Harry and Meghan doing alright in the US, continuing their universal service

[notanotheroneagain]

Have heard a few comments from panellists and commenters thinking that Harry somehow wants to come back to the UK?

I highly doubt this. I think they are doing more than ok in the US.

A pity a positive thread has been deleted regarding the podcasts, maybe the positive conversation can continue here?

In particularly I wanted to highlight the announcement that they will be recipients for the Robert J Kennedy Human Rights award.

“When The Duke and Duchess accepted our award laureate invitation back in March, we were thrilled. The couple has always stood out for their willingness to speak up and change the narrative on racial justice and mental health around the world,” Kerry Kennedy, president of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, and Robert F. Kennedy's daughter, said in a statement shared today. “They embody the type of moral courage that my father once called the ‘one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change.’”

as non-working members of the RF, they’re not required to maintain moral probity as well as legal probity

Considering some of their choices that's prrobably just as well, and after all plenty of the working RF can't seem to manage it, so it might be thought non-working members shouldn't have to either

Shame, though - especially from people who claim to be setting some sort of example of how to live

if I was H&M I’d do whatever everyone else was doing and follow professional advise

You can exceed the minimum reporting requirements, but you have more choice and flexibility.

I remember Bono telling the Irish government to give more to charity, but he had moved some of his companies to the Netherlands to minimise his own tax liability at the same time so it seemed rather hypocritical.

I would never suggest my experience outweighs anyone’s US based legal bar membership or legal experience. But it does outweigh the internet googlers in England’s credibility.

Lots of issues with this.

Saying your experience outweighs the internet googlers in England's credibility is stupid and offensive Hanna. Firstly, you were the one who was googling the most or at least providing the most web links.. Secondly, you don't say which posters you mean but you're making massive assumptions about where people are based and what they know.

Poster A could be based in the Uk but be a director of an American company incorporated in Delaware.

Poster B could be based in the US but pretending they're in the UK for privacy reasons and so purposefully only posting during UK working hours.

Poser C could not say what they do but know what they're talking about.

Do any of you genuinely 100% automatically believing a poster, any poster, when they say what their job is under these circumstances? (Different obviously on subject specific boards.) I don't and I advise that you don't either. Saying well my or my husband's job is X is not a top trump when it's on an anon website.

lol at typo of 'Poser C'. Freudian slip?

But I get the impression you think it’s underhanded and my only point is there is nothing suspicious about it.

It's not illegal. Is it underhanded? I'll deviate to answer that if I may? In the UK I pay my tax by PAYE - pay as you earn. I have no option but to do that. Others, not paying that way, can get advice on using tax avoidance schemes. They're a way of cutting your tax bill. They're not illegal, although HMRC will try to get them ruled that way, but I do find them underhanded. I have to pay my full tax liability and so should others, even if they are wealthier so have more to pay. That's the responsibility of living in a UK society. At the same time, though, it's difficult to be too critical because maybe if I had the opportunity, I'd do the same.
So the US rules Delaware laws are legal but I find that any company that goes out of its way to avoid paying their full share of tax or any non profit that goes out if its way to hide its financial or increase its limits on expenses are somewhat underhanded - again - even though I might do the same.

You also corrected me that charities are registered at state level and so I was wrong to use town. I used the word town because I believe that organisations have to use an agent with an actual address and who is at the address for regular hours. So although it's registered with the state, it needs to have a physical address in a physical town. Or have I misunderstood that?

If there were no advantages of registering in Delaware over, say, California, then Archewell would surely have used its address in LA and registered there. The fact they chose not yo makes you wonder what Delaware is offering that California isn't. 60% v 95% maybe?

I worked in the charity sector for a long time. In the UK we have to be upfront about our financials. It's important for public confidence. I understand that in the US you do things a different way because of your federal state system. But as potential donors, surely all Americans want openness as to what happens to the money they're donating. (Nothing to do with Archewell because we don't know how it's funded.)

Tom and Grisham. Was there ever a better combination? 💕

Tom told me that the film taught him that it's easy to be seduced by the lure of money snd the luxorious lifestyle it buys you. At first it seems innocuous to use physical locations to hide your wealth. But, ultimately, being open and honest about your financials is the way to a good night's sleep. And a lavish lifestyle, international jetsetting, security guards and a big house (even one with conjoined trees) is not what happiness is about. There's a price you pay for all that and it's really important that you consider if the price you, and others, are paying is worth it.

Anyway, that's what Tom says.

