Harry and Meghan biography

[sunshinesupermum]

Hasn't Prince Harry learnt anything from his mother's experience of having someone write her biography 'to set the record straight'? Couldn't they have at least waited until after his grandmother's death, however long that might be?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8257071/Meghan-Harry-biography-bombshell-Royals.html

If the book details such personal things then I would see their friendship circle diminish - who wants to be friends with someone who may spill personal details about you?

I think I was agreeing with you too OVienna

And you're right TimeLady
It's just a rather tricky area to navigate, I don't think the concept of poverty porn had been thought of back then.
It's not just the royals. Things like gap year charity trips etc (if they ever happen again in the post CV world). Some undoubtedly do great good for both sides of the deal. Others not so much.

I do think including children is good though, in general. Look at school fetes up and down the country with children manning stalls and helping parental efforts etc

Was Meghan in the Royal Family when there were reports in the media of William and Rose Hanbury being close ?

I think they are trying to teach the children to think of others, and also want the children to be visible in public roles bit by bit, so they get used to it.

Yes she was, and according to the Blind Gossip sites, responsible for leaking the information (which may be why Kate won't give her the time of day).

I think the Brits have an outdated view of charity. I understand giving in the USA is expected if you are wealthy and results in wealthy individuals giving 10 times what British people do who squirrel away what they have off-shore. It’s a very good thing to get Royal children engaged with the concept of giving.

As for the pasta. I shop for my mum at the moment. I always add in a treat or two. Nice pasta, some chocolates, better quality ham etc. Why should everyone receive cheaper items? If W&K wanted to put in nicer items, I’m sure the recipients would have been pleased. Not everyone would think the RF should put cheap stuff into gifts!

Can you imagine the outcry if they'd been pictured with a pack of cheap Tesco basics pasta?

I agree with your post Biscuit . It was obvious from the beginning that M was completely the wrong fit for RF life, and I also suspected they are quite relieved she's gone home. I have been among that set off and on as OH worked with them at times. I also lived in the Gloucestershire area for some time. I found it hard going, and can absolutely see how she would have been completely out of her element. There are so many traditions and ways of interacting that are hard wired into that set which take a long time to understand. They are a breed apart, and the antithesis of everything M is about. I can imagine sneering and sniggering behind hands, eye rolling, and blanking. Harry would not necessarily have picked up on it at first, but she would. Instead of watching and waiting, learning, and using the situation to her advantage once she had her feet under the table, she breezed in and expected everyone and everything to bend to her. It must have been a big shock. Given the issues with her father and the pregnancy so soon into the marriage, it was a massive amount to take on for anyone.New country, new marriage, new pregnancy, public embarrassment from family would have been enough in themselves, never mind a massive cultural difference, and completely different mindset.

I also think she's really got an axe to grind with the Establishment now. She's angry they didn't support her, as she sees it, and angry that she feels looked down upon and sneered at. Harry is angry by proxy and the two of them are just egging each other on to bigger and more disastrous fight backs. Competing for Instagram followers, competing for media coverage (of their choice), lashing back, suing, angry and spiteful commentary to 'friends'. It's an absolute disaster and I can't see there is any way this is going to resolve in a positive way for anyone. Archie is their trump card, and will be used as ammunition in the future I have no doubt.

Bubbles I grew up in the US. There is a tax benefit to charitable donations which explains part of the US donations scale. It's not just for vast giving, you can track small individual donations in the year and receive some benefit.

Here's an example of life in the US. Several years ago, we were visiting my parents and went to church on Xmas Eve. Apparently, a family's house had burned down that day due to deep fat frying a turkey on the porch. The pastor actually said as part of his speech to the congregation: "Please give as generously as you can, all donations are of course tax deductible."

I had lived in Britain long enough by this point to find the remark cringe (plus, the deep fat frying of turkey was a trend which had emerged subsequent to my departure - I ended up feeling less than generous toward this couple and actually relieved they hadn't brought down the entire neighbourhood with this activity.) My British husband was at the remark. No one else thought it was at all weird.

Lean social benefits have also meant that the private sector has stepped in for various things. And that's a force for good.

There is also a bit of social climbing in the charity events though in a way which is just not as pervasive here. Google the Junior League. Yes the clubs 'do good things' and have done but there is also social exclusion in these organisations.

This is an essay. Meghan will be familiar with this landscape.

''a wealthy child provides charity to an adult in need.''

''I don't see that - to me it is teaching a child to be kind and think of others.''

I agree that it is uncomfortable. The thoughtless emphasis is on teaching a privileged child to be charitable. There is no consideration to the dignity of the person having to take food from a child.

I also admit I was the person that moved to Eastern Europe in the early 1990s and talked about volunteering with my students who were really not sure what I was on about. I should have known better WHY this sort of thing was relatively unknown. So, I have been THAT American myself.

This is an interesting discussion. But Rose I think this is also true: also want the children to be visible in public roles bit by bit, so they get used to it.

Charity giving to registered charities is tax deductible here too. It’s just that we do not give it in such great numbers. It’s less in our DNA.

I wasn’t really thinking of people giving a bit to local families via a church because that’s not giving by the very rich. We need the very rich to give more. Some do but lots don’t. Nowhere near the scale of the USA and I applaud them for that. We too have virtue signalling but lots of people could give quietly if they wanted to. It appears they don’t.

The cheek of them both wanting our sympathy. I can imagine MK's AIBU post:

"So married hubs 2 years ago after a brief relationship and had a dc. Hubs family mega loaded and paid for wedding, house and refurb, alongside everything else. We got this deal in return for making a few appearances on behalf of the family business, mainly lavish holibobs abroad. Hubs fed up of being younger than his brother so we emigrate and set up a business linked to the family name. Hubs family still giving us fuck loads of cash but won't let us make money off the back of their business. Bastards."

My mum is elderly. She loved that she gets a few freebies! People really don’t mind a few bits and pieces to help out.

On a wider scale why do you think food banks are used? Have you ever given to one? Why are people not embarrassed to use them? They don’t appear to be and so many of us give to them when we shop. Are we wrong to do that?

deep fat frying a turkey on the porch

God bless America

I find the US fascinating. If I could pick a place and time to live it would be 60s US, mid-sized town in the Midwest.

There is a different culture dynamic for sure, Bubbles.

I agree that it is uncomfortable. The thoughtless emphasis is on teaching a privileged child to be charitable. There is no consideration to the dignity of the person having to take food from a child.

I was going to say exactly this but deleted it. The best route would be not to teach 'charity' as a concept that someone then superimposes onto someone else, but to instead teach respect for others from which charity flows. Don't know how manageable that actually is in the real world, and especially in a royal one.

Why would we be wrong to give to food banks? I'm confused now. And yes I do give to them.

With my story with the vicar my point is that there was no need to even mention the tax deductible part. Who would that be relevant to? Well, now that I know I can take it off my taxes, all right then, have twenty bucks. It was very odd to raise it.

Actually, proportionate to income, poorer Americans give more money to charity than the rich, or so I've always heard.

I agree that charity that isn't anonymous is very tricky to navigate. In Charlotte's case, the beneficiary may have been thrilled or insulted--no way of knowing. They may actually been insulted by getting it from an adult, but charmed by a child.

I was watching an American comedy a few years ago (I think it was called King of Queens), and they had an accountant sit with them to help with their taxes/household accounts. He casually asked how much a year they gave to charity, just as a standard question from the form he was filling in. Not even 'do you give...?' but 'how much...?' Completely different mindset between American and British, but are taxes much lower in America? And therefore lower unemployment benefits etc. so more of a need for voluntary donations?