Meghan and Harry 2: Now with Archie

[Jigsaw3]

The really good thing about the Smart Works clothes is that they provide equity at job interviews.

If a woman walks in to an interview in the suit or with her CV in the John Lewis bag, the interviewer has no way of knowing if she bought the outfit at Jigsaw or was dressed by her local Smart Works agency. In fact, it's a 50/50 chance! She can show up at her first day of work in the dress or blouse and again, maybe she just likes shopping at M&S, or really likes Misha Nonoo's designs: her coworkers can't judge her.

I really like that part of the scheme.

[just_ordinary]

8 hours ago, Jigsaw3 said:

The really good thing about the Smart Works clothes is that they provide equity at job interviews.

If a woman walks in to an interview in the suit or with her CV in the John Lewis bag, the interviewer has no way of knowing if she bought the outfit at Jigsaw or was dressed by her local Smart Works agency. In fact, it's a 50/50 chance! She can show up at her first day of work in the dress or blouse and again, maybe she just likes shopping at M&S, or really likes Misha Nonoo's designs: her coworkers can't judge her.

I really like that part of the scheme.

Would anyone actually notice the brand though? The pieces aren’t special- you can find the exact same piece at several different stores/brand. As long as no one looks at the label, there is simply no way to tell. 

[acheronbeach]

On 9/15/2019 at 6:44 PM, Jigsaw3 said:

The really good thing about the Smart Works clothes is that they provide equity at job interviews.

If a woman walks in to an interview in the suit or with her CV in the John Lewis bag, the interviewer has no way of knowing if she bought the outfit at Jigsaw or was dressed by her local Smart Works agency. In fact, it's a 50/50 chance! She can show up at her first day of work in the dress or blouse and again, maybe she just likes shopping at M&S, or really likes Misha Nonoo's designs: her coworkers can't judge her.

I really like that part of the scheme.

I actually think it may do just the opposite.  I understood that Smart Works's usual items are primarily donations, so an interviewer would have no idea that they're "charity" items if an interviewee received one of those donated, non-Meghan-and-Misha pieces.  

But the Meghan-and-Misha Smart Works collection has been heavily promoted, so those who like royal gossip or fashion will be able to spot the items.  If an interviewer knows about the collection, and cares about that sort of thing, I think it could unwittingly brand a woman as receiving donation.  I say this for a couple of reasons - a lot of the collection is expensive, and probably wouldn't be a realistic purchase for a person out of a job - and therefore the assumption is that they received it as a  SW donation (this seems more likely interviewees who have a gap in employment or are underemployed - a lot of SW's clientele).  I think the sheath dresses in particular don't seem particularly interview-appropriate and so a woman wearing it might be viewed as having to wear it because it was donated.  

I wish this wasn't so, but there are many, many judgmental people out there.  

 

[just_ordinary]

I would like to chime in:

for people interested in a more critical coverage of both Duchesses-

KateMiddletonReview will be back blogging. She took a long break after she realised that the negativity and hate went out of hand in the comment section and has addressed her own responsibilities. I have to agree that sadly both comment sections became a pool of hatred. But I miss finding balanced resources that don’t think it’s a problem to criticise. Hopefully her new approach will be better. It’s a good resource to realise how bad Kate‘s treatment actually was (the hate for Meghan is well known) and that this has been going on for years (even longer as the blog only started when she got engaged/married). While many now don’t find a fault in her because it is convenient to play her against Meghan that is really just a very recent development.

 

back to the Smart Works Launch. I think it’s sad that obviously many people don’t understand how it’s supposed to work. They criticise that the whole set is too expensive (£572,50) but no one is expected to buy the set. You should by a piece (or more) and have one given to the charity.

I have to agree about the criticism on the individual pieces like the dress (especially the cut and the fact that we are approaching fall and winter) but I do think the colours or the suit set are in every way perfectly suitable for any kind of job situation or interview. 

What I do find unfortunate is that her collaboration with Misha Nonoo has an air of nepotism. The brand is not in any way comparable to m&s or John Lewis, which are seen as typical British retailer. The company will probably hugely benefit from this collaboration and Harry and Meghan are said to be guests at her wedding. The same is whispered about Eugenie but she hasn’t launched a collaboration where the company will benefit from. And sorry, but jetting around for a wedding is nice but in no way what you expect from people who are allegedly VERY concerned about their carbon footprint. Saving the planet means restrictions and not just for the rest of us. There is a difference between having a work carbon footprint and a leisure one. This little getaway is an open invitation for bad press.

[acheronbeach]

@just_ordinary flying once again, this time to celebrate the wedding of an oil billionaire.  I suppose we're supposed to be impressed because this time they gave up the private jet in the face of criticism. 

Did anyone see the Instagram quiz they posted about themselves before it got  pulled? I read about it but it was gone by the time I looked. 

