Lee and Chow were also leaders of the now-defunct Hong Kong Alliance (HKA).

The HKA was founded in May 1989 to support students holding pro-democracy rallies. Weeks later, the Communist Party crushed pro-democracy protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square with troops and tanks. Estimates of the death toll range from a few hundred to many thousands.

Over the next three decades, HKA called on authorities to accept responsibility for the crackdown, free dissidents and introduce democratic reform.

The Alliance’s leaders were charged in 2021 and have been behind bars since.

Rights group Amnesty International has said the case “relies on vague, overly broad and arbitrary definitions of ‘subversion’”.

Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director, said Chow and Lee had “not committed any recognisable crime”.

“Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan are prisoners of conscience who should never have been prosecuted in the first place. They must be released immediately and unconditionally”, she added.

In a separate case, Chow was arrested in June 2021 for “inciting” the public to take part in that year’s vigil and later found guilty.

However, Hong Kong’s top court overturned that conviction in 2022, with a judge ruling the police hadn’t properly justified the vigil’s ban.

Chow Hang-tung spoke to the BBC in 2021, weeks before her arrest on 4 June 2022.

“I am prepared to be arrested. That is how Hong Kong is now,” she had said.

“I am willing to pay the price for fighting for democracy”.

The National Drought Group, which brings together the Met Office, regulators, government, water companies, farmers, scientists and conservation organisations several times a year, said this week’s rainfall and cooler temperatures will not make any significant impact on current water scarcity.

“I think it is very misleading of the council to create that perception to the public in order to get support for this policy.”

A Northern Ireland council has been accused of “misleading” the public to support its new climate change policy.

Newry, Mourne and Down District Council is due to publicly launch its updated strategy towards a pathway of net zero carbon emissions.

However, a DUP elected member has claimed flooding images of local town centres have been used to give people an “untrue” climate picture.

READ MORE: Public might turn their nose up at dog fouling reporting app warns Co Down councillor

READ MORE: Councillor’s heart-felt SEN family story leads to pilot summer scheme

Mournes DUP councillor Henry Reilly said: ”I am very concerned that some of the material in the sustainability report and I actually find it misleading.

“There are photographs of a flooded town centre in Downpatrick and Newry and that is giving the impression that if we penalise our own people through more expensive energy supplies that it (flooding) will stop. That is quite untrue.

“The reason why the Clanrye and Quoile rivers flooded is because they haven’t been dredged in 40 years, because of EU legislation under the Rivers Directive, that you can’t touch those rivers to dredge them.”

Councillor Reilly added: “So, all the carbon reduction that Newry, Mourne and Down will do will not stop flooding in Downpatrick and Newry.

“I think it is very misleading of the council to create that perception to the public in order to get support for this policy.

“Carbon molecules do not stay in China or India where they are increasing their use of fossil fuels, so for us to penalise our people with very expensive de-carbonisation methods, does not make sense.”

Newry and Downpatrick have both flooded in recent years with the latest occuring in late 2023.

A report before the chamber shows a draft climate change strategy was approved for public consultation by the committee in October 2025.

This was then sent out for public consultation taking place from December 2025 to March 2026. The final strategy has received support from all other political parties at the committee.

Mournes Alliance councillor Jill Truesdale said: ”The targets are tied to real statutory drivers such as the Climate Change Act rather than just an unrelatable aspiration It is a really solid piece of work.”

Council deputy chairperson, SDLP councillor Doire Finn added: ”Climate change doesn’t recognise borders and we have seen this summer as one of the hottest on record across Ireland and the UK.

“It is really important that we are leaders on this and we recognise the impact climate change will have, whether it be hotter summers or wetter winters. This is effectively the biggest challenge that our generation is likely to face.”

A council officer responded: “It will be a matter of prioritising what we do in order to get the biggest bang for the buck to bring all the business cases on carbon reduction through as no doubt the funding is going to be a bit of a challenge.

“There will be a year on year review on progress and action plans to be developed.”

A majority vote of 11 for and two against carried the strategy forward for full council to ratify.

