Ham pr disasters 48! …a masterclass in grief grifting…

[jeffgoldblum]

Still interested, still not bored….a small request please 🙏…can we try to keep criticism to actions and behaviour and rather than getting personal.😁

Which instructions from KC are they disregarding? I don't think KC can instruct two people in their 40s what they can and cannot do, but he can clarify that what they are doing has nothing to do with him and they are simply private citizens with commercial and charitable interests.

Nobody believes they any of their activities are anything to do with representing the King.

How do they have the half-in/half-out they wanted when they do not represent the King and they are not working royals?

Anyone can do charity work. That's nothing to do with being royal. Even various non-working royals (e.g. Beatrice and Eugenie, Freddie Windsor, probably loads more of them) do charity work, but no one thinks this makes them a half-in/half-out working royal who represents the King.

It's actually odd, thinking about it now, that they jumped so quickly into trying to be working royals. I'm sure they insisted on it and Harry was trying to make Meghan a new Diana.

As far as H goes rumour has it he had a tendency to be, errr, lazy during his forces days and needed lots of direction at times..

I suspect once the Army said "thanks for your service but no thanks" rather than pulling a finger out and trying something close to a proper job he defaulted to the easiest option available to him: sitting around all day being a Prince....

Exactly, they can't have a "rival court" because they aren't working Royals.

Historically the only rival courts have been eg. English v French v Scotland etc.

It kind of might have happened with Henry 8 & Catherine of Aragon for a time, but we all know how that ended. See also Edward & Wallis. To be a "Court" you have to be a Royal, and the Monarch will always come out on top.

What exactly would the Court of H&M bestow on those who attend it? What favours can it grant? What soft diplomacy will it confer, what power behind the Throne does it wield?

Just because the media may treat the BRF as celeb adjacent in recent years, that's not the point of them. They are a part of our Democracy and the power of the Court of St James is all related to that fundamentally. So what exactly do H&M offer to the rest of the World that the Court of St James doesn't?

And by the rest of the World, I'm talking about those in power that matter, not just random celebs who are out for a few headlines.

So, all the jam profits are going to charity. Thats 100% of naff all then.

Hate to say it but now the mail has challenged on this as well as how Paul dacre and DM journalists conducted themselves against a high profile mob (and winning the ANL case on all 94/97 allegations) is earning them renewed respect from me.

I know am prepared to be slated!!

Especially as she doesn't actually sell jam. She sells 'spread'. Or tries to sell it at least.

All I can say is that cousin George’s wife puts far too much information out on Instagram and I hope she rethinks what she is posting about her house and her children.

Just because the media may treat the BRF as celeb adjacent in recent years, that's not the point of them. They are a part of our Democracy and the power of the Court of St James is all related to that fundamentally. So what exactly do H&M offer to the rest of the World that the Court of St James doesn't?

This is the bit that H&M don't realise, I think - that the glitz and the glamour is part of the political and social system. It's not there as a boost to their social lives and bank balance.

MM made no effort to work out how the RF worked (if that's because as V Low claims, they always intended to leave) and Harry probably never did.

That’s quite a brazen statement about the public engagements - a royal template and covered by the media. Maybe this is the iron fist in the velvet glove punching back at KC3 public letter stating their limitations.

I agree that they will continue this farce - there are enough desperate charities who’s coffers and profile will be instantly boosted by H&M involvement even if the press coverage of H&M themselves is critical the charity gets the profile boost. And of course the media gets the cash through clicks and we get the rib-tickling belly laughs daily with the ridicule provided free by H&M.

Still can’t see how this translates to a revenue stream for them personally - unless they are funded behind the scenes by bad actor disrupters? They are always ‘useful idiots’ for someone - OW was the first shark to sniff them out.

I find it interesting that the DM are actually acknowledging that there is a Squad, at last, and making the Squad part of the HAM story now.

They probably did some research into the squad (or came across them) while preparing for the court case.

Even if the deal was for $100 million, surely that wasn't money in their pockets (minus tax) but would also include production costs to make the shows, pay the production staff, rent the fake dream home that the shows were filmed in, etc. And that would be for a number of different shows to be produced over a number of years, with all sorts of terms and conditions in the contract, e.g. a new show would only be funded subject to reaching certain viewing figures for previous shows or subject to certain costing or content requirements. The deal was with Archewell Productions, not Harry and Meghan.

