Sentebale #5

[glitterturd]

As I finished the last one.

I actually think the sloppiness arises from simple incompetence. Neither of them are qualified to be spokespeople on public political, social or global issues; neither of them knows anything about entrepreneurialism, marketing and PR; neither of them knows anything about media content production.

The only reason that the media breathlessly reports on Harry or Meghan's every gormless pronouncement or incompetent activity is because Harry has an elevated status due to an accident of birth and Meghan has an elevated status because she married Harry. And to be clear, if Kate and William were suddenly stripped of all their advisory infrastructure, I'm sure they'd prove to be almost as incompetent at getting stuff done (not equally incompetent because, let's face it, H&M have a rare and special sort of reverse Midas touch, in that everything they touch turns to shit).

But the difference is, William and Kate clearly understand what Royalty is all about. K&W know there's nothing particularly special about them as individuals; they are fortunate enough to be representing something much greater, something that isn't just a thing in itself but a constant act of dialogue with and permission-seeking from the general public. That's what royalty is really and that's why it is indeed accurate to think of it as a service rather than a status.

Harry clearly never grasped this; I'm sure plenty of people tried to teach him but, as Spare shows, he has the strange arrogance occasionally found in people who are hard of thinking, but refuse to be taught. Poor old Harry is dumb enough to think he's special in himself, and he's infected Meghan with that belief too. Therefore everything they do, no matter how sloppy, ill-researched and ham-fisted in execution, must be perfect.

The problem is that that belief repeatedly fails to survive direct contact with the real world.

Fails to survive contact with the real world

Yes!

I agree that William and Catherine may struggle too, and I agree that the difference is that they have the humility to realise that it's their status, not themselves, that gives them a platform. I remember reading that Catherine impressed everyone when she joined the family by being willing to listen and learn.

I think that's the point, @GiveMeSpanakopita and @MrsLeonFarrell . Harry and Meghan were very much welcomed and people would have cut them a lot of slack. They had the most amazing life opportunities that most people could only dream of. I think their lack of self reflection is really their undoing.

@GiveMeSpanakopitaspot on - simple incompetence combined with arrogance and misguided self belief that makes them feel qualified to position themselves as leaders in all sorts of areas in which they have absolutely no experience or credibility to do so.

Harry inherited this from his time in the RF, but he was obviously either not told, or he chose not to listen, that these positions granted to him of charity “founder”, patron of a cause or military ranks far beyond what he achieved on his own merit are honorary only and based only on his role in the RF, not on him personally.

instead he seems to believe that these titles actually meant something, and that somehow he’s as much a CEO or global leader qualified to speak on a wide range of topics as someone who has years of genuine graft or business experience in that area - it’s staggering really.

Harry has a global platform through an accident of birth, and Meghan because she’s pretty, and she married him. In the real world, Harry would struggle to hold down a low level office job through his own capabilities. But he and his wife are jackbooting around the world as if they are serious leaders and entrepreneurs, and hence we have this pantomime playing out - it’s like watching a car crash in slow motion.

They do think they're "leaders" don't they?

Love the reverse Midas Touch! Describes their efforts in a nutshell.

"Reverse Midas Touch" so true!

@elessar

Harry inherited this from his time in the RF, but he was obviously either not told, or he chose not to listen, that these positions granted to him of charity “founder”, patron of a cause or military ranks far beyond what he achieved on his own merit are honorary only and based only on his role in the RF, not on him personally.

True..and of course in many cases the Royal patron may take a quiet interest and if invited to a charity event reads/listens to a brief. During the visit itself they'll show polite enthuthiasm and interest, what they generally don't do is leave their fingerprints all over proceedings..

The result of that is whilst many here will recognise straight away that RSPB = Birds or NSPCC = Children, many won't know who the Royal Patrons are.

OTOH play word Association Football with "Invictus" or "Archewell' and you'll get "oh that's Harry and Meghan's charity."

Now I'm sure the advertising types think that's great for brand recognition but I'm not sure that's a good thing at all if the brand is attached in peoples' minds to patrons who are becoming increasingly controversial.

The attention they get has its roots in their royal background but all the noise around them now is at least also partly fueled by the fact that they are 'naughty'. They are impulsive and childish and don't behave how royals are expected to. Which does, of course, loop back to royalty as the foundation for their public profile and not because they're special in themselves but certainly their actions are playing a part in how this is being broadcast to the world.

As a matter of interest, how many charities have Harry as their patron? Princess Anne seems to manage quietly to support three hundred or so without all the flapdoodle and self-advertisement which goes into Harry's every appearance that is anything to do with a charity.

