Meghan Markle has ‘warped sense of reality,’ Vanity Fair writer says

[blitheringblackberries]

Interesting article

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/03/29/meghan-markle-has-warped-sense-of-reality-isnt-on-the-level-vanity-fair-writer-says/

🤣Yes, it’s an April Fools Day joke. I just googled it. I found it ridiculously funny. Emphasis mostly on ‘ridiculous’. King Charles, his two feuding sons, and Prince Louis

its a lovely photo though

i thought so too. I wonder if it was one of Kate’s photos? Most probably was.

Also, I’ve only recently realised how well and colourfully Charles dresses. He’s not afraid to wear colour.

Gorgeous photo - very natural

Photo is so gorgeous. I could just eat Louis!

Really sweet photo.

Looking forward to seeing Louis looking cute at the coronation

And what do "foundations of this nature" exactly do? 🧐

You could look that up yourself. People have even added links here. They aren’t like charities who have a single focus, campaigning to help them via donation pages the public can give to. Foundations direct you to charities to donate directly to, offer grants to other charities, campaign on their behalf and help them raise funds. You can see all this on their site. Their funds typically come from themselves or family wealth.

Ah ok you seem so knowledgeable - can you expand on more interesting things like tax allowances, other incentives and also the connection to their actual business like the Netflix or Spotify contracts. Oh and the Delaware obscure mesh of shell companies would do with some explanation too. And the money paid to consultants through contracts like shedding to the ex Obama advisor who "helped" them to get their names into the Time annual online poll. Thanks!

PS if that's how foundations work then not sure who is really benefiting here

Let me guess, you frequent Reddit? Archewell Productions is separate to the non profit. Sorry but I don’t work for you so that’s all you’re getting. Go research yourself.

Might his father have taught him?

Never been to Reddit 😅 however the Markle "marketing" plan is easier to see than their mesh of Delaware companies.

See attached for a sample of the marketing image splash normally used 🤓

For sure Meghan Markle has a very shrewd and slick marketing machine. As soon as Harry the dimwit was bagged, she had a PR company working for her again (or maybe she never stopped using one). Either way she knows exactly how to work the media system, she's been doing it all her adult life.

As for the Delaware archwell business, that's as shady as can be.

The majority of their grants were equally strategic

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2019/03/15/billionaires-multimillion-dollar-gifts-and-college-admissions-this-is-how-it-works/?sh=2ad1f2a266cf

Dodgy as a deal with Del Boy

This might help

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archewell

and this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_(United_States_law)

A good discussion of the edits in the talk section as well between contributors with regards to finances and a discussion of the consensus flowchart.

The front cover of Times is not for sale. Their rate card is publicly available and clearly shows costs for the inside front and both faces of the back cover - ‘cover 2,3&4’ - but not the outside front.

https://www.timemediakit.com/2020-advertising-rates/

The list itself was generated by a reader poll, with 1.8 million people overseen by the editorial team. Time's editorial reputation for factual accuracy is very good and, given its position on most matters, it is unsurprising that its readership was sympathetic to H&M. It might be argued that they have paid a PR firm or an “Obama advisor” to raise their profile, increasing their chances of appearing in the list - but the same can be said of a great many other people on the list: athletes, artists, industrialists thus effectively discounting that advantage. Given that the specific category in which they received the most votes was ‘Icons', it makes editorial sense for H&M to be on the cover.

The article itself is a very interesting demonstration how some people have a built in 'fake awareness' monitor and can see through Meghan straight away. Tucked away behind the palace machine you only saw what they allowed you to see, but left to her own devices (the ones she thinks are amazingly superior) on Netflix and Oprah, the fakery is blindingly obviously.

@skullbabe are you connected? The Time online poll is open to everyone to vote including bots 😅 so the result are by definition dubious plus who knows what you need to do to get on the picture list in the first place... maybe pay a six figure dollar sum to an ex Obama advisor? Excuse me.

Also described this pair as "icons" is a little too far. Not if an "icon" can be built out of a paid PR campaign, then this is another story. You see this less in the UK.

But just a reminder of what a paid image campaign looks like, see attached.... from the horse's mouth.

I don’t understand this paragraph however I think we’re not saying dissimilar things though I may have added nuance.

Absolutely it is possible that an Obama advisor would have paid to influence a poll though this is a bit left field but stranger things have happened at sea. As I said - this is a charge that can be levelled at all people on those lists and perhaps with the inclusion of people you dislike we should discount the entire poll. In time it may go the way of the Forbes 30 under 30 list.

I’m not disputing that H&M have published puff pieces as you have demonstrated (I think this is a thing that many do as I was advised recently) I was simply responding to the question you asked about a specific thing (the TIME 100 list) and also what the activities of Archewell apropos of the foundation.

Thanks - so, are you connected?

Connected to what?

To this pair, to Time, etc either directly or indirectly, whether it is freelance, contract or unpaid. Funny you ask. Just for the record!

I see. I’m not connected to H&M or Time.

I am “connected” to Wikipedia insofar as part of using it with students for collaborative research with the aim of improving certain articles - hence my show-tell link to the discussions behind each article.