Prince Harry slams people who are all talk and no action on the environment

Britain's Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (R) and Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (2R), host a reception to officially open the 2018 Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference at St James' Palace in London on October 10, 2018. - The 2018 Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference is the fourth such international conference bringing together heads of state, ministers and officials from nearly 80 countries, alongside NGOs, academics and businesses, to build on previous efforts to tackle this lucrative criminal trade. The conference is being hosted by the UK Government from 11th – 12th October 2018.

About 11 months ago, Prince William announced the Earthshot Prize, something vague (at the time) which he claimed would be so big and important. So big and important he ignored it for nine months, then attached his name to it once again when all of his aides had pulled something together. Enter Environmental Bill, Keen About The Environment. Suddenly Environmental Bill had a shiny new thing to launch and give interviews about and he even organized a weird documentary where he stood around royal properties and banged on about how much HE cares about the environment. He spoke about how nothing makes him more incandescent with rage than inaction, or lack of leadership regarding the environment. He said that all with a straight face, at the age of 38, after avoiding work his entire adult life. Well, who even knows who Prince Harry was referencing in a new interview:

Prince Harry has called for action rather than words to tackle environmental issues and the climate crisis. The Duke of Sussex, voicing his support of a new Netflix-style platform for climate documentaries, said that protecting the natural world needed “doers”. The royal was speaking in his capacity as head of Africa Parks, the conservation group he has been president of since 2017. A conversation with the Duke of Sussex about the importance of protecting the natural world will be available on WaterBear Network from 1 December.

“For me it’s about putting the do’s behind the say’s, and that is something that WaterBear is going to be doing: capitalising on a community of doers. There’s a lot of people that say, but this is about action,” Prince Harry said during the interview, The Independent has learned.

Harry, who has spent much of the past year in his adopted home of California with wife Meghan and their one-year-old son Archie, spoke on behalf of African Parks, the conservation group he has been president of since 2017.

[From The Independent]

I’m sure the anti-Sussex people will be like “omg, Harry puts talking ahead of doing too!” Yeah, but he actually goes and volunteers on the ground with environmental and conservation charities and foundations, and he always has taken action. While William has, historically, been more of a talker. William would rather hang out on Jecca Craig’s Kenyan property than actually protect wildlife or DO anything. Anyway, I don’t know if Harry was specifically referencing William and the Earthshot Prize, but it felt shady! And I’m here for it.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle celebrate Anzac Day in London

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

93 Responses to “Prince Harry slams people who are all talk and no action on the environment”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Amy Bee says:

    I think he’s also talking about the politicians who give lip service to climate change and then do nothing.

    • Darla says:

      Oh definitely. that’s probably largely who he is talking about. and it’s true.

    • Noodle says:

      I also hope he’s talking about incandescent something or other, because that is an inefficient energy source.

      • Lorelei says:

        If William’s constant incandescent rage is as strong as we’re led to believe, why don’t they use that to power the UK

      • Noodle says:

        @lorelei, we should start a campaign. “Transform your incandescent rage into energy-efficient LED fury!”

  2. Millenial says:

    I appreciate the emphasis on the environment, because in my opinion it’s the biggest issue we are facing as a planet, but I don’t know that it makes sense as a royal issue – for really any of the royals. Genuinely, you cannot live in huge mansions or castles and lecture the rest of us on sustainability. I mean, you can, but it rubs me the wrong way. How much energy does it take to heat your 14 bathroom mansion? (Edited because it’s actually 16 bathrooms! I can’t even).

    And are any of them vegans or vegetarians? If so, I’d love to hear about it. Maybe I sound like a gatekeeper, but I’m tired of being lectured at by meat eaters about the environment. Look in the mirror.

