Kerry Kennedy’s recent interview about H&M award - some thoughts……

[Glorified]

I don’t think Kerry Kennedy’s characterisation of H&M’s actions from her recent interview (below) is accurate:

uk.style.yahoo.com/style/meghan-and-harry-royal-family-racism-kerry-kennedy-comments-164718226.html

"They went to the oldest institution in UK history and told them what they were doing wrong, that they couldn't have structural racism within the institution; that they could not maintain a misunderstanding about mental health."

The lawyer and human rights activist added that the Sussexes "knew that if they did this there would be consequences, that they would be ostracised, they would lose their family, their position within this structure, and that people would blame them for it.
"They have done it anyway," Kennedy said, "because they believed that they could not live with themselves if they did not question this authority. I think they have been heroic in taking this step."

What’s going on here? Is Kerry Kennedy just stepping in to defend her decision against recent public criticism of the H&M award (even by her own brother)…..?

Did H&M actually directly address the RF / institution around structural racism and unsupported MH or did they just drop those issues / concerns on a TV show for “bombshell” impact a year later in a fit of pique?

H&M pushed hard, as I understand it, to have a half in half out situation and it was only afterwards when this was proved problematic/unachievable that they left the RF and subsequently a year later first issued complaints publicly during the OW interview of racism and MM’s unsupported MH issues.

I am not questioning that these issues didn’t happen just that if they were so bad surely you wouldn’t try to stay half in with the institution or continue to be very publicly associated and identified with it by using the titles of a regime that oppressed you?

If H&M cared enough about racism in the family and institution they could have gone followed this up to address it and root it out - bring a formal complaint etc ironically that’s what this award is partly about - tackling racial injustice - it doesn’t look to me like they have managed their most tangible opportunity to do so directly.

Michelle is robustly intelligent and definitely never got to where she is through her sex appeal. She is the real deal.

i did see someone refer to the master of ceremonies for the awards as ‘Bang Bang Baldwin’ - will he be the one handing out the ripple of hope award ? I don’t know if he’s the best choice to be handing out awards at the moment.

I also read that JK Rowling was given a ripple of hope but handed it back after being called transphobic by Kerry Kennedy

m.youtube.com/watch?v=xHV_vmYoSjY

This is a beautiful interview with Michelle Obama following the the OW interview where she very wisely and elegantly advises M&H how they should have dealt with the racism incident and how they should approach public service.

I love what she says about public service. What a shame the US could only have the Obamas for 8 years then got the shit show of the Trumps. Actually in the documentary I think she said they were not sure if they wanted to be in the spotlight forever. I doubt MM would say that!

Nothing particularly constructive to add, just dropping in to ask: Have Meghan and Harry now spent longer complaining about being in the Royal Family than they, as a couple, actually spent in it? I think they may have!

Engaged Nov 17 - quit Jan 2020, so 27 months. Yes definitely longer out than in.

They left because they wanted to monetise being members of the Royal Family, and gave a lot of (made up?) reasons to justify their actions.
Meghan actually says in the Oprah interview that there is NO money.
I am not sure what she expected, but the income they had, Harry received from Charles.
So, they wanted to market the Royal Family to earn extra money. This was why the half in, half out they wanted would not work.
Now some people will point to Mike Tindall, etc, But Mike Tindall has never represented the crown in any capacity (ie he is part of the extended family, not a 'working royal', etc, and has his own income from sponsorships etc).
Working Royals are those that represent the crown, and to monetise their status can cause problems elsewhere. The UK has a constitutional monarchy, and the crown is expected to host countries that many will think undesirable.
Other royals have been censured in the past for this very reason (Sophie, soon after her marriage to Edward, etc).
There is no evidence anyone said anything to Harry or Meghan about the colour of Archie's skin. Even Meghan and Harry give different versions of the event.
Secondly, her refusal to conform to Royal protocol, and being second after William and Catherine were clearly things Meghan did not like or understand.

Has Elton trumped Doria now in the mother stakes?
Is he the upgrade?

Its surely odd that PH gets an award for being anti racism when he enjoyed wearing a swastika armband and nazi uniform in his spare time.

Exactly . The only proven racist in the RF receiving an award for standing up to racism. You couldn’t make it up !

Don’t forget the ‘paki friend’ comment.

I think the royal family has all of the issues identified but I don't really think Harry and Meghan challenged them on it. Or on Prince Andrew.

Awards given to celebrities are always nonsense though aren't they? Surely nobody takes them seriously.

According to IRS documents the 'non-profit' organisation handed out just $300,000 [£250,000] in grants in the same year that it raked in a staggering $43
million (£36 million] in contributions and grants.
That year - 2018, its 50th anniversary - its president, Kerry Kennedy, 63, was paid $555,000 [£467,000], almost twice what it handed out in grants.
Kerry had her vast salary topped up by a further $42,000 [£36,000] in 'other compensation from the organisation and other related organisations'
Interesting.

Well, what else are they ging to do for a living that pays that much?

I am never sure why people are fixated on sweeping away just the royals when it's the whole top slice of leadership, in every country, that does this?

Now I will certainly tune in for that!

The charity & philanthropy sector is quite the gravy train, if you can get your tax structure right.

And I agree with a pp that for Harry to get an anti-racism award from this gravy train set-up is highly contentious. He’s basically being handed an award for marrying his wife.

And what are the donation figures for Archwell because that’s what this award was originally given for.

I believe that H&M were also officially investigated and then publicly rapped over the knuckles by the U.K. charity commission for wasting disproportionate amounts of SussexRoyal charity money on “fees” and “admin”.

Maybe heroically addressing the structural racism within the RF involved removing the most public repeat racism offender from the RF ie PH by MM…..

Not quite.

www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-charities-did-not-act-outside-charity-law

Where did you get this information please? I am not seeing the same.

projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/262624459

Not quite? It's hardly a ringing endorsement.

In this case we have found that the trustees complied with their duties under charity law, and the transfers of funds between different organisations were in keeping with the charities’ governing documents, with conflicts of interest being appropriately
The MWX Foundation should, though, have done more to document its decisions, especially regarding the charity’s expenditure on legal and administrative costs.
We also note that a substantial proportion of funds went into setting up and then winding up a charity that was active for a relatively short period of time.

The MWX Foundation should, though, have done more to document its decisions, especially regarding the charity’s expenditure on legal and administrative costs.
We also note that a substantial proportion of funds went into setting up and then winding up a charity that was active for a relatively short period of time.

That sounds like the charity commission were far from happy about both the amount of charity money spent on admin and lack of transparency. A foretelling of what was to come, perhaps?

PP looks like a fairly accurate summary of what happened an official investigation and a public knuckle rap…..

“However, the Commission has found that decisions on spending were not adequately documented, limiting the ability of the trustees to demonstrate the reasons behind those decisions. The failure to properly record decisions does not represent best practice and is not in line with Charity Commission guidance.”

“The Commission has provided the charity with regulatory advice to ensure that the funds transferred to Travalyst are applied for exclusively charitable purposes, and the Commission and the charity have agreed how the charity will comply with this guidance”