Meghan Markle - Duchess of Dior?

[MamoruHisaishi]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12206159/amp/Is-Meghan-mega-bucks-Duchess-Dior.html

Personal remarks can get posts deleted as has already been proven here this morning.

SoTedious · Today 10:45

Are you implying that I’m anti media? That’s rather presumptuous of you.

No, I just thought it was amusing that you referred to any media as fact.

If we have to assume that NO media are factual, ever - there's absolutely nothing, pro or con, that we can discuss.
Unless we know the subject(s) personally, and even then we could be considered biased.

What I don’t like during a cost of living crises is our government taking £250M from social care workforce funding exactly two months before spending £250M the King’s coronation.

Don’t get me started on the millions spent just weeks later for the Trooping of the Colour.

But sure, let’s get distracted and hatefully obsess and scrutinise every possible thought, word and movement of a vulnerable mother who left this country three years ago in fear of her mental health. We don’t pay for her. What she does is none of our business.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/17/government-to-cut-250m-from-social-care-workforce-funding-in-england-report-says

I have to agree with you and I think that was just a hint of what was to come. As for her being post partum as referred to upthread, perhaps she needed to stay at home as opposed to travelling at that time with a baby. Were they forced to tour as a family at that time on what turned out to be the most expensive royal tour of that year? Did they receive money from ITV for the programme that was made when they were there? I don't know the answers to these.

👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻

I consider what you are doing to be thread policing!

They get the £100,000 every year from now on, don't they?

From Variety.

Each year, the honoree will be awarded a $100,000 unrestricted stipend to be used to advance new work, expand leadership and expertise or continue to make an impact in the field.

“We’re thrilled to present this award to Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex,

I will post what I like thank you.

I have to agree with you and I think that was just a hint of what was to come. As for her being post partum as referred to upthread, perhaps she needed to stay at home as opposed to travelling at that time with a baby. Were they forced to tour as a family at that time on what turned out to be the most expensive royal tour of that year? Did they receive money from ITV for the programme that was made when they were there? I don't know the answers to these.

Yes she should have stayed home. I mean - she might have been criticised for that because Kate managed to go on a tour of New Zealand at about the same time post partum but Kate obviously wasn't so horrible as to comment about how she was feeling when asked in an interview. But she should have stayed at home and taken all the commentary on the chin. Silly woman.

I heard ITV set up the initial shell company for Archewell productions to funnel in the proceeds from the ITV documentary into it - it's obvious that they knew almost a year in advance of their leaving to set this all up 🙄- follow the money I say.

People just throw out these ridiculous figures without an evidence at all. Where do you get the £250m from?

The queen's funeral cast £160m. And that went on for days and covered all sorts of expenses including protection and looking after Heads of states from all over the world. The coronation was one morning.

All countries hold annual military parades, regardless of having a monarchy or not.

I agree with you. I think priviledged people should shut up at all times.

That's not agreeing with me - I don't even say that Meghan should shut up, merely that I think a rich person complaining about their life on camera while standing in a poor area is crass.

If William talking about homelessness while he has what is it now, 3 homes? if that's ok, then I think it's ok for Meghan to answer a question honestly.

William complaining on itv about only having three homes while standing in front of a homelessness shelter during a royal visit would be equivalently crass, but as far as I know, he hasn't done that.

If we have to assume that NO media are factual, ever - there's absolutely nothing, pro or con, that we can discuss.

Of course we can discuss media reports, why not? But declaring any of them to be fact is a bit silly imo.

From the same article in Variety - all paragraphs preceding for context:

"Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, will accept the NAACP President’s Award during the 53rd annual Image Awards on Saturday.

Previous recipients of the prestigious prize include sporting icons (Muhammad Ali, LeBron James), political figures (Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice), entertainers (Rihanna, Jay-Z and Lauryn Hill) and journalists (Soledad O’Brien), among others.

“It’s a true honor to be recognized by President Derrick Johnson and the NAACP, whose efforts to propel racial justice and civil rights are as vital today as they were nearly 115 years ago,” stated Prince Harry and Markle.

The couple also announced that they’ve partnered with the NAACP to create a new honor — the NAACP-Archewell Digital Civil Rights Award — supported by their Archewell Foundation and administered by the NAACP. The annual award will recognize leaders creating transformational change — at the intersection of social justice and technology — to advance civil and human rights. Each year, the honoree will be awarded a $100,000 unrestricted stipend to be used to advance new work, expand leadership and expertise or continue to make an impact in the field."

So no - Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were not awarded $100 000 for the NAACP President's Award - I have also checked President's Awards winners line Colin Powell, Gabrielle Union and Tavis Smiley - not one of them was awarded any money for this prize.

Archewell partnered with NAACP to give $100000 -to the NAACP-Archewell Digital Civil Rights Award - the first recipient being Nabiha Syed.

https://naacp.org/articles/naacp-and-archewell-foundation-announce-2023-digital-civil-rights-award-recipient#:~:text=The%20winner%20is%20awarded%20%24100%2C000,and%20media%20executive%2C%20Nabiha%20Syed.

So no - they did not recived $100 000 as a prize from the NAACP which is what is the PP stated.

@skullbabe I apologise if I read that wrong. So are you saying that Archewell are giving a stipend of $100,000 every year to winners. So $100,000 this year, $200,000 next etc. So in 10 years. They'll be giving $1m a year split between 10 winners, and rising ad infinitum?

It would be interesting to know where the lie that they were awarded $100,000 and a further $100,000 every year, originated from?

Media literacy It’s really not hard to verify information from additional, reliable sources before accepting everything we read and hear.

It’s utterly disgraceful that this misinformation was allowed to spread, but not surprising. Just more of the same Anti Harry and Meghan propaganda 🙄

That's not agreeing with me - I don't even say that Meghan should shut up, merely that I think a rich person complaining about their life on camera while standing in a poor area is crass.

Apologies - rich people standing in their hotels in countries where there are poor people are indeed crass and should not express that they are struggling at all.

I think this may have been printed elsewhere because you’re not the first person to have thought this.

Maybe a newspaper quoting Variety incorrectly?

No - they will give a $100 000 every year to a different recipient each year.

Calm down there. I don't think it's a deliberate plant of fake news by anyone. It's how things appear on Google. It takes facts from different parts of the article and summarises it so it reads like the $100,000 comes with the Presidents Award. Then other articles from like Geo.news, hardly critics of Harry and Meghan!, write a full article about it, but put in the word reportedly to cover themselves. That article is then sold to multiple news sites that repeat it.

It's how news works these days. It's cheaper than paying journalists from each publication.

These reports came from US magazines or news sites that in early 2022 were still, on the whole, quite pro Harry and Meghan. They weren't trying to do them down.

No - they will give a $100 000 every year to a different recipient each year.

So not a stipend as we understand it in the UK, then. It must have a different meaning in the US.