Connect with us

Published

on

Ex-pat Prince Harrys memoir, titled Spare in a likely jab at his father King Charles III, is set to be released on January 10 but if the sneak peeks are any indication, the entire tome appears to be a compilation of unaired grievances and instances of unresolved sibling rivalry.

Harry left the U.K. and his royal duties behind shortly after the May 2019 birth of son Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor the first of his two children with his wife, American actress-turned-Duchess-of-Sussex Meghan Markle (Suits). By mid-February of 2021, the palace had confirmed that Harry and Meghan would not be returning to their Royal roles.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have confirmed to Her Majesty The Queen that they will not be returning as working members of The Royal Family, the February 19, 2021, statement from Buckingham Palace read.

Since then, the quasi-royals have attempted to carve out a life for themselves outside the palace walls and so far, every outing has been another variation on the same theme: everyone at the Palace wanted them gone, with Prince William and Princess Kate chief among them.

From the now-infamous Oprah interview to their multi-episode Netflix special, Harry and Meghan have lobbed a series of accusations against the Royal Family in general from bullying to racism and everything in between and Spare appears to pick up where Netflix left off.

Harry blames William and Kate for his 2005 decision to wear a Nazi uniform to a costume party, saying that they had howled with laughter upon seeing him in the get-up and encouraged him to go for it.

I phoned Willy and Kate, asked what they thought. Nazi uniform, they said, Harry says that he then brought the costume home to try it on before the Native and Colonial themed party. They both howled. Worse than Willys leotard outfit! Way more ridiculous! Which, again, was the point.

In 2017, when Harry and Meghan made their public debut at the Toronto Invictus Games, Markle received criticism for wearing ripped jeans. Harry alleges in Spare that her outfit had been approved by the palace but then complains that someone should have issued a statement in her defense once the backlash began.

A single declaration in defense of Meg would have been enough to make a tremendous difference, he writes.

Harry also claims that Prince William warned him not to propose to Markle, saying things were moving too fast and saying theyd never be able to spend time together as a foursome because shes an American actress, after all. He went on to say that William was the one who nixed plans for them to wed at Westminster Abbey where William and Kate were married and had been opposed to them using St. Pauls as well.

The ex-royal writes about a number of disagreements with his brother particularly where Markle is concerned and says that one such incident nearly resulted in fisticuffs.

William, Harry writes, referred to Markle as abrasive, difficult, and rude comments that Harry says were simply a reflection of the prevailing press narrative and alleges that William punctuated his comments with a physical assault.

It all happened so fast. So very fast. He grabbed me by the collar, ripping my necklace, and he knocked me to the floor.I landed on the dogs bowl, which cracked under my back, the pieces cutting into me. I lay there for a moment, dazed, then got to my feet and told him to get out.

Harry sayshe believed that William wanted him to hit back, claiming that he could see the same judgment-clouding anger in his brother that he had felt for years:I chose not to. What was different here was the level of frustration. I talk about the red mist that I had for so many years, and I saw this red mist in him.

The brothers relationship, Harry writes, changed dramatically over time. In some ways he was my mirror, in some ways he was my opposite. My beloved brother, my archnemesis, how had that happened?

He asked that question after William appeared not to understand Harrys decision to leave his royal duties a decision that Harry felt should require no explanation at all.

I couldnt believe what I was hearing. It was one thing to disagree about who was at fault but for him to claim total ignorance of the reasons Id fled why my wife and I took the drastic step of picking up our child and just running like hell Really? Harry continued.

Harry also takes aim at his father in Spare even the title is a direct jab at King Charles III, who allegedly informed the late Princess Diana that his work was finished once William and Harry (an heir and a spare) were born.

He writes of one instance in which the king had allegedly fed the press a story about William and Kate and their children a story that led a seething William and Harry to confront their father together.

Pa instantly got upset. He began shouting that Willy was paranoid. We both were. Just because we were getting bad press, and he was getting good, that didnt mean his staff was behind it, Harry writes.

And while he said that the confrontation did not lead to changes from their father, he had initially believed that he and William were recovering their earlier closeness. But Harry goes on to allege that even after they promised they would never turn their press houses against each other, William broke his word.

I would far rather get destroyed in the press than play along with this game or this business of trading. And to see my brothers office copy the very same thing that we promised the two of us would never, ever do, Harry says in the Netflix docuseries, that was heartbreaking.

