Harry & Meghan 16

[Four is Enough]

OK, I'm just going to come out and say this. Harry's  involvement in Invictus and his other venture are a much different thing than William and Kate's many other patronages. 

If Harry were still a working royal, he'd still be a Commander of This and a Patron of That, and his influence and ability to change or actually influence or run things would be much diluted, as it is with Will and Kate. They are, as he would still be, figureheads.

So you can't really compare the two, IMO. They can't delve into one specific thing the way he can. They can't show favoritism between patronages. It's a shame, really, but realistically, they just can't. There are too many, and they all want to be supported in some way by the Crown.

 

[Jackie3]

54 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

So you can't really compare the two, IMO. They can't delve into one specific thing the way he can. They can't show favoritism between patronages. It's a shame, really, but realistically, they just can't. There are too many, and they all want to be supported in some way by the Crown.

 

 

Why can't they do these things? Who is stopping them? 

 

4 hours ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Don‘t you realise you are describing your very own behaviour when it comes to pictures of the Wales family?

Yes, true. However, the difference is I have no desire for William, Kate or their children to be unhappy. I'm not invested in seeing them fail as people (I do think the monarchy is a waste of money though)

People who are invested tend to speculate wildly.  ("The Invictus Games will be cancelled." or "The book is delayed so it's never going to come out.") . That's really different than pointing out that George and Charlotte always looks serious and overwhelmed when they are in public. Honestly, if I had a million cameras clicking at me, I'd look the same.

If Earthshot leads to some great inventions, who would be sad about that? However, it's OK to point out its hypocrosies--like flying in celebrities but letting the winners zoom in to the awards ceremony.

I mean, H&M can be hypocritical too--most notably, when they fly private (unless they are offsetting their carbon footprints). They aren't perfect people. It's the ugly racism, the blind bullying of a woman, that needs calling out. 

[viii]

56 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

So you can't really compare the two, IMO. They can't delve into one specific thing the way he can. They can't show favoritism between patronages. It's a shame, really, but realistically, they just can't. There are too many, and they all want to be supported in some way by the Crown.

But William and Kate DO show favoritism with their patronages. I wouldn't even really call it favoritism, but William certainly focuses on Earthshot the most, and Kate focuses majority of her time on her Early Years stuff. I don't think it's necessarily a negative thing that they've spearheaded foundations, just like Harry with Invictus. It's all very comparable, imo. 

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, viii said:

But William and Kate DO show favoritism with their patronages. I wouldn't even really call it favoritism, but William certainly focuses on Earthshot the most, and Kate focuses majority of her time on her Early Years stuff. I don't think it's necessarily a negative thing that they've spearheaded foundations, just like Harry with Invictus. It's all very comparable, imo. 

Exactly. They never visit many of the charities they are '"patron" of. Some definitely get far more attention than others. Where is the rule that they "can't'" show favoritism? They do, and nothing happens.

[just_ordinary]

Harry was most definitely for a good decade the more popular of the two brothers. This has nothing to do with unfair treatment in the family or being an alleged whipping boy. The public was very quick in forgiving his “mistakes” and coming up with excuses. At the height of his popularity some people even thought he should be king over Wiliam. W&K had a good decade of bad headlines. They couldn’t do anything right. Their popularity has not necessarily something to do with their real persona or what they actually do. It’s part of the tabloid cycle of needing a hero and a villain. 
 

While both of his Initiatives were not born out of the genius of his mind, I do think that his commitment to them is better than what W and especially K have shown for their big projects. Given, his have had a longer time to develop by now. I think Earthshot could have potential but everything I have seen from Early Years is pretty meh. 
 

I will link to one fan blog, and if you read the comments you will find many posters, that usually write extremely favourable about her, criticising how Early Years is doing.

Spoiler

https://chroniclingkate.blogspot.com/2023/03/think-little-more-radically-princess-of.html?m=1#comment-form

Many mostly talk fashion but if you make the effort to read through all comments you most definitely find balanced and well phrased criticism and discussions about many ascents, from fashion to Early Years, sustainability, “just like you” and work ethic. If you concentrate on the posts around Early Years it’s definitely noticeable. 
 

This blog was always from her engagement onwards highly critical of Kate. Today you would call it hating and online bullying……

Spoiler

http://katemiddletonreview.com/2013/07/the-kate-sycophancy-continues/

The author has stopped writing a lot and has toned it down A LOT. The worst posts got removed but sometimes you can stumble about the odd comment section and can see how harsh people thought/think about her. 
 

