The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 9: August 2023 - July 2024

[Marengo]

Thanks for the clarification that they were not involved with the production TLLK. Then the question remains: why go to a movie premiere in Jamaica? Even more so if the movie will be premiered in LA too. I simply don’t understand the point.

 

[muriel]

Thanks for the clarification that they were not involved with the production TLLK. Then the question remains: why go to a movie premiere in Jamaica? Even more so if the movie will be premiered in LA too. I simply don’t understand the point.

Very fair question!

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Thanks for the clarification that they were not involved with the production TLLK. Then the question remains: why go to a movie premiere in Jamaica? Even more so if the movie will be premiered in LA too. I simply don’t understand the point.

It's a film about the Jamaican musician Bob Marley – making the Jamaican premiere significantly more prominent than the LA premiere. Additionally, Harry is a prince of Jamaica, technically speaking. IIRC Harry was also chosen to visit Jamaica on behalf of QEII for her Diamond Jubilee in 2012, so is it a stretch to assume Jamaica holds a special place in Harry's heart?

 

[Marengo]

That may be, but why not go there on a private visit without semi-official pretenses?

In 2012 he was representing his monarch and his country. In the mean time he left royal life behind. He publically distanced himself from that life, from his family, from his country and from the commonwealth. He has been busy with another carreer. Why this pretence of a royal activity while he is not representing anybody but himself.

It simply is not logical nor consistent with the story he has been telling since he left.

 

[muriel]

Harry is a prince of Jamaica, technically speaking.

Not quite. If I am not mistaken, Jamaica has a King, but no Prince or Princess. So if that is correct, Harry is not a Prince of Jamaica.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

What's your source on that? Of course Harry isn't "Prince Henry of Jamaica". But within the Commonwealth, each country's monarchy is separate and legally distinct – implicitly making Harry a prince of Jamaica as much as a prince of the United Kingdom.

Address by Governor-General Sir Patrick Allen at the Official Dinner in Honour of Prince Henry of Wales:

We are really quite appreciative of the fact that Her Majesty The Queen, on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee has chosen to make her presence felt in the Realm with Jamaica being one of the ports of call by one of whom we can say he is Prince of Jamaica.

That may be, but why not go there on a private visit without semi-official pretenses?

In 2012 he was representing his monarch and his country. In the mean time he left royal life behind. He publically distanced himself from that life, from his family, from his country and from the commonwealth. He has been busy with another carreer. Why this pretence of a royal activity while he is not representing anybody but himself.

It simply is not logical nor consistent with the story he has been telling since he left.

Because they may have been invited?

That he leads a different life than he did in 2012 doesn't mean he can't still hold Jamaica and the Jamaican people close to his heart. Or am I mistaken and do you have a source on him specifically distancing himself from the country of Jamaica?

 

[muriel]

Why this pretence of a royal activity while he is not representing anybody but himself.

Unfortunately, this very valid question pops up regularly, and there have never been any clear answers.

 

[changemysoul]

That may be, but why not go there on a private visit without semi-official pretenses?

In 2012 he was representing his monarch and his country. In the mean time he left royal life behind. He publically distanced himself from that life, from his family, from his country and from the commonwealth. He has been busy with another carreer. Why this pretence of a royal activity while he is not representing anybody but himself.

It simply is not logical nor consistent with the story he has been telling since he left.

I don't think it's a case of him doing something that the pretense of a royal activity. It seems to be more of a personal thing you feel is connected to royalty when it's not.

This wasn't some semi official event that had to do with anything royal. The CEO of Paramount, seem to be good friends with the Sussex's. They have a home in Cali I believe. They were invited as guest. Not only that, it might have been because of his work as a royal but he seemingly developed a relationship with the Marley family because they were excited to see him, at least it looks that way from photos and videos of the their interactions.

Jamaica and events in Jamaica exist outside of the Commonwealth.

So, it has nothing to do with a royal career or anything royal in any capacity. It does have everything to do with them being invited to an event and them saying yes.

----

And then, this trip or the moment with the Prime Minister have nothing to do with maturity and good judgement.
[...]

I don't know why there is this expectation that they have to consider the BRF in everything they aren't representing them anymore. Whatever is going to happen between Jamaica and UK has 0 to do with him.

They went to a movie and took a photo with the prime minister. It all boils down to that [...]