For all the latest news, visit the Belfast Live homepage here and sign up to our daily newsletter here.

The recent heatwaves mean that many people in northern Europe are now looking at new ways to cool their homes.

Historically, northern European building design has prioritised heating, but more home owners are considering adding air conditioning.

While 88% of US homes have air conditioning, only about 3% of UK homes have it.

What are the big issues?

Fitting an air-conditioning system to an existing home is likely to cost more than £6,000 for a whole house. It will also mean running pipework through walls, which may require renovation afterwards. Running costs range from a few hundred pounds to a few thousand per year depending on the size of the UK property. It is worth remembering that electricity in the UK is twice the cost of the US, where more homes have air conditioning.

Typically, to fit air conditioning you have an outdoor unit (the condenser) and a fan unit mounted on the wall or in the ceiling, connected by pipes. These pipes feed cold water from the condenser into the fan unit, which cools the air (which can be reversed in winter to provide heating). This is known as a split system.

Then there’s planning and consent. Condensers generate noise and can be unsightly. You generally don’t need planning permission if units are discreetly located. But this is difficult to do with flats, as the units create noise which may disturb nearby properties. Planning consent is likely to be required, so it’s worth checking. Air conditioning must also comply with various building regulations, for instance those related to safety.

Adding to historic homes

Another factor is the age and construction of the existing home. Historic buildings have thick stone walls and a large thermal mass, so they take longer to cool down or heat up. Often, they are deliberately designed to be airy and well ventilated, as this helps control problems like high humidity. However, this means a higher rate of air leakage, so air conditioning units have to work harder. Plus those high ceilings means a larger air volume to cool. Installation may also require special planning permission and may be more complex and expensive.

It is also worth considering the levels of humidity. This may rise depending on the air conditioning system used, and could be a particular problem in historic buildings. When air temperature drops, as happens if you cool it, the humidity inside a room increases. This may mean a dehumidifier is needed.

Another air conditioning option is to use portable units. These combine everything in a single machine. However, they are only intended to cool small spaces and would tend to be less energy efficient, with higher running costs. They also need a duct to dump the heat, which typically means fitting a vent to an outside wall or window. Sticking the pipe out of an open window will let the heat in and the chilled air escape. Installing US-style window units may require a chat with a planning department first to check on restrictions. These also need windows that open vertically (such as sash windows), which isn’t typical in many modern UK homes.

When shopping for air conditioning, much like “miracle” heater scams, also be wary of similar scams regarding “miracle” coolers at cheap prices.

Environmental consequences

Environmental impact has long been another concern. Historically air conditioning used ozone-eating CFCs as a refrigerant, but these are no longer used in units on sale today. Air conditioners still do contribute to the urban heat island effect, which makes cities hotter, as the heat from the building is released via the condenser into the surrounding air. This heat island effect is likely to be a factor in making heatwaves worse.

Carbon emissions will vary, depending on the source of electricity. In France or Portugal, where the grid is nearly all carbon neutral (nuclear, hydro, solar or wind), emissions would be low. But they’d be much higher in Poland or Cyprus, for instance, which use relatively few renewables and limited or no nuclear sources in their national electricity mixes.

Other options?

Given that heat pumps are increasingly standard in new UK homes, configuring them to also provide cooling in the summer could become the way forward. Most existing UK systems are not set up to do this, but more are likely to go on sale if demand rises.

À lire aussi :
Older people are more vulnerable in heatwaves. Here’s why – and how to stay safe

Another option that will save on your energy bills is to try to cope with summer heat using what is called passive cooling, by adding awnings, external shutters or shading your windows. These are definitely the lowest cost options and can be easiest to install, and should bring the temperature down. This is traditionally how buildings were kept cool in summer.

Heatwaves are part of the cost of climate change. And while weighing up the ways to cope with it, it’s also vital to think about how our choices could also escalate the continuing extreme weather, particularly given that it will affect older and more vulnerable people more adversely.

In London, 71.7 per cent of pupils passed, compared to 65.2 per cent in the North East and just 62.4 per cent in the West Midlands, the worst performing region – a gap that has widened to 9.3 percentage points from last year’s 8.7.