[tabitha2]

Really? This beyond silly.I can’t with these two anymore and they deserve the bad press and derision they get for nonsense.   

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/harry-meghan-wont-reveal-dog-private-094625127.html

[acheronbeach]

Correction: the online trivia quiz was an Africa themed one about the Sussexes AND HMQ according to an article I read. 

[princessmahina]

On 9/21/2019 at 9:27 AM, tabitha2 said:

Really? This beyond silly.I can’t with these two anymore and they deserve the bad press and derision they get for nonsense.   

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/harry-meghan-wont-reveal-dog-private-094625127.html

That is probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. Of all the things to be private about ??

[adidas]

New Instagram photos and news video: Arch meets Archie - pretty cute! 

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-visit-archbishop-desmond-tutu-on-royal-tour-day-three/news-story/6755aa7cddd7c87eaf4a4ccff17608a8

[acheronbeach]

28 minutes ago, adidas said:

New Instagram photos and news video: Arch meets Archie - pretty cute! 

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-visit-archbishop-desmond-tutu-on-royal-tour-day-three/news-story/6755aa7cddd7c87eaf4a4ccff17608a8

Holy shit that's a giant baby.  He looks just like his mom's side of the family.   He's a cutie... the Markles have pretty cute faces as a whole. 

I wonder if Meghan truly wanted to show him to the public.  She looks a bit uncomfortable with him there.  

[Gobbles]

I think he absolutely looks like his Dad! 

 

[viii]

39 minutes ago, acheronbeach said:

He looks just like his mom's side of the family. 

It's funny how people view things differently - I think he's the spitting image of Prince Harry as a baby. 

He's a cutie, though, and seems like a happy baby. It's nice that they brought him out - I was expecting them to trot him out far more often than they actually have. 

[keen23]

I love that Meghan has an actual, real person postpartum body. The pictures with Archbishop Desmond Tutu are so joyful.

[tabitha2]

I don’t see Meghan At all. That boy right now is pure Harry. Even his scarce hair looks to be reddish. 

 

A “real” person can either gain a lot weight or some weight or not very much at all during pregnancy. And it can take a long time or short to lose it as well. It depends on plenty of things. 

[mango_fandango]

He does look like a sweet kid, and his hair does look a little red... I guess we’ll know who he looks like better when he’s older. 

[FluffySnowball]

My staunchly republican butt just had a look at Archie’s recent baby photos and I gotta admit they’re cute!

What I did like was that Harry and Meghan dressed Archie in what looks like comfortable baby clothes that also cover his knees and legs. When Kate and William took baby George to NZ (good on them for not leaving him behind), I felt sorry for him. It seemed to be a chilly day when they arrived and stepped out of the airplane, Kate was wearing a coat, William long pants as usual and the wee one had what I regard as summer pants and socks that exposed half his legs. Fuck tradition and keep your baby warm IMO.

I understand some people calling for H & M to be more traditional, but in this particular case, I like their decision to break with this tradition. 

[viii]

I really appreciated this article, and I'm glad that he is taking a stance. While I think that the Sussexes have made some missteps, the media treatment of her is just vile.

https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-issues-statement-against-ruthless-treatment-meghan-markle-has-received-in-british-press/

[acheronbeach]

12 minutes ago, viii said:

I really appreciated this article, and I'm glad that he is taking a stance. While I think that the Sussexes have made some missteps, the media treatment of her is just vile.

https://people.com/royals/prince-harry-issues-statement-against-ruthless-treatment-meghan-markle-has-received-in-british-press/

Not this again.  Remember the FIRST statement he made along this vein?  After Meghan said she'd been the victim of a break and enter to her Annex home, and then the Globe and Mail  investigated and published a story about how there was no report of any B&E to police as she'd said?  Oh, and then that Globe article mysteriously vanished a week or two later?  And we never heard about the B&E again?  

And, unsurprisingly, they chose to release this letter through People magazine.  Just like the British press have been personae non gratae to Meghan's secret visits on the African tour (released via their Insta and People Magazine).  And we're still at zero interviews with any of the traditional royal reporters in Britain.  

I don't like a lot of the British press over Meghan and Harry.  But they've repeatedly acted in a way that would almost certainly antagonize the local media, and they continue to do so.  It's become a virulent pissing match between Sussexes v. the British Press - the UK media keeps quiet about a lot of unappealing Royal behaviour for the Royals who play the game, but they're clearly not doing so for H & M anymore. 

Lawsuits, allegations of racism and sexism, and exclusives all going to People and social media isn't going to make the British media present H & M in a more positive light.  I'm not sure what their endgame is.  

