"Prince Harry is planning to return to the U.K. “more and more” following the reunion with his father, King Charles, last month.

A source close to the Duke of Sussex recently told The Times, “The way the wind is blowing, he’s going to want to be here more and more.”

“He’s happy these trips can now have more focus on the patronages and be less obscured by the other nonsense. He wants more of a foothold here, more trips back, less courtroom drama,” the source added, referring to the conclusion of Harry’s legal action against U.K. press. “And he always loves seeing his family.”"

https://people.com/prince-harry-plans-visit-uk-every-few-months-following-king-charles-reunion-report-12061437

You'd almost think all the legal "nonsense" wasn't instigated by Harry himself.

He's been to UK twice this year, plus trip to Australia, 2 trips to Canada and many more I'm sure. Clearly he doesn't give a toss about his carbon footprint. Wonder what Travalyst thinks?

"Prince Harry is planning to return to the U.K. “more and more” following the reunion with his father, King Charles, last month.

A source close to the Duke of Sussex recently told The Times, “The way the wind is blowing, he’s going to want to be here more and more.”

“He’s happy these trips can now have more focus on the patronages and be less obscured by the other nonsense. He wants more of a foothold here, more trips back, less courtroom drama,” the source added, referring to the conclusion of Harry’s legal action against U.K. press. “And he always loves seeing his family.”"

https://people.com/prince-harry-plans-visit-uk-every-few-months-following-king-charles-reunion-report-12061437

You'd almost think all the legal "nonsense" wasn't instigated by Harry himself.

Y

He's been to UK twice this year, plus trip to Australia, 2 trips to Canada and many more I'm sure. Clearly he doesn't give a toss about his carbon footprint. Wonder what Travalyst thinks?

"Prince Harry has lost his final legal appeal against the U.K. government’s decision to reduce his official security detail during visits to Britain, marking the latest setback in his long-running battle over safety and royal status.

The Duke of Sussex had been fighting to restore the full police protection he once received as a senior working royal. Since stepping back from his royal duties in 2020 and relocating to the United States, Harry’s taxpayer-funded security was downgraded, with any protection now handled on a case-by-case basis.

Harry and his legal team argued that private bodyguards are no substitute for official police protection. British law prevents private security from carrying firearms or accessing national intelligence systems—critical tools, they claimed, to ensure the safety of Harry, Meghan, and their children during U.K. visits.

In testimony to the High Court in December 2023, Harry described the U.K. as “my home” and a vital part of his children’s identity. “That cannot happen if it's not possible to keep them safe when they are on U.K. soil,” he said.

Despite these arguments, the Court of Appeal sided with the government. On Friday, Master of the Rolls Sir Geoffrey Vos dismissed the appeal, stating that Harry’s “sense of grievance” did not constitute a legal basis to overturn the prior decision.

Harry did not appear in court for the ruling.

This judgment reinforces a previous legal defeat in 2024, where the High Court upheld the 2020 decision to downgrade his security. It also signals the end of Harry’s legal options in this matter, barring a new line of challenge. "

https://londondaily.com/u-k-court-rejects-prince-harry-s-final-appeal-over-police-security

That makes at least 3 court cases Harry has lost. Imagine how much these cases have cost the British taxpayers - not in legal fees, but court time and all the associated costs, including Judge, Court Officers, Admin etc.

Bottom line - they were here a few weeks ago and everything was fine - without armed security. Maybe time for Harry to realise he is not an international statesman, he's just a rich guy lounging in California when not jetting off around the world at the drop of a hat.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have been warned that their Montecito mansion faces serious flood and mudslide danger this autumn, putting their California Megxit dream at risk. Locals in the La Vuelta neighbourhood near San Ysidro Creek recently met Santa Barbara County officials to demand urgent flood-control measures amid fears of a "super El Niño". The couple's £11million Chateau of Riven Rock sits close to the same waterways that triggered the deadly 2018 debris flows which killed 23 people.

Previous owner Terry Cunningham admitted he "sure as hell didn't think about" mudslides when he built the nine-bedroom estate. Experts say sediment build-up and heavy winter rains could again threaten the gated community once the dry season ends. Despite the property now being valued at about $29 million, the looming weather threat has cast a fresh shadow over the Sussexes' carefully constructed life on the US West Coast.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/royal-family-live-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-have-been-warned-megxit-dream-at-risk/ar-AA29Zu0L?ocid=BingNewsSerp

As Longfellow said in Retribution

Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience he stands waiting, with exactness grinds he all.

The U.S. State Department has withheld 18 documents relating to Prince Harry and will continue reviewing hundreds more in a Freedom of Information Act case related to his visa and past drug use, court documents show.

The right-wing think tank Heritage Foundation initially sued the Department of Homeland Security, seeking the release of Harry's visa records and arguing the American public had a right to know whether he was candid about his use of narcotics.

Heritage lost the case after Judge Carl Nichols ruled that Harry's privacy interests outweighed any public interest in disclosure. Lawyers for Heritage filed a new case in 2025 against the State Department requesting all its other documents about Harry, apart from the visa papers themselves.

https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-documents-state-department-visa-heritage-foundation-12307406

things really aren’t going well for him, are they?

Speaking to The Sunday Times in 2020, Sophie said, “We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living. Hence, we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely.”

James, Earl of Wessex is 18 and has left school. He is currently working on the land at Sandringham, driving tractors and "mucking in".

