As we approached the latter part of 2020, a slew of articles began to emerge attacking Harry's commitment to the military. The Daily Mail ran a story alleging he had not been in touch with the Royal Marines since he left the UK in March. Harry swiftly launched libel action and last week he accepted "substantial damages" over the piece which claimed he had "turned his back" on military commitments. Lawyers for the Prince stated he made "repeated and concerted efforts to continue to support the Royal Marines and other members of the Armed Forces despite being forced to step back from his formal military roles". A spokesperson later told Harper's Bazaar, "The Mail again misled their readers in December by claiming to make a charitable donation as part of an initial apology. They did no such thing. The duke is personally donating the significant damages recovered from this legal resolution to the Invictus Games Foundation. The truth is that the duke’s commitment to the military community is unquestionable."
This was an immensely important win for Harry. As his team said, "baseless, false and defamatory stories" are not only an attack upon Harry's character but could unfairly tarnish the organisation he works with. The choice to use the military against him was very much a case of hitting him where it hurts. We all know Harry's commitment to veterans is unwavering - his work in the field has been his greatest passion. As we approach March, there have been feverish reports on Harry losing his honorary military titles: Captain-General of the Royal Marines, Honorary Air Commandant of RAF Honington and Commodore in Chief, Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command.
It has become an accepted matter of fact he will lose them for several reasons. If you've been keeping abreast of the breathless media coverage of the topic, you'll know the lines of objection. You'll know one of the primary issues is distance. We've been reading ad nauseam, and I quote, "What is being questioned is Harry's ability to physically commit, in the UK, to the three military organizations he wants to represent." This was followed by the suggestion that maintaining these links would require an enormous deal of travel. There's been a raft of coverage very much in keeping with that sentiment - it simply wouldn't be possible to do the job properly and keep up with the demands of the role without residing in the UK. Hugo Vickers recently said, "I can't see what use Harry would be to the Royal Marines if he's out in LA. If you want your Captain-General, you want him to be doing things and he frankly is not here."
The above rather conjures images of how General Sir Edmund Allenby led the British Empire to victory in the Middle East in 1918, doesn't it? Thankfully, it is not 1918 and no, members of the royal family holding honorary military appointments are not required to rally the troops on a daily basis. I've done a little digging of late and randomly selected several Honorary Military Appointments and specifically looked at the level of involvement and participation required. I've chosen 2019, the most recent normal working year pre-pandemic, and 2020 for reference.
The Earl of Wessex, Royal Colonel of the 2nd Battalion the Rifles
According to the Court Circular on the British Monarchy's website, Prince Edward visited Battalion training in Brecon, Sennybridge, Powys in 2019 in his role as Royal Colonel, 2nd Battalion the Rifles. It is the only entry for Edward in the CC for 2019 relating to the position.
In 2020, the Court Circular notes Edward held three meetings in his role (two in person and one telephone call). In terms of engagements the Earl attended the Army Foundation College Graduation Parade at Uniacke Barracks in February.
The Earl of Wessex, Royal Colonel of 2nd Battalion The Rifles, today attended a Graduation Parade at Uniacke Barracks in Harrogate.
— The Royal Family (@RoyalFamily) February 13, 2020
Around 500 Junior Soldiers were on parade - congratulations on the completion of your training at the Army Foundation College! 👏 pic.twitter.com/KHQkxRwoyo
The Earl also attended the Armistice Day Service of Remembrance at the National Memorial Arboretum in November in his capacity as Royal Colonel, 2nd Battalion the Rifles.
**For 2019 & 2020 that's six entries logged in the CC.**
The Duke of Cambridge, Colonel of the Irish Guards
Prince William became the Irish Guards' first Royal Colonel in 2011. In 2019, William attended the annual St Patrick's Day parade with the Duchess on St Patrick's Day. It's an annual event for the Cambridges.
In June 2019, William attended the Senior Colonels' Conference and Dinner at Clarence House. Also in June 2019, the Prince was on horseback for Trooping the Colour in his capacity as Colonel of the Irish Guards.
In June 2020, Prince William spoke to soldiers from 1st Batallion ranging from Guardsman up to Major.
**For 2019 & 2020 that's four entries logged in the CC.**
The Princess Royal, Colonel of the Blues and Royals
Princess Anne has long held a well-earned reputation as one of the hardest workers in the Firm. In her role as Royal Colonel of the Blues and Royals in 2019, she attended a Dinner at Combermere Barracks, St Leonards Road, Windsor, Berkshire, to mark the 50th Anniversary of the Blues and Royals Amalgamation in March. In May, the Princess Royal took the salute at the Household Cavalry's Freedom of the Royal Borough of New Windsor Parade.
In June 2019, Anne held a meeting with Major General Sir Edward Smyth-Osbourne and Colonel Crispin Lockhart. She also attended the Senior Colonels' Conference and Dinner at Clarence House and participated in Trooping the Colour in her role. In July, Anne attended the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment Summer Camp at Bodney Camp, Thetford, Norfolk. And in July, Anne visited Bulford Camp, Salisbury.
In February 2020, Anne held a meeting in her role as Colonel and in May she virtually participated in the Household Cavalry Council Meeting via video link. Finally, in December the Princess Royal attended the Royal Armoured Corps' Colonels' Annual General Meeting via video conference call.
