Meghan at glitzy launch party

[Twistybrancher]

Meghan in LA this week at some fancy launch party. Think these are her friends who own a high end salon.

The wavy hair has made a return, I’m guessing this is the new look she’s going for, for the rebrand. Jury is out out for that particular style- mid parting, flat waves. Thinks she suits a side part, with full waves. But hey!

Personally I like the paired down eye make up look. I always thought the heavy lashes and dark shadows were a bit much for royal duties (I feel Kates is far too heavy on the smokey eye too!)

But it sure does make her look different. I do think ita just make up and not surgery…but other posters are better at spotting these things.

Harry not there. They are her friends, so no real reason but when it’s a social event, doesn’t look great that they aren’t together….again

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-14090659/Meghan-Markle-dances-friends-glamorous-launch-party-Los-Angeles-without-husband-Prince-Harry.html

You think RF investments won’t include brands they’ve given royal warrants lol

My point was that people are obsessively invested in them or them failing so all this talk about irrelevance is moot.

I might as well call the haters FANS, these people have mapped out H&M’s calendar a month in advance for signs of separation, they watch trademark processes feverishly for signs of failure, search company databases in every state, they contact the IRS, they contacted California health and safety department when Meghan gifted jam, they search tax form submissions, they’ve submitted claims of child abuse for kids they swear don’t exist etc

So I will continue to defend them

Her nose was better before.

Are you claiming MN posters have contacted California Health & Safety about jam and reported the couple for child abuse?

I think you are on the wrong forum, maybe head to Discord or Tattle, thats where the real weirdos hang out if thats who you are defending them against.

I’m talking about the ‘haters’ the poster was referencing. It’s beyond tattling on forums, these people act in real life using the same talking points as justification.

Nope. The talking points are the exact same so push back can be done everywhere.

I don't understand where you're coming from. You say you're standing up for H&M against the 'haters' and will continue to do so (👏) and yet you continue to stir the pot as soon as you see a middle-of-the-road post, almost as though you like the drama? Yes, there are a few extremists on here but a lot of us are just interested in the couple and really don't get that worked up about them. Perhaps you class yourself as one of the extremists?

Fair enough.

I love the way H & M are described as “money hungry” when they are at least attempting to earn money for themselves.

And yet Kimg Charles is not “money hungry” I suppose when he paid no inheritance tax on the fortune he inherited from the late Queen?

Or because he and Camilla have access to a vast property portfolio?

And of course we don’t know if the late Queen was “money hungry” or not because she successfully lobbied government to change a draft law in order to conceal information about her private wealth from becoming public.

Ditto we don’t know whether Prince Philip was “money hungry” or not because details of his will will not become public for at least eighty-five years or so, a privilege that none of us on this thread will enjoy.

And William is not “money hungry” when he is allowed to pay an undisclosed “voluntary” amount of tax on income from the Duchy of Cornwall?

And Sophie and Edward are not “money hungry” for living in a 120-bedroom stately home worth £30 million, for which they have extended the lease for 150 years for £5 million, for doing a job with much fewer hours and far less stress and complexity than your average NHS manager?

Ahh, you are definitely getting things mixed up .......contacting health and safety with complaints, the IRS with complaints, claims child abuse claims, really ?? on here?? 🙄 If you really want to defend them against those type of extreme weirdos go and defend them on twitter, tattle, discord, where those commentators do hang out.

And frankly this sort of discussion on a forum that is supposed to be supportive of women is pretty disgusting.

Ah yes; you find a better class of misogyny, racism and hatred towards Meghan on Mumsnet don’t you know!

So that’s alright then 😀👍

All very true and I'd add the greedy skimming of the public purse by the Duchies that's just been exposed thanks to the sterling work of investigative journalists.

We can't draw distinctions when the whole lot are on the take.

I think it is fair enough to describe someone as 'money hungry' when they have sold the rights to their own families privacy and reputation for multiple millions, not many people would be happy or comfortable with making money in that manner. You would need to be able to put morals aside , or have none, in favour of topping up the bank account.

I do agree with you regarding the privileged tax situation of the RF, but that is something the government needs to rectify.

The Royal Warrants are only given to genuine and long-standing suppliers.

How any private investment portfolios are managed isn't publicly known, but I'd be quite surprised if there was much, if anything in small, individual retailers and service suppliers.

I'm not sure that this list is complete, but it gives a reasonable idea of who holds them. Some stretch back hundreds of years!

List of royal warrant holders of the British royal family - Wikipedia

I believe Land Rover have held a royal warrant since 1951.

Do you think the RF and staff buy their fleet of Lamd Rovers at full commercial rates?

Harry said he wrote Spare for many reasons. Given his recent inheritance from the Queen Mother, who knows, I doubt money was right at the top of the list.

I think he saw it as putting the record straight after so many people had written his story for him.

And he said if he put it all out there, including negative stories about himself, there was no more reason for journalists to dig around for stories by searching through his bins or trying to hack in to his computers.

He wrote many complimentary as well as negative things about his original family.

It’s not his fault that the press largely focused on the negative.

Actually, yes.

Because the RF pay the normal going commercial rates (which might include a fleet discount, if that is what the firm offers all customers).

This is a well-known policy, and one which it would be very easy for a journo to sting them on, or just for a member of staff to mention to an outsider. Neither has happened.

That was one of the things that MM was reported (several sources) to have found strange - she could not accept freebies, and invoices were simply paid in full.

Well if that is the case; are the accounts accessible to us?

To the same degree they would be if we had an elected Head of State?

Edited to say: what frustrates me atm is that it’s not entirely clear what is inherited private wealth or assets, and what belongs to the state?

No idea

Because of course my point was not dependent on the actual accounts. But on the fact that no account has ever emerged of the RF doing anything other than the accepted practice of paying the normal bill. And it could be discovered either by sting, or by leak from Household staff, or leak from any of the supplier companies involved. And it is something that the press are interested in - I remember the fuss when Kate Middleton, before her engagement, accepted a discount on an Audi.

And of course the degree of detail in published accounts is not dependent on whether a HoS is elected or not. Practice between countries varies considerably, and does not correlate closely to constitutional arrangement.

@OneTealSloth again you seem to have mixed up your fervour with what many of here feel. Some of the things you quoted - have never even heard of them. They don't live rent free in my head. It's light MN reading and banter. You really take this too seriously imo.

What has all this money talk and trademarks got to do with Meghan's appearance at a hair salon?

But he told lies and was downright nasty about some of his family ! Similarly, the OW interview ; lies and sly digs .

We can't draw distinctions when the whole lot are on the take

Spot on yet again, @CathyorClaire - only the list left out the one about the late Queen trying to access funds for the disadvantaged for palace heating, and tthat's just off the top of my head

The whole rotten lot are addicted to other people's money, though at least they've not so far trashed the rest of the family to get it so I suppose that's something

Small point about the cars though ... I thought they leased rather than bought them except in the case of outright gifts? (A Bentley Bentayga when they were launched, a Rolls Royce Phantom VI at the time of the Silver Jubilee, even a ruddy Renault Dauphine on a visit to their factory)

Edited to add link: https://www.hagerty.co.uk/articles/automotive-history/the-cars-of-queen-elizabeth-ii/