The Times: Prince Harry & William fought about Africa for years, you guys

Last week, the British media began a curious campaign related to Prince Harry’s position on the board of African Parks. Harry was president of African Parks for six years, then last October, he was elevated to a position on the board. African Parks was one of the few royal-adjacent “things” that the Windsors could not take away from Harry – African Parks operates independently, and they choose their own board members and presidents (rather than allowing a British monarch to appoint them). Harry’s conservation work in Africa has always bothered Prince William because, you see, William thinks Africa is “his.” William thinks conservation work is “his.” So the rollout of this story over the past week has been interesting.

The short version is that African Parks guards were accused of rape in the Republic of Congo. The accusations came via another NGO, Survival International. African Parks quickly released a statement, saying that of course they were aware of the accusations and they are investigating, but Survival International has not cooperated or given them any additional information. Which makes it very curious that Survival International would seemingly contact the Mail instead of African Parks’ third-party investigative team? While accusations of rape should be taken seriously, the British media has used this moment to not only demand Harry’s resignation from African Parks’ board, but to launch a completely unhinged narrative about how THIS is why Harry and William actually fell apart, long before Harry met Meghan. Some highlights from this Times of London story, which (sadly) was probably the whole point.

William & Harry’s feud about Africa: The brothers’ feud, a palace source says, is one that pre-dates Prince Harry’s relationship with Meghan and, perhaps surprisingly, involves the princes’ differing views of conservation work. Sharing a charitable foundation, William and Harry are said to have regularly disagreed on the best way to reduce poaching and save endangered species in Africa. “They are both very passionate about saving protected species but didn’t always share the same view about how to run projects in Africa,” a well-placed source who knows both brothers said. “William believes you should focus on community-led schemes where local people over time feel empowered to protect the land. Harry, on the other hand, was more interventionist. He felt that you need a more hands-on approach to ensure wildlife habitats were securely protected to enact change quickly.”

The complicated situation in Africa! The situation on the ground in Africa is far more complicated and sweeping than a group of rogue guards. The volatile conditions in which the charity operates on a donated budget of $100 million a year has led to a blurring of lines between conflict and conservation. Its 1,400-strong ranger force is often better paid and equipped than the local armies. In Benin, its anti-poaching units have been likened to a counterterrorism force in their defence of endangered species from Islamist militants.

Harry, a veteran of war, cannot navigate through a crisis: Harry still accepted a promotion from a purely figurehead position to one that will be far more demanding. Now a former member of African Parks’ management team, who asked not to be named, has questioned the Duke of Sussex’s suitability for a governance role guiding the charity’s management through complex and dangerous contexts. “Harry has neither the tools nor experience to navigate his way through such crises,” they told The Times, backing demands for him to step down. The late Dutch billionaire Paul van Vlissingen was among the organisation’s founders in 2000, seeing in it “an African solution for Africa’s conservation challenges”. But elevating Harry to a position of influence has just reinforced criticism of the charity as “green colonialism”. Half of the current board of eight are white and only one is a woman.

Harry’s just a celebrity! The former African Parks executive said: “By stacking boards with white males and failing to embrace the perspectives of black Africans and women, leadership is bound to be stilted. Yes, there is a role for celebrities as patrons or ambassadors, but not on a governing board.”

Harry reportedly wants to make a Netflix documentary about African Parks: With vast funds at their disposal, the African Parks expansion shows no sign of slowing. The deep pockets of its billionaire backers providing the annual $100 million budget have emboldened African Parks to set an ambition to manage 30 parks by 2030. It recently bought 2,000 southern white rhino from a private owner in South Africa who estimated it was costing him $425,000 a month to feed and protect them from poachers. The plan to rewild the animals across Africa over the next decade is one of the most ambitious conservation plans and no doubt why Netflix might see it worthy of a documentary.

Harry’s benefits!! Harry is not being paid for his role on the governing body of African Parks, though benefits include influencing the management of 49.4 million acres of protected areas, almost the size of England, Scotland and Wales combined. Harry will also get to network with some of the world’s richest philanthropists who bankroll the charity’s work. These include the American Walton family who founded Walmart, the Oppenheimers whose fortune was amassed from diamond mining in South Africa, and the Swiss tycoon Hansjörg Wyss, 88, a shareholder in Chelsea football club. With so many high-profile reputations at stake, African Parks will surely be keen to ensure it never courts such negative publicity again.

William will always refuse to help Harry!! Closer to home, there is one war which continues to rage: that of the Windsor brothers. No public messages have been forthcoming from the Sussexes to wish the King or the Princess of Wales well after their stays in hospital. One thing seems certain. With his wife’s recovery to prioritise, William won’t be stepping into a crisis management role to help his brother with the African Parks debacle any time soon.

[From The Times]

William just couldn’t help leaving his signature all over this truly deranged story. William’s wife was in the hospital for two weeks and William has been absent from public view for much of the past month, and after all that, we know he was just sitting there, stewing in his own incandescent rage about HARRY. Harry on the board of African Parks. Harry, part of a prestigious NGO with a nine-figure budget. Harry, who refuses to ask William for help! Trust the Times of London to side with jihadists too, did you notice that? How dare African Parks have the money and manpower to take it to armed jihadists who subsidize their terrorism through illegal poaching?!?! Won’t someone think of William’s feelings?

Meanwhile, I’m surprised that the Times didn’t mention William’s repeated statements about “African overpopulation” being the biggest threat to wildlife and conservation. Father-of-three William has made it clear, for years, that he thinks Africans are having too many children and that’s the biggest threat to his three children being able to ride elephants for fun. I wonder if William and Harry ever fought about that?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

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

110 Responses to “The Times: Prince Harry & William fought about Africa for years, you guys”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Mel says:

    I can’t even be bothered to read these goofy stories that the Mail puts out. They look stupid, they make whatever royal they think they’re defending look stupid. Harry has been gone FOUR years. Let it go and move on. They are the ones who won’t let go.