The problem for many of the senior royals, Harry alleges, all centered on the fact that Markle had stolen their spotlight. The issue is when someone whos marrying in, who should be a supporting act, is then stealing the limelight or is doing the job better than the person who is born to do this, that upsets people. It shifts the balance, he claims.

Despite all that, Harry continues to claim that he would like to reconcile with both his father and his brother but royal expert Katie Nicholls doesnt believe that claim holds any water.

The idea that he wants his father and his brother back just seems so incongruous with how he is behaving and what hes saying To paint such an unflattering picture of the royal family and a very unsavory side of his brother and an uncaring side of his father It just does not appear to be the actions of a man trying to reconcile with his estranged family. It really feels like a line has been crossed.

Others have noted that the Palaces default position is to not respond to attacks and allegations a position of which Harry was well aware so he likely knew that he would have free reign to continue to level very public attacks without any fear of reprisal from the people he was attacking.

Harrys claims and blames circulated via social media in the week ahead of the books release, prompting a number of people to respond with the hashtag shutupHarry.

Continue Reading

Business

Ex-chancellor Lord Hammond to step down as Copper chair

Published

on

By

Ex-chancellor Lord Hammond to step down as Copper chair

Lord Hammond, the former chancellor of the exchequer, is preparing to step down as chairman of Copper, the digital assets group, as it reorients its growth plans away from the UK to the US market.

Sky News has learnt that Copper’s board is in the process of recruiting a successor to Lord Hammond, who served as chancellor during Theresa May’s premiership.

Sources said the process was at an advanced stage and was expected to lead to the appointment of an experienced American finance executive before the end of the year.

Lord Hammond, who took over the chairmanship of Copper in early 2023, is expected to remain a shareholder in the company after he steps down.

He was previously an adviser to its board.

Since leaving government, he has amassed a collection of private sector roles, and is now chairman of Railsr, an embedded finance business.

One insider said he had been actively engaged in the identification of the company’s next chair.

More from UK

Copper specialises in the provision of digital asset custody and trading technology services to clients.

It counts Barclays and Alan Howard, the co-founder of Brevan Howard Asset Management, a prominent hedge fund, among its investors.

Founded in 2018 and based in London, it employs hundreds of people.

Lord Hammond has been critical of the pace of regulatory reform in the UK amid the rapid evolution of the global cryptocurrency and blockchain sectors.

Last December, it emerged that Copper had abandoned its second bid to register in the UK with the Financial Conduct Authority.

The previous year, its chairman told the Financial Times that Britain was falling behind in a crucial and fast-growing part of the financial services sector.

“Switzerland is further ahead; the EU is also moving faster,” he told the newspaper.

“There has to be appetite to take some measured risk.”

Read more from Sky News:
US financial firms pledge £1.25bn to UK ahead of Trump visit
Zoopla and Uswitch owner plots break-up and sale

Copper has not raised a significant round of new funding for several years, and is not thought to have a need to secure additional capital.

The company is now run by Amar Kuchinad, a former Goldman Sachs executive, who replaced its founder, Dmitry Tokarev, in the role.

It recently announced the appointment of Rosie Murphy Williams, who previously worked at the London Stock Exchange and Royal Bank of Scotland, as its chief operating officer.

Earlier this year, it said it had agreed an alliance with Cantor Fitzgerald’s new Bitcoin financing business, underlining the continuing growth of cryptoassets and the businesses which serve them.

Since US President Donald Trump began his second term in the White House, a glut of digital asset companies have rushed to join the public markets, buoyed by a favourable regulatory climate and growing investor interest.

On Sunday, both Lord Hammond and Copper declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Politics

Mandelson appointment was ‘worth the risk’ despite ‘strong relationship’ with Epstein, says minister

Published

on

By

Mandelson appointment was 'worth the risk' despite 'strong relationship' with Epstein, says minister

Appointing Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US was “worth the risk”, a minister has told Sky News.

Peter Kyle said the government put the Labour peer forward for the Washington role, despite knowing he had a “strong relationship” with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

It is this relationship that led to Peter Mandelson being fired on Thursday by the prime minister.

Politics Hub: Latest updates

Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. File pic
Image:
Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. File pic

But explaining the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, Business Secretary Mr Kyle said: “The risk of appointing [him] knowing what was already public was worth the risk.

“Now, of course, we’ve seen the emails which were not published at the time, were not public and not even known about. And that has changed this situation.”

