Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She doesn't get it, she wants her public persona to be as a celebrity who deals with meaningful change and increased social awareness. But society does not WANT her in that role. She is not in a position to improve lives by "using her platform" or "lending her name" to causes. No one is asking her to show up on a global let alone an American stage to promote good.

At least Harry was invited to acts of service. And even now he is working on the Invictus Games with other organizers.

If Meghan was really about helping others she would stop trying to put herself out there and promote her name/face alongside the causes.

Yes, I find her emphasis on this puzzling, but I admit I had never heard of her until she started dating Harry. So maybe she had some record of "causes" before her marriage. But when I compare her to, let's say, Emma Watson, who played an iconic, outspoken, feminist character in a hugely popular franchise, or Angelina Jolie, who started a foundation (long time ago now) to get migrant children legal representation, I'm scratching my head. Emma Watson could have not done any public service/awareness, but what she did do at least dovetailed with her involvement in Harry Potter.

In my mind, Markle got famous because of Harry. Her advocacy would have a lot more weight if she either, a) stayed a built a record as a royal and then took up some larger democratic cause persona, or b) does under the radar stuff and build herself a record, or c) boot strap onto her husband's causes.

I feel like this is when Cameron Diaz tried to be all politically active back in 2004 (?) or so? Everyone was like, good for you, but what experience or credibility do you bring to the table?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She doesn't get it, she wants her public persona to be as a celebrity who deals with meaningful change and increased social awareness. But society does not WANT her in that role. She is not in a position to improve lives by "using her platform" or "lending her name" to causes. No one is asking her to show up on a global let alone an American stage to promote good.

At least Harry was invited to acts of service. And even now he is working on the Invictus Games with other organizers.

If Meghan was really about helping others she would stop trying to put herself out there and promote her name/face alongside the causes.

Yes, I find her emphasis on this puzzling, but I admit I had never heard of her until she started dating Harry. So maybe she had some record of "causes" before her marriage. But when I compare her to, let's say, Emma Watson, who played an iconic, outspoken, feminist character in a hugely popular franchise, or Angelina Jolie, who started a foundation (long time ago now) to get migrant children legal representation, I'm scratching my head. Emma Watson could have not done any public service/awareness, but what she did do at least dovetailed with her involvement in Harry Potter.

In my mind, Markle got famous because of Harry. Her advocacy would have a lot more weight if she either, a) stayed a built a record as a royal and then took up some larger democratic cause persona, or b) does under the radar stuff and build herself a record, or c) boot strap onto her husband's causes.

I feel like this is when Cameron Diaz tried to be all politically active back in 2004 (?) or so? Everyone was like, good for you, but what experience or credibility do you bring to the table?

It's not in your mind. It's an actual fact. Before Harry, she was a C-list actress with one lucky part in a cable series. Nothing to set the world on fire, but a solid piece of bread and butter, as we say. She could have toiled in relative obscurity all her life - I mean, can you name anyone else who was on Suits without looking them up? It's cable TV, enough said.

I think Meghan is someone who always had grand ambitions and pushed her way forward for many years. You have to admire her work ethic in self-promotion if nothing else. That explains her careful choice of curated friends and the shedding of prior friends who didn't fit the circles she wanted to penetrate. I don't think the friendship with Malrooney and the high society of Canada just happened; she worked for it.

What I think she wants to be is an opinion-leader type celebrity. You think she brings nothing to the table and I agree but somehow she is successfully finagling herself into the events with celebrities of Michelle Obama caliber, and now her name is mentioned in the same breath. Two more years of this, and you'll forget that she's no one. You have to marvel at this in real time. Unless they do something stupid and get embroiled in a scandal, which I don't think is impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She doesn't get it, she wants her public persona to be as a celebrity who deals with meaningful change and increased social awareness. But society does not WANT her in that role. She is not in a position to improve lives by "using her platform" or "lending her name" to causes. No one is asking her to show up on a global let alone an American stage to promote good.

