Meghan and Harry 3: Working Towards Financial Independence

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Carry on from here 

 

Edited January 15, 2020 by laPapessaGiovanna

[SoSoNosy]

I need to clarify something I said.  I did NOT mean that Meghan should be gazing adoringly at Harry, now that they are married. I was looking for it on the day they announced their engagement, after that, no problem.  

[meep]

@adidas I did not mean everyone here on the forums, I mean everything I am reading in the media and other comments and forums. If I had a nickel for every time I've read about how Meghan is a "Narcissist controlling Harry" I could buy a small car at this point. This seems to be the default narrative in British media currently, written by people who don't seem knowledgable. 

[hoipolloi]

58 minutes ago, meep said:

This seems to be the default narrative in British media currently, written by people who don't seem knowledgable. 

ITA. The level of ignorant vitriol is astounding, even compared to what's been said before now. Maybe they're upset that their most lucrative prey are getting out of Dodge. 

The Sussexes' new website is interesting, particularly its FAQs on finances. Also, BTW, if anyone's looking for a to-let in Devon, UK, check out the Duchy of Cornwall's lettings and sales.

 

Edited January 15, 2020 by hoipolloi
Punctuation, people!

[formergothardite]

2 hours ago, SoSoNosy said:

I need to clarify something I said.  I did NOT mean that Meghan should be gazing adoringly at Harry, now that they are married. I was looking for it on the day they announced their engagement, after that, no problem.  

She had the gaze happily in adoration look the day they announced their engagement...

Spoiler

 

[formergothardite]

Is what Meghan and Harry did similar to what Will and Kate did years ago? It seems slightly different but Will and Kate set up companies to protect their brand and trademarks.  They would also be able to sell products using their name through these companies. 

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kate-middleton-prince-william-establish-private-companies-protect-royal-brand-1432796

Quote

Creating their own companies will allow William and Kate to bring out an array of officially-endorsed merchandise from tea towels to coffee cups. It will also allow the couple to protect themselves from others exploiting their image for profit.

The memorial fund set up in the memory of William's mother caused a scandal when it authorised the use of Diana's signature on tubs of margarine.

Trustees also went to court to stop the manufacture of Diana dolls, a battle they lost at a cost of almost £15million.

Kensington Palace officials said the couple had approved the decision to establish the firms and were doing the 'sensible thing' in protecting the couple's rights.

 

[viii]

It's pretty much the same, which is why it makes me laugh when people accuse Harry and Meghan of capitalizing off their name. Perhaps they will (and it's their right), but it's also protecting themselves so nobody else can, either. 

[Beermeet]

@laPapessaGiovanna  Help me understand, please.  How do they get the money to make more money that doesn't come from tax payers?  Money often makes money, yes?  I've seen it said the working royals ( just the seniors?) are not allowed to hold jobs and make their own money.  How do they have non-tax payer money?  

ETA: I can understand Harry having Spencer money. Not understanding his Windsor side though. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Beermeet

[Pleiades_06]

Bitch Media posted this today: https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/on-our-radar—feminist-news-roundup/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-headlines

Original came from Buzzfeed: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

Edited January 16, 2020 by Pleiades_06

[NancyDrewFan1989]

On another note, does anyone have a real opinion on the upcoming court case Harry and Meghan have against the press involving her dad. The whole thing looks like it is going to blow up in court. Down below is what each side is saying (in my opinion, feel free to add if I missed anything).

Meghan: My dad is a jerk who is a fame seeking jerk. So, some of my friends did an interview for me my friends arranged to try and shed light. I wrote a letter to him that got brought up and then he published it without my knowledge. We were in contact up until my wedding as a I had bought him clothes and a new pair of shoes. After his posing fiasco, I tried to make up with him. He left the U.K. without telling me and couldn't make my wedding due to heart issues and surgery. My BFF Jessica Mulroney tried to intervene to make it look like my dad has been victimizing me ever since the wedding by arranging interviews with my friends about me to the press. After which he skipped town without telling me trying and unable to make it to my wedding. I have tried contacting my dad with phone calls and texts since but to no avail. I chose to write a letter to him to let him know that we can't have a good relationship if he continues to blab everything about me to the press. My father continues to victimize my husband, son, and I every chance he gets.

