Royal experts have begun to raise questions about Prince Harry’s conspicuous absence from the Royal Family’s official online platforms. This issue has been highlighted by royal commentator Daniela Elser in a recent article for news.com.auwhere he explores the reasons behind the apparent “reduction” of Prince Harry’s presence.
Daniela Elser’s analysis points out that all references to the Duke of Sussex have been systematically removed from websites associated with the Royal Family. This extends to the removal not only of Prince Harry’s personal statements, but also of any mention of his and Meghan Markle’s activities as part of the Sussex brand.
In the article, he referenced the deletion of Prince Harry’s statement and all subsequent “Sussex mentions.” He began when the expert asked: “Where did Harry’s statements go?” “And why has the palace deleted his famous statement about Meghan, among other things?”
For those who don’t know, there are so far no mentions of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex associated with the site, and only one of Queen Camilla’s visits to the East Sussex literary festival can be found. In Elser’s eyes, “this removal of the November 2016 statement comes after the royal family has already repeatedly, if not completely, curtailed the Sussexes’ presence on the royal website.”
Currently, the Royal Family’s digital presence is noticeably lacking in content related to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. This marked absence contrasts with the still visible details of other royal engagements, such as Queen Camilla’s visit to a literary festival in East Sussex. This selective representation and curation of content on official platforms has not gone unnoticed by observers and followers of royal affairs.
Elser’s article not only documents these changes but also delves into the potential implications and broader context within which these decisions were made. The removal of Prince Harry and his wife from the Royal Family’s online narrative appears to be a strategic decision, although the exact motives and objectives behind this move remain a subject of intense speculation and discussion among royal commentators and the public alike.
As this situation continues to develop, the discussion around it summarizes the current challenges and dynamics within the Royal Family, especially as they relate to public and digital perceptions. Elser’s critique invites readers to consider the complexities of royal image management in an era where public scrutiny is relentless and omnipresent.