 

[changemysoul]

Unfortunately, this very valid question pops up regularly, and there have never been any clear answers.

Because, everyone wants to connect everything back to the royals. And then gate-keep work as if the royals are the only ones to do what they do. When lots of high-profile people do the same and have been doing it longer.

It doesn't seem to be Harry that's turning everything into some royal connected activity. It's the watchers finding a way to connect something to royalty, to ask such questions as that.

 

[Mbruno]

They posed for a photograph with a Prime Minister who has said that he wants Jamaica to become a republic. Jamaica is obviously quite entitled to become a republic if that's what it wants, and Andrew Holness has spoken of his respect for the late Queen and other members of the Royal Family, but it was insensitive for Harry and Meghan to pose for a photograph with him at a time when this is undecided.

Honestly I don't think that is an issue.

The prime minister may want Jamaica to become a republic, which is a legitimate political position, but, as long as Jamaica is still a realm, he is still the King's prime minister in Jamaica. I am pretty sure the Prince of Wales or the King himself would hold audiences with the Jamaican PM and would have no problem posing for photos with him, although, in the present climate, they may be advised against doing a tour of Jamaica for PR reasons.

Incidentally, we should not forget that even the current prime minister of Australia is a republican (although he has ruled out a republican referendum in the near futuere) and he has been to the UK and had audiences with the King since the accession, and is due to host Their Majesties on a royal tour later this year. No problem here with the PM's political opinion on the continuation of the monarchy.

What is somewhat annoying in the case of some Caribbean PMs is not that they are republicans per se (again, those countries are perfectly entitled to become republics if that is what their peoples want), but rather their somewhat rude way to express that position, possibly being disrespectful to the Royal Family. I understand that there is a specific underlying issue in the Caribbean, namely slavery reparations, that does not exist in oher places like Australia or Canada, but, to be fair, that has nothing to do with the royals and even the repeated attempts of The Guardian and others alike to tie the Royal Family historically to the slave trade have proven to be unsuccessful.

EDIT: To be clear, my criticism of Harry and Meghan was that some republican organizations have been using them as "poster people" for their
campaign to smear the Royal Family and Harry and Meghan's actions, such as their docuseries,interviews, and "tell-all" books, are enabling and empowering those groups. I don't think that was the case in Jamaica though. Although some Jamaican republicans have taken advantage of Harry and Meghan in the past to label the RF as racist, I don't think the Sussexes were invited to the Marley film premiere to advertise republicanism. Most likely, they were invited because the producers thought it would be a way to promote the movie, as Harry and Meghan are celebrities and Harry has expressed in the past a cultural connection to Marley's music and to certain types of Jamaican lifestyle (I suppose the latter is self-evident).

 

[TLLK]

Thanks for the clarification that they were not involved with the production TLLK. Then the question remains: why go to a movie premiere in Jamaica? Even more so if the movie will be premiered in LA too. I simply don’t understand the point.

You're welcome Marengo.

 

[Alisa]

They look wonderful and happy and very tanned.

[...]

 

[HRHHermione]

Several posts have been deleted.

As the moderation team has reminded this thread many times, The Royal Forums requires that members be courteous to other members. Opinions are welcome here, both positive and negative, but shutting down other members and being rude about their expressed opinions is not.

 

[kalnel]

This visit strikes me as a win-win-win for all involved: Harry and Meghan get publicity (they'd attend the opening of a garage door, if the media covered it) and a chance to tweak both Netflix (Paramount competitor) and William & Kate (controversial royal visit). Paramount gets a little extra publicity courtesy of a former Netflix duo. And, Jamaican politicians get international attention for their positions.

But, I have to question Harry's "eco-warrior" status when he jets thousands of miles away for a movie premiere that he could attend in Los Angeles in a few days.

Was this event in support of a charity?

 

[TLLK]

This visit strikes me as a win-win-win for all involved: Harry and Meghan get publicity (they'd attend the opening of a garage door, if the media covered it) and a chance to tweak both Netflix (Paramount competitor) and William & Kate (controversial royal visit). Paramount gets a little extra publicity courtesy of a former Netflix duo. And, Jamaican politicians get international attention for their positions.

But, I have to question Harry's "eco-warrior" status when he jets thousands of miles away for a movie premiere that he could attend in Los Angeles in a few days.

