Harry & Meghan 11: She's a Scarab Beetle

[Coconut Flan]

Continued from here:

I'll explain the scarab beetle analogy.  Scarab beetles carry their dung on their backs until they can't move so then they die.  Meghan is a grievance collector.  She carries them "for life" and seems unable to forgive and let things go.  Thus she's likened to a scarab beetle.  One of my employees was told that she was scarab beetle by her therapist and then told me the story which does apply to certain people  

[Giraffe]

Wow, I love that illustration! I know a couple people that’s the perfect description for. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

She’s a total drama queen, but so was Diana, so it’s entirely possible that that’s what Harry likes about her. 

[viii]

I dislike this title. I have zero issues with the beetle analogy, but Harry is literally JUST as bad as Meghan. Majority of the blame falls on her and I don’t like that. Same reason why I hated the “megxit” headlines. Harry often comes across like she is her puppet and I just don’t think that’s the case. They are equally as bad as the other. 

[Seahorse Wrangler]

[quote=Coconut Flan]The five years younger sister pulled the power plug on the toaster oven, poured a canister of flour over it to put out the fire,[/quote]

 

Flour is as flammable as fuck you were lucky that you didn't lose your house.

[Ozlsn]

@adidas said "Apparently it took 11 minutes for Serena to be able to say her first word, and she only got 39% of talk time. The rest was Meghan."

I am catching up with these threads, but... what was this podcast supposed to be talking about? Why was Serena invited to speak?

I'd actually be quite interested in listening to Serena's experiences, particularly in coming back to elite sport after a quite traumatic experience in pregnancy and combining having a child with a very demanding training/playing regime, but from the description that was not what the podcast was about at all.

[Jackie3]

The rest of the world is loving the podcast. Cha-ching! Spotify and Meghan are making bank. She's #1 on Spotify. I'll bet they sign her for another multi-million dollar contract.

 

Quote

Mr Bower wrote in his bombshell book: "Over the next few days he [Sam Kashner] called those who Meghan had recommended as her friends. Serena Williams denied she was Meghan's friend but just an acquaintance.

Looks like Mr. Bower was just plain wrong. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Jackie3

[just_ordinary]

@Coconut Flan I agree with @viii  maybe you could change the title to include H?

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, viii said:

They are equally as bad as the other. 

And they are equally enjoying great success now. Harry has been hobnobbing with some very influential people lately. The President of Rwanda, the  US Presidential delegation, King of the Netherlands, for example. And Meghan's podcast is topping the charts.

It seems clear that they won't have to return any of that Spotify money. In fact, Spotify is thanking their lucky stars that they made that deal.

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Jackie3

[prayawaythefundie]

7 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

Harry has been hobnobbing with some very influential people lately. The President of Rwanda, the  US Presidential delegation, King of the Netherlands, for example. And Meghan's podcast is topping the charts.

LOL at your hypocrisy! When working members of the royal family have meetings like those, you accuse them of being on taxpayer-funded vacation and polluting the environment with it. Now Harry has like two meetings in one month with no official purpose and you are making him out to be hard working and succesful. 😆 When did he meet Willem-Alexander, btw? I must have missed that.

As for Meghan‘s podcast and whether people „love it“ as you say, we shall see how the other episodes will do (if THIS podcast has more than one). Could it become a success? Absolutely! Could people just listen to one episode out of curiousity, find it not all that interesting and make the numbers drop? Also possible. It‘s a bit early to judge. However, I expect people to keep tuning in if they can count on her complaining about the BRF. After all, that‘s what makes her interesting. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[FluffySnowball]

10 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

LOL at your hypocrisy! When working members of the royal family have meetings like those, you accuse them of being on taxpayer-funded vacation and polluting the environment with it. Now Harry has like two meetings in one month with no official purpose and you are making him out to be hard working and succesful. 😆 When did he meet Willem-Alexander, btw? I must have missed that.

As for Meghan‘s podcast and whether people „love it“ as you say, we shall see how the other episodes will do (if THIS podcast has more than one). Could it become a success? Absolutely! Could people just listen to one episode out of curiousity, find it not all that interesting and make the numbers drop? Also possible. It‘s a bit early to judge. However, I expect people to keep tuning in if they can count on her trash talking the BRF. After all, that‘s what makes her interesting. 

I’d assume they, Harry and the Dutch king, met during the Invictus Games in The Hague this year. Not sure though cause I haven’t followed either member of either royal family. 

