Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. This is a great story for the shelter, and I hope others will contribute. I wonder how many of the DCUM haters skipped right over it and went back to their hate-filled attacks against the H&M.

If they want to be private citizens away from the media’s limelight, why issue a press release on this? Also, a new roof probably costs about the same amount (or less) as chartering a private jet from LA to London. Certainly nicer than doing nothing, but for people supposedly rolling in it from their Netflix and Spotify deals, this isn’t particularly noteworthy.

Why announce the gift at all?

Many celebrities do not publicize their charitable acts.

My org regularly receives large gifts anonymously and/or we are instructed not to issue a press release.

The non profit likely wanted to issue the press release because tweeting out that Harry and Meghan gave to them will get them tons of press leading to a lot of other people to donate to them. This is a double edged sword of an issue. The reality is that celebrity attention brings attention from a broad audience and if a celebrity is choosing to say, 'don't tell anyone I did this' then they are, yes, giving the gift, but they are depriving the organization of the waterfall of other gifting that could come from actual advocacy/promotion.

I get that. But the real takeaway is that many wealthy people—including some celebrities—don’t want to draw attention to their charity. I think it’s because they aren’t looking for accolades; that makes them better people in my book. Doing good things without an agenda or personal gain is true charity.

This gift seems more like PR. It’s akin to buying an ad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has this been mentioned yet? Her crazy mean sister Samantha seems to be estranged from her own children and she may not have completely raised them. One of them did an interview and she described Sam as abusive and a terrible mother. Her grandmother raised her once she left.

Sam's father has two grown grandchildren he's never seen. That whole side of the family is trash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. This is a great story for the shelter, and I hope others will contribute. I wonder how many of the DCUM haters skipped right over it and went back to their hate-filled attacks against the H&M.

If they want to be private citizens away from the media’s limelight, why issue a press release on this? Also, a new roof probably costs about the same amount (or less) as chartering a private jet from LA to London. Certainly nicer than doing nothing, but for people supposedly rolling in it from their Netflix and Spotify deals, this isn’t particularly noteworthy.

Why announce the gift at all?

Many celebrities do not publicize their charitable acts.

My org regularly receives large gifts anonymously and/or we are instructed not to issue a press release.

The non profit likely wanted to issue the press release because tweeting out that Harry and Meghan gave to them will get them tons of press leading to a lot of other people to donate to them. This is a double edged sword of an issue. The reality is that celebrity attention brings attention from a broad audience and if a celebrity is choosing to say, 'don't tell anyone I did this' then they are, yes, giving the gift, but they are depriving the organization of the waterfall of other gifting that could come from actual advocacy/promotion.

I get that. But the real takeaway is that many wealthy people—including some celebrities—don’t want to draw attention to their charity. I think it’s because they aren’t looking for accolades; that makes them better people in my book. Doing good things without an agenda or personal gain is true charity.

This gift seems more like PR. It’s akin to buying an ad.

Not the person you are responding too, but actually that is not true. Having worked in fundraising, the vast majority of people want to be recognized and that is OK. For example, if raising money for a school, if you actually share that you will publish names of donors in clubs ($100 club, $101-250 club...and so forth with $10,000-12,000 going all the way up...in an affluent area we found donations SKYROCKETED and very few people asked to be anonymous. Celebrities especially want to be known as generous...it's good advertising. Meghan and Harry especially need this advertising because otherwise people are quick to assume they sit on endless money and do nothing. They must advertise that they give to charity because the press is out to get them. Nobody can legally come forward and say "no, they are generous, they anonymously gave $100,000 to Texas relief" or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. This is a great story for the shelter, and I hope others will contribute. I wonder how many of the DCUM haters skipped right over it and went back to their hate-filled attacks against the H&M.

If they want to be private citizens away from the media’s limelight, why issue a press release on this? Also, a new roof probably costs about the same amount (or less) as chartering a private jet from LA to London. Certainly nicer than doing nothing, but for people supposedly rolling in it from their Netflix and Spotify deals, this isn’t particularly noteworthy.

You clearly don't understand how nonprofits work. Good Foundations don't require press for their philanthropic giving. Harry definitely requires it as we have seen time and time again with tiny donations relative to their net worth.

This was tweeted by the organization, not Harry and Meghan.

Once again, you've proven that you, in fact, don't know how non-profit organizations (who rely on constant, individual donations and do not usually have an endowment) work. Good press is key to their continued success.

+1. The press value of this donation by Harry and Meghan may very well be worth even more than the donation itself if the organization can use it to get attention from other potential donors who previously weren't even aware of the organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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'.

