Harry & Meghan 10: Even Less Relevant to the BRF

[EmCatlyn]

7 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Comparing Markle to Royal women in terms of employment is quite ridiculous.

Elizabeth of York had her job lined up at a very young age but even if she had not become Queen a young woman of her  class would not have been worked for wages. 

Anne as a working Royal could not have been employed because of her duties and there would have been the inevitable allegations of favoritism, taking A job away from a woman who really needed it, using her name to benefit whatever employer and so on .

Recala Sophie Wessex was a successful career woman who tried to keep her job after marriage and it proved a failure. 

Actually real talk Meghan never actually worked a regular 40 hour 5 day a week job for a paycheck till she landed on Suits  and because Like Kate  Her family was wealthy enough she really did not need to. She graduated with a degree , travelled ,  did charity stuff and interning and free lance and wrote a blog. But then So Did Kate minus the blogging. 
 

I am not sure that Meghan’s family was “wealthy,” but she was certainly from a “comfortable” background. She may not have seen herself that way if most of her friends were much better off.  Wealth is relative.

I don’t know if Meghan earned a lot of money as an actress or not.  But if she was averaging more than $100,000 USD a year, she was making more money than a lot of people who work harder.  Therefore, it seems silly to emphasize how her “hard work” make her somehow more deserving of the “life of the rich and famous” than most of the Royals. 

Just why it is necessary to put down Kate in order to build up Meghan is not clear to me.  I think Kate is a fairly traditional woman and she seems right for her job (which is a real job) as a member of the BRF.

Meghan was not cut out to be a member of the BRF.  That doesn’t mean she is not “as good” as Kate, but it certainly doesn’t mean that she is “better.”

My main problem with Meghan these days is that she “talks the talk” but doesn’t “walk the walk.”  That’s food for snark.

[CrazyMumma]

Can ya'll quit comparing Kate and Meghan?! I don't want to be compared with my own sister!  They are unique individuals. 

[viii]

3 hours ago, CrazyMumma said:

Can ya'll quit comparing Kate and Meghan?! I don't want to be compared with my own sister!  They are unique individuals. 

Agreed. Both women have positive and negative attributes to them but they’re really completely unrelated to one another. Just because they married brothers doesn’t mean we need to hold them up against each other. 

[Coconut Flan]

12 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Now she gets residual checks from Amazon Prime, Netflix, NBA Peacock and USA each time Suits is streamed.  That's a lot of checks!

Yes, she gets payment.  You don't know what that payment is.  There were a lot of cast members and she was not a star.  The residuals can be as little as $2.  I've even heard $.50 after a few years on older shows. The writers and producers get the bulk of the residuals and they go down with each successive airing (frequently on an annual basis).  The first year residuals are pretty good, but by the time you get to streaming on Netflix or Prime for a show that aired on TV five or six years ago, you aren't talking much money for a supporting actress.  

[Loveday]

3 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Yes, she gets payment.  You don't know what that payment is.  There were a lot of cast members and she was not a star.  The residuals can be as little as $2.  I've even heard $.50 after a few years on older shows. The writers and producers get the bulk of the residuals and they go down with each successive airing (frequently on an annual basis).  The first year residuals are pretty good, but by the time you get to streaming on Netflix or Prime for a show that aired on TV five or six years ago, you aren't talking much money for a supporting actress.  

And unless things have  changed over the years, I seem to recall reading somewhere that after something like the 7th re-airing of a show the residuals stop. So, for example, William Shatner is likely not getting residual money anymore for Star Trek: The Original Series, even though he was the star, as that show has aired so many times it's insane! So no, I doubt Meghan is making enough from Suits these days to support herself in the lifestyle to which she's become accustomed.

 

[Coconut Flan]

46 minutes ago, Loveday said:

And unless things have  changed over the years, I seem to recall reading somewhere that after something like the 7th re-airing of a show the residuals stop. So, for example, William Shatner is likely not getting residual money anymore for Star Trek: The Original Series, even though he was the star, as that show has aired so many times it's insane! So no, I doubt Meghan is making enough from Suits these days to support herself in the lifestyle to which she's become accustomed.

As usual, with all things TV related, it depends on the contracts.  Actors can negotiate higher and/or longer residual payments than the base SAG-AFTRA rates.  I doubt Meghan Markle was in such a position on Suits where she could have relatively easily been written out at any time.  Mike would simply have been given a new love interest.  There's a fairly standard rapid drop the first three years.  

