Meghan and Harry 2: Now with Archie

[Jigsaw3]

Meghan is still on maternity leave -- and was definitely on mat leave in July. Please don't knock her low level of engagements until January. (Then feel free.)

[just_ordinary]

6 hours ago, Jigsaw3 said:

Meghan is still on maternity leave -- and was definitely on mat leave in July. Please don't knock her low level of engagements until January. (Then feel free.)

No she isn’t. Her maternity leave ended September 12th with the launch of SmartWorks. While I haven’t found any official message, all press about the launch says that this was her official return. It reads like there was an announcement but I haven’t found it.

The official royal circular lists the 2nd October as first real engagement (visit to Hub). She also undertook the SA tour at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. So, she is definitely back to work.

Edited November 16, 2019 by just_ordinary

[acheronbeach]

9 hours ago, Jigsaw3 said:

Meghan is still on maternity leave -- and was definitely on mat leave in July. Please don't knock her low level of engagements until January. (Then feel free.)

She made such a BFD in the media when first pregnant about taking a short mat leave - 60 or 90 days - because she wanted to get back to work.  Then when she did return in Sept. there were a million articles in all her favorite US mags about how her mat leave had officially ended... but she's just so busy it was like she never took a break at all (Vanity Fair was the cringiest one I read). 

I've never seen anything to suggest she's taking a year long mat leave.  Just the opposite.  

[SoSoNosy]

I read somewhere that William and Kate had decided to spend all Christmas's at Sandringham right now, because of Phillip's frailty.  I know the media is bad about making up stuff, but I think back to the "what Meghan wants, Meghan gets" when it came to what tiara she would wear at her wedding (and the Queen saying "not necessarily".  And then something about making Kate cry, concerning Charlotte's dress for the wedding.  I didn't spend a lot of time trying to find out what that was all about (although from the tiara she did end up wearing, I am wondering if she was demanding to wear the one Eugenie wore).

She definitely has not followed a lot of "rules", such as panty hose and not crossing her legs.

[louisa05]

13 minutes ago, SoSoNosy said:

I read somewhere that William and Kate had decided to spend all Christmas's at Sandringham right now, because of Phillip's frailty.  I know the media is bad about making up stuff, but I think back to the "what Meghan wants, Meghan gets" when it came to what tiara she would wear at her wedding (and the Queen saying "not necessarily".  And then something about making Kate cry, concerning Charlotte's dress for the wedding.  I didn't spend a lot of time trying to find out what that was all about (although from the tiara she did end up wearing, I am wondering if she was demanding to wear the one Eugenie wore).

She definitely has not followed a lot of "rules", such as panty hose and not crossing her legs.

To be fair to Meghan, not a lot of those things are rules as much as they are the way things have always been done. And the Queen is not a one woman wardrobe police department. As if she has time for that. I do think a lot of the things Meghan has tripped up on are more cultural than anything--wearing the off the shoulder dress to Trooping the Colour--Kate or Sophie would have grown up seeing photos of that year after year and likely instinctively knew that it's not an event to show too much skin. And they would've likewise known that you don't wear faded jeans to Wimbledon as a royal or that carrying big bags to events where you have to greet people and shake hands a lot is just going to be awkward. And the fix for that stuff would be to hire a British stylist who knows the ins and outs of royal events and traditions. Jessica Mulroney obviously has no idea. But after this long, I get the sense that Meghan just doesn't care which is a bigger problem. 

As for the maternity leave...I was extremely put off by all of that going on about taking a short leave and "getting back to work". If she's the feminist she claims to be, she would know that lack of adequate paid maternity leave is a huge problem in the U.S. This was her opportunity to be able to make a point about that and instead she crowed about not needing the time. Additionally, if she's as unhappy as she claimed to be in that documentary, working through what should have been her mat leave probably wasn't wise. She literally talked about the stresses of new motherhood; but she had the opportunity that most American women do not to let everything else go and focus on her new baby and chose not to. 

 

 

[just_ordinary]

I always feared the narrative they built around her would do more harm than good.

