Spotify dropped Harry and Markle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np on this thread, finding it quite humorous that people have spent twenty pages arguing that no one is interested in Harry and Meghan. Talk about lack of self awareness.

Right…

There should be clinical trials on these people. 😆😆

And the people who love to hate them. Like you. How are you different?

What are you even talking about?

I guess MM haters have trouble with logical flow.

Y’all are wild. It’s actually funny.

NP here. I'm not exactly an MM hater because I just don't find her interesting enough to generate that much emotion one way or the other. However, to point out what many in Hollywood and otherwise are saying -- that H and M's stock has plummeted here in the US for a number of reasons -- is not quite the psychological phenomenon you clearly think it is. Trying to bankroll an existence off of burning bridges with the royal family is simply not sustainable, and people are starting to figure out that there's just not that much THERE there to keep propping up their "brand." It's clear that they recognize they're on shaky ground as well, or they wouldn't keep struggling to remain relevant.

Refusing to see this, especially their hypocrisy (decrying their injustices and grievances from their $14M mansion while prognosticating on major social issues of the day!), because you're a fangirl yourself is actually funny.

I’m a “fan girl” because I don’t whine about them for 18 pages? That’s a miss.

What’s psychotic is how her haters whine about why H&M don’t disappear in thread after thread…after thread after thread…..for likely hundreds of pages now. The obsession is not sane. It goes even beyond that, though. The vitriol that DCUM posters spew about these two strangers (especially MM) makes her haters look absolutely psychotic.

Please point out the poster who has whined consistently for 18 pages. Not sure how to break it to you, but there are MULTIPLE people responding across those 18 pages, many with the same impression of Mr. and Mrs. Markle, miraculously!

And how are you any different than any of the posters if you keep coming back to almost every one of their posts to call them stupid or psychotic?

DCUM vitriol may be legendary, but it appears to line up nicely with what most people are saying about H&M -- that they're insufferable grifters whose fifteen minutes have come and gone. You are, of course, free to disagree but if you feel the need to keep questioning the mental health of everyone who disagrees, then I'd do a quick check on my own mental health, if I were you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the monarchy teetering?

I would never use the word teetering. Support for republicanism is quite low. But that is largely due to that the monarchy is the status quo. Not only is it part of history and tradition, it is also a political entity. You can't just vote out the monarchy. No political party is going to make abolishing the monarchy a platform, as it would be suicidal, in part because the whole new problem of what new form of government or constitution to create then becomes a massive headache. And the monarchy does play a useful role as a politically neutral head of state.

But the monarchy has always been sensitive to public moods and funding. Charles has long said he wanted to shift to a Scandinavian style smaller monarchy. Not so many royals. And they have also embraced the growing diversity of Britain in a remarkable way. As an institution it is much more modern than it was 30 years ago.

The monarchy will only collapse from within, with William refusing the crown. But it's not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

MM has a 20M deal for Dior. Talk about one lucky girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MM has a 20M deal for Dior. Talk about one lucky girl.

And hardly a has been, as everyone loves to suggest. People just don't see the larger picture here. The monarchy is changing, it started with all of the Queen's children, it really opened up controversy with Diana, now this is a grandchild who is changing things. It's fine. H&M are fine. Everyone is fine. We really don't need to pick teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk about a chick who totally overplayed her hand. Just dumb. Make me a princess and watch what I do. Stay my a$$ right there in the UK, smiling, waving, shaking hands, holding babies, popping out as many kids as Harry wants and kissing up to Kate and Will. How hard is it??? Just dumb.

Same here, but their egos and issues got in the way.

No egos, no scorched earth, nothing like that. They are doinf great, they left the monarchy, that's all.
Oh, and THEY left Spotify, not the other way around.

Now they've gone scorched earth and while Charles may be able to forgive his son (maybe not though?), it doesn't look like William could ever let him back into the fold now that Harry's proven himself to be untrustworthy to the family. Letting Harry back in would be very risky for Charles. The monarchy is already teetering and alienating William over this could be the last straw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it.

They fancy themselves as do-gooder philanthropists yet they are shilling for a luxury brand?

And why would Dior want them? Why hire someone who is mostly ridiculed and couldn’t generate a sufficient following for a podcast?

I just don’t get it.

This is just another example of their hypocrisy. If they wanted to raise money for charitable purposes, they could have been focusing their efforts on that over the last three years instead of spending most of their time trying to make money. Why didn’t they do a podcast highlighting different social issues or charities or people making a difference in the world? Instead, their one podcast was essentially Meghan talking over her celebrity friends about all the ways stereotypes have harmed her.

If they didn’t focus on trying to make money how will they support themselves and take care of their kids? I never quite get this complaint about them. Rich people especially always use whatever connections they have to make money.

It philanthropy was their goal, they could have stayed in Canada or moved somewhere less expensive than Montecito and created a less lavish lifestyle they could afford off Harry’s inheritance and whatever savings Meghan had. If Harry hadn’t trashed his family, he would have received some inheritance from Charles.

Why do you care about the monarchy? What's it to you? I don't see any whining here about Andrew? How about Fergie, who literally uses the monarchy as promotion to fund herself, which I say is actually great, no issues with that. But somehow Meghan is a problem. Harry also- and why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans are generally anti-monarchy, though I’m sure many enjoy watching the BRF parades and things from afar. With that, lots of people can understand why primogeniture is a messed up system that can produce messed up family relationships.

Americans aren’t actually interested in the day to day appearances or speeches. Just the big events like weddings that have pageantry. Mostly people like the intrigue and drama which is how it’s always been and now it’s playing out in the US.

Americans are interested in what Dr Jill is doing, or Emhoff. We were interested in the silly spending of poor McDonnell s wife. Etc. We are interested in the day to day appearances of our elected officials and families. But yes, generally interested in the big events for the British royals and others.

This all seems pretty reasonable to me. Doesn't it?