Speaking to Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, he rejected the suggestion that Lord Mandelson was appointed to Washington before security checks were completed.

More on Peter Mandelson

He explained there was a two-stage vetting process for Lord Mandelson before he took on the ambassador role.

The first was done by the Cabinet Office, while the second was a “political process where there were political conversations done in Number 10 about all the other aspects of an appointment”, he said.

This is an apparent reference to Sir Keir Starmer asking follow-up questions based on the information provided by the vetting.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘We knew it was a strong relationship’

These are believed to have included why Lord Mandelson continued contact with Epstein after he was convicted and why he was reported to have stayed in one of the paedophile financier’s homes while he was in prison.

Mr Kyle said: “Both of these things turned up information that was already public, and a decision was made based on Peter’s singular talents in this area, that the risk of appointing knowing what was already public was worth the risk.”

Mr Kyle also pointed to some of the government’s achievements under Lord Mandelson, such as the UK becoming the first country to sign a trade deal with the US, and President Donald Trump’s state visit next week.

Mr Kyle also admitted that the government knew that Lord Mandelson and Epstein had “a strong relationship”.

“We knew that there were risks involved,” he concluded.

PM had only ‘extracts of emails’ ahead of defence of Mandelson at PMQs – as Tories accuse him of ‘lying’

Speaking to Sky News, Kyle also sought to clarify the timeline of what Sir Keir Starmer knew about Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, and when he found this out.

It follows Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch accusing the prime minister of “lying to the whole country” about his knowledge of the then US ambassador’s relationship with the paedophile.

Allegations about Lord Mandelson began to emerge in the newspapers on Tuesday, while more serious allegations – that the Labour peer had suggested Epstein’s first conviction for sexual offences was wrongful and should be challenged – were sent to the Foreign Office on the same day by Bloomberg, which was seeking a response from the government.

But the following day, Sir Keir went into the House of Commons and publicly backed Britain’s man in Washington, giving him his full confidence. Only the next morning – on Thursday – did the PM then sack Lord Mandelson, a decision Downing Street has insisted was made based on “new information”.

Read more:
Witch-hunt vibe in Labour on who approved appointment
Senior Labour MP demands answers over Mandelson vetting

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Vetting ‘is very thorough’

Speaking to Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, Mr Kyle said: “Number 10 had what was publicly available on Tuesday, which was extracts of emails which were not in context, and they weren’t the full email.

“Immediately upon having being alerted to extracts of emails, the Foreign Office contacted Peter Mandelson and asked for his account of the emails and asked for them to be put into context and for his response. That response did not come before PMQs [on Wednesday].

“Then after PMQs, the full emails were released by Bloomberg in the evening.

“By the first thing the next morning when the prime minister had time to read the emails in full, having had them in full and reading them almost immediately of having them – Peter was withdrawn as ambassador.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Government deeming Mandelson to be ‘worth the risk’ is unlikely to calm Labour MPs

The Conservatives have claimed Sir Keir is lying about what he knew, with Laura Trott telling Sky News there are “grave questions about the prime minister’s judgement”.

The shadow education secretary called for “transparency”, and told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: “We need to understand what was known and when.”

Laura Trott says there are 'grave questions about the prime minister's judgement'
Image:
Laura Trott says there are ‘grave questions about the prime minister’s judgement’

They believe that Sir Keir was in possession of the full emails on Tuesday, because the Foreign Office passed these to Number 10. This is despite the PM backing Mandelson the following day.

Ms Trott explained: “We are calling for transparency because, if what we have outlined is correct, then the prime minister did lie and that is an extremely, extremely serious thing to have happened.”

She added: “This was a prime minister who stood on the steps of Downing Street and said that he was going to restore political integrity and look where we are now. We’ve had two senior resignations in the space of the number of weeks.

“The prime minister’s authority is completely shot.”

But Ms Trott refused to be drawn on whether she thinks Sir Keir should resign, only stating that he is “a rudderless, a weak prime minister whose authority is shot at a time we can least afford it as a country”.

Continue Reading

UK

Mandelson appointment was ‘worth the risk’ despite ‘strong relationship’ with Epstein, says minister

Published

on

By

Mandelson appointment was 'worth the risk' despite 'strong relationship' with Epstein, says minister

Appointing Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US was “worth the risk”, a minister has told Sky News.

Peter Kyle said the government put the Labour peer forward for the Washington role, despite knowing he had a “strong relationship” with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

It is this relationship that led to Peter Mandelson being fired on Thursday by the prime minister.