**For 2019 & 2020 that's eleven entries logged in the CC.**
Whilst the Court Circular is not always complete, it does give us an indication into the roles the royals play in their Honorory Military engagements. If we take Princess Anne with eleven engagements/meetings/calls over the past two years, it's entirely obvious the argument Harry would need to be on the ground in the UK permanently to fulfill his duties is void to say the least. The idea he couldn't offer the same engagement Princess Anne does (I'm citing hardworking Anne because she has the highest engagement numbers) is preposterous. It would seem the barrage of commentators and experts have failed to research what is actually required in these positions.
Let's take a look at Harry's involvement during the same period 2019 & 2020.
The Duke of Sussex, Captain General, Royal Marines
In February 2019, Harry attended the 50th Anniversary of Exercise Clockwork, the Commando Helicopter Force annual deployment to Norway, at Bardufoss Royal Norwegian Air Station.
The Prince visited forty-two Commando Royal Marines at Bickleigh Barracks, Dartmoor and presented Green Berets to Royal Marine recruits.
In March, Harry attended the Mountbatten Festival of Music at the Royal Albert Hall.
In May, Harry held a meeting with representatives of the Royal Marines charity. In September, he held a meeting with General Charles Strickland and Major General Matthew Holmes. Also in September, during the Sussexes' tour of South Africa, Harry received a briefing on anti-poaching operations from the South African Maritime Police Unit and Royal Marines at Kalk Bay Harbour, Cape Town in his capacity as Captain-General, Royal Marines.
The only entry for 2020 I'm including is the Mountbatten Festival of Music. As Harry's meetings, etc. are no longer logged in the CC, it's impossible to know an accurate number.
**For 2019 (6 logged in CC) & 2020 (Mountbatten Festival of Music) 7 engagements logged.**
As we can see, with Harry unable to visit the UK due to the pandemic in 2020, he is only behind Princess Anne in regards to the three royals we looked at.
That takes us to the next argument against Harry retaining his positions - the notion it simply isn't feasible because Harry is earning independently and no longer a full-time working member of the Royal family.
Step forward Prince Michael of Kent...
Per Prince Michael's official website, he holds the following honorary military positions:
He is Honorary Vice Admiral, Royal Naval Reserve; Honorary Commodore Maritime Reserves; Honorary Air Marshal, Royal Air Force Benson; Royal Honorary Colonel, Honourable Artillery Company; Senior Colonel, Kings Royal Hussars and Colonel-in-Chief, Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment, Canada.
Prince Michael of Kent, the Queen's cousin, holds the above honorary military positions, though he is not an official working member of the Royal family and runs his own consultancy company. His personal website reveals, "A qualified Russian interpreter, also fluent in French and with a working knowledge of German and Italian, the Prince runs his own consultancy company, and uses his international experience and expertise to encourage and develop commercial relationships for British companies overseas, particularly in the SME sector. He has led delegations of British businessmen to Russia, China, India, Azerbaijan, Macedonia, Kosovo, Serbia and Mongolia." Prince Michael serves on the boards of a number of companies and international funds.
There have been controversies over the years, too. In 2001 a report by The Guardian revealed, "Foreign Office sources told the Guardian that there was "serious concern" in diplomatic circles over the Kents' extraordinary lifestyle, which has seen them carry out more than 20 trips in the last 15 months, paid for by a bewildering range of organisations." The piece continues, "Although they never travel on official royal business, the Foreign Office arranges for the Kents to get VIP airport privileges on all their trips. That is the only diplomatic facility they are entitled to, but sources claim that approaches have been made to embassies for other support. In 1996, the prince was caught in the centre of a storm after it emerged that he had used the facilities of the British embassy in Beijing while on a private business trip to China."
It was revealed between 2002-2008, Prince Michael reportedly received over £300,000 pounds from exiled Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky through offshore companies. In an interview with The Sunday Times, Berezovsky later said, "There is nothing underhand or improper about the financial assistance I have given Prince Michael. It is a matter between friends."
In 2002, Prince Michael of Kent and his wife became the subject of attention due to their accommodation arrangements at Kensington Palace when the issue was raised by the House of Commons Public Accounts committee. When it was reported the Kents were paying £69 per week, Buckingham Palace confirmed, "The Queen is paying the rent for Prince and Princess Michael of Kent's apartment at a commercial rate of £120,000 annually, from her own private funds. This rent payment by the Queen is in recognition of the Royal engagements and work for various charities which Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have undertaken at their own expense, and without any public funding." The Kents did not begin to pay commercial rent until 2010.
It feels like an important moment to pause and consider the Sussexes repaid the full £2.4 million spent refurbishing Frogmore Cottage and a separate lump-sum covering commercial rent in advance. It is also worth remembering Harry and Meghan had hoped to continue to carry out duties on behalf of the Queen - in the UK and Commonwealth - whilst attaining financial independence. When one considers Prince Michael's situation, stripping Harry's military titles due to earning his own income doesn't quite stack up.
Daily Express royal reporter Richard Palmer notes, "Harry and Meghan’s attitude, and in particular their intervention in the US presidential election, a decision that conflicted with British foreign policy and embarrassed the Queen, has stiffened resolve at the Palace. In theory, there is nothing stopping the Queen allowing Harry to retain his cherished military appointments - Prince Michael of Kent holds seven despite running a business and never being a working royal officially."
