In what capacity are Harry and Meghan visiting New York

[IsabelBeck]

They are no longer working members of the Royal Family so have they gone to New York as private citizens?

How do they get to meet with Chelsea Clinton at the WHO offices and UN officials and politicians?

According to the Mail (I know, I know) they had federal protection.

Do Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (as they are styled there) have much clout in the US? Why?

No I don’t. But if you are trying to be commercially relevant (which they are, fair enough) then attending the Met Gala is way way more important than a 9/11 visit.
I mean these two induce two kinds of responses:

• those who are desperate for them to be seen as more important than they are
• those who are desperate to bring them down over minor things.

Both positions are extremely tedious.

[quote rubicscubicle]@SickAndTiredAgain

You are aware that MM used to be UN ambassador, and was seen plenty of times with the SG. At some point she was seated with the UNWomen SG and she (the SG) published a personalised thank you note to MM. All this back before she met Harry.

She may well have a personal line to these individuals.[/quote]
This^ - so many people like to only refer to Suits as a put down - and dismissing her other roles. And really the media - or charities or organisations do not have to choose them as there is plenty of high profile people even RFs to choose from - so maybe it's worth asking the question why do these organisations choose M&H when there is so much choice out there? They don't have to. But as a New York resident said above "it's possibly a UK media bubble that fools a minority on MN into believing that M&H are centre stage in something they do not deserve.

@IsabelBeck

This is *@eholmes* - she's a fangirl who's written a book about royal style I'll be sure to respect her Authority

This is a pretty misogynistic take, don’t you think?

Have you read the book? It’s fascinating. Fashion is an important medium used by royals (and celebrities generally) to draw attention to and send messages about the work that they do. The work that goes into planning what they wear and when gives a whole extra layer of meaning to public appearances and engagements.

You don’t have to respect anyone’s authority, but to dismiss a genuinely insightful and quite fascinating book out of hand is very limiting for you.

@LuchiMangsho

No I don’t. But if you are trying to be commercially relevant (which they are, fair enough) then attending the Met Gala is way way more important than a 9/11 visit. I mean these two induce two kinds of responses:

• those who are desperate for them to be seen as more important than they are
• those who are desperate to bring them down over minor things.

Both positions are extremely tedious.

They may well attend the MetGala later on, but in this instance, I think strategically it was a good idea not to go. So far they have been pushing an agenda of UN and Humanitarian work like vaccines, emigration, women rights etc. All sober endeavours.

The Met Gala is mostly seen as a showcase on celebrity where you will find actors, singers, etc. rather than Sherly Sandberg, MO, Oprah etc. at the forefront. Internationally, it is seen as more red carpet. So for an international market, they made a better move.

Agree @Gorl, it's a really interesting book. Also, Holmes is an Ivy League graduate who was a political reporter before moving into fashion journalism at the WSJ. Bit unfair to just dismiss her as "a fangirl".

@BeckyWithTheAverageHair

Agree *@Gorl*, it's a really interesting book. Also, Holmes is an Ivy League graduate who was a political reporter before moving into fashion journalism at the WSJ. Bit unfair to just dismiss her as "a fangirl".

Totally agree. Belittling women’s achievements isn’t anything new obviously, but still disappointing to see so much of it on this thread! It comes from the same place as those dismissing Meghan as ‘just an actress from suits’ and completely ignoring the humanitarian work she had been doing for years before she met Harry.

“rubicscubicle

@SickAndTiredAgain

You are aware that MM used to be UN ambassador”

Was she? I cannot find this. Can you link to this please. She was a “world vision global ambassador” in 2017 but I can’t find any reference to her being appointed to the UN. Happy to be corrected.

To be honest this is starting to have the air of those “celebrities” from the noughties who became celebrities for some minor reason (often long forgotten) but maintained it with appearances in magazines, obligatory children’s book, fly and the wall documentaries and Christmas light switch ons. Obviously H&M have a much higher profile, and seem to genuinely want to make the world a better place… but seems they can do only do that while wearing a $5,000 dress or sitting in a mansion next to a Hermes throw.

Weird dress Meghan wore on stage, it looked a bit bridal!

It was a very unflattering shape for her.

The Meghan and Harry phenomenon reminds me of an old film called Being There with Peter Sellers in it. In one review the message of the movie is described as follows:

if you look right, sound right, speak in platitudes and have powerful friends, you can go far in our society

So much of what happens to people in life depends not on their intrinsic merits but on what other people are prepared to ‘buy into’ about who they are and their significance - often judged by very superficial criteria. The Peter Sellers character, a naive gardener, is thrust into the limelight by others whereas Meghan and Harry actually aspire to be influencers on the world stage but in both cases it is the audience reaction that ultimately determines how things pan out.

Meghan and Harry were part of a social construct called the monarchy in the UK. Now they have been told they can’t be part of that game any longer as they weren’t playing by the accepted rules and were undermining the legitimacy of the game. So they are attempting to create a different but related social construct for themselves in America that will allow more freedom but still provide a luxurious lifestyle and opportunities for high profile philanthropism.

