Harry and Megan dubbed "fucking grifters" by Spotify exec and podcaster

[Qbish]

No great surprise there... Would love to hear his story about Zooming Prince Harry, I can only imagine his frustration with the whining ninny!

Leading Spotify figure lashes out at Prince Harry and Meghan Markle after end of podcast deal | The Independent

I'm sorry that's awful!

The thing is if they don't talk about the RF what are they going to talk about??

To everyone on here that's been through abuse and bullying 💐- it's a bag of shite and lives with you forever. Kudos if you're cracking on with a smile and good humour 👍

@tommyshelbysbunnit - there's another thread - what's next for Harry, that's debating that very topic. Where to go now?

When the Spotify deal was announced, I admit I was shocked. I love podcasts especially those by unknowns who discover their USP and roll with it. There are people who have been plugging away at this 10 + years and are only now getting somewhere. Podcasts are a way for gifted academics to share their work with the public.

Celebrities can make podcasting work - Giovanna Fletcher (not my cup of tea) for example has done well out of her parenting podcast, but I bet she wasn't given £20 million. For me, the joy of a podcast is that it is a bit like radio and should be available far and wide, not locked down to one platform. The money is made from the adverts linked to them.

All I trying to say, is that this whole thing seemed like a non starter from the beginning. I'm not surprised it failed financially. It seems like a strange move on Spotify's part.

I’m not sure about the smiles and good humour…

It just grew my inner Nan but I’m grateful for that!

To all 🌻. May your smiles be wide and may your inner nans thrive. 😈

😂😂inner Nan will do ✊! She rocks!

The thing is that philanthropy and good causes don't make money. You can do them once you've accepted the dollar and worked it.

Nobody really cares about Meghan and her Archetypes (which are actually stereotypes , and Harry can do Invictus games etc but there's no money in it.

And the minute they sign on for climate change action, or whatever, people are going to point out that Harry loves to leap on a private jet, and he plays polo which is one of the most climate changey sports out there.

Neither of them had any kind of character or stance that stood up on its own, or that people were interested in. As they are finding.

So, clothes ponies it is!

Very wrong to say Meghan is a violent person. How low can people go in their dislike of her?

This is hair trigger sensitive reading stuff in where it wasn't. No one said she was 'a violent person'.

What was said by @EllaRaines was

She strikes me as the kind of person who would make a fuss of a cat when the cameras are on her, all smiles and fussing over the cat and then when the camera has stopped rolling and the door is shut, the smile turns into a scowl and the cat gets booted up the arse.
Replace the word cat with Harry and that's about right.

What is being said is that she is the type of person to present a perfect and pleasant face to the world, and behind closed doors be an entirely different. It doesn't mean she literally kicks the cat or kicks Harry. It's more metaphorical as is obvious.

I think there is a lot of objective evidence to suggest she is exactly that type of person.

To start with it is the hall mark of a narcissist - lovebombing followed by devaluation, criticism, verbal abuse. So much of her behaviour fits with that profile - not least the speed with which she got involved with Harry and progressed to engagement and marriage combined with isolating him from his friends and family again with speed. To be fair, it's very impressive. No one would ever think it would be possible to get a Prince of England to emigrate to America, abandon his working royal role and essentially cut off relationships with his brother and father.

Then there are the numerous examples of people she was 'buddy buddy' with who when it didn't suit her are totally cut off. Again, narcissistic indications - lots of 'former friends' have given interview of this type - most obvious recent example is the Canadian stylist who was a central part of her wedding,went on tour with her but is now totally cut off because she herself was cancelled.

The way she treated her father is extraordinary and the lies/reinvention told about her life with him. She was living with him and there are lots of home videos that have been published showing how close they were.

then there is the gross disrespect that has been displayed to the Royal
Family and the Queen even when Prince Phillip was reaching the end of
his life.

then there are the various situations in which she has been reported to be unpleasant and difficult - re the wedding, apparently insisting on going to see the dying Queen when she wasn't wanted,

All of which are totally different to the public face of this nice, sweet, treated-terribly-by-all-you-racist-media, philanthropic godess.

So it's not that much of a leap to say this is someone who is the type (note the type) of person who cuddles the cat in public but is mean to it in private.

It's certainly a legitimate opinion and not at all the same as saying she is a violent person.

You make some good points. Clearly Spotify were blinded by their (then) celebrity status, and thought they could work with them, and that H&M would work hard. Oops...

You're right, @Qbish - unfortunately the fashion world is notoriously fickle.
Chanel and Dior use Charlotte Casiraghi and Beatrice Borremeo because they are beautiful and connected to the Monaco royals, but also because they're photographed at those glamorous events, so the items get plenty of high profile exposure. Dior could tag Harry's suit that he wore to the coronation, but I don't know what else he has lined up.