Harry's comments on the US election amounted to the following... In September, he said in "this election" he would not be able to vote in the US adding, "Many of you may not know I haven't been able to vote in the UK my entire life. As we approach this November, it's vital that we reject hate speech, misinformation, and online negativity. What we consume, what we are exposed to, and what we engage with online, has a real effect on all of us. Tonight reminds us of how important it is to watch out for each other; to care. We are incredibly proud to join you in this historic moment in time."
If the above paragraph constitutes an "intervention" then surely Her Majesty's 2014 remarks to a member of the public outside Crathie before the Scottish referendum could be interpreted as such. When the well-wisher joked they were not going to mention the referendum, the Queen replied " "Well, I hope you think very carefully about the future."
Of course Her Majesty's words may have meant just that. It was important people were considering all aspects and angles pertaining to the future before deciding. By the same token, Harry hoped the online climate didn't effect people obtaining pertinent information and facts before making an informed decision. In any and all situations we have to collectively reject hate speech and disinformation. As a Sussex spokesperson put it, it wasn't a question of voting for a specific, merely a "call for decency and respect and for people to consider how they access information to keep informed."
The topic of online misinformation has been at the forefront of Harry's mind, and those familiar with his work will know his quotes very much reflected his line of thinking regarding the impact social media has on so many aspects of life.
Looking further back to 2003, in a speech to Assembly members in Wales, the monarch stated: "It is vital to the health both of the United Kingdom and of Wales that our democratic institutions flourish and adapt. Elections are the fundamental means by which everyone can participate in the business of government. I share your concerns that we must encourage all our people to exercise their right to vote. This is a real challenge now before us all." Encouraging people to vote is not political, it's part of a healthy, functioning democracy.
If embarrassing the Royal family and the Queen are grounds to strip Harry of his positions, the startling double standards with Prince Andrew cannot be ignored. Perhaps in telling you the Duke of York retains his military appointments, and at present there's no suggestion that will change in the near future, we will all agree, whatever your view on this, it most certainly removes "embarrassment" as a valid reason for stripping them.
Following his appearance on Newsnight, The Times reported, "The Duke of York has become an embarrassment to the armed forces and should be 'quietly faded out' from his honorary military appointments, sources in the services have said. Senior current and former personnel in the navy and army, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told The Times that Prince Andrew had become a source of derision among the ranks." Indeed, sources told The Belfast Telegraph senior figures representing the Grenadier Guards had asked the Palace if another member of the Royal family could replace him as honorary Colonel.
Harry, who has served his country proudly, wants to keep his three honorary positions. Meanwhile, Andrew continues to hold these:
Why haven't Andrew's roles been passed to other members of the family?
We've established, in comparative terms to senior royals, how Harry more than meets his obligations. It's reasonable to say living in the US and embarrassing the Queen hardly warrant removing his positions. Especially as it hasn't been deemed necessary to do so in the case of Prince Andrew, who disgraced the institution, and Prince Michael of Kent whose business dealings and finances raised more than a few eyebrows and headlines, too.
So, it begs the question. What exactly has Harry done? What is considered so unforgivable and nefarious? At the very least, I hope the question is privately answered for him.
Often times, when writing opinion pieces on the Sussexes, there's a certain perception that it's stemming from strong anti-monarchist sentiment. I should note, I come from generations of monarchists and have been an avid royalist all my life. I've been a royal blogger for almost a decade. I believe in the role the institution has to play. The power to support the charitable sector, to proudly represent the UK at home and abroad. It's my fervent view they have got this one wrong. It feels petty, unnecessary, and, as the BBC's veteran royal correspondent Peter Hunt said when Harry was refused permission to have a wreath laid for him on Remembrance Sunday, it's the result of "an institution failing to make peace with the son of a future king".
As Prince Harry says, "Once served, always serving". The Invictus Games and his efforts supporting veterans will always be a part of his life. More than anything, those he would have supported in his roles lose out. And that is a shame indeed.
"The simple fact is that if Prince Harry had not created the Invictus Games, I would not have had that catalyst moment that changed my life forever. I wouldn't be here without him." - JJ Chalmers, Royal Marine and Invictus medallist.
Bravo!!! Excellent article
ReplyDeleteIt's wonderful to see a royalist discussing Harry in a fair take. None of this make any sense. He also has a connection with US military's veterans so he will continue to be involved with veterans in general. This situation is unforgivable.
ReplyDeleteBeautifully written, thank you.
ReplyDeleteYES, Charlotte! SO WELL SAID! I would call that a mic drop. Thank you for doing such thorough research to show that the facts also support decent people's basic intuition that this is wrong, petty, inexplicable and unnecessary harm.
ReplyDeleteExcellent article! We share a similar point of view on this topic, those in charge are wrong about this. I think it’s boorish & disrespectful that so many think it’s just to punish Harry & strip him of his honourary titles. It should never have been part of any discussion. Harry has served & continues to do so much for veterans.
ReplyDeleteIt’s people like Hugo Vickers who are given platforms to spew nonsense that also aid in tarnishing the monarchy; utter rubbish to say that Prince Harry can’t still be Captain General. Members of BRF are colonel in chiefs of military in other countries, Princess Anne is in Canada, among others. With Vicker’s logic, what’s the point?
I used to be an avid royalist, but I’ve now stripped myself of that title. The double standards that continue to be displayed with how Harry & Meghan are treated vs other members of BRF is shameful! Many rules against H&M & us, but none for the other royals. I will use my influence to ensure generations of support for the monarchy, in my family, ends with me.
Thank you for your informative post.
Dena
Bravo Dena
DeleteI agree with your comment. It's
very clear
Thank you
Thank you for this!
