Meghan and Harry 6: Everything about this Is Kind of Cringe

[viii]

While I do think Archie and Lili will probably have some result on their well being from their parents mental health struggles, at least Harry and Meghan are open to therapy and I think they will be better for it in the long run than Harry ever was in the BRF. 

[adidas]

22 hours ago, louisa05 said:

I don’t think people who are aware of the BRF didn’t know it. The Queen has lived an incredibly public life. Perhaps more so than anyone alive. She has a public persona identifiable by a large portion of the world. Hardly anyone around her calls her by her name; she’s rather “ma’am” or “your majesty” even to people around her on a daily basis.  Her nickname is part of her private life and she doesn’t have much of one. That name is her private not the Queen self.  Meghan and Harry just made it part of the public commodity.  
 

It isn’t a private nickname if it is known and used widely. 

https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/philip/dear-aunt-lillibet-king-felipes-poignant-message-as-he-mourns-uncle-philip-158126/

I think it was tone deaf of H&M to use the name. They have zero self awareness. But my reasons aren’t  focussed on them exposing a super secret nickname, it’s more about the way they declared the institution and family so toxic that they had to move to the other side of the world … and then name their daughter after the head of that institution.

I’ve said all along that they want to have their cake and eat it too, this is just more evidence imo. 

[Jackie3]

7 minutes ago, adidas said:

I think it was tone deaf of H&M to use the name. They have zero self awareness. But my reasons aren’t  focussed on them exposing a super secret nickname, it’s more about the way they declared the institution and family so toxic that they had to move to the other side of the world … and then name their daughter after the head of that institution.

 

I am sure they found the institution toxic. I am also pretty sure he loves his grandmother. Mixed feelings. It happens in nonroyal families too. It's why family dysfunction is so hard.

 

9 minutes ago, adidas said:

I’ve said all along that they want to have their cake and eat it too,

Doesn't everyone want this, really?

[EmCatlyn]

56 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Talk about mental health! If what you say happens to be true I feel absolutely terrible for Archie and Lili with both their parents combined issues to grow up with. It’s going to fuck them  up to some degree or other.
 

As I said, I am only giving my impression, which is based on her public actions.  I do think that both Meghan and Harry have a lot of baggage and personality issues that may make life difficult for their kids.

But that’s not that uncommon among celebrities as well as real families.  
Are you familiar with Larkin’s “This Be the Verse” ?   ?

1 hour ago, viii said:

While I do think Archie and Lili will probably have some result on their well being from their parents mental health struggles, at least Harry and Meghan are open to therapy and I think they will be better for it in the long run than Harry ever was in the BRF. 

I am all in favor of therapy, but kind of cringe at having it done on tv.  That’s not therapy, that’s a reality show.

I do agree that being aware of the issues and trying to get help is a most important step. And if they go on that way, it can only be good.

However, I am waiting for the step where they stop blaming, acknowledge their own responsibilities and move on.

[just_ordinary]

@viii pretty sure BP has not commented on the Botox topic. I think it was KP- so her own office - and iirc it gave the claim even more substance. They would have better ignored it.

I actually don’t think the book is really for children. I mean the narrator talks to the father a lot. I think the pictures are fine and children could definitely like them (I have seen several good children books in a similar style. the little people big dreams Jane Austen for example). But the text is just ????? It didn’t sell that well iirc and I have the nagging feeling it will be her only dabble into children’s books. At least by her own pencil. I can totally see Archwell children’s book club. I think both are better suited to be figureheads. Producing and finding investors for the ideas from others. Supporting new good children’s books authors that haven’t found a publishing house would have been a better idea.

[louisa05]

53 minutes ago, adidas said:

It isn’t a private nickname if it is known and used widely. 

https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/philip/dear-aunt-lillibet-king-felipes-poignant-message-as-he-mourns-uncle-philip-158126/

I think it was tone deaf of H&M to use the name. They have zero self awareness. But my reasons aren’t  focussed on them exposing a super secret nickname, it’s more about the way they declared the institution and family so toxic that they had to move to the other side of the world … and then name their daughter after the head of that institution.

I’ve said all along that they want to have their cake and eat it too, this is just more evidence imo. 

