How interesting to receive this "promoted Tweet", aka paid advertisement, today September 13.
The date on the Tweet is June 10, and it comes from an account with only 333 followers, managed by someone called "Axe Publications Ltd." A quick Google search turns up no company by that name.
Clearly, the photos have been chosen to make the Duchess of Cambridge look a bit louche. (The article itself is quite tame. Among the facts you didn't know is "she is a skilled athlete" and "she is allergic to horses")
Who would be interested in paying for this three-month-old Tweet featuring 10-year-old images to be promoted right now?
Having worked with Twitter Ads myself, I know that you target specific age groups, genders, and locations. Who is paying to reach European women aged 25-60 and why?
I should add that this article was served to my business account, which intentionally does not follow any Royal-related media.
Meghan's new PR firm Sunshine Sachs is known to play dirty. Is this some of their fine work?
Comments
You only have to look at the DM comments etc., to see people aren’t buying the nonsense Murky’s PR peeps are putting out, because commenters are very specific and straight to the point now.
Murky’s lost an awful lot of British public support, and by and large the British media, how long before the American media see through her?
Basically, she wore a white shirt and a dark pair of trousers. She looked like the least important person at any business meeting. People with authority individualize their outfits - a shawl? a statement necklace? a colorful sweater? Most women have access to something like this, even from a low-end retailer like Primark.
Also curious that of the SmartWorks women showcased at the launch, most of them were of African heritage. That's a weird statement to make, particularly since Black British citizens are only 3.3% of the population, according to this govenment website. https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/population-of-england-and-wales/latest
By contrast, one Smartworks image I saw featured three Black women and one of indeterminate heritage.
I'm always a little suspicioius of people's motives when they try to make people of African heritage look like charity cases. Particularly Meghan's motives.
The article also pointed out that the white shirts that are supposedly part of the collection are only available in the US and through Misha's website.
Question:
Now that Markle is involved with a charity that deals with providing underprivileged women with professional clothes to find employment (improving these women's self-esteem/confidence and providing them with the tools they need to perform their duties at the workplace), are you still comfortable with criticising her for the historic amount of money she's spent on wardrobe?
Does her involvement with *this* particular type of charity make you feel uncomfortable criticising her for her own wardrobe expenses since she's "giving back" to women who need clothes to "look appropriate for the job market" (arguably her expenses were for similar purposes, there's an interesting parallel as you can say she's buying all these outfits for official duties/engagements)?
Does it make you feel little guilty inside for criticising her for buying clothes for herself?
Or has this changed nothing for you? (As in you still feel perfectly entitled to complain about how your tax money is being spent. Don't get me wrong, I personally believe you have every right, but I'm asking.)
Just curious what psychological effect this may have on people.
PS: If you're a British tax evader you don't have to answer 😐😂🤣😐😐
PPS: I am not playing Devil's Advocate to troll anybody, I'm asking because as a non-UK/Commonwealth citizen I have to admit I'm swayed and shamed (I'm very easily manipulated and guilt-tripped, and then I get angry & lash out when I fall for it—I should probably have my voting rights revoked due to being such a sucker lol). It's not nice PR, but it's good PR... But did it make a difference for you? Just wondering if the impact is different for an actual taxpayer?
PPPS: Maybe I'm projecting but if this is PR smear, Meghan Markle *seriously* reminds me of a former employee of my parents' during the last weeks before she was fired, tho... This employee bad-mouthed me to other employees (all of whom have known me for years and knew it wasn't true, and passed on what she said to me). Like someone who is dealing with declining job security after having pushed her generous employers too far with her lack of professionalism and series of inappropriate behaviour. As in: I wouldn't be surprised if she is in bad terms with the family she married into.
One doesn't have to be a member of the Church of England or a religious believer to know that historically the monarch is chosen by God to reign over us. That is their "brand"..... "Chosen by God".
If that concept is too difficult for you to understand,( since God doesn't have an IG account,) I'll explain it to you with an anecdote from another religion.
