Harry & Meghan 8: Time's Most Insufferable

[LilaMae]

3 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Are they even investing with Ethics themselves? Because iirc right now they just promote them. Kind of like influencers. They are getting paid to praise them and make people consider investing through them. The only thing missing is “so many asked about our finances” and “they kindly offered us a code for you: use MehHar2022 and they top up your investment with $5”. Let’s hope the thing doesn’t implode and people actually loose money. Hopefully it is an investment company that offers ethical shares and fonds and has a well spread portfolio. Not only offering ethical investments but treating the money of their customers ethical too and are all managed and apply to ethical work standards.

I think that's basically all they are- people who are lending their names to businesses for advertising purposes. Like Harry is a Chief Impact Officer for BetterUp. The job title makes it sound like a high-up position, but if it was, how would he have time to be doing the ethical investor role, plus the Netflix and Spotify deals? 

I hope they appreciate how privileged they are, being handed well-paid bullshit jobs by their wealthy connections. Sadly, I doubt it. I don't believe that they have any idea what life is like for normal people.

Edited October 13, 2021 by LilaMae

[Topaz]

They’re kind of giving me Jinjer vibes at the moment with their influencer-ing and pushing their public profile without actually doing much work (as far as we know).

[meep]

15 hours ago, LilaMae said:

Harry and Meghan are now Impact Partners for an ethical investment company. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/12/business/dealbook/harry-meghan-ethical-investors.html

Quotes from the couple: 

"Harry and Meghan can make E.S.G. investing part of pop culture in a way that, say, BlackRock’s Larry Fink can’t. “From the world I come from, you don’t talk about investing, right?” Meghan told DealBook in a joint interview with Harry. “You don’t have the luxury to invest. That sounds so fancy.”

“My husband has been saying for years, ‘Gosh, don’t you wish there was a place where if your values were aligned like this, you could put your money to that same sort of thing?’” Meghan said. They were introduced to Ethic by friends, she said."

 

Meghan attended LA private schools throughout her childhood, went to university, had an internship at an American embassy (courtesy of her US diplomat uncle) and then became a Hollywood actress. I have no idea why she's pretending that she has had an underprivileged life where she didn't have access to wealthy friends who she could discuss this with if she actually wanted to. And Harry has had millions of pounds in various inheritances and trust funds, plus connections with some of the wealthiest landowners in the UK. 

 

 

I attended private schools too as an ethnic minority and my parents weren't rich. The kids at school always let me know - despite being my "friends" - that I was very different from them, that I came from a different world, and I didn't totally belong. That there were things that I would "never understand" and they couldn't (wouldn't) talk to me about certain stuff in their lifestyles. Maybe she's talking about her roots rather than her experiences as an adult. Because yes, it would be ridiculous if she's insinuating that a an adult, as she became a millionaire and had high-powered friends (even before she met Harry), that investing is some fancy concept she's just now looking up. 

[Smash!]

5 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

Hopefully it is an investment company that offers ethical shares and fonds and has a well spread portfolio. Not only offering ethical investments but treating the money of their customers ethical too and are all managed and apply to ethical work standards.

I doubt it. Lots of companies are greenwashing their brands to look good on the outside. Not much different from Meghan and Harry who talk about environmental issues while using private jets themselves.

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, meep said:

I attended private schools too as an ethnic minority and my parents weren't rich. The kids at school always let me know - despite being my "friends" - that I was very different from them, that I came from a different world, and I didn't totally belong. That there were things that I would "never understand" and they couldn't (wouldn't) talk to me about certain stuff in their lifestyles. Maybe she's talking about her roots rather than her experiences as an adult. Because yes, it would be ridiculous if she's insinuating that a an adult, as she became a millionaire and had high-powered friends (even before she met Harry), that investing is some fancy concept she's just now looking up. 

