[Josy]

This is the new official thread for any discussion/news or articles about Prince Harry and/or Meghan.

Please respect other members at ALL times and post within the forum rules.

Thanks.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Good article in todays Mail by Jan Moir - about Harry and his "jobs":

The crux is below

Perhaps his first task as Fake News Commissioner will be an investigation into himself,
in which he will find himself wanting, and send himself a stern memo. The new
positions are just what you might expect from a self-styled global philanthropist who
wants to change the world by telling everyone else what to do; positions that are elite,
vague, grandiose and — one suspects — largely ornamental.

Certainly nothing that involves scholarship, hard toil or personal sacrifice. And
everything that involves the exploitation of the royal status and hinterland from which
the Prince was so desperate to escape.

Commissioner? Impact Officer? The fancy titles are typical of that cloying Californian
wellness environment where someone who works in a shop is called a 'retail customer
experience ambassador' and a van driver is a 'vehicle operations specialist'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...executive.html

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Good article in todays Mail by Jan Moir - about Harry and his "jobs":

The crux is below

Perhaps his first task as Fake News Commissioner will be an investigation into himself,
in which he will find himself wanting, and send himself a stern memo. The new
positions are just what you might expect from a self-styled global philanthropist who
wants to change the world by telling everyone else what to do; positions that are elite,
vague, grandiose and — one suspects — largely ornamental.

Certainly nothing that involves scholarship, hard toil or personal sacrifice. And
everything that involves the exploitation of the royal status and hinterland from which
the Prince was so desperate to escape.

Commissioner? Impact Officer? The fancy titles are typical of that cloying Californian
wellness environment where someone who works in a shop is called a 'retail customer
experience ambassador' and a van driver is a 'vehicle operations specialist'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...executive.html

To be fair, I can't argue that I don't particularly like top positions/high-paying positions going to people based on "who they are" more than their actual CV, I think it's a kick in the teeth for genuinely knowledgeable, skilled and experienced people who have slogged their way through academia and have a truly deep level of understanding and ability. But then - that is and has always been my entire problem with the concept of monarchy as a whole. People "born better", elevated and given status when 99.9% of the time there are more intelligent, better educated people who are 10x more suited to the job. However, the world is what it is and celebrity ambassadors are hardly a new thing, hardly limited to (literal) Royalty, and certainly the concept wasn't invented for Harry.

I would also strongly counter that none of the criticism should really be on the people accepting these roles when they're offered... assigning some sort of moral judgement of "well he should have turned it down!!" is nonsense. As always when people benefit from privilege, the blame isn't really on the people who take the opportunities, it lies with the people offering those opportunities so in this case people should be criticising the organisations he's working with for choosing to hire on profile and not ability, and not him.

Though here's one for LT to consider; Mr "the press is what it is because that's what people want " ... These companies have hired Prince Harry to these positions because they think it will be financially advantageous to have his name attached to the brand. They believe this because they believe that that will sell to the people they're trying to sell to. This applies to all "celebrity endorsements" and so, just as with the front pages of the tabloids, do you not just have to accept it for what it is? It's "what people want". Or if it isn't, these organisations will be proven wrong.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Good article in todays Mail by Jan Moir - about Harry and his "jobs":

The crux is below

Perhaps his first task as Fake News Commissioner will be an investigation into himself,
in which he will find himself wanting, and send himself a stern memo. The new
positions are just what you might expect from a self-styled global philanthropist who
wants to change the world by telling everyone else what to do; positions that are elite,
vague, grandiose and — one suspects — largely ornamental.

Certainly nothing that involves scholarship, hard toil or personal sacrifice. And
everything that involves the exploitation of the royal status and hinterland from which
the Prince was so desperate to escape.