Over the past 20-30 years, Bar Mitzvah (the religious coming of age in judaism at age 13) has, in the USA, often become a bit of a circus with "branding" themes like baseball, magic, circus, etc, with some families trying to outdo one another with ostentation, much like Smirkle has tried to do with the RF.
More traditional Jews in the USA (and most Jews elsewhere in the world) however, will tell you that the "theme" of the Bar Mitzvah should be "bar mitzvah", rather than "circus". It might be "boring", but that is what has kept the religion afloat for thousands of years.
And so it is with the Monarchy: The "brand" of the Monarchy is "monarchy"... chosen by God and not by the number of Instagram followers. Twas always thus, and thus it will remain, long after Smirkle has departed and Instagram has been supplanted by another social media trend.
What we don't know is, will an identical piece that is just as expensive be donated? Let's say it is, that would lead me to believe the profit margins on each piece are too high. As a consumer I do not care for that model because it comes across that the business entity is using their customer base to increase the perception that they're being philanthropic. In other words, manipulating consumers.
It's very likely that a similar piece that cost less to manufacture is being donated. Either way, there is confusion and lack of transparency that leads me to question what the true story is.
This would have been a great time for MM and her crew to address the production methods for this line. Is it fast fashion? Because if it is, it's going to turn into a huge shit show. Just wait.
Nothing says "exciting" and "modern" like a good old-fashioned Cluster B personality disorder. Or taking a PR blow torch to the Monarchy. Ha!
I remain insulted by how stupid SS must think we are. F-You Sunshine Sacks!
Kate's been close to impeccable in her conduct this entire summer. I suppose SS didn't have much to mud to sling at her so they had to go after her contemplative, thoughtful, respectful, and well mannered self.
Is that like saying that if you are wealthy you can wipe out a private jet's carbon emissions by planting a few trees?
Does promoting even more clothing destined for the landfill wipe out all her wasteful spending? Don't forget that the clothing industry is one of the biggest polluters out there...
This project had little to do with Smartworks and everything to do with self promotion. Smarkle mentioned herself 38 times in her speech yesterday and even went so far as to promote her personal Sussex charity at the Smartworks charity event, "shining a light" (to use her favourite expression) on herself and away from the charity that she was there to promote!!
The monarchy depends on the goodwill and tolerance of the public to survive. The fact remains that we are seeing someone who is doing things her way, who can 'snub' the queen, who is doing things the Hollywood way and no one in the family has been able to reign her in. Meghan has used Andrew's Epstein issue against the Royal family as she knows that whether he is the Queen's favorite or not, if the firm moves against her while Andrew is protected, the monarchy will lose public support.
There was an article in the Sun about Sophie Wessex and how The Queen enjoys their relationship. It was a complimentary PR piece, however, as one Nutty Reader pointed out, there was a bit at the end about how Sophie tried to give MM some advice and MM wasn't interested.
No surprise there. What sparked my curiosity was the fact that Sophie has a strong PR background. That's the real story, I think. How amazing would it be if she and Lord G were working together. She's definitely a team player who is able to work from the inside.
All the while, keeping her hands clean.
William is at this point third in line; I don't understand the push to compete with him and his wife.. she might as well be competing with Princess Anne.. just a waste of time that proves that Americans do not understand , or care to understand, the British Monarchy and its historical role in the UK and Commonwealth.
This is not a competition between Kate and Smirkle. It is a line of succession that will not change, even if Smirkle "breaks the internet". If you understand this, then you understand that all Smirkle's work is only self promotion that will do nothing to change the Monarchy.
A narcissist feels rage at baseline, and I can imagine someone like Kate would enrage them. Narcissists typically use someone or push them out of the way, but Kate can't be pushed out of the way. Stories about MM often include a dig at Kate, like the press conference after Archie's birth, or not appearing on the cover of Vogue because it would seem "boastful." Someone as PR savvy as Meg would never let such stories go to press, or she would go on the record correcting them immediately.
