The reviews are coming in for Meghan's podcast 'Confessions of a Female Founder'ions of a

[LaBarruci]

Not listened to the first in Meghan's podcast series, a conversation with the founder of Bumble, Whitney Wolfe Heard, but the Mail has collated all the press reviews so far, with links. The Guardian, Telegraph and i-Paper are unanimous: the podcast is cloyingly dreadful.

The reviews for Meghan Markle's latest podcast are in! Two stars for Confessions of a Female Founder https://mol.im/a/14584193 via https://dailym.ai/android

I think Meghan has always hoped for the fame and admiration that Princess Diana received, but sadly she has a celebrity mentality. After she left the royal family and burned all her bridges, called them racist, disowned her family, and mocked the queen, she was toast.

They're both realising that fame and money might come for a short period based on their names and connections, but that well dries up really quickly.

She definitely has the ambition, but I don't think she has the business acumen to see things through and listen to feedback. But really who wants to buy overpriced, generic jam from someone who was a royal for five minutes, who then spent the next five years just trashing the only thing that gave her 'purpose'.

Looks like a Guardian wonk didn’t get the memo—unless the two journos are just having a laugh and chasing clicks. Both the haters and the fans are inflating the brand, whether they mean to or not. I’m sure that’s not the intention for some on here, but The Mail and company would always rather run a hate-Meghan piece that gets massive traction than something like William visiting a homeless charity—which usually sinks unread halfway down the page.

Harry’s really crime is trashing the U.K. and then swanning off to the US to live his truth and expecting us to still pay for him. He is so spoilt and entitled. He was the most popular member of the royal family until he (and his snotty wife) showed how little they value the people, culture and traditions of the U.K.

I find it genuinely offensive that they accused the U.K. of being a country of racists, colonialist bullies and yet still want money from the British tax payer and the merchandise their U.K. titles. And Meghan’s cack handed American faux British produce is an insult to British food culture. If we are so evil and awful, why don’t they just stop pushing their British associations?

That’s right, because they are only at all influential because of their connections to the British royal family.

Without Britain and the British people he would be an ex-squaddie too thick to progress in the army and she would be a washed-up former soap actress without a job. But apparently we are all evil (except when it comes to supplying titles and paying their security bills).

He ISNT a high profile member of the Royal family anne is and she doesn't get 24/7 security

I have never even heard of the woman founder she is interviewing and yet this is how she introduces her LOL

"we’ve never actually talked extensively about everything that happened with you and your career trajectory, and a lot of it is like, covered ground, so I don’t need us to go through it all…’ "

Looks like the well worn path of Meghan massaging her own ego and getting her friends to row in.

There is a separate thread about the security case.

Although I doubt enough people have listened to the podcast to fill this thread. I came even be bothered to hate listen.

The Mail is a horrible newspaper, I’ll give
you that. Many UK people think so. But the Guardian review, for one example, isn’t full of ‘bile’, it’s just critical. And it’s the US population who voted for Trump, and who have plenty of tabloids to rival the Mail (ever read Page Six?) so yeah, pretending the UK has some unique issue is just total rubbish. Harry and Meghan are annoying, at best - the credible bullying allegations against her from multiple sources suggest it’s actually a lot worse than annoying. And if they are going to continually throw themselves into the public eye, people are allowed to be critical.

And for goodness sake, people aren’t talking about Andrew because he isn’t doing anything right now. There has been plenty of discussion about him, there were two dramatisations of his disastrous newsnight interview last year. He does not have public support. But the general public and media don’t have any control to put him in front of the FBI - they do have the control to review podcasts and tv shows.

I am wasting my time though because you all know this already, but it’s the only attack line you have. You know there are multiple sources that have nothing to do with the palace calling Meghan a bully, and now Harry with the Sentable issue (getting quite hard for you guys to pretend you care so much about racism and misogyny with the way you’ve gone after Dr Sophie, isn’t it?) and I bet if you really admitted it deep down, you know that Meghan doesn’t really seem to have a head for business - even with all her money and support, there have been multiple errors along the way. And I am pretty tired of hearing from her how she and Harry have to do all their ‘work’ (presumably sitting in meetings with other people who actually do the bulk of everything) whilst parenting too - as if there are millions of working parents out there without 1/100th of the resources they have.

So yeah, turns out there is actually quite a lot to dislike that has nothing at all to do with them leaving the royal family, and everything to do with them being rude, entitled and constantly in our faces.