I remember Bono telling the Irish government to give more to charity, but he had moved some of his companies to the Netherlands to minimise his own tax liability at the same time so it seemed rather hypocritical.

Ugh. Bono. More like Bonehead. Typical big mouthed, celebrity hypocrite.

Walk the walk, Bonehead!

I absolutely agree with Echopark. I would never state my credentials on an online public forum or even allude to them. It smacks of arrogance and exaggerated self-importance but I have noticed that it is normal in the US.

It can rapidly degenerate into a situation where you end up saying 'Stfu H, my partner commands $1000/hr when he is working on litigation in the US. Put that in your pipe H!'

I will continue to choose the lighter -hearted approach. 😆

@Croque

i only stated my background to explain to another poster why I would ask those type questions, and I’m glad I was able to clear up the misunderstanding. I wasn’t trying to be arrogant.

I know you were not. It was directed at the other poster to whom you were replying. It has taken the thread in an unexpected direction!

So pathetic for Meghan haters to come on here to repeat their nonsense when they have threads going on and on about their unproven blind gossip.

Don't know why they think they have something to prove, that matters to anyone.

Anyway, back to H&M.
Well done to MM for her podcast still remaining in the top 10/30 for English language countries. And still in the top 100 for a few others. Not bad for a niche subject.

Also, well done for the Variety article which takes back control by actually talking to a professional publication with no apparent agenda to push, but to do as they are supposed to and promote Archetypes.

I believe Harry also appeared on Masters of Scale summit.

So, yeah, the irrelevant couple are quite busy.

Have you watched the video? Great acting (liked the Julia Robert's looks and giggles) and I agree definitely a change in the PR strategy.

She did not really answer most of the questions when you really think about it, something that here in the UK is frowned upon with our culture of Sunday morning interviews on the telly and PM question time. Answers were over pushed with the narrative, it really shows who was holding the pen there.

I find the high couture style dresses worth many thousands of dollars at odds with the "philanthropic" narrative though. If only all that money went to better causes.

So no, I didn't fall for the Variety interview either, but interesting to see the pivot that the new team are trying for. She may have started to listen to advice?

She did not really answer most of the questions when you really think about it, something that here in the UK is frowned upon with our culture of Sunday morning interviews on the telly and PM question time.

She is not a politician nor gets any funding from the taxpayer.

When she does answer truthfully, you all are full of rage, calling her, 'bashing' or whatever. So don't see what you want here.

Didn't you all go on about what a bad actress she is, now she is as good as JR? make up your minds.

You don't know if she buys her clothes or not. She doesn't have to wear rags. High end fashion houses actually pay a lot of taxes and generally bring up the economy of a country - including the UK, from which you benefit from. Is that not why the rags always promote them when KM wears something?

Glad MM is slowly taking away your beatsticks, one by one. You all sound ridiculous now.

🥱

You did not get my point on culture (in the UK about properly answering questions) nor the irony about her acting

And if she accepted those a promotional gifts, well just another confirmation of the business model

Not only is she not in the UK, but Variety is not. a UK headquarters based publication - therefore not considered as BM.

But you also don't want them to accept free gifts. On what grounds exactly !

MM is clearly angling to make reboot of ‘Due South’ for Netflix 😀

I think she is free to accept free gifts if she chooses - but not on the basis of them being given to her as part of the RF. According to one of the recent books (Valentine Low?), this was something that she really resented when she was a working royal - lots of free gifts arrived, and they were returned in accordance with protocol.

I do however find it ridiculous that she is hanging on to her title for all it's worth, when she is not prepared (her choice!) to live by the rules that come with that royal title.

First of all, the title comes with no rules.

See Dukes of Marlborough, Beaufort, Grafton etc. Discussed on here a hundred times.

Secondly, who says the gifts are about her being part of the rf, especially as we are referring to them as gifted after they left the rf job.

Also VL is not an authority on anything royal and seems to be making things up as he goes along.

The title, the way she wanted it ie while being part of the royal front row, does come with rules. She seems very spoiled and it was never going to work, no matter how watered the rules were made. There is a pecking order that was never going to change, and hard to accept.

As for the gifts, she is no free to accept them. Good riddance. But don't come along telling me "I am an altruist" - will she sell those dresses for charity if she owns them?

*now 😅

She can do whatever she wants with the dresses.

She can later pass them on to her dc/gdc/dil/charity/museum etc. Whatever, whenever. It's not up to you to dictate.

Exactly. I agree. Not for us to dictate anymore. She is not a working royal anymore and this is great. Privileges come with responsibility.