In London, 28.6 per cent of grades were at the top ones at seven and above, compared to just 17.7 per cent in the North East, a gap that in the last year has widened from 10.6 per cent to 10.9 per cent.

Why is this? Unless pupils in the regions are substantially thicker than in London, which we do not believe, there have to be profound social and educational reasons for this. Are our schools demonstrably worse? Do we not have a fair share of resources? Is the fact that so many more children are growing up in poverty hampering their live chances?

It is wrong that in 21st Century Britain, an accident of geography should have such an impact on educational outcomes, and we suspect that at the heart of these figures there are small pockets of deprivation where children are denied any opportunity.

This is not just a question for the North East: can the country as a whole afford so much talent to be overlooked? It is a waste of their live chances and the whole nation’s potential prosperity.

Levelling up, the Conservatives’ idea of bringing the regions up to the levels of the south east, has failed to address this problem, and last year, Bridget Phillipson, a Sunderland MP, was Education Secretary and made all the right noises about tackling it – and yet the gap has widened.

Will the new devolution agenda of the new Prime Minister and the new Education Secretary – the 11th in the last 12 years – bring fairness and equal opportunity to our next generation?

Whatever you call the great ‘freedom flight’ U-turn, the bombshell decision by Harry and Meghan to move back to Britain heralds another supremely tricky moment for the British monarchy.

And for all the honeyed words overnight about the King naturally welcoming the opportunity to see more of the Sussex family in a private and personal capacity, there is no doubt the news is being greeted by many in royal circles with an element of gritted teeth.

It’s one thing for the King to quietly patch up their relationship from the opposite side of the Atlantic. But it’s quite another to have the entire family suddenly pitch up with a loud ‘howdy Grandpa!’ in your own back yard – particularly when wider family relations are still so delicate.

Already the news – carefully leaked by Team Sussex to a small number of sympathetic journalists in the UK and abroad – has started a hundred different hares running, with a wave of online vitriol about His Majesty’s (supposed) role in enabling his younger son’s return, to the detriment of his heir.

He has been variously described as weak and manipulated but also, inexplicably, as working hand-in-glove with the Sussexes.

It has sparked distasteful speculation about King Charles‘s health and whether Harry has taken a decision to ‘shore up’ his position before it is too late. 

For the record, although gruelling at times, doctors have been delighted at the progress of his cancer treatment, which has been drastically scaled back and is currently being administered on a precautionary basis.

Sources have scoffed at renewed claims that the King’s right-hand man, Sir Clive Alderton, is leaving as private secretary to the King and Queen because of his opposition to any reunion – calling it ‘another mad conspiracy theory’.

Indeed, I can reveal that Sir Clive was actually integral to last month’s meeting between Harry and his father, despite being the victim of so much of the prince’s ire in recent years.

There has been a deafening silence from Kensington Palace over the news. Pictured: The Prince and Princess of Wales

Advertisement

The news has sparked distasteful speculation about King Charles’s health and whether Harry has taken a decision to ‘shore up’ his position before it is too late

And yet it seems quite remarkable, does it not, that Harry brought his family to meet with his father for the first time in four years at Highgrove in early July and never thought even to mention that this plan was even on his radar?

But that, my sources insist, is the truth of it. Not once was the issue raised or discussed, they say. And the move has now been presented to the sovereign as a fait accompli.

It seems even stranger if what another source has told me is true: that Meghan privately visited two potential schools in the Cotswolds region for Archie and Lilibet during their visit here – and they had already earmarked a potential home belonging to a celebrity (for the record, I have not been able to independently verify either of these claims).

So while Harry has made no secret of his desire to spend more time in the UK moving forwards, it’s fair to say that this week’s news that a wholesale return to his country of birth will happen within days – a place which, not so long ago, he was arguing was too dangerous to bring his family to at all – has come as a huge shock to the wider royal household.

Reactions range from the amused (downright hilarity at the claim that Harry and Meghan have just proved their ‘half in/ half out’ model of monarchy can work… ‘surely their return is proof that it hasn’t!’), to the fearful.

