Harry and Meghan 15

[Jackie3]

3 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

Yes, they mentioned the birthday several times, and Harry used it as his reason to leave instead of attending the parties. I have no idea why you’d be pressed about that? Polite excuses are used by polite people all the time. Sometimes, like with this, it’s glaringly obvious to everyone it’s an excuse - but that’s fine, it helps everyone involved feel better. It’s not a negative ffs.

They mentioned a party? I didn't see that. What is the link?

Obviously, it's just a polite excuse either way. Meghan didn't want to be abused by the British press, which was chomping at the bit to abuse her. It's a sign of self-care to stay away from such a thing. Can you imagine how vile they'd be? She wouldn't be able to take a breath without it being criticized.

 

[Coconut Flan]

Regarding contracts the total amount is what is usually announced.  That is the potential amount over the full term of the contract.  The base period is only a portion of that and the options only come into play if they are exercised.  For instance a $10 million dollar contract may only have a $1.5 million dollar limit for the base year.  Also note it's the top limit not the minimum payment.  So someone could win that $10 million contract and get paid $900,000 for the base period and no more.  Just an example. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

16 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

Regarding contracts the total amount is what is usually announced.  That is the potential amount over the full term of the contract.  The base period is only a portion of that and the options only come into play if they are exercised.  For instance a $10 million dollar contract may only have a $1.5 million dollar limit for the base year.  Also note it's the top limit not the minimum payment.  So someone could win that $10 million contract and get paid $900,000 for the base period and no more.  Just an example. 

Apparently that’s how TV contacts work these days, and some creators of reasonably popular streaming shows have been surprised that they get canceled after a couple of seasons so that the platforms can avoid making higher payouts for the later seasons.

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

Regarding contracts the total amount is what is usually announced.  That is the potential amount over the full term of the contract.  The base period is only a portion of that and the options only come into play if they are exercised.  For instance a $10 million dollar contract may only have a $1.5 million dollar limit for the base year.  Also note it's the top limit not the minimum payment.  So someone could win that $10 million contract and get paid $900,000 for the base period and no more.  Just an example. 

Here's hoping, right?

Seems clear the less MM gets the better. Because then she'll be sad she didn't get renewed, and that's a good thing, for some reason.

Here's hoping a middle-aged woman in CA is sad about a business deal!

IMO, whether she got 18 million or "only" 12 million, she still made bank.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Jackie3

[TN-peach]

From the summaries of Harry's testimony that I have read, Harry cannot point to any evidence that he has that the articles that he cited did not obtain the information from legal means.  When the barrister would point out there was an earlier article or interview with that information in it, Harry would basically say "I don't know."  When it came to the article about him using drugs, he said he didn't think it was in the public interest that he used drugs - the barrister said "you don't think that it was in the public interest that the third in line to throne was using drugs?" Harry - "the public thought it was interesting but it is not in the public interest." 

As it stands right now, Harry wasn't able to point to any articles in which the press clearly used unlawful means to obtain information for the articles he is citing in the lawsuit.  He is suing because he doesn't like being covered unfairly by the press. 

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, TN-peach said:

From the summaries of Harry's testimony that I have read, Harry cannot point to any evidence that he has that the articles that he cited did not obtain the information from legal means.  When the barrister would point out there was an earlier article or interview with that information in it, Harry would basically say "I don't know."  When it came to the article about him using drugs, he said he didn't think it was in the public interest that he used drugs - the barrister said "you don't think that it was in the public interest that the third in line to throne was using drugs?" Harry - "the public thought it was interesting but it is not in the public interest." 

As it stands right now, Harry wasn't able to point to any articles in which the press clearly used unlawful means to obtain information for the articles he is citing in the lawsuit.  He is suing because he doesn't like being covered unfairly by the press. 

You don't think there was "unlawful information gathering"?

Here's what the defendant itself admitted, just before trial.