ReplyDeleteWish we could ALL get this beautiful piece of work to trend! You did a stellar job, Charlotte!
ReplyDeleteFantastic Article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that Prince Andrew should have his public royal privileges removed including the military roles. That can't happen quick enough. That said, I feel uncomfortable with Harry retaining his military titles and I think it's the money that makes the difference for me. He has reportedly made (or is making) millions of dollars and the reality is that his financial worth is a result of his royal status. The time may come when he gets multi million dollar contracts because of his expertise but that time has not yet come. In the meantime, his brand as an royal is hugely important and appearing in a royal military role increases the value of his brand. I'm not so keen on that. I suspect the reason I don't mind so much about Prince Michael is simply because he doesn't have the profile or the riches that Harry does. But if being fair to Harry means taking those roles off of Prince Michael then that would be fine by me. I think Harry has an enormous amount to offer the military community and he can do that without the official roles.
ReplyDeleteThis is disingenuous, considering Andrew lined his pockets with millions via Pitch@Palace, all the while he was literally using his status and a palace to do it.
DeleteYou can't conditionally decide where is area of expertise lies, and you don't need a degree to be a producer.
He EARNED his military brand through this actual service. You can't credit the palace with that.
It is not Harry's fault he's managed lucrative deals that the others haven't. Prince Michael isn't a pauper, and his wife is a fairly success author (that she slaps her HRH on all of her covers).
Also, IF a connection to royals equals lucrative deal, why exactly has that never seemingly benefit literally anyone else???
Right on, RaRupe74 -op
DeleteI don't have a definite opinion on this. But I don't think the argument of comparing with Prince Andrew is helpful. Everyone agrees Prince Andrew should be stripped of his honorary titles.
DeleteAlso about the political comments. That "think carefully" comment was the Queen's most political one in 70 years reign and it has been met with a lot of criticism, even more after Cameron's book came out. Many think she should never have done it. In both instances there is no double standard from the public.
Third argument, prince Michael, is more to the point. But Prince Michael is a relict of other times when the Queen employed and gave a roof to her extended family. This is not popular anymore. We see scaled back monarchies everywhere. Less working members, a reduced RF.
The fact is there was a role for Prince Harry in the RF, and in the UK. A very important one and one that was growing. He made the choice to leave ( I won't discuss the reasons he did). Does that mean that he should forego everything that went with his role, military appointments included? I don't know. It would be consistent with his choice IMO. But I won't be shocked if he keeps them.
100% Agree RaRupe
DeleteWell said RaRupe74!
DeleteI completely agree with Kate Fan and H. No one is disputing that Andrew needs to go and preferably with a big dressing down and smack.
DeleteHarry is completely different topic. It is getting boring to compare the both of them. You certainly can always find someone worse- even for Andrew. That doesn't make a good argument. There are very good but different reasons in both cases to let them go.
Thank you for this awesome lay out it doesen't make sense with those people the so called journalists who are so against Harry when in the actual sense he's one of the two or three Royals for so many years before & after he married doing substancial work, thus it bothers me to witness the hash treatment now!!
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree with your comments but I don't think that you can "serve" a country's military in any role, honorary or not, if you don't live in that country. Period. All the other people you have cited - they all like in the UK. This is a fundamentally necessary condition, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteMillions of people in militaries throughout the world do not live in their country of origin. That's called deployment and it's kind of the whole point of a military. In your view, are all the people abroad on deployment not serving their country? What if Harry served by living elsewhere and uplifting the common, universal military experience and needs of ALL veterans, regardless of which country's military they served in? The reason Invictus is so successful is because it speaks to UNIVERSAL veterans' experiences. Can Harry not add value universally? Why does it just have to be to Britain? Britain isn't footing the bill anymore, so they really don't need to be so possessive. And if your argument is that Prince Andrew adds value to military service simply because he lives in the U.K, well they can keep him. No one else wants him.
DeleteExcept it's not a fundamentally necessary condition, as "must reside in the UK" is not written into any honorary role's guidelines.
DeleteIt's a opinion rooted in punishing Harry, and it's sad.
Great post Charlotte. I agree it is disgusting Prince Andrew holds any military titles he should also be fully striped of his HRH. Prince Harry's military titles should be restored because he truly served his country
DeleteLol except it’s NOT a fundamentally necessary condition.
DeleteExactly, re: they military is all over the world.
DeleteAnd I too don't understand why Andrew isn't shoved into a corner more; ugh. -op
Anon 22:44, Edward, Anne and Andrew all hold honorary military titles in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Correct me if I’m wrong but none of them live in those countries.
DeleteLauri, you're right, Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward hold honorary military titles in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and they do not live there.
DeleteAlso, the Queen is Head of State in Fourteen other countries where she doesn't live, and probably that makes her Commander of the Armed Forces of those countries.
