Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing. They are selling themselves and their brand here. Grifting if you want to call it. But DAMNED they're so good at it - I would buy a piece of chalk if Meghan was holding it up in her hand.

Meanwhile the Cambridges appear in joint interviews, act and look as boring as toast, and can't even raise funds for good causes. That's the difference. Charisma.

Are they, though?

They're Young, Dumb, and Broke. And too old for that to be cute anymore.

They have a net worth and deals exceeding $150 million thanks to a single year. They are neither dumb nor broke.

The Netflix deal is rumored to be around $100m. It's also rumored to be on the skids. Will they have to repay the money they spent repaying the UK and purchasing their modest house? Probably not. But they'll probably have to downsize.

[Anonymous]

Sigh. Don't you M+H haters ever get tired?

First it was 'well they aren't getting married'.

Second it was 'she's not getting a title'.

Third it was 'they can't get pregnant'.

Fourth it was 'the marriage won't last three years'

Fifth it was 'they won't get a house from the Queen'.

Sixth it was 'well they'll just have to suffer'.

Seventh it was 'they can't afford a house/security/etc' on their own.

Eighth it was 'they're going to lose all their lawsuits'.

They keep proving you wrong at every turn. By 2025 this couple will be billionaires with 4 kids and homes in France, the U.K., the U.S. and Kenya and you'll still be screaming about they 'can't/won't'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sigh. Don't you M+H haters ever get tired?

First it was 'well they aren't getting married'.

Second it was 'she's not getting a title'.

Third it was 'they can't get pregnant'.

Fourth it was 'the marriage won't last three years'

Fifth it was 'they won't get a house from the Queen'.

Sixth it was 'well they'll just have to suffer'.

Seventh it was 'they can't afford a house/security/etc' on their own.

Eighth it was 'they're going to lose all their lawsuits'.

They keep proving you wrong at every turn. By 2025 this couple will be billionaires with 4 kids and homes in France, the U.K., the U.S. and Kenya and you'll still be screaming about they 'can't/won't'.

Okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Who's to say it's a tell all interview with Oprah. Oprah is a respected US voice. They're not going on TMZ. You're clearly British if you thing that the fact that they'll talk to Oprah is immediately a condemnation of them.

We Americans love, love, love her. And if they aim to live their public and private lives here, it's an excellent idea to have a conversation with a well-respected paragon of virtue in a public forum. Just so there are no further misunderstandings of their position.

And, they are right, by the way, that all of us can undertake acts of service to the public. To presume that Royals are more successful and virtuous in this realm than others is both silly and tone deaf given the Prince Andrew debacle.

Public service is being confused with philanthropy and volunteering.
As a public servant one works on behalf of an organization/group. There isn't much picking and choosing of tasks, kind of like being an employee. The public servant is tethered in that way - you HAVE to do your job or get replaced. Most public servants are unhappy government employees (think DMV or Postal Service) while others are up at Capitol Hill (not being paid much until they can retire and become lobbyists).
Philanthropy throws money a perceived problems. Philanthropists pick and choose how much money and time they want to invest in any organization and for how long. Philanthropy funds are usually derived from lucrative businesses where the owners choose to divert some of the excesses towards pet causes.
Volunteering is just stopping by for a few hours for physical labor (think of the Habitat for Humanity weekend warriors) or lending a few hours of one's professional skillset (say a PTA member who has is a CFA balancing the PTA books.

I think it is still considered impolite to refer to money in 'polite' society. I think that is why H&M can't quite call what they are doing philanthropy. It is considered unbecoming to trade their privileged titles for personal income but that is what they are doing. They are selling themselves to raise personal income some of which is diverted to their pet causes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not Meghan conceived naturally or not, who cares...but she does seem to hyper-control everything in her life. It’s so annoying.

Her father and her sister are loose cannons. Needing to control everything in her life is a normal reaction to growing up in that family. My mom is the same way. Yeah, it drives me nuts sometimes, but mostly I have incredible admiration for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/royals/prince-william-upset-prince-harry-pushed-back-queen-elizabeth-announcement-report/

William has become insufferable.

[Anonymous]

They are trashy and not too bright. Hence the fascination. It’s the Real Housewives effect, which they probably weren’t going for. But so it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Who's to say it's a tell all interview with Oprah. Oprah is a respected US voice. They're not going on TMZ. You're clearly British if you thing that the fact that they'll talk to Oprah is immediately a condemnation of them.

We Americans love, love, love her. And if they aim to live their public and private lives here, it's an excellent idea to have a conversation with a well-respected paragon of virtue in a public forum. Just so there are no further misunderstandings of their position.

And, they are right, by the way, that all of us can undertake acts of service to the public. To presume that Royals are more successful and virtuous in this realm than others is both silly and tone deaf given the Prince Andrew debacle.

