Harry and Meghan, more news!

[callmeadoctor]

New thread following on old one: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_royal_family/3932323-Harry-and-Meghan-news?msgid=97617755

It can be very lucrative though:
Al Gore - $100,000
Condoleeza Rice - $150,000
George W. Bush - $150,000 and $200,000

Tony Blair - $200,000
Alan Greenspan and Arnold Schwarzenegger - $250,000 each
Bill Clinton - $260,000
Ben Bernanke - $200,000 and $400,000
Barack Obama - $400-600K
Donald Trump - $1.5 million*

Honestly. I'd contribute to crowdfunders NOT to have to listen to most of those blathering on. Can the fee/payee thing be reversed?

*I've had and I realise my logic is getting muddled here. I'll trust to the clever ones here to figure out how it's meant to work.

Thing is, if they talk about for example the environment or mental health services, they are going to end up implicitly or explicitly criticising government policies

That's the issue, isn't it? If you are a politician, then you can take a side. If you are an ex-Olympian or any other private individual, you can take a side. If you are a royal or even ex-royal, can you take a side? Surely you lose your 'royalness' and become just another person with an opinion and vice versa.

Why do you have such a low opinion of posters here?

I don't.

On another subject.... Michael Johnson has tweeted this..

'On the phone with Prince Harry and Meghan Markel the Duchess of Sussex. Prince Harry shared that young people voices matter and Meghan has agreed to talk with girls in Wisconsin and we will be scheduling that soon. Thank you for caring!'

He followed it up with an interview saying he enjoyed the call and valued it.

Prince Harry shared that young people voices matter

Profound.

Michael Johnson obviously appreciated it, even if you didn't.

Michael Johnson obviously appreciated it, even if you didn't

This endless blaze of PR and banal charity photo-ops is ill-advised.

It's all very well to support positive causes, but they are clearly using these associations as more grist to the PR mill. Most recently there was a supportive tweet from the NAACP about them - the NAACP is (predictably) another long-time Sunshine Sachs client. I'm really surprised the media isn't highlighting these connections.

Quietly doing meaningful work behind the scenes would be much more appropriate under the current circumstances, but they seem addicted to publicity.

www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a32987335/meghan-markle-prince-harry-facebook-advertising-boycott/

I just read that the new James Bond film are desperate to have them at the premier in the US. William and Kate will probably attend the UK one a week earlier. DM so it must be right. Wooden spoon anyone.

@Cartesiandebt

Michael Johnson obviously appreciated it, even if you didn't

This endless blaze of PR and banal charity photo-ops is ill-advised.

It's all very well to support positive causes, but they are clearly using these associations as more grist to the PR mill. Most recently there was a supportive tweet from the NAACP about them - the NAACP is (predictably) another long-time Sunshine Sachs client. I'm really surprised the media isn't highlighting these connections.

Quietly doing meaningful work behind the scenes would be much more appropriate under the current circumstances, but they seem addicted to publicity.

I find all the endless PR very tiring as well but I wonder whether the alternative is for them to slip in obscurity and, despite their many claims to the contrary, they feel the need to stay in the public eye as much as possible. If they are no longer well known, I can’t see how they can make money to be financially independent. Although unless they sell out the RF, I genuinely can’t see how they can make enough money to be financially independent and have the lifestyle they are accustomed to for potentially the next six or seven decades.

Back to jobs for them, I see no reason why Prince Edward wasn’t allowed to make programmes about The Royal Family for Ardent Pictures. He has unprecedented access and the insight into Royal events and archives (ie secrets of Queen Victoria) would have been fascinating. He wasn’t a bad presenter either. Yeah yeah trading off his name blah blah. But Dan Snow does it. Chloe Madeley does it. Ronan Kemp. David Lindley Furniture - The Queen Mother reportedly showed off all his pieces to her friends when he was starting out so who, of them, would not feel obliged to buy a marquetry table? The Fox Children: Emilia, Laurence, Freddie. The Redgraves.....

Anyway, that is Prince Edward.

Back to HandM who should start an ethical clothing brand.

