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.

 

[Hallo girl]

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.

Within a family context they are lovely, I have one myself of my grandchildren. The issue I have is with celebrities issuing these photographs to the press or in X or wherever as in ‘insight’ to their family. Why bother.

 

[muriel]

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.

Given past form, it would not be unusual to see something from H&M to coincide with William's appearance at Earthshot.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

An excerpt from new chapters in the updated edition of the book "Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story" by Robert Hardman features a "senior constitutional expert and adviser to the [royal] family" discussing King Charles III's alleged views on the Duke of Sussex's court cases.

Truth about Charles, Harry and Meghan in bombshell new book

Less than a year and a half into the reign of Charles III, the monarchy had to come to terms with two grave personal challenges.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The real reasons for the apparent remoteness between father and son – though unspoken by either side – were pragmatic and, it turns out, understandable. [...]

'Here you have the infelicitous situation where the King's son is suing the King's ministers in the King's courts,' points out one senior constitutional expert and adviser to the family. 'That is pulling the King in three directions. You also have the situation where the King's son publishes accounts of private conversations, some of which have been, shall we say, wrong.'

The adviser points, by way of example, to the section of Spare in which his account of being told of the Queen Mother's death was a fabrication.

Harry had painted a forlorn picture of a lonely Eton schoolboy being told, by a lackey, of the death of his adored great-grandmother: 'I took the call. I wish I could remember whose voice was at the other end: a courtier's, I believe. I recall that it was just before Easter, the weather bright and warm, light slanting through my window, filled with vivid colours. 'Your Royal Highness, the Queen Mother has died.' '

Harry was actually in Switzerland, skiing with his father and brother, when all three received the news.

'So imagine the situation,' says the adviser, 'if the Prince were to talk to his father about his court case and then later to describe that conversation – or, worse, a conversation which was not entirely accurate. There would be serious legal jeopardy.'

Nor is that a hypothetical situation. The adviser points to the acute embarrassment of the 2002 court case involving Paul Burrell. The former royal butler was standing trial for theft after police discovered hundreds of items belonging to the late Diana, Princess of Wales at his home.

After the Queen's private recollection that Burrell had told her he was looking after Diana's things for safekeeping, the prosecution pronounced its case 'no longer viable' and the trial was abandoned.

'Harry would only have to say, 'My father said this' and a court case could collapse,' says the adviser. 'That's not just awkward. That's bad. That is deep legal and constitutional jeopardy when you are head of state and of the judiciary and it is His Majesty's Government.'
​

 

[Toledo]

...The adviser points, by way of example, to the section of Spare in which his account of being told of the Queen Mother's death was a fabrication.

​

Harry had painted a forlorn picture of a lonely Eton schoolboy being told, by a lackey, of the death of his adored great-grandmother: 'I took the call. I wish I could remember whose voice was at the other end: a courtier's, I believe. I recall that it was just before Easter, the weather bright and warm, light slanting through my window, filled with vivid colours. 'Your Royal Highness, the Queen Mother has died.' '​

​

Harry was actually in Switzerland, skiing with his father and brother, when all three received the news...​

I recall we discussed this specific subject already, that Harry did not write the book but memorized lines for the interviews, after the discrepancies started to show all over. Harry had a ghost writer hired, like all ghost writers to make the book both readable and marketable placing embellishments all over it.

And since the 'author' Harry has never been known for his smarts and wits, on interviews and press quotes he seemed to spit out sections of the book as in normal conversation. As if he came up with that extremely dramatic literary approach on delivery. My take on this is he read the book and seen his name on the cover made him believe those were his lines. Like he came up with those lines on the interview with the ghost writer and, later on press meetings, ran with them as if they were his own lines.

I mean, this is Harry we are talking about, I don't recall a single interview where in conversation he has quoted material from books he has read in his life. Unless we count Auntie Sarah of York children's books collection. Quite frankly, I won't even consider quotes or events on his book as facts but more of a poor ghost writer's talent after being hired to piece together a book on Harry's memories alone.