Harry's latest ventures

[Viviennemary]

Now being reported in the Daily Express that Harry is working on a new tell all documtary about royal life. This is according to his biographer Angela Levin. And even more disclosures about the royal family are forthcoming. Is this going to go on for years. We shall have to wait and sed. I think its very very wrong of him.

Well I guess companies will be observing how having H&M promoting your products goes down like a lead balloon. Dredges up all the negative headlines a company spends time trying to offset. H&M association then makes all the negative news front page news.... whoops.

Vitiligo? - kind of a beyond contempt desperate attempt. To accuse the RF of racism and then H&M are seen to publicly support company involved with whitening creams and the murky racism that belies the promotion of products offering a "rosy" skin in countries with predominantly darker skin populations.

Positioning themselves as professional victims with lofty ideals of philanthropic endeavours is all very well; however, the real motive (as is evidenced by their blundering around using ex-life in the RF as their currency) is about making money to fund the lifestyle they feel they deserve in Hollywood.

To earn those mortgage payments - they leave themselves wide open to these type of own goals, time after time.

Them being involved with Proctor and Gambol certainly shone a light on all the company's bad points and made them known to the world. Not sure if that was quite the goal they wanted to achieve.

@Viviennemary

Them being involved with Proctor and Gambol certainly shone a light on all the company's bad points and made them known to the world. Not sure if that was quite the goal they wanted to achieve.

When companies involved with people who invoke plenty of dislike in some, especially those in the media, it’s inevitable that the companies will also be scrutinised and not because those scrutinising want to be flattering.

There will be plenty of negatives about many businesses and charities that have been kept under wraps, that the management/owners etc will not want revealed to the public. That means they will stay away from people who are likely to mean their dealings are looked into and widely reported upon. Unfortunately for Harry and Meghan, right now they are two of those people. Even more unfortunate for Harry and Meghan is that they have a reputation of being victims whenever anything happens and they broadcast their views to the world. It’s another thing many people and businesses will seek to avoid. It’s why people don’t air their grievances in public because in the end, they are often the losers.

If Harry felt like a zoo animal he did the right thing to get out. But there are many jobs where we have to plaster a smile on and get on with it. In order to be professional and to be paid. Meghan must be very familiar with that pressure.

I agree @SunbathingDragon.

H&M really need to start realising it's not their idealised view of how they should be perceived by the public that matters, rather than the feedback of how they are being perceived.

If we use this thread as a microcosm of people "who give a shit" (and let's face it many people don't), I think it's fair to say that whilst they have attracted a group of very supportive advocates, their actions have garnered far more people who are, shall we say "less than impressed" with their actions even if they are sympathetic to them wanting a life independent of royal constraints.

The unimpressed and "don't cares" seem to be far more numerous in polls.

I remember when they released their ridiculous half in/half out manifesto a senior PR Exec was quoted in the press (sorry cba to Google the article) as saying they had enormous brand potential but what they shouldn't do was collaborate with tell all books, give Oprah style interviews or denigrate the RF (oh the irony) because their "brand value" was directly linked to that of the RF and to "attack" that was akin to chipping away at the pedestal beneath them that provides their future financial security.

For all the resources available to them H&M (for reasons I can't fathom) seem intent on following a path that is unnecessarily turbulent and destructive to what I think will sadly be to their own detriment.

@Marmaladeagain

The US armed forces pledge allegiance to the Constitution, not to any person. I served in the US forces as an officer.

The US President is both head of government and head of state. IOW, he's Boris Johnson and the Queen. Which is why I never understand the argument that replacing the Queen with a President would be just as expensive. There's no need to replace her with anyone. Just add the head of state duties to those of the Prime Minister.

You'd probably have to give the Prime Minister a pay rise the.

@LifeExperience - also pledge allegiance to "Boris Johnson" equivalent in US.....

That's the point Boris is one PM in a long line of many - it's an ever changing political stage and opinions and each PM will have policies not reflected by a large number of people voting him in as PM. Our Head of State doesn't change, there are lots of benefits to that and being apolitical is a very large benefit.

So no, nothing like the pledging allegiance to "Boris Johnson".

You've kind of missed the whole point of why we wouldn't ever want a President US style - as for deserving a pay rise, that really is missing the point.

Anyhow - it's more about who is the representative of head of armed forces at any given time - that doesn't change in the UK. US, as you say - constitution , flag, commander in chief - but the living embodiment of US abroad and Head of State, Head of Armed Forces will be "a" not "the" President because it changes. That isn't the equivalent of UK where that's the Queen.

Things cross over with US/UK system and not easy to compare so we are all taking stabs at the equivalents because it's too different to compare. Which is why posters from the US saying our system is archaic or whatever don't understand our system and keep trying to directly compare it, which isn't possible.

We accept the US system is different and don't go on to US boards explaining to them that their system is a laughing stock etc and in what ways their system should be changed. That's the only reason the stabs at comparison are attempted on these threads.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying either of the above posters have said those things, so apologies if it seems I'm talking to either of you, I'm not it's about general US posters trying to compare our system to theirs, and theirs is better etc.

So, I'm just explaining that the discussion sometimes comes round to these stabs at trying to compare what can't be compared (USvUK systems).

We don't hold the US system in particularly high esteem (due to the mixing of the Head of State with similar executive powers of PM in UK system). We don't like the division that creates in politics.

We don’t really even vote for the PM unless they are our local constituency MP. It’s the political parties that decide on their leader who then becomes PM (usually) if that party wins a majority. Who the leader of the party is has some bearing on who we vote for of course, but they are not directly elected by the populace.

