PR Disasters Chapter 15

[FenellaFeldman]

The saga continues

Interesting.

Meghan’s spokesperson told Newsweek “…By obscuring their faces, she is demonstrating the very principles she advocates for: giving children privacy, agency and protection in an increasingly digital world”

That’s objectively ridiculous though. Meghan is exposing her children's clothes, interests (eg surfing, skiing, playing board games), activities, voices and interactions to the wider world. She’s also shown their faces before, and even this year we’ve seen most of Lilibet’s face. That’s not privacy. And young children have absolutely no agency to say “No mummy I’d rather not be filmed” or “No, not another take, please” let alone “No, please don’t put my photo on the internet”..

You would think that with MM being the most trolled person in the world, that she wouldn’t put any photos of her children on social media an all, to protect them from the same. 🙄

Plus of course we have seen Archie in the bath.

I know far more about the Sussex children than I do about the Wales children.

That's very interesting about the California laws around using children in Social Media. Obscuring the face does not mean the child has privacy. I think it creates interest in the child - it is almost like teasing the public. And how much agency do those children have?! Saddled with those titles and kept away from 'the dangerous UK'.... They could have had an incredibly privileged upbringing but instead are growing up in what looks like a strange bubble.

Interesting.

Link to California Bill 764

The definition of a minor engaged in vlogging is in section 6651. I don't see any obvious loophole there. It includes use of the name, and being the subject of the narrative.

6651.
A minor is considered engaged in the work of vlogging when the following are met at any time during a given month:
(a) (1) At least 30 percent of the vlogger’s compensated video content or the vlogger’s compensated image content includes the likeness, name, or photograph of the minor.
(2) The percentage pursuant to paragraph (1) is measured by the amount of time the likeness, name, or photograph of the minor visually appears or is the subject of an oral narrative in a video segment, as compared to the total length of the segment.
(b) The number of views received per image or video segment on any online platform met the online platform’s threshold for compensation or the vlogger received actual compensation for image or video content equal to or greater than ten cents ($0.10) per view.
(c) The vlogger received actual compensation for image or video content of at least one thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($1,250) in the month.

Section 6652 details all the documentation which must be kept by the vlogger for the minor (to be available when they request it in the future). Part (f) is where it mandates 65% of the minor's earnings are to be put into a trust. Section 6653 then details how the trust is to be set up.

6652.
All vloggers whose content features a minor engaged in the work of vlogging, as described in subdivision (a) of Section 6651, shall maintain, and make available to the minor upon request, all of the following records:
.....
(f) The amount deposited for the reporting period into the trust account for the benefit of the minor engaged in vlogging pursuant to Section 6653. This amount shall be calculated by multiplying the percentage of total minutes in subdivision (c) in which the minor is featured in subdivision (d) by the total compensation in subdivision (e) multiplied by .65.

The Highgrove receipts apparently devolve to The King's Foundation part of whose remit is the care of ...the Highgrove gardens.

Handily this places C3 out of the firing line when it comes to paying his gardeners a pittance while apparently allowing him the freedom to demand they remove weeds in his personal garden spaces.

No, I don't know how that works either...

The BP fees go towards maintaining the Royal Collection which is held in right of the crown for the nation and for the successors of the monarch (who would walk off with the pretties in the event we became a republic I wonder?) which is an entire can of obscure worms in its own right.

Smoke and mirrors indeed.

Apropos of absolutely nothing , my son came to visit last weekend and played some Dire Straights.

Never was a huge fan of DS generally but 'Romeo and Juliet' is one of my favourite songs of all time.

Lots of great analogies for the Harolds in that one. Off the top of my head:

'Rachel, the dice were loaded from the start'

'Oh, Harold yeah you know I used to have a scene with him'

I could probably go on 😂

And now I've got to youtube it 😁

I’ve just been listening to Kinsey Schofield.
I came to these threads at about thread 9 so I’m not sure if this has been covered before but does anybody know why the Invictus games cost so much?
According to Kinsey & her guest the games have been promised £29 million by our Uk government -so us. It seems that Invictus has to raise an equivalent ammount via fundraising/donations.
They currently hve £4 million.
Deloitte who (I thought)jumped in the Boeing sized hole are giving their time/expertise but no actual cash.
I have seen speculation that H&Ms ‘expenses’ are paid from the expected £65 million cost -but it seems we the taxpayer will be picking the security costs up and after bragging about his head count of Muslims in Spare the security is expected to be high alert.
I heard Kinsey say that there were 540 competitors in the last games - some countries have their own Warrior games apparently which come in at vastly reduced costs . Invictus is £65 million for 540 competitors who they don’t even cover the travel lenses for!!
So where is the money going? How can it cost this much? It works out at £120,370 per person!! If I was a competitor I would prefer the cash frankly.

It seems the American & Australian ‘Warrior games’ cost so much less.
Will it even go ahead if it’s only got £4million in the bank?

"You promised me everything, you promised me thick (Harry) and thin (Meghan)"

We have already paid some £26m (where did that go?) just to lure them to a bankrupt city a while back.

Empty stadiums testify they're not even a loss leader.

We're being taken for royal mugs. As ever.

Look for the videos by Rachel the Curious Pilot on YouTube. She does a financial deep dive into Invictus.

I wish an investigative journalist would do the story on it. It’s all very grubby.

That is GENIUS!

“oh you know that Vitello, I used to have a thing with him” 😂

Now this is very interesting!

LOL - postcards of William and Catherine sell out. Harry not so much.
I think this newsagent is probably in Bourton on the Water, a popular Cotswold tourist destination, anyway one of the cards has BoW on it. The cards with Harry on have obviously been hanging around unsold for a long time, they look a bit dog eared and warped.
Though to be fair to the tourists, he looks so different then that any foreigner not invested in the Royal family probably doesn’t even recognise him.

She just can't help herself, can she?

I'm entirely convinced that she spends all day Googling herself and trawling Reddit and social media to find out what random strangers are saying about her. Never have I known of anyone so desperate to clap back at the silliest little thing.

And I didn't read all that rambling article, but no, obscuring the kids' faces does not cancel out the fact that she is enthusiastically sharing their images on social media. The vast majority of celebrities don't share their children at all, sometimes not even basic information like names or gender. There's absolutely no reason for Meghan to share photos of her children, backs to the camera or not. In doing so, she is inviting discussion and interest in them, whether or not she plonks an emoji over their faces. Surely someone who poses as an expert in social media's impact on children should be well aware of this?

The Sussexes and their " dream girl" Lilibet. My first thought? How sad that we never have seen them like this with Archie.

They are promoting her and they really shouldn't.

They may as well show her full face as it’s pretty clear now what she actually looks like. They certainly seem to favour her over Archie.

Indeed.

Poor Archie is the new Spare.

She must be up in the night to post this to hit the UK press in the morning 🙄

Was going to say the same on both counts. Anyone who is interested could easily work out what she looks like.

And she is obviously the Golden Girl. They're not even trying to hide it. Poor Archie.