”Hitting the ground running” (maybe to avoid another duchess of Doolittle), “workhorse” - they hyped her up so much, and she actually delivered but it was clear as day that at one point this narrative would turn around and bite them in the ass. It’s too much pressure and she is only human after all. 

I know from experience that you can do too much in the early days as young parents/mothers. I had an pretty easy recovery from my c-section and a partner wo was on parental leave for 2 months (and much more later). Our daughter is a pretty chilled baby, so we felt good enough to do various trips to great-grandparents, extended family and even visiting family out of the country. It was all fine but I think I would try to get more rest a second time around. Just spending more time in this newborn bubble. 

Maybe that is what happened to her? Maybe she got caught up in the narrative and believed it would be easy or maybe felt the pressure to deliver? Creating this hype did her a massive disservice (.not saying this narrative was her idea). Creating a pretty unfortunate mix of private and somewhat official/work engagements while still on leave made it definitely worse. 

[singsingsing]

So just based on this thread, I now think that Harry and Meghan (and their supporters) are 100% right about the obsession with vilifying her and tearing her down as much as possible for any reason, real or invented. Fucking wow. Wow! Some of you need help. Or maybe just to lay off the royal gossip and find something new on Netflix to binge. Season 3 of The Crown is out. Idk. Have fun with your hate fan fic, but I'll be avoiding this thread/subject like the plague from now on.

[acheronbeach]

16 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

So just based on this thread, I now think that Harry and Meghan (and their supporters) are 100% right about the obsession with vilifying her and tearing her down as much as possible for any reason, real or invented. Fucking wow. Wow! Some of you need help. Or maybe just to lay off the royal gossip and find something new on Netflix to binge. Season 3 of The Crown is out. Idk. Have fun with your hate fan fic, but I'll be avoiding this thread/subject like the plague from now on.

Well that was one of the more vague and bizarre rants I've come across on FJ. But yeah, I generally agree with the idea that you probably shouldn't visit threads that ate personally upsetting. 

[tabitha2]

And people who think St Meghan poops glitter and roses and anyone who dares criticize or question their paragon is a big mean racist1!1 hater and it’s all lies, lies I tell you!  Need to calm the fuck down and realize The Duchess was a B list Starlet with a string of broken relationships behind her who married the apparently a not all together stable Spare Prince .They now  reinforce each other acting  flakey and perverse and self important   Yay! 
 

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by tabitha2

[acheronbeach]

Interesting YouGov poll out of the UK about who in the Royal Family should get funding.  Unsurprisingly, the overwhelming majority said Pedo Prince Andy should get none (67 percent).  He was #1.  

#2 was Harry & Meghan, but it's not for lack of popularity.  Harry tied for most popular Royal with his brother William at 81% approval.  Meghan was a bit lower, with 44% approval rating - IMO, averageish, but not terrible.  I think the general disapproval with the funding isn't really about Meghan and Harry personally.  People in general are growing disillusioned with the umpteeth heir in line to the throne getting million-dollar perks from taxpayers, especially when you compare the BRF to more streamlined European royal families.  JMO of course.  

Edited November 28, 2019 by acheronbeach
i forgot a period

[tabitha2]

Meghan and Harry do precious little in the UK to deserve funding. 

[Smash!]

I get that they do less work in order to have time for Archie so I won't blame them for that. But why should they be funded by the public during those times? Someone said in the Andrew/Epstein thread that the Queens fortune comes indirectly from the public so why shouldn't Meghan and Harry be supported by the Queen until they work fully again?

[louisa05]

5 hours ago, Smash! said:

I get that they do less work in order to have time for Archie so I won't blame them for that. But why should they be funded by the public during those times? Someone said in the Andrew/Epstein thread that the Queens fortune comes indirectly from the public so why shouldn't Meghan and Harry be supported by the Queen until they work fully again?

Meghan has had a very quiet schedule since the big spectacular press gala return from mat leave.  And her stans are out and about the web to tell us how “lazy” everyone else in the family is compared to her. Those people do her more harm than good  

 

 

[tabitha2]

6 hours ago, Smash! said:

I get that they do less work in order to have time for Archie so I won't blame them for that. But why should they be funded by the public during those times? Someone said in the Andrew/Epstein thread that the Queens fortune comes indirectly from the public so why shouldn't Meghan and Harry be supported by the Queen until they work fully again?