 People don't call her that to her face except those closest to her. That makes it private. People call her "Ma'am", "your majesty", "mum" and "gran". They don't call her "Elizabeth" or "Lilibet"--the only people who did were her parents, sister, husband and a few other very close relatives--it has been reported that the Earl of Snowden and Lady Sarah Chatto call her Aunt Lilibet. I suspect the concept that no one you meet calls you by your name is difficult for the rest of us to comprehend, but that has been her life since 1952. So, whether publicly known to be her nickname at all, it's a private name for her in the sense that it is not publicly used and in the sense that when she is "Lillibet" she is not "Her majesty the Queen" or "Elizabeth R" as she most often signs her name officially. Her given name is not even publicly used when speaking to her. 

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

But that’s not that uncommon among celebrities as well as real families.  
Are you familiar with Larkin’s “This Be the Verse” ?   ?

(I hope it is not against some rule to quote myself — Admins, please delete if it is. )

I just wanted to highlight my reference to this wonderful poem which begins “They fuck you up, your mom and dad.”  … Check it out.

Edited June 11, 2021 by EmCatlyn
Removed poem text. Link is better.

[Ozlsn]

6 hours ago, louisa05 said:

This is literally the worst celebrity children’s book I’ve seen. No story. No characters. No imagination.  Mediocre drawings. And terrible trite rhymes. It’s the Seinfeld of children’s books: it’s about nothing.
  I sub in primary a lot and I cannot see this book engaging kids at all.  Mostly, a lot of benches.  Including a whole bunch on the inside cover.  

I'm going to have to flick through it. Even Budgie the helicopter had a story!

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I just wanted to highlight my reference to this wonderful poem which begins “They fuck you up, your mom and dad.”

I actually thought the first line was the poem title. The poetry lines that stay with you.

[Jackie3]

7 hours ago, louisa05 said:

This is literally the worst celebrity children’s book I’ve seen. No story. No characters. No imagination.  Mediocre drawings. And terrible trite rhymes. It’s the Seinfeld of children’s books: it’s about nothing.
  I sub in primary a lot and I cannot see this book engaging kids at all.  Mostly, a lot of benches.  Including a whole bunch on the inside cover.  

Here's what I found about kids' books. The ones the parents hate are the ones the kids love the most.

My kids LOVED the books that I thought had mediocre drawings, trite rhymes (they adored them!), and no story or characters (discernible to me). 

It's hard to predict what kids will go for, that's for sure. But don't discount Meghan's book based on your adult reaction. Read it to a bunch of kids. 

Edited June 12, 2021 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

7 hours ago, nausicaa said:

And this is why I hate when celebrities write childrens' books. They're universally bad and they limit opportunities for aspiring, serious, talented writers. 

Also, libraries have to buy copies because there is interest from all the inevitable publicity, thereby forcing them to pass on buying copies of better quality children's books from authors who could actually use the money. 

 

Let's be honest--publishing a book is not a moral issue. This is not someone's kidney we are talking about. Publishers will publish the books that will make them the most money. Children's literature is a business. That "aspiring, serious" writer would get published, too, if he could make the publishing house money. 

In publishing, it has usually been the well-connected writer who gets published anyone. The one with an influential agent. The one who attended the famous writers' conferences or got an MFA at the best-known school. It is not a meritocracy.

The argument that Meghan is harming some sincere, dedicated writer, by daring to write a book, is just plain ridiculous. That writer would probably self-publish nowadays, anyway, since publishing houses are getting smaller and weaker.

OTOH, if she DIDN'T write a book, you could criticize her for sitting around and doing nothing!

Libraries  buy the books they think will be most in demand. If there's demand for Meghan's book, then that means people want to read it, and that they don't want to read the works of the "aspiring, serious writer" nearly as much! 

It's great you are so concerned about the quality of literature children are reading nowadays. But I don't think MM's book will affect that much. 

Edited June 12, 2021 by Jackie3

[EmCatlyn]

Prince Edward about the Harry and Meghan situation:

Quote

Weirdly we’ve all been there before, we’ve all had excessive intrusion and attention in our lives,” the prince said. “And we’ve all dealt with it in slightly different ways and, listen, we wish them the very best of luck. It’s a really hard decision.”

Source- Huffington Post reporting on CNN interview.