    • Alexandria says:

      Yes I find this an area where the European and even Asian royals can’t really show their alliance and actions. They do have a larger carbon footprint. Charles has adopted local farming at least…but all of them need to be more specific. Yes travelling privately is due to security but what are the other measures they have adopted? They should share with us to set an example. If I’m a royal I wouldn’t take up this cause unless I’m sure I could walk the talk.

      • Donna B. says:

        Yes. Also, remember the article about Harry/Meghan having thanksgiving & using vegetables from their own garden to eat.

    • Paula says:

      “You cannot live in huge mansions or castles and lecture the rest of us on sustainability”

      This so much. Very rich people are part of the problem, I can’t take them seriously.

      • Pink says:

        Completely agree. It can come across as a bit tone deaf sometimes, a bit “do as I say not as I do”. I’m not saying Harry or any celeb should go live in a cardboard box and grow his own food, but there’s a balance. I believe Charles has converted some of his classic cars to run on electricity but that’s a drop in the ocean.

    • Snuffles says:

      I’m willing to bet Harry and Meghan will turn their property into a green LEEDS certified building to set an example.

      • Alexandria says:

        I’m here to support them and look forward to their work on this. I have much more faith in them than their so called family.

    • Becks1 says:

      And I’m sure the Montecito mansion (with its 16 bathrooms) is more efficient than some place like Windsor or Sandringham or even – gasp – Anmer.

      I think its tricky – the rich are in a unique place to make a difference and they could set a good example with their lifestyle choices. They can take the train as much as possible rather than flying or using the helicopter. That would be something fairly small but could be very visible and set a good example.

      But the crux of the issue is that we need political action, all the “good examples” set by the royals aren’t really enough at this point. And that is where I think Harry is better positioned to make a difference, since he has ceased to be a working royal. AND its also where William fell really flat this past fall – the emphasis seemed to be on personal actions, but what we need now is a lot larger than that.

      • Ash says:

        The newer house in Montecito would definitely be much more efficient than Windsor/Sandringhm/Anmer, purely based on how old the latter ones are. Millenial’s comment stands though, the energy required for all of them would still be enormous.

        I’ve always wondered why the royals don’t look to at least put up some solar panels on all those buildings. It absolutely wouldn’t bring them down to having zero carbon footprint, but it would be a start, not to mention great publicity whenever anyone sees the panels up there. If it’s a “they’re heritage protected” argument then that’s pretty BS, but I really haven’t heard if it’s even been discussed as an option.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Ash – last time we had a similar discussion I asked about that, and someone said that either Highgrove or Clarence House has solar panels on it (I cant remember which one). I had suggested that they could use some of the enormous property at Sandringham or wherever for a solar panel field, to set up windmills, etc. Heck it could even be something where the companies get to use the land for free for a period of time (maybe 5 years) and then a lease would kick in or something.

        But they could also make a point of emphasizing steps they are taking to make the houses more self-sufficient and more energy-efficient. Its not perfect but it would be a start.

      • Ash says:

        @Becks1: Totally agree and actually the idea to use the land in this way is a great one! Now to get someone who makes these kinds of decisions to read this site…!

      • Lorelei says:

        @Becks ITA but you know there’s no way they would actually do this — I would be anything that they’d find the windmill farms too “unsightly” 🙄

      • Chicka says:

        May I just ask? @Ash, what energy are we talking about requiring to keep their home running? To me, a family of three in a large mansion in southern CA doesn’t use a lot of the energy they actually have at their disposal. They likely aren’t turning on the heat at all, and even if they do, I’d imagine they have a way to control which parts of the house is actually using said heating. They aren’t using all -6 bathrooms and they’re not using any more water than they would be in their home, with the exception of what’s used outside for their green spaces, which is admittedly a lot. But I’m really confused why everyone is saying they consuming a lot of energy when I don’t think that has to be the case at all. When you say energy, what are we specifically speaking of?

        Also, I’m pretty sure solar panel instillation is something they use are installing on their property to use.

