Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Meghan Markle signs with Hollywood talent agency WME

645 replies

DottyLS · 28/04/2023 06:08

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/meghan-markle-signs-wme-1235405157/

According to Twitter this is a real step up

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
skullbabe · 03/05/2023 11:05

Nightlystroll · 03/05/2023 10:41

Forget the letter because it doesn't really matter whether it's fake or not. Archewell's own return says it's a public charity.
I did attach on one of my previous posts a blank 990 form that is used for private foundations. They're called 990-PF. Interestingly enough, that's what Bill and Melinda Gates' foundation's return is filed under. And the form is called "Return of Private Foundation" which I think makes it nice and clear.

I've had another look

The Gates Foundation is split into 2 - one is the private foundation and one is philanthropy partners

Form 990-PF (Gates Foundation)

https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/documents/2021%20bmgft%20form%20990-pf%20(pd%20copy).pdf

Form 990 (Gates Philanthropy Partners)
https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/documents/2021%20gpp%20form%20990%20(pd%20copy).pdf

I've had a look at what the aims of philanthropy partners is:

Gates Philanthropy Partners is a public charity established in 2016 that provides a streamlined, transparent way for donors to align their gifts with the charitable purpose of the Gates Foundation.

On page 21 on the Form 990 they list the indvidual donors (😂the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation donated an eye watering amount)

Form 990 (Obama Foundation)
https://www.obama.org/wp-content/uploads/B200_The-Barack-Obama-Foundation_Form-990_PD-Copy_No-Schedule-B_TR_TY21.pdf

Interesting dive into how foundations align themselves with tax code. Regardless - it really means nothing in the greater scheme of things. The letter is fake though.

https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/documents/2021%20bmgft%20form%20990-pf%20(pd%20copy).pdf

skullbabe · 03/05/2023 11:13

I concede your point @Nightlystroll if that wasn't clear. The letter is fake though.

Nightlystroll · 03/05/2023 11:15

skullbabe · 03/05/2023 11:05

I've had another look

The Gates Foundation is split into 2 - one is the private foundation and one is philanthropy partners

Form 990-PF (Gates Foundation)

https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/documents/2021%20bmgft%20form%20990-pf%20(pd%20copy).pdf

Form 990 (Gates Philanthropy Partners)
https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/documents/2021%20gpp%20form%20990%20(pd%20copy).pdf

I've had a look at what the aims of philanthropy partners is:

Gates Philanthropy Partners is a public charity established in 2016 that provides a streamlined, transparent way for donors to align their gifts with the charitable purpose of the Gates Foundation.

On page 21 on the Form 990 they list the indvidual donors (😂the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation donated an eye watering amount)

Form 990 (Obama Foundation)
https://www.obama.org/wp-content/uploads/B200_The-Barack-Obama-Foundation_Form-990_PD-Copy_No-Schedule-B_TR_TY21.pdf

Interesting dive into how foundations align themselves with tax code. Regardless - it really means nothing in the greater scheme of things. The letter is fake though.

It's to do with the tax that private foundations have to pay. I read an article by a company of tax advisers and they said that it's become very complicated to figure it out. It makes me wonder if there are different operational statuses for charities in the UK.

But you accept that Archewell is registered as a public charity and not a private foundation?

Nightlystroll · 03/05/2023 11:16

Sorry, @skullbabe. Cross posted. 👍

skullbabe · 03/05/2023 11:17

Nightlystroll · 03/05/2023 11:16

Sorry, @skullbabe. Cross posted. 👍

Fair do's

MamoruHisaishi · 03/05/2023 11:34

Whaeanui · 03/05/2023 09:40

And no, it’s not abuse when Charles refused to continue financially supporting

That’s his role. It’s fucked up, but it’s how the institution works. It’s the deal. H didn’t get to properly train and pursue his own choice of career… because of who his father is. So yes, his father as heir then, should continue paying the security as he does for Andrew. Security is based on risk and as a former security for them said, their risk was as high as the Queen’s.

Furthermore I'm shocked, completely shocked, that some people here consider it wrong and an invasion of Harry’s privacy when an organisation is trying to find out whether Harry was given special treatment as a prince when it came to his immigration status.

Visa applications are private. That’s why. He should be treated like anyone else. The ‘organisation’ is a right wing American group and the person doing this is a telegraph journalist who was a former aide to Thatcher. It’s weird and strange that people like you want to continue to persecute and ruin their lives. You don’t want them here, you don’t want them there. You don’t want them to be safe. What is it that you want for them? To not exist? There’s a lot of others in that camp, hence his need for security.

I mean, some of the same people here were outraged that William accepted a cash settlement from his phone hacking case, because as a prince he apparently wasn't entitled to privacy and it’s wrong for him to be given special treatment based on his status

No, you’re twisting things again. Nobody on these boards said William wasn’t entitled to privacy at all. You’re lying. What people said was, he received a settlement but kept it quiet and the future king should disclose any settlement from Murdoch. Not the private information. William has sued media before and he made it public he was hacked by NOTW.

