Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Wibbs

Sardonicat wrote: »

No I wouldn't like to turn them into super humans I'm trying to point out to you that they are merely human. Not deities. Talking about stuff isn't work. They've raised millions? How? Would those charities mot have made millions without them? Why do people need celebrities to highlight issues and why does highlighting issues class as work? Again, how much does that gig pay?

To be fair charities need attention to survive and raise revenue and awareness in a crowded financial and attention marketplace. Figureheads have always been in play as both direct patrons and advertisers for charities. Royalty across Europe has been doing that kinda thing for centuries. Having a well known celebrity as a patron of your charity does much the same as having well known celebrity fronting an ad campaign for a product. It sells more.

Stateofyou

Sardonicat wrote: »

No I wouldn't like to turn them into super humans I'm trying to point out to you that they are merely human. Not deities. Talking about stuff isn't work. They've raised millions? How? Would those charities mot have made millions without them? Why do people need celebrities to highlight issues and why does highlighting issues class as work? Again, how much does that gig pay?

I've done a lot of charity work in my career and personal time here in Ireland and abroad, and guess what? A lot of that work involves networking, talking and building support. What's clear here is you never have, but you would trash others for trying to do something positive and make an impact for good. I've also been chair of the p.a. and its the same concept when it comes to fundraising.

Famous people with platforms equals just that-platforms. Very large ones. The larger the platform, the larger the impact. Obviously. And when those of us do charity work in our communities, what do we try and do? Speak out, market it, build awareness and try and reach as many people as possible. But according to you, that isn't work. Again, it's obvious you haven't spent much or any of your own time trying to help others at least on a significant scale.

Please stop asking me questions about what they do and how they've raised money and how much. This information is all very much at your own fingertips should you actually care to look into it. I'm not going to do that for you.

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

Now please stop with the personal attacks and I would appreciate if you would just stay on topic, without comparing mine or others opinions and views to other countries which you clearly hate so much.

Personal attacks now? I wondered how long that would take. For the record I have "attacked" your opinions and where I suspect you gleaned much of them. I have not "attacked" you, though conflating the two is an all too common tactic when debates go south.

And for the record part II, I don't "hate" America. Quite the opposite in fact. I do have issues with some of the daftness in that culture, just as I have issues with some of the daftness in mine.

Statement: Ireland is a great little country with a lot of great people, though I find it can be too parochial and there are too many cute hoors about the place. Therefore by your logic I must "hate" Ireland too.

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

Personal attacks now? I wondered how long that would take. For the record I have "attacked" your opinions and where I suspect you gleaned much of them. I have not "attacked" you, though conflating the two is an all too common tactic when debates go south.

And for the record part II, I don't "hate" America. Quite the opposite in fact. I do have issues with some of the daftness in that culture, just as I have issues with some of the daftness in mine.

Statement: Ireland is a great little country with a lot of great people, though I find it can be too parochial and there are too many cute hoors about the place. Therefore by your logic I must "hate" Ireland too.

Wibbs, you know this has crossed into the personal instead of staying on the topics being discussed. You engage in that style of posting then say you wondered how long it would take for it to be brought up when you engineer it? A bit of self awareness here would go a long way. If you have similar thoughts about Ireland, then why is it the US you're always dragging into it to make some comparison about how wrong you think someone's opinion is? That's a rhetorical question that I don't need an answer to.

As you can see, our conversing is now totally off topic because it's gone to the personal.

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

A bit of self awareness here would go a long way.

Annnnd that's enough irony for me today. I'm away to work.

Sardonicat

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair charities need attention to survive and raise revenue and awareness in a crowded financial and attention marketplace. Figureheads have always been in play as both direct patrons and advertisers for charities. Royalty across Europe has been doing that kinda thing for centuries. Having a well known celebrity as a patron of your charity does much the same as having well known celebrity fronting an ad campaign for a product. It sells more.

I do know Wibbs. I live in this world. I think it's a very poor reflection on society, though. And what I wont' tolerate is that fronting a charity is some kind of selfless, noble line of work. Plenty celebs (even Royals, like Anne) do loads of stuff like this, view it as part of the deal of having made good or born into privilege and see it as sharing their fortune and doing their bit, and fair play, cos they don't really have to. But what they don't do is call it 'work'. They have actual work, or in Anne's case, a private life that she wants to get back to, without fuss or ceremony or thanks.