Sources have scoffed at renewed claims that the King’s right-hand man, Sir Clive Alderton, is leaving as private secretary because of his opposition to any reunion

Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the Sussexes’ announcement, and there was an equally deafening silence from Kensington Palace.

Indeed, sources have long made clear the Waleses have no interest in engaging with anything Harry and Meghan do or say.

Meanwhile, there is a concern that back in the UK and in such close proximity to working members of the Royal Family, every move by the Sussexes will be dissected for the slightest hint of a return to official roles and provide a constant distraction to the real working royals’ public labours. 

For the avoidance of doubt, sources insist, the couple will not be undertaking any royal duties. The King, they say, is absolutely adamant on this.

His only interest is protecting and prioritising what’s right for the monarchy and, particularly, what is right for his relationship with the Prince of Wales, says a friend.

The Waleses are working royals and future monarchs. Harry and Meghan are not. And William’s feelings must and will be respected, I am told.

Needless to say, the Prince of Wales – currently holidaying with his family with the King at Balmoral – has no desire whatsoever to reconcile will his brother, as it stands. And few can blame him.

Other family members have long memories when it comes to Harry’s behaviour, particularly the disrespect they feel he showed to the late Queen and her husband, Prince Philip, in their latter years. And they may well be reluctant to play happy families again.

There are others in royal circles with personal experience of dealing with the Sussexes who say they just can’t shake the feeling ‘there is more to this than we know’. ‘There always is with them,’ one sighed.

There is also concern among some over the couple setting up some sort of ‘rival court’ to Buckingham and Kensington Palaces. 

Since quitting royal duties, Harry, in particular, has become increasingly strident in his public announcements, even attacking US President Donald Trump just days before the monarch’s high-profile State Visit to the US earlier this year.

It is one thing for him to do this from the other side of the Atlantic when he has an arm’s-length relationship with his father, but quite another to take such pot shots from the bosom of the family again, with the potential for damaging diplomatic fall-out.

Yet the Palace believes people will understand that while Charles is a king and a sovereign, he is also a father and a grandfather, and it is possible for him to clearly delineate between the two.

A friend insists: ‘The King welcomes the opportunity to see more of his family but beyond that, his stance could not be more clear [when it comes to their public roles]. Nothing has changed.’

The difficulty, however, is that many fear – and would firmly object to – their closer proximity to the monarchy being used either as a backdoor entry by the Sussexes to public life, or as a way of burnishing their commercial credentials.

It is a tightrope the King and senior officials have no choice now but to tread.

BALTIMORE (AP) — Gerrit Cole pitched six sharp innings, Luis García Jr. and Spencer Jones homered and the New York Yankees completed a three-game sweep in Baltimore with a 6-1 victory over the Orioles on Thursday night.

Cole (7-6) allowed four hits and a walk with eight strikeouts. A fifth-inning homer by Dylan Beavers produced the lone Baltimore run. The Yankees pulled within four games of AL East-leading Tampa Bay.

Ryan Yarbrough relieved Cole and pitched three perfect innings for his third save.

The Orioles have dropped four in a row after briefly taking sole possession of the lead in the race for the final American League wild card. Kyle Bradish (7-12) allowed three earned runs and eight hits in 5 2/3 innings, and Baltimore also permitted a pair of unearned runs in the third.

With men on first and third and nobody out that inning, second baseman Jackson Holliday fielded a tough grounder and threw to second, but shortstop Gunnar Henderson dropped the ball for an error and everyone was safe.

With a run already in, Bradish induced a double play, but Ben Rice followed with an RBI single and then Heliot Ramos brought in a run with a double that made it 3-0.

Beavers’ drive to right made it 3-1, but García and Jones answered with solo shots to chase Bradish in the sixth. Jazz Chisholm Jr. tripled in a run in the eighth.

There was no controversy about this New York win, a night after Pete Alonso’s deep fly ball against the Yankees was ruled foul with the game tied. Alonso did single twice Thursday to extend his hitting streak to a career-high 12 games.