Well written, thank you for writing this. Arbitrary rules applicable only to the Sussexes has been the name of the game. It’s really disgraceful.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for this well-researched and rational analysis of this issue, Charlotte. The only argument that would hold water for me is the notion that the holder of the honorary positions of the British armed forces should reside in Britain. However, Charlotte has convincingly pointed out that the argument does not hold as much water as it would appear. It is also clear that Harry continues to work with and support all of his military charities and foundations from across the pond. Not the least, Harry is respected and appreciated by the military he served and and the veterans he now serves. If the Queen determines that all honourary military positions must be held by members of the royal family who reside in the UK, so be it. However, I'm appalled by the lack of recognition and respect for Harry's service as a combat veteran and his outstanding work for veterans. The wreathe incident last Remembrance Sunday was the last straw for me. The ceremony is to honour the sacrifice of soldiers and everyone should be allowed to pay their respects; not just the royal family and it should not be about the royal family. Having someone from Invictus lay the wreathe with other organizations would have been the decent thing to do. Why should the photographer of tabloid be allowed and not an actual veteran? I have always been a supporter of our system of government (Canadian here) with the sovereign having a specific constitutional role. However, it appears to me that the royal family needs to update its playbook to reflect the world we currently live in. Also, there seems to a certain amount of resentment in some quarters that Harry is making "so much" money. I think that way that Harry and Meghan are going about supporting themselves is fairly transparent. I think that being royal definitely helps to open doors and provide a high profile, but the business of the Sussexes is just that- it is the business of Harry AND Meghan together. They both have skills and a body of work that make them people who can get the kinds of contracts that they have. Netflix and Spotify are businesses, and they would not make offers to anyone JUST because they are royals. Sorry I'm venting a bit off topic here. Sorry- please edit as you see fit, Charlotte.
ReplyDeleteMerci Charlotte. Votre travail est phénoménal.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much Charlotte, for your thorough research and for your always well written articles. Harry and Meghan continue to be treated with appalling hatred. I'm so happy to learn from you that Harry received a substantial settlement in his legal action against the Daily Mail. True to his wonderful character, he donated it to Invictus games.
ReplyDeleteIt's admirable that Harry and Meghan continue to research issues of interest and work for a better world, despite their treatment by so many.
R
This post is one hell of a mic drop, Charlotte! Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI, for one, am heartily sick of those complaining about how Harry makes his money when there are those like Prince Andrew still living off the royal purse strings. Harry and Meghan have some popularity behind them because they’re members of the royal family. Who freaking cares, honestly??
Harry and Meghan are showing how happy and healthy they are, away from the BRF.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, in the eyes of the courtiers and their flapping gums, that has to be *punished*. They're supposed to be like Sarah Ferguson, always hanging about the edges, scrabbling for tawdry ways to earn a living.
The fact that they're continuing their missions to encourage people and help them--even more energetically than they were allowed to do by the Firm--makes those useless courtiers burn with frustration. This is how they're trying to get a petty revenge.
This is a very astute observation Bea. I think in the tabloid press, there is an anticipation of failure or controversy. That's their financial lifeline. It doesn't sell to cover famous figures being relatively "boring" and doing well in their lives. I recently watched the Britney Spears documentary and a similar parallel exists in her situation. She was a tabloid magnet a the height of her mental health crisis specifically BECAUSE she was so prone to erratic or controversial behavior. In hindsight it's quite sad that a young woman in such a crisis was treated the way she was.
DeleteI think in this case, the royal tabloid machine has existed for years off one controversy after the next. Going back further generations than just this. Goodness one can read coded gossip about King Edward VII and his dalliances in in the press of his day. I think in Meghan and Harry's situation they (the tabloids, the courtiers) are just grasping for something that isn't happening. Yes they made a somewhat surprising choice to step back from a public role, but their lives are not particularly controversial. And all of the so called controversies around them have been grasping at straws if you ask me. They are kind and successful and seemingly on track to have a big impact of their own making in the humanitarian space.
My biggest struggle over being a royal watcher the past few years continues to be the Prince Andrew situation. It boggles the mind that he is not on the cover of a tabloid daily, or even subject to seriously journalistic inquiry into his behavior. Yet Harry and Meghan are consistently being picked apart over non issues. It has made appreciating and admiring this family quite difficult, I am sorry to say.
Charlotte I appreciate this article so much, and thank you for allowing us to have the space in the discussion section.
Exhaustively researched & excellent piece, Charlotte! I didn't know the Duke of Kent had any appointments!
ReplyDeleteYour approach to the "issue" of Harry urging people to vote (when he couldn't and never has) was thoughtfully argued, though I've been on the side of Harry keeping his military appointments from the get go. They obviously mean a lot to him. I wish the BRF (and many entities) would just pause on these things and reevaluate everything when the pandemic is more manageable. I bet the Sussexes will be more active in there UK & Commonwealth when they can safely do so. I hope Harry retains his military titles. -op
OH way to go Charlotte!! This was wonderful to read...I wish this post could go right up Daily Mails nose. :) The facts are the facts and you have reported them correctly.
ReplyDeleteI'd love to put "hearts" on so many of the previous comments. So much gratitude to you, Charlotte, for presenting this information to us in soundly researched and well argued post. This is real journalism.
ReplyDeleteI frequently click the "View All" option on my Google news feed when the subject of Meghan or Harry comes up. Though I am very careful not to click on the actual headlines of the rubbish papers, I do get a sense of where the media is going with the misinformation they continue to publish. I so appreciate being able to access this level of honesty, fairness and reliable reporting, Charlotte.
I have a keen interest in what Meghan and Harry are doing and have often wished that Harry might be included on this platform too. Frankly, I'd love it. If others feel the same, perhaps you might make a more frequent habit of it, Charlotte. Perhaps you might survey your subscribers.
I would love it if Charlotte extended her honest coverage to Harry as well.
DeleteR
Bravo Charlotte! This article is SO well researched and executed. I as well would like to say "mic drop" and "slow clap".