Sardonicat

Stateofyou wrote: »

I've done a lot of charity work in my career and personal time here in Ireland and abroad, and guess what? A lot of that work involves networking, talking and building support. What's clear here is you never have, but you would trash others for trying to do something positive and make an impact for good. I've also been chair of the p.a. and its the same concept when it comes to fundraising.

Famous people with platforms equals just that-platforms. Very large ones. The larger the platform, the larger the impact. Obviously. And when those of us do charity work in our communities, what do we try and do? Speak out, market it, build awareness and try and reach as many people as possible. But according to you, that isn't work. Again, it's obvious you haven't spent much or any of your own time trying to help others at least on a significant scale.

Please stop asking me questions about what they do and how they've raised money and how much. This information is all very much at your own fingertips should you actually care to look into it. I'm not going to do that for you.

Doing charity work for your career is NOT an act charity, you are getting paid. You are primarily helping yourself. And no. I do not class marketing pr or network building as work by any stretch of the imagination. Talking schite and schmoozing is not work.

eviltwin

Charity work me arse. Mingling with the plebs for a photo op while decked in out in so designer stuff that these people won't afford in a lifetime is not charity. Its self serving bs. Let Harry and Megan work on the ground for a few months out of the spotlight and come back to me.

freshpopcorn

I haven’t read this thread in a bit and was reading MM in places and I was trying to figure out what Micheál Martin had to do with it.

Stateofyou

eviltwin wrote: »

Charity work me arse. Mingling with the plebs for a photo op while decked in out in so designer stuff that these people won't afford in a lifetime is not charity. Its self serving bs. Let Harry and Megan work on the ground for a few months out of the spotlight and come back to me.

I've seen photos of them doing charity work, both in shorts and cheap looking shirts and caps. Designer stuff my eye.

Stateofyou

Sardonicat wrote: »

Doing charity work for your career is NOT an act charity, you are getting paid. You are primarily helping yourself. And no. I do not class marketing pr or network building as work by any stretch of the imagination. Talking schite and schmoozing is not work.

Who's paying them?

MoonUnit75

They are not charity workers. They changed careers from public duty to become ‘influencers’.

Stateofyou

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

They are not charity workers. They changed careers from public duty to become ‘influencers’.

Says you?

cnocbui

eviltwin wrote: »

Charity work me arse. Mingling with the plebs for a photo op while decked in out in so designer stuff that these people won't afford in a lifetime is not charity. Its self serving bs. Let Harry and Megan work on the ground for a few months out of the spotlight and come back to me.

They are not answerable to you and can live their lives as they please. She is well shot of the toxic inlaws and the gutter press.

MoonUnit75

Stateofyou wrote: »

Says you?

Says I.

She’s great though, woke vlog sermons every few weeks is surely not as easy as it looks. Got to hand it to a woman who lectures about white privilege after marrying the palest prince on the face of the earth.

Sardonicat

Stateofyou wrote: »

Who's paying them?

I've no idea. You are the one who claimed marketing, pr and networking building can be classed as work.

eviltwin

cnocbui wrote: »

They are not answerable to you and can live their lives as they please. She is well shot of the toxic inlaws and the gutter press.

They can do what they like. But lets not fawn over them and pretend they are charity workers. They aren't.

cnocbui

eviltwin wrote: »

They can do what they like. But lets not fawn over them and pretend they are charity workers. They aren't.

That's fine, but likewise the CEOs of most charities are not even remotely engaged in charity work either. Meghan voulnteering to be an ambassador for a charity would be doing something far more praiseworthy than somebody who works for a charity and gets paid for it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sardonicat wrote: »

Well, you can if you let them lapse.

If you earn a doctorate, there’s no lapsing of the Dr. title. You’ve earned it via the PhD.

Stateofyou

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

Says I.

She’s great though, woke vlog sermons every few weeks is surely not as easy as it looks. Got to hand it to a woman who lectures about white privilege after marrying the palest prince on the face of the earth.

What does marrying a white man have to do with white privilege. I remember Harry talking about it by the way, not her.

She posts vlog sermons every few weeks? Link?

Stateofyou

Sardonicat wrote: »

I've no idea. You are the one who claimed marketing, pr and networking building can be classed as work.

You claimed they're getting paid, so I said who pays them and now you say you've no idea. So why are you speaking to things as if it were fact when you have no idea.

A lot of people do something called charity work, it's not paid obviously as it's usually volunteer. I don't expect you to know this as clearly we've already established involving yourself in charity is not something you do, which is why you know so little about it.