Thomas: I did make mistakes with the press. I was unable to attend the wedding due to having a medical procedure and I was advised not to fly. I did try to contact my daughter only to find out she either blocked me or changed her number. After an interview involving her friends that she and her BFF Jessica Mulroney set up, I decided to release the letter she wrote to me as the interview contained false information regarding me and said letter. The letter was a way of telling me to stop talking to the press and to leave them. Not about reconciliation like they claimed. She is allowed her friends to make false claims about me even though we hadn't been in contact for months. I have never met Harry, I don't know any of the royal family and now I am doing what I can to stop slanderous accusations made against me through my daughter, her BFF Jessica Mulroney, and other friends.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7887613/Markle-vs-Markle-Meghans-father-set-star-witness-against-High-Court-showdown.html

[meep]

2 hours ago, Beermeet said:

@laPapessaGiovanna  Help me understand, please.  How do they get the money to make more money that doesn't come from tax payers?  Money often makes money, yes?  I've seen it said the working royals ( just the seniors?) are not allowed to hold jobs and make their own money.  How do they have non-tax payer money?  

ETA: I can understand Harry having Spencer money. Not understanding his Windsor side though. 

This is from Harry & Meghan's site and it a pretty good breakdown: https://sussexroyal.com/funding/

[adidas]

12 hours ago, meep said:

@adidas I did not mean everyone here on the forums, I mean everything I am reading in the media and other comments and forums. If I had a nickel for every time I've read about how Meghan is a "Narcissist controlling Harry" I could buy a small car at this point. This seems to be the default narrative in British media currently, written by people who don't seem knowledgable. 

That’s so interesting. I haven’t seen a single thing at all, except for that one link (which I didn’t read) in the last thread. And I receive MSM news alerts, so I’ve seen a lot!! ?. 

Anyway. I’m firmly in the middle here. I’ve defended Meghan and Harry at times, but I’ve also raised my eyebrows at a few things. I’ve been open about my opinions whether I’ve been pro or anti their actions. I’m not moving from my position here on the fence. The hyperbole on both sides is getting ridiculous, IMO
 

edited to add:

9 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Is what Meghan and Harry did similar to what Will and Kate did years ago? It seems slightly different but Will and Kate set up companies to protect their brand and trademarks.  They would also be able to sell products using their name through these companies. 

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kate-middleton-prince-william-establish-private-companies-protect-royal-brand-1432796

 

It is different in its intention of where the money will go - Harry and Meghan’s website spells it out clearly. 

Quote

 they value the ability to earn a professional income, which in the current structure they are prohibited from doing.

(from https://sussexroyal.com/funding/)

So even though the process of setting up companies to protect brands and trademarks is the same, the Sussexes are being very open about their intentions. In their current role, William and Kate are prohibited from profiting from their brand (theirs are CE Strathearn and APL Anglesey). While they can sell products through their companies, they can not earn any professional income. Charities still need the same protection as businesses in terms of copyright.

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/kate-middleton-prince-william-establish-private-companies-protect-royal-brand-1432796

The Queen and Prince Charles have them too, and have had for a long time. All of their profits go to charity.

Edited January 16, 2020 by adidas

[adidas]

35 minutes ago, meep said:

This is from Harry & Meghan's site and it a pretty good breakdown: https://sussexroyal.com/funding/

The changes on this part of their website are very interesting and I think they offer us a few clues about some discussions during the summit on Monday.

[meep]

@NancyDrewFan1989 I can add and flesh out more details to provide a little more context to the situation.

In May of 2018, her father staged paparazzi photos of himself (allegedly paid). He admitted to lying to Harry about staging them (so even though he apparently was never introduced properly, they were somehow in contact). Meghan's half-sister (I honestly do not want to say her name, she deserves no attention, I personally cannot STAND her) then went on a talk show saying everything was her idea to show the world how their father is preparing for the wedding and the staged photos were NOT for the purpose of money.

In June, Thomas went on a morning show (allegedly paid) to discuss his relationship with Meghan and Harry (including that she did talk to him after his surgery/close before the wedding).

In July, Thomas talked to the Sun (allegedly paid) and promised it would be his "final interview." A mere 3 days later, he gave yet another interview (allegedly paid) - this time to TMZ - saying he didn't care that H&M were REPORTEDLY upset at his media interviews and he gave interviews because he didn't want the press thinking we was a "hermit hiding in Mexico." He said if the Royal Family is giving him the silent treatment by speaking to the press, then he will....keep speaking to the press so they'll break their silent treatment (???). About two weeks later, he then gives another interview (allegedly paid) to a different outlet, saying: "it'd be easier if I was dead...it would be easier for Meghan if I died;" "I could die tomorrow;" "I won't be silenced;" and the ever popular, "She'd be nothing without me. I made her the Duchess she is today. Everything that Meghan is, I made her." 

