More Of Meghan’s Archwell podcasts…

[susan12345678]

Just to continue the discussion

Maybe you should read my post again. I stated 'if she comes out with', referring to the present tense.
My point, that you seem to have ignored, is that the act of coming out with a self promotion podcast is what invites the scrutiny, and if Fergie should do the same, I'm quite sure there would be endless ridicule of it on MN.

Which again you ignored to make your point.

'That's what is funny about the apologists on this thread, we are mostly discussing her own words, and the reason she is back in the press is because of her self promotion podcast. She orchestrated all this. Which is fine, but we are allowed to critique it or have opinions on it.'

Exactly.

I really don't get why folk are wanging on about Fergie. As if as she exploited her rf connections then it's ok for others to? Surely fergie's books and interviews are an example of what not to do.

How many more podcasts are there, I wonder if there are clangers dropped in every single recording to ensure maximum shit stirring publicity.

The original cover of The Cut had Meghan , it was then changed to include her title .
I certainly don’t think she will stop using her title completely. It’s her and H’s bankable asset.

We had crossed wires there. No she won't be doing that for fear of upsetting the hand that feeds her.
It doesn't stop her support of her disgraced ex though. I never see criticism on MN for that (apart from me and maybe two others)

mateysmum
Did she really not understand the difference between royalty and celebrity?

I mean she certainly isn't the only one - I think this is a result of the very Disney view of royalty that the American's have. They see the tiaras and the jewels and castles and people curtseying and think it's all so glamorous and romantic and OMG sparkly princess!, but underneath is an archaic oppressive system that doesn't really fit with modern liberal values of equality (which Meghan espouses).

From what I understand, Wallace Simpson had a similar misconceptions regarding Edward VII's position, that he was to be king, and therefore could do whatever he wanted and the people would love him regardless. No understanding of a constitutional monarchy and its limitations, nor the duties an responsibilities expected.
Their impression fits more with an absolute monarchist, but some sort of benign king who is adored by his people and never uses his power for bad. Which reminds me of King Richard from the Robin Hood cartoon movie.

The reality, as demonstrated by the Saudis etc., is far more sinister.

Crossed wires? How very Meghan of you. I would call it deflection and ignoring any point that doesn't fit your narrative.

And if you think there isn't criticism of Fergie and Andrew on MN you need to look harder.

The is true, although she does use her title on the credits of the podcasts (image from the transcript of the podcast).

Really ? I have seen a lot of criticism of SF . For what it’s worth , I think she is awful and continues to milk her royal connection .
I also think that she , Andrew and the Sussexes should lose their titles .

No she wouldn’t because she is not a princess. Her title would be Princess Henry in the same say way that Orincess Michael of Kent is not a princess Marie Christine.

Sarah Fergusson got the title as part of her sivirce settlement , no money though . ( or at least not much)

Sorry about spellings I am on the bus on my phone 😳

She’d be Princess Henry.

I doubt she’d be pleased

@Farmageddon “Americans” aren’t really that monolithic in our thinking. The view you described might be true of small children.

I personally don’t think an American tv actress being granted a title on the basis of marriage is that glamorous or transformative. I doubt I’m alone in this.

I am surprised anyone thinks that in America we will call her Duchess or Princess or by any title. She’s just Meghan Markle from Suits who married Prince Harry. She wasn’t on the radar before and marrying didn’t suddenly make her interesting.

The average American is it talking about them at all. If I mention them my DH will say “who?” And then make a crack about me reading this crap on MN. He barely knows PW and PH apart. It’s a 30 second conversation sandwiched between actual news headlines, what our pets did today, and plans for the weekend.

I suggest we call her Meghan Mandela now.

Agreed. So should Beatrice and Eugenie in my view.

Diana was never Princess Diana - she should have been Princess Charles but (understandably) chose to use the Princess of Wales title. It was the press and general public who called her Princess Diana, which always stuck.

On another note, I didn’t realize that all of their enterprises are named Archewell. I thought that was the foundation only.

If you had an established, successful corporation and created a foundation tied to it that would make more sense.

Naming their for-profit business after their non-profit after making such noise around the non-profit as seems unusual.

I personally don’t think an American tv actress being granted a title on the basis of marriage is that glamorous or transformative. I doubt I’m alone in this.

i am sure you are not alone in this, but there is also a large market segment in America that does buy into the “transformed into a princess” myth. Not just the Disney fans, but also those that make “The Princess Diaries”, “The Prince and Me”, the Hallmark “A Christmas Prince” trio logo and all their ilk, “The Royal We” novel etc bankable hits.

The reason @notanotheroneagain sees things through the lens of race is because she is herself of colour and also a woman.

”Racial grievance” - wow 😯

Indeed. Hallmark do a roaring trade in movies that follow the same theme - American girl next door types who marry into a European Royal family. Not that that's indicative of a nation's feelings, but it shows there is an appetite for all things royal, and titles and pomp that come with it.

unname
I suggest we call her Meghan Mandela now.

😂

I know only two adults over the age of 8 that watch shows like this in 2022. One is 82 and the other is 90. I know a few adults obsessed with Disney, but it’s the parks, not the cartoons they like.

They also choose a “marshmallowy” California lifestyle. Not Europe and Castles. Kinda takes the fun out of it.

Hallmark should make a movie about a prince that gave up his life to live a Hollywood lifestyle with an actress.

The reason @notanotheroneagain sees things through the lens of race is because she is herself of colour and also a woman.

And? Why does this mean everything must be viewed via the prism of race? Is race the most important thing about a person? Isn't that racist?

@Farmageddon

This premise is hallmark territory all right. Hallmark is the 11th most popular channel - about 900,000 tune in during prime time
The acting standard is Meghan level too, I’m guilty of having in on 20 years ago while I painted my kitchen (before I developed sense) I think it’s on Sky now

.

You’re absolutely right - systemic racism in the halls of power - be that legislative, the media or the judiciary is completely made up and I can’t believe that Meghan would even think to claim that she could have been the victim of this.

Well yy but the 'argument' is the point for them because if these threads were allowed to progress like every other Royal thread then generally most people agree about the RF, the threads fizzle out. No drama. Nothing in trending. The RF are treated as the irrelevancies they are. Same with the celeb threads. The UK is singularly unimpressed with it all, especially the MN demographic.

But Sunshine Sach's strategy for MM and H seems to be to generate contention and arguments. As a PP said, they work on the basis that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Creating a duality, right vs wrong narrative is the way to keep their clients in the media. To a certain extent they're right but it has a cost. What price integrity, facts, truth, and realism? For the posters who appear at the softest whisper of H and MM, their role is to argue and deliberately misinterpret and spread disinformation. There's a German or Russian word for it - but I can't remember it. It's a recognised propaganda technique. The confusion and the argument - is the aim. You see it in threads in other areas on MN too. Always areas where the UK in general has a different view from the US. Always areas where that difference comes from our different history and culture - which the social media posters don't understand or value. And it's always topics that are politics adjacent. There's an interesting thesis to be written on it.

You’re absolutely right - systemic racism in the halls of power - be that legislative, the media or the judiciary is completely made up and I can’t believe that Meghan would even think to claim that she could have been the victim of this.

Come on!! It is inconceivable and utterly insulting to suggest that the press used the N word to describe her child and no one noticed cos "systemic racism".

Talk about deliberately missing the point. Systematic racism in the halls of power is certainly not the same as an overt newspaper headline, which is exactly what she was alluding to.