Was this event in support of a charity?

Here's local coverage of the premiere in Kingston. However I didn't see any reference to this being a charity event.


https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article...-jamaican-premiere-important-bob-marley-movie


https://jamaica.loopnews.com/content/bob-marley-one-love-premiere-creates-major-buzz-kingston-691576

 

[HRHHermione]

This visit strikes me as a win-win-win for all involved: Harry and Meghan get publicity (they'd attend the opening of a garage door, if the media covered it) and a chance to tweak both Netflix (Paramount competitor) and William & Kate (controversial royal visit). Paramount gets a little extra publicity courtesy of a former Netflix duo. And, Jamaican politicians get international attention for their positions.

But, I have to question Harry's "eco-warrior" status when he jets thousands of miles away for a movie premiere that he could attend in Los Angeles in a few days.

Was this event in support of a charity?

To be fair, I have to note- Meghan and Harry do not actually attend very many occasions, so I’m not sure it’s fair to say they’d attend anything at all.

Additionally, they are under contract with Netflix until at least next year.

 

[shady lady]

To be fair, I have to note- Meghan and Harry do not actually attend very many occasions, so I’m not sure it’s fair to say they’d attend anything at all.

Additionally, they are under contract with Netflix until at least next year.

I think the issue is that when they do choose to appear, it is often under controversial circumstances...


[.....]

 

[shady lady]

[.....]

Most people (including us) have never met the people we are discussing here.

[.....]

As a British royalist my interest has always been in the consequences of H&M's behaviour in terms of the BRF and the UK as a nation, and the Commonwealth that was so dear to HLMTQ's heart. It is not unreasonable IMO to suggest that they have caused a lot of trouble in this regard.

I had never previously considered that their conduct may have wider ranging and global ramifications, as suggested above. I wonder if H&M have ever considered this? To me, that is very interesting.

 

[Ista]

Posts that violated forum or thread rules have been removed.

Before posting here, please review the thread rules, as well as general forum rules. There has been a recent increase in off-topic, disrespectful, and speculative posts, as well as posts which have blatantly ignored moderator notes posted in the thread.

Please regard this as a general warning that based on the above, the British Forum moderators are now much less inclined to make allowances, and if you wish to keep this thread open for discussion, careful attention to all the forum and thread rules is required.

 

[Somebody]

African Parks, an organisation of which Harry is a member of the Board of Directors (after previously serving as President), is investigating a case of rape and torture of the local community by their guards in Congo.

 

[TLLK]

African Parks, an organisation of which Harry is a member of the Board of Directors (after previously serving as President), is investigating a case of rape and torture of the local community by their guards in Congo.

I have read the original article and others similar to it. What concerns me the most is that Africa Parks was made aware of the claims a decade ago.

 

[Curryong]

https://www.africanparks.org/statem...llegations-human-rights-abuses-rangers-odzala

‘African Parks has a zero-tolerance policy for any form of abuse and is committed to upholding the rights of local and indigenous people. Allegations of misconduct are thoroughly investigated and acted on, and all of our parks are managed with a central philosophy of awareness, sensitivity and commitment to upholding the rights of local people.

We are aware of the serious allegations regarding human rights abuses by eco-guards against local people living adjacent to Odzala-Kokoua National Park in the Republic of Congo, which have recently received media attention. We became aware of these allegations last year via a Board Member who received a letter from Survival International.’

The Mail itself reported that the organisation Survival International had written to Harry last May.

‘Survival International wrote a letter to Prince Harry last May about 'violent intimidation and torture' that had taken place, including the rape of a young mother by a guard.

The man was dismissed, jailed and ordered to pay his victim about £1,300 in compensation. She claims she has only received about £500. Yesterday, African Parks said it has a 'zero-tolerance' policy for any form of abuse and is 'committed to upholding the rights of local and indigenous people'.’


Responding to the allegations, a spokesman for Archewell, Prince Harry’s charitable foundation, told the newspaper: “When the Duke became aware of these serious allegations, he immediately escalated them to the CEO and chairman of the board of African Parks, the appropriate people to handle next steps.”

The African Parks statement also added ‘We immediately launched an investigation through an external law firm based on the information we had available, while also urging Survival International to provide any and all facts they had. It’s unfortunate that they have chosen not to cooperate, despite repeated requests, and we continue to ask for their assistance.’