    • Proud Mary says:

      I’m with you. I simply don’t have the energy to be upset of most of these ridiculous manufactured outrage stories. Whatever. Keep thriving Harry and leave jealous azz William in your dust.

    • Megan says:

      Documentation about ongoing human rights violations in the Baka region of DRC have been reported by credible human rights organizations and journalists for years. Groups like African Parks and WWF have a neocolonial approach to conservation that is harmful to indigenous communities.

      • sevenblue says:

        @Megan, lol everyone is an expert now. Did any local governmental agency in the region make complaints about how this organization is bad for the region? If anyone committed crimes, they should be punished. But, I don’t see any evidence that this organization tried to bury something illegal. It is funny how as soon as Harry became the public enemy no 1 to the BM, they are getting all these scoops about the organizations Harry is supporting. I remember, they also got some laughable quotes from “whistle blower” working in Invictus trying to make that organization bad. The public isn’t falling for these stupid tactics, even though KP bots and BM are trying their hardest. Like I said, if there is a crime, go to law enforcement, go to human rights organizations. If you are going to the Daily Mail instead, I am not taking it seriously.

      • CC says:

        Are there other conservation charities that you can recommend?

      • tatannelise says:

        @CC, Greenpeace is aware of this issue and does not seem to be actively furthering harm. I’m very disappointed that everyone is hand-waving away very well-documented and severe human rights abuses because We Love Harry. You do not have to trust The Times! Do some googling!

        (I love Harry and do not hold him personally responsible, but when you know better, do better, etc. etc.)

        https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/45497/indigenous-people-biodiversity-fortress-conservation-power-shift/

      • tatannelise says:

        @Sevenblue, there are numerous ongoing legal investigations of various actors. I do not know AP happens to be among them, but the human rights abuses are real. It’s very depressing that people want to make this about William vs. Harry. I pick Harry! I do not think William is a defender of the Indigenous!

        I don’t care for this particular messenger; that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to see here.

      • sevenblue says:

        @tatannelise, of course there might be organizations who are committing crimes. I didn’t say that. If AP did something illegal, show that! If they tried to bury any illegal activity, show that! Again, if the local government is saying AP is a bad organization, harming communities, please refer me to the local reporting. I don’t believe any sh*t published by BM. Times reported the fake bullying story, they are no different to me than DM when it comes to H&M. Harry has always got great reception when he traveled to the region for AP. If he is supporting a bad organization, I expect some local government agency is making a case for it, not sh*tty and corrupt BM.

      • tatannelise says:

        @sevenblue, Think of the problems we have obtaining justice in the US, with all our resources and a very well-developed legal system. Now extrapolate to countries with less wealth, fewer justice institutions, and incentives from wealthy, primarily Western donors to “protect” the land.

        Again, I do not know about AP in particular, but documenting atrocities isn’t an easy task. For obvious reason, perpetrators try to destroy evidence. Collecting any remaining evidence and building cases takes a long time, and for obvious reasons, countries without much wealth or very strong justice systems don’t have tons of resources to commit to this.

        I will note that other conservation orgs have put out statements similar to that of AP when human rights allegations have been made, and eventually, many of the allegations have been substantiated. I’m never donating to WWF again and regret ever having done so.

        I like Prince Harry and am rooting for him. My fondness for him does nothing to diminish the gravity of the alleged offenses.

      • Kit says:

        Hello, there’s neo-colonialism going on right now. China owns a huge swath of land and mining the heck out of Congo. You want to talk about human rights abuse and corruption, start here.

        The problems facing many countries is there’s no political muscle to put aside money AND land for conservation. If you look at percentage of annual budget, countries like Kenya and Tanzania spends 1-2% even though revenues from tourism brings in 5-11% of their GDP. The people themselves want to rehabilitate overgrazed or deforested areas. There have been and continue to be many historical conflicts among people within these countries regarding land rights, political conflicts alongside damaging effects of climate change and mining of natural resources.

        I agree that there are justified criticisms to lob at conservation efforts. Even Greenpeace has its share of controversies and no one is Snow White here. However, it’s also on record that the governments themselves chose to work in partnership with these NGOs because they lack funds. Depending on the country, relationship can be difficult and changes due to the political turmoils and war. There’s an attempt to start an African conservation pact funded by African nations. A-PACT is short $700 billion funding and faces the biggest obstacle to launch, money.

        This recent piece is a hit on Harry, hoping to drag him into the quagmire that we see being discussed on this post. If the reporter truly cares about conservation, reparation and the political and humanitarian problems caused by rapacious mining of natural resources would be front and center.

        It’s using real problems as a tabloid hit piece. It minimizes the real humanitarian crises going on and that we are discussing Harry’s role shows how far down the rabbit hole readers are willing to go.

      • sevenblue says:

        @tatannelise, so what I am getting, you don’t have any source about AP other than corrupt BM. Cool. I trust Harry’s judgment. If AP is a bad organization, I am sure he is gonna stop supporting them. And if there is anything illegal going on, I am sure BM is gonna contact the related organizations to make sure AP and his founders are punished according to the law. Harry is scrutinized more than any politician in UK, no one is gonna try to protect him or his organization if there is really any illegal activity committed by AP.

      • tatannelise says:

        @sevenblue, I never said I had any info about AP in particular, so … sure? I wish I shared your optimism about wrongdoers being punished, but if the pettiness of the BM for once led to more attention being paid to severe, ongoing human rights abuses, I’ll take it.

      • BeanieBean says:

        And that’s Harry’s fault? And William can fix it??

      • Becks1 says:

        @tatannalise but this is a post about Harry and William and the charity/organization for which Harry serves on the board. So I’m not sure why you’re posting all these links about organizations that are….not African Parks.