I keep seeing mention of being philanthropists. Philanthropy is about altruistic giving. In most cases this is money and they don’t have enough to be significant philanthropists. Otherwise it is giving your time and skills, which they could but these don’t have significant value though they could help raise profiles of causes. What philanthropy is not is a means of making a living; that is just being a celebrity. If they wish to make a living out of philanthropy then what they are actually looking for is for philanthropists to employ them to do stuff. But that doesn’t make them philanthropists.

The way she treated her father is extraordinary and the lies/reinvention told about her life with him. She was living with him and there are lots of home videos that have been published showing how close they were.

What do you mean? Her father tried to blackmail her, threatened her on tv, and sat with her siblings, one of whom wore blackface to impersonate her. She has never denied their closeness either, that is why it caused her so much hurt. She has never ever played down the role he had in her childhood, quite the opposite. He is a disgusting father now, but they were close and it is Megan who has made a point of saying that.

To start with it is the hall mark of a narcissist - lovebombing followed by devaluation, criticism, verbal abuse. So much of her behaviour fits with that profile - not least the speed with which she got involved with Harry and progressed to engagement and marriage combined with isolating him from his friends and family again with speed. To be fair, it's very impressive. No one would ever think it would be possible to get a Prince of England to emigrate to America, abandon his working royal role and essentially cut off relationships with his brother and father.

How do you know any of this though? that she love bombs and then criticises etc what are you on about? you've just made that up from nothing?

There are lots of colleagues and people who have met her and worked with her who say plenty of nice things about her. We all have people in our life that we once were friends with. that we no longer are. Its not unusual. Every single one of us will have people who met us who did not get on with us. This board is full of relationship breakdowns or difficulties. It doe snot make someone a narcissist. Meghan has friends she has had since school days, and is friends with all her former cast mates. Honestly the way people turn and twist very ordinary things and common fallings out into 'she must be a narcissistic' is so strange.

Both Meghan and Harry have given their time to plenty of charities and causes, along with money. They're not making a living from it either. This comment is confusing.

You haven't seen any evidence of how much they contribute relative to what they take in.

I think it's probably hard to he full time philanthropists without a significant private income. The Obamas, Clooneys, Bill Gates, Gettys etc have significant personal wealth to support their charitable endeavours. Others have to earn more of an income so can't devote so much time to it. I think possibly that's what pp mean?

How do you know any of this though? that she love bombs and then criticises etc what are you on about? you've just made that up from nothing?

I don't know she love bombs & criticises. I was saying this is a hall mark of a narcissist. You misunderstood what I was saying.

1. Someone said they thought she was the type of person who would cuddle a cat in public and be mean in private.
2. That type of behaviour is typical of a narcissist - charming public face, unpleasant behind closed doors to those who can't easily leave (children, husbands, partners, parents, close relatives, subordinate employees). Lovebombing and subsequent devaluation are well known narcissistic indicators.
3. There is a quite a lot of evidence to suggest she is a narcissist. The isolation of Harry at speed is an absolutely classic trait. The treatment of her 'friends' - one minute a best friend/next utterly cut off is another one. There are so many examples of this over time that it again suggests this devaluation narcissists are prone to.
4. So therefore is it not that 'out there' to think she was the type of person who would be one thing in public, and another face (unpleasant) in private.

I think people are talking about how he inexplicably was non persona gratis because he did an ill-advised interview with journalists then got so stressed that he had a heart attack. The explanation in the Netflix documentary was that she was texting but realised it wasn’t him and she knew she’d lost him. I don’t get that at all. There’s a ton missing. He could have been in surgery, his phone snuck from him by her sister, him high on meds talking rubbish or any number of reasons.

All of the above came after when he became increasingly disillusioned and desperate.

Aye @BadgerB , pretty is as pretty does!

Archwell have made a lot of announcements about they were partnering with Ulvade to build a playground. Looking at various reports the city donated the land another company the equipment and kaboom got people to donate their time to build it. I don’t know exactly what Archwell actually did ? Perhaps someone else can find something concrete as otherwise it sounds remarkably like another grift

This grifting allegation will mean that wealthy philanthropists won’t entrust their money to archwell and they seem to be spending their own on court cases and car chases

What about leaving copies of The Bench on planes, in schools as gifts - not giving the recipient a say in whether they want the gift or not- they could be done for littering 😂

All we know is that Meghan has a new PR team

I’m sure H&M’s defenders will be out in force to deny this and project elsewhere but they have had a lot of staff, especially ones designed to make them look good.

So far H&M haven’t shown they like exclusive deals though. After all, they signed up to Netflix and Spotify but then instead chatted to Oprah and H revealed more in his book.

I agree. They're nowhere near rich enough to be 'philanthropists'.