At least Harry was invited to acts of service. And even now he is working on the Invictus Games with other organizers.

If Meghan was really about helping others she would stop trying to put herself out there and promote her name/face alongside the causes.

Do we really need the invictus games?

I understand the importance of the olympics and the special olympics; I’m not convinced we need the invictus games...since it mostly seems like a platform for Harry and an opportunity to misuse funds.

The Invictus games are nothing more than a front for lining the pocket of British aristocracy. They are hiding behind the shield of wounded veterans which is below despicable. They blatantly abused our troops when they first landed in the U.S., getting all kinds of free U.S. taxpayer Defense Department support. We don't allow it for U.S. charities, why Invictus games? Because of pressure by the lofty royal and sycophants wanting to rub shoulders and kiss up to them.

The DoD already had their official warrior games and didn't need Invictus. Harry was just copying a program already in place as a foil to make money via a "nonprofit" and make himself look good. Anything this guy (or Meghan) does with military should be looked at with a crooked eye and investigated.

"The Warrior Games have taken place annually since 2010. It was created by the United States Olympic Committee and hosted through 2014 at the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[2][3] Britain's Prince Harry, at the time serving as a Captain and helicopter pilot in the British Army, opened the 2013 Games,[4] which inspired him to create the Invictus Games, an international counterpart to the Warrior Games with national representations.[5]"

^ And it wouldn't surprise me if they see Invictus as a cash cow for paying the mortgage on that new mansion of theirs. You know, writing it off as non-profit expenditures. Sickening. I hope someone follows their money.

Curious as to how they make money off the invictus games?

Sponsorships and merchandise, tv rights

And cash donations from unsuspecting private foundations, corporations, other non-profits, etc. Since it's an overseas charity it is probably not registered here and would be difficult for the IRS to follow. Who knows, maybe that might make it easier to launder money. For all we know, H&M may be drawing multi-million dollar "salaries" for their roles in Invictus.

PP. You are probably right about the sponsorships, merchandise, tv rights. But the rest of this sounds like a rejected breaking bad plot.

If it sounds like a bad plot to you it's probably because it's too real. Happens all the time. In the news right now as a matter of fact:

"The four men were indicted for allegedly using hundreds of thousands of dollars donated to an online crowdfunding campaign called We Build the Wall for personal expenses, among other things. Bannon and another defendant, Brian Kolfage, promised donors that the campaign, which ultimately raised more than $25 million, was "a volunteer organization" and that "100% of the funds raised...will be used in the execution of our mission and purpose," according to the indictment unsealed Thursday.

But instead, according to prosecutors, Bannon, through a non-profit under his control, used more than $1 million from We Build the Wall to "secretly" pay Kolfage and cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in Bannon's personal expenses."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/20/politics/bannon-build-the-wall-indictment/index.html


Kolfage, according to the charges, spent more than $350,000 of the donations on personal expenses, including cosmetic surgery, a luxury SUV, a golf cart, payments toward a boat, home renovations, jewelry, personal tax payments and credit card debt.

Maybe to us plebes. But a legitimate private foundation would never donate to a non-American non profit because they wouldn’t be able to take a charitable contribution deduction for doing so.

[Anonymous]

What I think she wants to be is an opinion-leader type celebrity. You think she brings nothing to the table and I agree but somehow she is successfully finagling herself into the events with celebrities of Michelle Obama caliber, and now her name is mentioned in the same breath. Two more years of this, and you'll forget that she's no one. You have to marvel at this in real time. Unless they do something stupid and get embroiled in a scandal, which I don't think is impossible.

PP here. I don't think she's brings nothing to the table, just that what she brings right now is very thin without her royal resume. Remains to be seen if she succeeds or not. I think the bloom is very much ON the rose right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What I think she wants to be is an opinion-leader type celebrity. You think she brings nothing to the table and I agree but somehow she is successfully finagling herself into the events with celebrities of Michelle Obama caliber, and now her name is mentioned in the same breath. Two more years of this, and you'll forget that she's no one. You have to marvel at this in real time. Unless they do something stupid and get embroiled in a scandal, which I don't think is impossible.

