can* make in our everyday lives to ensure that the planet remains sustainable for human life.

 

[ACO]

Harry never told anyone to only have two children. The twisting to make it that way is ridiculous. This is like when people came at William for talking about population control while Kate was pregnant. Another example of faux outrage against the royals. It just dilutes valid criticism of them.

Also Meghan's baby shower? Really... let's not beat that dead horse again.

I have to agree with tommy100 that the hyper focus to nitpick things while ignoring others is a shame and a major reason I feel a lot of the public are questioning the monarchy more than ever these days.

And a major current worldwide headline is not helping those optics.

Despite all that we have the summer winding down and everyone will be back to work. We have 3 confirmed tours of the Sussexes, Cambridges, and Charles/Camilla. Also the new looks of The Royal Foundation and the launch of The Sussex Foundation. So many new talking points to come.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

There is a simple solution - don't pick causes you can't live up to yourself. I know people will think the royals should pick whatever causes they like, and of course they can. But they must also know and expect that picking something like the environment and then using private jets (with pretty good reasons to be fair) will look bad. It just does. Yes its unfair if that means they can't talk about something important to them (and indeed to us). Again, they can of course choose to talk about it anyway, but in doing some must accept the consequences. Charles got absolutely slated for travelling all the way across the atlantic to collect an award for his work for the environment and for using a private jet to travel on an "environmental" themed tour of South America. It certainly is nothing new the press criticising royals and others who use private jets when they speak about protecting the environment. Likewise (although on a different subject) Prince William was slated for talking of the need to stop hunting wild animals in Africa whilst being happy to hunt animals at home.

There is nothing new here.

Part of being a public figure is knowing there are some things the media will go after you for talking about.

The shame is that it drowns out the message and that, at the moment at least, it seems some of the things M&H talk about cause more aggravation in and to the media than they bring in awareness and education. There are lots and lots of other areas that H&M have genuine credibility and standing to talk about and IMO (and its only my opinion) its a shame some of the focus doesn't go back on to those causes.

I agree with everything you've written - I'm a believer that one should practice what they preach (because otherwise, what they preach becomes redundant and meaningless); however it's also a pity that other causes the Sussexes are supporting get overlooked because everyone is so up in arms about situations such as this. There are some really worthwhile causes that get the two's support/patronage!

 

[MARG]

As far as I can see, Harry is being treated exactly the same as his uncle, Prince Andrew, the previous "spare". He would have had to be a saint the pass muster to the satisfaction of our non UK and Commonwealth members.

The continual carping and moral outrage is both annoying and depressing. No action passes without a ****load of "buts", disecting every little thing until we are drowning in the minutia of nitpicking and ever present negativity.

 

[Madame Verseau]

"There is a simple solution - don't pick causes you can't live up to yourself." That can apply to every royal in the similar circumstance. The Sussexes should not be held as the only royals that have done this.

 

[Rudolph]

Pictures of Harry Meghan and Archie arriving in Nice France. The Sun exclusive

Read more: DUMBO JET ‘Eco-warriors’ Meghan Markle and Prince Harry fly on private jet again to France after gas-guzzling Ibiza trip

 

[ACO]

Harry, Meghan and Archie spotted last Wednesday arriving in Nice.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9744378/meghan-markle-prince-harry-private-jet-french-riviera-ibiza/

I questioned the other holiday story and this makes me think definitely was not true as I don't think they had two holidays in the span of a two days.

Archie getting big.

 

[Curryong]

I don't believe the Ibiza holiday story either. Quite a few snaps of the plane and Harry and Meghan at the airport going to the Riviera. Why none for Ibiza? Why no reports of sightings by fellow tourists etc? What villa were they in?Just a lot of assumptions made by some media outlets about Ibiza IMO.