    • Lizzie says:

      Much like an entitled woman endlessly lecturing the world on how to raise your children when she has no education in the area and employs multiple nannies so she doesn’t have to do the job herself.

    • BABSORIG says:

      I don’t get how people feel they are being “preached at”. You make conscious decisions and choices to click on articles related to these royals, and then you start whinning about how they are preaching to you, my goodness, don’t click on them articles if you don’t want be preached at. Honestly how many people drive electric cars and live off the grid etc? So because people are wealthy they can’t say or do anything to protect the environment? Geez🙄🙄🙄

      • Ash says:

        So there shouldn’t be an expectation that people – no matter their wealth or titles – should walk the walk, not just talk the talk?

      • Jules says:

        It’s called hypocritical. And yea we get to read what we want, and comment as we like.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        It should be easier for people with money to walk the walk. I do not hide that I am wealthy. And I live in a home suitable for 4 people with solar panels on the roof and a bunch of energy efficient bells and whistles. I drive a hybrid. Our home in the Bahamas is on a cay that is run communally, almost completely off the grid with solar arrays, a wind turbine (just got that up and running, according to my sister-in-law), and a greenhouse to grow our own vegetables. We also have chickens for eggs and goats for milk and cheese. We are able to do this because we have the funds to do it. So yeah, I do kind of side-eye those uber rich people who tell everyone how they should be living but don’t actually do it themselves. it’s EASIER to be sustainable with money. And this is in no way, shape, or form an attack on H&M. We haven’t seen what they can really do yet.

      • Jaded says:

        Exactly. In any event there are many ways people who aren’t wealthy can contribute to saving the environment. We are ardent recyclers and can go for a month before we have to put out one small bag of garbage. We walk everywhere or take public transit and can go a year on 2 or 3 gas fill-ups for our small car, even less now that we’re not traveling anywhere. I wash and reuse tin foil and ziploc bags. We take our old clothes to several homeless shelters. I use chemical-free laundry strips that come in a cardboard package that can be recycled and dryer balls instead of fabric softener. There are a million ways one can be environmentally conscious without the need to spend loads of money.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        @Jaded – I LOVE the wool dryer balls! I made my own laundry powder and it actually wasn’t too bad. On the cay, my friend makes massive amounts (OK, not MASSIVE, but enough for all of us) of totally bio friendly laundry powder that is safe for watering plans with our graywater. Mine never works as good as hers.

      • Becks1 says:

        @paranormalgirl – that is a good point (and I’m jealous of your Bahamas house lol) -there are obviously things that everyone can do, but sometimes having more resources makes it a lot easier because you can make those upfront investments.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        I also don’t want anyone to think that I’m putting myself up there as some paragon of eco-friendly virtue. I’m not. I still have my k-cups (but I use compostable pods from Tayst coffee), I still have occasionally flown private when going to the cay (though I’ve tried to make sure that it was in conjunction with the plane already being in use for some collective business reason, but with COVID there have been no corporate retreats on the sister cay, so no business reason to fly, so it will be commercial and boat when we head down there next month). I’m still not fully vegetarian (can’t quit my burgers), and I forget to recycle on occasion. But I TRY. And that’s all we can do. If we can make one small change every week or month, that will add up.

      • Sarah says:

        This isn’t specially at paranormalgirl or a dig on anyone using K-ups, but I highly suggest a reusable K-cup like this https://www.keurig.com/My-K-Cup%C2%AE-Reusable-Coffee-Filter/p/universal-my-k-cup. Such an easy way to cut down on daily waste and can use fresh ground beans.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        @Sarah – I have one of those. I use it at home a lot of the time. But you can dig at me. I admit I’m hypocritical when it comes to k-cups for certain coffees that I only want once in a while. These are the only pods I currently will use: https://www.tayst.com/pages/our-coffee

    • equality says:

      Where Harry and Meghan live at least part of the supplied electrical power is from solar energy. Charles has been working on making royal residences more energy efficient for some time. There environmental measures are detailed on royal.uk. M & H’s home is probably more energy efficient because of the climate where they live; they don’t have to use as much energy for heat or for cooling if your house is built to let in the breeze.
      Being vegan is fine but farming practices also contribute to climate change. Deforestation for crops, tilling and releasing carbon in soil, fertilizers and runoff into waterways, herbicides and pesticides use, and erosion from crop growing have environmental effects. Even just growing non-native plants in areas affects wildlife and the balance of native species when new pest species are introduced to an area.