      • Kit says:

        The problem with all these conservation organizations is they have to work in partnership with the current government of these countries. These are tenuous relationships with a lot of uncomfortable horse trading. That’s true for big western based NGOs and local ones. To say there are internal and external political infightings is like saying water is wet.

        This is true for organizations like Survival International that wants to thrive as a champion of the poor and the downtrodden. Its biggest budget is media outreach and its HQ is based in London. Its other offices are based in: USA · France · Germany · Italy · Netherlands · Spain · Brasil. The fact that it doesn’t have key offices in the African continent or in Asia is telling. And you can bet to maintain offices in such big, expensive cities is eating a hefty budget.

      • Megan says:

        @sevenblue perhaps you should examine the state of the free media in DRC before you start spouting off about a lack of local media stories. Also, you can look up Daily Beast articles from 2019 about human rights abuses in the Baka region. Just because Harry is involved doesn’t mean the problem isn’t real.

        And the optics of believing a White Prince over an Indigenous Black community … I’ll just let you contemplate that.

    • StillDouchesOfCambridge says:

      The British press is so stupid it doesn’t even recognize that the majority pf the people are behind Harry and will not move an ounce closer to Eggplant Peg Prince William even if they would put out a thousand more stories. They are only trying to convince themselves that they didn’t fck up, when we all know, they fckd up big time. They too, can’t find they way of of a paper bag.

    • MoxyLady007 says:

      Yeah. Harry’s stance on how to conserve endangered animals was swapped with Williams and vice versa.

      They just always lie.

  2. Lau says:

    In order to have us consider conservation work to be his, William would actually have to do some work first.

    • Christine says:

      Yeah, I am so sick of this BS. Willnot clearly doesn’t even want England, much less a complete other continent.

  3. Beach Dreams says:

    “William’s wife was in the hospital for two weeks and William has been absent from public view for much of the past month, and after all that, we know he was just sitting there, stewing in his own incandescent rage about HARRY.”

    Between this and H&M’s upcoming appearance in Canada being his clear motivation to finally announce a specific date of return to “work”, he sure is taking a wrecking ball to all those breathless “husband of the century” articles, lol.

    • Cessily says:

      Another article that screams Peggy’s raging jealousy. They are becoming far to oblivious to spot and he is doing himself irreparable damage imo. It’s beyond the “family intervention” stage his behavior is a mental health nightmare to sort out at this point.

    • BeanieBean says:

      🙂. Nothing says potential fixer of all African conservation problems quite like waving a sword around somebody’s head in a castle.

  4. Fighting over a continent they do not own. I believe Peg thinks he does own it. I believe Harry knows that both can do work in Africa and he is right. This is more garbage distraction for whatever is happening on salt isle. The rape allegations if true should be investigated but going to the Mail is suspicious.

    • Megan says:

      The article quoted in this post is from the Times, but you can also read it about in the Guardian.

      • Yes but in Kaisers first couple of paragraphs she says it’s curious they would go to the Mail. So that’s what I was referring to.

      • J says:

        Why don’t you just admit you’re a KP bot or stan @Megan? I am tired of seeing you post H&M slander all over this website.

    • Kit says:

      The problem with Survival International is it is torn between advocating for indigenous rights and its own publicity and need for fundings. It’s pugilistic efforts promote antagonistic relationships mean solutions aren’t forthcoming. It avoids getting at the root of human rights abuse like the intrusion by China and Russia in these countries. It happily falls back on historical, but ignores current neo colonialism and their backers in these conflict areas.

      While Survival International wants to be successful like Amnesty International, its impact is limited in today’s world of manufactured outrage, controversies and the mind numbing effects of social media. People are bombarded and too overwhelmed because they feel their own lives are out of control. Hence, the MAGAfication effect and Brexit for examples.

  5. Mslove says:

    My favorite part is how Peg won’t step into a crisis management role to help his brother, lol. Peg totally failed at his “statesman” role & his “doting husband “ role, not to mention his “ future king’ role. The only thing Peg excels at is laziness.

    • HeatherC says:

      He doesn’t even excel at that (laziness) or he’d be able to weasel out of every “work” related thing and not feel pressure (I guess) to return to “work” before June.

    • Eurydice says:

      What’s even funnier is that, in effect, Harry showed William how it’s done in Jamaica.

    • Christine says:

      That is especially rich, considering he’s slap bang in the middle of a crisis of his own making. Where’s Kate, William, WHERE IS KATE?

  6. SpankFD says:

    I wonder what would happen if Wills *actually tried* — under heavy guidance— to do something good. He could find the best charities in whatever field he fancies and ask them — sincerely— how to help. Ask them to teach him what to do, how to get them what they need, how to make a difference…

    I’ve run various non-profits. I could probably propel Wills in constructive directions, if he were open to suggestions. If he were willing to learn. But he would never humble himself like that, would he?

    • Lady D says:

      William is surrounded by people who could guide him in that direction if that was what he wanted. His own father would be a great place to start for advice. He also grew up with the understanding that to be royal is to serve (no, really). He should have absorbed that fact just growing up in the palace. Instead, the palace made sure Willie’s head was as big as it could get.

  7. Lia says:

    Any relevant point that this article could have made are moot because of its obviously one-side and “hit-piece” nature. I believe there’s something to be said about organisations like African Parks risking dabbling in”green colonialisms” in some of its practices and conservation as a sector has always had huge diversity problem. Nevertheless, I do not believe for a second that racist William believes in locally led solutions, that is just not realistic lol.

    • Snuffles says:

      Exactly. There are a lot of important issues to discuss here, but their focus is William’s petty feud with Harry, his feelings of entitlement towards Africa, and the fact that they’re pissed that Harry is networking with billionaires.

      • Becks1 says:

        Right.. The motivation behind this article isn’t any genuine issue with African Parks. It’s that they wanted Harry on the board and not William.

      • LivingDesert says:

        So… what’s new? It’s the some old, same old, smear Harry, get a pat on the butt from whoever benefits from the hit piece.