She was the homecoming queen.  I feel like it’s safe to assume she wasn’t left out or sidelined for any reason 

[just_ordinary]

I think we also see another of their classic muddy phrased comments that leave tons of room for interpretation. What “world” is she talking about? What kind of “investments” is she talking about? I am sure, neither Doria nor Thomas were in a position to invest lots of money just to let it work for them untouched for 25 years. Especially when she was a young child. That’s true for many people though and doesn’t exactly mean they are not investing in some way. Retirement investments, buying property, maybe just paying $25 per month into something. Most people need some years to find themselves in a position to be able to put money aside consistently and put it into investment schemes or similar. Being able to drop big investments into the stock market is not something the majority can do, even if they life comfortably with their money.  So, yeah…….

She avoided addressing that her own experiences, as an adult that earned her own money, were quite different though and quickly allowed for bigger investments than most people can dream of. Her experience are better suited to urge young people to get educated about finances and that it’s never to early to start. Promoting a good program that educated young people might be better and a worthwhile cause. It won’t pay the bills though. But it would have tied in nicely with this venture. Same for Harry. He could have very openly acknowledge that he didn’t have to deal with that, finds the topic highly complicated and his happy they can afford others to do the job for them. But that’s not the reality for many, and many fall victim to scams.

And then promote Ethic as a choice they are happy to make. Because they can afford it (if it goes down the drain) and they think it’s important. 
So their background could actually work. It’s all about how you sell it to the public. You do wonder what Sunshine Sachs gets payed for.

I do wonder though, HOW their portfolio looks exactly. Especially after this promotion. You better hope no one finds out their investments are tied up in something unethical or ethical questionable. I would assume they don’t really know about every share they hold.

Edited October 14, 2021 by just_ordinary

[SoSoNosy]

And the code that was "kindly offered" will pay them for every person who uses it.

 

[Coconut Flan]

10 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I do wonder though, HOW their portfolio looks exactly. Especially after this promotion. You better hope no one finds out their investments are tied up in something unethical or ethical questionable. I would assume they don’t really know about every share they hold.

Along those lines is this piece: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/harry-meghan-s-ethic-investment-firm-partnership-highly-questionable-n1281482

Quote

Their dressing up this latest gig as something virtuous and socially conscious is a diversion. Their hope of cloaking their role as marketers for this firm as democratization — for a population that can barely even afford to save money for a minor emergency, let alone invest — is insulting to our intelligence. There are a million things this power couple could’ve chosen to do with their money, and they chose to make more money.

 

[Melbelle]

It's hilarious that the "ethical" investment firm is already under scrutiny for having questionable ethics! 

In case anyone cares, any reputable financial representative or registered investment advisor will happily recommend/build a portfolio that matches your "ethical" preferences.  It's not even an uncommon request.  Lots of investors, even people just contacting their plan advisors for their 401(k)s will often ask for stock/fund recommendations that match their values.  

There's actually a mutual fund out there that specializes in investing in "vices" it was called the Vice Fund, but I think it's name has been changed.  It's assets were basically alcohol, tobacco, firearms, etc.  Maybe that one would be suitable for Harry, at least the Harry pre-Meghan!

[EmCatlyn]

7 hours ago, Melbelle said:

In case anyone cares, any reputable financial representative or registered investment advisor will happily recommend/build a portfolio that matches your "ethical" preferences.  It's not even an uncommon request.  Lots of investors, even people just contacting their plan advisors for their 401(k)s will often ask for stock/fund recommendations that match their values.  

Yep.  I could see Harry not knowing this about American investment options, but Meghan surely does.  There are many different ways that you can make sure your investment (whether large or small) is with “ethical” businesses and funds.

Incidentally, when the economy has tanked the last couple of times, my “retirement portfolio” which is all in “ethical” investments, has done better than many other portfolios.   Apparently, the “ethical” investments tend to be more stable.  (This was particularly true during the real estate bust.)

Back to Meghan and Harry, it is really discouraging how they are promoting so many different things for no better reason, it seems, than that they make money off it.  I can excuse people being desperate to make money when they haven’t any, but beyond a certain point, it is just greed.

ETA: As the article linked above stated, the so-called ESG funds are not really the most ethical/socially responsible ones.  You have to do your homework and pick funds based on what you learn, not meaningless labels.

