Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Archewell terms and conditions make it clear that anyone sharing a story signs over “an irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up, in perpetuity, worldwide, assignable licence to publish, broadcast, and use, in any media now known or hereafter developed” not merely to the Sussexes’ charitable foundation, but also to their limited liability company Archewell LLC, Archewell Productions (through which the couple hold their multi-million-dollar deal with Netflix) and Archewell Audio (through which they have a similar deal with podcast giant Spotify)."

So noble and brave to profit from other's stories because of shady terms and conditions on your foundation website.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1549/news

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hidden-message-prince-harry-meghan-24493053

Just despicable.

So they are asking people to give them content but they want to be the ones to profit off of the content people give them.

Man, you people are in for a world of hurt when you figure out how the Facebooks work some day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And we are not fascinated with people like you who pretend to be indifferent yet constantly post updates and opinions about specific celebrities lying when every famous person lies. Something about these two bothers you (it’s racism against MM for a lot of ppl) and it’s not the lying.

Meh. You know nothing about me, racially or otherwise. I note that you just attacked me personally rather than provide any analysis, although you do acknowledge that H&M have made contradictory statements. Interesting.

Follow up, I should clarify that I find their frequent truth-massaging interesting, just like I find the truth-massaging of Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) or the former president fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Archewell terms and conditions make it clear that anyone sharing a story signs over “an irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up, in perpetuity, worldwide, assignable licence to publish, broadcast, and use, in any media now known or hereafter developed” not merely to the Sussexes’ charitable foundation, but also to their limited liability company Archewell LLC, Archewell Productions (through which the couple hold their multi-million-dollar deal with Netflix) and Archewell Audio (through which they have a similar deal with podcast giant Spotify)."

So noble and brave to profit from other's stories because of shady terms and conditions on your foundation website.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1549/news

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hidden-message-prince-harry-meghan-24493053

Just despicable.

So they are asking people to give them content but they want to be the ones to profit off of the content people give them.

Man, you people are in for a world of hurt when you figure out how the Facebooks work some day.

m

Facebook primarily makes money through ads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Archewell terms and conditions make it clear that anyone sharing a story signs over “an irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up, in perpetuity, worldwide, assignable licence to publish, broadcast, and use, in any media now known or hereafter developed” not merely to the Sussexes’ charitable foundation, but also to their limited liability company Archewell LLC, Archewell Productions (through which the couple hold their multi-million-dollar deal with Netflix) and Archewell Audio (through which they have a similar deal with podcast giant Spotify)."

So noble and brave to profit from other's stories because of shady terms and conditions on your foundation website.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1549/news

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hidden-message-prince-harry-meghan-24493053

Just despicable.

So they are asking people to give them content but they want to be the ones to profit off of the content people give them.

Man, you people are in for a world of hurt when you figure out how the Facebooks work some day.

And pretty much every news outlet, magazine, media platform, etc... are the Meghan haters just oblivious to society at large?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15 minute famous. Yawn … not like William & Kate royalty in history forever

I think she's going for the Prince Edwards/Wallis Simpson "we are scandalous" thing - no one has forgotten about them yet.

True but no one thinks highly of them either. Sad sorry lot those 2.

I actually think a slim majority thinks highly of Meghan and Harry, or at least respect the decisions they made to protects themselves and their small family. Many young people in particular, I've found, find their actions to be quite brave.

Them, brave? What a joke. Not many young veterans would agree with you on that one nor your idea of what "brave" is.

OK then, well take it with the majority of young people (that are aware/profess any interest in this couple or the royal family) who believe so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Archewell terms and conditions make it clear that anyone sharing a story signs over “an irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up, in perpetuity, worldwide, assignable licence to publish, broadcast, and use, in any media now known or hereafter developed” not merely to the Sussexes’ charitable foundation, but also to their limited liability company Archewell LLC, Archewell Productions (through which the couple hold their multi-million-dollar deal with Netflix) and Archewell Audio (through which they have a similar deal with podcast giant Spotify)."

So noble and brave to profit from other's stories because of shady terms and conditions on your foundation website.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1549/news

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hidden-message-prince-harry-meghan-24493053

Just despicable.

So they are asking people to give them content but they want to be the ones to profit off of the content people give them.

Man, you people are in for a world of hurt when you figure out how the Facebooks work some day.

And pretty much every news outlet, magazine, media platform, etc... are the Meghan haters just oblivious to society at large?

Ok I’ll be nice and explain things to you. Facebook and other media platforms don’t generally solicit content to be donated for a charitable purpose (spreading “compassion”) and then claim rights to use that content to make money in their for-profit enterprises.

Regardless, personally I’m no fan of Facebook and don’t use it. I think it’s a highly unethical company. It’s not one I would choose to emulate in my own dealings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Archewell terms and conditions make it clear that anyone sharing a story signs over “an irrevocable, royalty free, fully paid up, in perpetuity, worldwide, assignable licence to publish, broadcast, and use, in any media now known or hereafter developed” not merely to the Sussexes’ charitable foundation, but also to their limited liability company Archewell LLC, Archewell Productions (through which the couple hold their multi-million-dollar deal with Netflix) and Archewell Audio (through which they have a similar deal with podcast giant Spotify)."