    • sunny says:

      Yes to everything you highlighted Lia!

    • Megan says:

      Why are locally lead solutions not realistic?

      • Dee(2) says:

        I’m pretty sure Lia meant believing that William supports locally-led solutions is what’s unrealistic not that locally lead solutions shouldn’t be given priority, and they are correct. Like many others there can be multiple issues discussed. Green colonialism and it’s impact on real solutions being spearheaded by those most impacted, and believing that someone who treats Africa likes his own exotic playground really cares. William has said and done too many bigoted things, which we have either witnessed or learned about later to trust him as someone without an ulterior motive.

      • Lia says:

        William championing locally led solutions is not realistic, given what we know about his racism and overpopulation comments.

      • The Hench says:

        @Megan. Lia said that believing William believes in locally lead solutions is not realistic.

      • Christine says:

        Agreed, The Hench, they came up with “locally lead solutions” because BUZZWORDS!, but they don’t apply with anything associated with Willnot. There are just buzzwords, in this context, used to make Harry look bad for somethingsomethingsomething.

  8. B says:

    William is so obviously frustrated he can’t make fetch happen and turn this into a scandal. He placed an article in the Times, deployed his bot and troll army and still the global media is ignoring this transparent attempt at character assassination.

    Might I suggest he let go of his obsession with the Sussexes and use his media resources to combat the rumors swirling around about his wife.

  9. Ksenia says:

    I don’t know why you are ignoring the serious problems within this article? It raises fair issues about eco colonialism and the lack of diversity on the board, and about how Harry isn’t capable of guiding a charity through the complexities of African conflict and terrorists and poaching and the poverty that leads to poaching. I am not a royalist and generally side with H&M, but it’s a fair critique of Harry to question how he could really help beyond fundraising. Also it’s fair to critique this charity’s actions and infrastructure.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      This👆. Many, many questions around African Parks, and I wish Harry was not associated with it. Deeply problematic. It’s not anti-Harry to point this out.

      • windyriver says:

        I don’t know much about AP, and I’m seriously interested in hearing more about these criticisms.

        As far as the board question, I took a look at the website, and what I see on a very superficial level, is that Harry is on the overall board (it’s hard to fully understand the organization but it looks like there are other sub boards, e.g., for the individual parks). It’s true the overall board has 8 members, but while four of them are white, four of them aren’t. There’s only one woman currently though another woman is emeritus (both are black). A quick glance tells me Harry is probably as qualified as any of them (consider, among other things, what was involved in organizing the last couple of Invictus games), and, given the background of his time spent in Africa over the years, possibly more qualified in some areas than some others. Pretty much all of them have extensive business background, generally in the private sector, some of them from work outside Africa. The current Chairperson is a doctor of Indian background who was CEO of the drug company Novartis. A couple have backgrounds in accounting and finance.

        It’s a pretty high powered group of people. As far as “guiding a charity through the complexities of African conflict” etc., I don’t see how Harry is any less qualified than many of them. Whether not there’s valid questions overall about how this board is composed, the fact is, this article was slanted to make it seem like Harry was only appointed because of his royal status, and based on who the other members are, that’s not the case.

      • tatannelise says:

        Yes!

      • jemma says:

        The issue here is that of jealousy – William does not want Harry to outshine hime. This piece is a hit piece- apparently the contact( current chair person I believe ) at survival international is part of the establishment- They have an OBE so would write in support of William . Meanwhile the erstwhile (former) chairman/ President of survival UK & USA ( who by the way only recently stepped down in October 2023) actually came out as soon as this hit piece was released to say that (1) the allegations of rape is not just with African Parks but with other NGOs in the conservation space in the whole of Africa. (2) The allegations of rape pre dates Harry’s tenure of being a member of the Board of Directors of African Parks (3) African Parks have asked Survival International for evidence of these allegations but they have not been forthcoming .
        As an aside, the erstwhile chairman in wanting to obtain documentation to back up his assertions tried to log into the Survival International database but said his access had been revoked.

        so in a nutshell , this has the fingerprints of William all over this piece . Why ask Harry to step down now? Harry is a board member and yes he may not have the tools to deal with the crisis management but does William have the tools?
        As in the case of sour grapes, William simply does not want Harry to be associated with anything that brings international renown and recognition.

        As to both brothers having an interest in animal conservation, both would have inherited this from Prince Phillip ,King Charles & The Late Queen.

        The Queen was in Kenya when she was informed of the death of her farther – She was actually on the top of a tree when the message of her father’s death was relayed to her. She went up that tree a Princess and came down a Queen.

        Even Queen Camilla through her Late Brother is some close ties in this space as her late brother was the founder of the Tusk Foundation of which Prince William is a Patron of.

        Further more, both Brothers dated ladies whose parents are “African” For instance William’s ex girl friend , Jecca family owns large swathes of farmland in Kenya . Ditto Chelsey Davy’s family (, Harry’s Ex- girlfriend)

        Maybe William should also step down from his role at The Tusk Foundation as the problem is endemic of the foreign NGO’s that operate in this space.

      • LivingDesert says:

        Please, let me just for once say, this story of “climbed up a tree as princess, came down as queen” is charming, but … well…

        Princess Elizabeth stayed in a hotel called “Treetops Hotel”. Yes, it was originally built to serve as a kind of view platform, but “Treetops” changed to “top of a tree” over time, because it just made a better story, I assume. 🙂

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treetops_Hotel

      • bisynaptic says:

        @Windyriver, 4 of 8 Board members are White, but are they even African Whites? Imagine if half of a European Agency’s Board of Directors was composed of Africans.

    • Becks1 says:

      Is he the only one leading the organization? Is he making all the decisions?

      Anyway, as was said above – the issue with this article is that it wasn’t written because there are genuine issues with African Parks as an organization. The article was written because William is mad that the organization prefers Harry to him.