Harry says this kid is the last. He promised Jane Goodall they would have only 2
\
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/world/europe/prince-harry-children.html

PP how much are they paying you to defend them? Don't you get tired? They are regular people and don't poop rainbows, ya know?

PP probably getting paid the same amount that you get paid to bash them.

Interesting...you consider what I wrote bashing? I just wrote they said they only want two children. Tell me how that is bashing?

Hmm...you came on this 200 page thread, randomly found this post and chose to respond. You chose to comment that someone not bashing M&H must be getting paid and must be tired of not tearing them down. You want to be sure we know their fecal matter isn’t rainbows. You never commented on anything else relating to M&H. Just this. Now, that is interesting.

[Anonymous]

I'm not an MM fan at all but it is totally true that the crazy end of the MM haters have been consistently proven wrong.

I do think they'll eventually divorce but the MM hater squad will have been wrong about a lot of things first.

[Anonymous]

I think after the Queen’s statement about public service they wanted to make a statement of their own with their charitable actions. Look, if it helps this very worthy cause, I’m all for it.

I’ve said before that the gravitas and weight of “royalty” status in the UK doesn’t translate here in the US and that in LA they’re now just like any other celebrity couple - there’s nothing elevated or special about them. In a way they seem to want their prior status to continue as “really important people” and that rubs me the wrong way a bit, but they’re also trying to find their footing here and pursue what’s meaningful to them.

They’re certainly not doing any harm. But if they imagine themselves to be in the realm of the Obamas, and I think to some extent they do, then they are inflating their own importance/impact in the US.

[Anonymous]

Oh yeah, they're super unpopular. Anyone who works in television news will tell you that only Presidents get 90-minute time blocks in primetime news and even then its rare.

Secondly - the U.K. is embarrassing themselves. I thought no one wanted to watch. You can bet your ass there's no bidding war in the U.S. for the rights to the Queen's 'Commonwealth Day' special that she moved up just to launch before the Sussex interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh yeah, they're super unpopular. Anyone who works in television news will tell you that only Presidents get 90-minute time blocks in primetime news and even then its rare.

Secondly - the U.K. is embarrassing themselves. I thought no one wanted to watch. You can bet your ass there's no bidding war in the U.S. for the rights to the Queen's 'Commonwealth Day' special that she moved up just to launch before the Sussex interview.

Her moving it up when commonwealth day is the next day is so dumb. Like there is a very real chance that the story will become how more people watched the Oprah interview than her commonwealth day special, if only because she’s probably done dozens of these specials.
The smarter move would have been to kept it after so that the Queen can get the last word if need be. Meghan has outmaneuvered them at every turn not only because she seems to be more of a forward thinker but also because they are just so bad at this. Like why strip the titles right before the interview? It basically insures wall to wall coverage going into their interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not an MM fan at all but it is totally true that the crazy end of the MM haters have been consistently proven wrong.

I do think they'll eventually divorce but the MM hater squad will have been wrong about a lot of things first.

+100

At every turn. They really think that every bad thing that could possibly happen to her would happen. If anything attacking her so much has made MM and Harry last even longer than they probably otherwise would have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh yeah, they're super unpopular. Anyone who works in television news will tell you that only Presidents get 90-minute time blocks in primetime news and even then its rare.

Secondly - the U.K. is embarrassing themselves. I thought no one wanted to watch. You can bet your ass there's no bidding war in the U.S. for the rights to the Queen's 'Commonwealth Day' special that she moved up just to launch before the Sussex interview.

Her moving it up when commonwealth day is the next day is so dumb. Like there is a very real chance that the story will become how more people watched the Oprah interview than her commonwealth day special, if only because she’s probably done dozens of these specials.
The smarter move would have been to kept it after so that the Queen can get the last word if need be. Meghan has outmaneuvered them at every turn not only because she seems to be more of a forward thinker but also because they are just so bad at this. Like why strip the titles right before the interview? It basically insures wall to wall coverage going into their interview.

I had a similar question - the review of Harry and Meghan’s status was supposed to happen in roughly 30 days in March 2021. Why rush out the decision at 11 months when you spent a year talking about a ‘one-year review’?

It’s all very amateur and almost comical how they seem to be scared? of this couple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh yeah, they're super unpopular. Anyone who works in television news will tell you that only Presidents get 90-minute time blocks in primetime news and even then its rare.

Secondly - the U.K. is embarrassing themselves. I thought no one wanted to watch. You can bet your ass there's no bidding war in the U.S. for the rights to the Queen's 'Commonwealth Day' special that she moved up just to launch before the Sussex interview.