 

Charles pays for them plus They also have Meghan’s money and Harry’s trust funds and Inheritance. They don’t need Grans money as well. 

[louisa05]

14 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

 

Charles pays for them plus They also have Meghan’s money and Harry’s trust funds and Inheritance. They don’t need Grans money as well. 

I think Meghan’s income has been exaggerated. And they likely have been getting money from the monarchy through the Sovereign Grant. All working royals do.  Plus public funds helped fund their wedding and the expensive home renovations. 
 

pretending they don’t get/need and have not benefited from public funding of the monarchy is really a no go. 

[acheronbeach]

4 hours ago, louisa05 said:

I think Meghan’s income has been exaggerated. And they likely have been getting money from the monarchy through the Sovereign Grant. All working royals do.  Plus public funds helped fund their wedding and the expensive home renovations. 
 

pretending they don’t get/need and have not benefited from public funding of the monarchy is really a no go. 

Yeah there's no way Meghan was a multi millionaire from being a little known actress on a little known TV show; nor was she making bank from an ad campaign with Reitman's.  She didn't even own a house or car when she was in Toronto.  Plus she had her PR firm to pay and that's not cheap. 

 

6 hours ago, louisa05 said:

Meghan has had a very quiet schedule since the big spectacular press gala return from mat leave.  And her stans are out and about the web to tell us how “lazy” everyone else in the family is compared to her. Those people do her more harm than good  

One of the biggest problems is that Lainey pushes this narrative all the time - Meghan is such a hard worker compared to the Cambridges.  Then she points to low-effort social media posts as evidence - liking a charity on Instagram is hardly work.  And frankly, M and H's calendars have been comparatively light since their marriage.  It's not a new thing. 

I don't understand why Meghan doesn't shut Lainey down with the Cambridge bashing.  They're definitely friendly with one another.  Once upon a time you could easily Google pictures of Meghan, Lainey and Jessica hanging out.  Looks like it's been scrubbed now because I can't find anything with a quick search. 

Edited November 28, 2019 by acheronbeach
Autocorrected to a swear word lol

[just_ordinary]

I think it’s great that they managed to stay off the radar. This could really ease the tension. The focus is taken entirely from them and I think this is good for everyone. Them, their families and the public. What I don’t get is why some people still feel the need to push them back into the spotlight. That giving fuel to the flame and is just not helping them. And the critics and haters won’t change their mind over another praising article.  

They wanted privacy and managed to disappear. So either those people have no clue and do more harm than good, are false friends and use them for their own fame or the Sussexes actually do support this (which would be stupid). 

[acheronbeach]

Harry did a video for a charity for kids who have lost a parent in service. The video is... odd.  Harry is dressed as Santa/Father Christmas with fat padding and the beard falling half-off his face.  But he's not pretending to be Santa, he's just talking as Prince Harry in a Santa costume.  Then at the end he yanks down the beard - which was frankly just sitting wonky on his face anyhow - and keeps talking.

Still, it's the thought that counts, and it's nice that he brought attention to what seems like a really touching charity.  

[acheronbeach]

Meghan and Harry's Christmas card is out.  Baby is cute and inquisitive looking.  I rolled my eyes a little when I realized they took it at Soho House Toronto.  Some articles are saying it's Photoshopped - and it probably is - but who cares?  It's a nice little card that focuses on their child.  As usual for her PR company, they've released it to the American market through People:  

https://people.com/royals/price-william-and-kate-middleton-like-meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-holiday-card/

On a related note, the Queen's Christmas broadcast and photos are very well done this year.  Prince George helping his father, grandfather, and great-grandmother make a Christmas pudding for charity?  Who wouldn't find that super cute?  

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by acheronbeach
realized i wrote "curious looking" which could be taken the wrong way, changed it to inquisitive

[omilona]

That child is Thomas Markle 2.0. Pity they will never meet.

