Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

Netflix and Oprah is not the only way to raise awareness for charities.

You can hardly deny that they have benefited enormously from their deals? Or did I miss the part that it is purely altruistic?

Where is the evidence that there has been increased donations to these charities after their deals?

It's their choice. Tough if you don't like it! Obviously it's a very bitter pill for you to swallow.

I very clearly said they have to pay for security. And to live. I also said Invictus Games is about to get a windfall, no doubt because that's how RF/celebrity charity sponsorship works. So maybe once that airs you can have your evidence, lol. Don't know why you care so much!

Now who's not reading posts! :pac:

What's that you said a few posts back?
"I would despise people putting words in my mouth about how I feel or behaved in very intimate family matters. Especially somebody that I do not know."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

valoren

Doggos wrote: »

Seriously? The Royal Family are literally enriched by their charity roles. They live in palaces on taxpayer funded salaries and properties because of the charity work they do.

If they didn't make a deal with Netflix, then Invictus Games wouldn't stand to benefit as much as they're about to. That's the way it works. People to a great extent become aware of charities and the work they do because the royal family (or whatever celebrities) sponsors them.

We've already covered the reason for the trademark protection. You don't see them selling merch with their faces on it, do you?

They can't. It was stopped.

It's almost as if the public want to have the monarchy. You trotted out the "but William and Kate did it too" defence of creating the trade mark but the circumstances are different. The Royal Foundation one was for the likes of clothing, footwear, head gear used during charity events, marathons etc but any money generated from it would be for the charity and any street hawkers could then face legal repercussions because of the trademark. The same was done for SussexRoyal but the proceeds would be private and again, it would legally inhibit street merchants trying to cash in. Not the same, they were free to set it up of course but the Palace seemingly cracked down on the verboten idea of cashing in on their status. The point is that they'd have done the same if Will and Kate tried the same thing.

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

It's their choice. Tough if you don't like it! Obviously it's a very bitter pill for you to swallow.

I very clearly said they have to pay for security. And to live. I also said Invictus Games is about to get a windfall, no doubt because that's how RF/celebrity charity sponsorship works. So maybe once that airs you can have your evidence, lol. Don't know why you care so much!

Now who's not reading posts! :pac:

What's that you said a few posts back?
"I would despise people putting words in my mouth about how I feel or behaved in very intimate family matters. Especially somebody that I do not know."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

So, they will only use the money for security and nothing else?

Putting words in somebody’s mouth has a very specific connotation. Please tell me where I am guilty of this? Remember, your allegations need to be substantiated by evidence. If I am guilty of what you allege, I will apologise

dark crystal

BettyS wrote: »

Netflix and Oprah is not the only way to raise awareness for charities.

You can hardly deny that they have benefited enormously from their deals? Or did I miss the part that it is purely altruistic?

Where is the evidence that there has been increased donations to these charities after their deals?

Harry founded the Invictus games and it is incredibly important to him - there would be no invictus games without him. The Netflix doc hasn't even aired yet, but any compensation from the series about the games will be given to the charity.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a36041133/prince-harry-meghan-markle-netflix-invictus-games-series/

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

But what about the documented hurt that Philip’s comments caused other people? Should we only publicly speak out if it directly affects us? As long as they are not hurting my family, then it is cool. By not condemning publicly, they are essentially condoning. And with their gushing comments about him, they are endorsing. Many people were very hurt by Philip’s comments.

Would you like to speak up about Philip's gaffe's, BettyS? Are William and Kate and the Queen also condoning his comments? Or do you just want to beat H&M with that stick. He was her husband and said many of those things while on official duty with her. Why the laser focus on H&M... it's obvious you just want to hate them.

You seem to need to get this off your chest. His comments seem to really bother you. If you want to condemn them here, I'll listen!

I thought you said this was a thread about Harry and Meghan though? It's really weird how you say one thing, yet do the opposite.

Doggos

Doggos wrote: »

You say you watched the interview so why are you asking me what their complaints are? It was a pretty detailed 2 hours of laying all that out...