Because Kate can't be cast aside, the strategy has been to attack her instead. While press about her wasn't always positive, since a certain person joined the RF it has been downright dirty. MM's supporters never miss a chance to attack her as lazy or workshy, although they have an absolute coronary when it is pointed out to them that MM's "work" consists mostly of initiatives that involve her self promotion like the Vogue edit and Smart Works. These projects likely provided her with tremendous ego supply and were promoted and publicized to the hilt.
The parallel s seriously playing mind games with me (and experiencing & understanding my shift of emotions/sentiments toward Meghan is weirding me out a little bit).
I'm not determined to hate her, but she does remind me of some if the worst people to ever touch my family's life & I'm a little shook by the profound effect some little parallel like that can have. If this was a calculated move, I don't appriciate my feelings being played like this!
Eesh.
In modern times this unquestioning belief has changed for many people, often to a belief in tradition, rather than a belief God itself, but God is at the root of both traditions and both would fall apart if God was taken out of the equation completely and the illogical nature of both institutions was then laid bare.
This argument could apply to any religion. I used the example of Bar Mitzvah because it is a topic of discussion in the Jewish community--- traditional meaning of Bar Mitzvah versus meaningless glitz Bar Mitzvah popular in the USA. Only the former will allow the Jewish religion to survive, and I believe that the same is true of the Monarchy.
Please! She is such a TWAT!
With Princess Diana, she was so well loved by the public, so open that folk felt like she was a friend. She was a sincere and warm woman, and it came across that way. (My own mother wept all day when she heard that Diana had died) I imagine a hug from her would have been like one from your older sister. She listened to people, wanted to know their pain and stories. Her personal life was a bit of a mess but by the Gods, you cannot deny she cared.
Smeghead hugs because of optics, just like the doe eyes, gentle smile and delighted hand clasping. And she is seen as false because she lacks any form of compassion or empathy. You cannot hide that, no matter how much you try to fake it. We like some modernising with our Royals but the British are more stoic and less demonstrative than the Americans. Di managed it because it was real, part of her. Di contributed to a more modern, more accessable monarchy but because she did it in such a organic way, it was welcomed. Smegs forces it and it comes off as fake Hollywood bullshit.
Her little side kick at Kate is laughable. Kate does things in her own way. She is a quiet woman who is not brash or showy. The connection she has with the public is, while different, as real and genuine as Diana's was. She doesn't need to fling her arms around people she has never met in some effort to show she cares. Her dedication to her duties shows. She is regal without being intimidating.
Smegs clearly thinks that by blackening Kate's good name, making her out to be less than she is or somehowlying about her past and forcing her (MM's) narrative that she is so huggy and 'kind' on us, we will somehow decide that we were wrong about her all along. The 'article' you've mentioned is the same thing. The old 'She did stuff too.' defense of every child in the world, deflecting onto a sibling or friend. It doesn't wash with me, Kate could have been swinging from the light fitting in her uni days for all I care, MM too. I had my moments. It is all about how they've acted since coming into the roles.
On one hand we have Kate, she shows her dedication to the responsibilties she has and lives her life as low-key as possible. She clearly has a wonderful relationship with her husband and children. People call her lazy but what they don't realise is that she was preparing for her role, learning away from the public eye to avoid the many, many mistakes Madame Bolshy-Britches has made. She also was taking care of her children. (And after seeing how Harry and Andrew turned out, it might have spurred her on to avoid the same happening to the Cambridge kids! I'm not accusing PA of anything until a court does but I side-eye the hell out of him and he is a fecking mard-arse).
Then we have Meghan who has basically just trampled her way through our beloved RF like a herd of elephants (that she personally, herself fitted with trackers using her loving hands). Has no real knowledge of the country she is now representing or its history. No idea about how the people here are very different from the US. Her agenda shows and it's blatently obvious to anyone with a brain.
As a side note, I wish you’d hit the reply option under each comment you wish to comment on, rather then open a new thread with your reply. It’s hard to follow a conversation thread that’s separated from the original comment.
Constant drama is *exhausting* (I know certain personalities get off that kind of thing, and get all fired up/excited, but that drains the hell out of me).