Edited October 15, 2021 by EmCatlyn
Add

[just_ordinary]

@EmCatlyn it is definitely an option in Europe too. It hasn’t been as popular in the past, but it’s also not revolutionary to build an ethical or green or whatever portfolio. I think especially green portfolios had a big rise in popularity in the last five years or so. 
H probably wouldn’t have known about it either way, because I don’t think he cared exactly (neither am I sure he does now to the extent he wants us to believe) and wasn’t interested in how his wealth grew. 

[EmCatlyn]

56 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

@EmCatlyn it is definitely an option in Europe too. It hasn’t been as popular in the past, but it’s also not revolutionary to build an ethical or green or whatever portfolio. I think especially green portfolios had a big rise in popularity in the last five years or so. 
H probably wouldn’t have known about it either way, because I don’t think he cared exactly (neither am I sure he does now to the extent he wants us to believe) and wasn’t interested in how his wealth grew. 

Yeah, I would assume it’s an option in Europe (and other parts of the world as well).  I hope it didn’t sound as if I was saying the “socially responsible portfolio” was unique to the US.   My thought was that Harry, as a foreigner, might be forgiven for not knowing what was available in the US, but that Meghan doesn’t have the excuse.

I agree with you that Harry probably didn’t care enough about investments (or social causes, in some cases) to know what options are available in the UK.

[just_ordinary]

@EmCatlyn 😅no you didn’t sound like that. But it is a topic that has only recently made more headlines even though the option has been there for some time now. And investing money into the stock market is still sometimes sen as a very risky investment choice and people prefer more traditional ways (depends on the country). So even if you would have some insight into European stock market portfolio options you might have come to a different assumption.

[LilaMae]

10 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Yeah, I would assume it’s an option in Europe (and other parts of the world as well).  I hope it didn’t sound as if I was saying the “socially responsible portfolio” was unique to the US.   My thought was that Harry, as a foreigner, might be forgiven for not knowing what was available in the US, but that Meghan doesn’t have the excuse.

I agree with you that Harry probably didn’t care enough about investments (or social causes, in some cases) to know what options are available in the UK.

As a Brit, I can confirm that ethical investments are certainly known about and there are plenty of ways that people can get involved. Even if Harry doesn't care about investments himself, he has plenty of friends who are well-connected in banking such as the van Cutsems and the van Straubenzees, so if he really has been saying for years that he wanted to invest ethically, why wouldn't he just ask their advice?

I wonder how Spotify feels about this new deal, Harry and Meghan haven't done or announced anything for Spotify since they did a Holiday Special podcast last December. What's the point in piling up deal after deal and not delivering?

 

[viii]

5 minutes ago, LilaMae said:

What's the point

This is where I'm currently sitting with H&M. 

[louisa05]

37 minutes ago, LilaMae said:

 Even if Harry doesn't care about investments himself, he has plenty of friends who are well-connected in banking such as the van Cutsems and the van Straubenzees, so if he really has been saying for years that he wanted to invest ethically, why wouldn't he just ask their advice?

 

Harry didn't have a clue about any of that or care; I seriously doubt he does now. He just repeated the lines to get the payment. This man told us with a straight face that only living on his multimillion dollar inheritance left him nearly homeless. Let's not pretend he was concerned about or even knew about investing. 

[nausicaa]

When I first got into investing way back in 2005 (as a middle class, public school kid, imagine that Meghan...) ethical investments were already a hot topic. This is not remotely new. There are tons of articles on the topic with fund recommendations for small-time investors. 

I haven't read up on it, but the firm doesn't even make sense to me if it is specializing in some specific funds, since ethical priorities will differ investor to investor, and often conflict. A green fund might invest in China, which would bother someone focused on human rights abuses. Likewise, a worker safety-focused fund could invest in companies with a high carbon footprint or that engage in animal testing. 