I will say, in combination both blogs were a fantastic read. I don’t think Kate deserves either. The complete praise nor the harsh criticism. But being a public persona, and sadly, especially as a woman, will bring this. And the public’s perception is often enough so warped by PR, tabloid narratives and your own mindset that it’s hard to say what is real and what is not.

Edited September 21, 2023 by just_ordinary

[viii]

William and Kate's popularity only really picked up in 2018. Gee, I wonder what happened that year to cause it? 

[louisa05]

9 hours ago, viii said:

But William and Kate DO show favoritism with their patronages. I wouldn't even really call it favoritism, but William certainly focuses on Earthshot the most, and Kate focuses majority of her time on her Early Years stuff. I don't think it's necessarily a negative thing that they've spearheaded foundations, just like Harry with Invictus. It's all very comparable, imo. 

Oh, but it’s not at all. Because they’re not represented by WME and don’t make a living whining about how persecuted they are by absolutely everyone on the face of the earth due to being the most unique and magnificent humans in history. 

[Jackie3]

28 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Oh, but it’s not at all. Because they’re not represented by WME and don’t make a living whining about how persecuted they are by absolutely everyone on the face of the earth due to being the most unique and magnificent humans in history. 

William inherited a billion dollars. He is treated by many like the most unique and magnificent human in history (though he’s’ done nothing to earn it). What does he have to whine about?

[viii]

The whining has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It’s comparing their patronages, which is similar. 

[Jackie3]

Harry's a private citizen and doesn't have to do anything for charity. He doesn't have to have patronages. But he does anyway. 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

When comparing charities it’s worth noting Meghan doesn’t seem to do a lot. Kate does seem to be doing more.

[Jackie3]

9 hours ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

When comparing charities it’s worth noting Meghan doesn’t seem to do a lot. Kate does seem to be doing more.

Meghan has been involved with charities since she was a teen. She worked with charities long before she met Harry.

Did Kate work with charities before her marriage? I don't mean organizing parties and then going to that party.  I mean being truly involved, flying places, speaking, etc. 

[viii]

11 hours ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

When comparing charities it’s worth noting Meghan doesn’t seem to do a lot. Kate does seem to be doing more.

Well, yeah, because that’s her job. She’s always going to be seen as doing more because it’s the only way the BRF stays relevant. 

[Jackie3]

On 9/23/2023 at 8:20 AM, viii said:

Well, yeah, because that’s her job. She’s always going to be seen as doing more because it’s the only way the BRF stays relevant. 

Exactly! Meghan isn't a working royal. She doesn't have to do anything, she could be spending her time watching hulu and sipping tea.

[Manda]

Who knew how much trouble putting on a simple book reading could be?

https://news.yahoo.com/duchess-sussex-wanted-her-book-200122524.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9mb3J1bXMucHJpbWV0aW1lci5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJshTK7urUYhkbheBfURMo6QC_e3tXjpN_NcpykNhC4Wh0nyxKi-Xoi4MzDDXDgiSS_SWPyX7jctNrtSkS8C3rAx-qQgLA8A8nLxfUlZS5IVD2gKnyzBO-RpX4uAH-MMt02AvvzzZwG8bD4HXUhq-oZvTII3JxMahXqF4ZL5wHP2&_guc_consent_skip=1695850960

[Jackie3]

40 minutes ago, Manda said:

Who knew how much trouble putting on a simple book reading could be?

https://news.yahoo.com/duchess-sussex-wanted-her-book-200122524.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9mb3J1bXMucHJpbWV0aW1lci5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJshTK7urUYhkbheBfURMo6QC_e3tXjpN_NcpykNhC4Wh0nyxKi-Xoi4MzDDXDgiSS_SWPyX7jctNrtSkS8C3rAx-qQgLA8A8nLxfUlZS5IVD2gKnyzBO-RpX4uAH-MMt02AvvzzZwG8bD4HXUhq-oZvTII3JxMahXqF4ZL5wHP2&_guc_consent_skip=1695850960

Sorry, but why is this even noteworthy? It's your typical PR stuff--like when William brings photographers to his food bank visit. Who knew how much trouble a simple food bank visit could be, amiright?

