More News on Harry and Meghan

[Viviennemary]

Two little bits of news I read today. First the bells won't ring out at Westminster Abbey for Meghans birthday next month and she'll be devastated. No I don't think she'll even expect them to ring. And I had to smile at Bogart the dog was left behind in Canada because it didn't take to Harry. What else could she do. Hardly leave Harry behind. And it would have been a worry with a baby in the house too. She did the right thing here.

[Viviennemary]

It's early days yet for a response from William. In any case I think William has too much common sense to get personally involved in this latest spat.

[Oldbutstillgotit]

@Viviennemary I agree and it shows the very different attitude of the 2 brothers I think.

[Myimaginarycathadfleas]

As ever it will come down to good intentions but ill conceived execution.

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Omg that response from their lawyer is all wrong! All huffy puffy, I take offence, blah blah ... and then threatening with legal action!!

What, another lawsuit??

[TofinoSurf]

🙈🙈🙈

[TofinoSurf]

Republic is the (anti royal) organisation that wrote to the charity commission.

[Viviennemary]

If Harry and Meghan are as determined to fight for equality as they say they are then maybe becoming spokespersons for this organisation is the way forward.

[bluebell34567]

it looks like its H's writing, not a lawyer's.

[TofinoSurf]

It's certainly as lengthy as their Instagram posts and other various statements. They are never very concise or to the point.

[TofinoSurf]

@Viviennemary

If Harry and Meghan are as determined to fight for equality as they say they are then maybe becoming spokespersons for this organisation is the way forward.

Can you imagine?!

[CrystalPuff]

DM are dropping bombshell after bombshell in the lead-up to the book release. This one is interestingly factual, lots of paper trail and numbers. I think William gets off the hook more easily since he's still royal and the future king. Much bigger problem is whether funds amassed for charity have been transferred to a non-profit company, which is covertly being turned into a for-profit since Harry needs to fund their billion dollar lifestyle and lawsuits. I vaguely recall reading somewhere that Travalyst is intended to be for profit and Archewell is the charity (??)

[OVienna]

Dreadful response from the lawyer. I mean seriously: threatening to sue over a referral to the Charities Commission? Seriously? It is a legitimate question to ask considering how and where the funds were transferred. Is there a reason they couldn't have explained things calmly and non defensively? "Salacious". Jesus.

I think the goal is to make it impossible to publicly criticise them without having to spend money on a lawyer defending yourself. I'm embarrassed for them.

[KatherineParr4]

Harry has a seriously large chip on his shoulder. He really needs to grow up. I think he assumes we should all know he’s a saint and treat him accordingly. He thinks he’s above the law. Perhaps he and Andrew aren’t so different..

[Wauden]

@Oldbutstillgotit. MeAgain and Harry do not take advice, much. That's one of the reasons why they often get into such a muddle.

[Wauden]

I have often thought that MeAgain and Harry do great work furthering the cause of UK Republicanism.

[Myimaginarycathadfleas]

If Travalyst is a company limited by guarantee that's encouraging. It seems like they've jumped the gun, expecting that registration as a charity will be a formality. That can't be assumed. They'll need to jump through the same hoops as everyone else, although they probably won't have to wait as long.

[CrystalPuff]

To this point, it is deeply offensive to today see false claims made about the Duke of Sussex and his charitable work. It is both defamatory and insulting to all the outstanding organisations and people he has partnered with.

Interesting choice of words as defamatory has legal implications whereas insulting is entirely subjective. And seriously, major drama llama suggesting it's defamatory to all organisations involved, implying that every single company that ever associated with DOS should sue Republic for referring them to Charity Commission?

The strange thing is nobody is actually questioning Harry's passion and character, which the statement vehemently defends. Everyone knows that he's dedicated to his chosen charitable causes. The referral is about technicalities, money trails and legal registrations for a company. I feel H&M were poorly advised or had no understanding of the bigger picture. Maybe they were told that transferring the funds after their departure won't be a problem to kick start their activities in the USA.

People often say here not to call H&M a "young couple" but mid-late 30s is not old enough to have gathered life experience about everything. And also often mentioned is that Harry's not super smart, so it's even more unlikely that he can make company filing and legal decisions entirely by himself. I'm in the same age range, so are many of our friends who are all reasonably successful by society's standards. However all of us would be completely in over our heads (including those working in law) attempting to do a fraction of what H&M are doing, especially on top of a new baby and multiple house moves.

[OverUnderSidewaysDown]

Very strangely worded response from the lawyers. Any legal Mumsnetters around to give their opinion on the tone of the response? It really doesn’t even sound as if it was actually written by a lawyer!

[SunbathingDragon]

I wonder how much H&M spend on legal fees. What they don’t seem to realise is that much of the media will feel they are in a battle with them and just getting a reaction is probably a large part of their aim.

[StartupRepair]

Rich, angry, litigious clients must be a lawyer's dream.

[iVampire]

?? at posts saying the Cambridge’s have not responded.

Their response is in the same DM article

‘ A Royal Foundation spokesperson said: 'The grants made to Sussex Royal were to support the charitable work of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They were fully in line with governance requirements and were reported transparently.'

[Roussette]

Personally I think this is a storm in a teacup, and although H's rebuttal statement is strongly worded, maybe too strongly, I imagine that if you are receiving endless criticism, you want to put your side across in no uncertain terms.

I've said it before on these threads, I think 'Travalyst' is a brilliant concept, I know people (some in my family) who would jump at the chance to be able to travel but in the most sustainable waypossible, and to have all the big names on board is encouraging ( skyscanner, booking.com, Trip advisor and more). I really hope this works for him.

[WinnieTheW0rm]

I hope Travalyst works, and that the idea that Sussex Royal is seeking to transfer charitable assets to them is somehow misreported.

Because you cannot just bung it all over - specific grant for specific project that furthers you charitable aims is one thing. Transferring all money, unrestricted, to a private company is a breach.

Interesting to see the completely different styles of response from the households

[Pancakeorcrepe]

Roussette your family members can already travel in the most sustainable way possible, they don’t need Travalyst to show them how to do that. A company setup by someone who private jets all over the place and takes hunting holidays in Africa?! I’m sorry but I will never get over how wrong Harry is to be the head of such an initiative. Do as I say, but don’t do as I do. Skyscanner, Booking etc are massive companies and bearing in mind their business practices, I’m not sure exactly how they will contribute. They will probably add some sustainability criteria and mark up or down the vendors they use. Apart from that it’s a big marketing exercise for these companies.

[DomDoesWotHeWants]

From someone who thought she was lovely and was happy for Harry I've turned into someone who thinks they have become childish and brattish.

Bored with them now.