PR Disasters….Part 8

[AtIusvue]

PR Disasters of the The Duke and Duchess of Sussex continued :

• So far we have Meg using charity events/sick children/vulnerable adults to merch her fashion, with the launch of her new fashion platform
• She will be appearing on MasterChef Australia
• Harry claiming to have had therapy when Archie was born, even though he never sought MH help for his ill wife a few short months earlier.

It seems that all photos of Meghan and Harry at Ted Sarandos Beef 2 party except for one have been removed from the Getty images of the event.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/895570/growing-mystery-meghan-markle-pictures-vanish-netflix/

We know he’s dim enough to fall for it. He’s like a trained dog.

Last Aussie tour 'i can't believe I am not being paid for this' now she will be thinking 'is this all I was paid for that' it is not even first class accommodation and travel 😂
Agree with pp that is barely going to cover a week's expenses in California. I imagine them grasping at stuff like the video of the raccoon whose candyfloss disappears in water, the panic and desperation. Only the raccoon is adorable.
Back of harrys head in hospital photo, not just bald but sweaty, clinging and straggly ick.

I had to click sensitive image to upload 🤷

😂

So many media outlets following the PR line that this was a win for H&M , which seems to be totally at odds with the views of the majority of the public (those that are interested anyway) and with what we know are the poor financials from their paid attendances.

No mystery, she looked terrible, not photoshopped enough, and the ridicule of her obvious desperation to be photographed in the company of Ted Sarandos.

I am still struggling to understand who authorised prioritising and then diverting scarce public healthcare and emergency services resources (paid for by the Australian taxpayer) including time, personnel, logistics, costs, disruption etc at both of these events where the sole beneficiary was H&M’s online clothes and accessories sales to bolster their personal pockets. How can public resources be allocated like this? The charities can make their own decisions based on their fundraising strategy etc - but I can’t see how a publicly funded hospital and emergency services can make this call and why?

I suspect that these articles are manufactured and contrived rage bait - just to get people agitated enough to click and contribute. The media outlets have no other agenda but to drive clicks and revenue and the media commercial landscape is so challenging.

It's not like the hospital are trying to get funding 🤷
Are they advertising Harry's old clothes 😂😂 probably no longer available, he never looks well turned out, not even new jeans (faded black) jackets look old.

I am genuinely curious about this: when M says she's invested in women all her life, what does she actually mean? How has she invested in women? Is this because she sees herself as a 'female founder'? It is such a strange thing to say.
And on the subject of BBC bias, I think it's been in plain sight during the last week. If they had the option to comment on their articles it would be interesting to see what those paying the license fee truly think.

That looks really interesting, Corblimeyguvnr - many thanks, and I'll have to add it to the watchlist

I am genuinely curious about this: when M says she's invested in women all her life, what does she actually mean? How has she invested in women?

Edited to add that one's easy, @Butteredtoast55 - didn't you know she'd altered a sexist advertising campaign by writing to Proctor & Gamble?
TBF you may have missed it though, what with her hardly mentioning it

I know i made this point on a Facebook page lauding her for her work on behalf of women. .
What has she actually done ? And the narrative of a lifetime of service on behalf of women and now it is time it is all about me me me !
My comments were not appreciated by her fans strangely enough but all the evidence they could produce was that she has invested in businesses run by women. Which doesn't seem a hugely noteworthy act of service but maybe I am missing something.

In both to me it looks like they're telling the child off, a child who wants to run off/not listen. It's how I would speak to ds when he was that age if he was doing something he shouldn't because he had glue ear and had at times very little hearing, so I had to get down to his level so he could read my lips and would put my hands on his so he knew he needed to concentrate.

Exactly - what has she actually done, and what have been the results?

Investors are capitalists who expect a return on their $$. The investor weighs up the risk vs the potential return. It's just a banal cog in the machine of an inherently exploitative market economy. If Meghan hasn't made a return on her money with the coffee women and the luxe basket weaving racket (and I'm guessing she hasn't because oh boy, wouldn't we have heard all about it if she'd made a few bucks), then maybe she should think about upping the usury-free lending, grant-giving or donations instead.

And she could make it transparent, for a change, by producing some detailed accounts. A bit of honesty wouldn't go amiss. Where does her commercial investment end and her 'philanthropy' begin? It's all so murky.

Or maybe she just doesn't know what words mean.

The fact that the BBC article couldn't even reference the correct website creates a lack of credible for their other conclusions.

I am genuinely curious about this: when M says she's invested in women all her life, what does she actually mean? How has she invested in women?

I don't think Meghan knows the difference between telling everyone what a great feminist she is and what a great supporter of women she is and actually doing something. It's like her assertion that she is a 'female founder,' on a par with tremendously successful businesswomen because she sold a few jars of jam then couldn't be bothered any more. She has a tenuous grip on reality and an inflated, and inaccurate, view of herself.

Meghan has only ever truly invested in Meghan.

I agree with this - the reason that some of Meghan's business decisions around As Ever don't make sense is that it's not geared around actually generating as much profit as possible, it's geared around creating and maintaining this image of Meghan as a successful, popular business woman. It's not about reality, it's about her self-perception, and controlling how other people see her.

What has she done ? How is she supporting this statement that "investing in women"? Angelina Jolie set up a foundation to support women in poverty. As have many other female celebrities. MM has the contacts/ finance to do the same but alas, it's hard work and commitment.

I watched a Megan supporter online say well look at all the good Megan does but she was stumped when asked to back it up.

All fur coat and no knickers.

I reckon the republicans at the BBC will be patting themselves on the back for effectively sticking it to The King and Prince William.

They should be treading carefully - they are about to get scorched again for the panorama interview by Earl Spencer who will be talking about it at a literary festival at Althorp. Now might be a good time for some humility and yes, deference.

https://x.com/cspencer1508/status/2045771884579397645?s=46

That is because Meghan, and her fans, mistake talk for action.

I’m a bit late to the convo as usual but my Dd lives in Bondi and has done for nearly 3 years. (She was also on the beach that awful day in December but thankfully unhurt). She tells me Bondi itself is quite a small place really so I was surprised when I asked her about H & M visiting and she said she hadn’t heard anyone mention it really.

Also - Meghan striding onto the stage accompanied by George Michael’s Freedom 😂. Subtle as a brick …

They're so stupid, they probably imagine that their promotion of H&M is supporting the republican side. However, they're just supporting royals who believe in the privilege and entitlement of royalty without the effort, responsibility and accountability. So very royal, then. It's really very foolish and naive, but surprises me not.

Funny 😂