Someone who had a global platform and unlimited opportunities handed to her on a golden platter (purely because of who she married) who managed to mess it up and become a laughing stock resorting to shilling commission links on social media having a podcast about female founders is crazy.

I’m not arguing that Harry and Meghan are flawless, or that people aren’t allowed to criticise them — of course they are. But there’s a real difference between fair criticism and the obsessive, often unhinged level of coverage they get (St Justine et al) especially compared to other royals. That’s what I find frustrating.

Sure, they’re public figures, but they’re not the only ones. And yet somehow they attract ten times the outrage. I mean, Andrew did far worse and yes, there was backlash — but the fact is, the tabloids aren’t running daily hit pieces about him, are they? No one’s frothing in the comments over how often he breathes or whether his PR team got something wrong. That kind of energy just isn’t there in the same way.

As for the bullying claims — they should absolutely be taken seriously. But it's hard to ignore how quickly they were seized on by the press, especially when the so-called “multiple sources” all came from within an institution that clearly wasn’t thrilled about Meghan in the first place. That doesn’t mean she’s innocent, but it does mean we should probably apply the same scrutiny to the people making the accusations.

And on the “they’re always in our faces” line — let’s be honest, a lot of this media saturation is driven by the people complaining. If every podcast or article sparks 200 angry comments and 15 new threads, of course it’s going to keep going. It’s a feedback loop. If people genuinely ignored them, they’d fade out of the headlines pretty fast.

Look, I don’t think they’re perfect, and no, Meghan doesn’t seem like a natural business genius. But the gleeful tone some people take when discussing every misstep she makes is telling. And if we’re going to criticise them for being out of touch or entitled, fine — but let’s not pretend it’s just about their “work ethic” or PR. There’s clearly more going on under the surface in how people react to them versus others.

This a million times. She is going hard now at a narrative that she had a disadvantaged childhood (conveniently leaving our her dad, her expensive private schooling and her even more expensive university education) as though she became a female founder by working her way to the top.

It’s so weirdly disingenuous.

Well said.🎯🎯

Unfortunately, pre-eclampsia isn't that rare. It affects between 2-8% of pregnancies, and it can be life-threatening, especially if it develops into eclampsia.

There are varying degrees of it though: having your BP rise slightly and some (+) proteinuria, and degree of oedema does indicate ?developing PET, but doesn't require medication, just close observation. (I had this in my last week of pregnancy, and I was induced, but I was twins at 39+ wks so was getting induced anyway).

I've seen some SS claim she developed PET after delivery which is less common, or "rare" as they are saying. It's not really, it's a known risk until 6wks post delivery (when I've seen it, it most often happened within 48hrs of delivery).

She must have developed it with Lili's pregnancy because Harry never mentioned it in Spare, and if she was unwell with it during Archie's labour she would have been on medication (used to be Mag Sulph 20yrs ago when I was still working as a midwife) during labour, and wouldn't have been discharged within 2hrs, she would have been readmitted for monitoring if she developed it at home and was unwell. It's not as common in subsequent pregnancies, but she was older and your risk of PET increases with age.

So much hyperbole 😁

I don’t mind my taxes paying to keep him and his family safe from nutters and terrorists.

which they do already, assessed on a visit by visit basis with notice. But he doesn’t want that, wants them at his beck and call. What a spoiled brat.

the podcast sounds shite so I won’t be listening. And if she had a serious medical issue around pregnancy they’d have sold mentioned it long before now. Pair of shysters.

@vera99 I'm sorry, I've missed where Andrew has just released a NF series, with another on the way, a brand new podcast, a shopping by commission link, a line of spread, honey and teas, given an interview with Drew Barrymore and People and almost daily IG updates on all of the above. Or is currently suing the HO and has so far cost the taxpayer 600k+ , or where his flagship charity has been referred to the Charity Commission and been accused by the Chair of bullying.

Can you point out where Andrew has done anything like that in the past 4wks?

If you can't - what's the point of bringing him up, or is he just being used as a dead cat? Again.

H&M deliberately put themselves in the public eye in a commercial light, and we as consumers have every right to critique the products, especially when they are using their Royal titles to attract attention.

They are being treated like any other celebrity with something to sell.

I do have to laugh when their supporters claim it is 'others' who are driving the interest in them.

They have a massive internal and external Public Relations team, who have offices on both sides of The Pond, they personally are feeding the media machine minute by minute, we know this thanks to a blunder by People magazine who accidentally outed Harry as being one of their 'sources'.