DeleteLilly UK
I still don’t understand Charlotte’s point or your point. All the people listed here are still members of the RF. Harry is not. We may all agree that Andrew needs to be stripped of everything but that doesn’t change Harry’s situation. He left. He can’t retain a position that is given by an institution he has left.
DeleteAnd this talking point again. Harry. Is. Still. A. Member. Of. The. RF. Full stop end of discussion. The Queen EXPLICITLY noted this in her statement at the time. For that matter his wife and son are members of the RF as well as much as people are loathe to admit it. He left a public working role as a royal and as Charlotte has correctly pointed out plenty of royal family members receive all the perks, privileges, honours, and recognition while technically being private members of the family with nowhere near the scrutiny and tabloid harassment Harry has endured. The hypocrisy is non sensical, and I do believe the RF merits a critical look at why they make certain decisions for some members and not others.
DeleteIt's so crazy -- how could they no longer be family members? So Archie is no longer related to the Queen? How could that even happen? :) RF does not equal "working royal."
DeleteWho said they’re not family members? They’re not part of the RF. Because if their choice. They’re still part of the family. TQ said it. They’re loved members of her family which is not the same as the RF.
DeleteThere’s not the family and the royal family. Stop with this nonsense. They’re all the “Royal Family”. Some of the highest ranking ones just have public roles (official, working, whatever you want to call it, there doesn’t seem to be consensus on the term). Harry and Meghan were in that group until they decided not to continue with that role. Which puts them in the category of PLENTY of other ROYAL FAMILY members who live privately but still immensely benefit from royal connections/money/privilege/honors. So why the crackdown on Harry and his family? But to suggest there’s family and then there’s royal family and they aren’t the same is patently untrue.
DeleteI think they should let go of everything that tie them up to the UK. It is only dragging them back so it is easier to just let it go. Initiate letting it go and dont wait for RF to decide. If they do Bam! It is thd best way to shut up everyone back home and they can live the life they deserve in the US!
ReplyDeleteGreat post Charlotte! Yes Harry started the Invictus Games and also the Endeavour Fund (which is now with The Invictus Games Foundation). And let's not forget Harry worked years on HeadFit (a mental health initiative for the military - the Minister of Defense helped).
ReplyDeleteAwesome article! Magnificent!
ReplyDeleteI 1000000000000% agree with you. Even thought the distance seems to be an important point, when you compare it to everyone else, it doesn't matter if you are in the UK or not. The fact that you reside in the UK doesn't affect the number of engagements you carry.
As for Andrew, I have lost hope. As long as The Queen lives, he will be protected. He is her favorite and nothing will sadly change that.
I have been a little back and forth with the decision of removing the titles, but your article puts me on the "let him keep them" side.
So Thank You Charlotte for your amazing AND FACTUAL insight! (are you a lawyer by any chance :) )
Anyhow, I read on Twitter that one of these organizations wanted the position filled, so it makes me wonder (and I would love to hear your thoughts on this, maybe a Part 2?) what if the organization is asking someone else to fill the position?
I've read one of them expressed interest in William? How would that work?
Anyhow, I hope Harry retains his titles because he is devoted to the army and distance, per your facts, does NOT determine or afect the number of events you do!
Be Blessed Charlotte! thank Yu once again!
If they wanted to leave the RF because they’re racist and jealous of them then leave it. But leaving it and retaining positions that are only his because he’s a member of the RF is hypocritical. Either you leave or you stay but you don’t leave a company while retaining some positions you really like of it.
ReplyDeleteI think the whole honorary title discussion is completly blown out of proportion. There are many good arguements for a descision either way. If (and that is a bif IF) the honorary titles go (he will forever hold unto the titles he earned in service) no one can hold him back from supporting the military forces he is already supporting. He can just continue to do so. He can also continue his work with Invictus, he can still raise awareness and take part in marches or be an invitied guest and give a speech. I am sure it would hurt and it will look extremly petty on part of the BRF if they actually follow through with it but no one keeps Harry from rising above. In the end it is just that- an honorary title. Milions do tremendous work which never gets any recognition, Harry will surely be able to put this behind him. A title or not wll not change how the military personal feels about him and his work. They can also go out and show their support by inviting him, letting him deliver a speach and have him attending events.
ReplyDeleteSomeone asked, where those headlines are coming from now (I actuaslly haven't seen any of this talk for months now). I highly doubg though it's leaked from BP or another real source. The BRF is not stupid- their actions around the wreath laying looked petty and didn't go down to well- they will be quiet about those matters. My guess is, that the tabloids need to create any sort of royal clickbait drama by digging though their old articles, as not much is actually happening at the moment. The Quenn's concealed finances, the DoE desth (again), Harry's titles- all old news. I wouldn't even be surprised if they just do c&P with their old stuff.
I think at most the titles would go the same as the HRH. But I am convinced nothing is going to happen at all. Especially, as the rumours that Meghan might be interested in an political office in the US have started to get more serious, the whole discussion seems irrelevant. If she really wants to do that she will have to denounce her titles anyway and I think he might have to as well (as her title is from him so she cannot really denounce it) for them to stand a chance. So this whole title drama might solve itself in the near future.