Cole (1,015) moved one strikeout ahead of Roger Clemens for 12th place on the Yankees’ career list.

Up next

The Yankees return home to face Toronto on Friday night. Cam Schlittler (10-6) takes the mound for New York.

Baltimore hosts Tampa Bay, with Trevor Rogers (8-8) starting for the Orioles.

___

AP MLB: https://apnews.com/mlb

Bosses say there are ‘encourgaing signs of recovery’ on the land but insist the ‘risk of wildfires has not yet passed’

The area around Dovestone reservoir has been reopened to visitors after this summer’s devastating wildfires.

A huge fire broke out near the Saddleworth beauty spot on July 11 with crews also battling a blaze at Swineshaw, near Glossop, which ignited several days later.

At the same time crews in Derbyshire battled another moorland blaze, close to the village of Tintwistle, which forced the closure of the A628 Woodhead Pass.

Click here to get the biggest stories straight to your inbox in our Daily Newsletter

At their height, the area covered by both fires was said to be equivalent to 1,250 football pitches.

After the Dovestone blaze erupted, all car parks and footpaths were shut, with visitors ordered to stay away as Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (GMFRS) declared a major incident with dozens of firefighters spending several weeks battling the blazes in tinder-dry conditions.

The major incident was stood down on August 3 with crews remaining at the scene for several days afterwards, whilst last week they also tackled another blaze near Holmfirth Road in Saddleworth, which was extinguished the following day.

Today (Thursday, August 20), the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), which manages the Dovestone nature reserve with landowner, United Utilities, said that it was now safe for visitors to return. And they said there were ‘encouraging signs of recovery’ on the landscape, which offer ‘hope for the future.’

In a post on their Dovestone Facebook page, they said: “RSPB Dove Stone is reopening today, and we’re delighted to welcome visitors back. Our car park is once again available.

“This summer, we witnessed devastating wildfires that affected large areas of Dove Stone and neighbouring land.

“The scale of the fires was immense, with smoke plumes visible from space. Throughout this challenging period, our team worked side by side with the Fire and Rescue Service and other partners to help tackle the fires and bring them under control.

“We’re pleased to announce that, in agreement with the Fire and Rescue Service, it is now safe to reopen Dove Stone to visitors.

“While the impact of the wildfires has been heartbreaking, there are already encouraging signs of recovery. Fresh green shoots are emerging, wildlife is beginning to return, and areas of rewetted peatland across the reserve have survived the fire, offering hope for the future.”

They added: “Although the reserve has reopened, the risk of wildfires has not yet passed. If you notice smoke, fire, or anything suspicious during your visit, please call 999 immediately.

“The site is also under a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) to help prevent new fires, so please do treat Dove Stone and other people with respect, and help us reduce the risk of fire by taking litter home.

“Thank you for your patience, support, and understanding during this difficult time. We would love to welcome you back to Dove Stone and continue sharing and protecting the incredible wildlife and landscapes of Greater Manchester together.”

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. (AP) — An Alabama jury on Thursday awarded $9.25 million in damages after finding that The New York Times defamed a college basketball player by incorrectly reporting that he was at the scene of a fatal shooting in Tuscaloosa.

Kai Spears, who played for the University of Alabama men’s team, sued the Times in 2023 after it published a report, citing a person familiar with the investigation, that indicated he was a passenger in a car involved in the shooting. The Times reported that the person had spoken “on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.”

Days later, the Times acknowledged its error in an editor’s note and corrected the story.

The eight-person jury delivered its verdict after a nine-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Matt Glover, an attorney for Spears, said he was pleased with the decision and believes “this verdict will improve journalism throughout the country.”

The Times was reviewing its legal options after losing in court, spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said.

“We’re disappointed the jury found The Times liable for an honest mistake,” Stadtlander said in a statement Thursday. “We thank the jury for its service, but believe the verdict and award of damages are contrary to law and not supported by the evidence.”

Three other basketball players from the school were present at the January 2023 shooting, which killed a 23-year-old mother. In the lawsuit, Spears claimed the inaccurate reporting had caused him emotional distress and forever linked him with a murder.

