The Guardian: Prince Harry at 40

[TallerSally]

Somewhat more even-keeled coverage of Prince Harry at 40 from Caroline Davies at The Guardian.

Arguably understated quite a few of Harry's recent achievements, eg Spare being the 2023 Nr 1 UK bestseller, or the phenomenal growth of Harry's Invictus Games which will now have 25 countries participating in Whistler/Vancouver February 2025. Little or no mention of the numerous awards Harry has won, eg most recently his ESPY Pat Tilman Award for Service and being named a Living Legend of Aviation, etc.

Anyway, nice to see an attempt at painting a more balanced, perhaps less hysterically rabidly negative picture...

Enjoy!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/sep/14/prince-harry-at-40-the-difference-a-decade-has-made-to-the-dukes-life

I don't think Jack Royston has much credibility left, let alone Newsweek (that once great publication). All he's doing is rehashing news from other publications, it's nothing new. Note that Hollywood Reporter is standing by its story, and as the more serious trade publication with reach and influence in Hollywood/WME (versus supermarket checkout tabloid, US Weekly), then that's the one to watch.

I realise many regard Newsweek as utter trash, but honestly can't believe they're dragging out footage from 2018 and presenting it as a sign of current success

Most of us realise things have changed a bit since then, but maybe they either can't find anything significant that's more recent, or perhaps they hope their target audience are just too ignorant to notice?

Here is NYC, our focus is on our mayor being indicted and much of the city government either resigning or facing investigation. I haven't seen any mention of Harry in local news.

Blimey, OP - you really do swallow stuff whole!

Do you really think people on here are going to read this stuff? I don't know about other people, but who has the time, even if they had the interest? It would be much more interesting if you gave a reasoned, argued explanation of your views, rather than the fan-girl stuff.

I'm not sure if you're even picking up on all the negative stuff coming out of the US about H and M at the moment - sounds as though you operate in an echo-chamber. (You're certainly not acknowledging, or engaging with, any of what's actually in the news about them at the moment.

Why was my comment deleted? I was referring to the gifts that the Sussexes have given to their staff. Someone was over thinking there 🙄

The US Weekly article has a quote from the Sussex staff along the lines of, come from out bosses and we will come for you. How very Sussex Squad of them. Not really in line with the anti bullying messaging for Archewell. You can go for a narrative with a counter narrative, but going after the person is plain sinister. A little give away as to the true nature of the H&M PR machine, I think.

H&M haven't been in England since QE2's death, and only a few occasions between the OW interview and her death.

So I am.not sure what footage you are referring to? Unless it is several years old, in which case not very relevant to their popularity levels now.

It's pathetic @Baital . The H&M footage is from when they were working royals and newlyweds. All new and shiny before they showed their true colours and decided that the UK was full of racist scum (although surely not those crowds and all the other crowds who turned out for them). William wasn't in Aberdeen to meet crowds, he was there "to meet with essential workers from across the homelessness sector in the local area and representatives from the Homewards Aberdeen Coalition".

@Baital 2018 !

2018 😂😂😂

The gift that goes on giving!

These prolific, fangirling posts sound like Emma of Meghan.Markle.official on Instagram.

It is a bit odd, I mean, surely anyone not living under a rock would immediately think 'but they haven't been in the UK for ages' and ask the date of the footage?

Rather than uncritically use it as evidence to make their point?

CoffeeCantata

Do you really think people on here are going to read this stuff? I don't know about other people, but who has the time, even if they had the interest? It would be much more interesting if you gave a reasoned, argued explanation of your views, rather than the fan-girl stuff.

Completely agree with this.
I just scroll past the rows and rows of green (on my screen, anyway) posts containing a ridiculous amount of links.
Only to find out that some of the stuff is out of date or sources are mixed up or whatever and a load of it sounds totally sycophantic and arse-licky.
If there are any good points to make about the work H&M are doing, surely they would be better not buried in a mountain of sugar.

I also find an excess of ! at the end of multiple sentences plus an over reliance on the 😍emoji (i've used the MN one rather than the gold eyes one) an interesting element !😍!

TBF it must be exhausting defending the fort single handedly as all the others have since deserted and seen the light.