That’s his role. It’s fucked up, but it’s how the institution works. It’s the deal. H didn’t get to properly train and pursue his own choice of career… because of who his father is. So yes, his father as heir then, should continue paying the security as he does for Andrew. Security is based on risk and as a former security for them said, their risk was as high as the Queen’s.

Except Harry wasn't the heir, like William was, so he was given more freedom to pursue his own interests and career. Hence his army career. Harry wanted to join the army and he was able to, unlike William, but he supposedly didn't pass the exams to go further up the ranks. That's not his dad’s fault that he failed the exams. Also, how ironic of you to say that Harry wasn't given proper help and training as he was born a prince, when it came out in a lawsuit that his teacher basically helped him to cheat in order to pass his art subject at school.

Just because you and a former security officer think that the Sussexes’ risk was as high as the Queen’s doesn't make it so. The people (government officials) who decide who gets to have security have concluded that the Sussexes aren't in such danger that they need to have it in an on going basis. They have decided that they would assess on a case by case basis. And they base this on the latest security intel/risk factors that neither you nor the former security officer have access to.

Visa applications are private. That’s why. He should be treated like anyone else. The ‘organisation’ is a right wing American group and the person doing this is a telegraph journalist who was a former aide to Thatcher. It’s weird and strange that people like you want to continue to persecute and ruin their lives. You don’t want them here, you don’t want them there. You don’t want them to be safe. What is it that you want for them? To not exist? There’s a lot of others in that camp, hence his need for security.

If Harry was be treated like anyone else then he really shouldn't have been given a US visa when he's publicly admitted to drug use. Do you think the average person would have been allowed to continue to stay in the USA if they admitted on national tv to doing drugs?

And please, stop with the dramatics. No I’m not persecuting Harry just because I made a comment on an online forum that Harry’s sympathizers cry about him being entitled to his privacy yet don't seem to think his brother should also have the same right to privacy.

No I'm not ruining Harry’s life because I've expressed my views that I think he's stupid and racist and that he shouldn't be entitled to tax payer funded security when he's no longer a working royal and is living overseas. Rest assured, Harry will continue to live in luxury, in a well guarded area, free to continue to whine about how horrible his life has been because he was only born the spare instead of the heir.

No, you’re twisting things again. Nobody on these boards said William wasn’t entitled to privacy at all. You’re lying. What people said was, he received a settlement but kept it quiet and the future king should disclose any settlement from Murdoch. Not the private information. William has sued media before and he made it public he was hacked by NOTW.

Why should William have announced to the whole world that he received a settlement when it didn't even get to court? Yes, William has sued before, but this didn't reach that stage.

The settlement was in relation to William’s phone conversations being hacked, it's no ones business if he received compensation for the wrong that was done to him and it's no ones business if he chose not to publicize it either.

Also, according to you, even though Harry was born a prince, certain things like visa applications are private and therefore he should be treated like anyone else. Well, I could also argue that private settlements are common, and usually aren't allowed to be discussed, and William should also be treated like anyone else even though he is a prince.

MamoruHisaishi · 03/05/2023 11:50

Whaeanui · 03/05/2023 10:39

for example working in Africa, which I believe he said he wanted to do?

The problem with trying to be normal is both security and status, you can’t fade into the background when you’re the king’s son ( or queens grandson…. ) . Did you read the book? Paps even appeared on a remote farm in the Australian outback, risking the people there and their privacy.

Except Harry hasn't even made an effort to try to fade into the background. Releasing a book, and documentary, and giving interviews about his personal life and his private parts are not what I would call seeking privacy.

I know less about William than I do about Harry, and that's cause William doesn't seek the lime light like Harry does.

MamoruHisaishi · 03/05/2023 11:53

Whaeanui · 03/05/2023 09:19

They left the family business which was their own choice and they lost the job perks that go with the job (including security

Security isn’t a perk of the job. He was put in danger because of the family he was born into and the public interest in them. That is lifelong. Andrew has security.

Andrew has private security, just like Harry does.

AskMeMore · 03/05/2023 11:55

Andrew kept his security for a long time after he was no longer a working royal. And then the Queen and then Charles paid for it.

Blip · 03/05/2023 12:04

Since Meghan very obviously didn't go to the Met Gala I don't think her star is exactly in the ascendant.

MamoruHisaishi · 03/05/2023 12:09

AskMeMore · 03/05/2023 11:55

Andrew kept his security for a long time after he was no longer a working royal. And then the Queen and then Charles paid for it.

And your point is? It wasn't up to the Queen or the royal institution whether Andrew got tax payer funded security or not, Harry tried to insinuate that in his lawsuit but that claim was dismissed. We don’t know whether Andrew was in more danger at the time he was receiving tax payer funded security, as only the government officials who have access to that security intel would know. Neither Anne (despite nearly being kidnapped) nor Edward have tax payer funded security except when they’re doing royal work/activities. Also, the issue isn't that Harry isn't entitled to private security because he is, and he has that. Harry’s issue is that he feels he should either be entitled to tax payer funded security, or that he be allowed to pay for it, just because he thinks he is in danger.

