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

[GondorHasNoPants]

The Sussex's have certainly gone unusually quiet, or is it just me?

Extremely quiet. I'm not sure which country Harry is even in right now

 

[muriel]

The Sussex's have certainly gone unusually quiet, or is it just me?

Perhaps they are focussing on developing careers for themselves that are independent of his family.

 

[Healthy Sceptic]

Perhaps they are focussing on developing careers for themselves that are independent of his family.

Wouldn't that be a lovely turn of events. […]

 

[HRHHermione]

The Sussex's have certainly gone unusually quiet, or is it just me?

Let us enjoy the peace while it lasts.

 

[Healthy Sceptic]

Let us enjoy the peace while it lasts.

I didn't say Sussex three times for a reason

 

[Thain]

On 30 October 2024, the Invictus Games Foundation briefed the NATO Military Committee at NATO Headquarters on the role of Invictus in supporting wounded, injured and sick service members and veterans. Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, addressed the Military Committee via VTC, with a delegation attending the meeting in person.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_230178.htm

 

[kalnel]

If I was in charge of Pivotal's press, I would be incensed by the People article and the Archewell release. It's such a scummy move to piggyback on Melinda Gates' name.

I'm no fan of Meghan, but I looked at the People article and the Archewell release, and I see nothing inappropriate about either, although the press release is bad and very amateurish.

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

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

It also serves up such a big "word salad" that it barely makes sense. What are "more balanced relationships with technology?" What is a "strength-based program?" How is Archewell "committed to uplifting girls?" What does Archewell's decision to "continue to listen to young people" actually do for anyone (and what does it actually mean)? How are they providing "the tools they need to thrive?"

 

[Lady Daly]

I'm no fan of Meghan, but I looked at the People article and the Archewell release, and I see nothing inappropriate about either, although the press release is bad and very amateurish.

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

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

It also serves up such a big "word salad" that it barely makes sense. What are "more balanced relationships with technology?" What is a "strength-based program?" How is Archewell "committed to uplifting girls?" What does Archewell's decision to "continue to listen to young people" actually do for anyone (and what does it actually mean)? How are they providing "the tools they need to thrive?"

Essentially is Archewell just paying "lip service" or are they contributing any actual money?

 

[TLLK]

There's a chance we might see a photo of the Sussex family out tomorrow night for Halloween. They've released a few of those pictures in recent years.

 

[Hallo girl]

They are usually taken from the back with no faces, to be honest I do not see the point of any of these photographs which are popular with celebrities.

 

[Lee-Z]

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

That celebs don't show their kids' faces i actually think is quite sensible

 

[Hallo girl]

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

That celebs don't show their kids' faces i actually think is quite sensible

I do not disagree with your main point, probably very sensible, I just do not see the point of a photograph where everybody has their head turned, or we see a babys' toes or their hands. Do not bother with a photograph then, I find it patronising, like being thrown crumbs from the table.

 

[Alison H]

I think the photos of a newborn baby's little hand holding a parent's finger, which seem to be very popular these days, are quite sweet. It's a bit frustrating when you only see the back of a child's head, but I understand the reluctance to show a child's face on social media.