If this is true it’s just getting funnier and funnier what those two are up to. Hopefully they’ll see sense before they lose all popularity. That is their income so they might want to move on from some of this talk snd disclosure. I don’t think they’ve noticed how fed up people are. Who will listen to them when their popularity is gone?

yes, very good point smilesy - it's so different it's difficult to find comparisons, but we in the UK know it's massively difficult and generally don't try to "fix" it for the US or claim to understand their system through and through.

However, the US posters are very confident (and some EU posters) that they completely understand UK system. So I can't imagine going on to a US board to "sell" our version of politics to them and why ours is better.

For instance, no one can really get our heads around the idea of the "flag" in the US and how proud etc. Understand the initial pride, but flags are now associated with decisions around the world which have not impacted well on local populations so not really for the US to tell us our country or flag is representative of oppressive acts etc.

The language, politics, social history is so different - I find sometimes talking to people from SA that their description of something may "jar"; not as much as back in the 1980s when I'd be open mouthed at some of their assumptions. However, we accept countries have different histories, social history in particular and political systems etc. So we give people the benefit of the doubt.

The US posters currently telling the UK why we're wrong about everything don't seem able to understand the above. That they just might be wrong about what they think the motivations behind a population's reaction to any given situation are.

Common language is becoming an increasing barrier to ease of comprehension now that social media is such an immediate reaction.

We now have US posters saying the use of language here is to be policed according to their social history - is that not just a good old attempt at oppression of old in the end?

Respect different countries are different and that's what makes us interesting. Homogenous offence to everything, something offensive to the UK about how M speaking in SA appears may indeed not appear to be the same reaction in South Africa.

However, as I say I've often found some people's language "jars" from SA on certain issues, so I'm not surprised. However, I'm not saying "they're wrong", it's we react from a UK point of view and it does "jar" for us sometimes in respect of SA.

again sorry if sounds like I'm being rude to the two posters above, I'm really not - it's about other posters forcing their agenda down throats. So sorry if sounds like I'm have a go at you two first thin on a Monday morning, really don't want it to come across like that to either of you and: nice to meet you both etc. genuinely, I mean.

Going back to the question posed earlier about what Diana would think about it all, I do feel that it’s possible to say with some certainty that she would not have been happy with post-marriage developments in Harry’s life.

She also would have hated seeing her boys turned against each other.

Agreed. What mother would not be distraught at this situation. It’s bad enough when children squabble, but a full-blown adult war is very distressing.

I don’t know whether Harry genuinely feels constantly aggrieved, or whether he is simply the piper playing what he is told is the most lucrative tune.

Well Harry and Meghan have some chutzpah, I'll give them that. Joining a think tank to fight the "avalanche of misinformation" after some of the - um - inaccuracies in recent interviews must take a bit of mental realignment. Right up there with talking about mental health while saying stuff that will upset his 95 yr old bereaved grandmother. And talking about racism while partnering with a company that sells skin lightening products in Africa and Asia. And dropping Meghan's father for sharing private family stuff, then sharing private stuff about Harry's family while his grandfather was dying. Hats off.

Exactly. At one time they woukd have had advisors from the palace suggesting that such and such wouldn't be a good idea. Theyre supposed to have PR but it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job in getting them positive press.

I'm going to give Harry some credit. At least now, he seems to be focusing on one thing which is mental health. This approach seems a bit less scatter gun than previous efforts.

Do I think he's improving people's mental health? Honestly, no, but I'm not his demographic.

I'm actually really interested in what he means by 'genetic pain' because I have googled it and can't see anything substantial. I hope he isn't confused with 'generational pain'.

I saw this article on a news feed last night. Ok I realise it’s form the DM, but the bloke who wrote it seems to have a good handle on what’s going on with Harry imo

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9585193/DR-MAX-PEMBERTON-fear-Harrys-therapy.html

Harry was always so well protected in the UK that nobody knew what he was like. Now he's making his own decisions and his personality and lack of awareness are coming across more clearly. Moving to America and publicly calling the First Amendment "bonkers" is another classic.

Just read Harry is in big trouble for calling the first amendment bonkers and then admitting he doesn't understand it. This was on the podcast apparently. Honestly, this spouting forth on stuff he knows nothing about is not very wise. But he is hardly renowned for his wisdom. Its been picked up by some politician. A Senator I think.

I feel like he was saying bonkers as in "I don't know much about this but what I do know has blown my mind" rather than "the first amendment is a complete mess". Unfortunate choice of word I guess if that's not how it was received.

You'd hope he would understand how offensive it might be to Americans for a British Royal to start slagging off the Bill of Rights but 🤷‍♀️

I'm actually really interested in what he means by 'genetic pain' because I have googled it and can't see anything substantial. I hope he isn't confused with 'generational pain'

Well, he confused the Commonwealth with the British Empire, and now says that he doesn't fully understand the First Amendment, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility.

The US posters currently telling the UK why we're wrong about everything don't seem able to understand the above.

What US posters? You seem obsessed with telling black Brits they must be American because you're so determined to fight for your right to be a massive racist you've come up with some doolally theory that racism is purely an American thing.

Despite multiple posters explicitly telling you "I'm a black British woman and you are being racist and that is a racist term, please stop."

Oh well at least you've stopped insisting that black women politely asking you to stop using racial slurs is exactly the same as TRAs oppressing female free speech.