    • Kingston says:

      @Ksenia

      How does one critique fairly without a basis of facts? Where in these excerpts of this article did you see a good faith attempt to present facts from African Parks + independently verifiable information based on journalisitc interrogation?

      Media literacy is a critical skill in this age of deliberate disinformation. Always ask whose interest is being served by a story like this that is steeped in geopolitics and historical colonialism, overlaid by a vapid and pathetic personal and one-sided feud by a little-man heir to the british throne with Joffrey-like tendencies.

      I read a researcher on Joffrey’s character who said: “Joffrey suffers from a specific form of sadistic personality disorder called tyrannical sadism, due to his habit of relishing in “verbally and physically harming and abusing others with his power.”

      Thats willy windsor.

      • tatannelise says:

        Do some googling. William vs. Harry is a total distraction. I very seriously doubt Harry is in any tangible way responsible for any wrongs that have been committed, but he could ABSOLUTELY use his profile to become more informed about “conservation”-related human rights abuses and speak out against them. This is not incompatible with saving the planet or creating protected areas — or it shouldn’t be.

        https://www.iucn.org/story/202206/statement-human-rights-abuses-conservation#:~:text=The%20history%20of%20conservation%20is,land%20and%20in%20the%20ocean.

      • Kit says:

        @tantannelise, as you say this is a distraction. Here’s the thing Survival International, whose own motive isn’t so pure either, lobbed an accusation. There will be an investigation first. But investigation takes time and good PR is all about carpet diem.

        The problem is also with Survival International whose CEO is a white man. The organization is aimed at western media and its core, better paid staffers are non indigenous! I donate to Amnesty International and researched Survival International because I liked the messaging initially, but like many things, the politics and its western orientation got in the way. That includes avoiding its messaging about the overseas financial backers of much of the destruction of tribal and indigenous people’s land and related human rights abuse. Survival International loves to blame historical western colonialism as the root problem, but avoids current imperialist players. It’s as if it’s afraid of the 2 biggest players, China and Russia. China’s heavy investment in Latin America and Africa is well documented as it is displacing US’s influence and monies.

        Somehow despite everyone’s supposed pure intentions, the same MO of taking advantage of people who are already severely disadvantaged continues. It’s a real advocacy problem that many well meaning groups face, just like so many white people adopting BLM sign in their predominately white neighborhood. People mean well, but their actions and lifestyle are often in contradiction.

    • Dee(2) says:

      Harry’s one member of the board, how is he responsible for guiding the charity through a difficult and problematic time? Why does the onus fall only on Harry because you know who he is? Other members on the board like members of The Walton family have way more influence and money to grease palms than Harry does why is he being singled out as the one who has to fix it? Unless you acknowledge that the criticism is not founded in good faith against what may be troubling things about the organization and just as a way to slam Harry. This is why the article isn’t being taken seriously it’s clear they don’t actually care about any of those issues and I doubt they would have written about this at all if Harry wasn’t on the board.

      • B says:

        Exactly @Dee! Africa Parks released a statement addressing all this and its quite obvious Survival International is working with the Daily Mail and stonewalling Africa Parks, the independent investigative team they commissioned to look in to these abuses, and authorities from the Baka community because this about attacking Harry not getting justice.

        Here is the link to their statement:
        https://www.africanparks.org/african-parks-follow-response-allegations-human-rights-abuses-odzala-kokoua-national-park-republic

        In June 2023 the African Parks Board commissioned an independent investigation by a London based legal firm (Omnia Strategy LLP), in partnership with two specialist human rights legal counsels from Doughty Street Chambers, to investigate all the allegations. If it was about justice why not aid in the investigation? Why is Survival International stonewalling?

        Why run to the media during an ongoing investigation and risk the publication of sensitive information like names and images of the victim(s) being released ? Did Survival International really think the DAILY MAIL would be helpful and sensitive to the victims? No! they would sensationalize this which could be tantamount to a second abuse of the victim(s). Its also what why they were warned to cooperate with the authorities and the investigation and not a Brit tabloid. They did not listen because this is not about justice.

        This is a transparent attempt by KP to attack Harry. Its being largely ignored because it is so transparent. Willy can plant all the stories he wants and send out all the bots and trolls he wants but this doesn’t get off his little island.

        This is the real world and in the real world when serious accusations are made a serious investigation takes place. Not a tit for tat in the press that discounts the victims, Best Practices, and local/international laws.

      • Joanne says:

        Dee( 2 ), that’s the bottom line. Would the article have been written if Prince Harry wasn’t on the board? The article’s purpose is to defame Harry, not to educate or bring awareness to the rape allegations. Without Harry, the article would never have been published.

      • LivingDesert says:

        We all know why he is singled out. He’s Harry, for FS! He needs to be slammed and any dirt one can dig up and smear all over him – because he is Harry – is okay.

        Facts and reality be damned! 🙁

    • BeanieBean says:

      Harry’s a member of the board, I’m unclear on how it’s all on his shoulders to fix anything. And as so many others have mentioned, this article is not concerned about the very real issues confronting African conservation efforts but rather how to further the demonization of Harry & the glorification of William. Which quite frankly is patently obvious.

    • LRob says:

      Boards are often comprised of people with a variety of skills, backgrounds, and spheres of influence, often without expertise in the charity/org’s primary mission. PH has broad international influence with orgs and world leaders and he facilitiates fundraising as well as shines a spotlight on the causes he supports. No doubt he can stand shoulder to shoulder with any other board memeber they have. I agree the diversity issue is one AP should address, if they can avoid the right wing haters who apparently despise such things.

  10. Myeh says:

    Yikes… Do the people writing these anti Harry pieces realize that they come off making the other brother even more unlikable. Actually both of them sound like tools here. Performatively empower the locals vs white saviorism. Maybe butt out colonizers and give back the wealth you stole plus interest. Apologize and maybe stop interfering.

