Meghan’s birthday video

[Greenlittle]

I like the idea and I like the video. (Not that keen on the big desk) And I though MM looked...alive!

Not sure who the other woman was. But there was good chemistry.

Do we know if Meghan and Harry’s patronages benefit from their involvement?

@Roussette

I’m sure all of Kate’s charities value her work as a patron just as much as Meghan's. I’m sure it’s been proven that royal patronages are very beneficial to charities. Surely that’s a good thing

No. Not the case. I've linked this article before, it doesn't go down well.

giving-evidence.com/2020/07/16/royal-findings/#:~:text=In%20short%2C%20we%20found%20that,engagements%20with%20them%20last%20year.here

The contents will be rubbished but let's just bear in mind it's a massive study, not an opinion piece and..
A database with 3 million entries. Every charity in England and Wales; every item in every set of financial statements it had reported in each of the last 25 years.

You have to read the contents to understand that royal patronages are not necessarily beneficial to charities, sometimes it's just costly, or counter productive. The benefits are only in staff morale or a feelgood factor.

Ah ok I must have remembered wrong. Thanks for sharing. I need to read this to understand more before I can comment. I will bear in mind what you’ve said.

It is for donors to scrutinise Archewell’s accounts.

Just as it is our job as taxpayers to scrutinise public spending and returns, including RF.

Eg, I don’t care if BJ as a privately paid individual goes on holidays with rich friends who pay for him. But if he does it as a tax payer funded public official, of course we should scrutinise it.

So Instead of wondering about archewell accounts, what about focusing on tax-payer funded RF accounts? I’m sure there will be lots to tut over there 😃

@Cacacoisfarraige

I’m in ireland and there has been uproar in the last few years over the misuse of funds by the CEO’s of charities and the perks etc offered to them.

Some of these charities took monies meant for people with mental health issues and disabilities and treated the money like their own. Completely digusting

Yes this is true. My friend was directly affected by a kids cancer charity, nearly lost all the money for raised for their child’s treatment. Many families experienced the same. Fortunately my friend got it back but the bosses were arrested and under investigation although not sure if there was a final outcome. I agree it’s disgusting.

It is quite a lengthy piece Rainy, it takes quite a while to read through, and lots of clicky links backing up some statements.

And I agree in general about “charities” and how they work. I only fund charities I personally know and where I’m sure the money is being well spent. Too many cowboys out there!

Even big ones like MSF and the one that miliband leads have been in the spotlight for poor management

I think that’s why I like this initiative, no massive infrastructure, raising funds, hiring. Just a bit of mentoring. It is not taking itself too seriously

As with most of her ideas it isn’t original and generates more publicity for her than tangible results for others. 40 minutes of mentoring isn’t useful.

@JaniieJones

'whenever any royal launches an initiative they are given a chance , it’s not dissected & continually criticised'

It's this constant persecution complex narrative that is so tedious.

If any of the royals posted a glossy clip with this 'mentoring' initiative and an unfunny co star I'd have said the same thing.

Women are allowed voices, I'm allowed to say it comes across as self congratulating and so very cheesy. Forget '40 names for 40 minutes' or whatever the buzz phrase was. Get 40 celebs to actually negotiate posts and sponsorships without a little round of applause and spotlight shining on themselves.

Ageee

Agree

Cacacois

It would be an interesting exercise no doubt, and like going down a rabbit hole!

I actually think organisations founded or run by private individuals should be open to scrutiny by the public. Otherwise all sorts could go on under the radar. It already does! Whether it’s a business, charity or non-profit. So yeah I think this does include the archewell foundation. I believe it’s set up in Delaware isn’t it, and accounts are not made public? Haven’t the Clintons had some criticism over their foundation, and Oprah. Some of these foundations are set up to help the rich get richer off the back of those in need, putting pittance back into the causes. That should be scrutinised.

How on earth do we have over 10 pages stating that MM is not involving herself in the mentoring itself, when she clearly says in her statement WE. Did we now change the English language especially for her, so that WE does not include the first person, and actually says THEY ?

I am guessing this is deliberately to have a go at her, till the demand that she shows us her zoom with doing the mentoring.

How is she actually qualified to mentor women back to work? She has had a limited range of jobs herself and hasn’t worked as an actress for several years. I don’t think I would be listening to what she has to say if I were a woman struggling to find an ordinary job . It seems to me incredibly arrogant. She is going to ‘mentor’ someone presumably disadvantaged from her millionaires mansion, where she can afford to take six months maternity leave from her current ‘work’, whatever that is! Hardly relatable.

And as for going around pointing out some charities do ABC, am I going to hear that 3 churches in London have abusive priests, so I go around accusing EVERY church of abuse.

What have these charities got to do with MM?

@FullMoonInsomnia

How is she actually qualified to mentor women back to work? She has had a limited range of jobs herself and hasn’t worked as an actress for several years. I don’t think I would be listening to what she has to say if I were a woman struggling to find an ordinary job . It seems to me incredibly arrogant. She is going to ‘mentor’ someone presumably disadvantaged from her millionaires mansion, where she can afford to take six months maternity leave from her current ‘work’, whatever that is! Hardly relatable.

Oh, so now you are going to dismiss that MM was a struggling actress for years, when she had to take temp jobs, do calligraphy, bookbinding etc. to pay her rent. Alright !

It's this constant persecution complex narrative that is so tedious.

If any of the royals posted a glossy clip with this 'mentoring' initiative and an unfunny co star I'd have said the same thing.

Women are allowed voices, I'm allowed to say it comes across as self congratulating and so very cheesy. Forget '40 names for 40 minutes' or whatever the buzz phrase was. Get 40 celebs to actually negotiate posts and sponsorships without a little round of applause and spotlight shining on themselves
Spot on. People are allowed to question the public initiatives of public figures without getting blasted with a victim narrative where people are meant to sit back and say nothing beyond how wonderful (insert activity by Meghan and/or Harry here) is or face accusations of hatred, bullying or having some bizarre 'agenda'.

It's always the same:

• claims everyone hates Meghan
• confusion between people challenging their actions / initiatives and bullying
• assertions that people disagreeing with an action or initiative is proof that people hate Meghan
• but what about Kate, but what about William
• but why aren't people starting a thread about (insert other royal topic here)
• but the media were unpleasant to meghan (yes they were but that doesn't make her public initiatives immune from criticism)

And if all else fails, something to the effect of how awful it is that women would ever say anything negative about another woman's actions because feminism is a sisterhood of patting each other and the back.

Most of us have had loads of jobs. I certainly have. It doesn’t make me qualified to mentor someone who is in a completely different social situation to myself . Or anyone else for that matter.