A Times article reporting on the verdict Thursday said the newspaper “had not lost a defamation lawsuit brought in the United States over one of its articles in more than 50 years.”

It was a tale made for Hollywood: a young family escaping oppression and bigotry, crossing the ocean to ‘find freedom’ and a new beginning.

‘I fled my home country with my wife and my son, fearing for our lives,’ Prince Harry told his friend, ITV journalist Tom Bradby, in early 2023.

No matter that – with an £11 million mansion in Montecito, an astonishing story to sell about racist royals freezing out a suicidal American princess and media giants brandishing mind-blowing cheques as they fought for the right to tell it – the Sussexes hardly constituted the traditional rags-to-riches American Dream.

Sadly for them, however, Hollywood soon woke up to the fact that the couple had only one story to tell and negligible talent in finding a new string to their bow. 

In fact, it’s hard not to conclude that if things had worked out better for them in the Golden State, they surely wouldn’t be having to swallow their pride by returning to the country that they say ruined their lives.

It once all looked so promising. The US media, so instinctively sympathetic to the Sussexes, lapped up their sob story – at first. 

Their explosive chat show interview with Oprah Winfrey, in March 2021, as was surely intended, laid down a marker of what they were willing to say – stunning suggestions of racism in the Royal Family and the failure to support a suicidal Meghan – if they were approached with lucrative TV and publishing deals.

They weren’t long in coming, with a $100million five-year deal with Netflix, followed by a reported $20million multi-year deal with Spotify to produce and host podcasts.

In 2023, the pair were savaged in an episode of the acclaimed animated sitcom South Park titled ‘The Worldwide Privacy Tour’

Within months of the death of Queen Elizabeth in September 2022, the Sussexes let rip with more damaging claims about their time in The Firm with Harry & Meghan, a six-part Netflix documentary – in which they provided a predictably one-sided account of their split from the Royal Family – and Harry’s ghost-written memoir, Spare, which detailed his troubled relationship with them.

Though it was a bestseller (1.43million copies worldwide on its first day), many critics were unimpressed, scenting that the Sussexes were running out of things to say beyond settling scores with the Royal Family.

They were right. Subsequent programmes to justify that eye-watering figure from Netflix were relentlessly worthy, mind-numbingly dull or, too often, both.

They included Live To Lead, a series of interviews with liberal-minded ‘thought leaders’ such as Greta Thunberg and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Polo, a five-part series about Harry’s favourite sport, earned an embarrassing critics’ score of 25 per cent on Rotten Tomatoes.

This summer, the couple’s first jointly produced documentary about America’s Girl Scouts, Cookie Queens, fared so badly on its opening weekend in US cinemas that it was beaten by a compilation of silly cat videos.

The Sussexes’ output for Spotify was even more unimpressive, leading to the company ending the deal – officially by mutual agreement – early in June 2023 after they’d made just 12 episodes of their only show, Archetypes, in which the Duchess interviewed friends and celebrities including Serena Williams and Mariah Carey. 

Bill Simmons, a Spotify executive, branded the Sussexes ‘f***ing grifters’ on his own podcast.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex in their Netflix documentary Harry & Meghan in 2022

Advertisement

The couple’s first jointly produced documentary about America’s Girl Scouts, Cookie Queens, fared badly on its opening weekend in US cinemas 

The media deal with Spotify in 2023 ended after one season of Meghan’s podcast Archetypes

But the show which perhaps had the biggest impact on the couple’s image is one they didn’t produce.

In February 2023, they were savaged in the acclaimed animated sitcom South Park. The episode, titled The Worldwide Privacy Tour, mocked the couple’s plea for privacy and introduced Meghan as a ‘sorority girl, actress, influencer, victim’ – a devastating blow to their carefully curated image. 

It was time for change. Insiders said Meghan had always seen herself following in the footsteps of the original domestic goddess Martha Stewart. 

So, in March 2024, she unveiled American Riviera Orchard. 

The brand’s unveiling was widely ridiculed as Meghan sent numbered jars of jam to famous friends – with no official launch to follow.