  11. JaneS says:

    And Africa still needs a lot of help.
    Why is everything always a competition?
    JMO, but instead of popping up new Foundations or Charity Agencies, wouldn’t more help get done hands on if the wealthy supported proven companies already in place?

    Such a bunch of petty people in the BRF.

  12. Murphy says:

    The Times: Prince William has been an insufferable a-hole his whole life

  13. tatannelise says:

    I like Prince Harry tremendously, and the Mail article is just … whatever, but human rights abuses being committed in the name of creating parks/”protected” areas is a HUGE problem that I only recently became aware of.

    Basically, because of the UN 30×30 initiative, there are incentives for lower-income countries to declare lands on which Indigenous people and/or ethnic minorities live “protected” areas … and to then simply chase those residents off the land, often in ghastly ways such as torching their homes.

    I want to save the planet too, but this is not the way.

    https://www.survivalinternational.org/articles/FAQs-Baka-African-Parks

    https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/12/biodiversity-plan-to-declare-30-of-the-world-protected-areas-by-2030-must-place-indigenous-peoples-rights-at-its-heart/

    I sincerely hope Prince Harry is able to use his influence to learn about and combat such abuses.

    • HO says:

      You need to rest. You’re everywhere.

    • Kit says:

      You referenced Survival International PR box. Look UN COP 30 x30, like many COP pledges, it’s not a mandate. It’s a reference framework. If Survival International wants to advocate conservation, go ahead. It might want to shut down offices in Paris, Berlin, San Fran first though with their giant footprints. You might want to include more neutral news source. COP is about nations and climate pledge.

      Harry isn’t a nation.

      But yeah, trying to attach COP 30 x 30 to Harry’s coattail by you IS a distraction and a misdirection.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      tatannelise, what makes you think Harry isn’t already using his influence in this way? I think that AP working with the local police on these issues is the best way to start.

      Perhaps you should write to Survival International and explain why they need to work with the police and give them the information they have that they used to report to AP that rapes were occurring. Do you honestly think that having 0 information from the organization reporting it will actually help to end the problem? If Survival International is not going to give the information they have, why isn’t that organization not doing something about it?

      Any human rights violations need to be investigated and plans put in place to stop them. That can’t happen unless people share information. I also point out to you that AP alone cannot solve all of these problems. It will take ALL of the conservation organizations doing work which will need to work in tandem.

      I really do urge you to write to Survival International and ask them to cooperate with the local police regarding the rapes that the organization reported.

    • J says:

      @TATANNELISE
      Just admit you are a KP bot or Stan.
      I am tired of seeing your multiple posts advocating for this hit piece.

  14. Roseberry says:

    This story has so many disturbing elements, apparently Survival Intl has a history of bailing out of cases they’ve made complaints against. Hence their refusal to turnover evidence , choosing instead to smear Harry in cahoots with the Times. Apparently they’ve said it’s not their job to do the investigation ( they’d rather sit on crucial info that could save further atrocities!)
    S Intl is a London based NGO, I wonder about the ethnic diversity of their governing board ,there is so much neo colonialism/white saviourism in the way some of these organisations operate – African Parks according to the article have a board that is 50% white, given the scale of the donations this seems like a fair balance and was what I experienced during the few years that I worked in an African country, where the government legislated for equal partnerships with investors and local involvement. Given that Harry is quite hands on organising the Invictus Games, I would think he’s more than capable of heading the board at AP.

    • tatannelise says:

      I have no connection whatsoever with Survival International but am 100% aware of human rights abuses being committed in the name of conservation. I can’t vouch for SI’s particular allegations, but this is a well-known thing that has been happening for a long time. I LOVE Prince Harry, but I’m not going to ignore gross human rights abuses because I’m a fangirl.

      https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14022022/conservation-has-a-human-rights-problem-can-the-new-un-biodiversity-plan-solve-it/

      https://grist.org/global-indigenous-affairs-desk/un-conservation-shouldnt-cost-indigenous-lives/

      • swaz says:

        Everything you said is true, but ironies of all ironies we are only discussing the one were Harry is on the Board.

      • tatannelise says:

        I’m very much trying to expand the lens here and *not* just focus on Harry. I’m an earnest nerd who is not mad at Harry but definitely thinks the conservation world writ large needs a big, shining spotlight on its work in the Global South to prevent atrocities from being committed in the name of “protecting the land.”

      • Kingston says:

        @tatannelise Youre still only focused on Prince Harry. Chalk that up to the powerful influence of the gutter press to sway the average reader.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        tatannelise, see my reply above to you. Harry CANNOT single handedly solve these problems. Write to Survirors International and tell them to give information to the local police, which they refuse to do. That would at least solve that ONE problem. The whole organization just sounds like a media circus and doesn’t actually DO anything. Start there.

        ALL of the conservation organizations need to work together to come up with plans to be able to do conservation work that will not impact communities. The governments, who are accepting money by making those communities protected and then chasing the people out needs to be addressed. Where ever that money is coming from, there needs to be serious consequences if a government does this again. For example NO MORE MONEY.

        Harry cannot fix this as one person. African Parks cannot fix this except for their own actions and the consequences. I’m not sure why you keep hitting this, but I suggest you put your passion into helping in some way if you aren’t already.

  15. Beff says:

    They’re basically admitting that Wills sits back and lets other people do the work that he takes credit for, rather than actually doing the work that Harry is on the ground doing. Lulz.

  16. Amy Bee says:

    It’s interesting that the British press had no issue with Harry’s involvement in African Parks when he was a working royal. It would have more balanced if they also noted that Williams work in this area was equally problematic. There have been complaints about Tusk’s activities in Africa as well and William has been on record as blaming overpopulation for threat to wildlife. The piece also neglected to mention that Harry’s on the South African board not the Congo one. Just a few months ago, the derangers and the press were saying Harry’s membership on the board was a downgrade from being President now they’re saying the opposite. I think organisations like African Parks should be providing scholarships to locals to train as veterinarians so that they don’t have always depend on foreign personnel to carry out conservation work

  17. Just Jade says:

    These people are not bright at all are they? You claimed your wife was in the hospital and will be out of commission for months and you have three children to mentally support and you find time to continue trashing your brother and his family.