[DalmatianCat]

Harry and Meghan are definitely proving why the Queen felt fine saying “no” to a half-in/half-out approach. If they were still trying to occasionally represent the royal family while simultaneously making all these business deals the scrutiny would be so much more intense…and if they thought their media coverage was bad before they really wouldn’t have been able to handle all the “conflict of interest” stories.
Right now the only conflict of interest Harry and Meghan seem to have is with themselves and keeping their stories straight.

[EmCatlyn]

On the ongoing discussion of where (if?) Lilibet will be christened:

Quote

The Sussexes have been left dismayed after one of Britain’s best-informed royal reporters, Camilla Tominey, reported in the Daily Telegraph this week, apparently on the basis of a backroom briefing by the palace, that Harry and Meghan’s new baby Lilibet would not be christened in England.   …

[The] Sussexes …. swiftly issued a statement of their own saying, “Plans for the baby’s christening have not been finalized and as such, any assumptions about what will or will not take place are mere speculation.”  The Daily Beast

I have tended to dismiss most of the reports regarding Lilibet’s christening because it hasn’t seemed to me that it is a real issue.  The Sussexes chose to baptize Archie in great privacy when they were working royals, so why would they want to have a more visible christening now?  And if they just want a very private christening, how likely is it that they will go to the trouble of having it in the UK unless they are already there for some reason?  Surely, the real question is when (if?) they are going back.

However, the fact that a Sussex spokesperson found it necessary to contradict the report that the christening at Windsor was definitely not going to happen, makes me think that there may be more to the story than just people guessing.  Maybe there is something to the reports that Harry said he would like to have Lilibet christened at Windsor, and maybe there is opposition from the Royal Family.

I would have thought that the Queen would approve the christening at Windsor even if she cannot be present (She wasn’t there for Archie’s christening, after all.)  One gathers that she would like to see the baby in person, and even if she can’t make it to the ceremony, arrangements could be made for a private family lunch or whatever during which she can see the kids. 🤷‍♀️

Anyway, I am wondering if the christening story is a case of Harry really wanting and asking for the christening at Windsor (essentially requesting the use of the chapel at a convenient date) but being given no definite answer, or if what has happened is he has expressed a wish but done nothing to follow it up.

[louisa05]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

On the ongoing discussion of where (if?) Lilibet will be christened:

I have tended to dismiss most of the reports regarding Lilibet’s christening because it hasn’t seemed to me that it is a real issue.  The Sussexes chose to baptize Archie in great privacy when they were working royals, so why would they want to have a more visible christening now?  And if they just want a very private christening, how likely is it that they will go to the trouble of having it in the UK unless they are already there for some reason?  Surely, the real question is when (if?) they are going back.

However, the fact that a Sussex spokesperson found it necessary to contradict the report that the christening at Windsor was definitely not going to happen, makes me think that there may be more to the story than just people guessing.  Maybe there is something to the reports that Harry said he would like to have Lilibet christened at Windsor, and maybe there is opposition from the Royal Family.

I would have thought that the Queen would approve the christening at Windsor even if she cannot be present (She wasn’t there for Archie’s christening, after all.)  One gathers that she would like to see the baby in person, and even if she can’t make it to the ceremony, arrangements could be made for a private family lunch or whatever during which she can see the kids. 🤷‍♀️

Anyway, I am wondering if the christening story is a case of Harry really wanting and asking for the christening at Windsor (essentially requesting the use of the chapel at a convenient date) but being given no definite answer, or if what has happened is he has expressed a wish but done nothing to follow it up.

I’ll say it again: he announced a memoir. He’s already proven that he’s wiling to trash his family for money. He’s likely no longer welcome. 
And they likely want a christening in the UK to reemphasize their royal status. Because, let’s be honest, that’s all they have to sell themselves. 

[Coconut Flan]

What I see in my mind is Harry floated four or five dates and got back that no relatives were available on those dates.  

[EmCatlyn]

28 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

I’ll say it again: he announced a memoir. He’s already proven that he’s wiling to trash his family for money. He’s likely no longer welcome. 
And they likely want a christening in the UK to reemphasize their royal status. Because, let’s be honest, that’s all they have to sell themselves. 