I think they are doing pretty much what they have to do if they want even a chance of holding onto prominence and of maintaining themselves in the style to which they are accustomed.

But, in the end, it's not up to them. It's up to everyone else to decide if they want to accept the offered social construct or not.

Why are they saying vaccines have gone to only 10 wealthy countries ?
And why are they saying that poorer countries have the ability to manufacture but pharma companies are not willing to share ? It’s not as simple as that , Pifzer have expressed quality concern , to set up production and training is far longer than simply ramping up production and shipping to poorer countries . Talk about misinformation!

@queenofarles

Why are they saying vaccines have gone to only 10 wealthy countries ? And why are they saying that poorer countries have the ability to manufacture but pharma companies are not willing to share ? It’s not as simple as that , Pifzer have expressed quality concern , to set up production and training is far longer than simply ramping up production and shipping to poorer countries . Talk about misinformation!

This is what everyone is saying, so you are saying world leaders and organisations have been giving misinformation?

It's not a new issue, it was the case with HIV and other high demand drugs.

Talk about reaching.............

A bridal cream mini dress?
Unflattering on a new mum?

@queenofarles

Why are they saying vaccines have gone to only 10 wealthy countries ? And why are they saying that poorer countries have the ability to manufacture but pharma companies are not willing to share ? It’s not as simple as that , Pifzer have expressed quality concern , to set up production and training is far longer than simply ramping up production and shipping to poorer countries . Talk about misinformation!

I guess the salient point here is “Pfizer said…”

@BadgerB

It's odd how many post on theses threads, extremely annoyed that other people are posting on these threads.... And accusing those other people of having a "wrong" or invalid opinion. That opinion being one with which the objector disagrees.

Indeed. Discuss the issue, don't bash each other for having differing opinions. H&M could lead very quiet, luxurious lives in their Californian idyll. But they want attention - and were quite clear in their statement that they want to earn tons of money - so people will comment. Why try to shut that down?

I would have been more impressed if she’d reworn something, maybe from her maternity wardrobe or from post partum with Archie, or an eco/fair trade charity brand. Eco warrior at charity concert wearing a brand new designer gown, not a great message.

Oh I don’t like this.
I’m not a fan of H&M because of their words and actions. Her clothes are of no relevance. She looks lovely. She gave birth 3 months ago. I’m due to have my third next week and I dislike this pressure to wear the right thing after and look a certain way. She can wear what she likes.

Come on. You think she turned down a personal invite from Anna Wintour? No.

Is it a big deal they weren’t invited. Also no.

This is what I mean. Their supporters are desperate to prove they are way more important than they are. To the extent of saying ‘they may have turned down a Met Gala invite because it wouldn’t suit them.’

And their detractors are just as bad, criticising her body/clothes months after she gave birth.

I’m not criticising her looks or choices… just the ostentatious shows of wealth at inappropriate times. Applies to the big cars, private jets and polo ponies too

Their supporters are desperate to prove they are way more important than they are

Not at all.
Don't care if they're 'important' or not.
They're just living their life doing their own thing.
Good on them. Live and let live

Their detractors just hate it if they do something that is relatively well received

@LuchiMangsho

Come on. You think she turned down a personal invite from Anna Wintour? No.

Is it a big deal they weren’t invited. Also no.

This is what I mean. Their supporters are desperate to prove they are way more important than they are. To the extent of saying ‘they may have turned down a Met Gala invite because it wouldn’t suit them.’

And their detractors are just as bad, criticising her body/clothes months after she gave birth.

Well, you seem to be at the other extreme end.

I asked you if you know the invite list, which you do not. H&M most probably can get most invites, especially for something like the Met Gala which is not that exclusive actually (has the Kardashian, rappers, influencers etc. there is no one given discipline to it). Especially considering the credentials of their PR company. The met is not like a meeting of world leaders where exclusive membership determines your invitation.

It like if they don't show up to an even by the Obamas, Oprah, Clintons etc. people quickly jump to they were not invited, when they know they have direct contact with these people ( and actually some lesser known celebrities turn up). It's just a way to try and put them down and be dismissive. Like it or not, H&M are infact well connected.

@Flyingantday

I’m not criticising her looks or choices… just the ostentatious shows of wealth at inappropriate times. Applies to the big cars, private jets and polo ponies too

Funny that we never see other royals getting the same criticism for doing the exact same thing.

Yep.

Haha, it's always a case of 'they weren't at blah blah, they obviously weren't invited!'
Maybe they chose just not to go.
Now there's a novel thought!

They didn’t get invited to the Met Gala or the Obama birthday bash.
Kim K is a MUCH bigger deal in the US than H&M.
As I said if I asked a hundred New Yorkers who Kim K was versus H&M guess who would be better known?
Of course they are well known in the UK but in the US (I live in a big east coast city) they are really really not that well known. I don’t know why that isn’t all that hard to accept.

There has been minimal to no coverage of them in the US press this week.