Good for him! He sounds like a down to earth young man. It will be interesting to see what he chooses to do next. His sister, Lady Louise, is taking a gap year after graduating from St Andrews

https://people.com/king-charles-18-year-old-nephew-has-a-surprising-summer-job-12057209#comments

People makes a glaring mistake in the article, saying James "graduated from school", which simply does not happen. You sit exams and then you leave school in the UK. Graduation is only from university or college

There are plenty of examples in the Royal Family where the younger children of the Monarch do not feel their kids have to be styled as Prince and Princess:

Princess Mary (daughter of George V) - two sons

Princess Margaret (daughter of George VI)- son and daughter

Princess Anne (daughter of QEII) - Son and daughter

Prince Edward (Son of QEII) daughter and son.

It's an established "thing". And nobody seems to have suffered. Yes, the grandchildren the Monarch are "entitled" to use Royal Titles. That's hardly an argument or reason for doing so, though. I can't think of any other Royals who were not entitled to Princely status to then start using said title when the Monarch dies.

Right from the start there was discontent when Archie was born, with some folk claiming it was racism not to give him the title. Nope, it was totally in line with the law AND established practice.

Time moves on and things change. Back in the day, every single one of Queen Victoria's grandchildren was Prince or Princess. But things are different now, and a slimmer down Royal Family makes sense.

Martha Stewart’s Account of Dinner Party Conversation with Meghan Markle Is ‘Simply Untrue’: Source

Stewart claimed in a PEOPLE interview that the Duchess of Sussex was “talking” about her recent trip to Europe, which included a reunion with King Charles, during an event they both attended

• A source who hosted a dinner party attended by Martha Stewart and Meghan Markle says that Stewart’s account of the event is “simply untrue”
• Stewart claimed that the Duchess of Sussex was talking about her recent trip to Europe, during which she had a rare reunion with King Charles
• The source says, “Meghan didn’t talk about her European vacation other than to say the family had a great time”

So, People publish two articles saying two different things. which one do you believe?

I suppose it does show People aren't just Meghans mouthpiece.

Meghan explains her mind blowing cookie habits - please make sure you are sitting down before reading this

“Meghan then added “I like to dip them in jam.”

“I’ve never heard someone do that,” Shannon-Elizabeth (a Girl Scout) replied, nodding along at the idea.

Meghan then offered another alternative: “Or sandwich them together with jam in between.” “

https://people.com/meghan-markle-shares-unexpected-ways-she-eats-girl-scout-cookies-12036098

yup. That’s it. Jam.

People published a piece about cookies and jam. Is there anything they won’t publish if it has a Sussex link?

The header tells you everything you never needed to know:

"Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s Dogs Get in on Her 45th Birthday Celebrations with Mini Party Hats"

but just in case you are intrigued:

https://people.com/meghan-markle-prince-harrys-dogs-celebrate-her-45th-birthday-celebrations-mini-party-hats-12034791

Could she possibly be upset about Eugenie's baby news?I

I mean, there has to be a reason behind this madness. Doesn't there?

41 years ago today, baby Prince William was christened.

How time flies!

Love Diana's bright pink dress.

Such a nice tradition, publishing the christening photos down the generations

more about the Commonwealth Games:

• While meeting with some of the star cyclists, William turned down an offer for him and Kate to try a turn on a tandem bike, joking that they embarrass their kids “enough as it is”

Love when we see glimpses of his well-tuned sense of humour.

I love this photo taken at the Commonwealth Games today.

The boys and Edward clearly have a great relationship.

UPDATE: it looks like insurance will not be enough to cover costs

Nicholas Bacon KC, for the group of claimants, said that Mr Justice Nicklin should not award ANL their costs on the stricter, indemnity basis.

The barrister said in written submissions that it could be “very significant” if the group of seven had to pay ANL’s cost on this stricter basis and could lead to them being without enough insurance cover.

And after such a resounding defeat it is not looking good.

Hope Meghan has got more jam bubbling on the stove

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16010567/Prince-Harry-phone-hacking-bill-millions-Daily-Mail-vindicated.html

From the article:

Prince Harry's doomed phone hacking case against the Daily Mail was conducted so 'outside the norm' that he and his fellow claimants should be made to pay a substantial part of Associated's legal costs, the High Court heard today.

The trial was pursued in a 'cavalier' and 'highly unreasonable and inexcusable' fashion, the Mail's publisher argued.

Some aspects of the three-month trial earlier this year were 'not only unfair' to wrongly accused journalists but 'in flagrant breach' of the judge's repeated warnings to the claimants' lawyers about how the trial should be conducted, it said.

The Mail's publisher Associated Newspapers argued the 'egregious' way the claimants and their legal team had conducted the case merited a court order that they pay costs on an 'indemnity basis'.

Such an order would allow judges to go beyond 'standard costs' and force the claimants to bear the brunt of the full legal costs for both sides – though they would still be subject to a 'reasonableness' test.

Associated said its costs are around £34million

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/2229690/prince-harry-attack-high-court

Harry's intemperate statement on losing his court case has been criticised by two former justice secretaries - Alex Chalk KC, who served under Rishi Sunak, and Sir Robert Buckland KC, who served under Boris Johnson.

Mr Chalk said, as per The Telegraph: "Expressing disagreement with a judgment is perfectly reasonable. But Harry's attack on a High Court judge was over the top, personal and unacceptable.

"Judges act in the name of the King and swear an oath of allegiance to the sovereign. That's how our constitution works, as Harry should know better than most. However disappointed he was with the result, insulting one of HM's judges is a line he shouldn't have crossed."

Sir Robert said: "The tone and content of the attack was not appropriate."

He said that the Duke could instead have issued a statement saying: "The Prince is deeply disappointed by the court's decision and will be taking advice as to his options in light of this. He will make no further comment."

Once again, Harry shows his temper. The claimants failed to prove one single instance on illegal information gathering. It was inevitable they would lose their case. And Harry knew this - hence his earlier offer to settle out of court, which the Mail sensibly refused.