The only complaint was her idea that the press treatment towards her was somehow worse then press treatment of anyone else.
I didn't hear any complaints about how the royal family treated her? Can you maybe tell me what you heard, cos you must have watched a different interview to the rest of us!

Doggos

valoren wrote: »

They can't. It was stopped.

It's almost as if the public want to have the monarchy. You trotted out the "but William and Kate did it too" defence of creating the trade mark but the circumstances are different. The Royal Foundation one was for the likes of clothing, footwear, head gear used during charity events, marathons etc but any money generated from it would be for the charity and any street hawkers could then face legal repercussions because of the trademark. The same was done for SussexRoyal but the proceeds would be private and again, it would legally inhibit street merchants trying to cash in. Not the same, they were free to set it up of course but the Palace seemingly cracked down on the verboten idea of cashing in on their status. The point is that they'd have done the same if Will and Kate tried the same thing.

No sorry, don't agree it's different. It's not a 'defence,' it's just a simple fact. The RF don't want anyone cheapening their family's likeness to be sold for profit by some randomer at the end of the day.

Again, you don't see H&M selling their "trademarked" wares do you? So what's your actual problem here and why do you care?

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

Would you like to speak up about Philip's gaffe's, BettyS? Are William and Kate and the Queen also condoning his comments? Or do you just want to beat H&M with that stick. He was her husband and said many of those things while on official duty with her. Why the laser focus on H&M... it's obvious you just want to hate them.

You seem to need to get this off your chest. His comments seem to really bother you. If you want to condemn them here, I'll listen!

I thought you said this was a thread about Harry and Meghan though? It's really weird how you say one thing, yet do the opposite.

You really seem to skim through my posts and derive your own twisted meanings.

As I have said multiple times, they condemned somebody publicly (on international television) for racism. Yet, they have ignored comments that could be perceived as racist by another. What makes one person racist and one person not racist in their perception?

My point is that publicly one person seems to get the free pass card from Harry and Meghan, and another is condemned. What is the difference???

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

So, they will only use the money for security and nothing else?

Putting words in somebody’s mouth has a very specific connotation. Please tell me where I am guilty of this? Remember, your allegations need to be substantiated by evidence. If I am guilty of what you allege, I will apologise

Would you prefer they not live, just have security and couch surf at their friends houses? :pac:

Ok, challenge accepted. I'll waste a few more minutes this morning showing where you have been "putting words in (their) mouth about how (they) feel or behaved in very intimate family matters. Especially somebody that I do not know." Easy.

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

You really seem to skim through my posts and derive your own twisted meanings.

As I have said multiple times, they condemned somebody publicly (on international television) for racism. Yet, they have ignored comments that could be perceived as racist by another. What makes one person racist and one person not racist in their perception?

Neither I, nor the other people you mention publicly claim that one of the royal family is racist. My point is that publicly one person seems to get the free pass card from Harry and Meghan, and another is condemned. What is the difference???

Ooh somebody is getting their (hopefully not royally trademarked) panties in a twist! :pac:

I can already point out you're assuming to know how they feel or behaved based off some tiny sliver of things they have talked about. I'll remind you that you don't know them, you haven't been in their shoes, and you couldn't possible know what goes on or is said behind closed doors.

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

Ooh somebody is getting their (hopefully not royally trademarked) panties in a twist! :pac:

I can already point out you're assuming to know how they feel or behaved based off some tiny sliver of things they have talked about. I'll remind you that you don't know them, you haven't been in their shoes, and you couldn't possible know what goes on behind closed doors.

I am pointing out empirical facts here. They did not mention Philip’s comments over the years. For some (just to be very clear to you), specifically the general public, lack of comment may be interpreted as in indirect support of these comments. Again, this is an empirical fact.

Next! Where is the evidence that I know how they feel or think? Or is this just an allegation that you wish to propagate?

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

Would you prefer they not live, just have security and couch surf at their friends houses? :pac:

Ok, challenge accepted. I'll waste a few more minutes this morning showing where you have been "putting words in (their) mouth about how (they) feel or behaved in very intimate family matters. Especially somebody that I do not know." Easy.

