....to think that this is a new low in the Meghan Markle Debacle

[Bestfootforward1]

Up to now I've been fairly neutral about Harry and Meghan. I'm not a royalist, im a bit of a republican, but I like to see what the royals are up to, and like a royal wedding. The family rows, extravagant baby shower, all the rumours....I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, i was pretty indifferent. And i liked the way she was shaking up the royal family.
However, this sickened me a bit. Using an instagram post supposed to benefit mental health charities to flog her rich mate's £900 a night hotel/retreat. Its such a blatantly tasteless and crass thing to do I think its shocking. Welcome the new Fergie.

What rules has this broken?

I imagine the same ethics rule that prevents any one of the royal family from advertising - same as Sophie and Fergie getting in trouble for advertising/ access. Same rule that’d stop Theresa May from becoming a Fiji water girl. Same reason that Zara can only get sponsorship as she doesn’t have a title or carry out royal duties. And if there isn’t a rule in black and white for this, then what a good opportunity to introduce one.

If (when) Trump did this, if Obama did this, if Wills and Kate did this, if Sophie or Fergie did this, it’d still be wrong. It isn’t a shades of grey area, it isn’t a mitigating circumstances issue.

Using the forum you have from your public position to in any way benefit or give advantage to your friends, is wrong. It is doubly wrong on a mental health post. The friend’s page isn’t a charity, it isn’t regulated, and dangerously she doesn’t have any healthcare qualifications.

Of all the thousands of charities and campaigns, and the professionals out there that do provide free access to mental health care, it is farcical that one of the nine be their friend’s Goop-y page. A waste of their “platform” and in fact a corruption of it.

Do not use public funds to benefit private businesses.

Do not dabble in mental health campaigns if you don’t really care about it.

@Notmyrealname855

There are so few fundamental rules about royalty I can only think of two - you don’t express political views, and you don’t advertise products/ brands

www.royalwarrant.org

Precisely @Becles.

Absolute rubbish I am 4 clicks away from anything on the internet. Royals can advertise if they want, what about giving products the Royal seal of approval?
Agree the anti Meghan sentiments are racism with a lot of snobbery and anti Americanism mixed in. I bet if she was Lady Horseington-Oldmoney and did the same things the papers would be fawning all over her.

The thing is, it's her friend, surely most women her age who move in influential circles have friends with businesses etc etc?
I don't see anything wrong with her helping to promote them, that's what friends do.
So what if she married royalty, she's still a person on her own right.

Agree with teacake , if she was Lady hoighty toighty and was promoting her friends horse trials wearing a 3k dress, the media would be all over her like a rash.

The warrant is the only way a royal can say they have used and approved something. The royals don’t then actively link to those warranted products on their websites and IG pages.

And you need to go through an approval process to get a warrant. So why didn’t the IG link have one?

I don't see anything wrong with her helping to promote them, that's what friends do.
So what if she married royalty, she's still a person on her own right

Because she carries out royal duties and has royal status. And they can’t act like that.

No, businesses with Royal warranty put a great big crest on all their branding. The process is irrelevant, the outcome is the same. The RF actually has a process for endorsement of business which kind of shoots the ethics argument down in flames.

Are we still on about the promotion of the friend's business on Instagram? Surely that was yesterday morning's reason to slag MM off. There is now the posting of a photo of her baby's feet on Instagram to get riled up about. Duck that witch, people! Have at her!

Lol then we have very different ideas about ethics in public office. Keen to see your silence on Trump doing the same

And you need to go through an approval process to get a warrant. So why didn’t the IG link have one?

There may well be an approval process to link to your friends IG page of positive, affirming quotes.

And MM may well have followed it to the letter.

We’re discussing the RF, not Trump. Not my president, not my country.

The Royal Warrant process is entirely transparent. The rules of application are published online and the whole process is administered by the Lord Chamberlain. Not the Royal Family. Those providing professional services such as medical or therapeutic treatment cannot apply. Plus the warrent holders have to have supplied the Royal household for at least 5 years and meet a number of published standards to ensure quality controls

This is entirely different - Royal patronage at its worst. And if there are standards for getting a shout out on Instagram from PH and MM, they should be published. To allow all businesses to apply for the opportunity - not just chums.

We have just worked really hard to get a new start up registered with the CQC. I would be mightly fucked off if a other health care provider didn't have to go through the same grueling process because they were chums with the head of registration for the CQC. Members of the public should also be fucked off because it would mean that standards that are in place to protect them aren't being adhered to because, ya know, mates.

You’ve missed the point, @Gobbol. Pp assert that the RF doesn’t endorse commercial ventures on ethical grounds. The Royal Warranty scheme proves that isn’t true, that the reverse is the case. It’s the principle, the detail is irrelevant.

Trump does the same already. They all do to some extent.

"There are so few fundamental rules about royalty I can only think of two - you don’t express political views, and you don’t advertise products/ brands".

Yes, that basically sums it up, spot on. Its not asking much.

"LaurieMarlow

crass to plug a friend’s business

They’re not doing that, they’re directing you to an IG page full of feel good, life affirming quotes. Not my thing, but whatever.

The friends’ business is 4 clicks away from that."

Wrong. They have linked from their IG page directly to their mates IG page. "The Class" is a business run by their mate.

It’s not spot on at all, OP, as was demonstrated in the last few posts.

HRTWT but YADBU to call it the Meghan Markle Debacle. If true, this might be a small error of judgement but the way everyone pounces on anything she does makes me very uncomfortable.

"Notmyrealname855

I imagine the same ethics rule that prevents any one of the royal family from advertising - same as Sophie and Fergie getting in trouble for advertising/ access. Same rule that’d stop Theresa May from becoming a Fiji water girl. Same reason that Zara can only get sponsorship as she doesn’t have a title or carry out royal duties. And if there isn’t a rule in black and white for this, then what a good opportunity to introduce one.

If (when) Trump did this, if Obama did this, if Wills and Kate did this, if Sophie or Fergie did this, it’d still be wrong. It isn’t a shades of grey area, it isn’t a mitigating circumstances issue.

Using the forum you have from your public position to in any way benefit or give advantage to your friends, is wrong. It is doubly wrong on a mental health post. The friend’s page isn’t a charity, it isn’t regulated, and dangerously she doesn’t have any healthcare qualifications.

Of all the thousands of charities and campaigns, and the professionals out there that do provide free access to mental health care, it is farcical that one of the nine be their friend’s Goop-y page. A waste of their “platform” and in fact a corruption of it.

Do not use public funds to benefit private businesses.

Do not dabble in mental health campaigns if you don’t really care about it."

Yes, spot on. Put so much better than I did.

FWIW I'm not keen on the Royal Warrant thing either, but I'm not sure it's quite the same as far as advertising goes ... after all the RF aren't actively pushing the various suppliers all over their various social media AFAIK (though the Duchy Original arrangements are a bit dubious, as I'd expect from Charles)

but the way everyone pounces on anything she does makes me very uncomfortable.

How strange.

For those saying it's the same as the royal warrant. It's not.
"There are now just three royals entitled to grant warrants – the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales – and to get one you have to have been supplying one of the "Big Three" for at least five years before you can be put forward for approval."