Me talking about public figures here is a good indicator that my life is good because I have energy left for 🍿watching other people's dramas unfold 🍺 (that reflect my own past experience) rather than have to deal with any current/new drama in my own life.
TL;DR > Boring is a good thing (it even rhymes ffs)
You wonder how and why the queen would ever allow this... But the fact remains that however she is, she is still family. She may not be much liked by the sane amongst us ,we have been able to see some of her ways ,readh body language and see the death glares she throws Kate, we can also scrutinize her behaviour on these forums...but the immediate family doesnt get to do that. They get to decide from what they know of her personally. And it's my guess that for the first few months she would have been nice. And they gave her a lot of room to get to know her space. In an immediate family, you can't expect the queen or Kate to be snooty and rude to her in her face in the first meeting itself (or even the first few months) no matter what she might have been.
She was given a wife berth. And maybe even now the familys strategy is to let her dig her own grave. It's a classic British attitude towards most things in life. It's imcomprehensible the rest of the world but so it is.
In the long run, what matters is who becomes King, and their responsibility is much different that the rest of the royals. Will and Kate have a certain path in life and they can't be expected to change their personally, work ethic, mannerisms,.interests completely just because a more PR savvy relative is on the world stage, and self confessedly is deliberately in competition with them. I think that's the strategy that the BRF is following , and rightly so.
Clearly she is all about self promotion and building up her bank account and not much else.
She was at Smartworks for 90 minutes before she had to leave to feed the child..(obviously Archie didn't need feeding while she was in NYC) not to mention that she arrived late!
The buy one piece and a piece will be donated scheme lasts for 2 weeks (although some pieces have apparently already 'sold out'..sure Jan)
It is a mere drop in the ocean and will not achieve very much.
Perhaps if she auctioned off her most expensive pieces and put that money towards charity, showing she can be selfless that could be heading in the right direction.
Harry would continue as Duke of Sussex . .but what happens if he remarries? Would there be two Duchesses of Sussex running around? Actually, that would wound the the Markle even more than striving to revoke her title. If Harry marries again, to a British subject, than she will be the legitimate duchess and Fauxarkle can swan around Hollywood calling herself the Duchess, but let's see how the merching deals go for her then.
I kind of don't expect Harry to get married again (for real) but we can hope. If he found a proper wife, it might go a long way toward helping the world draw a lead veil over the Markle'd Era. Though, who would really want to use the title after Smirks has polluted it so? Of course she'll still be roaming the world causing havoc. Maybe the people of America can all chip in to buy a containment island far, far away without Wi-Fi or access to cameras of any kind and ship her there.
I have been following this (starting in a vague not close way from the wedding on) and slowly became aware of how increasingly crazy it was headed.
We see the individual "events" as more T and H, T and W, T and .....
but it really is about who is Queen.
thanks
I'm not really up on British royals, but avoiding controversy would seem necessary to survival, they are cousins of the Tsar, after all, & seem to know their own history fairly well, however empty headed about other things they might be. The royals seem to be private people who are forced by tradition and circumstance to do public jobs now & then.
Most of them seem to dutifully cut ribbons at supermarkets and support British dairy farmers, etc. and then return to their private lives as quickly as possible. Their public lives are a burden that they bear to preserve their privilege. They're real people whose lives seem fantastic to the public, but are real to them. I think Brits want authenticity from the royals, but expect a certain amount of decorum. They don't care that Philip and Anne are arrogant & cranky as long as they dutifully fill their public roles. In a way, the royal family are like real family to the Brits, in that even if you don't like them, you put up with them, because they're family.
Megs is completely the opposite. Authenticity is completely alien to her. She's from the world of American entertainment. Her character is what ever her pr people are putting out for her. She thinks that as long as she puts out the right pictures and articles, people will warm to her. So far, it doesn't seem to be working. I can't say what her real character is, because she hasn't shown it. I do have to say that if the worst of the rumors about her are true, the royal family is in trouble. If the royal family can't screen someone who is rumored to have done the things she has out of their lives, then they're not very competent.