There is a difference between couch surfing and living in one of the most exclusive areas, with a host of staff and private jets at their disposal

You talk about the fact that you cannot buy a mug with a picture of them. Is not using their brand to sell their Netflix documentary tantamount to a mug?

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

I am pointing out empirical facts here. They did not mention Philip’s comments over the years. For some (just to be very clear to you), specifically the general public, lack of comment may be interpreted as in indirect support of these comments. Again, this is an empirical fact. Next!

To be very clear to you, no one in the RF has spoken out about his comments over the years. And, you don't know what was expressed already privately.

And let's be real - if they did speak up about it, ya'll would have lit them on fire for it because 'omg he's in the hospital and the poor Queen having to face this slander against her husband, they're not racist comments they're just off colour and normal for his generation...."

Something like that. Right? Next!

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

There is a difference between couch surfing and living in one of the most exclusive areas, with a host of staff and private jets at their disposal

You talk about the fact that you cannot buy a mug with a picture of them. Is not using their brand to sell their Netflix documentary tantamount to a mug?

Now they need to live in a house *you* deem best for them? Listen to yourself... do you ever stop judging people you don't know and who have done nothing to you?

Ask Invictus Games if they are glad they're using their platform for them.

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

To be very clear to you, no one in the RF has spoken out about his comments over the years. And, you don't know what was expressed already privately.

And let's be real - if they did speak up about it, ya'll would have lit them on fire for it because 'omg he's in the hospital and the poor Queen having to face this slander against her husband, they're not racist comments they're just off colour and normal for his generation...."

Something like that. Right? Next!

But you said that I put words in their mouth? Where is the evidence of this? Or was it just something that you decided to accuse me of, because why not

valoren

Doggos wrote: »

No sorry, don't agree it's different. It's not a 'defence,' it's just a simple fact. The RF don't want anyone cheapening their family's likeness to be sold for profit by some randomer at the end of the day.

Again, you don't see H&M selling their "trademarked" wares do you? So what's your actual problem here and why do you care?

The Royal Foundation included the word "Royal" but as it was for charity it was allowed to be trademarked. The SussexRoyal name was shut down as it also included the word Royal. Remember the whole deal about the Queen not owning the word "Royal"? Archewell became the alternative as far as I know for their trademark. The argument that Will and Kate did the same thing is not a fair comparison but it doesn't stop it from becoming invoked in a "one rule for them and another for us" situation with Willy and Kate able to trademark "Royal" but Harry and Meghan getting denied. Bottom line is that no one can use the word Royal to make private income and presumably this was outlined and accepted by Harry and Meghan as no precedence was going to be set for others to cash in down the line (pun intended).

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

Now they need to live in a house *you* deem best for them? Listen to yourself... do you ever stop judging people you don't know and who have done nothing to you?

Ask Invictus Games if they are glad they're using their platform for them.

Where do I deem it best for them? I just pointed out that they are living in one of the most exclusive areas (again empirical fact). Hence, your previous assertion that every cent that they earn goes to charity (allegation, not empirical fact) is not true and they do reap certain material rewards for their work (again, empirical fact)

Doggos

Doggos wrote: »

On the other hand M&H were directly subjected to unacceptable racism towards their future children so that's an understandable reason to make a choice to speak out about it all things considered.

Well that's not true is it?
Megan wasn't directly subjected to any racism.
Megan claimed someone spoke with Harry about the colour of the child's skin, or future children's skin. Harry said he wouldn't even talk about it.
So, I don't see anything racist? Nothing that I haven't discussed myself with a friend about her baby.

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

Now they need to live in a house *you* deem best for them? Listen to yourself... do you ever stop judging people you don't know and who have done nothing to you?

Ask Invictus Games if they are glad they're using their platform for them.

I actually find you incredibly judgemental. You attribute all these false meanings that you gleam from my posts. You don’t even have the courtesy to properly read what I do bother to post. I am not some angry curmudgeon sitting behind a screen, as you would like to believe. In fact, I am just trying to highlight the fallacy of your arguments. I don’t wish Meghan and Harry ill. I just wish that people like you would acknowledge the vast benefits that they have and realise that they are not as pure as the driven snow

From very early in their relationship, they played the media. They weren’t getting much coverage until Haz put out a statement requesting the media to give Meg space. They’re still playing the same game. We want privacy. But don’t ignore us!

