Harry & Meghan 10: Even Less Relevant to the BRF

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, nausicaa said:

 Earning $5 million is not the same thing as having $5 million. She's such a bad bitch feminist, she really should know this. 

 

Unless you're a royal!!! They don't have to pay taxes.

I appreciate the lesson, but I've done my own taxes for years. I understand Meghan paid taxes. I also know she paid for food, rent, and utilities. I understand you want to chip away at the $5 million to make it smaller. Taxes will certainly do that.

As for the yogurt shop, I just think it's sad. Imagine being so threatened by a stranger, that you have to find ways to diminish a job she held 27 years ago. How small.

I'm all about making small people feel big. Pretend she didn't work in a yogurt shop, if it helps you feel better about yourself.

This reminds me how people try to take successful Black people down a peg or two (She got in by affirmative action, sports aren't a real job, she got more financial aid than I did, she slept with the professor. . . . she wasn't really famous, she doesn't have $5 million now, she never worked there. . . ) You're part of the club now! 

Taxes or not, she still accomplished more than Kate ever did. LOL! Kate never made money to tax! LOL!

Edited August 6, 2022 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

10 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

🤷🏻‍♀️ Can‘t tell but I find it intriguing how people who seem to support the breaking away from the stiff & evil royal family to find freedom narrative often tend to be especially keen on calling her princess or duchess. (This is more of a general observation. I don‘t know Tyler Perry‘s exact take on the events.)

That's funny. I don't feel that way at all. Using the term "Duchess" or "Duke" in California would be weird, to say the least.

As for "supporting" their decision to break away. . . I don't think they need our support. It's a personal decision. They don't need anyone's approval to live here or there. 

[EmCatlyn]

18 hours ago, louisa05 said:

It is also possible that the exact same people didn’t work at the yogurt shop in 2018 as did 24 years prior and the tweet was just taking her story at face value. The story is suspect anyway as 13 year olds could not legally work 
 

I suspect the book is 95% accurate as no lawsuit has been filed. This couple is incredibly quick to sue over the slightest inaccuracy. It’s been out for a few weeks with not a word from Montecito. 

I never thought she started working at 13. I figured it was her usual exaggeration, but that maybe she did work at the yoghurt shop at some point.

You are right that the people from the yoghurt shop may not have known or remembered her when they congratulated her.

Based on the parts I read, I think the author is very good at using verifiable fact along with references to the people who provide his information.  For example, instead of saying that Doria was a pot head and a dealer, he refers to or quotes several people (beginning with Thomas Markle) who say they remember this or they saw that— all of which gives the picture of Doria as kind of a hippy who may not have been “all there” for Meghan even before Meghan moved to live with her dad.  Since the author isn’t making the claim, it is less likely he can be sued successfully.

[AmazonGrace]

4 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

I'm all about making small people feel big.

 

Might want to make sure none of the posters on FJ that you constantly try to put down are small people.

[prayawaythefundie]

9 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Using the term "Duchess" or "Duke" in California would be weird, to say the least.

Why do they keep introducing themselves / each other as Duke and Duchess of Sussex all the time then?

[LilaMae]

1 hour ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Why do they keep introducing themselves / each other as Duke and Duchess of Sussex all the time then?

How else will people know that they are very important?

[AmazonGrace]

16 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

That's funny. I don't feel that way at all. Using the term "Duchess" or "Duke" in California would be weird, to say the least.

As for "supporting" their decision to break away. . . I don't think they need our support. It's a personal decision. They don't need anyone's approval to live here or there. 

Mind you, supporting "decision" and supporting "narrative" mean different things.

[Manda]

On 7/30/2022 at 9:38 AM, Manda said:

On 7/28/2022 at 7:33 PM, Jackie3 said:

. 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!

Prove it.  

I see you didn't bother.  

18 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Unless you're a royal!!! They don't have to pay taxes.

Unless you choose to move to the US.  Harry and Meghan get to pay to the IRS.

[tabitha2]

She just keeps repeating the same things completely and utterly ignoring posts correcting her “facts” and calling her out on her Sexism and classism and general grossness. Very tiresome.

[EmCatlyn]

6 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Mind you, supporting "decision" and supporting "narrative" mean different things.

People often say “support” when they mean “approve” or “agree” with or “encourage.” It is often pretty meaningless.

I “support” a lot of things in the abstract, but unless I am doing something tangible, my “support” is just words.

In general, public figures shouldn’t need our “support” unless they are doing something that affects us or our community (for example, I may “support” a congressperson who is standing for something I believe in). Beyond that, I feel no need to “support” decisions of perfect strangers, and I hope they don’t need me to “support” them because I probably will forget.

Support for causes or ideas is another matter, though I think that too often “support” for causes or ideas is not real support, just nice words.  For example, people who say they “support Ukraine” but don’t donate money or somehow try to help are not really “supporting” so much as they are just “cheering.”

Anyway, back to the topic of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex,  I don’t think my applause or approval or any other support is needed, and I certainly am not “supporting” them in that sense.  However, I support the right of people to choose their own lives, even if I also support the right of the rest of us to comment and snark.  

