Thread about Harry and Meghan that has no deletions

[OverUnderSidewaysDown]

Play nicely and don’t say anything that will get your post (or the thread) deleted. I’ll start. Archie is cute and it would be lovely to see him more often.

Yes @peachsquish some celebs donate without publicity. The fact is their donations although helpful don't raise the profile of the charity. They don't help to publicise a particular campaign that the charity has decided they want to push.
If all celebs gave secretly, it would have a massive impact on the awareness and funds of the charity. A good photo/celeb/charity campaign can raise thousands of pounds. It can encourage other people to volunteer. It can motivate people to campaign.

@peachsquish the article on that link was just lovely- that is how charitable giving should work. Then again, I am of the unpopular opinion that many celebrities get involved with Children in need and the like to promote their Own careers

No idea why own has a capital O

@BottomOfMyPencilCase, true, but as the link I provided shows, this is not the kind of charity which is lacking in high profile doners and events.

@Rousetts, you know this how?

Mom I don't. But every news report (there's about 11 different ones on Baby2Baby twitter page) with lots of photos of H&M in different places doing different things, and the reports talk about how they saw every child and the queue was snaking round the corner blah blah
Might be difficult to achieve in ten minutes. That's all.
Which is why I asked for a source of that.

I have no idea how long they stayed

But your "quite the opposite" implied that you knew definitively that they spent a significant amount of time there.

What nitpicking.

What I have led to believe is quite the opposite to the 10 minutes.

OK?

@Mominatrix I agree they have lots of famous names on their website but I don't know any charity that would turn celebs away because they already have some Also, because of quarantine/lockdown, it could be that the others weren't close enough to help to publicise that particular drive.
I don't know what happened at their photo op. My point was that the relationship between charities and celebs is symbiotic. Yy celebs get publicity but so do charities. And that's the way it works.
I didn't realise until I came on these threads that some people thought photo ops were more than photo ops and that celebs actively supported every charity whose photo they appeared in. It's not that some celebs don't but the vast majority show up, have a photo taken, speak to some journalists (if it's that type of shoot) and then go away. They won't be in touch with the charity until the next shoot is arranged.

Do any of the other celebs take along a personal photographer to promote their charity work. Is it the done thing in the USA.,Maybe if we could understand why they need to publicise everything they do it would make more sense when they request privacy. And Harry said he was traumatised by having his photograph taken.

Their attitude to photographers and the media is completely inconsistent. I'm not defending it. imo they don't want privacy. They want tightly-controlled positive publicity, preferably that they can monetise and that plays well to an US audience.

But that doesn't mean the charity won't benefit from their appearance yesterday ... whether it was for 10 mins or a full day

I also think if we want them to be able to build a life in the US and be independent then trying to put barriers in their way every time they try to do something only disadvantages the UK in the longterm. The longer it takes them to build a new profile and earn an income, the longer the UK will be indirectly paying their bills and the more we'll see coverage of their every move.

No, bringing a personal photographer is definitely not the done thing for A listers. Lower profile, probably. Despite what these threads like to project and Sunshine Sacks "leak" to the press, Meghan Markle is not high profile in the US, and more people would recognise the other names on the Board of baby2baby more than Meghan, who would more likely be known as the person who married Prince Harry of the UK as opposed to a supporting actress on a TV show on the USA Network.

baby2baby.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ForbesJenGarner.jpg

baby2baby.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/THRfinal.jpg Note the amounts personally donated by the women on the board - I wonder if M&H donated a large sum or if they thought their brief publicity visit was enough.

[quote MissEliza]@peachsquish interesting article. I remember after George Michael died, there was a story on This Morning that he had called them after seeing a childless couple and donated the money they needed for IVF, which was successful. I think the couple had no idea it was him. He was a genuinely kind individual. [/quote]
Yes, that's what I call proper charitable giving. Doing it quietly without expectation of a fanfare and lot of praise and attention. Sadly, it doesn't happen often enough. I saw an item on the news about Taylor Swift giving money to a girl who had come to this country at 14 unable to speak English with no family. She is about to go to University, and is crowd funding to raise the money as she doesn't quality for a grant. I think that's amazing. I don't think she did it for attention, she gave because she was touched by the story.