I hadn't realized that this could be spinned as a (covert) way to change the narrative for MMs excessive spending.
For me personally, I don't feel.any different about her spending. I'm fact it makes me question her motives and genuineness even more. The way she acts and projects herself, she desperately wants to loo like a savior for these empowerished, poor women...and she wants to be seen as above them, better than them, smarter than them. This is a very classical "trophy wife syndrome"
As for her spending, well it's still grating. She is self serving and self agrandising and I do have a problem with the amounts she spends on clothes because
1. Her clothes are shabby, she seems to lack grooming.
2. The clothes are VERY expensive but often inappropriate for the occasion, weather, purpose of her engagement.
3. Her shoes are always loose and she clomps around like a Colt learning to walk.
4. She doesn't come across as genuine. Her face is just too much! She is always over acting.
5. Her clothes are never tailored for her height, weight, proportions. She always wants to look.hot and sexy, and she doesn't seem.to able to leave that mentality behind.
6. The supposed fued with Kate is personal for her. and she has done nothing to dispell these rumours. She is trying to pull Kate down for no reason at all. This is childish and off-putting for most people like me.
I think it is so blatant, obvious that the people who would think of it as impressive, turn up their noses at Kate and therefore positive towards Tungsten would also be interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge.
The small voice inside says: If I click on it, doesn't that mean they get charged or do I just let it go? Eh, sometimes the more one kicks dog poop, the more it gets all over your shoes.
The only way she can make up for this is to pay back the amount and apologise. These PR schemes aren't going to be her penance for her greed. Most people in the UK feel the way I do.
She is so repugnant that I've completely given up on her. Reading about her now gives me the same feeling that reading about someone's injuries in an article about a murder.
This is nothing new to the table.
The breaking the Internet article wasn't exactly surprising as many people know that's what she wants anyway but it still looks so desperate, greedy and contrived. It's clear to anyone who has their eyes open that all she wanted from this marriage was a nice paycheck and a huge global platform from which to push her own damn self. Not an agenda, just herself. The Sussex foundation will inevitably be used as a side income for couture clothes and other luxuries. I hope someone is employed to keep an eye on it to make sure that it is used how it should be. I think she is planning her exit from the rf personally.
You mention William and Kate as being conservative and the Sussexs as being modern.
Conservative is a tried and tested formula between the monarchy and the British people...tried and tested for 100's of generations
Conservative for us is stoic,steadfast and secure...the purpose as that of an anchor in troubled waters/times, especially now with the uncertainty of Brexit.
Conservative is comforting
However 'modern' is forever changing,sometimes it is successful,although modern often requires tweaks & adjustments to refine the formula.
The monarchy has always been, to the British population "the rock, anchor and guide"of our culture
The monarchy (most)exhibit morals and respectability that the people look up to and admire.
I haven't seen modernisation from the Sussex's as I have seen a total blatant disrespect for traditions,customs and our culture The very institution it represents.
MM being American can up to a point be excused ( for a short time) clearly as a 40 odd year old "worldly woman"she has no intention of learning the nuances of her adopted home.
Harry on the other hand clearly has an agenda & should know how to behave and to know what is expected of him and his wife....much.muchbetter than he has shown since his marriage
It took me one google search to find the link which I will post because Nutty does a lot of free work on this blog which we all enjoy and we should appreciate it and help her, not demand more.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/style/misha-nonoo-meghan-markle.html
The Telegraph had several articles today about how wonderful the clothing collection was. In fact, it was horrible. Their fashion editor raved about it. By writing such articles, the public feel that the newspaper isn't telling the truth and wonder why pay for propaganda. I am seriously considering cancelling my subscription.
Also, if Kate did more it would turn into a tit-for-tat PR battle that would devalue the monarchy still further. Let Kate stay quiet and serene in the place she's meant to be. Meghan conspicuously fighting for attention only makes Kate look better and stronger.
Yes, this is a very real thing in the realm of publicity.
Have to agree that 'Nelo' sounds like a ray of Sunshine (Sachs). If not, then he/she is certainly someone with no clue about the monarchy and the role it plays in British culture.