Rockybooboo · 03/05/2023 12:18

Blip · 03/05/2023 12:04

Since Meghan very obviously didn't go to the Met Gala I don't think her star is exactly in the ascendant.

Did she want to go then?

Whaeanui · 03/05/2023 12:25

Why is the Met Gala a sign of anything? It looks like a hassle tbh

poppysockies · 03/05/2023 12:25

Isn't that perhaps a bit of a stretch Whaeanui? I get that some jobs may not have been possible because of who his father is, but honestly can't see why he couldn't have followed his own path within reason - for example working in Africa, which I believe he said he wanted to do?

The Queen of Denmark’s younger son (yes, the same one whose children had their ‘prince/princess’ titles removed recently) is working in Paris in a diplomatic capacity. Harry could easily have secured a low-key role of some sort if he’d wanted it. Indeed, Harry and Meghan are only discussed and debated ad nauseum because of the drama they themselves have created by going down the tell-all, car-crash celeb route.

I’m not sure why they are determined to be seen as Royal-lite philanthropists, either. Presumably it was all part of the Diana Mark II plan, but despite sharing some of her less auspicious qualities, neither of them has Diana’s charisma, likability or genuine empathy for the less fortunate.

It’s quite clear that Harry and Meghan’s real priorities lie elsewhere and I’m afraid most people (both in the U.K. and the US) seem to see straight through the Good Samaritan act - because the insincerity shines through every thing they do. One memorable example was Meghan’s parroting the importance of being ‘linked not ranked’ - this from the couple with ornate coronets on their doormats 😂

it would have been much more sensible to dispense with the act and head straight for the Kardashian territory - which, after all is Meghan’s (and probably Harry’s) natural habitat.

Whaeanui · 03/05/2023 12:28

or that he be allowed to pay for it, just because he thinks he is in danger.

He doesn’t just think he is in danger, he is. Former security have spoken about it. It’s quite obvious that he is. Other public people have paid for police protection before, it’s not unique. It’s about access to intelligence in order to protect themselves. Diana has been criticised for not accepting it and that being a contributing factor in her sad death.

poppysockies · 03/05/2023 12:28

Did she want to go then?

The timing would have been perfect! But I doubt they’ll ever be darkening the doors of the Met gala while Anna Wintour is in charge. She knows what side her bread is buttered.

Interesting to note that Edward E. was at the Princes Trust event in NY last week, too.

Rockybooboo · 03/05/2023 12:53

poppysockies · 03/05/2023 12:28

Did she want to go then?

The timing would have been perfect! But I doubt they’ll ever be darkening the doors of the Met gala while Anna Wintour is in charge. She knows what side her bread is buttered.

Interesting to note that Edward E. was at the Princes Trust event in NY last week, too.

But you're not answering the question. Does Meghan want to go.the Met Ball?

poppysockies · 03/05/2023 12:55

But you're not answering the question. Does Meghan want to go.the Met Ball?

We can only speculate but personally I suspect she would love to go

Blip · 03/05/2023 12:59

Let's be real here, I don't think anybody seriously believes that Meghan didn't want to go to the Met Ball.

Roussette · 03/05/2023 13:01

Whaeanui · 03/05/2023 12:25

Why is the Met Gala a sign of anything? It looks like a hassle tbh

Yeah you either have to wear a dress made of meat (Lady GaGa) or something you can't move or sit down in. We have no idea if they wanted to go. But if they did they'd be criticised for that.

Whaeanui · 03/05/2023 13:04

Even one of the Kardashian’s hates it.., I can’t remember which one 😂 the youngest?

Rockybooboo · 03/05/2023 13:35

Blip · 03/05/2023 12:59

Let's be real here, I don't think anybody seriously believes that Meghan didn't want to go to the Met Ball.

You keep using 'get real' but you are the one that thinks you know what goes in someone elses head. You're living in a fantasy world.

poppysockies · 03/05/2023 13:48

Whaeanui · 03/05/2023 13:04

Even one of the Kardashian’s hates it.., I can’t remember which one 😂 the youngest?

Well, Kim, Kendall, and Kylie were certainly all there. As were Rihanna, Margot Robbie, Marc Jacobs, Gisele, Serena Williams, JLo, Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Gigi Hadid etc etc.

It's the ultimate A-list event. You would have to be 'living in a fantasy world' to imagine that Meghan would NOT want to go.

Howsimplywonderful · 03/05/2023 13:59

The Kardasians only got invited due to their Kayne West, they were openly begging for invites for years

My sister was in NU listening to Woody Allen doing one of his famous rare jazz sessions (I know Woody Allen 🤯😡) when loads of the ball attendees landed in the plaza. She said it was amazing though to see