Back to jobs for them, I see no reason why Prince Edward wasn’t allowed to make programmes about The Royal Family for Ardent Pictures

The main reason always comes back to the issue of 'royal exclusiveness'.

I see no reason why Prince Edward wasn’t allowed to make programmes about The Royal Family for Ardent Pictures

He did - "Edward on Edward", "Windsor Restored", "Crown and Country", etc.
Trouble is he couldn't make it pay, and the rot set in when William went to Uni and, with film crews having agreed to back off, his crew were found to be still poking around for titbits

What with that and Sophie's company failure / "fake sheikh" sting, they were paid off with yet more funding from the Queen, one of the biggest homes of any of her children and an expectation that they'd forget the commercial stuff, concentrate on royal duties and generally shut up

That list of top dollar speakers is comprised entirely of economists and politicians. I don't see on that basis how the Sussexes would be able to earn comparable amounts.

I've said this countless times now but will do so again since these threads can cope with a lot of repetition - they would do a lot better focusing on what they know. I posted a little way back that Meghan would be well suited to working on Black Lives Matter type stuff around barriers in acting and the entertainment industry. Harry's areas would be either the AIDS work he's done with Sentebale or the veteran related work with Invictus or even post-combat mental health. They would be interesting and credible on these topics. However, they seem set on broadening their areas of interest to much larger and fuzzier domains.

I think initially (when large conferences are allowed again which might not be for another year) they will be able to command a large fee solely due to thier novelty factor. Once they have done a couple and so are no longer new on the circuit they will not be in such high demand. I expect they will still want to charge top dollar and be confused as to why no-one no longer wants to book them.

I know people on this thread have said as part of the royal family Harry has met with lots of people - politicians etc but he would have been fully briefed beforehand including I suspect told his point of view/opinion or at least discussed what he was allowed to say. That jo was comparable with people like Obama or Clinton who led a country and had to make huge decisions on a daily basis, or Oprah or Bill gates who have created off thier own back with a lot of hard work when they were younger huge corporations.
I don’t thing H&M realise that in the real world respect and power come after you have put the hard work in. (well Megan should seeing as she wasn’t born into royalty but she believes royalty gives her the fast track to the top) Harry was born powerful due to his accident of birth. Which while in the royal family they created that power for him and provided him with opportunities to speak. I think they won’t find it very easy once they have to think of thier own things to say.

The hoax Greta Thunberg call doesn't bode well for Harry's ability to evaluate and talk about social and political issues without civil servants to do all the hard work for him. I hope Sunshine Sachs have a large team of researchers they can put at his disposal.

Well, given the number of threads on here and how many posters are agog to dissect their slighest gesture and utterance, it looks like they would have a massive market for speeches

TheNavigator

Well, given the number of threads on here and how many posters are agog to dissect their slighest gesture and utterance, it looks like they would have a massive market for speeches

It's a point - perhaps those paying for Premium Mumsnet could ask for a cut to be given to H&M?
Every little helps, as they say.

Don't think I'd pay to discuss them.
I know I wouldn't pay to listen to them.

Surely the threads on here are us providing them with brand feedback and market research? They should be paying us

how many posters are agog to dissect their slighest gesture and utterance

Their most broad appeal (for want of a better word) is due to the car-crash factor, people are fascinated to see what they will do next.

Their primary interest, as such, is mainly centred around the tabloids and the more gossipy areas of social media (Twitter, Reddit, Instagram etc and forums like this).

Unfortunately, this sort of appeal is would not translate to any sort of high-end or premium audience. This is why their PR activities are such a grave miscalculation. They are actually making themselves less bankable (except to the tabloids) with every manouevre,

When H was a working member of the Royal Family, he was carefully and thoroughly briefed before every public engagement

Considering what happened with the "Greta Thunberg" call, that was probably just as well
As with some other RF members, the consequences of leaving them to their own devices can be painful

I actually find it incredible that these two can make millions from speaking engagements when they have nothing to bring to the table apart from notoriety.

@DontLookTwice that will be their appeal to a certain audience.