Double amputee war hero who inspired Prince Harry to start Invictus 'disagrees' with Duke's claim British press did not cover stories of wounded in Afghanistan as Colonel says his popularity is dwindling with veterans

[MamoruHisaishi]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12466191/Afghanistan-war-hero-prince-harry-british-soldiers.html

If Harry is to be believed, William threw a hissy fit over the founding of Invictus, so it's a bit much to expect the family to be supportive under the circumstances of their continuing estrangement.

Also, the military patronages of the RF are largely performative, and Charles's role as Head of the Armed Forces role is purely ceremonial. They are all colonels of one regiment or another, but no one believes that Colonel Kate, Colonel Camilla, Colonel Edward etc would ever make decisions about troop deployments, let alone go to war.

As far as I know, Charles can't even declare war without government advice based on parliamentary approval.

There was a photo that delighted Twitter at the Queen's funeral when Harry wore his morning suit, while the others were weighed down by their different uniforms and medals, effectively looking like a guard of honour around Harry. It was delicious irony to see the family member who served most recently surrounded by his family cosplaying soldiers. Still gives me a chuckle.

The only veterans are Harry and Andrew, and as Invictus is for actual veterans, and not those playing dress up, I think it is a very good thing indeed that the rest of the family stay out of it.

They should leave any delegations or good wishes to those who make active decisions to send men and women to the front lines, and those who have actually served.

Both William and Charles served in the forces. Those taking part in Invictus have not all served in war zones, or received their injuries whilst taking part in military exercises etc. There are some who are cancer survivors and some injured in civilian activities. So your definition of a “veteran” as those only involved in a theatre of war is incorrect.

@MrsMaxDeWinter regarding your last sentence above. While I may not always agree with what you say, your posts are normally well written. The one above smacks more of the gutter press that you so often decry. If I remember correctly you are not British and I would say that is possibly a reason why you don't "get it". If we are to talk about military action and war then the Queen's family were held dear to the hearts of the British during WW2 and since. Whilst these things may be ceremonial there is much more to it than that. It isn't something that bears cold critical analysis but more of literally "being British" and having a heritage.

The British military does more than just go to war!

Most of them have seen active service. Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence (right) served in the navy for almost 40 years, he held command of 4 vessels, and he served in the NATO task force in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Princess Anne has never seen active service (and would never have been allowed) but she has held her honorary roles for 30 years, has been very active in engagements and ceremonial roles, and is of course a military spouse twice-over. King Charles undertook active service in both the Navy and the RAF during the Cold War. Prince William has performed active service in all 3, the army, the navy and the RAF; he was an RAF search and rescue pilot for many years before becoming a full-time working royal (where he was criticised for lazily saving lives instead of doing engagements).

The only one who really had no involvement in the military from early in his life is the Duke of Gloucester - and that’s only because he was a working architect until the death of his older brother when he had to assume more royal responsibilities.

Even if fighting in wars is the only thing you think the military do, only one of Harry’s medals are for fighting in Afghanistan. The rest are for honours he’s received from the Queen (like KCVO) or participating in her Jubilees.

It’s becoming increasingly noticeable that the tabloids are doing their best to avoid reporting on the Invictus Games. When I compare with global news coverage and other competing nations, it’s next to nothing.
Where are the front pages and double page spreads devoted to our injured veterans, now?
Why the silence?

For those that were defending The Daily Heil and The Scum, as a convenient tool to bash Harry further, where’s your outrage now? You and the tabloids supposedly care about injured veterans, right?

I know some of you love starting threads with an article taken from the tabloids, so where’s the thread discussing the tabloids’ shameful lack of support and showcasing of our veterans at the games? You all had so much to say when Heart of Invictus was released. Why so quiet now?

Last year, they devoted pages to Meghan and ignored the veterans and then said Meghan made the games all about herself. So many of you said the same.
This year, Meghan isn’t there (yet) and it’s still not about the veterans! I guess that means the tabloids never really cared about injured veterans after all.

Not to worry, as soon as Meghan appears, the tabloids and broadcasters will suddenly remember the Invictus Games exists, but they will make it all about her. New threads will appear on Mumsnet quoting these articles and the posters will rage. How dare Meghan make it all about herself? Did you see what she was wearing? And on and on it goes.

Propaganda 101

Supporting veterans is not just tied up in the Games. It hasn’t got much media traction this time but it’s come at a bad time, for it. Heat wave, rugby World Cup, rowing World Cup, Queens death, the escaped terrorist. It won’t get much coverage. Maybe when Meghan actually does show up…or maybe not. Probably way down on news at the moment.

The tabloids generally don’t cover it apart from in the context of Harry (which is why it’s useful to have him as a patron). It’s not like the Olympics where you have a running commentary on the medal tables or something.

Thousands of events for veterans happen up and down the country every single year, very few of them make national news never mind page 1. Often the ones that do are the huge events like Remembrance Sunday.

