Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Meghan now flogging clothes for commission.

1000 replies

AtIusvue · 24/03/2025 16:22

Commissionable links- means when a potential customer clicks on the link, it's attributed to the affiliate, allowing the brand to record the source of the traffic. If someone buys a product using an affiliate link, the brand will pay the affiliate marketer commission on the sale

But she’s not an influencer?

This is really sad actually.

Meghan now flogging clothes for commission.
OP posts:
Thread gallery
31
AtIusvue · 25/03/2025 09:32

Spectre8 · 25/03/2025 09:25

This is a forum people can comment on multiple threads rf related or not? So again what's your problem with people doing that? Are you implying somehow you are better than them because you don't and because you start threads?

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I don’t go on threads to start arguments with people. People can disagree with an opinion but that’s not what’s happening. It’s never about the opinion- everytime it’s to critique the thread and/or a poster. Therefore, that’s a sign, that’s these threads aren’t the best fit for Meg fans, seen as it triggers them so much.

For example:

Someone could say: the podcast is a terrible idea. Another poster could disagree and say I think it’s a great idea. But that’s not what happens. What happens is the poster/thread is claimed to be hateful, awful, crass….or any other word of the day.

It’s not about sharing opinions it’s about starting arguments. So yes, I think I’m better.

OP posts:
ThatHazelGuide · 25/03/2025 09:32

deeahgwitch · 25/03/2025 09:19

This is what I thought.

I bet my weekly food shop her goals are to become a billionaire.

I'd have taken the 100 million and disappeared into a life of privacy.

Absolutely up to her what she does, but it's just contradictory to want privacy and sell your privacy.

CatsChin · 25/03/2025 09:33

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

AtIusvue · 25/03/2025 09:34

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Could you take your own advice maybe?

OP posts:
Conundrumseverywhere · 25/03/2025 09:36

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Don’t patronise me. You freely admit you don’t know much about Meghan or what she’s done. Why don’t you do a bit of research first before commenting? You don’t need to read tabloids or social media, it’s all out there if you look for it. I’m not young either . Wind your neck in.

BasiliskStare · 25/03/2025 09:36

My opinion* As a celebrity I think Meghan is more than entitled to operate a storefront. What I don't like is her using the DoS title to do it. Yes she is DoS - if anyone doesn't know that by now they never will. But they were not supposed to be trading off their Royal titles, and to be "upholding the values of Her Majesty." Meghan at the top of the page - fine by me - Duchess of Sussex - not so much. I think the Swedish princess has pitched it right and also I believe doing it with the agreement of the Swedish royal court. Using the Duchess of Sussex to me is gauche and what's more completely unnecessary. We all know who you are , love. 😂

*others are available

jeffgoldblum · 25/03/2025 09:36

RevolutionaryMode · 25/03/2025 08:47

You start these highly critical threads about Meghan. You make an only fans ‘ joke’ about Meghan, then add to it later, and think it’s all so merrily funny. And you think that people should just leave you to it and not object. Are you lost? This is mumsnet.

As far as I can tell the op has not asked posters to leave her thread.
and the only thread I’ve seen that has actually asked posters to leave is the “postive “ one !
although to be fair it wasnt the op of that thread either.

im assuming that the op was just noting the hypocritical double standards that some posters feel perfectly entitled to police a thread and demand other posters write only things they like or leave , while jumping onto another thread and scolding posters with “I can post where I want , I’m entitled to my opinion “.

Fortunypleatsingreen · 25/03/2025 09:42

crumpet · 25/03/2025 09:04

No, the rule applies to what is known as working members of the royal family. Those whose job it is to take part in royal family responsibilities.

Harry and Megan are no longer working members, so can do what they like with using the Sussex title, is my understanding. They had wanted a half and half whereby they were part time working royals and could do what they wanted for commercial projects the rest of the time, and this is what the Queen refused- they had to be in (working royals, no commercial activities) or out (not working royals and could do their own thing) and chose out.

And all of the so-called hard and fast rules are hypocritical anyway seeing as King Charles and William both run fully commercial enterprises, the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which each make around £20 million a year. So if that’s not half in and half out, I don’t know what is, but the rule obviously doesn’t apply to them! And they have favourable tax arrangements remember! And it’s all shrouded in secrecy so we don’t know the details,

What is so different about King Charles flogging a range of Duchy organic biscuits to Meghan selling dresses?

For that matter, as this is the subject under discussion, the system of royal warrants mix commercialism and royalty quite well doesn’t it? Does anyone know if the RF pay full price for the Fortnum and Mason goods that are bought for the royal household at Christmas? Or if they have paid full price for their fleet of Range Rovers? Or have they made a deal with these companies mixing royalty with commerce? It would be interesting to know! Again, the finances of the RF aren’t exactly transparent.

I have absolutely no idea why it’s wrong for Meghan to sell clothes as part of her lifestyle brand? She wears nice clothes while cooking so why not market them too?

Lots of Instagram chefs get asked about the, aprons, and the equipment they use and they have an add-on Amazon shop, so Meghan selling clothes is similar to that. If she is interested in fashion, there’s nothing wrong with including it in her brand.

Personally, I think she is more entitled to hold her head up high than anyone who resides in a number of vast estates and has their lifestyle funded by the public purse.

H and M have left the royal family and are getting on with it, and people can’t stand it, that’s all, and are reacting like it’s some sort of personal betrayal when they are just following through with their plans like they said they would to have a family, make their own money and support the causes that are important to them. They are simply doing all three of those things like they said they would.

As for mixing commercial activities with charitable ones, philanthropy works very differently in the USA than it does in UK, and Meghan doesn’t care what people from the UK think about it, as we are not her main market.