Everyone in the public eye has to carefully curate their image--but it's only bad when Meghan does it. Good for her, sounds like she's very careful about her public image. That kind of business savvy on her part is what made The Tig so popular and lucrative. Gotta admire it.

It's good to see that Penguin was working hard for Meghan and her book--I guess they though she was a valuable addition to their list.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Jackie3

[Loveday]

1 hour ago, Manda said:

Who knew how much trouble putting on a simple book reading could be?

https://news.yahoo.com/duchess-sussex-wanted-her-book-200122524.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9mb3J1bXMucHJpbWV0aW1lci5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJshTK7urUYhkbheBfURMo6QC_e3tXjpN_NcpykNhC4Wh0nyxKi-Xoi4MzDDXDgiSS_SWPyX7jctNrtSkS8C3rAx-qQgLA8A8nLxfUlZS5IVD2gKnyzBO-RpX4uAH-MMt02AvvzzZwG8bD4HXUhq-oZvTII3JxMahXqF4ZL5wHP2&_guc_consent_skip=1695850960

How precious are they, I ask you? 🙄

[TN-peach]

16 hours ago, Manda said:

Who knew how much trouble putting on a simple book reading could be?

https://news.yahoo.com/duchess-sussex-wanted-her-book-200122524.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9mb3J1bXMucHJpbWV0aW1lci5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJshTK7urUYhkbheBfURMo6QC_e3tXjpN_NcpykNhC4Wh0nyxKi-Xoi4MzDDXDgiSS_SWPyX7jctNrtSkS8C3rAx-qQgLA8A8nLxfUlZS5IVD2gKnyzBO-RpX4uAH-MMt02AvvzzZwG8bD4HXUhq-oZvTII3JxMahXqF4ZL5wHP2&_guc_consent_skip=1695850960

Interesting takeaways were the NDAs that the teachers and the students couldn't discuss the visit negatively.  Couldn't call it a "Read a loud." 

Something tells me that a Royal visit doesn't require anyone to sign a NDA.  The media always seems to have interviews of people of interact with the Royals on their visits. 

[viii]

At first I didn't think it was that big of a deal, because you bet your hat that the royals do the same when it comes to carefully curating events to present themselves in the best light. However, I doubt the BRF is making people sign NDA's, bringing props to improve the *aesthetic*, or forcing people to speak only positively. 

[Jackie3]

57 minutes ago, viii said:

At first I didn't think it was that big of a deal, because you bet your hat that the royals do the same when it comes to carefully curating events to present themselves in the best light. However, I doubt the BRF is making people sign NDA's, bringing props to improve the *aesthetic*, or forcing people to speak only positively. 

We'll never know, because the royals are exempt from freedom of information acts. They've made sure of that. 

However, there's evidence they are pretty darn controlling. I remember they tried to control what was filmed at the (taxpayer-funded) coronation. And they swept the streets of republicans that day.

The royals use a heavy hand and all their power to control their image. It's tough to prove otherwise.

 

We'll never read correspondence between the royals and the places they visit. The royals made sure they are exempt from the FOIC

Here's the appropriate section of their Act:

Quote

Communications with the Royal Family are exempt under Section 37 of the Act which provides that information is exempt:

(1)... if it relates to—. (a) communications with the Sovereign,

(aa) communications with the heir to, or the person who is for the time being second in line of succession to, the Throne,

(ab) communications with a person who has subsequently acceded to the Throne or become heir to, or second in line to, the Throne,

(ac) communications with other members of the Royal Family (other than communications which fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (ab) because they are made or received on behalf of a person falling within any of those paragraphs), and

(ad) communications with the Royal Household (other than communications which fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (ac) because they are made or received on behalf of a person falling within any of those paragraphs), or (b) the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity. (2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1).

I wonder why the royal family got themselves an exemption?

[AmazonGrace]

 

Quote

All children and staff involved were asked to sign a release form in which they agreed not to discuss or make “negative” statements about the project.

Well I understand staff but children???

How old were the children? They look pretty young in the photo.

I don't think it's fair to make children sign anything like this.

If you're a school, don't hold events that children can't discuss.

They won't necessarily understand why the adults require the secrecy and if some kids didn't like the read-aloud for any reason they shouldn't be made to feel that their opinion is wrong somehow.  And it's unnecessary guilt forced upon the kids if somebody forgot and said something negative.  And I doubt it could be a real NDA with any legal force if they're minors so it's just being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

Asking kids not to post photos, okay, but  forbidding free speech and negative opinions seems like asking young children too much. Kids think what they think and they say what they think, a lot of the time.