 

[nausicaa]

6 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

Let's be honest--publishing a book is not a moral issue. This is not someone's kidney we are talking about. Publishers will publish the books that will make them the most money. Children's literature is a business. That "aspiring, serious" writer would get published, too, if he could make the publishing house money. 

In publishing, it has usually been the well-connected writer who gets published anyone. The one with an influential agent. The one who attended the famous writers' conferences or got an MFA at the best-known school. It is not a meritocracy.

The argument that Meghan is harming some sincere, dedicated writer, by daring to write a book, is just plain ridiculous. That writer would probably self-publish nowadays, anyway, since publishing houses are getting smaller and weaker.

OTOH, if she DIDN'T write a book, you could criticize her for sitting around and doing nothing!

Libraries  buy the books they think will be most in demand. If there's demand for Meghan's book, then that means people want to read it, and that they don't want to read the works of the "aspiring, serious writer" nearly as much! 

It's great you are so concerned about the quality of literature children are reading nowadays. But I don't think MM's book will affect that much. 

Not only does your argument make no logical sense, it's painfully revealing how little you understand about publishing. 

Shoo, troll. We all see through you. 

[tabitha2]

So Harry is taking paternity leave. What is he taking paternity leave from exactly?  A Royal takes paternity leave from Royal duties and most certainly regular fathers should have it and I am sure most of those that do have it use gladly . 
 

Seems to me Just a better way of stating he is just going to keep on piddling and frittering aimlessly with this or that project or foundation 

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

I actually thought the first line was the poem title. The poetry lines that stay with you.

Ha! Yeah, it took me a while to get used to the title.

But the best part of the poem I think is when it talks about each generation adding new faults for their kids.  We can’t help it.  We may avoid our parents’ mistakes (though the poem doesn’t say that) but each generation makes new mistakes. ?

[Jackie3]

4 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Not only does your argument make no logical sense, it's painfully revealing how little you understand about publishing. 

Shoo, troll. We all see through you. 

Thank you, I have worked in publishing so I know the field pretty well. 

[just_ordinary]

Publishing is business and like 99% of business it’s about money. Just look at all those influencer books. They surely didn’t get the contract because they are good writers or even have an important or even interesting story to tell. Do I think that’s how it’s supposed to be? No. But if there is a market for it, why not. A publishing house will put money into a book if they think it will be worth it and bring the money back and then some. I highly doubt Meghan took the spot of someone that would have submitted something better- the spot was never available for normal authors. But, from the pages I have seen, it’s also pretty clear they were only interested in her name and didn’t give a f**k about the content. At the moment it doesn’t look as if the book brings in the numbers they expected. Just my assumption of course. 
 

I highly disagree with the claim that parents and children cannot love the same books. There were only a handful of children’s books I truly disliked because the story was just so bland. But 95% are actually beautifully written and illustrated. Disclaimer- I grew up with TONS of books. And now, re-reading them with my own child I discover so many layers that speak to me as an adult that I didn’t notice as a child. Obviously some are just sweet. But there are also many new releases that we both enjoy together, so it’s not just the comfort of old memories. I mean, even the best book gets annoying after reading it 50 times successively for bed time.

[nausicaa]

5 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Thank you, I have worked in publishing so I know the field pretty well. 

So have I. Your argument makes no sense. 

I know I should just ignore the trolling but since other people are apparently falling for your BS: I never said it was a moral issue. And there's no logical assumption to be made that I would be criticizing Meghan for doing nothing if she hadn't written it, especially since I have never criticized her for that before. 

And conferences and MFAs are a form of work serious authors put in. That's not luck and connections. And yes, celebrity books take spots from better quality books since libraries have limited budgets and publishing houses have limited lists. My criticism is not limited to Markle, it's for the celebrity system. I understand why it makes publishers money, as I explained in my first post about it. 

[Jackie3]

12 hours ago, nausicaa said:

So have I. Your argument makes no sense. 

 

LOL, OK. Publishing houses care about the sincere, hardworking authors and they don't care about celebrity or money at all.

Publishing houses don't care if they make money, or whether they can make payroll. They're happy to lose money, and take a smaller salary themselves, if they can just get the sincere authors published. 

Publishing isn't a business at all, it's a giant nonprofit, and a meritocracy to boot. Until MM came along, and disrupted the whole apple cart!