Politics Hub: Latest updates

Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. File pic
Image:
Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. File pic

But explaining the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, Business Secretary Mr Kyle said: “The risk of appointing [him] knowing what was already public was worth the risk.

“Now, of course, we’ve seen the emails which were not published at the time, were not public and not even known about. And that has changed this situation.”

Speaking to Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, he rejected the suggestion that Lord Mandelson was appointed to Washington before security checks were completed.

More on Peter Mandelson

He explained there was a two-stage vetting process for Lord Mandelson before he took on the ambassador role.

The first was done by the Cabinet Office, while the second was a “political process where there were political conversations done in Number 10 about all the other aspects of an appointment”, he said.

This is an apparent reference to Sir Keir Starmer asking follow-up questions based on the information provided by the vetting.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘We knew it was a strong relationship’

These are believed to have included why Lord Mandelson continued contact with Epstein after he was convicted and why he was reported to have stayed in one of the paedophile financier’s homes while he was in prison.

Mr Kyle said: “Both of these things turned up information that was already public, and a decision was made based on Peter’s singular talents in this area, that the risk of appointing knowing what was already public was worth the risk.”

Mr Kyle also pointed to some of the government’s achievements under Lord Mandelson, such as the UK becoming the first country to sign a trade deal with the US, and President Donald Trump’s state visit next week.

Mr Kyle also admitted that the government knew that Lord Mandelson and Epstein had “a strong relationship”.

“We knew that there were risks involved,” he concluded.

PM had only ‘extracts of emails’ ahead of defence of Mandelson at PMQs – as Tories accuse him of ‘lying’

Speaking to Sky News, Kyle also sought to clarify the timeline of what Sir Keir Starmer knew about Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, and when he found this out.

It follows Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch accusing the prime minister of “lying to the whole country” about his knowledge of the then US ambassador’s relationship with the paedophile.

Allegations about Lord Mandelson began to emerge in the newspapers on Tuesday, while more serious allegations – that the Labour peer had suggested Epstein’s first conviction for sexual offences was wrongful and should be challenged – were sent to the Foreign Office on the same day by Bloomberg, which was seeking a response from the government.

But the following day, Sir Keir went into the House of Commons and publicly backed Britain’s man in Washington, giving him his full confidence. Only the next morning – on Thursday – did the PM then sack Lord Mandelson, a decision Downing Street has insisted was made based on “new information”.

Read more:
Witch-hunt vibe in Labour on who approved appointment
Senior Labour MP demands answers over Mandelson vetting

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Vetting ‘is very thorough’

Speaking to Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, Mr Kyle said: “Number 10 had what was publicly available on Tuesday, which was extracts of emails which were not in context, and they weren’t the full email.

“Immediately upon having being alerted to extracts of emails, the Foreign Office contacted Peter Mandelson and asked for his account of the emails and asked for them to be put into context and for his response. That response did not come before PMQs [on Wednesday].

“Then after PMQs, the full emails were released by Bloomberg in the evening.

“By the first thing the next morning when the prime minister had time to read the emails in full, having had them in full and reading them almost immediately of having them – Peter was withdrawn as ambassador.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Government deeming Mandelson to be ‘worth the risk’ is unlikely to calm Labour MPs

The Conservatives have claimed Sir Keir is lying about what he knew, with Laura Trott telling Sky News there are “grave questions about the prime minister’s judgement”.

The shadow education secretary called for “transparency”, and told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: “We need to understand what was known and when.”

Laura Trott says there are 'grave questions about the prime minister's judgement'
Image:
Laura Trott says there are ‘grave questions about the prime minister’s judgement’

They believe that Sir Keir was in possession of the full emails on Tuesday, because the Foreign Office passed these to Number 10. This is despite the PM backing Mandelson the following day.

Ms Trott explained: “We are calling for transparency because, if what we have outlined is correct, then the prime minister did lie and that is an extremely, extremely serious thing to have happened.”

She added: “This was a prime minister who stood on the steps of Downing Street and said that he was going to restore political integrity and look where we are now. We’ve had two senior resignations in the space of the number of weeks.

“The prime minister’s authority is completely shot.”

But Ms Trott refused to be drawn on whether she thinks Sir Keir should resign, only stating that he is “a rudderless, a weak prime minister whose authority is shot at a time we can least afford it as a country”.

Continue Reading

Trending