Half-sister put out a series of public tweets that include the now-famous gems: "If our father dies I’m holding you responsible, Meg!” "Glad you have so much time to gallivant around paying tribute to others while ignoring your own father! How cold can you be and look in the mirror? Harry? Guess I was right."

Please keep in mind that all of this occurred after Harry & Meghan ALLEGEDLY specifically asked Thomas to stop talking to the media.

This was the lead up to the letter that Meghan sent her father in August of 2018, which insinuates that any trust left she had in her father had been broken in the past few months due to his (and her half-sister's) behavior and lack of boundaries and privacy. 

In part, the letter included: 
"If you love me, as you tell the press you do, please stop. Please allow us to live our lives in peace. Please stop lying, please stop creating so much pain, please stop exploiting my relationship with my husband. I realize you are so far down this rabbit hole that you feel (or may feel) there's no way out, but if you take a moment to pause I think you'll see that being able to live with a clear conscience is more valuable than any payment in the world."

In February of 2019, Thomas decided to publish the letter to the Daily Mail, after alleging that Meghan had let friends "leak" aspects of the letter that in his opinion conveyed a false sense of victimhood from Meghan, instead of what he thought was a vicious attack on himself. 

In October 2019, H&M decided to sue Mail on Sunday ("sister newspaper" to the Daily Mail) for misuse of private information, copyright infringement, and breach of the Data Protection Act. Mail on Sunday's defense so far has been 1) they relied on evidence from Meghan's father, Thomas [this is why there is speculation he may testify]; 2) the privileged positions of the royal family depend upon the public's interest of their private lives; 3) Meghan had no reasonable expectation the letter would remain private. 

Make of all of this what you will. Not sure if either side is completely innocent but it's a mess indeed. 

@adidas Honestly that's good, I think it's a sign I read way too many trash tabloids, comments, and forums! Another forum I am in got a royal thread shut down due to the vicious bullying of Meghan. The Daily Mail has had some.....creative...headlines in the past week. 

[just_ordinary]

12 hours ago, meep said:

@adidas I did not mean everyone here on the forums, I mean everything I am reading in the media and other comments and forums. If I had a nickel for every time I've read about how Meghan is a "Narcissist controlling Harry" I could buy a small car at this point. This seems to be the default narrative in British media currently, written by people who don't seem knowledgable. 

I don’t agree as the term isn’t used as much in the articles but widely spread in comment sections and blogs and such by non-journalists. Probably because they could sue a real newspaper for slander if they did that. 

3 hours ago, Pleiades_06 said:

Bitch Media posted this today: https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/on-our-radar—feminist-news-roundup/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-headlines

Original came from Buzzfeed: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal

What annoys me to no end here is that they compare headlines from the same time. If they would dig out headlines about Kate from her early years they would realise that she got the same shit about breaking protocol (fashion and manner), dressing downs from the Queen, showing way too much leg, non-stop touching her bump (even though that was more criticised in blogs and comment sections) and simultaneously hiding her bump from everybody (how dare she) and making up her HG condition to avoid work. And the whole tragedy about the nurse that committed suicide. Not to forget her inappropriate make up and the wedges that the Queen allegedly hates so much. Uncle Gary anyone? Her stripper cousin? 
I would rather see a selection about tabloid articles that were racist. And no, not liking her hairstyle or assuming that her hairstyle at the wedding didn’t hold up because they underestimated the weight and pull of the tiara and therefore she looked pretty ruffled is not racist. Since then this never happened. She and her hairstylist are clearly capable of controlling her hair. As they were before she met Harry. Whenever she choose to wear her hair up it was exactly as she wanted it. Messy or sleek. But I digress. 
Showing the real racism would be so much better and more helpful.  

I do think @klein_roeschen has made some good points about casual racism they might have faced. But I am missing real examples of tabloids publishing racist articles. What was definitely a massive wrong doing is leaving comment sections uncontrolled. If they weren’t able to do it they should have closed them. Because there were truly nasty things and I still wonder why H&M don’t try to sue those people. I don’t deny that Meghan faced racism but I do question where it actually occurred. Especially if you really want to compare her to Kate’s treatment- which is not strengthening the argument in my eyes.
 