Whether or not people have the “right” to impose their own narrative on others is a different matter. While I am big on diversity of views and relativity of perspectives, I don’t “support” the practice of trying to control one’s narrative at the expense of truth and fairness.  There is fiction, and then there is dishonesty.  Some fictions are fundamentally honest. Some carefully-selected facts may be part of misrepresentation and therefore dishonest.

What appears to be the case with Meghan is that she likes to spin little fictions about herself and her life.  Some of these fictions have a basis in truth. Others do not.  

Edited August 7, 2022 by EmCatlyn
Sentence edit

[prayawaythefundie]

@AmazonGrace  is spot on here. I wasn‘t talking about the Sussexes‘ decision to leave but about their story of why they felt they needed to and why it had to be the way they did it. 
 

They absolutely do not need my or anyone‘s approval to leave a job or move  or even cut ties with family but that does not mean everyone has to take their version of events as the only truth there is. And to me it’s funny to reject an instution (the BRF) so publicly while obviously enjoying (the Sussexes themselves) or being impressed by (some of their admirers) the titles that very institution provided them with.

It‘s well known that @Jackie3 struggles with reading comprehension. I just didn‘t bother to correct her myself this time.

Edited August 7, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[just_ordinary]

The yoghurt shop thing is a perfect example about how not exact language opens statements to completely opposite ideas (and yes, with English only being a second language for me the language barrier will probably make my point even less exactly phrased). She might have worked there in school holidays, which means she was not working there while at school but “being in school” is also used a descriptive phrase for a certain age span when most children are in the school system not matter if they are in session or on a holiday. I have no idea if 27 years ago it would have been impossible for her to work a few hours in the summer holidays at a shop. I do know though that when I was a teen (later and a different country) there where definitely options even though it was not exactly the law. It might very well be true that the staff are completely different people and just went with her story (great PR, who wouldn’t) but it’s also possible that some are the same and do remember her.
I think as long as they don’t sue over parts of the book he was either good enough in phrasing things just so that they cannot win over a technicality (like with the letter of M to her father) or they cannot prove him wrong/know he can prove what he wrote. With all their law cases and constant drumming on about standing against misinformed, it sure as hell looks as if the contents of the book are true because you’d expect them to sue if they weren’t.

I also don’t believe H is too stupid to have realised his children would be mixed race and that there was a big spectrum of possible skin shades. I think remarks were made. And either were intentionally racist or unintentionally racist (where a confrontation would have been good and give the opportunity to immediately apologise. Not wait and then slap them with it on tv- I can absolutely see someone making a bad joke of mixing some coffee into their milky mix or similar and H&M taking offence, but that could have been resolved with addressing it privately first. By their own accounts it doesn’t look as if they expressed their feelings at all about this.) or a complete misinterpretation of what was said and implied (either pure curiosity like hair and eye colour, distinctive family traits… or the serious discussion that their children had a good chance of being darker skinned and therefore would have had to live with racist coverage and insults. That was a very high possibility and it would have been stupid not to prepare for this mentally and strategically.). From what H&M told us about it, I am leaning to the latter but I don’t dismiss the other possibilities. They were extremely vague and mixed it with some fanfic (no Prince title because of skin colour), so that’s as far as I would go. I also don’t think they will ever name “the racist”. They also have started to make it look more as if the whole family is racist- apart from PP and HMTQ (as if). Because I think in a case of singling one out, they would have a lawsuit on their desk if they do. Especially if it was Charles, Camilla, Wiliam or Kate. The monarchy will protect the direct line. They also have very probably nothing to proof what was said and therefore can only allude and not poke too hard riding on the good will of his family. The BRF is very passive in general and prefers to let stuff blow over. It would also damage their private relationship pretty badly if they meet in court. So it’s war but stop a cold one.

[AmazonGrace]

Not naming the racists in your family comes in handy if you want everyone in  your family tainted by the allegation.

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

The yoghurt shop thing is a perfect example about how not exact language opens statements to completely opposite ideas (and yes, with English only being a second language for me the language barrier will probably make my point even less exactly phrased). She might have worked there in school holidays, which means she was not working there while at school but “being in school” is also used a descriptive phrase for a certain age span when most children are in the school system not matter if they are in session or on a holiday. I have no idea if 27 years ago it would have been impossible for her to work a few hours in the summer holidays at a shop. I do know though that when I was a teen (later and a different country) there where definitely options even though it was not exactly the law. It might very well be true that the staff are completely different people and just went with her story (great PR, who wouldn’t) but it’s also possible that some are the same and do remember her.
I think as long as they don’t sue over parts of the book he was either good enough in phrasing things just so that they cannot win over a technicality (like with the letter of M to her father) or they cannot prove him wrong/know he can prove what he wrote. With all their law cases and constant drumming on about standing against misinformed, it sure as hell looks as if the contents of the book are true because you’d expect them to sue if they weren’t.