[just_ordinary]

On 12/24/2019 at 11:25 PM, acheronbeach said:

Meghan and Harry's Christmas card is out.  Baby is cute and inquisitive looking.  I rolled my eyes a little when I realized they took it at Soho House Toronto.  Some articles are saying it's Photoshopped - and it probably is - but who cares?  It's a nice little card that focuses on their child.  As usual for her PR company, they've released it to the American market through People:  

https://people.com/royals/price-william-and-kate-middleton-like-meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-holiday-card/

On a related note, the Queen's Christmas broadcast and photos are very well done this year.  Prince George helping his father, grandfather, and great-grandmother make a Christmas pudding for charity?  Who wouldn't find that super cute?  

 

I think this card is not nice and a strange pick.
First of all: I don’t like this wanna be artsy black and white style. It’s very much a cheesy Pinterest from 5 years ago baby photo shoot result. But to each their own.

Secondly: why is Archie all front and centre by himself when they are so concerned about him having privacy. It would be strange not to have him in the card but this card is all about him. It’s not even a card of the Sussex family because Meghan and Harry disappear in the background. I absolutely get parents being enamoured with their child. And I understand why you would choose this picture for yourself and close family and friends. But it’s not what you would send your fans (aka strangers) and business partners. This pick kind of undermines their claims that they want to shield Archie from the spotlight.

The new picture they released at the end of the year was so much better. With Meghan in it, this would have shown a lovely, lively family enjoying nature and their life together. It looks so very natural but puts way more emphasis on Harry and Archie instead of having the whole focus on the child.

The slide show with music by U2 was pretty standard in terms of what John Smith and everyone else does but a good idea. It heavily featured Harry. Meghan was on maternity for some time but it always felt as if she was featured so much more on their account. 

Harry‘s Video was pretty strange to be honest. He didn’t seem sober which gave it a bad taste.

It will be interesting to see how things will be when they come back. With the Cambridge’s visible steps deeper into the public light and preparations for their future roles (and the media’s and public’s new found love for them), they might be off the hook. But I still see the stupidest headlines. Prince Philipp goes to hospital. No one visits, not even his wife but the Sussexes get called out for not flying in? Some people just love to hate on them. But so do many on Will and Kate (and poor Charlotte in her pictures where she didn’t cross her legs. There are some really strange people out there).

[FluffySnowball]

On 12/24/2019 at 11:25 PM, acheronbeach said:

On a related note, the Queen's Christmas broadcast and photos are very well done this year.  Prince George helping his father, grandfather, and great-grandmother make a Christmas pudding for charity?  Who wouldn't find that super cute?  

It really is super cute! My observation (no criticism though, the photo’s really nice) is that the Queen looks like someone who has never cooked a meal or even just held a wooden spoon in her life. She’s standing there in a way that makes it apparent it’s just a photo-op for her. And little Georgie is a doll, a very pretty child! 

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea]

On 11/15/2019 at 6:43 AM, acheronbeach said:

It was eye-opening for me to compare Meghan's court circular engagements (3 total since July) to Princess Anne's (9 in November alone!) or Sophie or even 82 year old Princess Alexandra. 

Admittedly, the Cambridges are comparatively lazy too but not quite Sussex level lazy.

Wait, isn't Meghan on mat leave? I wouldn't be doing many appearances with a baby either.

Never mind, I see this has been addressed. I really don't get the Meghan hate. She seems fine.

Edited January 4, 2020 by PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea
Read the last page

[acheronbeach]

6 hours ago, PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea said:

Wait, isn't Meghan on mat leave? I wouldn't be doing many appearances with a baby either.

Never mind, I see this has been addressed. I really don't get the Meghan hate. She seems fine.

I've mentioned this before, but I am not unbiased when it comes to Meghan.  I acknowledge that.  Pre-Harry, she treated a very gentle and sweet friend of mine like absolute shit after initially making her think they were SuPeR BesTie FrIeNds... but my friend didn't have the connections or wealth MM thought, I suppose.  

[zygote373]

Harry and Meghan stepping back from their royal duties with the aim of being financially independent.

Maybe now people can stop criticizing their every move.