Meghan’s Private Jet Birthday Trip To Ibiza
By Paul Homewood
Another day, another private jet trip for Hypocritical Harry and Meghan!
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex enjoyed a secret trip to Ibiza on a private jet to celebrate Meghan’s birthday – despite their persistent posturing about being green.
Meghan, who turned 38 on August 4, is thought to have flown to the island with Harry, 34, on what would have been three-month-old Archie’s first holiday.
The royal couple and Archie stayed in a secluded villa away from prying eyes, and travelled with security personnel for the ‘six-day trip’.
The royals landed in Ibiza on Tuesday last week with several taxpayer-funded Met Police bodyguards who appear to have have handed over to five Spanish close protection officers who took them to their private villa.
The couple’s decision to use a private jet for their Ibiza trip means the journey emitted six times more carbon dioxide per person than a scheduled flight from London to the Spanish island. The flights there and back would have given out 12.5 tons of carbon dioxide.
There are around 14 scheduled flights from London and the South-East of England to Ibiza each day.
Their choice of transport flies in the face of their frequent public pronouncements on green issues.
Last month British Vogue magazine – guest-edited by the duchess – published an interview by Harry with leading conservationist Dr Jane Goodall. In it the prince suggested that he and Meghan may only have two children because of their environmental concerns.
In contrast to the duke and duchess, climate change activist Greta Thunberg yesterday boarded a boat from England to New York because she refuses to travel by plane. The 16-year-old was one of the 15 ‘forces for change’ Meghan chose to put on the cover of Vogue.
By taking a private jet, the privacy-obsessed royal couple – whose son was born in May – were able to fly in and out of Ibiza incognito. The cost of taking a private plane ranges from £12,000 to £20,000 one way – so up to £40,000 return.
Critics have blasted their private jet trip as hypocritical.
Former UKIP MEP Patrick O’Flynn said: ‘This is really, really, really bad PR. It is the kind of ‘do as I say, not as I do’ behaviour that the British public detests.’
Friends of the Earth spokesman Aaron Kiely said: ‘The Duke of Sussex speaks wonderful and stirring words on the environment and then he flies off on holiday to a European destination in a private jet.
‘He could have taken a train and then a boat. This would have been the perfect opportunity to set an environmental example.’
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
Paul – can I express an unpopular opinion I am sure – but hey I just want to, so there.
The blogsphere/tw.tface world is full of unreasoned ad hominem attacks – they are bitter, often vicious, and achieve absolutely nothing, well apart from making the writer feel superior mebbe.
There are simply precious few that are quietly going to spend time producing reasoned and balanced in depth analyses of real issues in the ‘climate hoax’ world to counter the bullsh.t and rubbish being daily spouted by the AGW propagandists.
Paul Homewood was one of these few, this used to be a serious blog where ‘we’ could obtain material, and one I certainly felt could trust. Someone who doing the real work rather than just blattering vile.
I don’t know but I subscribe to your alerts and, absolutely used to look forward to founding out about records from say the 18th century on a glacier, or a proper critique of UHI balancing etc etc.
Now it simply seems as though there are three or four new blogs a day of just personal attacks – on people I for one simply don’t care about.
However, I still delight at the serious stuff you do Paul – so I am stuck – receiving endless frankly low-brow moaning drivel or risking missing something of the ‘Old Paul Homewood’.
Can I make a simple request then Paul, cos hey I don’t own you or pay you, could you in some way differentiate these – two blogs mebbe? I don’t know. I know a number of folk who have given up, I haven’t yet, but I will say one thing, take it how you will, I used to recommend your blog to agw believers – possible sceptics etc. as a serious place to go to find out the facts. I felt it wouldn’t reflect on me or my ‘persuasions’. I haven’t felt able to do this for really quite sometime.
Keep NOTALOT for the rational intelligent ones amongst your readers and mebbe a new ‘Paul Gets it off his Chest’ blog ??
It is sad that you don’t see calling out hypocrisy as a serious undertaking. The more it is done the more it reveals the motives of the “green when it suits me” brigade.
I believe in caring for the environment and I adopt numerous environmentally sound approaches, but none of this is to parade my virtue or to control CO2.