Quote

But it acknowledged there was “some evidence of the instruction of third parties to engage in other types of UIG (unlawful information gathering) in respect of each of the claimants,” which includes the Duke of Sussex. It said this “warrants compensation” but didn’t spell out what form that might take.

“MGN unreservedly apologizes for all such instances of UIG, and assures the claimants that such conduct will never be repeated,”

and 

Quote

The publisher has already paid over $125 million in settlements over similar cases, and printed an apology to a victim of phone hacking in 2015.

The defendant has apologized for phone hacking someone 8 years ago. And paid out 125 million to settle other phone hacking cases.

Not sure what kind of evidence you want. They don't place bugs in phones anymore. The judge decides based on the preponderance of the evidence and there's lots of evidence that they hacked phones.

Sounds like you are rooting for a pretty evil empire.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Jackie3

[marmalade]

13 hours ago, TN-peach said:

From the summaries of Harry's testimony that I have read, Harry cannot point to any evidence that he has that the articles that he cited did not obtain the information from legal means.  When the barrister would point out there was an earlier article or interview with that information in it, Harry would basically say "I don't know."  When it came to the article about him using drugs, he said he didn't think it was in the public interest that he used drugs - the barrister said "you don't think that it was in the public interest that the third in line to throne was using drugs?" Harry - "the public thought it was interesting but it is not in the public interest." 

As it stands right now, Harry wasn't able to point to any articles in which the press clearly used unlawful means to obtain information for the articles he is citing in the lawsuit.  He is suing because he doesn't like being covered unfairly by the press. 

Remember, Harry isn't the only plaintiff. He may have been a shitty witness, but there may be others who testify that save his ass. 

[Jackie3]

11 hours ago, marmalade said:

Remember, Harry isn't the only plaintiff. He may have been a shitty witness, but there may be others who testify that save his ass. 

Did you see Harry's lawyer's face after the testimony? Pleased as bunch, almost bursting with satisfaction. Harry did fine. A good witness tells his story in a calm, measured way without getting flustered and that's exactly what happened. 

[Manda]

The end of Archetypes is official:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/prince-harry-meghan-spotify-podcast-deal-ends-archewell-rcna89665

Quote

The royals' deal with Spotify was reported to have been made in 2020 for a reported $20 million. NBC News was not immediately able to verify that figure.

The Spotify spokesperson did not confirm the cost of the deal, but said that recent layoffs at the company had "no relation" to the decision to end the deal with Harry and Meghan. 

Other outlets have reported they did not get the full amount due to lack of productivity.  

Edited June 16, 2023 by Manda
Missed a word.

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, Manda said:

 

Other outlets have reported they did get the full amount due to lack of productivity.  

I disagree, it seems unlikely they got the full amount.

[IrishCarrie]

Can't believe the post above has been up for a full two hours without the troll diving in to tell us why (a) it's all wrong and (b) how ackshually it's EXACTLY what Meghan and Harry wanted and it'll work out AMAZING for them 😂😂

 

** Edit: Shit, I touched the poop...**🤭

Edited June 16, 2023 by IrishCarrie

[AmazonGrace]

Quote

When their deal with Spotify was first announced, Harry and Meghan had written in a joint statement: “What we love about podcasting is that it reminds all of us to take a moment and to really listen, to connect to one another without distraction."

Well OK but I find that people who are listening to podcasts are more likely to be distracted when I try to connect with them.

[Manda]

Here's a bit of analysis about why the deal with Spotify went south and also where Meghan and Harry find themselves in the near future.

 

[just_ordinary]

It’s kind of sad, because some of the episode showed potential to develop the podcast in a good direction (maybe re-naming it as Stereotypes?). And I still wish them to find something they can consistently work with and build a good profile with.
On the other hand, the weaknesses the podcast had, seem to be part of their general problems to consistently deliver relevant, quality content. Too self centred, too shallow, no long term commitment…. They probably only got a (hefty) sign on fee and whatever the fee for the podcast was. 