It is possible that he is “no longer welcome,” but I doubt that they have told him so because if they had, you know the Sussexes would have publicized the cruel rejection of Lili by Harry’s racist, undemocratic family.

My impression is that though the Royals feel a great deal of anger toward Harry, they don’t want to make it too obvious or public. The memoir hasn’t been written yet, so they may be hoping he will not go much farther than he already has. (I imagine that there has been/will be some behind-the-scenes communication attempting to influence what he discloses—and how he discloses it.)  It is in their best interests at this point to “play nice” on the surface but keep very clear boundaries. 

Having Lilibet christened quietly at Windsor, as Archie was, could be framed as purely a family event that would show that Harry was still much-loved though no longer part of “the Firm.”  I think the Queen (who would not attend) would favor this. She does love Harry and probably would get sentimental pleasure out of having his daughter christened at Windsor— if it were just a “quiet” family christening.

However, it is possible that what Harry and Meghan want is not “quiet” at all. If the Sussexes are wanting to plan a christening that would be part of a trip back to the UK which would include a bunch of public appearances and might be part of a documentary, I can see why the Royals are not going to make it easy, but are also not going to make any public announcements.

I have to wonder if poor little Lilibet is going to get christened at all, if it becomes an issue where the Sussexes are trying to use the christening to bolster their “royal” image and the “right time” is never made available by the palace. 😉

[louisa05]

2 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

What I see in my mind is Harry floated four or five dates and got back that no relatives were available on those dates.  

The Queen could miss it because she was at the State Opening of Parliament and those two would turn it in to a racist snub that shows how persecuted they and their children are. Hell, they’d do that if the date they chose coincided with her funeral (God forbid). The family cannot win with them and they’re not stupid; they know it. Better to avoid them and leave things as they are. 

[Xanariel]

It is interesting, because neither Harry or Meghan strike me as particularly religious (in all fairness, neither do the Cambridges - I think they fall into the more 'culturally but not spiritually' Christian model that probably a lot of UK adults their age do). So I don't think they'd be looking to get Lilibet christened were it not for the family connection. 

However, I can see why that would be important to Harry. Even without the royal factor, we're talking a tradition that stretches back centuries for his family. Both titled and non-titled kids alike have had it, so if he did want to come back and get his daughter baptised at one of the places historically used for royal christenings so she's included in that, I don't think that's unreasonable. 

But if by christening they mean the whole "senior royals turn up and we get a photograph of everyone to release", I don't know if that will happen. The Yorks would probably go, and perhaps Charles. But I don't see the Cambridges getting photographed like they did for Archie's christening, and I don't think the Queen would bother going to this one as opposed to the numerous other times she's missed christenings. 

[just_ordinary]

@EmCatlyn I think they all love H&M&Co. You can very much love someone deeply and have an ongoing argument and fight. I don’t think they would oppose a private family affair. But it will have to be on their terms in many ways, which might lead to H&M feeling pushed around and putting their foot down to go a different way (all fair and well) Archie’s godparents are still only more or less likely assumptions. So they might keep Lili‘s private again.

The BRF would very much oppose something that is very public after all that went down (out of principal, not willing to pay for big extra security) and they will definitely not be partaking in a documentary. 

With enough consideration and time I am sure  PC and PW and family would be here.

My biggest quarrel is, that I think a UK christening only makes sense if more people from the UK would be attending then from the US. Or if they feel the replica christening gown and the font are important to them. I absolutely understand wanting to give both children the same frame and experience. And to do it for yourself to a certain degree. This might be tied to things/place, the guests, a certain priest or a certain rite that’s performed. I can see the rite being a bit different then the normal CoE christening (maybe some special bible parts or songs or other traditions) and being very different from other dominions. 
I don’t think they are concerned about having her christened for religious reasons though. They are all very much performative or cultural Christians (like the big majority of Christians in the UK). The younger Gen is not showing up for church on sundays, so I highly doubt it’s a deep religious longing but more about family and tradition.