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, Loveday said:

And unless things have  changed over the years, I seem to recall reading somewhere that after something like the 7th re-airing of a show the residuals stop. So, for example, William Shatner is likely not getting residual money anymore for Star Trek: The Original Series, even though he was the star, as that show has aired so many times it's insane! So no, I doubt Meghan is making enough from Suits these days to support herself in the lifestyle to which she's become accustomed.

 

I think that may depend on the original contract.  I recall Tony Randall saying that he was being supported by the residuals for The Odd Couple long after the 7th or even 10th re-airing of the show. (This was in the context of explaining that hr could take risks and perform in theatrical plays that made no money, or something like that.)

3 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

As usual, with all things TV related, it depends on the contracts.  Actors can negotiate higher and/or longer residual payments than the base SAG-AFTRA rates.  I doubt Meghan Markle was in such a position on Suits where she could have relatively easily been written out at any time.  Mike would simply have been given a new love interest.  There's a fairly standard rapid drop the first three years.  

Right.  Didn’t see this post when I replied.

So does anyone want to talk about the break-in that Harry and Meghan recently experienced?  (Can we manage to discuss their security issues in the context of other Hollywood celebrities without addressing the security issues and superior security that working royals have in the UK?) 

Just trying to move along here.

[Coconut Flan]

Was it someone on the grounds?  Even with the security gatehouse and all?

[Jackie3]

20 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

No. She wasn’t an “idle rich girl”  I have posted all she did. 
 

It’s that certain brand of “Feminism” that says unless a woman works like a dog at a full  time job to get a high level degree to get a high level job she is variously a slacker, leeching, dumb,  weak, letting down women kind, not liberated and a bad! Example. Even if the women in question would be miserable and has other ideas about how she wants live her life.  The troll  espouses this  damaging ignorant crap. 
 

Traveling, socializing and volunteering is "working like a dog"?

Working like a dog is getting up at 5 am  to open a restaurant at 7. Then working all day, on your feet, with hardly a moment for yourself. Then closing the place at 9, cleaning the toilets and mopping up. Then returning the next day to do it all again. 

Working like a dog is 1 12-hour shift at a hospital, setting up IVs, calming terrified children, delivering bad news to parents, cleaning up vomit and pee. Then doing it again the next day.

That's working like a dog. Kate has never done this.

As for feminism, I don't think it's a curse word. I think it s a wonderful movement that has improved womens' lives immensely, making it possible for them to earn a living wage, get job training, and bring charges against abusers. Anti-feminists are the ones who struck down the Roe decision. I wouldn't want to be part of that group.

[Jackie3]

17 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I am not sure that Meghan’s family was “wealthy,” but she was certainly from a “comfortable” background. She may not have seen herself that way if most of her friends were much better off.  Wealth is relative.

I don’t know if Meghan earned a lot of money as an actress or not.  But if she was averaging more than $100,000 USD a year, she was making more money than a lot of people who work harder.  Therefore, it seems silly to emphasize how her “hard work” make her somehow more deserving of the “life of the rich and famous” than most of the Royals. 

I don't know if Meghan had a wealthy childhood or not.  I was going by what Tom Bower said. That's probably not the best idea.

We don't know Meghan's exact finances rn. We know this, however:

1. She held jobs from age 13 onwards. Wealthy or not, she got out there and worked!

2. She was employed in a very competitive field, a field where many people fail.

3. She became a millionaire many times over, as a result of her work.

4. She out-earned most actors and or actresses. The median salary for actors is $40,000, with the top 25% making $60,000. In contrast, Meghan made about $450,000 per year. About 10X the median!

5. She made money from Suits after the show ended, and will continue to do so. 

 

I have to laugh at your suggestion  that Meghan didn't work "hard enough" for her millions. That is sour grapes on your part. She succeed at acting, so she made bank. Quite a lot of bank! 

People who "work the hardest" rarely make the most money. The average hotel maid could tell you that. If that bothers you, why not offer them some of your salary?

You seem OK with Kate's wealth. It's not that Kate didn't work hard, she didn't work AT ALL. What's the diff?  Would you prefer Meghan earn her money picking cotton?  Would that be hard enough work? 

Meghan's work history doesn't tell us everything about her. But it does show a level of talent, hard work, intelligence, business savvy, diligence and skill. Maybe Kate has the same qualities, who knows? She's never tried to do anything as hard as acting, or anything at all, really

8 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

I doubt hope Meghan Markle was in such a position on Suits where she could have relatively easily been written out at any time. 