So noble and brave to profit from other's stories because of shady terms and conditions on your foundation website.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1549/news

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hidden-message-prince-harry-meghan-24493053

Just despicable.

So they are asking people to give them content but they want to be the ones to profit off of the content people give them.

Man, you people are in for a world of hurt when you figure out how the Facebooks work some day.

Tool for intelligence agencies most of us figured that out day one and don’t use it but go on with your bad self.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They're both dolts. And they have staunch defenders, ready to attack DCUMers in a way that isn't really supposed to happen. But does. Because Meghan and Harry are that special.

Still don’t explain why you get so triggered by what they say...it’s really easy to ignore them.

So why are you so triggered by what people say about the Harkles……..isn’t it equally easy to ignore that?

Yes, why do you take the time to defend H&M? You could have walked away from this discussion 301 pages ago.

+1. At least H&M are famous people. You’re spending your energy worrying about random anonymous posters.

Nope, no time spent worrying. I find the vociferous defense fascinating in light of the numerous times that H&M have been caught making statements that contradict earlier statements. Was hoping that a defender would taking the time to reflect and explain their support.

You first. Why don’t you explain your hate of these people you don’t know? It takes a lot of energy and projection to hate someone.

Criticism does not equal hate. Observation does not equal hate. You need a dictionary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With regards to Harry, it is not crazy town to point out the sheer audacity of this man to use a charity to enrich his already wealthy self.

Agree.

I find it very interesting how quickly this FACTUAL information about Harry gets quickly buried by name-calling posts every time it comes up.

Why aren't all these H&M fans coming to his defense with FACTUAL rebuttals?

Because there are none.

Exploiting wounded servicemembers is beyond despicable.

I didn’t see any facts that Harry was exploiting wounded service members. I saw evidence that he isn’t the first person to start a charity involving veterans and he seems to have limited familiarity with US organizations that do the same things as Invictus. Scandalous!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/why-prince-harry-called-in-lawyers-over-canceled-invictus-games-fundraiser/ar-BB18OJuE

Good gosh people are lazy.

This article does not provide any evidence that Harry was exploiting service members. It says a concert was canceled due to Covid and both Amazon and Netflix have interest in streaming fundraisers for the invictus games. how many live concerts did you go to last year?

How long did it take you to come up with that rote "absense of evidence" rebuttal? It doesn't even hold water in this case since there is actual evidence:

FACT: First Department of Defense Warrior Game was held in 2010. https://www.dodwarriorgames.com/

FACT: Harry visited in 2014 "Prince Harry joked Thursday that a Paralympic-style sporting championship for injured servicemen and women known as the Warrior Games was "such a good idea by the Americans that it had to be stolen." (Newsweek)

FACT: The DoD Warrior Games is scheduled in 2021 at the ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex at Walt Disney World Resort which DONATED their facility. This shows the importance of these games for the WOUNDED doesn't depend on fundraisers because they are sponsored by US government and supported by corporations, in accordance with U.S. government ethics laws.

FACT: When Harry couldn't do a fundraiser (money going to HIS charity) then he threatens with a lawsuit. (Newsweek 9/20)

FACT: In a March 2019 survey, a 72% majority of U.S. adults (and identical 72% shares of Republicans and Democrats) said that if they were making the federal budget, they would increase spending for veterans’ benefits and services

FACT: Because of these statistics, it has been proven that exploitation will occur and has been occurring, as was discussed in 2007 in Congress:
https://www.charitywatch.org/charity-donating-articles/our-veterans-deserve-better-congressional-testimony

FACT: The definition of exploitation:
use or utilization, especially for profit
selfish utilization:
the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

Anyone who defends Harry and his shady Invictus Games, including corporations, should be roundly criticized and boycotted.

The Warrior Games was limited to US service members only. It may be international now, but I do not think so. Harry was inspired by the Game and created the Invictus Games that the Obamas endorsed. But oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They're both dolts. And they have staunch defenders, ready to attack DCUMers in a way that isn't really supposed to happen. But does. Because Meghan and Harry are that special.

Still don’t explain why you get so triggered by what they say...it’s really easy to ignore them.

So why are you so triggered by what people say about the Harkles……..isn’t it equally easy to ignore that?

Yes, why do you take the time to defend H&M? You could have walked away from this discussion 301 pages ago.

+1. At least H&M are famous people. You’re spending your energy worrying about random anonymous posters.

Nope, no time spent worrying. I find the vociferous defense fascinating in light of the numerous times that H&M have been caught making statements that contradict earlier statements. Was hoping that a defender would taking the time to reflect and explain their support.

You first. Why don’t you explain your hate of these people you don’t know? It takes a lot of energy and projection to hate someone.

DP. Harry has used wounded veterans to self-promote himself and make money for his charity. Your turn -- explain why you feel he is worth defending.

Are you a veteran? Is that why you’re angry and projecting? If not, yeah it’s distasteful, but it’s not uncommon in Hollywood to use others so why focus on them and not the hundreds of other narcissists there. His own family-the royals-are much more evil and toxic than this pair.