They are in a place of diminishing returns and seem to feel that they have to keep relentlessly throwing more stuff at it - but its futile - the !!! and 😍are not generating any support.

Its quite pitiful to watch really,

TallerSally · Today 12:56
This one, again by Jack Royston, is good for more than a few laughs:
"Footage of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry being cheered by crowds in England has gone viral after Prince William's trip to Scotland caught the attention of anti-monarchy campaigners."
I watched the footage, no idea if it was an accurate representation as is always the issue with footage online, but if accurate it certainly was embarrassing (for Prince William)...
"William was mocked in a series of posts on X by anti-monarchy campaigners, one of whom wrote: "William weaves his way through the crowds of well wishers in Aberdeen."
And a Harry and Meghan fan wrote: "Prince William is met by a huge crowd of 5 people in Aberdeen today. His security team fought hard to keep all 5 people away, somehow they managed to do so."

Don't you understand that you're comparing apples and oranges here? It's a hopeless misunderstanding of William's visit and an irrelevant archive photo of M & H.

So, here’s a fascinating sortie from Erin Vanderhoof at Vanity Fair. It’s quite complimenting of Harry, for those of you who can handle it… (hee-hee)

The central premise is “Prince Harry’s Transition From Working Royal to Global Advocate Is Now Complete” and I’d be inclined to agree. Whether ‘complete’ is the right term is of course subjective, but it’s clear Harry has come a loooooooooong way… evidenced by the platforms he’s speaking at, who he’s sharing these platforms with, as well as what he’s actually saying.

Some extracts:

”When Harry took the stage at the Clinton Global Initiative on Tuesday morning, it was clear just how far he had come as a speaker and a public figure. He paced the stage, TED Talk–style, and used his personal cell phone as a visual aid. He began by discussing the Space Race, using it as an extended metaphor for the unforeseen effects that technology can have on our politics. Compared to the uplifting yet somewhat hesitant speeches he used to give five years ago, the prince was brimming with purpose when talking about Big Tech.

“Unlike the trip to Nigeria or their August trip to Colombia—where Harry and Meghan spent a few days with the country’s vice president and got in a few cultural experiences—the duke’s multiday trip to Manhattan was all business. In under 72 hours, he packed in at least seven events with a handful of his charities, some of which have counted him as a patron for more than a decade. He gave prepared remarks at most of the events, which meant he was switching gears from subjects ranging from youth empowerment to minefields and conflict to the climate impacts of travel to the ongoing HIV/AIDS crisis in Southern Africa at the drop of the hat.”

“Where William and Charles have walked the line of representing British government interests while establishing themselves as global leaders in fighting climate change, Harry’s role outside of the palace means he’s coming as a representative of himself—and his ideas. His comments this week reveal a direct point of view now, formed both by his years in the royal family, the research he’s done, and the experiences he’s had outside of it.”

Great stuff!

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/story/prince-harry-transition-from-working-royal-to-global-advocate-climate-week-nyc

Weird. Just weird.

I thought it was well trailed that he had employed a top notch 🤩 speechwriter for these sessions. So the difference between previous speeches was down to the fact that top notch speechwriter 🤩 was doing the work to make Harry appear authentic 🥰

This article is not in Newsweek.

I just read it in Newsweek. Only because I read the post saying it wasn’t. It was there.

And whether he is or isn't, that's not an answer to the 12 accounts from those who say they were bullied.

The 12 accounts of bullying may be true but none of those sources have a name.

When did it become okay to be accused of something but not know who is accusing you and how you are supposed to have bullied someone(s)?

If there is no truth to it then you sue the publication for defamation. She has the financial means to do it so let’s see if she does.

The 12 accounts of bullying may be true but none of those sources have a name.

But you do have names for some of the bullying reports about Meghan - Jason Knauff, Sam Cohen, Rebecca English and even Harry himself. Why do you discount them and all the whistleblowers?

'When did it become okay to be accused of something but not know who is accusing you and how you are supposed to have bullied someone(s)?'

What, a bit like Meghan accusing someone in the rf of racism but not saying who? That sort of thing you mean?