The following February, the brand’s name was changed to As Ever. Products eventually hit the shops and some sold out (although nobody seems to know how many were on sale in the first place), but she was no Martha.

Any doubts on that score were settled by an accompanying TV series for Netflix called With Love, Meghan in which she shared her recipes for ‘single-skillet spaghetti’, crudites adorned with daisies and the perfect ‘fluffy’ scrambled eggs made with a ‘splash’ of sparkling water. 

If they weren’t making programmes and podcasts, at least Harry and Meghan could be doing good works for charity.

With Love, Meghan premiered on Netflix in January 2025

Jams, teas and tins of flower sprinkles are among products sold by As Ever

Advertisement

But here was another record of under-achievement. 

In early 2022, it was revealed that the Sussexes’ US charity, the Archewell Foundation, had told the IRS – America’s taxation body – that in its first year of existence in 2020, it had raised ‘less than $50,000’ – £36,681. 

While its donations did improve, the couple’s philanthropic pretensions were further undermined by revelations that, while speaking at climate change conventions, they were travelling in private jets.

The Sussexes weren’t just failing to make money; they were also failing to keep Americans on their side. 

In January 2023, a poll for Newsweek revealed that in the month Spare came out Harry’s popularity plunged 45 points among the US public, with Meghan suffering a 36-point fall.

This slide was all too apparent in the US media, initially so smitten with the theme of a mixed-race American refusing to be crushed by British racism and snobbery but over time losing faith (and interest) in a rich and entitled couple’s endless victimhood.

In 2022, New York magazine’s The Cut website interviewed Meghan and mocked the ‘marshmallowy’ splendour of their lives, writing that the Duchess talked like she had a tacky reality TV producer ‘directing what she says’.

In 2023, even the usually supportive New York Times described Harry’s battles with his critics in Spare as ‘tiresome’. 

By the end of that year, the Hollywood Reporter included the Sussexes in its list of Hollywood’s ‘biggest losers’, criticising their Netflix series and Harry’s memoir as ‘whiny’ and describing the couple’s brand as a ‘sanctimonious bubble just begging to be popped‘.

Vanity Fair delivered the coup de grace in its January 2025 edition. Seven years after running an adoring piece about how Meghan – ahead of her marriage to Harry – was a breath of fresh air, the magazine royally trounced the Sussexes in a long investigation headlined ‘American Hustle’.

Its many criticisms ranged from the couple having antagonised their Montecito neighbours with all the attention they brought to the area, to a representative of the Duchess allegedly discussing the potential for a ‘post-divorce’ book deal in the event she splits up from her husband, though this was strongly disputed.

According to the magazine’s sources, some of Meghan’s underlings in her podcast venture found her so difficult that they ended up leaving early or even needing therapy.

The Duchess, who has vehemently denied bullying staff, ‘would be warm and effusive at the beginning,’ said the magazine, but ‘When something went poorly, often due to Meghan and Harry’s own demands, Meghan would become cold and withholding toward the person she perceived to be responsible.’

One might have assumed from their celebrity-packed 2018 wedding at Windsor Castle, that the Sussexes had plenty of A-list friends to make their California exile bearable.

Yet although guests at the nuptials included Oprah Winfrey, Serena Williams, James Corden, David and Victoria Beckham, and George and Amal Clooney, it soon became clear that many of them barely knew the couple.

According to sources, some – including the Clooneys, the Beckhams, plus Barack and Michelle Obama – distanced themselves from the Sussexes in embarrassment over their relentless attacks on the Royal Family.

Meghan and Harry did make the guest list of reality TV star Kris Jenner’s glitzy James Bond-themed 70th birthday party last November but even this ended in unhelpful headlines after Kim Kardashian (Jenner’s daughter) revealed that she had been asked to remove photos of the couple from her Instagram page.

So the Sussexes are heading back to a country where – to borrow the lyrics of The Mamas & The Papas’ hit song California Dreamin’ – all the leaves will be brown and the sky grey.

Will they also soon succumb to wistful memories of the sunny days they’ve left behind?