discussion

LONDON — Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, were surprised by the way Buckingham Palace released a letter that made clear they remain non-working members of the royal family even though they have returned to the United Kingdom.

The letter, sent on behalf of King Charles III to senior government and military officials, caught the couple off guard when it was released to the media on Monday in part because they were given little time to review or comment on its contents, a person familiar with the discussions said.

The couple’s representatives received a copy of the letter just one hour and 12 minutes before it was released to news outlets, the person said. That left them with little time to respond because they were unable to reach Harry, who was in a meeting, until just two minutes before the letter was released, the person added.

The letter said Harry and Meghan would continue to refrain from using the formal royal titles, such as his royal highness and her royal highness, as they have done since stepping back from official royal duties in 2020. Any charity work the couple undertakes will be carried out in a private capacity, and operational security decisions are matters for the relevant police agencies, the letter said.

“To help avoid doubt or confusion, The King has directed that (this) information be shared,” the Lord Chamberlain, the most senior official in the royal household, said in the letter.

Harry and Meghan stepped back from royal duties in 2020 when they moved to North America to make their own living through lucrative deals with Netflix and Spotify. At the time, Queen Elizabeth II made clear that the couple could not be part-time royals and they had to give up their royal positions if they wanted to pursue such commercial arrangements. Charles reiterated that position after he became king in 2022.

The couple’s reaction to the letter, which confirms that their status remains unchanged, highlights tensions surrounding their return to the U.K. Some palace observers have expressed concern that Harry and Meghan’s presence in Britain could allow them to establish a sort of parallel royal court that would compete with working members of the royal family.

The security question is particularly sensitive because Harry has fought a long-running battle with the government for the restoration of publicly funded police protection, which was canceled when the couple gave up their royal roles.

Any decision about whether to restore the couple’s round-the-clock police protection is a matter for a government panel known as RAVEC, or the Royal and VIP Executive Committee. The committee is expected to meet this week, the person familiar with the discussions said.

Kirka writes for the Associated Press.

California lawmakers have voted to shift a state forest system away from commercial logging and pave the way for tribal co-management, delivering a win to a movement rooted in the historic timber wars.

Managed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire, the state’s 14 demonstration forests are currently required to produce and sell timber to show — or “demonstrate” — sustainable practices, while considering factors like recreation and wildlife.

AB 2494 eliminates what’s often cast as a logging mandate, instead prioritizing values such as carbon storage, wildfire resilience and biodiversity conservation. There could still be logging, but it would need to support those principles.

It also directs state officials to seek agreements with Native American tribes to integrate their traditional knowledge into managing the land. The bill now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

“We don’t need more demonstrations of what clear cutting does to a forest — we have plenty of those,” said Assemblymember Chris Rogers (D-Santa Rosa), who authored the bill. If the forests are being used to show how to boost commercial logging gains, “then that is not how we want to use our public assets.”

At the center of the discussion is Jackson Demonstration State Forest, spanning nearly 50,000 acres in Mendocino County. For decades, loggers and environmentalists have clashed over the fate of its stately redwoods.

About five years ago, tensions reignited when community members caught wind of plans to cut towering trees near the coastal town of Caspar.

Tribes whose historic homelands fall within the forest became leading voices in the effort to halt logging, with the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians’ Priscilla Hunter emerging as a major force. She has since passed away but her legacy looms large in the movement.

While running for his assembly seat representing the North Coast, Rogers heard from constituents and local politicians who wanted to see the forest run differently. The bill grew in part out of those discussions.

Polly Girvin, Hunter’s former partner and a retired lawyer focused on Native American issues, called AB 2494’s passage by the Legislature “nearly miraculous.”

“We’re at a time right now where scientists are going to have to reach across the table to the Indian voice,” she said. “They feel they have a sacred obligation to manage their forest, not for commercial logging per se. So I think it’s really a meeting of science and the sacred.”

Some backers say the bill offers a new economic path forward for communities behind the so-called redwood curtain. With the decline of logging and cannabis as livelihoods, they see income from tourists attracted by ultramarathons, mushroom foraging and other outdoor activities as a financial savior.

But the push to reshape forest management is fiercely opposed by loggers and mill owners, who say their work is sustainable and provides blue-collar jobs in a region where they’ve dwindled. Already California imports most of its wood from Oregon, Washington and Canada.

The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors has supported the bill, but it’s opposed by the Rural County Representatives of California, an advocacy group representing 40 counties.

Staci Heaton, senior policy advocate for the organization, said they’re concerned that the new management goals are so vague they would expose forest projects — including wildfire research — to costly lawsuits.

“We’ve experienced the majority of the largest wildfires across the state over the last decade, and it is paramount that research and forest management knowledge be fostered in these demonstration state forests so that it can be used statewide,” Heaton said.

Currently, money from logging — roughly $8.5 million a year — pays for management of the demonstration forests. Under the latest iteration of AB 2494, it will remain one source of funding but not the only one, Rogers said.

Cal Fire’s Kevin Conway believes that if the bill becomes law, it will, in practice, limit funding. So they’d likely look to bring in money by charging day-use and other new recreation fees.

Conway, who is the agency’s chief for resource protection and improvement, added that some aspects of their mission wouldn’t change; the land would remain “actively managed.” For instance, he called wood products “a big part of our climate strategy in the built environment” and suggested it would still be prudent to understand how they’re produced in California.

“We don’t think that just locking up your forest and making a tree museum longterm will deliver biodiversity, carbon, recreation — all these things,” he said. Cal Fire has not taken a position on the legislation.

Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the bill.

The final statistics are in for transfers for the 2025-26 school year compiled by the 10 sections that make up the California Interscholastic Federation, and it was another record year for transfers.

There were 17,618 transfers, according to the CIF. The 2023-24 school year marked the first time the transfers exceeded 17,000 with 17,068.

The Southern Section led the way with 7,248, a record.

CIF transfer numbers for 2025-26.

(Los Angeles Times)

Transfers have been a major topic for discussions in high school sports around the country, with state associations coming up with different ideas, from making athletes ineligible for one year in Texas if they transfer for athletic reasons to offering one-time free transfers.

The CIF held a roundtable for discussions in 2025 about possible policy changes but everything has been on hold while waiting for a court case to play out that was dismissed for a second time recently.

CIF membership has been cautious about intervening or limiting transfer opportunities for fear politicians in Sacramento might get involved.