Doggos

BettyS wrote: »

I actually find you incredibly judgemental. You attribute all these false meanings that you gleam from my posts. You don’t even have the courtesy to properly read what I do bother to post. I am not some angry curmudgeon sitting behind a screen, as you would like to believe. In fact, I am just trying to highlight the fallacy of your arguments. I don’t wish Meghan and Harry ill. I just wish that people like you would acknowledge the vast benefits that they have and realise that they are not as pure as the driven snow

Hahahaha I actually find this incredibly funny and lacking in self awareness :pac:

Right so, just stop replying to my posts, and I'll stop replying to yours.

You're really bent out of shape here and I don't think it's doing you any good. It's just Harry and Meghan, life will go on.

I'm sorry if you feel I am not reading your posts about Harry & Meghan the way you want me to. I'm sorry you sidestep and ignore every time it's pointed out where your posts are judgmental, hypocritical and engaging in fallacy arguments. (It's a H&M thread, don't mention Andrew! But let's talk about Prince Philip!).

I do realise and admit they have vast benefits (as do the whole RF), and I'm glad to see them putting it to good use as well. Not sure if you could admit that.

No one's perfect, not even Harry and Meghan. Happy? I'm out of time I've a call to jump on so will leave you to all to your hating.

FileNotFound

bubblypop wrote: »

Well that's not true is it?
Megan wasn't directly subjected to any racism.
Megan claimed someone spoke with Harry about the colour of the child's skin, or future children's skin. Harry said he wouldn't even talk about it.
So, I don't see anything racist? Nothing that I haven't discussed myself with a friend about her baby.

Isn't that the thing, does asking a question constitute racism? Dictionary definition below:

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."


Then did that question really mean they would not let Archie be a prince or protect him, or was that just pre-existing rules from 100 yrs before created because of the cost of the Royal Family to the tax payer?


Then depending on your view did H&M misrepresent or accurately represent this in an interview? The RF have disputed the racism and H&M have not provided anything but a non specific non quote to support while ensuring the public impression was racism from RF.


So are the RF bad for being racist or are H&M bad for using racism under false pretenses to further their non royal careers?

valoren

[Deleted User] wrote: »

From very early in their relationship, they played the media. They weren’t getting much coverage until Haz put out a statement requesting the media to give Meg space. They’re still playing the same game. We want privacy. But don’t ignore us!

Nail on the head.

Can see it again with the flying monkeys i.e. a "friend" coming out to make a statement about Meghans absence from the funeral. She doesn't, in light of the interview, want to be centre of attention in attending? A "friend" gives a statement to deliver that message thus cultivating....wait for it....attention! Forgive and forget? Uniting? Simultaneously the hero and the victim of her own story indeed.

BettyS

Doggos wrote: »

Hahahaha I actually find this incredibly funny and lacking in self awareness :pac:

Right so, just stop replying to my posts, and I'll stop replying to yours.

You're really bent out of shape here and I don't think it's doing you any good. It's just Harry and Meghan, life will go on.

I'm sorry if you feel I am not reading your posts about Harry & Meghan the way you want me to. I'm sorry you sidestep and ignore every time it's pointed out where your posts are judgmental, hypocritical and engaging in fallacy arguments. (It's a H&M thread, don't mention Andrew! But let's talk about Prince Philip!).

I do realise and admit they have vast benefits (as do the whole RF), and I'm glad to see them putting it to good use as well. Not sure if you could admit that.

No one's perfect, not even Harry and Meghan. Happy? I'm out of time I've a call to jump on so will leave you to all to your hating.

Your posts come across as very patronising.

FileNotFound

FileNotFound wrote: »

So are the RF bad for being racist or are H&M bad for using racism under false pretenses to further their non royal careers?