Commissioner? Impact Officer? The fancy titles are typical of that cloying Californian
wellness environment where someone who works in a shop is called a 'retail customer
experience ambassador' and a van driver is a 'vehicle operations specialist'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...executive.html

stand out comment from the article for me

[Ammi]

...(...I’m thinking...)...that those weren't vacant positions as such, but more roles created and titles given because the companies specifically wanted Harry as part of their team and their brand...obviously those are just my own thoughts...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

stand out comment from the article for me

Again while I don't disagree, as above, you can't really place judgement on them for taking advantage of this; Harry has no marketable skills, qualifications or experience beyond "being an ambassador". They have no other realistic avenue to making money than leveraging their marketability. That's all wrapped up in the same thing; maybe he WOULD rather not have been a Senior Royal (or any sort of Royal) and have pursued a different career path - maybe he still can - but as things stand now, he's a 36 year old man and his CV reads "Army" and "Ambassadorial stuff". He can't join the US armed forces so that leaves the latter. The other option is just not having an income... which it seems people would be happier with.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

snip

Though here's one for LT to consider; Mr "the press is what it is because that's what people want " ... These companies have hired Prince Harry to these positions because they think it will be financially advantageous to have his name attached to the brand. They believe this because they believe that that will sell to the people they're trying to sell to. This applies to all "celebrity endorsements" and so, just as with the front pages of the tabloids, do you not just have to accept it for what it is? It's "what people want". Or if it isn't, these organisations will be proven wrong.

This does not mean that they cant be criticised or discussed critically. I know why they are doing it, to turn a coin.

[LeatherTrumpet]

The guy who will do Meghan's biog Tom Bower, wrote about her recently:

“Convinced of her own greatness, Meghan thinks she has, for years, been the victim of plots to destroy her destiny. While
others shone in leading roles, Meghan had bit parts,” he declared, adding that after she was written out of the television
series Suits, she “brilliantly... invented a new script” and “ruthlessly” carried out a carefully planned scheme to ensnare Prince
Harry. In his view, Meghan never intended to “sacrifice her Californian lifestyle and serve as a member of the Royal Family in
rainy Britain” for long.

“Refusing to show son Archie’s face to the camera after his birth and demanding privacy, while constantly speaking to US
journalists, confirmed her hypocrisy,” he went on, before comparing her unfavourably with Wallis Simpson (“[unlike] the Duke
and Duchess of Windsor... Meghan and Harry clearly do not care about the uproar they are causing”).



His final complaint is that “in her selfish manner, she believes that she is entitled to say what she wants to Oprah Winfrey
[and] those who criticise her inventions are racist and sexist.” Nobody is going to mistake his biography for a love letter, I
imagine.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/no...meghan-markle/

[GoldHeart]

Harry has a family to support, I think it's good what he's doing.
Do people want him working at Tesco on the checkout or something .

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again while I don't disagree, as above, you can't really place judgement on them for taking advantage of this; Harry has no marketable skills, qualifications or experience beyond "being an ambassador". They have no other realistic avenue to making money than leveraging their marketability. That's all wrapped up in the same thing; maybe he WOULD rather not have been a Senior Royal (or any sort of Royal) and have pursued a different career path - maybe he still can - but as things stand now, he's a 36 year old man and his CV reads "Army" and "Ambassadorial stuff". He can't join the US armed forces so that leaves the latter. The other option is just not having an income... which it seems people would be happier with.

I find it hypocritical given the trauma they say they endured as being part of the Royal Family, its like an abused partner divorcing and still using their exes surname, of course the titles help but to continue to use Duke and Duchess while maligning the RF is at odds with their stance

In essence I think he is high profile enough to lose the titles and still get the positions

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again while I don't disagree, as above, you can't really place judgement on them for taking advantage of this; Harry has no marketable skills, qualifications or experience beyond "being an ambassador". They have no other realistic avenue to making money than leveraging their marketability. That's all wrapped up in the same thing; maybe he WOULD rather not have been a Senior Royal (or any sort of Royal) and have pursued a different career path - maybe he still can - but as things stand now, he's a 36 year old man and his CV reads "Army" and "Ambassadorial stuff". He can't join the US armed forces so that leaves the latter. The other option is just not having an income... which it seems people would be happier with.

Multi millions from Netflix and Spotify, big inheritance from Diana, more cash from the Queen Mum when he reaches 40. I think he's just about managing.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

This does not mean that they cant be criticised or discussed critically. I know why they are doing it, to turn a coin.

You seem pretty adamant that we shouldn't criticise the tabloids and media in general for leveraging "what people want to see"? You say it almost every time it comes up?