      • Bevbimsley says:

        LOL sorry but Charle’s pet project really pales in comparison to Harry and Megan’s work.

      • Mac says:

        Deforestation in the Amazon is largely to graze cattle or to grow feed for cattle. It is not for human food crops. Deforestation in Indonesia is for palm oil which is as ubiquitous as corn syrup. Commodities buyers have the power to end deforestation but there is no political will to make it happen.

      • Larisa says:

        @Bevbimsley
        Seriously? I don’t know much about Charles’ project, but he’s been doing it for decades. Meghan and Harry just launched their foundation, they hardly did anything so far. And it’s NOT a diss on them – they have a baby, had a miscarriage, moved, all that in the middle of a pandemic, but come on, let’s be reasonable.

      • Myra says:

        Not to forget the methane emission from cattle farming which contributes to global warming.

      • equality says:

        Reducing carbon emissions from fossil fuels is much more important than worrying about methane. Methane release by all ruminants (not just cattle but sheep, goats, deer, antelopes, bison, etc.) is part of a short-time carbon cycle using carbon already present in the atmosphere. Carbon released from fossil fuels has more impact because of releasing previously tied-up carbon into the atmosphere.
        https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/why-methane-cattle-warms-climate-differently-co2-fossil-fuels

    • Amy Bee says:

      The moral of the story it takes everyone, regardless of wealth to do their part to mitigate the effects of climate change. I think everyone is guilty of contributing to the state that the planet is but those who have the power to change things can do the most and can encourage others to help save the planet.

      • BABSORIG says:

        @Amy Bee, thank you, this is exactly my point. People are so quick to jump on wealthy people and start snarking on anything and every little thing. The point or intention of the article or of Harry’s comments is/was not to preach or lecture to anyone and I don’t get how people who, of their own free will, chose to click and read these articles and then carry on and on about how the rich should not preach to the poor. We all have a duty to protect mother earth, everyone rich or poor has a duty to protect the environment. And the good news is that environmental conservation is multifaceted, we all can and should work with what we have got to contribute to conservation. If Harry is, and honestly every wealthy person, using their platform to push for ways or policies or anything that will result in the goodness of mother earth then, that’s really good. Why try to muzzle them just because they’re rich and have flown private at some ponit? Who are we to decide who shoud or shouldn’t (or has/hasn’t the authority to) speak on matters of environmental conservation?

      • clomo says:

        It is the truth, there are people powerful enough to change the world but won’t out of selfishness, your average Joe could toil his whole life to change the world and not achieve what one signature from the top could. Not that’s a reason not to do what you can, it’s like a 100th monkey problem and as the world dies the closer we get to that monkey, hopefully the powerful act before he becomes extinct and it’s too late.

    • Bevbimsley says:

      Honestly dont understand why we’re attacking Harry right now? He is wealthy he should be allowed to enjoy his wealth. Do you have a car? Maybe you should stop casting stones

      • Ginger says:

        The only one that makes the most effort for climate change is Greta and she still gets slammed if she is seen with a plastic container ( I have seen people troll her on twitter for eating food out of a plastic container while she was traveling on a train) SO many love to hate on anyone that talks about climate change. We live in a modern world, no one can do it completely. Harry has always said that if we all do our part ( no matter how small) it would make such an impact. That’s it. But even that comment just triggers people.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        You do the best you can with what you have. No one is perfect, no one should strive to be. Just strive to be better than you were yesterday.