I also don’t believe H is too stupid to have realised his children would be mixed race and that there was a big spectrum of possible skin shades. I think remarks were made. And either were intentionally racist or unintentionally racist (where a confrontation would have been good and give the opportunity to immediately apologise. Not wait and then slap them with it on tv- I can absolutely see someone making a bad joke of mixing some coffee into their milky mix or similar and H&M taking offence, but that could have been resolved with addressing it privately first. By their own accounts it doesn’t look as if they expressed their feelings at all about this.) or a complete misinterpretation of what was said and implied (either pure curiosity like hair and eye colour, distinctive family traits… or the serious discussion that their children had a good chance of being darker skinned and therefore would have had to live with racist coverage and insults. That was a very high possibility and it would have been stupid not to prepare for this mentally and strategically.). From what H&M told us about it, I am leaning to the latter but I don’t dismiss the other possibilities. They were extremely vague and mixed it with some fanfic (no Prince title because of skin colour), so that’s as far as I would go. I also don’t think they will ever name “the racist”. They also have started to make it look more as if the whole family is racist- apart from PP and HMTQ (as if). Because I think in a case of singling one out, they would have a lawsuit on their desk if they do. Especially if it was Charles, Camilla, Wiliam or Kate. The monarchy will protect the direct line. They also have very probably nothing to proof what was said and therefore can only allude and not poke too hard riding on the good will of his family. The BRF is very passive in general and prefers to let stuff blow over. It would also damage their private relationship pretty badly if they meet in court. So it’s war but stop a cold one.

Yes, we are agreed about how the yoghurt shop story is open to different interpretations depending on context and how the story—or its contradiction—are worded.  Then there is the point both Meghan and her father may have deliberately exaggerated.  (Each in a different direction.) 

The whole “color of the baby’s skin” question is another example where how you report what was said will affect how it is understood and how “racist” it really is. (What I mean is that a comment about a future child’s appearance is not necessarily racist just because it mentions skin tone.  The racism is in the attitudes about skin tone.)

I am sure that Harry knew there would be comments about skintone when he married Meghan, but I can believe that he did not find these comments offensive until Meghan told him they were.  Since we are not likely to know what exactly was said, we can only speculate.

[Giraffe]

https://universaltaxprofessionals.com/expats-continue-to-pay-taxes-while-living-abroad/
Meghan has to pay US taxes regardless of her title of Duchess (or any other stupid reason our resident troll comes up with).

[EmCatlyn]

On 8/7/2022 at 1:37 PM, Giraffe said:

https://universaltaxprofessionals.com/expats-continue-to-pay-taxes-while-living-abroad/
Meghan has to pay US taxes regardless of her title of Duchess (or any other stupid reason our resident troll comes up with).

I guess I missed the part where Meghan didn’t have to pay taxes.  She does, and so does Harry, even if he isn’t a US citizen.

Of course, people with incomes in the millions don’t really pay the percentage that they are supposed to because there are lots of clever loopholes.  But they pay taxes.

[catlady]

On 8/6/2022 at 1:30 AM, Jackie3 said:

I understand Meghan paid taxes. I also know she paid for food, rent, and utilities. 

Because you were there, right?  

[EmCatlyn]

On 8/9/2022 at 2:32 PM, catlady said:

Because you were there, right?  

According to Meghan’s father, he  supported or subsidized her until she “made it” professionally.  We could say that he was there, but I take everything said by any of the Markles with a huge grain of salt.

Not that any of this matters.  I am past wondering why it is so important for some people to idealize Meghan Markle and why it is so necessary to put Kate down in order to build Meghan up.

What I do wonder, and maybe someone who know Meghan really well can tell us, is whether Harry is any good in bed. 😇

[tabitha2]

Ask the Troll. I am sure she will claim he is endowed like bull because she has superior knowledge and is more informed than everyone else about Royal Junk. 

Edited August 10, 2022 by tabitha2

[Jackie3]

On 8/7/2022 at 11:37 AM, Giraffe said:

https://universaltaxprofessionals.com/expats-continue-to-pay-taxes-while-living-abroad/
Meghan has to pay US taxes regardless of her title of Duchess (or any other stupid reason our resident troll comes up with).

Honestly, even earning $5 million impresses me. How she spent it, I do not know.

[rosamundi]

Harry and Meghan to visit UK in September for charity events.

I hope he starts to feel safer visiting here, this is where he was born and brought up and half of his family are.

[tabitha2]

So… who is going to be his protection? 

[SoSoNosy]

Harry is getting no kudos from the news sites over his Nelson Mandela speech.  I think it was NBC that said his connection with Mandela was the photo of Mandela and Diana that hangs on his wall.  Nobody seems to know why he was invited to speak. 

 

[Coconut Flan]

I hope this is more tabloid poppycock.  Who renews their vows before alleged "friends" and only one family member after less than four years of marriage?  Maybe they need it as Netflix fodder since they still haven't produced anything to fulfill their contract.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1657005/meghan-markle-news-prince-harry-us-vow-renewal-royal-family-snubbed

[louisa05]

11 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

I hope this is more tabloid poppycock.  Who renews their vows before alleged "friends" and only one family member after less than four years of marriage?  Maybe they need it as Netflix fodder since they still haven't produced anything to fulfill their contract.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1657005/meghan-markle-news-prince-harry-us-vow-renewal-royal-family-snubbed

When famous couples have vow renewals, the divorce follows pretty quickly