Her moving it up when commonwealth day is the next day is so dumb. Like there is a very real chance that the story will become how more people watched the Oprah interview than her commonwealth day special, if only because she’s probably done dozens of these specials.
The smarter move would have been to kept it after so that the Queen can get the last word if need be. Meghan has outmaneuvered them at every turn not only because she seems to be more of a forward thinker but also because they are just so bad at this. Like why strip the titles right before the interview? It basically insures wall to wall coverage going into their interview.

I had a similar question - the review of Harry and Meghan’s status was supposed to happen in roughly 30 days in March 2021. Why rush out the decision at 11 months when you spent a year talking about a ‘one-year review’?

It’s all very amateur and almost comical how they seem to be scared? of this couple.

Indeed. It conveys anything but gravitas. Perhaps they need better PR people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. This is a great story for the shelter, and I hope others will contribute. I wonder how many of the DCUM haters skipped right over it and went back to their hate-filled attacks against the H&M.

If they want to be private citizens away from the media’s limelight, why issue a press release on this? Also, a new roof probably costs about the same amount (or less) as chartering a private jet from LA to London. Certainly nicer than doing nothing, but for people supposedly rolling in it from their Netflix and Spotify deals, this isn’t particularly noteworthy.

Why announce the gift at all?

Many celebrities do not publicize their charitable acts.

My org regularly receives large gifts anonymously and/or we are instructed not to issue a press release.

Well this is an elitist, let them eat cake attitude. The majority of charities are barely holding own and do not receive large gifts. Your organization is very fortunate. I wonder if it was not receiving so man large gifts, if it would be trying to hide in obscurity. Bet not. When this shelter for abused women released this statement, it received inquiries from every day people asking how they could donate. That would not have happened without them releasing H&M's name. Whatever the reason, H&M have a brigade of people who will and have followed and donated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. This is a great story for the shelter, and I hope others will contribute. I wonder how many of the DCUM haters skipped right over it and went back to their hate-filled attacks against the H&M.

If they want to be private citizens away from the media’s limelight, why issue a press release on this? Also, a new roof probably costs about the same amount (or less) as chartering a private jet from LA to London. Certainly nicer than doing nothing, but for people supposedly rolling in it from their Netflix and Spotify deals, this isn’t particularly noteworthy.

Why announce the gift at all?

Many celebrities do not publicize their charitable acts.

My org regularly receives large gifts anonymously and/or we are instructed not to issue a press release.

The non profit likely wanted to issue the press release because tweeting out that Harry and Meghan gave to them will get them tons of press leading to a lot of other people to donate to them. This is a double edged sword of an issue. The reality is that celebrity attention brings attention from a broad audience and if a celebrity is choosing to say, 'don't tell anyone I did this' then they are, yes, giving the gift, but they are depriving the organization of the waterfall of other gifting that could come from actual advocacy/promotion.

I get that. But the real takeaway is that many wealthy people—including some celebrities—don’t want to draw attention to their charity. I think it’s because they aren’t looking for accolades; that makes them better people in my book. Doing good things without an agenda or personal gain is true charity.

This gift seems more like PR. It’s akin to buying an ad.

The money was not provided from H&M's personal funds. The donation was provided via the charity H&M established to help less funded organizations and charities. PR and advertisement is part of the business of Archwell to garner more funds to help other charities. Your inability to see beyond your own bias is astounding. I have received pleas from celebrities touting their support of all kinds of charities and people do not have a problem with that. Celebrities have their own charities and causes and people do not bat an eye, but hell dun broke open when H&M have and help through their charity. I guess all these people are buying ads as well.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=22
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-the-celebrities-donating-millions-to-help-during-pandemic-11963615
https://www.delish.com/food-news/g31948040/celebrities-donate-coronavirus/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

Why announce the gift at all?

Many celebrities do not publicize their charitable acts.

My org regularly receives large gifts anonymously and/or we are instructed not to issue a press release.

The non profit likely wanted to issue the press release because tweeting out that Harry and Meghan gave to them will get them tons of press leading to a lot of other people to donate to them. This is a double edged sword of an issue. The reality is that celebrity attention brings attention from a broad audience and if a celebrity is choosing to say, 'don't tell anyone I did this' then they are, yes, giving the gift, but they are depriving the organization of the waterfall of other gifting that could come from actual advocacy/promotion.

I get that. But the real takeaway is that many wealthy people—including some celebrities—don’t want to draw attention to their charity. I think it’s because they aren’t looking for accolades; that makes them better people in my book. Doing good things without an agenda or personal gain is true charity.

This gift seems more like PR. It’s akin to buying an ad.