One of the easiest arguments to make about catastrophic AGW is that the celebs bleating about it actually do not believe it. If they did, they wouldn’t fly. Therefore pointing out the obvious hypocrisy is worthwhile.
Of course, there is no point preaching to the choir. We may agree on the craziness of current Western policy on this site, but talking to ourselves doesn’t really matter in the larger scheme of things.
Out walking a few months ago one member of our party made a chance remark re: something that had been in the news about how imminent the end of everything was. I replied that there was not a cat’s chance in hell of that particular doomsday scenario happening.
“You’re not one of those deniers are you?” was the response.
To which I said, “no.” I then tried to explain that the extreme scenarios in the press are not going to happen but that slow warming may be expected by CO2, etc etc… by which time my companion had glazed over.
So in hindsight I perhaps should have said, “yes, I am a denier.” At least that way the message would have been clear.
But the point I am groping towards is that unless we are talking to “believers” we are wasting our time, and if we do talk to them rationally, our words are like flies pinging off a car windscreen. But hypocrisy is something that just might make an impression. Our fat kings do not believe in catastrophe – they merely tell the serfs to tighten their belts. (And if they believe, they do not believe that it will affect their lifestyles – selfish or hypocritical, either works.)
There is supposed to be a climate conference coming up in Glasgow soon, isn’t there? I think we should out-green the greens and demand that their actions match their words. No attendee at the conference will fly there, or better yet, it will take place by video.
Adrian: You are free to skip the posts you don’t like. Calling out hypocrisy has been very effective in reducing the effect of the blowhards in the media climate propaganda machine, maybe more so than the actual science.
Jit: My answer to “You’re not one of those ‘deniers’ are you?” is “You’re not a member of that climate cult, are you?”
Disagree with you Adrian. Paul’s highlighting these hypocritical actions by alarmists is very useful – I dont scan the trash MSM to find this stuff. When next anyone mentions Harry’s green pronouncements i can simply reply with ‘is that why he flys by private jet on holiday and releases far more CO2 than me?’ . All this celeb trash is useful for trashing trashy celebs!
Adrian , stop pretending to be so high brow that you only ever want to read scientific data, call me thick but I thought this was a great post of Paul’s exposing woke greeny derangement syndrome.
Since anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have almost no effect we should not be concerned other than to point out the conflict between green posturing and actual actions.
Exactly my point, Peter. It’s a clever use of propaganda which is actually spread by the very people you want indoctrinated. As more and more people use the ‘carbon-footprint’ argument they are sub-consciously disseminating their support for the CC argument.
It is far better to qualify the argument in terms of the sheer hypocrisy of the key adherents to the religion. It was always the bible-thumpers and TV evangelists, I recall, in the US who were caught with their pants down or their fingers in the till.
All this proves is the people did not believe what they said. It does NOT prove or disprove the religion or the theory.
Religion bashing is so juvenile. but I’m sure you puffed up and did a little dance to make yourself feel important. You know, like Al Gore does every time he goes to the bank. Feeling important is one way a person becomes a member of the AGW cult and a poor skeptic.
Unless Harvey Weinstein and many others, not to mention Epstien, were Bible thumpers, your comment is a lie.
Whoa there, Sheri!! I wasn’t religion-bashing (except the one that is Climate Change). I was pointing out (a fact) that some leaders of religions, and some tele-evangelists (I was in the US when they were prosecuted) often have feet of clay and are usually in it for their own ends.
I’d appreciate you retract the claim that I lied. It’s not true, and it’s beneath you.
This is definitely a case of ‘do as I say, not as I do’. Do they think people don’t notice their hypocritical behaviour? Or do they just not care what those who fund their lavish lifestyle actually think of them?
I’m never quite sure who are the real hypocrites in all this, the people who preach eco-probity (I’m trying to think of a nice “non-emotive” description here!) while betraying the principle at every turn or those who dedicate their lives to seeking out such people in order to give us lurid headlines.
The Mail seems to have taken over the News of the World’s traditional “ooh, come and look at how nasty this is” attitude to things its editor has decided we should all disapprove of. As for the Sussexes, I doubt if they are any worse than any of the other celebs who are doing what their advisors consider to be good PR. The Windsors have never been thought of (and to be fair have never pretended to be) the sharpest knives in the box but Harry was by no means the worst of them except that the media decided at about the time he chose to marry someone who was not only •••• but also •••• (pure coincidence of course) that he was to be the current Public Target Number One.