Edited January 16, 2020 by just_ordinary

[meep]

http://influencher.org/index.php/2020/01/15/an-open-letter-to-the-british-broadcast-media-on-racism-and-meghan-markle/

Title: Black British Group Pens An Open Letter to the British Broadcast Media on Racism and Meghan Markle

The open letter/article is more using the Sussex news as a launchpad to address racism in British media and not giving specific examples, but as it was published only yesterday and is penned by "a collective of 100 Black British women from the worlds of Media, Law, Health, Education, Publishing and their supporters;" I figured it was relevant to the conversation. 

[NancyDrewFan1989]

@meep yeah, I know I left out a few details I was trying to summarize both sides meaning Meghan and Thomas Markle. The whole court case is baffling to me because the more that gets released the worse both sides look. Thomas looks like a fame hungry father living off of his daughter. Meghan looks like an ungrateful brat making her friends give interviews with false, the only term I can think of, information on her behalf. This whole court case is going to blow up in the media and screw over both sides in the end. I don’t see a winner. 

[adidas]

This just showed up in my news alerts. It’s about Royal Family finances. Interesting stuff (I had no idea The Queen made so much money from horses).

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/quite-improper-murky-royal-truth-meghan-and-harry-accidentally-revealed/news-story/3357cc4f446deef0ff7f78abf6816ad7

[just_ordinary]

The “private” income the BRF makes is well hidden for good reasons. The Queen and Charles constantly fight to keep their finances in the shadows. 
And while they have inherited most of their own money, properties and valuable items they obviously have only been able to accumulate it on the back of their royal status. Together with smart and sometimes shady investments no one of them has to work ever again. Same for their children, grand children and so on. But let’s face it, you have a point if you want to argue the money came from the public at one point. Same goes for the insane amounts of land they actually own privately. 
It’s pretty questionable but as long as the British public is accepting it, not my problem.

That is why some people are saying Harry’s millions from the Queen mother should be enough ”public funding”. Together with the cars, clothes, jewelleries and properties they bought /were gifted with the money of Prince Charles. It’s a complicated and controversial topic and now the British public will look more closely which might not be in the best interested of all of them.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

8 hours ago, Beermeet said:

@laPapessaGiovanna  Help me understand, please.  How do they get the money to make more money that doesn't come from tax payers?  Money often makes money, yes?  I've seen it said the working royals ( just the seniors?) are not allowed to hold jobs and make their own money.  How do they have non-tax payer money?  

ETA: I can understand Harry having Spencer money. Not understanding his Windsor side though. 

They inherited it. Queen Victoria iirc didn't inherited much private money as the royals before her had squandered a lot, but Prince Albert was wise with money and what he had (not much by royal standards but quite a lot for the period) he administered well, for example he was the one who bought Balmoral and wisely invested money, money with which after his death the Sandringham Estate was bought. Both properties and much other riches were inherited as private properties not part of the Crown Estates by his descendants and ultimately the Queen. These inheritances have never been subjected to taxation as properties personally owned by the royal family and this is the main reason to frown upon those money, but aside from this consideration we are talking about private family wealth that has nothing to do with taxpayer funded income.

Things are murky because the royal family is an unhealthy (and imho unethical) mess of private and public, but their being privately rich is a surety.

[Pleiades_06]

6 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I don’t agree as the term isn’t used as much in the articles but widely spread in comment sections and blogs and such by non-journalists. Probably because they could sue a real newspaper for slander if they did that. 

What annoys me to no end here is that they compare headlines from the same time. If they would dig out headlines about Kate from her early years they would realise that she got the same shit about breaking protocol (fashion and manner), dressing downs from the Queen, showing way too much leg, non-stop touching her bump (even though that was more criticised in blogs and comment sections) and simultaneously hiding her bump from everybody (how dare she) and making up her HG condition to avoid work. And the whole tragedy about the nurse that committed suicide. Not to forget her inappropriate make up and the wedges that the Queen allegedly hates so much. Uncle Gary anyone? Her stripper cousin? 
I would rather see a selection about tabloid articles that were racist. And no, not liking her hairstyle or assuming that her hairstyle at the wedding didn’t hold up because they underestimated the weight and pull of the tiara and therefore she looked pretty ruffled is not racist. Since then this never happened. She and her hairstylist are clearly capable of controlling her hair. As they were before she met Harry. Whenever she choose to wear her hair up it was exactly as she wanted it. Messy or sleek. But I digress. 
Showing the real racism would be so much better and more helpful.  