Edited June 13, 2021 by Jackie3

[SoSoNosy]

I am coming back in here to apologize for stirring up a dust storm when I said Harry was "down to his last 5 million"; I had read a supposedly official statement that he inherited $20 million from his mother, and nothing from the Queen Mum.  He bought a $14 million house.  I just did some simple math, so I obviously didn't know what I was talking about; my bad.  I was just wandering down the path of H&M having to actually think about where the money is coming from now.

 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, SoSoNosy said:

I am coming back in here to apologize for stirring up a dust storm when I said Harry was "down to his last 5 million"; I had read a supposedly official statement that he inherited $20 million from his mother, and nothing from the Queen Mum.  He bought a $14 million house.  I just did some simple math, so I obviously didn't know what I was talking about; my bad.  I was just wandering down the path of H&M having to actually think about where the money is coming from now.

 

I think you were on the right track.  The whole story of their finances is confusing (and would not interest me at all if he weren’t going around saying that all he had was what his mother left him).  I don’t think he is down from 20 million to 5 million, but you are absolutely right that he is having to think about having enough money for the first time in his life.

The business of an inheritance from his grandmother (the Queen Mum) is interesting.  I was one of the people saying, “Wait, he had money from the Queen Mum as well as Diana,” and I brought up reports that he will be inheriting the same as the other great-grandchildren of Prince Phillip.  More recently, I ran into the report you quote about Harry’s representative denying that he inherited from the Queen Mum.  

Now, here is the thing about the Queen Mother’s inheritance: Except for smallish legacies, the bulk of the money in her will went to Elizabeth (the Queen). So Harry’s claim that he didn’t inherit when the Queen Mum died is correct.

However, according to the BBC as cited in an Aug, 9, 2018 article in Harper’s Bazaar, the Queen Mum had put two-thirds of her estate in trust for her great-grandchildren in 1994. Although the article doesn’t say how much each great-grandchild got, it says specifically that instead of leaving William and Harry equal shares of £14 million ($17.9 million), the greater part of the money was left to Harry because he won’t be king.

A more recent article (March, 2021 Cosmopolitan) elaborates (giving The Guardian as a source) that each great-grandchild gets some of the principal in trust when turning 21, and the rest when turning 40.  It appears, in fact, that although Harry doesn’t have access to the amount due to him at age 40, he may be getting the income. 

In short, a pretty simple explanation of the different narratives about whether or not Harry inherited from his grandmother is that he did not inherit through her will, but benefited/is still benefiting from a trust fund she set up before she died. 

What interests me is that clearly Harry has more resources than what his mother left.  (And Diana left him a nice chunk.) Yet he has chosen to present himself as bereft/cut off from all resources except what his mum left. (In one interview he suggests that it was almost as if Diana knew he would need this legacy...)  ??‍♀️

As we all know, “recollections may vary” about a lot of things. However, the trust fund from the Queen Mother has been widely reported, and Harry just seems to have forgotten the roughly £4 million (more than $5.5 million USD) he got at age 21 and the chunk of at least £5 million more he should get when he is 40. ?

[Xanariel]

11 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I think you were on the right track.  The whole story of their finances is confusing (and would not interest me at all if he weren’t going around saying that all he had was what his mother left him).  I don’t think he is down from 20 million to 5 million, but you are absolutely right that he is having to think about having enough money for the first time in his life.

The business of an inheritance from his grandmother (the Queen Mum) is interesting.  I was one of the people saying, “Wait, he had money from the Queen Mum as well as Diana,” and I brought up reports that he will be inheriting the same as the other great-grandchildren of Prince Phillip.  More recently, I ran into the report you quote about Harry’s representative denying that he inherited from the Queen Mum.  

Now, here is the thing about the Queen Mother’s inheritance: Except for smallish legacies, the bulk of the money in her will went to Elizabeth (the Queen). So Harry’s claim that he didn’t inherit when the Queen Mum died is correct.

However, according to the BBC as cited in an Aug, 9, 2018 article in Harper’s Bazaar, the Queen Mum had put two-thirds of her estate in trust for her great-grandchildren in 1994. Although the article doesn’t say how much each great-grandchild got, it says specifically that instead of leaving William and Harry equal shares of £14 million ($17.9 million), the greater part of the money was left to Harry because he won’t be king.