  18. Chelsea says:

    That comment from the ‘former African Parks executive’ about there not being Africans on the board is a bit odd because when i went to check the site after Harry was elevated to the board it showed that the the person who replaced him as a president was African and there are many Africans on that board as well. That said I do always get kind of skittish about conservation groups run in Africa by white people and I believe the CEO is white and many working out of the london office are as well but I was put a bit at ease by the fact that when you look at the rangers and staff actually managing the parks on the ground they seem to be mostly African and when you look at the details of the government contracts AP doesn’t get ownership of the land just the ability to help manage it as a nonprofit NGO and they have economic and educational incentives for the communities are written in.

    The allegations are serious and I’m glad they are being investigated by law enforcement and a third-party law firm– I just wish real journalists broke this story so that we could trust that what was said was true and done to get justice for these alleged victims instead of being used to placate William’s small d*** syndrome.

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      The issue isn’t really how many Africans are on the board. It’s not difficult for the white, European and North American billionaires who run AP to find Africans willing to do their bidding for large amounts of money. These arrangements are notoriously corrupt. The human rights abuses occur far removed from the actual board members who approve the policies which set aside huge swathes of land for protection from the very people who have lived there for centuries. And AP and other NGO’s then train private vigilante armies made up of poor Africans to enforce these policies which benefit the wealthy through ecotourism and forcibly displace indigenous people. Anyone wishing to learn more about private conservation practices can just start with Google. It’s an education. (And rape allegations occur regularly. It’s a way of forcing people off the land.)

      • tatannelise says:

        Good synopsis of a very depressing reality.

      • Totorochan says:

        Yes, it’s sadly a very familiar story. And it isn’t confined to conservation organizations or NGOs; big corporations have very similar accusations emerge. A company that manufactures a popular drink has been accused of human rights abuses in various countries, including depriving the local people of water and polluting their land, and rape, including of minors, torture, home invasion and murder.

        Upthread a poster said that abuses in DRC had been documented for years by credible human rights organizations and another poster replied with “lol” and “everyone’s an expert now”.

        I like Prince Harry and I do not think the alleged abuses are his personal fault and I’m sure he is concerned. It’s also clear that the tabloids will write this up with an anti-Harry stance.

        However, the decent, humane response to hearing about these crimes is not “lol”. Or calling them goofy stories, manufactured outrage and whatever else has been said by various posters. Documenting and (it would be wonderful to hope) stopping human rights abuses against ordinary people in developing countries, Indigenous people, defenceless people who can’t easily get their voices heard is actually MORE important than supporting a prince… in my opinion.

      • Kit says:

        @totorochan. Good point. Concerns about smearing Harry and Human Rights abuse are related, but on a vastly different scale. They are about abusive practices, small and big.

        This article isn’t about human rights abuse or even conservation. The manufactured outage at Harry to make him the fixer and the culprit is the usual smear tactic by gossipsmongers and gossip peddlers to cover up and misdirect from the shady going ons with Buckingham Palace.

  19. Maxine Branch says:

    These raping allegations did not begin with Harry. From what I can understand from the response he made, it has been difficult for him to get pertinent information from a supposably supporting organization. Instead of supplying Harry with the necessary information they shared information re the allegations with the gutter Daily Mail. I think we are all aware of the intent. As he indicated in his response, the worst possible thing this leak did was exploit the persons who were raped. It is as if they were being raped again with their names being outed.

    Harry has access to some of the best minds in the world. Hoping he taps into his resources to get to the bottom of these allegation. Also, African Parks which he was appointed CEO is not the villain here it is the vast surrounding areas. Wishing him and the victims the very best as he navigates this quagmire.

  20. Eurydice says:

    Harry’s association with AP is his own business. If there are problems at AP, then it’s up to the entire board and management to address and solve them.

    But, none of this has anything to do with William. If William cared so deeply about his approach to African conservation, then he could have gotten involved in a different way that reflected his beliefs. Instead, he’s chosen to announce his interest in other issues – he should be focusing on them.

  21. Maxine Branch says:

    Every person who has met Harry will debunk this nonsense and it is all nonsense. Harry in his words wrote about his life and experiences growing up, the good, bad and ugly. These folks who write this nonsense are making fools of themselves by trying to rewrite his history

  22. Steph says:

    We all saw the interview with both Harry and Pegs where Harry tried his best to save Pegs from only stating he lives Africa for the animals with no mention of the people. You couldn’t pay me to believe he gives a crap about community based conservation. That being said, I do believe most of these items orgs are “green colonialism.” Which is why I don’t trust them. I haven’t looked into African Parks but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s more of the same.

    • Christine says:

      That clip was making the rounds on social media last weekend, like someone knew we would need it.

  23. equality says:

    So where is the dive into Tusk Trust being neo-colonialism. Check out their board online with mostly white faces in an org run from the UK. Takes nerve for PW, who wouldn’t release stats for KP employment, to complain about anything PH is involved with.

  24. Magdalena says:

    “William believes you should focus on community-led schemes where local people over time feel empowered to protect the land. Harry, on the other hand, was more interventionist. He felt that you need a more hands-on approach to ensure wildlife habitats were securely protected to enact change quickly.”

    This is a big fat LIE. It’s actually the opposite. Harry is the one who focusses on “community-led schemes” in conservation. He also prefers to be more hands-on in his work, but as we have seen, the man clearly knows how to delegate. That’s a skill good leaders have.

