Meg and Harry supporting race and mental health charities in UK

[Sprining]

Brilliant to hear this. They have approached three charities in UK including Mind and a charity to increase diversity in the media and press.

Great, doing good based on their experiences.

Andrew always pushed himself forward as he was jealous of Charles, that's why he mithered for his daughters to be Princesses.
Andrew was never important after William and harry were born.
This is how harry is now unimportant that's why the complainant of Archie not having a title etc.

@Marmaladeagain

Perhaps read it cokie. Tells you what the Jewish community were discussing in year or 60th anniversary of Holocaust and how Harry had made them feel.

The same article says army don’t think it’s right he proceeds to attend for army training. They don’t think he will be suitable. They were obviously talked round and took him in at Sandhurst later that year and then two filmed incidents of Harry being racist surfaced and sent on army training courses. Harry apologised and in same breath defended it by saying Dave laughed along...

You won’t see it will you H has been in our press for years with these sorts of headlines.

I like the way an article in the standard which back then was a decent paper actually only in City and slightly more upmarket than you imagine -etc - changed with digital age , again you don’t seem to know much of real life day to day history in U.K. so look a bit silly dismissing the paper from when Harry was 20 as just a tabloid. Yes the size of the pages were but it was much more on City of London and upmarket type of paper.

Oprah reported lots of inaccuracies. Wasn’t an interview so surprised you’re sniffy where you get news from and you seem very uninformed on lots about U.K. life, bizarre.

I did: "At a society wedding he was reported to have said about his new girlfriend Chelsy Davy: "She's not black or anything, you know."

Reported. No named source.

And research The Standard. I did. It seems you are not very informed about your own paper. It has a long history of supporting conservatism and conservative pollies. Maybe you should do some research and be informed.

Oh, and you cannot repeat the same lie and think it will wash. Oprah reported no inaccuracies. You are clearly as prone to lying as your are to be ignorant of the UK press.

@Marmaladeagain

I can't imagine a reputable charity wanted to be involved with them at all. Very tricky for a high profile charity to get involved. Who'd trust them? Would you have a confidential conversation with Harry about something when you know he'll sell his own granny?

That's a phrase here in the UK about someone you wouldn't trust - that they'd "sell their own grandmother" - Harry actually doing it.

They really aren't very popular.

Oh God he is isn't he 🤦‍♀️

@MiaowMiaow99

My understanding was that since the interview M&H have dropped in popularity.

Why? Their profile is huge now. Id imagine charities are falling over themselves to be linked to them

Their profile is huge at the moment, but not for the right reasons!

Actually, information shows that on average, 60 to 70% of people support Meghan and Harry more after the interview. That is on average, worldwide. Will try and find a link for you.

UK Charities like patrons who live in the UK to turn up at UK events.

If they get Royal patrons they like to pick ones who will not get them cut off by the monarch.

Harry and Meghan were given the chance to become full time working royals
but chose not to
leaving

Charles and Camilla
William and Kate
Anne
Edward and Sophie

all of the rest are set to have their funding cut in the next few years

I'm off to bed now, it's getting late in the UK. However, just to finish, M and A would have had security if they'd stayed as working royals. The security came with the job. When M&H stopped being working royals the security finished too. This is because royal security paid by the taxpayer, and only working royals get that money. Nothing to do with race.

^A study conducted by the Media Reform Coalition (MRC) and Goldsmiths University of London argued that in the 2016 elections for the new Mayor of London, the London Evening Standard was the "mouthpiece of the Conservative Party", according to MRC chair Justin Schlosberg. There were almost twice as many positive headlines about the Conservative candidate, Zac Goldsmith, as for his Labour rival, Sadiq Khan, with stories exhibiting the strongest bias against Khan also being the most prominent. 13 out of 15 official press releases from the Goldsmith campaign in the two months to 12 April were published as news stories in the paper, "reproducing headlines from the news release virtually verbatim", according to the study.[40]

During the 2019 Conservative leadership election the Evening Standard endorsed Boris Johnson^

and

^The appointment of George Osborne, a Conservative MP and former chancellor of the exchequer, as editor of the Evening Standard was, to put it mildly, a surprise to many. But the move only makes more explicit the newspaper’s close ties to the Conservative Party

I carried out research on the Standard when it was edited by Sarah Sands, who had vowed to be “scrupulous” in providing equal coverage in the run-up to the 2015 mayoral election. I found that the Standard gave Conservative Zac Goldsmith more favourable coverage than his opponent, Labour candidate Sadiq Khan. The same dog-whistle politics that were coming out of Goldsmith’s campaign could also been seen on the pages of the London daily.^ theconversation.com/george-osborne-the-evening-standard-and-the-conservative-media-establishment-74796

I see your sympathy for the Holocaust visitors to Buckingham Palace that year is all of zilch.

The Standard back then had lots of links to the society parties, lots of upmarket columnists - I'd trust that link more than a known racist's vague accusation against a family member right now.

Truth does get out in the end, so no worries about truth.

Harry needs to get on with naming the person in the family and sorting it out like a grown up. He has enough of a chequered history himself, so should give the opportunity for someone else to explain their "truth". Can't explain "truth" with vague accusation of "someone".