We know from the Sentebale chair that they demand their contacts / friends to connect with media to quieten any online criticism of them.

Harry and Meghan are the ringmasters of their own media circus.

@MrsFinkelstein Fair point re: H&M putting themselves out there commercially—critique comes with the territory, absolutely. I think when people bring up Andrew, it's not necessarily to say he’s doing the same things, but more to question how differently the criticism plays out. It feels like the outrage isn’t always consistent.

Not saying H&M are above critique (some of their stuff is definitely eye-roll territory), but sometimes the level of fuss feels... disproportionate? Just worth thinking about maybe.

Maybe MNHQ should consider forking off this sub-forum—one for the Royal Family in general, and a parallel one just for Harry & Meghan. At the moment, it feels like 90% of the so-called Royal Family board is actually just the H&M board by default.

Meanwhile, the King is on a state visit to Italy, representing the UK on the world stage and there’s plenty to discuss—whether it’s the soft power at play, the symbolism of him addressing the Italian Parliament, or just how smoothly the whole visit seems to be going. But there's barely a whisper. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

It does make you wonder what people are actually here to discuss—the Royal Family as an institution, or just two people they love to hate.

It’s a Mumsnet forum, it’s not that deep

Trichoteuring it is then if that is indeed a word !

There are varying degrees of it though: having your BP rise slightly and some (+) proteinuria, and degree of oedema does indicate ?developing PET, but doesn't require medication, just close observation. (I had this in my last week of pregnancy, and I was induced, but I was twins at 39+ wks so was getting induced anyway).

A very common narcissist move is to exaggerate physical ailments or medical emergencies for sympathy and to emotionally manipulate people to be "on their side". Especially for conditions where nobody can prove how serious or non-serious it is. It's fair to say that a huge number of women, probably the majority I would say, have had some issue in pregnancy or birth that could be classed as very serious or potentially life-threatening (emphasis on potentially). Gestational diabetes could "potentially" be very serious, along with blood pressure, clotting issues, viruses caught during pregnancy etc. So most women could pick out some detail with their pregnancy that they can spin into a more dramatic tale if they really wanted to.

We know for sure she wasn't in acute danger after the birth of both children otherwise it would have been mentioned in all the books, documentaries or interviews already. She had a miscarriage in between (sad but far from uncommon) which was already used as media fodder. However now that a new headline is needed in order to promote a new podcast, she needs to dig for something else that could fit the bill. This is the same narcissist who saved up news about the death of her dog for 4 months in order to take away media attention from someone she hates. So everything to be taken with a grain of salt.

Great post Vera99. 👏

I also don’t understand the posters on here saying she trashed the UK and take the fact that she wanted to leave as a personal affront!

I don’t go in for all of that jingoistic nonsense! Just because she didn’t enjoy her individual experience at the Palace, doesn’t mean she has rejected every British person!

In the first place, living abroad is no picnic, even without a language issue. Secondly, the British tabloids are particularly vile. And thirdly, in other areas of Mumsnet, a woman would be applauded for being a confident, assertive, self-starter, who knows her own mind, for setting boundaries with the in-laws, and for taking her own happiness and that of her children seriously.

If you take the word “royal” out of the equation, if Meghan had posted on Mumsnet that she had started a new job in a company run by a dysfunctional family, where the main players had competing offices and egos, where she was required to dress modestly and and behave in a certain rigid way, where they all have to observe ridiculously antiquated rules, and the managers were overwhelmingly white in make up and outlook, and the firm promulgated values which had one set of rules for men, and another set for women, then we would all be shouting “run for the hills”! 😄

I don’t see any posts here, or in the other threads, criticising them for leaving. I do see people pointing out that the story about leaving changes constantly (basically they only started crying victim status once their half in/half out demand was rejected - they wanted to stay before that so it can’t have been too terrible!). But you know that already.

I am annoyed with myself now for going along with these derailing attempts. This thread is about the podcast. I understand you all get dispatched to do damage control, but it’s so boring - at least get some new material.

If she was just herself I'm sure she'd have been able to maintain a following, as is she's released all sorts of random crap that doesn't seem to align to her chilled out Cali personality we were told she had before becoming a royal. Invariably someone trying to be something they're not (especially when they don't need to as I'm sure they're interesting enough as they are) comes across as inauthentic and generally draws more criticism. Her style before meeting Harry was really lovely and I'm sure she'd have much more success if she'd have carried on in the lines of her original Tig blog.