New Netflix documentary: "Live to Lead" from Harry and Meghan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11558451/Now-Jacinda-Ardern-distances-Harry-Meghan.html

Jacinda Arden distances herself from Harry and Meghan

All the statement says is that Arden's only participation was agreeing to and filming the interview in 2019 with an understanding it would be presented in written form. She was notified in 2021 that NMF and Netflix had made a deal to broadcast the interviews and was notified in May 2022 that Harry and Meghan would introduce the Netflix series.

Exactly... feels like a very reasonable statement no doubt put out after requests for comment. But the damage is done. Tabloids have run with it.

[Anonymous]

The funny thing in all this is seeing the Meghan obsessionists learn new things about how PR and production work every other news cycle.

"OMG did you know that Meghan has a firm called Sunshine Sachs WORKING for her? It's called a PR! They handle PUBLICITY and press relations, the audcaity!"

"OMG did you know the trailer for their documentary used STOCK FOOTAGE?! No doubt Meghan was cooped up in an edit bay on Adobe Premiere making all the cuts herself, that witch!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This actually looks... really good?! Can't believe they were able to get RBG before she passed, and I absolutely LOVE Bryan Stevenson and Jacinda Ardern.

Good grief. The only reason they have this is because of Harry's DNA and the only reason we pay attention to Meghan is because of Harry's DNA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This actually looks... really good?! Can't believe they were able to get RBG before she passed, and I absolutely LOVE Bryan Stevenson and Jacinda Ardern.

Good grief. The only reason they have this is because of Harry's DNA and the only reason we pay attention to Meghan is because of Harry's DNA

Isn't that how the entire Royal Family functions? I appreciate the fact that they're trying to use all the attention they get for some sort of good. It might be a naive, overly optimistic outlook, but it's clear that they get eyeballs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Their kids are gorgeous. Genetic diversity is good

Really? I think they look very average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.instagram.com/p/CmWrVv0ORGN/

Sad that the fuming hate-stalkers play so fast and loose with the truth.

To criticize doesn't mean we "hate" Just saying it like it is. We haven't all drunk the cool aid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.instagram.com/p/CmWrVv0ORGN/

Sad that the fuming hate-stalkers play so fast and loose with the truth.

To criticize doesn't mean we "hate" Just saying it like it is. We haven't all drunk the cool aid

Weird for you to associate yourself with the hate-stalkers. Perhaps you're not one, and that's totally fine. But there is a not-insignificant contingent of Meghan followers for whom "hate-stalker" is a completely fair description.

Also, quite ironic for you to reference kool-aid when no doubt your opinions of this woman are informed heavily from reading biased headlines and a controlled media narrative.

[Anonymous]

H and M did make it very clear how things work and it was demonstrated just this week. The firm wants to control what is in the media. They don’t like negative coverage. This week a lot from the H and M Netflix series are all over headlines with negative takes on the firm and royal family …. Just like that random pictures of William attending some random wedding come out. Headlines with poor publicity replaced with some sighting of a royal so they control the narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:H and M did make it very clear how things work and it was demonstrated just this week. The firm wants to control what is in the media. They don’t like negative coverage. This week a lot from the H and M Netflix series are all over headlines with negative takes on the firm and royal family …. Just like that random pictures of William attending some random wedding come out. Headlines with poor publicity replaced with some sighting of a royal so they control the narrative.

Let's not forget the most notable example from this week...

The fact that the Royal Family will be incredibly quick to put out a statement denying that Kate Middleton got Botox, but will nary a peep about the horrendous treatment of Meghan in the tabloid press? The whole thing is ridiculous and I don't know how you can't believe H and M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This actually looks... really good?! Can't believe they were able to get RBG before she passed, and I absolutely LOVE Bryan Stevenson and Jacinda Ardern.

Good grief. The only reason they have this is because of Harry's DNA and the only reason we pay attention to Meghan is because of Harry's DNA

And the only reason anyone is skimming over generalizations like this is because they’re in a thread about people whose work you likely haven’t seen and didn’t bother to mention. Projection much? Lol

Do you have any thoughts about the production itself? The reasonings behind the Sussexes affiliation with the project? The timing plan for the staggered releases of various Archewell projects? The contrast between the filth like the recent Clarkson article and the one by Roxane Gay? The twisted uses of the media with respect to this particular couple — and what it might suggest about: the British monarchy, the impact of the internet on communication and changing social norms, the spread of cultural colonialism, or the perceptions of women and their/our public use of power in a wide variety of ways for a wide variety of social and economic reasons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

No. They are still Duke and Duchess but not longer His/Her Royal Highness. Harry is still Prince Harry. Meghan is not a Princess because she is not of Royal blood but rather married in.