Harry’s whole job is to bring interest to the games so that people hear stories of the veterans by osmosis, that’s why there is a load of focus on him. It’s a good thing for the games.

'As far as I know, Charles can't even declare war without government advice based on parliamentary approval.'

Noooo you don't say! Of course Kings can't randomly go around declaring war .

'If Harry is to be believed'

Well. 'If' being the million dollar word. He has form for varying his recollections.

At this moment, supporting veterans it is tied up to the games.

I’ve seen some of these front pages and, well, it actually proves my point.

Invictus is an excellent initiative, but as has been said many times, it only supports a small amount of veterans. There are many other veterans charities that offer support to thosewho are in daily need. Would those who are bemoaning the lack of coverage be particularly bothered if it weren’t for the fact that Harry is involved? Harry brings welcome attention through Invictus, but veterans need more than support “at this moment”.

edited for typo

Do you know there's been an earthquake in Morocco, an escaped convict, an alleged Chinese spy, a World Cup?

I believe the games are on iplayer.

It's really not. It's a games. A nice thing for them to do but I would hope that people don't think that that is all you need to do to support veterans? And support doesn't mean media coverage.

It's like those make a wish things. It isn't even like the para olympics because that is continual training. It's an amazing and lovely thing to do but not let's get carried away.

I understand the point you’re making, but as I said, it’s next to no coverage.

I sense a backlash brewing…there’s so much reporting over social media and globally that people are slowly starting to notice. They see the hypocrisy.

The tabloids and broadcasters give OTT coverage of anything remotely negative to Harry and Meghan but are suddenly very, very quiet when it’s something positive.

Come on, regardless of what’s happening in the country they will always have pages available to discuss them. A global pandemic, shrinking economy and national strikes doesn’t stop them reporting on Harry and Meghan. Anything to distract. We all know how it works. The news cycle excuse doesn’t work in this instance.

Anyway, for me personally, I feel sorry for the competitors because I’m comparing how other countries are treating their teams. When I see the difference, I feel disappointed and a little embarrassed. I hope Harry is giving them extra love and attention.

@MissElinorDashwood does that not bring it back then to the point that has been made on numerous occasions? If you think they are not reporting because of Harry then maybe it is time for him to stand aside? Maybe he has to realise the games are bigger than him and his presence if it is creating a negative effect?

"Anyway, for me personally, I feel sorry for the competitors because I’m comparing how other countries are treating their teams. When I see the difference, I feel disappointed and a little embarrassed. I hope Harry is giving them extra love and attention."

How are other countries reporting on it.

And again there is a world cup on. Let's be honest even yearly world athletics championships don't get much coverage. You wouldn't find swimming world championships on the TV even.

A bit of perspective on how people go about having to get things in the paper. It's actually very hard and oh my is it a tough week in the UK.

I think part of it is that it’s just what people are interested in. Negative coverage gets so much more engagement than positive coverage.

I took this screenshot from the Daily Mail yesterday: a negative article about Meghan over something that happened over a year ago 122k views. Positive stories about Kate, William and Beatrice <100k, still plenty but nowhere near as many.

No matter what people say they engage more with negativity. And all online tabloids want is clicks so they give people what they already want.

It’s not just about the royal family or celebrities either, it’s news in general. Yesterday it was about a messy divorce, an escaped convict, a violent dog, all negative. That’s what people consume in much greater quantities than hearing about nice things that happened.

I think actually perhaps the message is that the royal family matter but if he isn't talking about them then Harry alone isn't getting coverage. And a games like this just wouldn't.

@AuroraCake I think Harry will always be Prince Harry and there will always be that association with the RF in the same way as the Duke of Windsor was always associated with the RF but as an outsider.

Absolutely. And psychologically it's a big question. I'm Irish but went to University in the UK. Obviously local BBC news for me was BBC NI. Imagine the culture shock when in end local news was kids Wendy Houses (I'm not kidding). Took me a while to understand it was actually news.

No, not in the slightest. The games are bigger than the UK and he is received well globally. There are 600 accredited journalists from around the world at the games right now. The UK press are a drop in the ocean.

I don’t like to blame the victim. The issue here is the hypocrisy of the tabloids and those who defend them vehemently.

How are other media reporting on their teams then?

Baring in mind not everyone is in rugby world cup and the UK has three home nations to report on, well four since Ireland play as a united team and you need to report on that big style too.

@MissElinorDashwood well the press who dislike Harry or see him as clickbait will never stop doing that - we know that. We have to deal in reality and that may be that Harry detracts from the games. Who knows. Don't they say all publicity is good publicity?

@PrincessOfTigger

Argh thanks for reminding me why I don’t read tabloids! A skewed story from a year ago and still so many more clicks. Some people are weird.

but this is exactly the point - Harry has been on the world stage about himself in such a negative way. If someone else was in place then there might not be the lack of press attention or negative reporting as is claimed.