      • Becks1 says:

        What I don’t understand is why there is always so much more vitriol aimed at Harry over this issue than is aimed at William, even on this site.

        I also don’t think that someone has to be perfect before they can talk about a subject and work for change on that subject. I mean I am far from perfect on environmental matters and I will still post or comment about needing to be more sustainable or whatever.

    • SomeChick says:

      We don’t tend to need to use the heat very often in SoCal.

      I’m just saying. Yes, the rich are terribly unsustainable. Look at all the people in Calabasas watering their spacious lawns during a drought and paying piddly fines for it. The class divide is a huge issue, well beyond the environment. People think that caring for the poor is so bad, while so much food goes to waste. This country could well afford a national health service, food could be distributed more fairly, the barriers to the food stamps program and unemployment aid are vile. It goes far beyond the environment.

    • Betsy says:

      I said this on the last thread that brought up vegetarianism and the environment, and I have since read up on the subject (and am awaiting several more books, but libraries are necessarily slow right now) and I’ve since learned that regenerative farming practices – which include specific ranching practices – is one of the most environmentally beneficial practices. It can not only heal the soil, but in doing so, it can sequester carbon.

      Industrial agriculture – including that which raises the foods consumed by many vegans and vegetarians – is one of the worst things we as humans have done. Tilling up the soil allows millions and millions of pounds of carbon to be blown into the atmosphere that heats the earth. It’s as bad for the environment as carbon belching cars and planes! And no one talks about it, even though we all benefit from it and can demand change (and those of us with houses and yards can DO something about it in our small corners).

    • Myra says:

      There are many ways to turn mansions into sustainable homes and I hope they make the switch as they settle into their new home. However, environmental/climate concerns are not only for the rich to abide to. Most industries cater to the average person and focus on mass productions. This is where we end up with some of the worst carbon emitters in the world. A reluctance to move away from coal and oil, the demand to keep prices low, the unrepentant use of plastics for consumer convenience, palm oil in everyday products, the massive junk food industry, the urgency to introduce new gadgets etc. – all are due to a certain lifestyle/economic demands of developed countries. As a person who boycotts goods for ethical reasons, I will say that personal responsibility certainly plays a role, but holding corporations accountable is more effective in the long run.

    • Lemons says:

      I sort of…agree with this take?

      I think anyone living in a mansion that is not being used as housing for multiple people cannot really lecture anyone on sustainable living? But I suppose we’re all doing what we can. Most of us in the Western world can’t lecture on sustainable living without making drastic changes to how we live our own lives.

      If you’re going to live in a mansion, I also want to see mansion-life action on your part. Not just speaking at conferences. I want support of environmental lobbies. I want to see political action. That’s the only way things will get done.

      • Larisa says:

        @Lemons
        I think you have the most fair take on it.

      • Ann says:

        That’s very fair. We live in a relatively affordable city, and bought our house at the height of the 2008 financial crisis in the US. We took a hit selling, but a got a bigger deal buying. I don’t feel guilty about it because the sellers were themselves home-builders who were moving out of state. They didn’t make as much as they would have, but they did just fine. But now, our kids are in college or just beyond, and we do not need this much space, even if they do come home sometimes (especially in Pandemic times). But we really like our neighborhood, our friends, the park across the street. It’s not a huge house and the yard is small. It’s a close-in neighborhood. Still, it’s just more than we need. But it doesn’t make sense financially or personally for us to move, so we stay. And try to be careful. Right now it is cold outside (welcome!) so I turned off the heat, turned on the fireplace and put on sweats and cozy slippers. When it’s hot (which it is too much of the time), that’s when I struggle.

    • Jules says:

      This! Harry also grew up hunting and jets around the world in luxury.

      • Ginger says:

        Harry did hunt but has given it up. He mostly flies commercial but has flown private for safety reasons regarding his family. He has flown in the military but I don’t know if you will hold that against him as well.