Well, given that there is no proof that the royal family are racist, I would have to agree with your second statement

Necro

BettyS wrote: »

I actually find you incredibly judgemental. You attribute all these false meanings that you gleam from my posts. You don’t even have the courtesy to properly read what I do bother to post. I am not some angry curmudgeon sitting behind a screen, as you would like to believe. In fact, I am just trying to highlight the fallacy of your arguments. I don’t wish Meghan and Harry ill. I just wish that people like you would acknowledge the vast benefits that they have and realise that they are not as pure as the driven snow

Doggos wrote: »

Hahahaha I actually find this incredibly funny and lacking in self awareness :pac:

Right so, just stop replying to my posts, and I'll stop replying to yours.

You're really bent out of shape here and I don't think it's doing you any good. It's just Harry and Meghan, life will go on.

I'm sorry if you feel I am not reading your posts about Harry & Meghan the way you want me to. I'm sorry you sidestep and ignore every time it's pointed out where your posts are judgmental, hypocritical and engaging in fallacy arguments. (It's a H&M thread, don't mention Andrew! But let's talk about Prince Philip!).

I do realise and admit they have vast benefits (as do the whole RF), and I'm glad to see them putting it to good use as well. Not sure if you could admit that.

No one's perfect, not even Harry and Meghan. Happy? I'm out of time I've a call to jump on so will leave you to all to your hating.

Mod: Both of you take 24 hours off this thread seeing as you are unable to remain civil towards each other

FileNotFound

bubblypop wrote: »

Well, given that there is no proof that the royal family are racist, I would have to agree with your second statement

Well Philip and Harry are both well recorded for racist comments so that's a stretch. Philip had a litany of them.

However in this case its definitely unclear to me.

Mrsmum

My attitude to Harry and Meghan is if the actual as opposed to the fantasy life of being a Royal is not for you and if you want to leave then go and be happy. But don't damage the life you didn't want and don't make yourself a constant headache for those getting on with the job. Be happy and be fair. That's not too much to ask is it. Interview = not fair. Interview done in the way it was done because they are not interesting in and of themselves, only news worthy via the prism of the Royals and especially via the prism of toppling the Royals a little bit from their perch. As an Irish person, I could find plenty to give out about with regard to the Royals, privilege and what have you but not because they didn't pander to a very ignorant (in terms of the job) Meghan and her spoilt husband.

Be right back

Mrsmum wrote: »

My attitude to Harry and Meghan is if the actual as opposed to the fantasy life of being a Royal is not for you and if you want to leave then go and be happy. But don't damage the life you didn't want and don't make yourself a constant headache for those getting on with the job. Be happy and be fair. That's not too much to ask is it. Interview = not fair. Interview done in the way it was done because they are not interesting in and of themselves, only news worthy via the prism of the Royals and especially via the prism of toppling the Royals a little bit from their perch.

It is surprising that he seemed quite happy in the Royal family until he met Meghan and lo and behold he decided that he was trapped. Well, she did say that she loves rescuing things.

The family dynamics must be interesting at Windsor. William might be pleased that Harry has to isolate and therefore they might not meet until the funeral itself.

retro:electro

I just find it hilarious that they were so disparaging about this uncaring and racist institution yet, please let us still be part time Royals racist and uncaring institution. Please still fund our security racist and uncaring institution. Please still give our son a title racist and uncaring institution.
If they wanted to break free from something they found so oppressive and restricting then more power to them. And until they did this interview I was a tad suspicious of them but didn’t really have a firm opinion either way. But how anyone can watch Oprah and not conclude that they’re a pair of hypocritical and petty whiners who are purely twisting the knife because they didn’t get what they wanted is beyond me. If it’s so racist and uncaring then off you go, but Meghan actually said they still wanted to be part time :pac: it’s as blatant as anything.

They wanted to keep all of the privileges and do none of the work, or at least choose what glamorous affairs to be involved in. And when they didn’t get that they went off. Clear as day.
Oh and the media. Big bad racist media who we need to edit and crop headlines to portray a narrative. Bold daddy too going to the papers about me and invading my privacy. Oh hold please Gayle I’ll call you back with the details once Harry is done finishing this unproductive chat with his family.