More Of Meghan’s Archwell podcasts…

[susan12345678]

Just to continue the discussion

I agree, and with all the other comments. I just wonder if there was a better way to manage it all.

Meghan doesn't live off the taxpayer.

She has given countless interviews supporting her husband and written a book and done a OW interview about how awful the institution of the monarchy is when she divorced

I have no doubt Fergie's books are drivel. I was a primary school teacher. I can't imagine what age group I would give Meghan's book to. Possibly to Y6 as an example of how not to write poetry.

@Roussette Meghan lives off her Royal Title

Yet her podcast was just Meghan
No title
Funny that....

Also Charles is supposed to have helped them buy the house and gave them financial support for a while when they first left.

That's what parents do

Really?

If it was AIBU and a poster came on asking if it was normal to pay for their thirty-something’s house and bills, you think it people would agree it was normal?

A+list stars like Julia Roberts, Meryl Streep lead a RF type of existence, very low key. They live their lives and come out for promotions, play the game, avoid controversy and go back to their lives.

it’s a completely different route to Kardasians, Beckhams, J Lopez etc whose PR companies plant stories in the papers all the time to keep their clients profile up.

Sunshine Sachs do the latter type of publicity. If they want the former, they probably need to change PR companies

But are they a+ list, can they sustain interest with low key promotion, are they afraid to make that leap or do they really want to be trending on Twitter on a daily/weekly basis

We must be crap parents then because we haven’t done it for any of our four.

Particularly a 30-something with their own millions in the bank?

I suspect Sunshine Sachs subscribe to "all publicity is good publicity".
Ditto Spotify and Netflix.

In which case all 3 have been super successful with Meghan let's face it.

Sunshine Sachs I presume are laughing all the way to the bank.

It was always going to be a tall order to keep a couple in the press and in public consciousness who have nothing very unusual about them other than a historic connection to the RF.

You're expecting parents to do this and then be slagged off in world wide interviews for their pains.

I'm sure there's a parallel here that I'm missing but arguing 'look over there at another woman!!' doesn't seem to fit MM's feminist credentials.
Trying to draw parallels between MM and Fergie does a disservice to MM. Not because of the books or any of their attempts to earn an income but because of Fergie's initial scandals. I mean yy it may turn out that the Russian oligarch who provided the house in Canada, is MM and H's own 'unwise friendship with a rich person with an ulterior agenda' moment but it hasn't yet.
Always fascinating to see proclaimed supporters of a feminist jump to misogyny (and saying a woman hasn't shut up is quite textbook) at the first opportunity.
The other part of the PR cocktail that SS have completely mishandled is the 'social media' team. Their agenda there is actively damaging MM and H.

@Rousette are you seriously trying to say that Meghan is not making her money from her Royal Title?????

The title is irrelevant. Even if it was dropped, the media would still say she was a former Princess/Duchess etc. As soon as MM married H, she was always going to be able to earn money from that connection. And when Charles and William become King, that earning potential increases because H moves closer to the throne ie its his brother and his father rather than his gran.

Have you read my post? I said she didn't use it for her podcast and if she never used it again, ever, you would STILL be saying she's making money from it.
She is married to a member of the RF, that isn't going away, whether she uses her title or not. It's something you have to come to terms with.

Exactly. Americans would still refer to her as Duchess Meghan or Princess Meghan

Fergie had a load of shit thrown at her even when she was a newlywed. The comparisons to Diana were mean and unending.

Yes she managed to make a hell of a mess of her marriage etc but the ‘Duchess of Pork’ etc was long before that.

I think the point is very clear. The DM made up something. Everyone jumped on it and called MM a liar, when that was clearly not the case.

This annoys me. There are two equally valid ways you can approach the issue of what Meghan said in the interview. To start with, the actual words, with verifiable facts underlined:

”A cast member from South Africa pulled her aside. He looked at me, and he’s just like light. he said “I just need you you to know…”

So you can do what the Mail did, which is break down each part of her statement and fact-check it. So:

• Who in the cast was from South Africa?
• Who in the cast who was from South Africa was male
• Which male in the cast who was from South Africa was at the premiere?

Answer - none.

That’s a fact checking fail, and it’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

The other approach is to build up what could have happened. Asking - who was at the premier that Meghan spoke to who could fulfil the description she gave of her interaction? That takes us to another South African male who was there - not a cast member, but someone Meghan definitely spoke to. He id not pull her aside, that we know of either, but…

The latter is a different investigation, and is also valid, but does not make the first approach a lie, and I think it’s wrong of you to suggest that.

Oh come on even going by one name is because of her royal fame. Now if I randomly said William has done this…everyone would probably presume it was William as he is the most famous William. If some said a Kate did this…I would probably ask which Kate. Loads of famous ones. To only get by on you first name is a sign of immense fame and that is only because she is royal.

Not at all. One of my Dd's had a real problem (think cladding/Grenfell) and we had to help her out, it will be resolved in years to come hopefully

I'm talking about seriously wealthy parents like Charles, it's all trust funds and buying them houses in Mayfair.

For me it keeps coming back to one thing. They seem to think that they are intrinsically more interesting than they are. Without their titles, they are an ex army captain and a moderately successful former actress, both approaching middle age. Both of these things are absolutely fine and worthy, but people of much greater talent and achievement do not get a global stage. Their titles and Harry's background give them that. Maybe on some level they realise it, which I can't imagine sits easily.

Some people (I'm thinking about Diana) do follow a remarkable trajectory that means they get attention "for themselves" and if they handled things differently, that could perhaps have been/be the case for H and M. I just don't think their current path seems likely to achieve that or much else of real impact or lasting value.

What an earth should she do about that? Divorce him and hide?? You can hardly blame her for people knowing who Meghan is

I do agree that it is not about the "titles" per se but the background and status that come with it.