        I hope you have the same energy for William and Charles as well.

    • Lunasf17 says:

      Well said! I’m sick of celebrities who use private planes and live in ridiculously huge mansions (Can you imagine their utility bills?!) talk about taking action. It’s a good talking point but come on! Their carbon footprints are way bigger than us peasants. Everyone is an environmentalist until they actually have to change their lifestyle.

      • Lizzie says:

        What’s the problem with celebrities living in big houses? Do you mean all rich people, celebrities in particular or just Harry and Meghan?
        I say if you have the money to buy a fabulous house then no one should shame you for it. And no you don’t know their heating bills but rich people typically are tight fisted so they do what needs to be done, solar or whatever.
        Harry and Meghan literally have no choice in the matter. They cannot live in the 2000 square foot two story next door. Harrys and his family will always be a prime target for kidnapping (at the very least) just by virtue of his parents and grandparents. And they have earned their own money to buy whatever house suits them.

      • Jules says:

        @lizzie, because it’s over-consumption, over-consumerism, over-materialism. It goes against being environmentally conscious in every way.

      • Lizzie says:

        IDK, I live in a smallish home but with children gone I have empty bedrooms, am I going to be judged for ‘over’ consumerism, materialism and consumption? Do I have to sell my house but only to a family that will fill all of the bedrooms? That’s a nice lawsuit for you in the US.

    • Genessee says:

      Why would anyone need to heat up 16 bathrooms in Montecito, California? They don’t live in Jackson Hole, Wyoming for pete’s sake.

      • Kkat says:

        You don’t need to heat the bathrooms or the rooms your not using, you close doors and vents.
        Not that it gets super cold, the coldest it will get is sometimes in the low 30′s to upper 20′s in the early morning.
        In Southern California that means you might put a hoodie and sweats on when you take the dog out to pee.

        It’s not cold here yet, I was wearing shorts and sandles when I went to get my kids advent calendars today. I did put socks on this morning when I was at my computer working.

        People are acting like it gets artic cold where they live 🙄

  3. janey says:

    oh no! Environmental Bill will be incandescent with rage, and I’m sure this has blindsided the palace…

    • Harla says:

      Lol! Janey! You hit all the major points in one sentence! I bow to your wit!

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      I bet Harry didn’t have one thought of Bill in mind when he made that statement. I really think he is speaking of everyone and especially those with the authority to make changes through legislation. Let’s face it, this is a humanity problem now and we are all contributing to the problem in our different ways.

      • Lizzie says:

        I think you are right, but a narcissist will always believe everything is about him. So of course baldy is raging.

  4. Rita says:

    Something else to be incandescent with rage about, if the shoe fits wear it.

  5. Bettyrose says:

    I’m sure there are examples of Harry being only superficially involved in projects if one looks hard, but it’s hard to deny he’s clearly about taking action. Compare him exactly one year ago to now, separated from the RF, living in the U S, launching a production company on the premier streaming platform. All while the planet battles a pandemic of historic proprtions. Like, dude hasn’t been sitting around talking about doing stuff.

    • Betsy says:

      Yeah, I’m still actually pretty impressed with Meghan and Harry; Meghan has still been doing stuff even with the pregnancy and miscarriage. They’re both just good, functional people. Charles and Anne do their work, too, but William just farts around. He’s annoying.

  6. Becks1 says:

    I think its aimed at the politicians, yes, but also partly at William, because he did spend a lot of time this past fall standing around and lecturing us about the environment. I still cant get over the title of that documentary LOL.

  7. AA says:

    Does everyone remember when Charles took a helicopter to fly from Highgrove to Cambridge to give a speech on lowering carbon emissions? And then tok the heli back to Sandrigham? Lols.