I think this whole idea or rumour about Meghan seeking political office in the future is a theme dreamed up entirely in the British tabloid factory. I saw Meghan's work in the fall encouraging people to remember to vote is just the work of a citizen (and Meghan is still an American citizen since marrying Harry did not give her automatic rights to UK citizenship) and is an important issue picked up by many celebrities because they have a platform. Harry urging people to reject hate speech and hate-mongering is seen as taking a political position only if you associate those things with Trump, and therefore Harry is campaigning against him. I think Harry's comments are very much related to his work about social media, btw. Recent news in the British Media has shown just how political the Queen can be. Politics is just one of the many sticks the tabloid and unfortunately conservative British media use to beat the Sussexes. IMO, it is so destructive to everyone and does eveyone a disservice.
DeleteMeghan is not interested in a political office that we know of. She had never said that. No one in her circle has said that. You can advocate for politically adjacent causes without running for office. It’s clear to me that is her intention. You’re putting the cart so far ahead of the horse it’s laughable. This is a tabloid talking point attempting to create a story where this is none. She has made exactly zero moves to indicate an interest in political office.
DeleteI think the rumour about Meghan going into politics is just another tabloid set-up. She and Harry have always said they won't do anything to bring the royal family into disrepute and I think their commitments to Netflix and Spotify as well as their charitable works will keep them more than busy. So don't believe anything you read in the UK press about them!
DeletePerfectly written! Congratulations. You deserve another applaud for the depth of this article.
ReplyDeleteThis article makes me sad(it brings back my opinion on how bias the so called royal expert/accuser's of the Sussex). Charlotte thank you for the write up. God bless you
ReplyDeleteReally excellent and well researched article and I so agree with all you say. I'd already found out that Prince Michael had honorary military titles while working in business but I hadn't thought about Prince Andrew. It's pretty hypocritical that he's allowed to keep them. One thing you haven't pointed out is they say Harry can't fulfil his role if he's not in the country, yet one of Prince Michael's is in Canada and Anne, Andrew and Edward have various honorary military appointments in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. So none of the 'royal expert's' arguments add up, proving it's purely personal against Harry. I've been keeping a record of what Harry and Meghan have been doing since they left, referring to a couple of sensible Instagram accounts I follow, and it's incredible how much contact Harry has had with different military organisations in 2020, including wounded veterans.
ReplyDeleteGreat article Charlotte! I believe one day people will forget that there has been a Prince of Kent and sorry I do not mean it in a bad way - but history works like this: Prince Edward and his honorary titles will not be remembered either.
ReplyDeleteBut people will remember that there was this redhaired sometimes strong headed Prince who worked passionately for the military and created these fantastic organisations like endeavour and invictus which are quite big now and inspiring people all over the world :))
The pictures of him in his red Uniform and his beautiful wife in her red gown - the standing ovations - this will stay. Real honour can not be taken away.
This entire piece it’s amazing! Thank you so much Charlotte for covering Harry’s military role in such a fair and honest light. I wish you could cover him as public figure a lot more (haha!) but I know your blog it’s entirely about Meghan. It just seems no one in the media wants to write correctly and fairly about Harry and his long role as working royal and now as an ex-working royal, all people want to do now is tarnish his image and reputation. I truly hope he can keep his well-deserved military appointments, I think his work for veterans speaks for itself of how much he cares.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your dedication on every post in your blog! :)
Very well written and researched, Charlotte!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Charlotte, for this elaborate and outspoken piece of fairness and appreciation regarding Harry's accomplishments. I do hope this is read by determining persons.
ReplyDeleteBravo charlotte for this research article. Its such a shame this is happening in this way. Bless H&M
ReplyDeleteThank you for this detailed and insightful piece Charlotte.
ReplyDeleteI suppose he couldn’t lay a wreath because people who represent the queen can lay a wreath and he doesn’t represent her anymore?
ReplyDeleteThis would be true except for all the people who laid wreathes who have no formal representative role of the queen. Charlotte listed them all in her story at the time.
DeleteCharlotte for the prosecution! You have written so many wonderful
ReplyDeletepieces over the years, but this perhaps the most compelling. Brava!
Excellent work! well researched and sensibly argued! Thank you
ReplyDeleteThis is so excellently written and researched as always. I was speechless for a few days but think I can write now. :) What bothers me the most is that surely the "people in power," Charles and the Queen, know this. So what is the problem? Do they leave important matters like this to aides? Or do they feel they must abide by negative public opinion to retain the monarchy? It is just bewildering to me.
ReplyDeleteAs I’ve said before on this post and nobody answers is why would he keep a position that is to be filled by a member of the RF when he chose to leave the RF? He left. You don’t leave your coming but still get to be the president of this and that because you think you deserve it more than other people that are still on the company.
DeleteAnon 19:05 He is still a member of the RF! He is the future king's son. He is the brother of the future king. His family is still related to him!
DeleteHe. Didn’t. Leave. The. Royal. Family. Please stop with this talking point it’s so deeply incorrect. He will be the King’s son, the King’s brother, the King’s uncle. He and his family stepped down from a public role. Plenty of RF members don’t have public roles and receive plenty of royal privilege with a fraction of the criticism directed at Harry. That is what people are questioning. And rightly so.
DeleteI think perhaps, rather than saying he left the RF, as in Royal Family, a more accurate phrasing would be he left the Royal Firm-ie, the business side of the monarchy. He then, like Peter, Zara, Bea, Eugenie, Louise, and James would not hold the military honors titles that others like Charles/Edward do as working Royals. Andrew should 100000000% be stripped of his titles and Prince Micheal is a throwback to a previous time that will not be repeated.