    Ever since Harry and Meghan began talking about their community-led projects and empowering local people, KP has been working overtime to co-opt these terms. Rinse and repeat. William would prefer to boss people around and encourage/legitimise land theft under the guise of “conservation” – see his friends with operations in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Brazil. But they can’t say that and slander H, so they come up with this fraudulent narrative.

    Is every day Opposite Day in the UK?

    • tamsin says:

      @Magdalena

      “William believes you should focus on community-led schemes where local people over time feel empowered to protect the land. Harry, on the other hand, was more interventionist. He felt that you need a more hands-on approach to ensure wildlife habitats were securely protected to enact change quickly.”

      I think the same. I had to read that sentence twice to be sure I had not misread. So now they are trying to attribute all of Harry’s work to William, just like they try to give Kate credit for Meghan’s work. This is both outrageous and pathetic.

  25. GDubslady says:

    The point of the hit piece is to stop a Netflix Production for Harry and hurt his pockets. Obama narrated a US Parks a three part documentary for Netflix so with Harry’s close association with the Obamas I thought he would do this first even b4 Invictus. The bad publicity might be enough to scuttle any production. I think the Sussexes are now being more circumspect in reporting their projects until they are complete. Perhaps if the Sussexes only appear in one of several segments of an African Park series or produce projects to get them greenlighted.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      GDubslady, if that’s really what the bm/brf think, they have a VERY inflated opinion of themselves. If there is a documentary about AP, what they do and how they do it will be shown. It will debunk that and show that AP is community based. It will just show once again that the bm/brf are idiots.

  26. tamsin says:

    My understanding AP was that they make contracts with governments to carry out certain policies and conservation measures within a specified time frame. One of the objectives is to ensure local people or at least not harmed and can benefit from the measure implemented so that environment, animals, and population can exist without actively harming the other. The BM is reporting this in the same way they report their made-up royal stories, with “sources” who are not named and do not wish to be named. The issue is serious and obviously involves many organizations and NGO’s and countries. What is curious is the allegation that the NGO who reported the rapes contacted Harry directly and now refuses to cooperate? What is that all about. It is again a case of the BM misrepresenting something in service of a certain agenda. Although I’m sure Harry individually and as a member of the board is doing all he can to do something about this, it is not a problem any single person can solve in a day, and the crimes are as old as human history. Boards generally oversee and provide leadership and holds the organization accountable. It would be more productive to focus on the measures taken by the Board, what effects they have, and who is held accountable. The issue should not be written up as yet another hit piece on Harry.

  27. Rose says:

    I’m disgusted even after all these years, they’re still using Meghan and Harry to distract the public. Hopefully, one day when the boomers are not in power anymore, the monarchy will be demolish and the truth will finally come out

  28. Kit says:

    Ok I’ll play the game Survival International is playing. What about the Uguyrs and the Tibetans? (Hint: SI needs to stop spending so much of its budget on PR like Google search algorithm. Big techs are neck deep in sh*t when it comes to the environment, greed, exploitation, bad practices.)

    How about Eartsh*t saving planet Earth….. Next stop China……

    Crickets.

    • Darkwing Duck says:

      Concern around this issue would be entirely bad faith coming from The Times. Their readership would agree with the bad neo-colonialist style conservation they ascribe to Harry. They are the kind of people who like to bang on about how how Africans can’t be trusted to govern themselves and look at Rhodesia and Soutn Africa now…

      They have obviously been keeping this in reserve for a while, can you believe that 4 years later one of Wiliam’s never explaining staff suddenly recalled that Spare wasn’t all lies and in fact, Meghan didnt drive a wedge between the previously inseparable brothers? Wonder why it took them 4 years to remember it? Seems like with all the acres of analysis about this they would have mentioned it sooner? But good on them for not betraying confidences and washing this family linen in public until they really needed to, to distract from Kate,

      Why does William want to open up this front? It will require strikes of surgical precision not to take him down as well? I’m surprised they all forgot not just the “Africans having too many children” but what happened not so long ago in Belize either? Different approach to conservation my foot…!

      “Protests by local residents have forced the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to cancel a trip to a Belize village that was scheduled to kick off their Caribbean tour, after residents protested against it.

      Opposition to the royal excursion had arisen from a dispute between residents of Toledo district and Flora and Fauna International (FFI), a conservation charity Prince William is a patron of.

      […]

      The Belize landing site of William and Kate’s helicopter – a local football pitch – caused further issues with residents, who claim they had not been consulted about it.

      The local broadcaster Channel 7 described the tensions between the citizens and the state as about the “meaning of consent in the context of communal land rights, rights to lands that were expunged in the colonial period by the British”.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/19/william-and-kate-cancel-belize-village-trip-due-to-protests

  29. BQM says:

    The story is a worthy one and one that could be tackled from several directions. It’s sad that the DM is only publishing it because they have the angle of going after Harry. But no one really expects journalism from them. A story about such a serious issue deserves more than being used to flog a beef the writer has.

  30. tatannelise says:

    I stepped away from this thread for most of yesterday because of other obligations.

    ANYWAY, I can’t think of a better illustration of performative allyship than people crapping all over allegations of Indigenous human rights abuses because they want to pick sides between a couple of white princes.

    Feel free to dump on me all you want, but don’t delude yourself that you’re helping the Indigenous, Prince Harry, or anyone else by acting outraged when people point out that these allegations have dogged the conservation field for many, many years. Indigenous human rights abuses are something anyone who supports international conservation efforts should take into account and make sure they are not inadvertently abetting. Given that I do think he has good intentions, I suspect PH wasn’t aware of this before; I hope he’ll do his own due diligence now. I myself gave to “respected” conservation organizations for many years before I became aware of this issue, but know that I know better, I try to do better.

    I do not have any links to SI, and after poking around their web page, I am actively concerned about some of the ways they seek to raise awareness. (I am NOT a fan of posting videos/testimony on unsecured web pages, among other approaches.) That doesn’t mean the allegations are made up.