Firstly, I disagree that Kate is 'boring'. The point is we know very little about her. And that's exactly how it should be. The Royals are supposed to be a little but dull. British people want them to smile and wave and offer some juicy gossip from time to time, but other than that we don't much want to see or hear from them. We certainly don't want them preaching to us from on high, or flaunting their celebrity 'friends', especially ones like Ellen De Generes who are barely even known this side of the Atlantic.
Secondly, the comparisons with Kate are absurd, and again show an ignorance o the monarchy. Kate will be Queen Consort and then Queen Mother. Meghan will be another Sophie if she's very, very lucky and if she's even still around by then. There is simply no comparison.
Also, what's with the pieces being sold by Meghan's latest designer 'friend' from her boutique in New York? So although it's supposedly in aid of a British charity, British women will be unable to buy them?
It all stinks a bit to me. Sounds like the latest episode in financial shenanigans from the Harkles, along with the bizarre 'Travalyst' scheme. Probably the first step in her launching her own clothes line in America. Wait and see.
I THINK that after a divorce, these are strictly speaking not 'titles' but 'styles'. So if Diana were still alive today she would be 'Diana, Princess of Wales', but Camila would be 'HRH the Princess of Wales' (yes that is Camila's title though she rarely uses it). So THE Princess of Wales would be Camila, not Diana.
Similarly if (when) Harry and Meghan divorce, she could still style herself Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, but any future wife of Harry would be THE Duchess of Sussex.
At least that's what I think, though I'm open to correction here!
There are thousands of British people of a certain age who a) do not use social media and b) are very conservative in their attitudes. These people have got to know MM from the printed newspapers, if at all. A printed picture does not have the impact of a digital one. They honestly do not care a fig about her. They respect the Queen and they accept her decisions re her family and the continuation of the monarchy. As for BP they have weathered many scandals over the years (in their unique way) and they are going through this one (MM), too. I am pretty sure that when she oversteps the mark big way then they will act accordingly. And b.t.w. Kate and William are fine as they are - no need for changing their image to compete with MM.
SS's propaganda is no better than Joseph Goebbels' infamous moves to deflect and distract. Trashing Kate to boost Markle won't fly.
I have been toying with the idea of a new painting featuring flying monkeys with faces like Ellen, Lainey, et al. Kind of fun and cathartic.
On the other hand, top commenters are expressly stating they are not interested in being hugged by her.
What's not so obvious is why a minor royal, who's barely been in the 'job' for a year, should need to take on a heavy-hitting American PR firm known for handling clients such as Harvey Weinstein and the late Michael Jackson. Do similar ranking royals like Sophie Wessex have expensive heavy duty PR firms? I doubt it.
While I think it is nice to make sure people in need have clothing for job interviews, I think an even needier population would have been better served. What about making sure the poorest in Britain have food, water, and shelter? Instead of shilling tote bags, why not put the money towards medical care for the homeless?
"Also curious that of the SmartWorks women showcased at the launch, most of them were of African heritage. That's a weird statement to make, particularly since Black British citizens are only 3.3% of the population"
Agree. I think this is yet another example of Meghan pandering to the only audience she cares about - Americans - and not understanding that her adopted country - you know the one she is supposed to serve - is, well, different.
The biggest non-white minority in Britain are those of South Asian descent, who outnumber Britons of Afro-Caribbean descent by more than 2 to 1. But because in America the largest and most historically mistreated minority are blacks, she thinks she will gain 'woke' points with her vapid Instagram crowd by featuring 3 black women.
That's what I do to understand actually. Smartworks has bee around for a while, they have been helping women for a long time and many companies like M&S , Jigsaw have been helping them.out for a while. So when MM says that clothes they have been providing so far are mismatched, and seem like bad quality hand me downs, she is dissing their work. To uplift herself as a knight in shining armour. This kind of a publicly, even from a Royal Patron should be offensive and unacceptable to the team. Who would want to do repeat business with them after this?