Having said that, I do think HAM have a lot of money and a lot of assets and investments (mostly from his inheritances). I don't think they're broke by any means, as some people believe. I do, however, believe they are unsuccessful in their commercial efforts because they have no talent and nothing interesting to say. They also act like entitled grifters and end up angering their business partners.

I actually think charities need to careful now . If they are going for a sprinkle of ( real )Royal stardust then associating with HaM will do them no favours .

I think there is something in the look at how good we are at Royaling around - we can add depth and glmaour - gizz us a job ….. but my take is that MM is trying to get PH and the kids rehabilitated back under the royal glow, maybe back into the family maybe back into working royal - but she won’t be doing that - also think she is realistic that she’s persona non grata in the RF (announced she felt ‘humiliated and sidelined’ after meeting with C&C 🙄) but she is intent to ensconcing PH back into whatever level of royal status is sufficient to line her pockets for the rest of her life.

She’s not staying here. She wasnt from day one in 2016. PH once immersed here won’t want to leave. That will suit MM down to the ground - she gets to drop him off out of her hair but she needs him to ‘royal’ for her post divorce benefit. Same as Fergie - she milked the royal connection for ever as a divorcee - MMs not going to cut off that revenue opportunity - so she needs to put her useful idiot clockwork prince back in his kingdom wind him up and let him do his thing whilst she goes off to grasp and grift in LA. It’s not ‘if’ it’s ‘when’

"That’s quite a brazen statement about the public engagements - a royal template and covered by the media."

The statement is from the media, not from Harry and Meghan. The media drives most of this nonsense. They could just stop covering them so obsessively.

That's why I think they would have been better staying in California, where they were the closest you could get to 'royal'.

But back in England they're competing with genuine working royals, and organisations will be wary of being associated with them for the reasons you state. Why work with bargain basement royals when you might aspire to the real thing?

It’s an ‘As ever’ grift with Malala in the centre …

https://www.geo.tv/latest/686016-meghan-markle-announces-meaningful-collab-with-malala-in-new-statement

Even if the deal was for $100 million, surely that wasn't money in their pockets (minus tax) but would also include production costs to make the shows, pay the production staff, rent the fake dream home that the shows were filmed in, etc. And that would be for a number of different shows to be produced over a number of years, with all sorts of terms and conditions in the contract, e.g. a new show would only be funded subject to reaching certain viewing figures for previous shows or subject to certain costing or content requirements. The deal was with Archewell Productions, not Harry and Meghan.

Yes, the idea that Netflix wrote a cheque for '$100 million, to the account of Harry & Meghan' is ridiculous. I'm sure they'll have earned a fair bit from the NF deal, despite their failure to produce, but it won't have been anything close to that amount.

I don't think they're broke by any means, as some people believe.

I guess there are different levels of 'broke'. Certainly they're rich by normal person standards, but they were the poor neighbours in Montecito. Also, Harry is going to have massive legal bills, both from the failed judicial review and the ANL case. And other than inheritances and investments, it's hard to see where any income is going to come from in the future.

Something must have prompted the Great Return. It may not be money, but I'm sure it featured on some level.

Malala’s face in that photo 🥴

Exactly. They are private citizens and they are going about doing what they want to do and if its meeting people or being patrons or other things they are doing it in the capacity of privatepeople. As any of us could do as well. We just wouldn't make the news that's all.

I think they’re hoping for a full return to royal duties along with whatever stipend / allowance that brings.

Whatever working royals get is supposed to cover the expenses of being a working royal. Most of it will probably go on staff salaries, plus travel, wardrobe etc. It's not money in their pockets.

She looks ok. When she was a girl she had a lot of surgery.

I think they will have known about the Sussex Squad phenomenon long before that. I can't see how they could have missed it.

Good point. the bile directed at people including the recent one against the priest makes me hope that journalists go further to uncover who these individuals are, why should they remain anonymous. Though I guess it would be potentially difficult to do so they would still be legally entitled to their own privacy. Unless it was a criminal matter, or if they were out of UK jurisdiction ...