Prince Harry - AIBU?

[barniee]

Prince Harry saying "we can all do better" has really irked me- aibu?! He has every want and need satisfied while the majority of us and trying to do right by the environment whilst making ends meet. He is becoming very sanctimonious!

"Trashy celebrities"? Goodness, they're friends with the Clooneys, not the cast of TOWIE!

taste for trashy celebs

I don’t understand this. The royals have always hung with celebs.

What makes Amal, George, Serena more trashy than the Beckhams, Elton John, Elizabeth Taylor and others that other royals have hung out with?

I’m sure she had a great life in Toronto. Certainly better than Kate who seemed to have literally nothing better to do with herself than wait for a ring

This is not in dispute.

I think there are so many discrepancies between what they say and what they do. Meghan is apparently saying she wants to break the internet in private, yet she’s posting on Instagram and set up Tig before she married.
They care about the environment yet she flies all the time to NY and LA . This weekend being a case in point. Why does she need to fly to NY to watch serena play for. a weekend? What sacrifices are they actually making?
I have always had a lot of time for Harry but he’s become self important and tone deaf in the past few years. He seems to want it all his own way, as does his wife.
Unless things change they are really going to alienate the public.
I think they both mean well, but they aren’t thinking things through properly and making a lot of mistakes.

Be fair, Bertrand; it's all been laid out endless times by countless PPs including myself. Come to that it's all still there if you want to look back, without the need to rehash every last example every time

To bring it up to date, though, while I stand by my remark about trashy celebs I do admire some of the charities H&M support (with the caveat that time will tell what difference they're really making). Admittedly I question the transparency of their Foundation, but that's certainly no different to the way I feel about similar initiatives from other royals

IcedPurple

Those five words were “none of them deserve any adoration”.

Now, I've never been a Maths whizz, but pretty sure that's not 5 words.

When some posters are in a tizzy trying to defend the defensible, it makes them
innumerate. Lol

“Be fair, Bertrand; it's all been laid out endless times by countless PPs including myself“
But it’s always stuff that turns out not to be true. Baby shower, Wimbeldon, that list of demands to the neighbours-or things which are exactly the same as all the others- house renovations, expensive frocks - or things of spectacular triviality- nail polish, bare legs. There’s no substance to any of it!

@LaurieMarlow

Certainly better than Kate who seemed to have literally nothing better to do with herself than wait for a ring.

Really? Literally? And you know this how, exactly?

Perhaps you should check the meaning of “literally”. Lol

... when M&H were engaged and then married, everyone was all over them

Not quite everyone, Rachel. Just as some of us wondered about the wisdom of a person like Charles marrying Diana, so we also wondered about Harry and Meghan - two people from utterly dysfunctional families and very different backgrounds - marrying quite so fast

That didn't stop us wishing them the very best and hoping it would all work out though, and with this particular couple only time will tell if that's what happens

@joyfullittlehippo

First we’ve seen more of Archie than of the Cambridge kids at the same age. Fact.

Are you including the itty bitty pics? 😂

No one wants the itty bitty pics. Pfft

Are you their nanny or some other servant Bertrand?
You do seem to be over invested.

God yes, “over invested” is her middle name!

I imagine that one of the reasons for breaking up the "Fab Four" hmm is that the Foundation is actually too limited in scope and appeal for a global audience and Meghan understands that. She's far cleverer and more commercially savvy than Harry. I don't know what she sees in him tbh.

Yes absolutely. Their foundation is not wholly transparent. Which is concerning.
The whole Travalyst thing is eye brow raising. It's objectives (and partners which include private firms that make money off the travel industry) are cloudy: exploring and promoting initiatives worldwide that have the ability to preserve destinations (does this include giving money to these "initiatives?" how are these initiatives chosen?) but appear to be set with a view to changing how people travel the world over

I did read a quote that Harry said that he and M have an objective to 'change the world' and this is could be the direction of travel and, perhaps, their overall manifesto, this would explain why the remit of the original Royal foundation was possibly too narrow and confining for them. Note the Vogue was about people changing the world 'changemakers' and also featured few if any British achievers and literally none in research or the sciences (not that they'd be happy to be floated in Vogue) which you would if it had been a sincere effort to note people making change in less media aggrandising ways.