Don't you want to know, or does the vague suit you as much as it does Harry?

That’s really interesting!

Cokie3, this is the article I read. They've bombed in the UK but become more popular in the US.

So this is why a few of us on this thread can't see any UK charities rushing to align themselves.

www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/03/12/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-popularity-tumbles-in-uk-after-oprah-interview-but-surges-in-the-us-polls-show/

That was to @Cokie3 and the links she (he?) kindly provided

How do you know they haven’t named the person privately to the Rf? Maybe they named the person when it happened and nothing was done?

@Marmaladeagain

I see your sympathy for the Holocaust visitors to Buckingham Palace that year is all of zilch.

The Standard back then had lots of links to the society parties, lots of upmarket columnists - I'd trust that link more than a known racist's vague accusation against a family member right now.

Truth does get out in the end, so no worries about truth.

Harry needs to get on with naming the person in the family and sorting it out like a grown up. He has enough of a chequered history himself, so should give the opportunity for someone else to explain their "truth". Can't explain "truth" with vague accusation of "someone".

Don't you want to know, or does the vague suit you as much as it does Harry?

Ah, so now you wriggle and squirm when I posted the TRUTH about hard right conservative Standard? Too bad you didn't do your research. Would have saved embarrassing yourself. ;)

Yes, the truth always comes out. Sorry that it's inconvenient to you.

The Standard back when Harry was 20 - long before George - bangs head on table. Blimey, again so not relevant - the newspaper is free by then, not upmarket society party columns.

You keep falling on your face I'm afraid. It's funny.. I can't imagine going on an Australian website and finding out about 20 things over two days that I expressly got incorrect.

Aren't you getting a little bit wary of putting more weirdly out of date and not of the correct era information on these threads? The Standard in 2015 is nothing like what it was back when Harry was 20. Do the sums and work backwards, that might help to get there.

oh cokie it's getting really funny now! I know you don't get why but 2015?! How old was Harry then? might help.

@Marmaladeagain

I see your sympathy for the Holocaust visitors to Buckingham Palace that year is all of zilch.

The Standard back then had lots of links to the society parties, lots of upmarket columnists - I'd trust that link more than a known racist's vague accusation against a family member right now.

Truth does get out in the end, so no worries about truth.

Harry needs to get on with naming the person in the family and sorting it out like a grown up. He has enough of a chequered history himself, so should give the opportunity for someone else to explain their "truth". Can't explain "truth" with vague accusation of "someone".

Don't you want to know, or does the vague suit you as much as it does Harry?

You won't get much love for Jewish people from one of these posters. I have reported them on a Meghan and Harry interview thread before. Message was deleted but pretty nasty to a woman with a Jewish husband. Some people need to practice the kindness they love in Meghan.

I’m sympathetic to anyone facing abuse.. I don’t think Harry’s behaviour in the past can be justified.

But what does that have to do with charities they are supporting now? Are these considered anti Semitic in any form?

If tomorrow it is found the PC made those infamous remarks, should we boycott Princes Trust? Of course not. If we expect only the pure to do charity, we will have very few!

@Marmaladeagain That 'article' from The Standard was written in 2012. Pre 2012, and post 2012, TES is a right wing tabloid. Pre, AND post.

Not sure what strange point you think you are making, but, as always, it falls flat.

I know - the "kind" mob are quite weirdly the opposite of what they always claim to be.

Every nasty comment they make is actually knocking the brand they claim to adore. Harry can do no wrong. Harry says something vague and it is enough, no more is needed that's everyone damned.

Harry the man who actually did sell his grandmother - I've handed someone a title for the next biography, I can see it now.

But what does that have to do with charities they are supporting now?
Which charities are they "supporting"
and in which way?

If its the list of 4 I checked out yesterday, your briefing notes need updating.

@Truelymadlydeeplysomeonesmum I've never made any derogatory comment against Jewish people or people of any race, nor would I.

And despite Marmaladeagain attempting to reel me in, my comment was not about him dressing up in the Nazi uniform nor anything to do with the holocaust memorial that was mentioned in the article. I knew all that. My comment was aimed specifically at the comment that was 'reportedly' made about Chelsea not being black. Nothing else. I know what Marmaladeagain is attempting to do but I won't play that game. I've already addressed the Nazi outfit before. I've seen it was wrong and he apologised. It has nothing to do with the Chelsea comment I was referring to.

Yes it was free by then - it was a property porn advertorial with bit of news. It was an entirely different beast. That's the point. Different from when Harry was 20.

Earlier I was reading about a poll done in the states. It actually makes had Harry's popularity greater than Meghan's score. Not fans of either but that surprised me. I think it was something like 57% to 54%

Harry the man who actually did sell his grandmother - I've handed someone a title for the next biography, I can see it now

And that's not a nasty comment??

Harry was not 20 in 2012. When the article was written (13 April 2012
). Whether the paper is free, cheap, or expensive does not matter one iota. It makes no difference to the editorial style which has mostly been conservative. It's a red herring. The issue is the editorial style.