I thought you said you couldn't care less about them whatsoever, yet you're still spending a lot of your time here criticising and discussing them. Strange.

JP Liz V1

They are having baby 2

Samsgirl

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

They are having baby 2

Announced a few days after Eugeine had her baby.

And they announced the 1st pregnancy at Eugeine's wedding..

alan partridge aha

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

They are having baby 2

Who gives a flying f**k, their nobodies now.

expectationlost

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Who gives a flying f**k, their nobodies now.

he is still a royal

Water John

Pamela Brown CNN anchor just said ' Meghan and Harry are expecting their second child and we're going over to Max Foster in London, for ALL the details'.
No thanks.

JP Liz V1

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Who gives a flying f**k, their nobodies now.

They'll never be nobodies

Loveinapril

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Who gives a flying f**k, their nobodies now.

This is a thread about them. They will be mentioned from time to time.

cnocbui

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Who gives a flying f**k, their nobodies now.

Let's say, for arguments sake, William and family are all tragically involved in a fatal transportation accident. You will then find out just how much of nobodies they are not.

Neyite

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

They are having baby 2

I'm not a big fan of either of them but I hope it all goes well with the pregnancy and the birth.

alan partridge aha

cnocbui wrote: »

Let's say, for arguments sake, William and family are all tragically involved in a fatal transportation accident. You will then find out just how much of nobodies they are not.

Highly highly unlikely, thankfully.

cnocbui

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Highly highly unlikely, thankfully.

So about the same chance as Princess Diana dying in a high speed paparazzi pursuit, then.

The point is not nullified by it's likelihood, it demonstrates the underlying truth that neither Harry, nor Meghan were nobodies before they met, and they are even less so now.

It never ceases to astonish me how many people there are who have their brains programmed by the Daily Mail.

Be right back

The Queen has confirmed that they will not be returning as working royals after their trial period.

Neyite

Be right back wrote: »

The Queen has confirmed that they will not be returning as working royals after their trial period.

As far as I understand it, the trial period was more so to ensure they had the fall-back of rejoining the RF in case they weren't successful in carving out a sustainable income for themselves. So with their Netflix deal and a few other things, they seem to have landed on their feet quite well for now anyway.



I think they initially thought that they could be selective in what they could quit and what they could retain but the Queen stopped that in it's tracks. She's been long enough at the royal lark to understand that's just not possible to be a part time working royal.

I feel sorry for the Queen. After all the fanfare and joy and goodwill from when they got married, and now, to this ugly spat within the family. And none of it is her fault. She is admirably stoic when all around are losing their heads. But at her advanced age she must feel incredibly sad at what Harry's become.

Water John

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel sorry for the Queen. After all the fanfare and joy and goodwill from when they got married, and now, to this ugly spat within the family. And none of it is her fault. She is admirably stoic when all around are losing their heads. But at her advanced age she must feel incredibly sad at what Harry's become.

She's a tough old bird, has seen it all before. The Firm comes first. Not sure what you mean by 'what Harry's become'?

cnocbui

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel sorry for the Queen. After all the fanfare and joy and goodwill from when they got married, and now, to this ugly spat within the family. And none of it is her fault. She is admirably stoic when all around are losing their heads. But at her advanced age she must feel incredibly sad at what Harry's become.

It is her fault for allowing herself to be nothing but a puppet for all those 'royal advisors' who really run the show. How she could take harmful actions against members of her own family because she has been told to by some toads behind the scenes is beyond my ken.

She's utterly craven and spineless. Despite his faults, I have far greater regard for Charles.

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel sorry for the Queen. After all the fanfare and joy and goodwill from when they got married, and now, to this ugly spat within the family. And none of it is her fault. She is admirably stoic when all around are losing their heads. But at her advanced age she must feel incredibly sad at what Harry's become.

I dunno. My feeling is that she gets it. She was bound by duty and it was only because her uncle David quit the role that her father was thrust into it. Her life and her family's life changed dramatically at the abdication.

I've a feeling as well that Harry was finding it harder being a working royal and it was affecting his health, though that's his own business but he's alluded to difficulties with mental health.

