Vanity Fair podcast

[Atlasvue]

Carrying on.

Employee feels Harry is happy doing charity work and is happy for meghan to do all the work to make money so he doesn’t need to

I’m not sure Radhika Jones who is the first person of colour to be Vanity Fair’s Editor in Chief (since 2017) would be too impressed with the racism accusation. Or that they have printed this article as some kind of revenge piece. They were until recently, very pro H&M. The story stands by itself and needs no motive. It isn’t alway because people are out for the couple. This is their problem. They need to own their shit and stop playing the victim.

Totally agree. Netflix don't care if Harry is a figure of ridicule or not, he brings in the publicity and that is all that they will care about.

I disagree. NF makes its money from subscriptions. Harry's non-royal productions have all flopped, so he does not bring in subscriptions. Nobody is going to sign up for NF because the exiled 5th in line to the British throne has a contract with them. They will sign up because NF have programming they want to watch. Harry's productions don't fall into that category.

I'd be amazed if their contract is renewed, even if the 'lifestyle' show gets good viewing figures.

The Tom Bower account of how that Wild About Harry VF interview was conducted is very interesting.

That's the bit I thought was interesting.

If Netflix can get Harry and Meghan to play themselves in the next series of the Crown, that'll be gold 😂

I've always wondered if this marriage was some Soho House bros' bet gone too far.

I knew the song, didn’t realise it had been performed in blackface. That does put a different slant on it. I really can’t see VF running a deliberately racist headline on its front cover so I’m guessing they thought they were just referencing a popular song. It looks like an oops moment rather than intended to offend.

Seven years is some coooooold revenge though!

edited to correct autocorrected punctuation….

Does anyone think that there will be a state visit to the US? Trump came here last time. There hasn’t been one in a while.

There must be very few US presidents who have had two different British Monarchs reigning during their time in office. There must be some stats somewhere, but I’m too lazy. I feel Trump would want the photo op.

That will be an interesting one, if the King travels to the US. Imagine the kids seeing their grandfather the king with their US president ….they will never get to be a part of that history now.
Although would raise awkward questions about him seeing Harry and his grandkids.

Could you give us a summary?

https://www.businessinsider.com/meghan-markle-royals-upset-over-2017-vanity-fair-profile-book-2022-7

Which bit of the interview does this happen? I started watching but it’s 36 minutes long. I’ve not come across that interviewer before but I like his style so far.

I think Trump's mother (who was Scottish) had been a big fan of QEII, which is probably why he was so keen to meet her. He also was constantly battling for legitimacy and against bad press in his first term. I think he'll be a lot more confident this time round and focussed on domestic issues, and not particularly feel the need to visit the UK. (I bloody hope he doesn't visit, anyway).

I don’t think he’ll visit the UK either….but there hasn’t been a state visit to the US by a monarch in nearly 20 yrs.

Starmer will be desperate I’m guessing, he knows he’s out in the cold now. The RF may prove quite useful for him.

Interesting… thank you. Why did she spill the beans about Harry then get “hysterical” with Sunshine Sachs? Presumably she must have known that the magazine would run with the Harry aspect once she’d spoken about it to the journalist.

An attempt at a bit of belated arse covering with regard to the palace’s instructions, perhaps?

I didn’t realise there had even been an issue originally with that 2017 piece so reading about that and the Valentine Low reference was interesting.

I don’t think VF were out to write a revenge piece.

Is there another series of the Crown though? I thought it was all done and dusted now.

It’s probably a very easy decision for the Hollywood press to write about them

1. guaranteed huge press and headlines
2. they aren’t important people in the industry, no one’s jobs are at risk
3. the gossip going round town about them must be everywhere, that VF felt it was worth investigating, they could make a story out of it, find enough people to talk and it would get past legal.

Shooting fish in a barrel.

Yes - it's become clearer as the years have gone by why they're so rubbish at creating content. Neither of them has any cultural knowledge, interest or expertise, so they probably struggle for ideas. Gosh, if someone gave me the opportunity to come up with ideas for documentaries and podcasts, I'd be spoilt for choice - they seem very uninspired and unispiring, considering the amazing opportunity they were given.

Their USP is their fast-fading royal connection. Beyond that (except to the Sussex Cult of Crazies) neither Meghan nor Harry is a very interesting character, with no outstanding achievements. I think Meghan has told her small store of personal anecdotes too many times (and many have been shown to be 'not quite what they seem' - eg the Proctor and Gamble washing-up liquid legend).

It reminds me of when Prince Edward set up Ardent, his TV production company, in the 80s (?). He had a few early successes based on his own family connections but when he tried to branch out from that things went south. It's an incredibly competitive and fast-moving world with hugely clever and creative people competing, with their fingers right on the pulse of contemporary culture. If you're a dim, uncultured and entitled minor royal and an ageing cable actress with a lot of baggage and only one subject (your wonderful self) then what hope is there for you?

I wouldn't be surprised if William and Catherine get dispatched to Washington. I think Trump would love a visit from them.

“Wild about Harry” being racist because of the obscure origins of a recognised, if not universally well-known, song title is a bit of a reach. The phrase “Jazz Hands” would be racist on that basis (often considered to come from Al Jolson in the Jazz Singer, where he performed in black face). And I’ve not noticed any cancellation of that phrase.

I did however notice social media commentators claiming the author of the most recent VF Meghan and Harry article is racist because they used the term bête noire in it …

(edited as double-posted)

Well Starmer will need to roll out the royals to smooth things over after his and other labojr MPs insults about Trump. He wasn't invited to the inauguration whilst other world leaders were so ouch. So here come the Royals

If I recall correctly - she was advised by the BRF NOT to mention Harry. But did (to push herself into serious-girlfriend territory).

But she wanted VF to profile her as a serious philanthropist with a history of doing good things before she met him. Except that they couldn't find evidence for many/any of the good things she claimed to have done. So they went with the obvious Harry's -girlfriend angle instead. Which she was furious about.