    • Becks1 says:

      I don’t remember that, but I do remember when a privacy hedge was put in at KP so people couldn’t track how often the helicopter was being used or whether it was being used for business or personal reasons. And didn’t the financial records or whatever stop classifying helicopter use as business or personal too, so the royals really do have free use of it whenever they want.

      • equality says:

        @Mac I think when they take the train that the Queen has her own car that is attached. It isn’t that they mingle with others.

    • Ash says:

      I also remember when Harry took a plane to Amsterdam for that sustainable travel event he did instead of a train. I don’t know, I was really disappointed in them overlooking what could have been a really easy win on that point.

      • Bevbimsley says:

        Sorry but I feel like its completely different when Harry flies private (perhaps security threat) vs when William flies private (egotistical) this is obvious

      • Ash says:

        Harry flew on a commercial flight for that event. And both of them have similar security issues. Does that still make it “obvious”?

      • Mac says:

        Neither of them should be flying private. If they can safely take the train, they can safely fly commercial.

      • Lorelei says:

        @BevBimsley I cannot believe I’m defending William, who I cannot stand, but the Cambridges really do need an immense amount of security. IIRC there was some plot a few years ago to kidnap George? I can’t remember the specifics but I don’t begrudge them ample security. That still doesn’t mean they should be using private jets, though.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Mac – I agree with you but I’m going to say “none” of them should be flying private, including Charles. He can afford to buy the entire first class cabin of some of these planes.

  8. Midnight@theOasis says:

    The streaming platform mentioned in the Independent article is actually free and hosts a variety of environmental documentaries: https://www.waterbear.com/

  9. Sofia says:

    Yeah I agree with others that this is mostly aimed at politicians rather than William but maybe it’s aimed at him too.

    I also get the argument that the rich shouldn’t lecture us on the environment when they themselves do a lot of damage (perhaps not the right word) to it.

    But what I don’t like is Meghan getting dragged into this. She hasn’t really made environmentalism her passion the way William and Harry have. So she really shouldn’t be dragged into criticism about Harry and his work on the environmentalism because she herself hasn’t attached her name to it. When she does, then criticise. Same goes with Kate too.

    • Millennial says:

      I agree and I think it’s interesting Meghan has stayed away from it. But I generally think she’s a lot more self-aware than the born-royals because she lived like a normal person.

      • CC2 says:

        Good point. Meghan supports by wearing sustainable brands here and there, but I think she generally realises the optics too. Alternatively or additionally, it may just not be her passion. Meghan has always been centered on women’s empowerment and now media/social media after her experience with it, while Harry was raised with Charles’ views.

  10. one of the Marys says:

    Whether or not Harry had William in mind, William will certainly take it as a rebuke and a bit of oneupmanship by Harry in this one sided competition. Beats me why the Cambridges are still competing with the Sussexes. It’s apparent to the world that Sussex has moved on

  11. Mina_Esq says:

    I’m here for the shade! Both M and H are doers. I’m excited to see what H puts together now that he is free to do what he wants without limiting himself in order to not make Bill look bad.

  12. Lorelei says:

    TBH I can’t take anything that *any* of the royals say about environmental and conservation issues seriously as long as they continue to fly on private jets/helicopters and hunt for sport.

    This isn’t in regard to Harry in particular, but I don’t get why a single one of them thinks they have the moral standing to take on these issues while they still have a lot of work to do themselves.

    They would be better served quietly donating vast sums of money to existing organizations which are actually making progress in these areas if they’re as “passionate” about the environment as they claim. But we know that the only reason any of them do charity work is to boost their image and make the citizens of the UK believe they’re paying them to actually do something; they care about the photo ops and headlines, not about things changing and actually getting done. Again JMO

    • Chicka says:

      @Lorelei I think this is a very hypocritical take.

      For one, no one pays attention to the little people, the many orgs. Out there trying to make a difference. So even when the rich are quietly throwing their wealth around behind these many projects and orgs, the platform of these organizations usually aren’t uplifted without some promotional marketing that uses those with high profiles (fame).

