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.

There is no separation. Everything they do is in a kind of soup of good intentions, virtue signalling, brand enhancement and money spinning.

@StartupRepair

There is no separation. Everything they do is in a kind of soup of good intentions, virtue signalling, brand enhancement and money spinning.

Exactly and that is what is leaving them open to criticism which they probably feel is very unfair. The remedy is in their own hands though.

@SunbathingDragon

The reason why MM was so googled when her relationship with Harry first became public is because she wasn’t well know. It’s not like Harry was suddenly dating Angelina Jolie, who is a good comparison as she is a similar aged well known Hollywood actress.

This is a very good point, the likely reason for the Googling. Hysterical the book makes out that it's indicative of their fame.

completely agree Monimatrix.
i think their strategy is keeping their names on media constantly and
try venues without thinking much and maybe at the end choose which ones will work for them.
i dont know why their work (i dont know if you can call it work; to be photographed for them or give word salad talks) always is about charities. there are other venues that they could try.
and i also think that its immoral to have a hand on any charity's income.

@Mominatrix

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.

Also this last paragraph. I think they did think they could function as some sort of US branch of the royal family.

Meghan could well have looked at the situation and felt she wanted to devote her philanthropy/efforts primarily to issues that concern her in her home country. This is understandable but it is not appropriate or relevant to use the British titles in this context.

I can understand why she wants to speak out on voting but that MUST be as Meghan Markle, in her capacity as a US citizen. It is really unbelievable this would need to be spelled out. Do we know what she used in the video? It doesn't matter that the title is TECHNICALLY correct, it is the look and feel of it and it's tone deaf not to acknowledge that.

it was word salad again and they are so annoying.

fighting the fight etc. again. and she says she didnt have a voice. poor girl.

she didnt have a voice and nobody asked her how if she was ok.

I can't see, for the life of me, why it would be perceived as controversial or aggressive or insulting to insist that when speaking on US political matters she does so outside the branding of the British Royal Family.

I am not one of the people who thinks she needs to not say anything at all, although I get others might feel she does, given that until they formally drop the title the RF is going to be associated in some way with whatever she does politically. I wouldn't mind as long as she pulls some sort of caveat: "As an American citizen, I Meghan Markle/whatever surname harry wants her to use, I can't keep up, think" before any talk.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8657833/Amazon-restricts-reviews-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-explosive-new-biography.html

spectator.us/meghan-markle-duchess-sussex-voting-rights-activist/

And I really would be very interested to hear if there is anyone on these boards who would argue against this point below:

In her interview with the 19th, the Duchess mentioned that her husband has never been able to vote, citing it as an example of why no one should ever take the right to vote for granted. If a PR consultant devised that talking point, they should probably be fired. In the US, voter disenfranchisement remains an enormous problem, from draconian state measures that strip felons who have served their time of the right to vote for life, to misinformation campaigns that attempt to convince certain blocs of voters to stay home. The Duchess of Sussex’s husband can’t vote because he was born into money, castles, corgis, and the overwhelming burden of showing up at a lot of charity balls. There is zero comparison. I’m sure that if Harry did want to become an American citizen and start casting ballots, he could use his connections to leapfrog our labyrinthine immigration system that leaves scores of would-be eager American citizens and voters in a painful holding pattern.

I am still an American and reserve the right to lose my shit over that.

@Mominatrix your post is spot on. That for me really does summarise the issue.
@Oldbutstillgotit that’s very interesting and not at all surprising. We do know there is a lot of online activity happening on behalf of them. Same with the leaks about the court case.

Reading through the 120 "positive" reviews of Finding Freedom on Amazon. Sussex Squad are out in force I see. If you thought the book was very sugary and reads like a bad Mills & Boon, many of the positive reviews are written in the same vein. "An excellent book. I will pass it on to my grandchildren"

[quote wufti]@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[/quote]
It seems that despite being told by HMQ they can’t be half in, half out, that they are trying to do so regardless.

[quote Oldbutstillgotit]www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8657833/Amazon-restricts-reviews-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markles-explosive-new-biography.html[/quote]
Embarrassing for the authors.

@OVienna

spectator.us/meghan-markle-duchess-sussex-voting-rights-activist/

And I really would be very interested to hear if there is anyone on these boards who would argue against this point below:

In her interview with the 19th, the Duchess mentioned that her husband has never been able to vote, citing it as an example of why no one should ever take the right to vote for granted. If a PR consultant devised that talking point, they should probably be fired. In the US, voter disenfranchisement remains an enormous problem, from draconian state measures that strip felons who have served their time of the right to vote for life, to misinformation campaigns that attempt to convince certain blocs of voters to stay home. The Duchess of Sussex’s husband can’t vote because he was born into money, castles, corgis, and the overwhelming burden of showing up at a lot of charity balls. There is zero comparison. I’m sure that if Harry did want to become an American citizen and start casting ballots, he could use his connections to leapfrog our labyrinthine immigration system that leaves scores of would-be eager American citizens and voters in a painful holding pattern.

I am still an American and reserve the right to lose my shit over that.

We had a recent discussion about this on one another, probably zapped, thread and as I now understand it, he can vote but in order to support HMQ he doesn’t - or at least doesn’t publicly.

I also had no idea that some felons lose the right to vote for life.

Yes I remember that vaguely. I think the point that he isn't 'disenfranchised' in the way it is properly understood is still very valid though.

Sorry, I wasn’t meant to invalidate the comment. It just reminded me and, if correct, means what MM is saying is also wrong because he can vote.

@SunbathingDragon I should have clarified I wasn't offended.

Or whatever. You know what I mean.

I do, don’t worry.

Embarrassing for the authors
I think they're impossible to embarrass. Well, Omid anyway. The other author is being distinctly low-key.

I have no words 😶!

That blog is so scathing. Who is the author? He seems very knowledgeable and raises some interesting points. I have no idea how these things work but it’s quite possible the charity wanted the publication (which they have received) rather than actual hands on help on the day.