[tabitha2]

My take is It’s mostly down to Harry. He despises the press for what they did to his mother and is unfortunately compelled to fight them, frustrate them and generally piss them off. But his little revenge tactics are just cutting off his nose to spite his face. His issues were never properly dealt with in the first place and real talk think Meghan is encouraging at least some of this drama.

[viii]

They’re suing the daily Mail for a specific and legitimate reason. 

[acheronbeach]

2 hours ago, viii said:

They’re suing the daily Mail for a specific and legitimate reason. 

Are they?  I find the whole lawsuit situation bizarre.  In February, the Mail published a letter Meghan wrote her father.  Several other papers picked up the story and published the same letter, or excerpts of it.  People Magazine did, too.  

I'm frankly baffled by the whole situation.  Why sue nine months later?  Why not sue the other mags?  Is it because the Mail is the most critical of Meghan?  And if publishing that letter was so intrusive and hurtful, why would they announce their lawsuit in one of the magazines that published the letter?  

Again, I don't understand what the hoped-for result is here.  It's all very strange.  

[viii]

The daily mail are the ones who obtained the letter and altered it to fit the horrible narrative they’ve been spewing about Meghan for 2+ years. Other sources ran with the article, but they’re focusing on the original source to make their point. And Harry specifically said this law suit has been in the making for months, which makes sense. 

I think the hope is for the media in general to ease up on Meghan with the racism and sexism. They’re donating the money they win, so it’s not like any of this is personal gain. 

[just_ordinary]

I have to agree that I don’t get the lawsuit completely. I would be very supportive of them suing authors/posters for racist comments/articles  (not sure if you can sue for sexist ones). And the magazin for publishing them. I actually think they should employ an army of lawyers to sue each and every one of them. Not sure if they could legally have the private information of those posters identified... it would probably take another lawsuit to get them but they should go this route and then confront those people with the consequences.

I am actually not sure if they will win this lawsuit. I hope they won’t loose. Their lawyers will have checked beforehand how the chances are and advised them accordingly.

British magazines are relentless and mean. They will drag you down for months- or in poor Camillas case almost 40 years. What this woman had to endure is unbelievable. I am not saying that that is ok, certain behaviour needs to addressed and changed. But in general I think Harry and Meghan have lost sight of what behaviour is truly illegal (racist, sexist...) and what is just bad taste. Not every form of gossip is online bullying and not every criticism is hate (otherwise we need to shut down this forum ASAP). I hope there will be a solution soon. Those magazines could close the comment sections for a start and 75% of the nastiness would disappear.

On the other side of the table: If the British media is unhappy about the way Meghan and Harry go on about all this they should consider giving them no coverage what so ever. That would be a strong message. But obviously this doesn’t generate clicks and engagement. 

[acheronbeach]

This isn't going to stop the British media from publishing unsavoury opinions or articles with sexist and racist overtones because the law there allows them to do so.  For decades they've criticized the women of the RF - Camilla, Sarah, Catherine.  They're only filing this lawsuit because as far as I understand British law, copyright of personal letters is retained by the writer, not with the receiver.   It's the only published thing so far that's been actionable in law.  So, this is a copyright case, not a case about the actual content/opinions published about her.  The press are still free to write whatever they want and they absolutely will in the face of this lawsuit.  The pen is mightier than the sword.  Don't piss off the guy with the pen.  

I thought Harry's letter was a bad idea.  It's in stark contrast to prior BRF letters about media conduct (see, for instance, the incredibly well-reasoned letter about paparazzi behaviour toward Prince George).  These recent Princess Di references in the face of bad PR come across as cynical.  Meghan having mean things said about her on the internet is not like Diana's death.  Meghan has been treated like other women of the RF (I'd even say more gently, in many ways) but Harry doesn't compare her to her living relatives who struggle with similar media backlash, like Sarah, Camilla or Catherine. Meghan is always portrayed - here, and by her host of Celebrity Best Friends who share a PR firm - as the most bullied, most saddest, most victimized, most unique.  

It comes across as a bit ridiculous when you compare it to the awful things that have been published about the other women of the BRF and their family issues - I'm thinking of poor Sarah Ferguson in particular.  

[Blahblah]

It’s the timing that I don’t understand. They’ve done a fantastic job of clawing back respect on this tour. Meghan is relaxing and looks mostly like she is truly enjoying herself. 

They could have finished the tour on a high while the despised press is mostly saying flattering things and praising them

The law suit could wait until they were back at home - after all it’s been months since the letter was published so a couple more weeks wouldn’t have made any difference.

Instead they’ve chosen to put it out there now and take the focus away from their efforts and causes on this tour. Why not let Africa be the centre of attention? Isn’t the point of a tour to show support for the people and places they visit? To bring awareness of the causes and charities they visit?

The spotlight is now firmly back on Meghan .... and maybe I’ve just answered my own question about timing.