Harry and Meghan make surprise phone calls to young leaders in the US

[PrincessTigger]

I actually really liked this video, it’s them doing what they have always done best. I want to see more things like this, hope it marks a change in tactics.

It also has a very “royal” feel: e.g. there have been recent reports about a split but they’re not arguing in the gutter they’re rising above it and proving them wrong, they’re using their spotlight to shine onto other people, etc.

Only criticism: why are they filming people on the phone?! Makes me think of The Apprentice 😂 use Zoom!!

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/harry-meghan-young-leaders-surprise-call-b2386408.html

Yes, I think their outgoings are huge 1-2 million a year on security alone. Harry is used to his lackeys doing everything for him and being his peripheral brain. Hence forgetting to pack his polo gear for a match and having to have it retrieved for him. It must be a huge culture shock for him. Meghan aspires to a Hollywood A lister lifestyle and that is massively expensive. Her clothes bill was ridiculous, but recently I've noted much cheaper outfits. I think this is all down to her new Agency pointing out the optics of wearing £40Ks worth of designer goods to a school in Harlem with the majority of the kids living in poverty and without fathers to promote The Bench. A book about fathers 🙄. I think it's a long road to financial security and I hope they get there and maintain a lifestyle that's suits both of them.

This is a UK one for CEO's of uk charities

https://www.theguardian.com/society/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html

The royal foundation isn't in the above but here it lists the highest paid employee earns between 170,00-180,00, which is fairly high

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/income-at-duke-and-duchess-of-cambridge-charity-up-73-in-one-year.html

For comparison.

Founder trustees and CEOs are not the same thing. The trouble is, sometimes they think they are.

Sorry, what's that in response to? It's clear from the filings Harry and Megan aren't taking huge amounts from their not for profit, which so far isn't collecting donations, its their money.

Aren't donations anonymous? I thought there was a lot of speculation around the major Archewell donation

These donations or all donations?

I thought they were soliciting donations in some cases. But like… so what, who cares?
It’s normal practice for foundations to solicit donations then make grants and gifts. It’s a great skill wealthy people into helping a cause you care about.

And maybe everyone knows this, but many people want to give but don’t have the infrastructure to research and award gifts that they know will have an impact.

Foundations are often a vehicle for disseminating donations.

Yes, even actual private foundations I have seen ask for donations, the Obama one and the royal foundation. I'm just saying that they're not as yet, they direct people to charities to donate. I don't imagine their org is really ready to do things like that, better to direct to other orgs already doing that. Its just there seems to be implications being made that they're doing this to make money, via I assume being paid for overseeing their foundation, but as its not yet received any public money there is no point anyone concerning themselves with it.
I think people giving attention to charities and asking us to donate is great! No issue with it. I donated to Battersea because of Paul O'Grady and his campaigning and to Mayhew because of Meghan.

I was responding to the posts detailing charity CEO salaries in the UK. I don’t see the relevance. No-one is suggesting the Sussexes will be employed by the Foundation.

Yeah, there’s nothing there. They jumped the fun on publicizing the foundation before it’s time. Suspect they planned for Harry to oversee it (not to get rich, just because it would be something he’d enjoy and it would give him purpose.)

with the majority of the kids living in poverty and without fathers

Quite a telling assumption there.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/06/15/chapter-1-living-arrangements-and-father-involvement/

Quite a telling assumption there.

One might say the same to you, though.

The school in question, the Mahalia Jackson School, has an Economic Need Index of 95, as shown on the linked dashboard. So 95% of the families in this school’s census tract have income below the poverty line.

The Office of the New York State Comptroller’s public data also shows that families with female heads of household (and no spouse) experience poverty at more than two times the rate for all families and four times the rate of married couples.

So, social trends may not show the whole picture in a specific location.

https://tools.nycenet.edu/dashboard/#dbn=05M123&report_type=EMS&view=City

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/new-yorkers-need-look-poverty-trends-new-york-state-last-decade

(A school’s Economic Need Index (ENI) determines the likelihood that students at the school are in poverty. The ENI is calculated as follows: If the student is HRA-eligible or living in temporary housing, the student’s Economic Need Value is 1.0. For high school students, if the student has a home language other than English and entered the NYC DOE for the first time within the last four years, the student’s ENI value is 1.0. Otherwise, the student’s Economic Need Value Is based on the percentage of families (with school-age children) in the student’s census tract whose income is below the poverty level, as estimated by the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate. The student’s Economic Need Value equals the decimal value of this percentage (e.g., if 62% of families in the census tract have income below the poverty line,the student’s Economic Need Value is 0.62). The school’s Economic Need Index is the average of its students’ Economic Need Value).

I wasn’t clear - I was not talking about the assumption of poverty. I was talking about the assumption of lack of fathers - hence the link about fathers.

@skullbabe A high percentage of those children were on free school meals and the school is ranked low in achievements. It is in a high poverty area with a high level of fatherless homes.

I made no comment on single parent households and whether they are desirable or otherwise. I think maybe yours is the telling comment as it's making assumptions without substance.

I simply said a book on children's relationships with their fathers was rather crass and thoughtless under the circumstances but the awful thing was the hideous spend on designer wear. I find it obscene but I buy clothes from Primark

I know what was said - they were quite thoughtless and uninformed in their zeal to criticise Meghan. Once again I challenged the assumption of fatherlessness - it’s there in the link.

Hitherto I hope all people who assist with charitable works adhere to the standard of not wearing anything beyond…..say £100 - including jewellery. I hope to see this critical eye on all who assist and lend their faces to charity in the future 👍🏽.

Next time DH walks up mount snowdon for our charity I'll ensure his outfit is low value. Scrap that. He said never again!

👏well said.

I don’t really want to debate the merits of someone reading a book in a school but that pew data supports the point that Harlem, like much of the US has far too many children living without a father in the home.

https://www.espn.com/blog/new-york/knicks/post/_/id/24136/amare-houston-address-fatherless-crisis

This is where I’m blown away by the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge a simple point. No, it’s not to normal wear clothing like that to read to children. It cost more than some people make in a year. It’s not the crime of the century, but it’s very tone deaf. Why defend it rather than ignoring the post or saying “meh, I see your point there.”?

I find it unbelievable that anyone would consider this unfair criticism.

FWIW Dolly Parton does far more in support of disadvantaged children and promoting reading in schools and in the home. Mostly done quietly and effectively.

Dolly has been on the scene for decades. I wouldn’t expect anyone who only found fame in the past ten years to be keeping pace with her.

I think what she does it awesome.

And she's been doing it for decades (the actual Foundation since 1988, good works before that).

Started small, with endowing scholarships, and just grew. And yes, you're right, it's been done quietly all along, although she does do some more public work about the importance of reading.

I find it unbelievable that anyone would consider this unfair criticism.

I for one agree - I think it a perfectly valid criticism. I hope to see it applied equally to all across all strata and boards 👍🏽.

All the royals wear nice clothes to visit disadvantaged communities. Kate is known for wearing high street - but even that’s always Zara not George at ASDA. I think it’s a mark of respect to dress your best, it says the people you are meeting are important.