PP here. I don't think she's brings nothing to the table, just that what she brings right now is very thin without her royal resume. Remains to be seen if she succeeds or not. I think the bloom is very much ON the rose right now.

DP - I wonder if you both are overestimating the public appetite for a “celeb” with a message. Right now she is interesting because everyone is wondering what a non-working American royal will/ can do. She’s especially interesting because she’s, somehow convinced people of her victimhood, conflating it with the current BLM zeitgeist and capitalizing on it to get her face and name out there. But in five years she may become fergie getting interviewed by Oprah and hawking weight loss products.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I think she wants to be is an opinion-leader type celebrity. You think she brings nothing to the table and I agree but somehow she is successfully finagling herself into the events with celebrities of Michelle Obama caliber, and now her name is mentioned in the same breath. Two more years of this, and you'll forget that she's no one. You have to marvel at this in real time. Unless they do something stupid and get embroiled in a scandal, which I don't think is impossible.

PP here. I don't think she's brings nothing to the table, just that what she brings right now is very thin without her royal resume. Remains to be seen if she succeeds or not. I think the bloom is very much ON the rose right now.

DP - I wonder if you both are overestimating the public appetite for a “celeb” with a message. Right now she is interesting because everyone is wondering what a non-working American royal will/ can do. She’s especially interesting because she’s, somehow convinced people of her victimhood, conflating it with the current BLM zeitgeist and capitalizing on it to get her face and name out there. But in five years she may become fergie getting interviewed by Oprah and hawking weight loss products.

I think this particular label is wearing thin as people are having trouble seeing someone with every conceivable privilege and a $15 million mansion as a credible victim. The book didn't help her cause at all as it is clearly dictated by her. They both come across as petulant, overprivileged children. The Ivanka connection that emerged recently is certainly not helping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I think she wants to be is an opinion-leader type celebrity. You think she brings nothing to the table and I agree but somehow she is successfully finagling herself into the events with celebrities of Michelle Obama caliber, and now her name is mentioned in the same breath. Two more years of this, and you'll forget that she's no one. You have to marvel at this in real time. Unless they do something stupid and get embroiled in a scandal, which I don't think is impossible.

PP here. I don't think she's brings nothing to the table, just that what she brings right now is very thin without her royal resume. Remains to be seen if she succeeds or not. I think the bloom is very much ON the rose right now.

DP - I wonder if you both are overestimating the public appetite for a “celeb” with a message. Right now she is interesting because everyone is wondering what a non-working American royal will/ can do. She’s especially interesting because she’s, somehow convinced people of her victimhood, conflating it with the current BLM zeitgeist and capitalizing on it to get her face and name out there. But in five years she may become fergie getting interviewed by Oprah and hawking weight loss products.

The risk is always there but I don't think Fergie ever had any political ambitions and Meghan clearly does. She is obviously building up her resume of appearances. I mean it was inconceivable that her name would be in the same cohort as Michelle or HRC five or six years ago, and now it's normal.

[Anonymous]

https://blindgossip.com/three-moves/#more-101045

Meghan takes Ellen’s job?

Meghan runs for office?

Meghan takes a knee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I think she wants to be is an opinion-leader type celebrity. You think she brings nothing to the table and I agree but somehow she is successfully finagling herself into the events with celebrities of Michelle Obama caliber, and now her name is mentioned in the same breath. Two more years of this, and you'll forget that she's no one. You have to marvel at this in real time. Unless they do something stupid and get embroiled in a scandal, which I don't think is impossible.

PP here. I don't think she's brings nothing to the table, just that what she brings right now is very thin without her royal resume. Remains to be seen if she succeeds or not. I think the bloom is very much ON the rose right now.

DP - I wonder if you both are overestimating the public appetite for a “celeb” with a message. Right now she is interesting because everyone is wondering what a non-working American royal will/ can do. She’s especially interesting because she’s, somehow convinced people of her victimhood, conflating it with the current BLM zeitgeist and capitalizing on it to get her face and name out there. But in five years she may become fergie getting interviewed by Oprah and hawking weight loss products.