Fixed that for you.

I understand. It makes you uncomfortable to think of Meghan being successful, so you are hoping she makes 50 cents an episode! 

Doesn't seem likely, though.

23 hours ago, Baxter said:

Even if Kate did deliberately choose St. Andrew's because William was going there, who cares. No one was forcing him to date or marry her

And even if Meghan wormed her way into Harry's life, who cares? No one was forcing him to date or marry her. 

Oh, sorry. There are different rules for biracial women.

21 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

The no bacon story is so eye opening for me! 😱 What a horrible person!!! I‘m now convinced that Kate is absolutely going to let the UK down when she‘s queen consort!!!!11!

Yes, it certainly explains why she's called Lazy Kate. I guess it started way back as a teen.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

For those concerned that Meghan might not make much from residuals. . . . no worries!  

https://www.sagaftra.org/files/sa_documents/SAG-AFTRA_2020TV-Theatrical_Summary.pdf

This revised contract  seems to indicate she'll do quite well. Who knew she also got pension, health and retirement contributions! 

Quote

. New Formula: The new formula is based upon “distributor's gross receipts,” i.e., the revenue achieved by the Producer. Six percent (6%) of that revenue is distributed pro rata to the cast based on each performer’s form of engagement (series/weekly/daily). For programs that commenced principal photography prior to July 1, 1998, the 6% will be inclusive of Pension, Health & Retirement contributions. For programs that commenced principal photography after July 1, 1998, the Pension, Health & Retirement contributions will be paid in addition to the 6%.

Looks like way more  than fifty cents! It also shows that Meghan had a union to help her negotiate her contract.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Jackie3

[prayawaythefundie]

5 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

So does anyone want to talk about the break-in that Harry and Meghan recently experienced? 

Hadn‘t heard about it before. If anyone wants to read up on it:

https://nypost.com/2022/07/25/harry-and-meghan-had-two-intruder-scares-in-12-days-report/amp/
 

That is scary. The incident on their wedding anniversairy could be a stalker deliberately picking that date.

Has their been a series of break-ins on luxury estates in their area or can we assume that it‘s them who have been targeted specifically?

Edited July 29, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[EmCatlyn]

55 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Hadn‘t heard about it before. If anyone wants to read up on it:

https://nypost.com/2022/07/25/harry-and-meghan-had-two-intruder-scares-in-12-days-report/amp/
 

That is scary. The incident on their wedding anniversairy could be a stalker deliberately picking that date.

Has their been a series of break-ins on luxury estates in their area or can we assume that it‘s them who have been targeted specifically?

I don’t know if there have been other intruder alerts in the area.  This would not be the same as a “break in.”  It could be a stalker or the date could be coincidence.

According to https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/meghan-and-harry-in-security-breach-as-two-intruders-target-montecito-mansion-in-12-days/news-story/cfb27904e23f0dd0e62a49e9e5b9e509

Quote

Both calls in May were logged as “trespasser”, “property crimes” and “suspicious circumstances”.

Police responded the second time as the couple’s security team requested “documentation of a trespasser, who left”.

I definitely agree that it must be very unsettling for them.  As far as I can tell, the intruders have only gotten on the grounds, not the house, but  still…

Quote

Police records show there have been six security alert calls to their US home in the past 14 months.

It would be interesting to know if their neighbors have similar problems.

4 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Was it someone on the grounds?  Even with the security gatehouse and all?

Apparently it was on the grounds.  It’s a big property, but an alarm sounded before the suspected intruder got very far, it seems.

[viii]

No wonder Harry is so paranoid about security. 

[louisa05]

On 7/27/2022 at 10:39 PM, tabitha2 said:

It’s that certain brand of “Feminism” that says unless a woman works like a dog at a full  time job to get a high level degree to get a high level job she is variously a slacker, leeching, dumb,  weak, letting down women kind, not liberated and a bad! Example. Even if the women in question would be miserable and has other ideas about how she wants live her life. 
 

 

It’s also capitalism’s influence pushing the belief that only paid work is valid. I only work part time because of caregiving. Since we do not have children, people openly criticize that. Constantly. The nice ones give me unrealistic ideas about how to provide care for my mother so I can be “productive” by getting a full time job. Her trollness has clearly bought into that capitalist ideal that relationships, children, charity, sick or elderly family, even personal well-being must be secondary to the almighty pursuit of income. And income proves value. So Bezos is better than all of us; Meghan is better than Catherine and all of you with full time employment are better than me. 
It isn’t a coincidence that the people who believe Trump’s a billionaire are his biggest supporters. 