 

[soapstar]

The reporter of the investigation has responded to the statement sent out by African Parks. He states that African Parks knew of the abuses back in 2013 and links to a memo from the US Deputy Secy. of the Interior, that basically questions the investigation AP did into the allegations.

African Parks statement in response to my investigation says it became aware of abuse claims in the letter to Prince Harry last May, then accusing @Survival of not co-operating with inquiries. But as I wrote today, Survival first told them about abuse from their guards in 2013!

In 2014, the African Parks community manager admitted they knew of problems with corruption, violence and poaching by their own guards in a meeting with Survival but said they needed hard evidence to act against individuals, according to the campaign group’s contemporaneous notes

In 2017, a report by Survival International accused both African Parks and WWF of silence over human rights abuses in the Congo Basin. ‘Across the region, Baka face harassment, theft, torture and death at the hands of wildlife guards,’ it stated.

In 2020, a memo signed by Katherine MacGregor, US deputy secretary of the interior, said her department ‘was made aware of human rights violations by African Parks Foundation’ that had been summarily dismissed by the charity after finding ‘no fault.’

The memo added caustically in a footnote that each of the allegations ‘involved investigations that were opened and closed within six weeks and either managed or conducted by African Parks.’

Source

 

[Somebody]

https://www.africanparks.org/statem...llegations-human-rights-abuses-rangers-odzala

‘African Parks has a zero-tolerance policy for any form of abuse and is committed to upholding the rights of local and indigenous people. Allegations of misconduct are thoroughly investigated and acted on, and all of our parks are managed with a central philosophy of awareness, sensitivity and commitment to upholding the rights of local people.

We are aware of the serious allegations regarding human rights abuses by eco-guards against local people living adjacent to Odzala-Kokoua National Park in the Republic of Congo, which have recently received media attention. We became aware of these allegations last year via a Board Member who received a letter from Survival International.’

The Mail itself reported that the organisation Survival International had written to Harry last May.

‘Survival International wrote a letter to Prince Harry last May about 'violent intimidation and torture' that had taken place, including the rape of a young mother by a guard.

The man was dismissed, jailed and ordered to pay his victim about £1,300 in compensation. She claims she has only received about £500. Yesterday, African Parks said it has a 'zero-tolerance' policy for any form of abuse and is 'committed to upholding the rights of local and indigenous people'.’


Responding to the allegations, a spokesman for Archewell, Prince Harry’s charitable foundation, told the newspaper: “When the Duke became aware of these serious allegations, he immediately escalated them to the CEO and chairman of the board of African Parks, the appropriate people to handle next steps.”

The African Parks statement also added ‘We immediately launched an investigation through an external law firm based on the information we had available, while also urging Survival International to provide any and all facts they had. It’s unfortunate that they have chosen not to cooperate, despite repeated requests, and we continue to ask for their assistance.’

I 'm glad that Harry raised the issue when he was made aware of it. Hopefully he is also following up a serious issue like this and is advocating for an independent third party investigation because the last sentence is pretty condemning for the organisation: blaming the victims for not doing their part...

 

[TLLK]

I 'm glad that Harry raised the issue when he was made aware of it. Hopefully he is also following up a serious issue like this and is advocating for an independent third party investigation because the last sentence is pretty condemning for the organisation: blaming the victims for not doing their part...

I agree that the last statement from AP is unfortunate. Let's hope that a third party investigation can take place.

 

[Curryong]

Imo African Parks aren’t blaming the victims for not doing their part. They aren’t, as far as I can see, asking for the victims to come forward any more than they have. They are asking for more documented evidence against these rangers from the organisation Survival International.

And it should be noted that the ranger accused of rape in this article was fired by AP, imprisoned, and compensation was given to this poor woman, inadequate though it was.

And I believe that if Harry had not been a Board Member of African Parks the DM would not have been bothered to print this story, disgraceful as it is. (I note here also that the World Wildlife Fund, of which Prince Philip was International President for many years, has had rangers who have also been accused of abhorrent behaviour but that was dismissed in one sentence by this newspaper.

Perhaps in publicising this article inferring that Harry was and is to blame somehow for the behaviour of these rangers, the DM might muse on the fact that as soon as Harry heard from Survival International about these events he informed AP’s CEO, and the Board.