From his Office

https://sussex.com/prince-harry-duke-of-sussex/

That's because her charities never about Anne.
Conversely, his charities are all about Harry (and Meghan).

I wouldn't say it's a number - Wellchild, African Parks? It's mixed up with things he gets monetary reward for.

Anne once said that she didn’t offer her thoughts or advice to Save the Children for years as she was taking time to learn the ropes .
A friend of a friend met Camilla through her work with a Refuge and was bowled over by C’s knowledge, compassion and the fact she listened .

I can't see Harry mentioned on African parks. What did strike me was the sheer number of names of people who support these initiatives in an unknown capacity apart from on this list here. People who donate and support quietly .

https://www.africanparks.org/about-us/our-partners

Also these charities have changed as years gone by. It's less about the white prince who makes the occasional visit but more about local knowledge and accountability.

Years ago, when I was working in a PR role in the insurance sector, I commissioned a freelancer to write an article on death and disgrace insurance in the wake of Hugh Grant being caught out with Divine Brown on Sunset Boulevard. If Sophie is very sharp and bought a policy when she first became chair, Harry could be in line to become the first royal to cause such a policy being invoked if the CC investigation finds against him. He's the patron that keeps on giving 😊 (I doubt Sentebale does have this cover

Did you watch the documentary about Camilla and domestic violence charities? In one scene, she sat down with a lady who staying at a refuge. She handled the situation so sensitively.

Yes, I mean the fundamental speciousness of H&M's brand of 'activism' was really brought home to me in 2018 when H&M, W&K appeared as a foursome for the Royal Foundation. Apart from the excruciatingly obvious froideur between the two couples, I still involuntarily cringe when I recall Meghan's answer to a question about women's equality:

"You'll often hear people say, 'you're helping women find their voices'. I fundamentally disagree with that because women don't need to find a voice: they have a voice. They need to feel empowered to use it and people need to be encouraged to listen."

shudders

It's all there:

• the arrogant assumption that she's saying something new and controversial and brave, when it's the blandest of bland vanilla flavours;
• the tendency to talk in wealthy-SoCal-professional-gal cliches
• the sheer first world deafness of it: no, Meghan, lots of women don't have voices or platforms. Afghanistan, DR Congo, Iran, Saudi, Somalia, Libya, Sudan - believe me women in these countries are not worried because no one's asked them if they're OK yet, they're worried about surviving and trying to avoid rape, violence and neglect on a daily basis
• the total lack of practical solutions offered.

Meghan is the Queen of Luxury Radicalism - the sort of misguided and cossetted political consciousness that, as PPs have said, causes wealthy westerners to put Palestinian flags in their windows when they'd run screaming after one hour of serving in the IDF, or being used as a human shield by Hamas. The sort of people who loudly proclaimed themselves Corbynites in their plummy accents in 2017, but then quietly voted elsewhere in the booth because, well, can't risk losing our property portfolio can we dahhhling.

Of course the Overton Window's shifted a LOT in the past 3 years and I suspect that Meghan will very soon find herself a queen without subjects.

Oh yes and she also wrote a poem on a BANANA and gave it to a SEX TRAFFICKED WOMAN and...honestly? No words to express my contempt, because in what sort of society does giving a phallus shaped, doggerel-inscribed piece of fruit to a victim of ongoing sexual abuse count as philanthropy? A very superficial one, to put it lightly.

Did you know said bananas had to be discarded!
she impromptu used a sharpie which obviously permeated the skin causing the bananas to be unfit for human consumption.

I just absolutely cringed when she spoke about women’s voices at that Heads Together event. Just grandstanding and making everything about her own opinions again.

Meghan is the Queen of Luxury Radicalism - the sort of misguided and cossetted political consciousness that, as PPs have said, causes wealthy westerners to put Palestinian flags in their windows when they'd run screaming after one hour of serving in the IDF, or being used as a human shield by Hamas. The sort of people who loudly proclaimed themselves Corbynites in their plummy accents in 2017, but then quietly voted elsewhere in the booth because, well, can't risk losing our property portfolio can we dahhhling

So very true, @GiveMeSpanakopita, and another thing they have in common is that such people don't tend to appreciate being told that maybe this isn't a good look

Fortunately - for themselves at least - many have other skills which can carry them through, but with H&M we've yet to see any

@GiveMeSpanakopita the "Queen of luxury radicalism" is such an excellent point. Privileged wealthy people who just spout aphorisms. It's just so tedious.

As well as incompetent, I think they're lazy and impetuous too. They won't devote time to anything to give themselves at least half a chance of making a decent fist of it. I don't think there's a day's work in either of them!

Quite! No notion of applying themselves to anything. It's just about image.