PP here - I agree with you. That's what I meant by the bloom is very much ON the rose. It remains to be seen whether she can sustain the current buzz.

Unlike and Emma Watson or Angelina Jolie she doesn't have a blockbuster film career (and the $ that come with it) behind her.

[Anonymous]

Her claim to fame is that she married a British Prince. And then she throw that away. She threw away her platform bcs of what? When life got hard, she left, just like her dad did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I think she wants to be is an opinion-leader type celebrity. You think she brings nothing to the table and I agree but somehow she is successfully finagling herself into the events with celebrities of Michelle Obama caliber, and now her name is mentioned in the same breath. Two more years of this, and you'll forget that she's no one. You have to marvel at this in real time. Unless they do something stupid and get embroiled in a scandal, which I don't think is impossible.

PP here. I don't think she's brings nothing to the table, just that what she brings right now is very thin without her royal resume. Remains to be seen if she succeeds or not. I think the bloom is very much ON the rose right now.

DP - I wonder if you both are overestimating the public appetite for a “celeb” with a message. Right now she is interesting because everyone is wondering what a non-working American royal will/ can do. She’s especially interesting because she’s, somehow convinced people of her victimhood, conflating it with the current BLM zeitgeist and capitalizing on it to get her face and name out there. But in five years she may become fergie getting interviewed by Oprah and hawking weight loss products.

PP here - I agree with you. That's what I meant by the bloom is very much ON the rose. It remains to be seen whether she can sustain the current buzz.

Unlike and Emma Watson or Angelina Jolie she doesn't have a blockbuster film career (and the $ that come with it) behind her.

She also doesn't have the inside Hollywood respect that comes with a critically acclaimed or blockbuster movie career behind her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What I think she wants to be is an opinion-leader type celebrity. You think she brings nothing to the table and I agree but somehow she is successfully finagling herself into the events with celebrities of Michelle Obama caliber, and now her name is mentioned in the same breath. Two more years of this, and you'll forget that she's no one. You have to marvel at this in real time. Unless they do something stupid and get embroiled in a scandal, which I don't think is impossible.

PP here. I don't think she's brings nothing to the table, just that what she brings right now is very thin without her royal resume. Remains to be seen if she succeeds or not. I think the bloom is very much ON the rose right now.

DP - I wonder if you both are overestimating the public appetite for a “celeb” with a message. Right now she is interesting because everyone is wondering what a non-working American royal will/ can do. She’s especially interesting because she’s, somehow convinced people of her victimhood, conflating it with the current BLM zeitgeist and capitalizing on it to get her face and name out there. But in five years she may become fergie getting interviewed by Oprah and hawking weight loss products.

PP here - I agree with you. That's what I meant by the bloom is very much ON the rose. It remains to be seen whether she can sustain the current buzz.

Unlike and Emma Watson or Angelina Jolie she doesn't have a blockbuster film career (and the $ that come with it) behind her.

She also doesn't have the inside Hollywood respect that comes with a critically acclaimed or blockbuster movie career behind her.

Meghan has zero credibility with other actors--she was a crappy C-lister who is a remarkably bad actress. When Angelina got involved in charity work, she already had an Oscar and three Golden Globes.

[Anonymous]

Their 2020 taxes are going to be royally fudged next year.

[Anonymous]

Look at me-again is at it again, this time with Gloria Steinem. https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-gloria-steinem-team-up-conversation-voting-representation-guest-appearance-dogs/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at me-again is at it again, this time with Gloria Steinem. https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-gloria-steinem-team-up-conversation-voting-representation-guest-appearance-dogs/

It must frustrate you endlessly that she is still getting free press and attention for just living her life. I mean -- wasn't it people like you who thought the public would be bored of her after the wedding, then it was after one year of marriage, then it was after the baby.

What is it now btw?