William and Catherine are now the Prince and Princess of Wales. Catherine became Princess of Wales despite not being of Royal blood herself because she is married to the heir.

There is no new Duke of Cambridge.

When William's oldest son George marries, he may become Duke of Cambridge (or may be given a different Dukedom). If William is already King at that point, then George will become the new Prince of Wales.

Prince or Princess of Wales (if the Heir is a woman) is always the title of the direct next heir to the throne.

Then there is the Duke of York. This title is usually given to the second son of the reigning Monarch. Despite Harry being the second son he doesn't have it because the title is being occupied by Prince Andrew still. So most likely after Andrew dies it will pass to Princess Charlotte, and she will be the first ever Duchess of York. That said it is a now pretty ignominious title thanks to Prince Andrew.

What’s interesting in all of this is that as the heir presumptive, Princess Elizabeth was never the Princess of Wales — since there was always the possibility that at any point, her father could also father a son, who would get the title.

Today she would be. The most impressive thing Catherine, Princess of Wales did as Duchess of Cambridge was successfully lobby to have the primogeniture laws changed when she was pregnant with her firstborn so that the first born of either sex (not just the firstborn son) would be the heir. As it turned out, she had a male firstborn (of course) but the law still stands. Hats off to her.

Meanwhile I erred above in that Charlotte would not be the first-ever Duchess of York since that title was held by Sarah Ferguson through marriage to Andrew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11558451/Now-Jacinda-Ardern-distances-Harry-Meghan.html

Jacinda Arden distances herself from Harry and Meghan

The full statement just reads more like an explanation of the extent of their involvement. Not distancing herself?

The Daily Mail pretty famously hates Harry and Meghan, among other things. There is a WHOLE lot of shade being thrown in that article, and not just at Harry and Meghan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11558451/Now-Jacinda-Ardern-distances-Harry-Meghan.html

Jacinda Arden distances herself from Harry and Meghan

The full statement just reads more like an explanation of the extent of their involvement. Not distancing herself?

The Daily Mail pretty famously hates Harry and Meghan, among other things. There is a WHOLE lot of shade being thrown in that article, and not just at Harry and Meghan.

Don't forget Camilla chose a former Daily Mail exec as her publicist. Lmao.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

No. They are still Duke and Duchess but not longer His/Her Royal Highness. Harry is still Prince Harry. Meghan is not a Princess because she is not of Royal blood but rather married in.

William and Catherine are now the Prince and Princess of Wales. Catherine became Princess of Wales despite not being of Royal blood herself because she is married to the heir.

There is no new Duke of Cambridge.

When William's oldest son George marries, he may become Duke of Cambridge (or may be given a different Dukedom). If William is already King at that point, then George will become the new Prince of Wales.

Prince or Princess of Wales (if the Heir is a woman) is always the title of the direct next heir to the throne.

Then there is the Duke of York. This title is usually given to the second son of the reigning Monarch. Despite Harry being the second son he doesn't have it because the title is being occupied by Prince Andrew still. So most likely after Andrew dies it will pass to Princess Charlotte, and she will be the first ever Duchess of York. That said it is a now pretty ignominious title thanks to Prince Andrew.

What’s interesting in all of this is that as the heir presumptive, Princess Elizabeth was never the Princess of Wales — since there was always the possibility that at any point, her father could also father a son, who would get the title.

Today she would be. The most impressive thing Catherine, Princess of Wales did as Duchess of Cambridge was successfully lobby to have the primogeniture laws changed when she was pregnant with her firstborn so that the first born of either sex (not just the firstborn son) would be the heir. As it turned out, she had a male firstborn (of course) but the law still stands. Hats off to her.

Meanwhile I erred above in that Charlotte would not be the first-ever Duchess of York since that title was held by Sarah Ferguson through marriage to Andrew.

Well, there have been multiple Duchesses of York over the years — but I’m pretty sure that Charlotte would be the first-ever Duchess of York in her own right, rather than because of marriage, if she gets that title. If that happens, I wonder what her spouse’s title would be? I also wonder if the Princess Royal title will continue to be used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11558451/Now-Jacinda-Ardern-distances-Harry-Meghan.html

Jacinda Arden distances herself from Harry and Meghan

The full statement just reads more like an explanation of the extent of their involvement. Not distancing herself?

The Daily Mail pretty famously hates Harry and Meghan, among other things. There is a WHOLE lot of shade being thrown in that article, and not just at Harry and Meghan.

Don't forget Camilla chose a former Daily Mail exec as her publicist. Lmao.

And her son, Tom, also works for the Mail on Sunday.