All you haters are a bunch of hypocrites which is why I’d defend them.

Hollywood, yes this is modus operandi. Royalty always held itself to a higher standard and it is a damn shame to see how far they have dragged the institution into the muck that is Hollywood. Hence the fascination with this train wreck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15 minute famous. Yawn … not like William & Kate royalty in history forever

I think she's going for the Prince Edwards/Wallis Simpson "we are scandalous" thing - no one has forgotten about them yet.

True but no one thinks highly of them either. Sad sorry lot those 2.

I actually think a slim majority thinks highly of Meghan and Harry, or at least respect the decisions they made to protects themselves and their small family. Many young people in particular, I've found, find their actions to be quite brave.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With regards to Harry, it is not crazy town to point out the sheer audacity of this man to use a charity to enrich his already wealthy self.

Agree.

I find it very interesting how quickly this FACTUAL information about Harry gets quickly buried by name-calling posts every time it comes up.

Why aren't all these H&M fans coming to his defense with FACTUAL rebuttals?

Because there are none.

Exploiting wounded servicemembers is beyond despicable.

I didn’t see any facts that Harry was exploiting wounded service members. I saw evidence that he isn’t the first person to start a charity involving veterans and he seems to have limited familiarity with US organizations that do the same things as Invictus. Scandalous!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/why-prince-harry-called-in-lawyers-over-canceled-invictus-games-fundraiser/ar-BB18OJuE

Good gosh people are lazy.

This article does not provide any evidence that Harry was exploiting service members. It says a concert was canceled due to Covid and both Amazon and Netflix have interest in streaming fundraisers for the invictus games. how many live concerts did you go to last year?

How long did it take you to come up with that rote "absense of evidence" rebuttal? It doesn't even hold water in this case since there is actual evidence:

FACT: First Department of Defense Warrior Game was held in 2010. https://www.dodwarriorgames.com/

FACT: Harry visited in 2014 "Prince Harry joked Thursday that a Paralympic-style sporting championship for injured servicemen and women known as the Warrior Games was "such a good idea by the Americans that it had to be stolen." (Newsweek)

FACT: The DoD Warrior Games is scheduled in 2021 at the ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex at Walt Disney World Resort which DONATED their facility. This shows the importance of these games for the WOUNDED doesn't depend on fundraisers because they are sponsored by US government and supported by corporations, in accordance with U.S. government ethics laws.

FACT: When Harry couldn't do a fundraiser (money going to HIS charity) then he threatens with a lawsuit. (Newsweek 9/20)

FACT: In a March 2019 survey, a 72% majority of U.S. adults (and identical 72% shares of Republicans and Democrats) said that if they were making the federal budget, they would increase spending for veterans’ benefits and services

FACT: Because of these statistics, it has been proven that exploitation will occur and has been occurring, as was discussed in 2007 in Congress:
https://www.charitywatch.org/charity-donating-articles/our-veterans-deserve-better-congressional-testimony

FACT: The definition of exploitation:
use or utilization, especially for profit
selfish utilization:
the combined, often varied, use of public-relations and advertising techniques to promote a person, movie, product, etc.

Anyone who defends Harry and his shady Invictus Games, including corporations, should be roundly criticized and boycotted.

The Warrior Games was limited to US service members only. It may be international now, but I do not think so. Harry was inspired by the Game and created the Invictus Games that the Obamas endorsed. But oh well.

We should totally do a spin-off thread for the Obamas. They some shady people too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15 minute famous. Yawn … not like William & Kate royalty in history forever

I think she's going for the Prince Edwards/Wallis Simpson "we are scandalous" thing - no one has forgotten about them yet.

True but no one thinks highly of them either. Sad sorry lot those 2.

I actually think a slim majority thinks highly of Meghan and Harry, or at least respect the decisions they made to protects themselves and their small family. Many young people in particular, I've found, find their actions to be quite brave.

Them, brave? What a joke. Not many young veterans would agree with you on that one nor your idea of what "brave" is.

You would be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They're both dolts. And they have staunch defenders, ready to attack DCUMers in a way that isn't really supposed to happen. But does. Because Meghan and Harry are that special.

Still don’t explain why you get so triggered by what they say...it’s really easy to ignore them.

So why are you so triggered by what people say about the Harkles……..isn’t it equally easy to ignore that?

Yes, why do you take the time to defend H&M? You could have walked away from this discussion 301 pages ago.

+1. At least H&M are famous people. You’re spending your energy worrying about random anonymous posters.

Nope, no time spent worrying. I find the vociferous defense fascinating in light of the numerous times that H&M have been caught making statements that contradict earlier statements. Was hoping that a defender would taking the time to reflect and explain their support.

You first. Why don’t you explain your hate of these people you don’t know? It takes a lot of energy and projection to hate someone.

DP. But Stop being dramatic. PP wasn’t “hating” anyone- just making a comment.most of us who are critical of H and Ms motivations and actions don’t hate them. Just wish they’d stop with the hypocrisy.

DP-- Well you have not been reading these posts honestly. Many posters have come right out and posted that they hate them.

[Anonymous]

When is this baby girl expected?