I’m not justifying him, merely suggesting that this piece of gutter journalism is every bit as hypocritical in its own way as anything that the virtue signalling eco-idiots get up to.
(Incidentally, in order to “balance the books” it might be nice if people carried out a little very straightforward research into just who does foot the bill for royal activities. With the exception of official royal business the answer is, by and large, NOT the taxpayer!)
Yes it is the Taxpayer. In addition to funding royal duties we pay the queen a salary from which she pays Harry a salary which he uses to hire a private jet.
Harry is now a target for gossip because he’s proven to be a hypocrite in the ‘do as i say ….’ tradition. Nothing to do with who he married as a person, but she has proven to be a motivator of Harry’s hypocracy. It’s the hypocracy of these people that’s the target – not who they are.
Do some research instead of just repeating the myths. The breakdown of royal expenditure is explained on a number of sites, all of them easily accessible.
Any funding for Harry from the annual grant would be for royal duties. His personal expenses come from the Duchy of Cornwall which is not beholden to the taxpayer.
You are obviously not aware that the UK’s taxpayers funding of the Royals has risen by 41% over the past year? £67 per person up from £32 in 2012.
Dally Express 14th August 2019.
Doubtless they expect their children to fly by private jet too, so by limiting themselves to two, they will make an impact far beyond most of us. Perhaps as important is that the fewer children raised as the hypocrites of the future the better.
At least William understands that flying an air ambulance helps saves lives of ordinary people, and that skilled piloting of a Chinook did likewise at Whaley Bridge dam.
Somewhere there is a photo from yesterday of Greta in a MOTOR launch , being taken out to her yacht, with 5 other MOTOR launches of film crews and observers.
Don’t forget the press helicopters necessary to record the momentous event of the sailing!
Greta has enough problems of all sorts without you Stew and Ian pointing out these facts. Of course starting out being completely wrong about climate change mechanisms is the real problem. She shares being misguided with a host of others particularly politicians, the BBC, media in general and anyone with a vested interest in supporting AGW and its outrageous policy reactions like decarbonisation of energy conversion to electricity.
This is from America’s top “science magazine”
BTW it chose to stop allowing open comments on articles a few years ago
I note she seems to have been taking the scenic route to avoid anything more than a gentle breeze so far. Won’t give much of an impression of climate change to be plain sailing in idyllic balmy weather.
I spotted that as well – they seemed to be heading directly towards an area of very light winds. The latest position shows they have changed heading, and are currently making just over 12kts into a 21kt quartering headwind:
https://www.windy.com/track-team-malizia-and-greta-on-their-journey-across-the-atlantic?47.055,-12.854,5,i:pressure
Paul is doing what needs to be done. These Royals are taking the p### out of us and must be held to account. It’s just as important and possibly more so than 18th century records on a glacier!
Are they really that stupid that they think their hypocrisy will go unnoticed? The Republicans are only too happy to point out anything the Royals do using private transport or military transport. It is reasonable to take the view that as CO2 has no effect on our climate it doesn’t matter what they do. But on the other hand their alarmist preaching will make our lives more expensive so that gives us the right to call them out.
Greta news : German newspaper claims a crew will fly to America to bring the yacht back
I don’t want to stray too deeply into Gretaville, but if a crew is being dispatched to bring the boat back…. how is Greta getting home? Or is it just that she is being shipped home by the new crew?
‘for a five-day break’
Break from what?
Virtue signalling !
No one who is uber wealthy flies commercial. No one, so this isn’t a BFD.
Elux, if I was uber wealthy I wouldn’t fly commercial if I could help it either. I’d fly private – or I’d fly first class at least. But then, I wouldn’t be lecturing my kith and kin about the dangers of Climate Change and their ‘carbon footprints’.
I rarely read such a stupid article… Do we have to close all the business jets producers?
Stop envying and let people live or write clever articles
Elie
I could not give a toss whether celebs fly private jets or not.
But has it not occurred to you that the same celebs like to lecture us that we should not fly on holiday or drive our cars because of “global warming”
I suggest you engage your brain before making such ridiculous comments again!
“secret trip” huh?
That worked out well then