A more recent article (March, 2021 Cosmopolitan) elaborates (giving The Guardian as a source) that each great-grandchild gets some of the principal in trust when turning 21, and the rest when turning 40.  It appears, in fact, that although Harry doesn’t have access to the amount due to him at age 40, he may be getting the income. 

In short, a pretty simple explanation of the different narratives about whether or not Harry inherited from his grandmother is that he did not inherit through her will, but benefited/is still benefiting from a trust fund she set up before she died. 

What interests me is that clearly Harry has more resources than what his mother left.  (And Diana left him a nice chunk.) Yet he has chosen to present himself as bereft/cut off from all resources except what his mum left. (In one interview he suggests that it was almost as if Diana knew he would need this legacy...)  ??‍♀️

As we all know, “recollections may vary” about a lot of things. However, the trust fund from the Queen Mother has been widely reported, and Harry just seems to have forgotten the roughly £4 million (more than $5.5 million USD) he got at age 21 and the chunk of at least £5 million more he should get when he is 40. ?

I am pretty interested in what the finances of the Sussexes were like in 2020, because after the interview was aired and Charles allegedly wanted to address their claims in a point-by-point rebuttal, one of the things that he apparently wanted to fire back on was Harry's claim that he'd been cut off. 

As the Mail published a story today claiming that the BRF is deciding to more actively push back against mistruths (it seems the name thing was the last straw), I wonder if that will come up again?

It may not be the wisest move, but it sounds like there could be popcorn opportunities aplenty if it's true! 

[EmCatlyn]

59 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

I am pretty interested in what the finances of the Sussexes were like in 2020, because after the interview was aired and Charles allegedly wanted to address their claims in a point-by-point rebuttal, one of the things that he apparently wanted to fire back on was Harry's claim that he'd been cut off. 

As the Mail published a story today claiming that the BRF is deciding to more actively push back against mistruths (it seems the name thing was the last straw), I wonder if that will come up again?

It may not be the wisest move, but it sounds like there could be popcorn opportunities aplenty if it's true! 

Thanks for the reference to the Mail’s article  

It makes me wonder which stories are made up by the press, which stories are made up by the Sussexes’ friends (or by palace courtiers), and which stories originate with the Sussexes themselves.  ?

I am pretty sure that Harry has not been candid about his finances. 

 

Edited June 13, 2021 by EmCatlyn
Misplaced apostrophe

[just_ordinary]

The whole family is pretty good at hiding how much money (cash, stock, property) they really own. I wonder if anyone actually knows. There are different levels of ownership woven throughout the family and the monarchy. I don’t think it’s possible to divide it properly. 
I was surprised by Harry’s claims especially because I thought the inheritances would be put in investments and work for a constant cash flow to live by. That’s like taking money out of your retirement fonds. I have absolutely NO empathy for him (or any of them) whining about money. Most people could life without ever having to lift a finger again and with the knowledge the same would be true for their children and grandchildren. If you feel money is tight, maybe a 3 Million house would have been enough? That was such a ridiculous thing to say and he deserved all the criticism and ridicule for it (as did Philip when he feared he had to give up polo. The horror).

[viii]

2 hours ago, Xanariel said:

It may not be the wisest move, but it sounds like there could be popcorn opportunities aplenty if it's true! 

This is basically where I'm at, LOL. 

And yes - Harry has learned how to hide his finances well, just like the rest of his family. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, just_ordinary said:

The whole family is pretty good at hiding how much money (cash, stock, property) they really own. I wonder if anyone actually knows. There are different levels of ownership woven throughout the family and the monarchy. I don’t think it’s possible to divide it properly. 
I was surprised by Harry’s claims especially because I thought the inheritances would be put in investments and work for a constant cash flow to live by. That’s like taking money out of your retirement fonds. I have absolutely NO empathy for him (or any of them) whining about money. Most people could life without ever having to lift a finger again and with the knowledge the same would be true for their children and grandchildren. If you feel money is tight, maybe a 3 Million house would have been enough? That was such a ridiculous thing to say and he deserved all the criticism and ridicule for it (as did Philip when he feared he had to give up polo. The horror).

Totally agree that royal finances are confusing and curiously interwoven, which is what makes Harry’s claims of being “cut off” especially weird.