      It is an ecosystem in an of itself. The bigger your personal profile, typically means you also earn more, you are more influential, and everyone wants a piece of you. If you decide to put your influence behind a project and its effort, how are you supposed to avoid lecturing anyone? It absurd to think it’s possible. At least I believe both H&M walk the talk as closely as they can, which I would argue comparatively? Could be less carbon emitting than you an your whole house hold if we were to take into accounts all the everyday things you and your family don’t do to be more environmentally conscious.

      How much money are YOU donating? How many people are YOU influencing to walk the walk? How many personal sacrifices have YOU made everyday to be more more environmentally friendly 365? And statistically, how would that measure up against him?

      You might think just bc he has $$ and lives in a big house that it’s more, but that’s not necessarily the case. Everyone is making some assumptions. I’m case of the private jet? If the PJ had other ppl on it outside of his security (often the case), the same CE would be released whether he was on it or not, and remains the same if he were taking a commercial jet. PJs are often used like carpooling, only they’re flying.

      And the fact he these few and far between privet jet trips are still being used as a stick to beat H&M with, when when they used it was in the think of British aggression against a postpartum Meghan is absurd.

      I’m sure everyone here is lecturing someone in their lives about a walk they themselves often stumble in living up to everyday.

  13. Julia K says:

    In buying the Montecito property Harry was ensuring the safety of his wife and child from previous credible death threats. Security and privacy are expensive, especially in California. Very few choices available to them . He chose what was available at the time that met their needs and budget.

    • Pink says:

      This argument doesn’t make sense, not just in relation to Harry but celebrities as a whole. Nobody “needs” 16 bathrooms. You can build smaller houses on private estates with security and it’ll meet the needs of 99% of those living there just as well as a larger house. Would probably even be easier to keep secure as there’s less of it to worry about and monitor. But people don’t want that. They want massive mansions and the wealth and trappings that go with it. Americans in particular are obsessed with square footage of properties, regardless of the impact on the environment.

  14. Jannie says:

    There goes entire Hollywood

  15. Oh says:

    Good king Harry

  16. Kimber says:

    By talking about the issues that are important they bring interest and money to agencies/companies that work in the area. So “lecturing” is important as well as following that up with action. Both money and attention is needed.

  17. Sorella says:

    Agree. I am MEH on both Harry and William or any Royal speaking on environment – their lifestyles don’t exactly scream conservation and I can’t take any of them seriously. The run with rich English or Hollywood crowds who all fly private, live in mansions, etc. . I like the Royals but I can’t take either one seriously on this – it would be me lecturing to others to live in an apartment when I’ve only ever lived in a house, they haven’t a real clue.

  18. Pink says:

    Firstly I will say that I actually like Harry, HOWEVER I don’t think any Royal can speak about this topic seriously given they’re all happy to hunt, fly all around the world unnecessarily and generally have a bigger carbon footprint than any of us. It’s great that he works with conservation charities but he’s always done this, same as the other royals and their various projects.

    This part of my comment isn’t targeted at Harry, it’s just a general observation. I find it ironic that it’s rich white people are the ones who have caused the problems in terms of the environment and conservation and yet they preach to everyone like it’s our fault.

  19. L4frimaire says:

    Harry is totally going to get slammed for hypocrisy on this one, but then he always is. This network looks very interesting though and will download it because I like nature documentaries and hope they have lots of diverse voices. Maybe he’ll turn his property into a self-sustainable compound and change all those bathrooms to composting toilets, lol. Who knows? I get why it’s difficult to reconcile people who have large houses with promoting environmentalism, but it’s better then the opposite. So if someone who owns a large house is more for preserving the environment rather then exploiting it, I’m all for it. Can they do much better and live more sustainably? Yes they can and I hope they do, but supporting these causes is a good thing. Time will tell about the actual impact but they’re just getting started.