Also his being involved in AP has actually brought these stories to light. If he hadn’t been then they all might well have remained hidden.

I certainly do not believe that Harry is complicit in the cruelties imposed by those rangers on the people of the Congo forests at all, or that he would have allowed it to go on for an instant had he known about any of it.

 

[Somebody]

Imo African Parks aren’t blaming the victims for not doing their part. They aren’t, as far as I can see, asking for the victims to come forward any more than they have. They are asking for more documented evidence against these rangers from the organisation Survival International.

In these types of cases, if victims (with Survival International as their representative) are not willing to participate that is normally because they do not trust the organization to conduct the investigation in a fair way. Unfortunately, in many cases the main objective for an organization is to limit the reputational damage if accusations like these occur and not to fully understand what happened to do justice to the victims - which is why a third party investigation is necessary. I am sure Survival International (and the victims whom the information/evidence will be coming from) is more than willing to share any information needed with a trusted third party.

Also his being involved in AP has actually brought these stories to light. If he hadn’t been then they all might well have remained hidden.

I certainly do not believe that Harry is complicit in the cruelties imposed by those rangers on the people of the Congo forests at all, or that he would have allowed it to go on for an instant had he known about any of it.

Harry being involved with this organization definitely puts a spotlight on the situation which will hopefully be beneficial in the end. I would hope nobody would think that Harry is somehow complicit in what happened. His responsibility -from the moment he knew about it- is in how the organization is dealing with the allegations (both the investigation and ensuring that it won't happen again).

 

[Asteria12]

I agree, Somebody.


Also, the DM is doing what they do, posting stories for clicks (and reaping the accompanying $$ for advertising). I don't think anyone would really think Harry is complicit in the potential coverup of such awful abuse.

 

[Leopoldine]

https://www.africanparks.org/statem...llegations-human-rights-abuses-rangers-odzala

‘African Parks has a zero-tolerance policy for any form of abuse and is committed to upholding the rights of local and indigenous people. Allegations of misconduct are thoroughly investigated and acted on, and all of our parks are managed with a central philosophy of awareness, sensitivity and commitment to upholding the rights of local people.

We are aware of the serious allegations regarding human rights abuses by eco-guards against local people living adjacent to Odzala-Kokoua National Park in the Republic of Congo, which have recently received media attention. We became aware of these allegations last year via a Board Member who received a letter from Survival International.’

The Mail itself reported that the organisation Survival International had written to Harry last May.

‘Survival International wrote a letter to Prince Harry last May about 'violent intimidation and torture' that had taken place, including the rape of a young mother by a guard.

The man was dismissed, jailed and ordered to pay his victim about £1,300 in compensation. She claims she has only received about £500. Yesterday, African Parks said it has a 'zero-tolerance' policy for any form of abuse and is 'committed to upholding the rights of local and indigenous people'.’


Responding to the allegations, a spokesman for Archewell, Prince Harry’s charitable foundation, told the newspaper: “When the Duke became aware of these serious allegations, he immediately escalated them to the CEO and chairman of the board of African Parks, the appropriate people to handle next steps.”

The African Parks statement also added ‘We immediately launched an investigation through an external law firm based on the information we had available, while also urging Survival International to provide any and all facts they had. It’s unfortunate that they have chosen not to cooperate, despite repeated requests, and we continue to ask for their assistance.’

A while ago, Save the Children had some similar issues, but it got taken care of and HRH Princess Anne hung in there, looking at the bigger picture and giving her support.

 

[shady lady]

I have read the original article and others similar to it. What concerns me the most is that Africa Parks was made aware of the claims a decade ago.

That's heartbreaking

From the Guardian article linked above:

"Longo said Survival International had been raising such issues since 2013 and that the abuse allegedly suffered by local people was “not a secret”."

In these types of cases, if victims (with Survival International as their representative) are not willing to participate that is normally because they do not trust the organization to conduct the investigation in a fair way. Unfortunately, in many cases the main objective for an organization is to limit the reputational damage if accusations like these occur and not to fully understand what happened to do justice to the victims - which is why a third party investigation is necessary. I am sure Survival International (and the victims whom the information/evidence will be coming from) is more than willing to share any information needed with a trusted third party.

Agree with all of this. Trust is so important, especially given the nature of the offences