Harry and Meghan are expecting their second child

[Standrewsschool]

Wishing them all the best

@TheLaughingGenome

It seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding.

M&H: But anyone can do charity work.

Queen: However, only members of the Royal Family can carry out charity work as members of the Royal Family

M&H: Yeah but, anyone and everyone can do good works.

Queen:

This is so true !

Surprise surprise, thread has gone way of topic and turned into another bashing one. Is it really hard for people to just stick to the topic about them having another child without going off on one about other stuff. Shesh

Yet they choose now, when Philip is in hospital, the UK is still in the midst of a severe lockdown, California is on its knees with Covid - to do an Oprah tell all about complaining about life in the Royal family

1. No one has heard the speech yet so you don't know 100% it will be all about complaining
2. They announced it before PP went into hospital.
3. It was recorded before he went in.

We all know that anything sad or bad that happens to the RF will be all their fault ad infinitum

Great post LetMeBubble

[quote Coronateachingagain]@StartupRepair I agree and that is exactly how their business is set up. They call it a "Foundation" and refer to charitable work, but in reality Archewell is a business with a "Foundation" arm (whatever that means from a profit or non profit perspective) that is very well used as a marketing tool. The marketing and PR department. Too keep it rolling.
So make no mistake, they are running a business first and foremost.[/quote]
People were saying that the couple should be financially independent of the RF and the British public. So it's hardly surprising that they have set up a business is it?

@Onatinyboat right except you would not be calling your business a "Foundation" and proclaim to do everything in the name of charity etc. when you will give [10]% of profit to charity and keep the rest for yourself. (and who knows what percentage of revenues this is, much smaller, after all the expense they will clearly incur to do things their way).

That they are setting up a business mainly is not exactly the image they want to project, is it? Ha. Obviously nobody has a problem with them setting up a business, it is the way they are doing it.

Anyways, I have predicted they will have a tough time with finding high profile charities here in the UK wanting to be associated with their business.

So I fully assume their efforts will be focused in the US where they can more easily sell their stream of twaddle. (borrowing the word from @Motherdare thank you!)

Spotify's head of legal has been questioned by MPs at a select committee hearing today and asked to justify the scale of the payment to H&M for their podcasts. He described them as "box office" and therefore justifiable, but that they have to earn their keep.
Part of the report quoted Harry's speech for Spotify yesterday, which I'd previously missed:

“And the biggest part of this is trying to create this community of where you can share. We encourage everybody else to then share their own vulnerabilities within that safe space.”

I really, really dislike the notion of building a multimillion dollar business on the back of other people's vulnerabilities and suggesting that a fucking global commercial streaming service is a safe space in which to do so.

EuroTrashed that sums them up to me though. I feel like they piggyback on others hard work for good causes just to get thanks and some limelight. To me they embody everything they claim to work against!

but the disgusting cynicism with which they (he) suggest that a public forum is a safe space to share vulnerabilities (even taking aside their ability / desire to earn off the back of those shared vulnerabilities) is vile.

right except you would not be calling your business a "Foundation" and proclaim to do everything in the name of charity etc. when you will give [10]% of profit to charity and keep the rest for yourself. (and who knows what percentage of revenues this is, much smaller, after all the expense they will clearly incur to do things their way).

Could you show me exactly where they have said that 'they will be doing everything in the name of charity'? Are you suggesting they are lying about giving 10% to charity (if that's what they said)?

As I understand it, a number of UK organisations have already said they wish to continue their association, but given the couple are in the US, in any case it would surely make more sense to base their work there?

Btw, I've looked since switched off the @ notification so there's no need to @ me

They've set up archewell foundation and built that as a brand. Archewell Audio which has the spotify deal is presumably a seperate commercial entity giving nothing at all to charity (despite being built on other people exposing their vulnerabilities) but with the use of the ARchewell name obscuring that / making people think that there is a not for profit / charitable element to it.

@EuroTrashed

They've set up archewell foundation and built that as a brand. Archewell Audio which has the spotify deal is presumably a seperate commercial entity giving nothing at all to charity (despite being built on other people exposing their vulnerabilities) but with the use of the ARchewell name obscuring that / making people think that there is a not for profit / charitable element to it.

One look at their website makes it obvious that they are separate arms. There is no obscuring. Presumably you want them to be financially independent? That does of course mean making a profit.

Onatinyboat do you think that everyone who sees archewell audio is going to go to their website / delaware companies registry to check corporate governance? or do you think yr average oprah viewing podcast listener is going to just think "archewell"? Yes, I do think it is deliberately piggybacking the foundation's name / goodwill (I use that in the legal sense) to also use it for their profit making entity. More power to their elbow earning a living and having a fuckign great life in the sun, but doing so in a way that suggests it's all for charity but is actually leeching off othe rpeople's "vulnerabilities"? Nah. Not so much.

@Onatinyboat oh sure nothing is absolute but you seem to be pretty tuned in to understand the point, and that this is more or less the message they are sending out. To pick up on your words too I would not take it for granted that there is no obscuring (unless of course you are an insider so you would know better).