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by louisa05

[Ozlsn]

5 hours ago, louisa05 said:

It’s also capitalism’s influence pushing the belief that only paid work is valid.

And that caring work is somehow not work, more a holiday. If they had to pay for someone to do it then it might be more valued - but we have carers pensions which are (barely) enough to live on but nothing else. It doesn't make caring for someone less stressful by "encouraging" them to get more lucrative work while trying to juggle care and stay above the poverty line.

17 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

It would be interesting to know if their neighbors have similar problems

Six alerts in 14 months... so just over 1 every two months. Could be random people, but that feels like quite a few to me, and 2 in 12 days would creep anyone out. 

[viii]

Caring for a loved one is more emotionally, physically, and mentally draining than ANY 9-5 job. 

[EmCatlyn]

38 minutes ago, Ozlsn said:

Six alerts in 14 months... so just over 1 every two months. Could be random people, but that feels like quite a few to me, and 2 in 12 days would creep anyone out. 

Without more information it is hard to say how serious these alarms could be. On the one hand, it could be the press or a thief, or a potential kidnapper or just an over-eager fan trying to sneak into the property.  These would definitely be cause for concern.  

On the other hand, it could be there is a fence that is next to a road and an alarm sounds if a car pulls over next to the fence.  Or there is a gate that isn’t being closed properly by someone (gardener, cleaning service, pool service) and it gets blown open triggering alarms. (I knew of this happening to some people I know.) 

It could be a combination of “real” and “accidental” alarms.  I remember that early in their residency, there were a couple of false alarms along with a couple that were of legit concern. It is important to remember that their security is good enough that there has not (as I recall) been any trespassing into the house, only the outer edges of the estate. However, in their place I would be concerned by one “real” intrusion.

It would be interesting to know if there are others in the neighborhood with similar problems. If so, would it be paparazzi, thieves or just random fans that are the biggest problem?

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, viii said:

Caring for a loved one is more emotionally, physically, and mentally draining than ANY 9-5 job. 

Kate is caring for an elderly relative? That's wonderful. That can be harder than a 9-5 job, it's true. What relative?

That also explains why she doesn't care for her children full-time.

On 7/28/2022 at 2:39 AM, CrazyMumma said:

Can ya'll quit comparing Kate and Meghan?! I don't want to be compared with my own sister!  They are unique individuals. 

You'd like 100% trashing of one woman, instead.

19 hours ago, viii said:

No wonder Harry is so paranoid about security. 

This makes the Queen's decision even more unbelievable. She must not care for those two great-grandbabies at all.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Jackie3

[tabitha2]

Nothing to do with the Queen. He is paying for his security in California and has been for a long time now. 

[Jackie3]

6 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Nothing to do with the Queen. He is paying for his security in California and has been for a long time now. 

You need to read up on this a bit more.

[tabitha2]

When he left the security provided as being part of the upper echelons of the BRF he took on adult responsibility to take care of his family protection and material needs. They both did. He needs to man up and use his own money not beg his granny and daddy to help him. The British government sure as hell has no obligation to him either. 

Edited July 30, 2022 by tabitha2

[treehugger]

Speaking of living off the taxpayers dime, I'm still salty that as a Canadian, we payed for H&M's security for a whole bloody year while they lived on a Russian owned estate in BC.  I don't think their admirers can cast too many stones when it comes to living off the public's hard-earned money.    

Edited July 30, 2022 by treehugger

[Jackie3]

3 minutes ago, treehugger said:

Speaking of living off the taxpayers dime, I'm still salty that as a Canadian, we payed for H&M's security for a whole bloody year while they lived on a Russian owned estate in BC.  I don't think their admirers can cast too many stones when it comes to living off the public's hard-earned money.    

If they lived off the public dime, that is certainly wrong. Isn't Canada part of the monarchy? I thought that had something to do with it. However, it's wrong nonetheless. 

On the bright side, it only cost Canadian taxpayers $40,000 for a stay of 6 weeks. That's a lot better than the decades the Queen and Charles have been on the public dime, costing millions upon millions to the British taxpayer.

Now that's really something to be salty about!

[prayawaythefundie]

3 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

You'd like 100% trashing of one woman, instead.

Like your constant trashing of Kate when she wasn‘t even discussed?