I also think if we want them to be able to build a life in the US and be independent then trying to put barriers in their way every time they try to do something only disadvantages the UK in the longterm. The longer it takes them to build a new profile and earn an income, the longer the UK will be indirectly paying their bills and the more we'll see coverage of their every move.

Is there any guarantee that once they finally become 'independent', they will no longer take taxpayer cash? Given their history, they don't strike me as particularly averse to being funded by anyone who stumps up and taxpayers simultaneously. Unfortunately, we are in it for life. Those apron strings will never be cut .

Yes, that's what I call proper charitable giving. Doing it quietly without expectation of a fanfare and lot of praise and attention. Sadly, it doesn't happen often enough

A good friend of mine was high up in fundraising for a big national charity. After George Michael died she told me he gave them a major donation every year, and had done so for nearly 20 years. It was never publicised at all, by him or them. They thought the world of him.

I disagree, early thirties is still very young, it's the age at which the careers of many actors take off and Meghan was popular in the States.

Are you actually in the states? I am and I had never heard of the show Suits, let alone MM until she started dating PH. I had never seen her on TV at all. Not on a talk show, awards ceremony, morning shows etc. Nothing. From general chat with friends at the time, most had never heard of her either.

As soon as I saw the link for most charitable celebrities, I knew George Michael would be on there and I’ve heard many good things about Keanu Reeves as well. It’s encouraging that there are probably many others who are still alive and that we have no idea how much they are doing quietly for others.

I think that most celebrities probably do quietly support charities from writing large cheques down to picking up grocery tabs.

TBH, philanthropy is normally picked up by people after they have earned their dosh by being very successful in another field to allow them to have the ability and time to make a difference. Foundations are started using these excess funds (Gates, Bloomberg and other business billionaires) or attract donations because of the numerous accomplishments of the founders (Obama, Clinton) The key is that these foundations and even the individual charity donations by celebrities are not, as PH’s stated goal in the QCT video is, to “profit off compassion and empathy”. I think that what riles people, at least me, is the idea that compassion and empathy are valid things to generate a billionaire lifestyle from.

The problem with M&H is that they are trying to play Royal Family in the US. They are doing what the RF do here in the UK - making publicised visits to charities, be seen doing good deeds, having one off video chats for charity, all without the legitimacy and goals of the institution of the Royal Family behind them. In the UK, it is their goal to act in such a manner because the RF is the representative of the State. The US has no Royal Family and it certainly would not choose people like M&H to be their royals - these 2 just assumed the role without understanding that it just does not culturally work there and they ultimately look bizarre playing that role in a republic - particularly using titles given to them in another country to legitimise their statements and actions.

@Mominatrix. I agree. It comes back to their original half in half out proposal - do the glamorous bits, some charity work and earn lots and lots of money from monetising their RF connection

I would really love to know what their strategy is now. Not their tactics - those are pretty clear, but their actual strategic aims. Because, looking from the outside, it’s a complete mystery, and I don’t think that helps them.

Monimatrix you have absolutely got it spot on. Harry and Meghan are not big celebs in their own right. And they should not be trading on their royal status in a country that doesn't have royalty. Not only that but they want to make millions for themselves. It's a pretty poor show all round.

Does anyone know when the court case is taking place ? Just wondering as the DM seems intent on drip feeding stories every day !

@Serenster

I would really love to know what their strategy is now. Not their tactics - those are pretty clear, but their actual strategic aims. Because, looking from the outside, it’s a complete mystery, and I don’t think that helps them.

I think that they need to make it clear how they intend to earn their money asap. At the moment they are open to the suggestion that their appearances are more for their own benefit in order to keep their profile high. If their plan for financial independence includes a way for them to make the money they need for their lifestyle from their own efforts then I for one will applaud any activities they also undertake on behalf of charities. There really needs to be clear separation between threes two things in my view.

They seem to be spinning in all directions at once. If there is a strategy it’s not a very focussed one!