Anyways just to point to it again, they are not promoting as a business but as a source of good, where they "unleash the power of compassion to drive systemic cultural change." (from their from web page!) Ok if you do not think that is a charitable and selfless thing to aspire then it is fine. The problem is that is what the business says it does.

Furthermore, in their front page, they present the Foundation as the first element in the way they will achieve this:

"We do this through our non-profit work within Archewell Foundation 501(c)(3), in addition to creative activations through the business verticals of audio and production."

So no, they do not make it "obvious they are separate arms ", not exactly.

oh these little multi million businesses "in addition to" the Foundation (that take the lion's share of the revenues to fund their personal lifestyle hehe). I am not falling for it any time soon.

I wonder who drafted this??? Her? because it would not pass the smell of a professional PR person. Better not say much than to get in the muddle...

Laughable. I do not see their effort any better than the "buy this and donate 10p to charity", except that the product they are selling, as @EuroTrashed said, is not only dubious but rather a sinister proposition. Our money is definitely better off somewhere else and any charity here would be mad to help them build this thing.

Oh are they using Delaware? that is also not a good sign. Very convenient

I'll ask you the same question as above. Could you show me where they have said that everything they do is 'all for charity'?

Who exactly are they 'leeching off'? That's a particularly serious allegation, so if you could point me to where is been shown they are leeching off people, and whom, I'd be really interested to see it.

As for whether people would look at their website, yes I'd imagine they would if it mattered to them. And you'd have to be rather thick not to see the three sections are separate. Finally, what exactly is wrong with them earning a living?

The level of glee and hate about anything they do is just being laughable.
And rather weird too

"we're sick of subsidising this pair, I wish they'd pay for themselves"

They are.

"Its disgusting they're doing that, how dare they"

[quote Coronateachingagain]@Onatinyboat oh sure nothing is absolute but you seem to be pretty tuned in to understand the point, and that this is more or less the message they are sending out. To pick up on your words too I would not take it for granted that there is no obscuring (unless of course you are an insider so you would know better).

Anyways just to point to it again, they are not promoting as a business but as a source of good, where they "unleash the power of compassion to drive systemic cultural change." (from their from web page!) Ok if you do not think that is a charitable and selfless thing to aspire then it is fine. The problem is that is what the business says it does.

Furthermore, in their front page, they present the Foundation as the first element in the way they will achieve this:

"We do this through our non-profit work within Archewell Foundation 501(c)(3), in addition to creative activations through the business verticals of audio and production."

So no, they do not make it "obvious they are separate arms ", not exactly.

oh these little multi million businesses "in addition to" the Foundation (that take the lion's share of the revenues to fund their personal lifestyle hehe). I am not falling for it any time soon.

I wonder who drafted this??? Her? because it would not pass the smell of a professional PR person. Better not say much than to get in the muddle...

Laughable. I do not see their effort any better than the "buy this and donate 10p to charity", except that the product they are selling, as @EuroTrashed said, is not only dubious but rather a sinister proposition. Our money is definitely better off somewhere else and any charity here would be mad to help them build this thing.[/quote]
I looked at the website for the first time ever today. It was very clear to me that there are three separate arms, one of which is the foundation. If you think that's obscuring, that is your choice. I disagree.

Do you not think business can also be a source of good? Are the two mutually exclusive? Do you not think that you can earn an income and support good causes? Of course they have a multi million dollar lifestyle. The royal family all live multi million pound lifestyles. Whether that is right or wrong is another issue, but it is how it is. I don't understand what there is to fall for.

As for who drafted it, I don't know and see no benefit in speculation. However it is clear to me at least that there are two business arms from your own quote.

Of course you are entitled not to give them your money. Could you explain what is sinister? Again, that's quite a serious allegation to make.

They are not paying for themselves. But it looks someone will. Not me though! Just sayin'

Many people are encouraged to share vulnerabilities. As an example, Mumsnet has sections for bereaved people, those suffering with poor mental health, marital breakdown and other issues. Mumsnet is a business. From the days of agony aunts onwards, people have been encouraged to share vulnerabilities with profit making organisations. Talking, or sharing vulnerabilities can be a vital part of getting better, and help other people.

The issue as I see it is that they are quite clearly trying to replicate the business model of the likes of the Obamas and Bill Gates. Set up a lucrative 'Foundation' that both is profit making but also philanthropic.

The difficulty is that the Obamas and Bill Gates achieved this successful business model, following entirely self made careers. They put in the hard yards, achieved success on their own terms.

The Sussex's have the global standing and name recognition that they have because they were Royal. Through inherited wealth and privilege.

People can argue Meghan was a moderately successful actress, but had she not married into Royalty - she would not be in the position to set up a foundation and secure deals with the likes of Netflix and Spotify.

The bedrock of their 'success' is that they are Royal. Yet we are all supposed to play along with this pretence that their goal is to live a life of selfless service. It doesn't ring true. Especially when this message is delivered wearing Oscar de la Renta on the couch of a multi million dollar mansion in LA.

I would have more respect if they dropped this pretence of duty and service and just got on with making the cold hard cash.

The Sussex's have the global standing and name recognition that they have because they were Royal

Harry can't help the family he was born into.