Public service is being confused with philanthropy and volunteering.
As a public servant one works on behalf of an organization/group. There isn't much picking and choosing of tasks, kind of like being an employee. The public servant is tethered in that way - you HAVE to do your job or get replaced. Most public servants are unhappy government employees (think DMV or Postal Service) while others are up at Capitol Hill (not being paid much until they can retire and become lobbyists).
Philanthropy throws money a perceived problems. Philanthropists pick and choose how much money and time they want to invest in any organization and for how long. Philanthropy funds are usually derived from lucrative businesses where the owners choose to divert some of the excesses towards pet causes.
Volunteering is just stopping by for a few hours for physical labor (think of the Habitat for Humanity weekend warriors) or lending a few hours of one's professional skillset (say a PTA member who has is a CFA balancing the PTA books.

I think it is still considered impolite to refer to money in 'polite' society. I think that is why H&M can't quite call what they are doing philanthropy. It is considered unbecoming to trade their privileged titles for personal income but that is what they are doing. They are selling themselves to raise personal income some of which is diverted to their pet causes.

As someone who has worked professionally for non-profits and philanthropic organizations I'm quite familiar with what the roles of donor, volunteer, and employee all mean.

I have volunteered for a day for an organization and I have volunteered full time for two years for an organization. I can assure you that there are many different kinds of volunteers with various levels of responsibility. Some people basically volunteer full time doing legal work for prisoners. Others take a shift at the soup kitchen. You might try it. Then you might be able to speak from a more informed position on the topic. The only firm thing about being a volunteer is that you are not paid a wage. Often your expenses are reimbursed.

A volunteer stint can be a way into a hard to break into field. There are often both personal and professional benefits to volunteering. It is always voluntary. Negotiating what a person will do on behalf of an organization can be tricky. That is why there is a whole position at some organizations called "volunteer coordinator." The only thing that all volunteer positions have is that they are voluntary rather than an obligation.

All are quite different than what civil servant who has a job to do does. They get paid and get a pension. They also serve society through fulfilling the functions their government has asked them to take on.
If they do their job well, they have been of great service to our society. Both my spouse and my father served in this way and I am grateful to them for it. But they are not working for free.

[Anonymous]

Sooner or later Harry will regret marrying the vining M and moving to LA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sooner or later Harry will regret marrying [/b]the vining M[b] and moving to LA.

Anybody know what this means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The simple fact that they’re doing a tell-all interview with Oprah tells us all we need to know about their true intentions. No one who has burnt every family bridge to get what they purport to so desperately need and want—freedom and privacy—does a sit-down with Oprah. No one. There is simply no need for it.

Who's to say it's a tell all interview with Oprah. Oprah is a respected US voice. They're not going on TMZ. You're clearly British if you thing that the fact that they'll talk to Oprah is immediately a condemnation of them.

We Americans love, love, love her. And if they aim to live their public and private lives here, it's an excellent idea to have a conversation with a well-respected paragon of virtue in a public forum. Just so there are no further misunderstandings of their position.

And, they are right, by the way, that all of us can undertake acts of service to the public. To presume that Royals are more successful and virtuous in this realm than others is both silly and tone deaf given the Prince Andrew debacle.

The difference is that it's exposure on their terms - I'm surprised PP doesn't see this.

Why wouldn’t they want exposure on their terms? Isn’t this the case with most public figures?

[Anonymous]

I kind of think about the royalty in the same way I think of elements of the Catholic Church.

Both are antiquated (Habits anyone.)
Both are rooted in the Feudal system and seem oddly out of step with modern society.
Both are still quite wealthy.
Incredibly hierarchical for no good reason.
Both are still quite appealing even though they have had shameful scandals that show that the rot is pervasive throughout them.
Society might be better off if they both magically disappeared off the face of the earth.
And yet they are still very appealing and we will likely never get rid of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I kind of think about the royalty in the same way I think of elements of the Catholic Church.

Both are antiquated (Habits anyone.)
Both are rooted in the Feudal system and seem oddly out of step with modern society.
Both are still quite wealthy.
Incredibly hierarchical for no good reason.
Both are still quite appealing even though they have had shameful scandals that show that the rot is pervasive throughout them.
Society might be better off if they both magically disappeared off the face of the earth.
And yet they are still very appealing and we will likely never get rid of them.

Agreed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sooner or later Harry will regret marrying [/b]the vining M[b] and moving to LA.

Anybody know what this means?

Many pictures of him during their wedding reveal his unhappiness. She is a spider that knitted a web across the pond, catched the royal prey, and brought him out of his native environment.

[Anonymous]

There are so many intelligent people willing to help and inspire other people without the stupid drama and fake concern for environment. The attention seeking couple doesn’t deserve our time.