[prayawaythefundie]

5 minutes ago, FluffySnowball said:

I’d assume they, Harry and the Dutch king, met during the Invictus Games in The Hague this year. Not sure though cause I haven’t followed either member of either royal family. 

I thought it was communicated by the Dutch royal family that they would not meet at that time?

[FluffySnowball]

7 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

I thought it was communicated by the Dutch royal family that they would not meet at that time?

Maybe, as I said, I don’t follow all of them, so I don’t know. 

[Coconut Flan]

10 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I agree with @viii  maybe you could change the title to include H?

I don't think Harry's problem is that he's a grievance collector.  I'll try to find a descriptor for him for the next thread.  

[SoSoNosy]

They did meet at the Invictus Games, there are pictures.  Thought I would get the info in before "somebody else" did.

[viii]

49 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

I don't think Harry's problem is that he's a grievance collector.  I'll try to find a descriptor for him for the next thread.  

I disagree. He’s been milking his mothers death for how long? I’m not going to judge anyone for their grief process but he sure likes to bring her up any time he’s criticized for something. 

This title just smacks of sexism and I feel like we’re better than that as a board. 

[Jackie3]

5 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

As for Meghan‘s podcast and whether people „love it“ as you say, we shall see how the other episodes will do (if THIS podcast has more than one).

Mariah Carey is on the next one. 

[Coconut Flan]

Harry's continuing grief is more a lack of maturity than a retained grievance, IMO. Although blaming the press could be considered a retained grievance.  That was his only one pretty much until he met Meghan.  Opinions may vary.  I don't think pointing out one character flaw in one one thread title is sexist.  Not everything has to be a tit for tat balance in every thread title.  

[Jackie3]

5 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

LOL at your hypocrisy! When working members of the royal family have meetings like those, you accuse them of being on taxpayer-funded vacation and polluting the environment with it.

Harry's trips were not taxpayer funded. There's your difference. He funds his own lifestyle.

30 minutes ago, viii said:

I disagree. He’s been milking his mothers death for how long?

This is quite a compassionate view. However, grief doesn't end at a particular point. Nor should people stop mentioned a deceased loved one after X amount of years.

[prayawaythefundie]

22 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

Harry's trips were not taxpayer funded. There's your difference. He funds his own lifestyle.

Working members of the royal family often meet foreign heads of state or delegations because they are asked to do so by elected representatives of the taxpayers. There‘s your difference. It‘s not their lifestyle but their job. 
 

ETA: Harry does not fund his own lifestyle as of now. He makes use of his inheritance from Diana. Where do you think that money came from?

Edited August 26, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[Jackie3]

2 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Working members of the royal family often meet foreign heads of state or delegations because they are asked to do so by elected representatives of the taxpayers. There‘s your difference. It‘s not their lifestyle but their job. 

They have convinced people that traveling in luxury and meeting heads of state is a "job."  Like working at Walmart or McDs is a job, but without the filth, sweat, cranky customers and low pay.

Most people realize it's an exciting adventure and five-star vacation rolled into one.

[prayawaythefundie]

4 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

They have convinced people that traveling in luxury and meeting heads of state is a "job."  Like working at Walmart or McDs is a job, but without the filth, sweat, cranky customers and low pay.

Most people realize it's an exciting adventure and five-star vacation rolled into one.

You may not consider them value for money. That’s ok. Doesn‘t change the fact that it is their official job. They get asked to go meet people by the government and they get money for it. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by prayawaythefundie

[Jackie3]

10 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

You may not consider them value for money. That’s ok. Doesn‘t change the fact that it is their official job. They get asked to go meet people by the government and they get money for it. 

No one pays Kate X pounds for opening a day care center. That's not how it works. That MIGHT be a job.

I think you mean, the Queen gets 100 million pounds a year, and doles it out. They also get exempted from laws everyone else must follow. Even if they commit a sex crime, they get round the clock security.

This is not like any job I've ever heard of. 

No, I don't see what value they provide for the money. I mean that seriously. Tourists don't go to England to see the Queen (they'd be arrested if they tried!). They travel to see the history and the buildings, which would be there anyway.

[prayawaythefundie]

6 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

Tourists don't go to England to see the Queen (they'd be arrested if they tried!). They travel to see the history and the buildings, which would be there anyway.

Simply not true. So many tourists came for the jubilee celebrations this year. They spent money which went into the UK‘s economy.

[viii]

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

This is quite a compassionate view. However, grief doesn't end at a particular point. Nor should people stop mentioned a deceased loved one after X amount of years.

How convenient that you ignored the following sentence I said.