Invictus 2025

[Mylovelygreendress]

Why is Meghan on the stage ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14374977/Meghan-lovingly-Prince-Harry-Invictus-Games-Vancouver-crowd.html

Although I do think Garry suits him.

It does not matter what they do now. That is the truth.

I don't think it's true. They could dial back on the quasi royal stuff (including titles) completely, lose the hypocritical travel by private jets and the OTT security detail, stop trying to live like Hollywood A listers and concentrate on a couple of things (commercial and charitable) and do them well, or try to. At Invictus they might be careful to emphasise the competitors rather than turning the attention on them into a cheesy Christmas rom com

All these things would help.

Exactly. Just be normal, stop acting like every appearance is a starring role on a Netflix series.

I think their critics (of which there are many out there, not just us few on here) would like them to stop with the performances and do their thing, whatever they decide that may be, and allow any PR benefits happen organically.

So in summary:
stop using Royal titles

• travel by commercial plane
• get rid of their security

Stop trying to live like Hollywood A Listers. What does that mean? Going to film premiers and sporting matches? Living in a mansion?

And presumably no public displays off affection? Other Royals can do it, but not them?

Yes. Show up in normal clothes not 20 different expensive outfits. Use commercial travel. Stop constantly holding hands as if they're teens on a first date. Just grow up and look professional. <disclaimer nothing wrong with pdas just tone it down a bit, it seems so fake and ott>.

He could turn it round but he's too shallow sadly.

You are being purposely silly now JoyousOrca.

But you are right, they could just act like normal wealthy people with a profile, instead of how they currently try to appear.

'And presumably no public displays off affection? Other Royals can do it, but not them?'

An occasional pda, lovely. Their constant hand holding and back rubbing looks silly and sorry to say it again, but fake and try too hard.

Come on now. There are no other royal couples that do the public displays of affection quite like these two! None whatsoever.

Other royals may hold hands on occasion, offer a guiding hand on the back, glance at each other with a warm smile etc. But it's just far more appropriate.

Well it's not really, is it. The RF do what they do as heads of state or working for the head of state. It's part of their job description. It's what is expected of them in their role representing the UK.

H&M are private citizens, not working royals. They try to make out they are Bill and Melinda Gates, using their own money to exert influence over politics/policies. There's zero evidence they use their own money to fund Archewell. There is evidence that Archewell has received significant funds from sources such sa the Fidelity fund. Their Delaware registration allows them to pay the bulk of what they receive out to themselves and their employees in expenses. What they are on record as paying out to charities is small and largely inconsequential. Where Archewell's funding originates is questionable. If its origin is USAID, then they are two private citizens using taxpayers' money for self aggrandisement and nothing else.

Okay so normal clothes from Sainsburys range or US equivalent? No buying expensive clothes. Maybe Harry can wear TK Max joggers and t shirts like he used to?
Use commercial travel - they have sometimes but presumably you mean all the time?
Less PDAs. You might be American Meghan, but behave like an Englishwoman?

Are you seriously suggesting that everyone on this thread (for example) is a member of the RF (or their staff) or has had a phone call from the RF (or their staff) saying "Everything Harry and Meghan does now must be attacked, criticised and ridiculed to punish them" - are you in?

@FromTheOfficeOfJammyTodger You can see where the Foundations money comes from. Do not make untrue allegations.

A lot of these Foundations use money in ways that are profligate. Like William's hiring of models for Earthshot. But presumably the donors are happy with it.

Not quite. But it is a message NGNs media has been hammering to the public for quite some time.
I wonder why?

I was talking a couple of weeks ago with a guy who used to work in a very high powered 'crisis comms' team - think v high profile disgraced footballers and celebs, that kind of thing.

His view was that H&M's reputation has ultimately never recovered from the widespread perception that they deliberately made the Queen and Prince Philip's final years on earth unnecessarily painful with their various accusations and allegations, many of which turned out to either be spurious, or pretty thin gruel in terms of actual wrongs done and moral offence caused.

His thinking was that the audience segments most likely to engage with H&M's brand proposition are middle income aged 40+, an audience segment which in the US in particular skews small c social conservative especially when it comes to respect for elder family members. And who admired the Queen. So his view is that this is a huge blocker to them resuscitating their rep and moving forward, career-wise.

His view was that they should do a mea culpa type interview, admitting that they maybe handled some things wrong and generally striking a note of humility. I disagree with this as a strategy; I think it would have a lot of pitfalls and could backfire massively. I also don't think that's the only reason for their unpopularity: I think their air of general holier than thou hypocrisy and lack of meaningful content are actually the main problems.

But, he is more successful in the field than me and has bigger clients. So on that basis his opinion is worth more than mine. :-)

It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the US entertainment industry has underestimated the strength of traditionalist social & familial values in its core audiences (ask Budweiser).

George Michael's well known drug and alcohol use?
Ummmm well hasn't Harry told us himself at great length about his own drug and alcohol use?

A poster said Harry and Meghan should be like George Michael and not seen at public events, visiting charities or at sporting occasions. I pointed out George Michael was not seen in public for many years because he was consuming shed loads of alcohol and drugs. He was not hiding from public view from some idea of being out of the public view as a moral good.

The difference is of course that George did not need to court popularity because he wasn't an influencer and had a fabulous and lucrative career based on amazing talent and creativity. Meghan does not have that luxury and needs to try and get attention in a crowded field. Some people find it pretty distasteful that she is not above using tragic events like the California wild fires and Uvalde to try and boost her profile.

George did not need to stoop so low and clearly preferred not to publicise his generosity, otherwise he would have done so. There was nothing stopping Meghan from just sorting out the Billie Eilish merch without having to tell everyone how great she is. Charitable works are not supposed to be about self promotion.

Where does a fund like Fidelity get its money from before they pass it on?

Where did the initial $9m injection into Archewell come from?

Do you accept that H&M, two private citizens, are self aggrandising using other peoples' money?

@NormaMajors1992coat You are right that George Michael made his money through talent and work, unlike any of the Royal Family. But he did not appear in public for many years because of his addictions. Not any moral viewpoint.

No I don’t mean that at all. I mean it would seem more sincere and less attention grabbing if they just got on with supporting charities without the self publicity.

George Michael was a troubled soul, but he did good works anonymously and
without fuss even at the height of his fame he donated all the royalties from Last Christmas to Bandaid, for example. He was still In Wham at that time. I think that whatever his personal problems were, he was generous and not self promoting in his generosity

No not Sainsbury's just not 10 different expensive coats. Just y'know, tone it down. They are private citizens afterall.

Yes commercial travel all the time.

Fewer pdas yes. That 'Englishwoman' comment sounds a bit xenophobic if you ask me.

NormaMajors1992coat You are right that George Michael made his money through talent and work, unlike any of the Royal Family. But he did not appear in public for many years because of his addictions. Not any moral viewpoint.

I don't believe I said he did? Not sure why you are telling me that?

I think if they are buying the clothes, they can wear as many expensive clothes as they want.
I would ban all private jets. They are a major contributor to climate change. No one should be using one.
The English woman comment is because of the lack of recognition of cultural differences. I have travelled all across America, and Meghan PDAs are appropriate for her background. So what you mean is you want her to behave more like an English woman would. That is xenophobic.

Their pdas look silly and desperate. Nothing to do with where you've traveled.

'I would ban all private jets.'

Good. We agree on something.