Thedom · 25/03/2025 09:43

Gosh, the insults from Meghan supporters are flying everywhere today.

CatsChin · 25/03/2025 09:44

Conundrumseverywhere · 25/03/2025 09:36

Don’t patronise me. You freely admit you don’t know much about Meghan or what she’s done. Why don’t you do a bit of research first before commenting? You don’t need to read tabloids or social media, it’s all out there if you look for it. I’m not young either . Wind your neck in.

So you genuinely believe that if I 'do my own research' that I will discover that Meghan has:

"put herself out there as an example to the rest of humanity in how to live." ?

Are you quite sure?

jeffgoldblum · 25/03/2025 09:44

crumpet · 25/03/2025 09:04

No, the rule applies to what is known as working members of the royal family. Those whose job it is to take part in royal family responsibilities.

Harry and Megan are no longer working members, so can do what they like with using the Sussex title, is my understanding. They had wanted a half and half whereby they were part time working royals and could do what they wanted for commercial projects the rest of the time, and this is what the Queen refused- they had to be in (working royals, no commercial activities) or out (not working royals and could do their own thing) and chose out.

A poster on the clothing thread has already posted the main text from the so called “sandrinham “ summit , it clearly outlines that they are not allowed to use their titles for monetary gain.
this was the agreement that they agreed to when they stepped down .
they have broken their word and gone against their agreement with the queen.

JessicaBlabbit · 25/03/2025 09:44

RevolutionaryMode · 25/03/2025 08:11

the minutae of 9 years ago being picked over.

I know - you would have thought H&M would have got over it before prioritising this as an issue to highlight in Spare 2 years ago to generate sympathy -- I expect H&M are delighted it got traction.

AtIusvue · 25/03/2025 09:45

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

CatsChin · 25/03/2025 09:46

BasiliskStare · 25/03/2025 09:36

My opinion* As a celebrity I think Meghan is more than entitled to operate a storefront. What I don't like is her using the DoS title to do it. Yes she is DoS - if anyone doesn't know that by now they never will. But they were not supposed to be trading off their Royal titles, and to be "upholding the values of Her Majesty." Meghan at the top of the page - fine by me - Duchess of Sussex - not so much. I think the Swedish princess has pitched it right and also I believe doing it with the agreement of the Swedish royal court. Using the Duchess of Sussex to me is gauche and what's more completely unnecessary. We all know who you are , love. 😂

*others are available

I can't move in my local farm shop for King Charles' 'Duchy' biscuits. There's a whole aisle in Waitrose.

What an absolute bastard.

JessicaBlabbit · 25/03/2025 09:48

Weepixie · 25/03/2025 07:48

I haven’t done any of things. My opinion of her (and Harry) is based solely on the fact they are both liars and fantasists.

Same here....add in self rightous, deluded, grandiose and hypocritical bullies.

Vespanest · 25/03/2025 09:50

I do think if Charles then William with the government want to slimline the monarchy and stop some of this crap they need to stop with the the Dukedom's or have them tied to working royals. It would not only stop the commercialising but also remove it from the likes of Andrew. It's the wanting to use the "of nameplace" and honestly not giving two fucks about the place or its reputation. as I can guarantee this will be the next generation with well ifs it good enough for Harry and Meghan just as the well Sarah Ferguson did it.

jeffgoldblum · 25/03/2025 09:51

Thedom · 25/03/2025 09:43

Gosh, the insults from Meghan supporters are flying everywhere today.

Indeed !

Fortunypleatsingreen · 25/03/2025 09:51

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

How is that different to the posters who relentlessly leap to the defence of the RF should anyone dare to criticise anything that they have done?

MrsLeonFarrell · 25/03/2025 09:51

CatsChin · 25/03/2025 09:46

I can't move in my local farm shop for King Charles' 'Duchy' biscuits. There's a whole aisle in Waitrose.

What an absolute bastard.

All profits from Duchy originals are donated to charity. As far as I know neither Meghan's clothing commissions nor the profits from As Ever, when it starts selling things, are being donated to charity. The two things are not the same.

IcedPurple · 25/03/2025 09:52

Thedom · 25/03/2025 09:43

Gosh, the insults from Meghan supporters are flying everywhere today.

All on cue too.

Someone was saying you should go to Tattle if you want 'vitriol' but I've never seen posters there sling nasty insults around at their fellow posters like the Meghan fans who are not Meghan fans and are only concerned about bullying.

Why people engage with them I do not understand.

AtIusvue · 25/03/2025 09:53

Fortunypleatsingreen · 25/03/2025 09:51

How is that different to the posters who relentlessly leap to the defence of the RF should anyone dare to criticise anything that they have done?

It was a compliment. Take them when you find them.

OP posts:
OP posts:
jeffgoldblum · 25/03/2025 09:54

@AtIusvue, you are being deliberately provoked and attacked, this tag team bullying has already been carried out on another thread , best practice is to ignore.

jeffgoldblum · 25/03/2025 09:56

Fortunypleatsingreen · 25/03/2025 09:51

How is that different to the posters who relentlessly leap to the defence of the RF should anyone dare to criticise anything that they have done?

Why are you targeting the op?

CatsChin · 25/03/2025 09:59

Do you just have Google alerts for any articles about her so you can bad-mouth her? I can't believe you're sitting at home casually reading People magazine online or whatever that is. Why don't you just delete those alerts, or stop googling for it? I'm genuinely baffled.

I really dislike Trump but I don't obsessively google and check his socials for whatever latest gibberish he's spouted. It's very easy to avoid.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.