She's probably a bit disappointed that he chose a different path and decided not to work for the family business but I daresay she understands the pressures more than most of what it all entails. They are still part of the family though, if not the firm.

wyrn

Honestly, like any grandmother, she shouldn't be disappointed but happy that her grandson is trying to carve out his own career rather than relying on the family business. Charles too, since he's been so busy cutting down royal roles for the past few years. I don't get the hate the hate for Harry & Meghan considering the Queen's supposedly favourite family member is Andrew.

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

It is her fault for allowing herself to be nothing but a puppet for all those 'royal advisors' who really run the show. How she could take harmful actions against members of her own family because she has been told to by some toads behind the scenes is beyond my ken.

She's utterly craven and spineless. Despite his faults, I have far greater regard for Charles.

That seems more than a tad harsh. And why would have far greater regard for Charles?

Neyite

wyrn wrote: »

Honestly, like any grandmother, she shouldn't be disappointed but happy that her grandson is trying to carve out his own career rather than relying on the family business. Charles too, since he's been so busy cutting down royal roles for the past few years. I don't get the hate the hate for Harry & Meghan considering the Queen's supposedly favourite family member is Andrew.

It works in their favour to have less royals knocking around anyway. A lot of the regard people have is for the Queen herself, not her family. There's plenty who are fond of the Queen but are republican and would be happy to see the RF disband after she dies.

There's many who think that they are a burden on the taxpayer, and with Brexit happening Britain could well be heading for austerity when they were barely out of the last recession. There's large pockets of GB that have poverty and seeing royals live a seemingly gilded life with posh homes and private planes grates on many.

cnocbui

Deleted User wrote: »

That seems more than a tad harsh. And why would have far greater regard for Charles?

Because he's got the balls to speak his mind and upset people, to the point there seem to be many who would like to see him bypassed in the succession of the throne when the dutiful puppet stops moving.

The queen has taken far harsher measures against Harry than she did against Andrew and she really dragged her feet regarding the latter.

She has always put the job before family and is still doing so - the job being doing what she is told to by advisors.

Her worst sin in my eyes is the upholding of her deal with the Daily Mail and other gutter rags, to the detriment of Meghan and Harry.

Had I been in her position, I would have been on the phone to Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, and made more than a few threats about the longevity of his family's title if he didn't back off.

Stateofyou

Pleased for them to lead their life their way now. The Royal Family lost a couple of good ones. Onwards and upwards for them now.

Stateofyou

Stateofyou wrote: »

Pleased for them to lead their life their way now. The Royal Family lost a couple of good ones. Onwards and upwards for them now.

It will be nice that they get to lead their lives out of the spotlight just as they wanted. We won't hear from them I'm sure.

Sir_Name

cnocbui wrote: »

Her worst sin in my eyes is the upholding of her deal with the Daily Mail and other gutter rags, to the detriment of Meghan and Harry.

Had I been in her position, I would have been on the phone to Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, and made more than a few threats about the longevity of his family's title if he didn't back off.

Have you been sipping Kool Aid?

cnocbui

Sir_Name wrote: »

Have you been sipping Kool Aid?

You clearly don't actually understand the term.

Mrsmum

I think this is the correct way. They no longer represent The Queen and RF which was a ridiculous idea, them living in the States. And they are free to put forward who they are now and what it is that they are selling by themselves.

Muahahaha

Deleted User wrote: »

It will be nice that they get to lead their lives out of the spotlight just as they wanted. We won't hear from them I'm sure.

ha! They're doing a big American tv interview with Oprah in the coming weeks. Its just the start of really building their profile in the US so they can get selling those subs for Netflix and Spotify and earn their keep. It will no doubt be the most soft ball interview ever. Funny thing is it was reported that Meghan had never met Oprah but she invited her to her wedding anyway and Oprah duly showed up. Kind of weird inviting a complete stranger to your wedding, unless of course you're seeing it as a networking opportunity.

That was a good win for them though in court last week against the Daily Mail group over her fathers letter. Had it gone to trial the Mail would have made a fortune from the circus of having two Royals in court.

Nqp15hhu

Glad to see the back of them to be honest. Sick of of both of them moaning about being royals with all the privilege and money they have.

Kate and William just get on with it. Most of us respect them for that!

Nqp15hhu

Mrsmum wrote: »

I think this is the correct way. They no longer represent The Queen and RF which was a ridiculous idea, them living in the States. And they are free to put forward who they are now and what it is that they are selling by themselves.

You’re right. Meghan has no loyalty to the U.K. and has no interest in coming back. I’m sure most U.K. taxpayers don’t want money being sent to them to live abroad!