If you're doing something embarrassing that you wouldn't want people to know about maybe don't go to a school to do it.

Edited September 28, 2023 by AmazonGrace

[Jackie3]

Children can't sign a contract, it's automatically unenforceable.  I mean, come on, most of them probably couldn't read well enough to understand it. The whole thing is made up by the tabloids. Don't believe everythign you read.

Most likely, they  asked parents to sign a release, and that's pretty standard procedure. 

I understand the joy in finding something "bad" about M&H. But this sounds like a standard release  that they'd have to get from every adult at the school, with most of it being unenforceable anyway. 

After all, M&H are not likely to sue a family who wrote an IG post saying "Johnny didn't like the Duchess' book."  What terrible optics that would be. 

It would be far worse if they'd skipped the release. Then they'd be filming children without parental consent. That would be wrong.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Jackie3

[Four is Enough]

On 9/22/2023 at 10:26 AM, Jackie3 said:

Harry's a private citizen and doesn't have to do anything for charity. He doesn't have to have patronages. But he does anyway. 

Harry is a celebrity. Many celebrities have causes. I would have been better off to say causes rather than patronages.

W& K have many patronages because Royalty.

H & M need have none because Not Royalty, no matter how they try to spin it. So they're entitled to support whatever causes they want, and they get to pick, unlike W & K who have had a plethora of them thrust upon them. because Royalty.

 

[Jackie3]

2 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

Harry is a celebrity. Many celebrities have causes. I would have been better off to say causes rather than patronages.

W& K have many patronages because Royalty.

H & M need have none because Not Royalty, no matter how they try to spin it. So they're entitled to support whatever causes they want, and they get to pick, unlike W & K who have had a plethora of them thrust upon them. because Royalty.

 

Some celebrities have causes, some don't. They are free to do whatever they want.

I've noticed that many celebrities choose causes they are personally affected by. For example, Chris Reeves started a charity for curing spinal injuries. Michael J Fox started one for Parkinsons. However, some celebs just choose charities they like. And some do things privately, some say they do things and don't do much, some do it for publicity, some do it because they feel blessed and want to give back. 

The point is, celebrities are free to do what they want, just like Harry and Meghan. We don't know their motivations. We do know that they could do nothing and still be fine.

William and Kate really don't have the option of doing nothing, because it puts the monarchy at risk.

[AmazonGrace]

19 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

¨. The whole thing is made up by the tabloids.

Tabloid status notwithstanding, Daily Mail has copies of the emails that were obtained via a FOIA request, including the legalese that the parents had to sign for children under 18. 

They were asking the parents to grant them the ownership of any footage and the right to use the individual's name,  voice, likeness and biographical information, without specifying how and to what purpose. They asked for the the right to edit, dub, advertise, promote, sell, publicize,  licence to others and exploit the material and the individual's likeness  "in any manner." 

They were asked to promise not to sue if participation in the project caused their child to be harmed somehow.

And they were further asked to sign that they would not be able to withdraw their agreement to this project.

I trust that they are not planning to use and exploit the material in any way that would be intentionally harmful to the children but still, this is a pretty broad licence to exploit the child's footage in whatever the damn way they wanted to in whatever the damn project they wanted to, throughout the universe and in perpetuity, and using any media, whether it exists now or will be invented many years later.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12558341/Harry-Meghan-Archewell-team-requests-cushions-new-carpet-film-Harlem-elementary-students-Netflix-doc.html

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

This part has the shut up clause:

Spoiler

They were asked to agree not to discuss their participation in the project with any third party, before the episode of the project that they appear in. (Please recall they were not told which project this was for,  which episode they would appear in, or when it would come out.)  They were asked not to discuss their experience on social media and not to circulate any book or news story related to the producer, the project, their participation in the project or the subject matter of the appearance release.

(the heck? How can you forbid someone not to post news stories?)

They were asked to sign that they understand their child would not get any monetary compensation, regardless of how their footage was exploited.

They were asked to give the producers the rights to sell or transfer the permission to use their child's footage to unspecified third parties.

I would not sign this if it was my child going to this school. They would be indisposed that day.

If you can't tell me how my child's footage is going to be used, when and by whom, for what purpose, then it's a no from me.

Edited September 29, 2023 by AmazonGrace