More Archwell Podcasts

[susan12345678]

With another podcast set for release this week, The Sunday Times has a piece addressing Harry and Meghan's apparent strategy:

Courtiers are bemused by the Sussexes’ determination to rage against the past. As Davis observed of Meghan in her article: “She has taken a hardship and turned it into content.” A source who knows the Sussexes questions why Meghan “is constantly looking back at how awful it was to briefly be a royal. What does success look like, is it a number in the bank? Is it that they’ve killed off the monarchy?” Another Palace source says: “Ultimately they are bashing the institution that has put them in the position they’re in, the longevity of that strategy is not sustainable.”

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/harry-and-meghan-keep-bashing-the-monarchy-because-its-good-business-royals-believe-nq29p6g7z

I'm curious about their strategy, too. They seem to think that criticizing the royal makes them look better - it really doesn't. Instead, it just makes them look petty and increasingly irrelevant.

And it was a cynical commercial exposure opportunity by the event organisers - but seems a “good deal” was struck by MM as they promoted Spotify and her Archetypes series in her intro - scratching each other’s backs.

Bob and Mary didn’t get the same intros - but I suspect that they wouldn’t have sullied this opportunity in this way if it was offered.

I’m sure they could get a Met invite in a heartbeat if they wanted. I hope they don’t go though. It’s just getting weirder and weirder all the time, and I think they are above it.

Bob and Mary are getting paid, though. Do they have anything else to advertise? Don't know much about Mary, but I'm pretty sure Bob wouldn't hold back advertising other stuff if it meant earning a few bob. He doesn't strike me as the timid sort not to sell himself.

I’m sure they could get a Met invite in a heartbeat if they wanted.

I agree. Anna Wintour would be happy to invite them. But it's all about self-publicity rather than charity these days and I think it would be down-market for them to go which is why I think they haven't gone before.

To be fair , I only clicked on the thread because I thought it was about Stephen kings Carrie 🤣, I was disappointed!

The more you deride H&M, the brighter they will turn up their light, and you will have to cower, running for cover. The rest of us will just bask, appreciating all the good.
You're just funning with us there. I don't hate M&H. I just think they're a bit silly and pompous. As long as they're not attacking other people then good luck to them.

I'm so sorry 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I think the Met Ball has become all about self-promotion. Suspect they haven’t gone because they’ve been busy with the children and really are more selective than that.

Im as skeptical as the next person of MM but think this hyperanalysis of a speech in front of a bunch of young people is a bit silly. It’s not about her actual words but how she impacts the audience. I thing one can actually speak in word salad but still make themselves understood to the listener.

We would not care one iota about this if she had not irritated us all with moaning so constantly and publicly about her in-laws and her difficult life.

If she’d quit the moaning for a few months she might find a way to actually influence others. But that seems much less lucrative and satisfying so suspect she will continue on for a few more years.

The One Young World charity seems to be nothing more than a fancy conference and networking event management type company. Corporates love this type of stuff as they can advertise their involvement, and get woke cookies.
e.g.
www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/deloitte-one-young-world.html
Expenses deducted before tax too I guess.

I agree with PPs that it's all very nice for those who can afford (£3k excluding travel and accom) to attend, or those who have the right connections to get sponsored by a corporate, but let's not fool ourselves that this is reaching people on the ground that really do need charitable help to life themselves out of poverty. Oh and the employees seem to be well remunerated too..

The uncomfortable question always for Meghan is what does she actually have as an achievement to make her an A list speaker?
She was an employed tv actress and did a few humanitarian gigs. That's not enough to put her on a stage with Mary Robinson.
She married a prince. Doesn't really qualify her to speak about gender equality.
She lived in a palace for 28 months and didn't have a good time. Not relatable.
She and Harry have cut off most of their two families. Doesn't really sit with the compassion and kindness brand.

18 months.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=qixzEbLayi4

This is the uncut Reuters link - Mary R is on 10mins in to 17 mins - then Bob G to 31 mins - then MM.

Good to see it all in context.

If the point of this series of podcasts was to challenge gender equality why is there time wasted talking about dresses on this platform. Seems a bit ironic or shallow to me.

Agree with all of this and her hidden shallows / virtue signaling / grandiosity and delusion is now directly visible to more people - by her own “unfiltered” words and actions.

Agree. I think they know their value is in being controversial, hence the constant drip feed. I suspect that if they went quiet about the RF, and got judged on content, that they would slip from the limelight.

Apologies if I have missed it but did Meghan get paid for her speech/attendance? Did the Charity meet all their travel and security costs as well? Or do speaker's 'donate' their time?

That was hilarious - I couldn't take my eyes off Bob Geldof during the intro for MM. He doesn't appear to be a fan...

You will note that he name checks all past great key note speakers (Mandela, Koffi Anan) as well as those on the platform today Mary R and Andy Burnham …. doesn’t mention MM - an oversight?

*Kofi Annan

You will note that he name checks all past great key note speakers (Mandela, Koffi Anan) as well as those on the platform today Mary R and Andy Burnham …. doesn’t mention MM - an oversight?

wow, that’s quite a snub!

I think Bob Geldof is friends with Charles and Camilla. He maybe also pro RF after receiving a KBE in the 80’s from the Queen.

@HannaHanna @MarshaMelrose

I’m not sure they would warrant an invite on their own. There’s a great Netflix doc about the Met Gala and its origins and how its run.

One thing that is very clear is just how picky Anna Wintour is about guests. Fame or notoriety is not enough. For example, non of the Kardashians got an invite until Kim had married Kanye. This year was the first year that all the Kardashians attended.

And Anna Wintour has deep roots in the upper echelons of New York and London society where the rules are very similar to that of the RF. Scandals and tell alls are frowned on.

Very much in the same way that we haven’t seen M&H embraced by the truly mega famous on the US. Serena seems to be her only famous friend and that appears to be quite a recent thing.

Oh please. Anna Wintour promoted Kim Kardashian on the cover of Vogue and has invited her and her family multiple times.

That insufferable Lena Dunham who photographed herself sitting on a toilet was invited.

Anyone with a modicum of fame can get an invite. I’m sure the upper echelons are carefully backing away at this point.

Of course the speakers get paid. Sir Bob isn't schlepping round the world giving speeches for nothing. Especially when you consider how much the charity founders get paid. In 2016 Kate Robinson, CEO, paid herself £126,000. In 2017, she upped that to £220,000. I don't know what she's paying herself now.

In 2017 they received £10,000 through donations but they raised £4m from conference fees. Of that they spent £165,000 on scholarships, which seems a lot but is only like 32 people getting £5,000 each. They spent over £1m on salaries and of course £2.4m on conference fees. The rest went on costs of running a charity - about half a million.

So the CEO is earning well over £220,000 (I think a previous poster said over £300,000) and is incuring £1.1m in wages, to raise £165,000 for scholarships. I can't see any other charitable expenditure. So it's basically people paying famous people to speak to them and networking with other people. And as a charity it receives tax breaks which makes more money available for...higher wages? No wonder it claims as much social value as it can.

wow do all charities pay people that much?