No it was all about 'high media profile' trending liberal women. Is it a coincidence that the monologue of Travalyst is to 'spark a movement of.......changemakers to transform the nature of travel? That's quite a lofty aim to get people the world over to change how they go about their activities (one notes they intend to make no such changes themselves save to spend tge problem away) And which part of society will these 'changes' most affect? Is it the poor possibly (who can not spend it away)? Who else apart from the private partners gets to consult on these 'world reaching' changes that could possibly affect everyday people?

In order to have such an international impact it is necessary to get into bed with lots of people that one may previously be advised against getting into bed with (A PR firm that represented Weinstein and is notorious for editing Wiki in their clients favour against their rules being one). But if it's true that BP has no influence then, as has been said it will be interesting to watch how things pan out, particularly if they end up stateside.

“God yes, “over invested” is her middle name!“
Pot- have you met Ms Kettle?

separatelives

The pair of them disgust me. All the hypocrisy, arrogance and entitlement. The pathetic secrecy with their baby, a glimpse of a foot, half a face etc. Like a pair of cheap Instagram bloggers. But if we criticise her we're racist FFS. Oh how convenient for Harry to then come out with you're all racist BS. The pair of them are as despicable as each other.

Good post. It Is helpful when people are able to summarise instead of laboriously covering the same old material ad nauseam.

Whatever Travalyst is, it isn't (currently) a registered charity. If its purposes are exclusively charitable, it's required by law to be registered. If they aren't, well then there are some questions to be asked about who is going to benefit.

Ah, interesting. Some potential financial shenanigans. Now there’s something with a bit of substance. Problem is that if you can pay the best lawyers and accountants you can get away with a lot....

Really? Literally? And you know this how, exactly?

Well her commitment to establishing a career is very well documented

Ah, interesting. Some potential financial shenanigans. Now there’s something with a bit of substance. Problem is that if you can pay the best lawyers and accountants you can get away with a lot....

And if you can persuade a well meaning and idealistic royal to append their name, do much the better!

So much the better, not do!

@CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook
That was an interesting and thought provoking post.
If they are over stepping the bounds of what the RF are supposed to do and entering murky waters, who will reign them in?
Not the Queen I suspect. She’s getting too old and I suspect doesn’t want to rain on Harry’s parade. Not Charles who wants his son to be happy and is old too.
Not William in case there are more ‘feuds’. So who exactly is making sure public money isn’t misspent and the Sussexes don’t try to ‘change the world’’ In ways that are unethical or unwise? It’s worrying. When Charles dies William will be in the unenviable position of having to police his own brother. Much like the Queen and Margaret. We know how that ended.

I can’t think why you would have to use such derogatory language and paint her success in the most negative of possible lights to make that point.

Saying she was a D list cable TV actress isn't 'derogatory' if it's true, which it is. But I get that that some people are awfully senstive about language used to describe a person few of them knew or cared about until she married an intellectually challenged prince.

Whatever Travalyst is, it isn't (currently) a registered charity. If its purposes are exclusively charitable, it's required by law to be registered. If they aren't, well then there are some questions to be asked about who is going to benefit.

It's pretty obvious that Travelyst (what a stupid name!) is good old fashioned corporate greenwashing, aimed at providing good press for hard-nosed corporations which profit from people travelling as much and as often as possible.

And I believe it's equally obvious that Harry is getting financial kickbacks from his involvement with them. There's a reason royals are not supposed to form partnerships with commercial entities, certainly not non British ones.

Goodness, they're friends with the Clooneys, not the cast of TOWIE

I doubt they're 'friends' so much as mutual back-scratchers. Certainly George wasn't helping his great friend Meghan when they were both involved in the same industry and his 'friendship' would have been of great benefit to her.

Plus, I notice the Clooneys have gone rather quiet on the Harkle front in the past several months. Maybe the great 'friendship' has cooled?