I do think @klein_roeschen has made some good points about casual racism they might have faced. But I am missing real examples of tabloids publishing racist articles. What was definitely a massive wrong doing is leaving comment sections uncontrolled. If they weren’t able to do it they should have closed them. Because there were truly nasty things and I still wonder why H&M don’t try to sue those people. I don’t deny that Meghan faced racism but I do question where it actually occurred. Especially if you really want to compare her to Kate’s treatment- which is not strengthening the argument in my eyes.
 

The media has genuinely been using racist rhetoric to describe her. “Exotic DNA”, “straight out of Compton”, Archie looks like a monkey. Then there are  the microaggressions. Racism is often subtle and coded.
Not to mention there are British articles that demean her for being American-“Brits don’t have baby showers, WE give gifts after the baby is born”. A commentator from the Sun was complaining that Archie would have a North American accent, not the Queen’s. 
 

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/10/701987112/inside-the-racist-online-attacks-on-meghan-markle

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thewrap.com/trevor-noah-looks-at-the-extremely-racist-coverage-of-meghan-markle-in-british-media-video/amp/

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

1 hour ago, just_ordinary said:

The “private” income the BRF makes is well hidden for good reasons. The Queen and Charles constantly fight to keep their finances in the shadows. 
And while they have inherited most of their own money, properties and valuable items they obviously have only been able to accumulate it on the back of their royal status. Together with smart and sometimes shady investments no one of them has to work ever again. Same for their children, grand children and so on. But let’s face it, you have a point if you want to argue the money came from the public at one point. Same goes for the insane amounts of land they actually own privately. 
It’s pretty questionable but as long as the British public is accepting it, not my problem.

That is why some people are saying Harry’s millions from the Queen mother should be enough ”public funding”. Together with the cars, clothes, jewelleries and properties they bought /were gifted with the money of Prince Charles. It’s a complicated and controversial topic and now the British public will look more closely which might not be in the best interested of all of them.

This is problematic for many reasons. The United Kingdom never neatly broke away from a feudal system, it was more of a long transition lasted for centuries from wealth stemming from land ownership that was reserved for nobility, to a more modern bourgeois and then industrial economical system where wealth is generated through work and investment. In this way during this long transition the upper class, royal family included, had a jump start into the changing economy. If you question the origins of the royal family wealth then you question the origin of much of the upper classes wealth, even if for the lesser nobility it has been more difficult to retain that wealth for many reasons among which the fact that they don't enjoy the tax-exempt status of the royal family.

[nausicaa]

Quoting @Ozlsn from the last thread

Quote

It is interesting to me at least that one of my initial reactions (after absolute outrage) about Princess Michael and the broach was that it was so... ill bred of her (and yes, given her father's position in WW2 I do find that sentence blackly amusing). Manners in that class I associate with outward politeness to all, no matter what is sniggered about behind closed doors. We may speculate and suspect what's being said - but Harry has been in the room after the door was shut. 

I don't actually think it was targeted racism--in that she wore the broach as some personal dig at Meghan. I think it was a manifestation of the general insular racism she lives in. She saw nothing wrong with the broach because she sees nothing wrong with blackface and it didn't occur to her that it could or would make a biracial woman uncomfortable. 

[acheronbeach]

1 minute ago, nausicaa said:

Quoting @Ozlsn from the last thread

I don't actually think it was targeted racism--in that she wore the broach as some personal dig at Meghan. I think it was a manifestation of the general insular racism she lives in. She saw nothing wrong with the broach because she sees nothing wrong with blackface and it didn't occur to her that it could or would make a biracial woman uncomfortable. 

 Look at how many times Trudeau did blackface and brownface.  He can't even remember how many times.  Do I think he was trying to hurt or be cruel to POC?  No, but I think it reflects a lot about the insular, rich, and very white world he was raised in.  His friends would find it amusing, and that's the limits of his experience, so he never even turned his mind to others' feelings. 

[Pleiades_06]

6 minutes ago, acheronbeach said:

 Look at how many times Trudeau did blackface and brownface.  He can't even remember how many times.  Do I think he was trying to hurt or be cruel to POC?  No, but I think it reflects a lot about the insular, rich, and very white world he was raised in.  His friends would find it amusing, and that's the limits of his experience, so he never even turned his mind to others' feelings. 

Yes. Thing is white people need to do a better job of understanding the difference between intent vs. impact. Maybe the intent was innocent but the impact affected people of color and should be addressed.