I wonder if this will impact their ability to sign up for other projects. Right now their name still sells but the balance is tipping against them. The royal connection is thin and solely negative at this point and they lack successful long term engagements/business relationships. The Netflix deal hasn’t brought much content yet either.

I really don’t get why they were not developing Niche Netflix content? With their name that stuff would have raked in numbers. What about a purely female cast and team? Why not establishing themselves as Anti-Disney- you know bringing the folk tales of nonEuro countries on the big screen? Instead of casting colourblind to just re-tell a story that has been told hundreds of times, they could have made a point in really giving other ethnicities and nationalities their own stories. I would love to see good adaptations of those tales from other cultures. To see the similarities and differences. To see what creature and narrative patterns are out there. 
I could go on forever. So MANY missed opportunities. It’s crazy. 

Edited June 17, 2023 by just_ordinary

[QuiverFullofBooks]

Apparently Spotify’s head of podcasts said on his own podcast “The fucking grifters. That’s the podcast we should have launched with them.”

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

It's so sad to watch. They have all these connections, money, and opportunities. Meghan has played the feminist and bringing the people of color voice forward so many times....and yet absolutely nothing has come of it. Little girls can't even look up to her as a "pretty princess." Not that I think that's great but it was something she was easily set up to do as british royalty. 

They're quickly burning through what good will they have left. And what can they possibly do if they run low on money - realistically neither one of them can just get a job at least not any time soon. 

It's sad but I'm not too sad for them. The amount of money they waste daily on any one of their "necessities" (travel, fancy house, clothes, booze, etc) would probably pay my student loan bill for the month if not several. These people are such idiots and such a waste. I hope at least they are planning on making sure their kids can support themselves through not-grifting. But our study of other grifters here on FJ indicates otherwise. They seem to beget generations of shallow wannabes.

 

[Dandruff]

9 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

They're quickly burning through what good will they have left. And what can they possibly do if they run low on money - realistically neither one of them can just get a job at least not any time soon. 

Isn't Harry supposed to write a few more books?  I can't imagine.  While I found "Spare" somewhat interesting I found it much more tedious and whining.

My guess is that H&M's future money-making endeavors will gradually fail to take off, much like a TV spin-off that can't muster much interest outside of the successful show it launched from.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

I wish he would write a book about his youth. He's been places and done things I never will do and probably don't even know exist. Be grateful and write about the lucky parts of the life you've had.

Maybe he will one day when he (maybe) calms down. I'm sure his kids would love to learn about it one day. Especially since they won't see much of that behind the scenes stuff. 

[klein_roeschen]

11 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

It's so sad to watch. They have all these connections, money, and opportunities. Meghan has played the feminist and bringing the people of color voice forward so many times....and yet absolutely nothing has come of it. Little girls can't even look up to her as a "pretty princess." Not that I think that's great but it was something she was easily set up to do as british royalty. 

They're quickly burning through what good will they have left. And what can they possibly do if they run low on money - realistically neither one of them can just get a job at least not any time soon. 

It's sad but I'm not too sad for them. The amount of money they waste daily on any one of their "necessities" (travel, fancy house, clothes, booze, etc) would probably pay my student loan bill for the month if not several. These people are such idiots and such a waste. I hope at least they are planning on making sure their kids can support themselves through not-grifting. But our study of other grifters here on FJ indicates otherwise. They seem to beget generations of shallow wannabes.

With all the money that came in through Netflix and his book, they are more than set up for live, even with their lifestyle. My advise for both of them would be that they retreat into privacy for some time. Work on processing everything that happened to them, enjoy your kids and maybe than figure out what you want to do after your lenthy vacation from the public. At the moment they don't give me the impression of knowing where they want to go or what they stand for.

[Jackie3]

On 6/17/2023 at 1:52 PM, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

It's sad but I'm not too sad for them. The amount of money they waste daily on any one of their "necessities" (travel, fancy house, clothes, booze, etc) would probably pay my student loan bill for the month if not several. These people are such idiots and such a waste. I hope at least they are planning on making sure their kids can support themselves through not-grifting. But our study of other grifters here on FJ indicates otherwise. They seem to beget generations of shallow wannabes.

