Harry & Meghan - to hope the Royals answer back?

[DontReallyCareBut]

I think the allegations in the Oprah interview are serious enough that protocol should be breached and the Royals should have a voice to give their side too.

This 'lovely' duchess of Kent?
www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a14481097/princess-michael-of-kent-racist-brooch/

That’s Princess Michael of Kent.

Entirely different person. The Duchess of Kent lives quietly and was teaching music to underprivileged children the last I heard.

Duchess of Kent

Can you imagine being the ‘right’ Kent and having people pull faces and blow raspberries at you thinking you are the ‘wrong’ Kent... a bit like me and big-sibling-Liquorish (who people always confuses when we were kids)

HmmmmmmInteresting no that's the Princess not the Duchess - two different people...

@HmmmmmmInteresting
If you had read the thread a poster,@Stoppissingonmyheather had mixed them up and other posters, including me were clarifying who was who
In the last few posts.

@Liquorishtoffee

Can you imagine being the ‘right’ Kent and having people pull faces and blow raspberries at you thinking you are the ‘wrong’ Kent... a bit like me and big-sibling-Liquorish (who people always confuses when we were kids)

Poor bugger, constantly being mistaken for your nippy sister in law!

This 'lovely' duchess of Kent?

Such a shame you referred to one person but used a link which clearly refers to someone else, even in the title; considering the difference has already been clarified several times this morning why not at least try to get it right?

Nobody disputes that Princess Michael of Kent has displayed some very racist behaviour, so why not blame the person concerned rather than dragging others into it?

Diana was an original. she was a complicated woman but she was clearly genuine. it wasn't an act. She used her position to genuinely help people and causes, publicly whingeing about it afterwards definitely not. She was a lady.

Megan is an actress. If she's even half way good at her job she can deliver the lines and make them believable. There's a clip of her in an interview laughing about her ability to cry on cue "tears in 3, 2, 1 go". Nothing wrong with that for an actress its a plus, but she's not Diana.

Harry with all his upbringing, schooling, military training and should know better than run his mouth off in this way. All the big talk of wanting a life of compassion and service no longer rings true. Instead he has taken himself from hero to zero, sponsored by Netflix.

Diana was an original

Someone's been watching too many regency dramas.

I don't watch any regency dramas. not my thing. have I unknowingly referenced something?

Harry basically said it was his job to look like that and he was usually miserable inside. I wonder what the people he works with at Invictus and Sentebale make of that ... Like the comment that he had no interest in streaming deals and only signed them to pay for security for his family. What does Spotify and Netflix think of that

I don't imagine Netflix/Spotify will care as long as they get the viewing figures - and they'll get 'em, even if it's just people tuning in to see what an ass he makes of himself this time

The charities might care though, but I'm not sure how much it matters considering the RF are largely photo bait with others doing the actual work

I don't know if they will get the viewing figures, certainly not on a recurring basis. Their story isn't that long

@StatisticallyChallenged

I don't know if they will get the viewing figures, certainly not on a recurring basis. Their story isn't that long

I did wonder what their netflix show and podcast deals would actually talk about. There really isn't much more that they can say that will keep people interested longterm. The only thing I could think of is they are planning on going down the parenthood route especially with the new baby but this seems unlikely given how much they have shielded Archie from the public.

I don't know if they will get the viewing figures, certainly not on a recurring basis

I agree about the recurring basis, but believe they'll get them for now if only on the basis of notoriety.
As others have said, the question is what'll happen if the attention starts to dry up, especially as there's very little actual content in their endless witterings

"They responded to claims that Kate had botox and also about her hair. At the very same time all of these things were being spewed about Meghan."

This canard comes up time and again in these threads and it's really tiresome. The Palace did not deny Kate has botox, they denied that she was a client of a particular clinic that was using a picture of the Duchess to suggest that she was their client, with the tagline "Our Kate loves a bit of baby botox". Commercially advertising a private business is against the rules for senior royals, so they clarified the position (it's quite obvious she uses botox!). They would do the same for any of them.

The hair thing was more interesting. When Kate was a very new royal she attended a function with her hair pulled back, and there was a lot of press chatter that you could see the track lines of extensions in her hairline. The palace put out a statement clarifying that what they were discussing was actually a childhood scar on her temple. Why? Maybe it was something she was very sensitive about, and the first time she wanted to clarify something on the record? It's not something she's often done, anyway.

It's on record that palace press staff issues public denials of nine stories on behalf of Meghan while she was a royal. A couple of them have been mentioned already (the gender neutral point, the disagreement with Kate). A couple of the stories that were denied, like the fact that the couple were not planning on relocating to Canada in 2020, which was denied in 2019, were later proved to be true.

See! I am not the only one!

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I don't know if they will get the viewing figures, certainly not on a recurring basis

I agree about the recurring basis, but believe they'll get them for now if only on the basis of notoriety.
As others have said, the question is what'll happen if the attention starts to dry up, especially as there's very little actual content in their endless witterings

They either need to produce really decent content, or they're going to have to go the reality tv route. They'll get folk tuning in for the first couple but I don't see their names carrying them long term.

Neither are experienced at the former - they could of course get a good team around them but even that requires a degree of knowledge and intuition to make it a success.

The reality route seems to be lower brow than they're aiming for. And they'd run out of interesting royal content very quickly... also doesn't tie in with shielding Archie.

I can’t quite imagine a show like the Osbornes...

No Sharon and Ozzy are funny for one thing and self-made for another

I think people are mistaken about the Netflix deal and are imagining it's a deal for them to front a single TV show about themselves. It's not. It's a content and production deal to develop and produce multiple TV shows across various genres.

Expect to see Harry and Meghan producing documentaries on a range of subjects, including nature documentaries, which they likely will not appear in themselves (possibly Meghan might do voiceover).

I know they're in talks about producing a children's show.

They're actively looking for talented female and black (or both!) screenwriters with TV series in the pitching or development stage, to potentially produce or exec produce. Imagine if Meghan 'discovers' the next Phoebe Waller Bridge or the next Michaela Cole and nurtures their projects to screen, and becomes the exec producer of the next Fleabag. That's what she's intending to do. Not have a one-off reality show about her own life.

Expect to see Harry and Meghan producing documentaries on a range of subjects, including nature documentarie

So netflix are paying them millions to find people to create shows they have absolutely no knowledge about??

I can’t think of many celebs who have tried to venture into ‘stuff’ when they don’t have actual expertise (ie designing, writing, ecology...). If I want to see an ecology or history show I want to see a historian or ecologist.

If I was a talented screenwriter - I wouldn't go to people with no experience (Meg or Harry) for help. What are Netflix thinking if that's the case? Ridiculous. Claiming success via money from Netflix (due to the royal connection they disparage) and spotting someone else with talent.

Leaves a rather bad taste all round.

@Liquorishtoffee

I can’t think of many celebs who have tried to venture into ‘stuff’ when they don’t have actual expertise (ie designing, writing, ecology...). If I want to see an ecology or history show I want to see a historian or ecologist.

Me either. I'm genuinely trying to think of anyone who has made the leap and am struggling. It just seems odd to pay them millions to find people to make the shows when netflix are quite capable of finding people to make shows already.

I dont think them playing a part in creating stuff will make it any more likely to be popular so why would netflix spend so much to what would effectively be them acting as middle men?

I know it's not a single show - but they have squat all experience in content development. They don't even seem to be experienced at managing a team properly. Most actors who make the transition to producing do so gradually, often starting out as co producers on the shows they're working on.