If you're saying you've reconsidered that stance I'm happy to take that as the explanation . Otherwise this looks an awful lot like hypocrisy .

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

Harry has a family to support, I think it's good what he's doing.
Do people want him working at Tesco on the checkout or something .

They want things to not work out, and for him to have to scurry back to The Family cap-in-hand. That is fairly obvious as the "dream scenario" for many people, here.

[Ammi]

...it’s interesting in view of Tom Bower’s methods of earning his 6 figure sum incomes and his upcoming unauthorised ‘bio’...that it’s Harry’s job that’s questionable in any way...

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They want things to not work out, and for him to have to scurry back to The Family cap-in-hand. That is fairly obvious as the "dream scenario" for many people, here.

Not from where I am standing or most who criticise them given we can speak for everyone

I can’t see any way back for him now

[bitontheslide]

i don't blame anyone for trying to make the most of the hand that they were dealt. We all do it. However, where people differ is in their ethical compass. How far an individual will push to maximise their personal gain. From where I am standing, Harry and Meghan have pushed it too far, that's my personal judgement. What I dislike is being lectured to on how I should or should not behave by someone I think has a pretty shoddy ethical compass in the first place.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You seem pretty adamant that we shouldn't criticise the tabloids and media in general for leveraging "what people want to see"? You say it almost every time it comes up?

If you're saying you've reconsidered that stance I'm happy to take that as the explanation . Otherwise this looks an awful lot like hypocrisy .

incorrect

i have not said they are beyond criticism, i have an issue with people thinking they are some separate entity at odds with society and with silly meaningless terms like toxic media etc

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...it’s interesting in view of Tom Bower’s methods of earning his 6 figure sum incomes and his upcoming unauthorised ‘bio’...that it’s Harry’s job that’s questionable in any way...

writing a best selling book is not particularly easy i would imagine, its a bit more than some meet and greets

[The Slim Reaper]

Anti - Using terms like toxic media

Pro - Using the author of toxic pieces

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/jan-m...-article-ever/

Jan Moir’s column questioning the circumstances around the death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately has now become the most complained about story in the history of the Press Complaints Commission.

"The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again. Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one.”

under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see

[Vicky.]

Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.

What the actual ****? Course they do. Its rare, but clearly happens.

Am also in the 'dont blame people taking advantage of the system, blame the broken system' boat tbh.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i don't blame anyone for trying to make the most of the hand that they were dealt. We all do it. However, where people differ is in their ethical compass. How far an individual will push to maximise their personal gain. From where I am standing, Harry and Meghan have pushed it too far, that's my personal judgement. What I dislike is being lectured to on how I should or should not behave by someone I think has a pretty shoddy ethical compass in the first place.

precisley Bots

Surely everyone can see the comedy hour hypocrisy of Harry's latest "job" in light of the errors, lies and fabrication that went on in the Oprah "interview"??

I am just staggered by the brass neck of it all

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

precisley Bots

Surely everyone can see the comedy hour hypocrisy of Harry's latest "job" in light of the errors, lies and fabrication that went on in the Oprah "interview"??

I'm yet to see anyone point any of these "errors, lies and fabrications" other than the one about getting married before the main ceremony which, as I;ve pointed out before, is not the "zinger gotcha!!" that people are desperate for it to be at all.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i don't blame anyone for trying to make the most of the hand that they were dealt. We all do it. However, where people differ is in their ethical compass. How far an individual will push to maximise their personal gain. From where I am standing, Harry and Meghan have pushed it too far, that's my personal judgement. What I dislike is being lectured to on how I should or should not behave by someone I think has a pretty shoddy ethical compass in the first place.

I absolutely agree.

[The Slim Reaper]

I never really come across either of them other than on here, so I don't even get the being lectured part. If you don't seek them out, they're pretty unobtrusive.

Nothing more than pantomime villains for the saggy white masses.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm yet to see anyone point any of these "errors, lies and fabrications" other than the one about getting married before the main ceremony which, as I;ve pointed out before, is not the "zinger gotcha!!" that people are desperate for it to be at all.

the newspaper headlines that were meant to be from UK were from all over and doctored to dramatise. ITV had to edit them out for later broadcast