 

The royal family do very little and receive millions per year. They are the grifters.

H&M wrote a book, created a podcast, made a documentary about their lives. That's work. They earned their money. Calling them grifters makes no sense, since they earned their money.

The real grifts are the ones taking millions upon millions from the British taxpayer every year, in exchange for 100-odd "engagements."  There's even a royal grifter who committed sex crimes and still receives public funds (by living in Royal Lodge and having his lawsuits paid off)

 

You are I might be set for life with 100 million, but they have huge security bills. I've seen estimates of 2million a year or more. When the kids get older, that's likely to increase. They will probably need this security for life. That's the result of 1) Harry's position and 2) all the crazies who've decided to hate them. 

Once the kids are grown, they also may need security, depending on the level of reported threats against them. There's already a lot of people hating on those 4 and 2 year olds!

So they need to keep earning money.  It seems like Meghan has some very lucrative deals coming up, fortunately.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Jackie3

[apandaaries]

12 hours ago, klein_roeschen said:

With all the money that came in through Netflix and his book, they are more than set up for live, even with their lifestyle. 

You’d think, but people can be really weird about money, especially if they haven’t earned it themselves/lack experience with budgeting. 
People can and do squander fortunes. A series of seemingly minor fuck-ups can do a lot to a bank account. 
 

Spoiler

I’m including a couple articles about a sort of local family who wasted millions — and some items were supposed to be investments!  Just a series of losses. If they hadn’t abandoned their employees without paying them, I might feel a bit sorry. 

Poorly managed money, especially inherited, can go quickly. While trying to locate these older articles, I kept finding articles about families losing wealth by the third generation. 
Most estimates I’ve seen for their security are around 2 million/year. That adds up quickly and is lost forever (monetarily, at least. Safety is obviously important, but they live in montecito; it’s very deliberately quiet there). 

The Weyrichs are an interesting example. Major inheritances and eye watering losses. Most of their money went to properties and businesses, then bankruptcy. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/business/26fall.html

https://archive.nytimes.com/economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/how-to-go-broke-in-style/

That the royal family has done so much to protect its wealth begins to make sense from that perspective (if one is into hoarding wealth and power). I suppose we’ll see how H&M fare in the long term. 

 

[Coconut Flan]

How many lottery winners are broke in a few years?  A LOT of them.

The multi-million dollar deals sound great.  However, they'll never receive those dollar values as personal income.  That's the project total possible value (which we know already they aren't getting on most things).  For Netflix, Spotify, and similar those amounts include production costs.  They have their in-house people to pay.  Then there are taxes, lawyers, accountants, the agents, and the management team to pay.  That's all before we ever get to security, the mortgage, the household help, and the $4,500 purses.  

[Jackie3]

7 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

How many lottery winners are broke in a few years?  A LOT of them.

The multi-million dollar deals sound great.  However, they'll never receive those dollar values as personal income.  That's the project total possible value (which we know already they aren't getting on most things).  For Netflix, Spotify, and similar those amounts include production costs.  They have their in-house people to pay.  Then there are taxes, lawyers, accountants, the agents, and the management team to pay.  That's all before we ever get to security, the mortgage, the household help, and the $4,500 purses.  

Sounds like you're hoping they are poor!

 

[prayawaythefundie]

They could save a lot of money if they stopped sueing everybody and they would have less security worries if they actually started to live that quiet life in sunny California some say they want.

Edited June 19, 2023 by prayawaythefundie

[Jackie3]

9 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

They could save a lot of money if they stopped sueing everybody and they would have less security worries if they actually started to live that quiet life in sunny California some say they want.

You're assuming the tabloids would stop writing about them. I'm not so sure that's in their control. As long as the tabloids stir up hate, they need security.