Meghan now flogging clothes for commission.

[AtIusvue]

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.

Yes, you could say there's nothing 'wrong' with selling stuff on the internet, and, use of titles aside, I'd agree. It's a bit tacky but she's not doing anyone any harm.

But when you compare it to the grandiose ambitions they told the whole world about 5 years ago, it's quite a come down. And I really do think Harry will be deeply embarrassed by it all. The wife of a Prince of the Realm getting a cut from the sale of clothes online is not the world he grew up in. But it is the world he now lives in.

Sarah Ferguson got a crappy divorce settlement and needed to hustle to support herself. She clearly had a habit of massive overspending so there was a lot of debt to service and some dodgy dealings in the pursuit of doing that.

She's not an example for anyone else to emulate. Quite the reverse!

As per my earlier post they could have gone down the Zara route, they chose not to, wanting the titles instead. Zara is not titled, neither are her children, she is also an Olympic medalist, she is far more accomplished than Meghan. If Zara was Princess Zara she wouldn’t be brand ambassador for Rolex.

@BigWillyLittleTodger the number of times some things have to be explained 🙄

Spot on @IcedPurple. There is nothing wrong with it but indeed that is the bit that stands out. You have summed it up.

Yes, I refer to the example upthread about Princess Madeleine of Sweden launching a skincare line under the name 'Madeleine Bernadotte'. Her brother also runs a design studio as 'Carl Philip Bernadotte'. Obviously everyone knows he's a prince and his royal connections will have massively helped him. But neither he nor Madeleine are exploiting their royal titles for commercial gain.

I think people know perfectly well what the difference is but are pretending not to for the sake of drumming up a stupid circular argument.

however since she’s been rescued by her ex and shacked up with him , she’s only wrote books

She's done more than that. She's linked up with some wellness thing and offering a free month if someone signs up.

Hahaha SF has stayed hitched to Nonce Andy's coattails despite what scandal either were embroiled in.

She is utterly shameless and has hung off her duchess title with the grip of a first class grifter.

I think people know perfectly well what the difference is but are pretending not to for the sake of drumming up a stupid circular argument.

We’ve had Zara Tindall, Peter Phillips, Sarah Ferguson, who next? David Linley for selling his own furniture?

This is the woman who was going to modernise the monarchy.

Absolutely agree with all of this.
They have no principles whatsoever.

Hitting the ground running ...

It was all hot air, wasn't it?

She also never put herself forward as global humanitarian, feminist, social justice activist, producer of media that was dedicated to “illuminating thought-provoking and diverse narratives that underscore our common humanity and celebrate community”

Fergie has always been a hot mess but she’s warm and has been a wonderful mother to her girls- girls who have never put a foot wrong and conducted themselves wonderfully. Fergie has never pretended to be something she’s not.

Meghan on the other hand, had Harry and others tell the world how special she was and how she’s was going to this force for good in the world, breath of fresh air. But what we actually got, from being given the platform of a royal duchess, is a trad wife selling UPFs through NF infomercials and being a insta Hun influencer.

From the lofty heights she has spectacularly fallen. It’s beyond embarrassing.

She really is merching the kids now. Or at least using them to bolster her “farm to table” lifestyle rubbish.

I agree that it’s not the worst thing in the world, but it must be one of the sharpest descents in the world.

The French had all this b*llocks sorted in 1789. In Britain, we haven't moved very far. When a Royal person is, for example, 'helping' at a food bank, does the thought cross their mind that they are togged up in clothes worth the value of several hundred food parcels? If they do, how does that make them feel? Are they all donating money without us knowing about it?

Ok some wellness thing , offering a month free you say ?
just like Harry then! 🙄

a simple explanation, Sarah is divorced , her ex husband is as close to excommunicated that his sadly overly sensitive brother can manage .
she is and remains a figure of ridicule.
are you comparing Meghan , a still married woman, whom you obviously like , otherwise why defend her!
to Sarah Ferguson? Because I can assure you that you are doing no favours to Meghan in that case!
The agreement is simply no using titles for monetary gain.
and I don’t believe Sarah ever had to sign an agreement so only Harry and Meghan are breaking that particular contract.

and finally the so and so did it defence didn’t work at school and definitely doesn’t work here!

None left, that's why. All sold out 😉

I wonder if they're dancing in the streets of South Africa at the thought of her pancake mix?

We’ve had Zara Tindall, Peter Phillips, Sarah Ferguson, who next? David Linley for selling his own furniture?

Yes. With all those trading on their royal connections, there is absolutely no problem with Meghan doing the same.

Before they did this, did they merchandise the privacy of the RF and many and varied accusations against them?

So, Supporters, what is your view on Meghan featuring Archie and Lilibet on her selling page?

It's literally not the same at all but that doesn't suit your narrative.