DeleteIt is very sad since we all know that Harry had a passion for the military and veterans and has worked hard for them over the years. He still retains some of his patronages that are military adjacent, so at least he can continue in some fashion.
And I think the argument that Anne/TQ/Charles, etc have appointments for positions in Canada/Ireland etc is slightly off point. While technically accurate, they still are part of the Commonwealth and I would guess if those countries separated form the Commonwealth, those appointments would drop as well.
All that to say, the whole situation sucks.
Charlotte, am I to understand that The Crown, Queen Elizabeth II, in consultation with the UK government, which includes the UK's top military leaders, decided it was in the best interest of their ACTIVE duty military communities to look for other members of the UK community to provide esprit de corp leadership to their soldiers besides Prince Harry?
ReplyDeleteThat Prince Harry, someone who PUBLICLY announced their wish to step aside from their NATIONAL governmental roles in supporting Queen Elizabeth II, without her knowledge and approval, who wanted to earn a living as a private citizen and only support her internationally through the Commonwealth umbrella as stated in that very public website that still exists today, is going to ask to be reinstated in his HONORARY roles to support the NATION that are at the discretion of the UK government and Crown?
There is not a military commander in the whole world who thinks that would be a good idea. This is not a public opinion question. It's a question of commitment and loyalty. And Harry's website pretty much lays out his interest in profit and commonwealth - and not UK national interests.
The difference between Harry and all the other members of his family that you listed is that NONE of them ever made a documentary while they were on official duty for the UK Government (South Africa) complaining about how hard it was to be in the public eye. (See Tom Bradby) And NONE of them ever put out websites without Her Majesty's approval. Why would you trust such a person to lead your ACTIVE military communities, even in an honorary capacity? Whose interests are they serving?
No one is stopping Harry from supporting veterans in any capacity in which he chooses. Veterans are folks who have completed their service and are now adjusting to civilian life. The appointments that Harry was removed from was done to protect the Nation and the men and women who serve it from receiving mixed messages from a member of the royal family. You either serve your nation and do what is asked of you, or you move to private enterprise. Harry chose to move to private enterprise. There is nothing wrong that that. But you don't then get to lead the communities that choose to serve.
Continued...
ReplyDeleteWhy are Harry's feelings about honorary appointments more important then the health of the UK, it's Crown, it's military leaders and it's soldiers and it's citizens? Harry's in another country with a multi million production deal, a foreign wife, and a son. Maybe no one is being petty when they don't ask Harry to lead their national military. Maybe they are thinking about the needs of their country and their citizens and their soldiers. And did not place their Grandson's (Elizabeth) and Son's (Charles) feelings above that. Your monarchy is serving you well.
Harry is still their son and grandson, but he's never going to represent the Mountbatten-Windsor family, or the Crown, in a National capacity ever again.
Finally, there is no such thing as an international veterans society. Militaries serve nations and those nations occasionally ally to support mutual interests. Those interests can diverge at any time. Those allied in WW1 did not necessarily ally in WW2. Afghanistan and Iran and Iraq also have veterans - does Harry support those as well? These are the militaries he fought. Are they invited to his Invictus Games? My point is... this is a complicated subject. Perhaps Harry's hurt feelings are not the priority of the nation he choose to no longer serve. And that he chooses to support fellow veterans of certain countries doesn't necessarily make him a natural fit for National honorary leadership.
Harry has an adoring wife, a child to raise, and production career ahead of him. His interest in veterans affairs is his own. That no nation is recruiting him to serve on their active military esprit de corp is not a tragedy. Some might think he is a spoiled brat for expecting it to be there - because of who he is related to. How many other 10 year veterans who publicly separated from the Nation expect the same honors?
Thanks for letting me share my two cents.
Thank you, Florida Moxie.
DeleteFlorida Moxie, you are so right. Let's realize there is more than a point of view. Let's consider everything that is involved, not only Harry's feelings.
DeleteBrilliantly documented and written article , Charlotte , the facts speak for themselves .
ReplyDeleteIf one word was to sum up my personnal feeling (beeing French , loving UK and admiring the work of the RF ) about H & M , it would be pettiness .
We all know that the couple has been bullied since the beginning in the worst way , racism of all sorts against Meghan (an American, divorcee, black woman) and her child , and as far as we can see, no position against that has ever been taken by any of the Royals (while recently K & W have been advocating against racism ... again ... ) . I shall not suppose that not beeing against something bad means you approuve it .....
And there was no signs the bullying would end soon or late . Chosing to step back from Royal position was definitely a call for help , which non only has not been heard, but has been responded to with an actual intention of hurting Harry in what he probably cherish the most (apart from his family, of course) , the army , which , he said it himself, have saved him and made’ him what he is to day .
That’s Pettiness.
As I said, I am not British and I might not be able to fully understand the laws and rules and traditions . Just saying that , besides deeply hurting some of their valuable members (the public enthousiasm during H &M´s visits to Australia and South Africa spoke a lot ) , the RF lost opportunities to evolve . Should H & M have felt supported, they would certainly have accepted to change some of their ways if necessary .... such a waste of energy and feelings .
I hope I did not hurt anyone with my words, I sometimes struggle to find the right way to say things !
Wonderful news that Judge Warby ruled that the Mail on Sunday violated Meghan’s privacy when they published her letter to her father. Hooray for a legal victory for Meghan!
ReplyDeleteRenee
Insightful and succinct. Thank you
ReplyDelete