She could also encourag women to donate good quality work wear to smartworks, and do a drive and some.markwting to spread that message. We know MM herself would get much goodwill if she donated some of her own old clothes to smartworks.
And now, the work scheme...
1. The capsule collection is bullshit. The pieces are so basic,that it seems like a capsule specifically put together to be given TO charity. If it was intended to be bought by regular folks it didn't have to be so bland.
2. The 2 weeks only catch - The pieces are for the company is regular collections right? Which h means that for two weeks, for every piece bought from these 5, another would be donated to the charity. Aftet2 weeks, while the pieces would be available at the stores, the charity part would stop. So when MM wears this in SA, as she has said she would, she would be endorsing for these companies. Women would obviously see her in those pieces, styled well, and they would go buy. That's wrong.
3. Some pieces are too expensive while being too basic. And the dresses have been around for a while. I have the one in blue. My boss had the red.
This is clearly a project with commercial benefits for the companies.
Also read about narcissistic mothers for a view if what poor Archie is in for.
The interesting thing is that she is running loose with NPD behaviors in the midst of the royal family. This is such a toxic personality disorder that I truly believe the damage she is doing, with the tacit approval and assistance of Harry, could hasten the end of the monarchy. Talk about biting the hand that’s feeding her, just wow.
She definitely runs amd swims, is my opinion. It shows.
But what does eat to keep her hair looking like that?? The shine, ooooh the shine!
And I thought her dissing previous donations was incredibly rude and obnoxious. People donated these clothes out of kindness, and here she is coming along and telling them they're rubbish? Never mind that, despite having access to the best designers and stylists in the business, she looks a mess most of the time.
"Some pieces are too expensive while being too basic. And the dresses have been around for a while. I have the one in blue. My boss had the red."
I read somewhere that the red version isn't part of the scheme! It's almost like they're going out of their way to confuse you - a bit like when you buy what you think is a discounted shampoo in Tesco's and discover at the till that the version for dry hair isn't part of the promotion! I've never seen such a convoluted scheme involving royals. Almost as bad as the Travalyst farce.
Even if I liked any of these items I wouldn't buy them. I'd prefer to donate directly to the charity, even if it is a 'lilac blazer' that the Duchess of Givenchy sneers at.
This is very astute. I concur completely.
>>>>I'm not really up on British royals, but avoiding controversy would seem necessary to survival, they are cousins of the Tsar, after all, & seem to know their own history fairly well, however empty headed about other things they might be. The royals seem to be private people who are forced by tradition and circumstance to do public jobs now & then.
Most of them seem to dutifully cut ribbons at supermarkets and support British dairy farmers, etc. and then return to their private lives as quickly as possible. Their public lives are a burden that they bear to preserve their privilege. They're real people whose lives seem fantastic to the public, but are real to them. I think Brits want authenticity from the royals, but expect a certain amount of decorum. They don't care that Philip and Anne are arrogant & cranky as long as they dutifully fill their public roles. In a way, the royal family are like real family to the Brits, in that even if you don't like them, you put up with them, because they're family.<<<
Meghan exemplifies a certain, very au courant type of American celebrity . . the Kartrashian brand of celebrity, whereby one gets famous for an 'image' rather than a body of work. Unless porn videos on the Internet can be construed as a body of work. American movie stars of bygone eras also carefully managed their publicity and public images, but there used to be more mystique around them . . sightings were rare and details of their private lives jealously guarded. The model during the Golden Age of Hollywood was of a more Royal aesthetic, befitting the 'American royalty'. Nowadays, every single tabloid mag of the week is festooned with pap shots of unkempt 'celebrities' walking their dogs, going to the grocery store & showing us pics of their breakfasts or what's inside their purses.
Meg aspires to the Kardashian Influencer type of celebrity . . .when she could have gone down in the history books as Britain's first American royal, the bridge between two cultures. She will be going down in the history books as a tawdry footnote, unless her antics really succeed in pulling the house down.
Megs is an especially egregious type of American entertainer . . .they are not all like her. She's quite a special case, in fact. She is very mentally ill, and it's playing out on the international stage. I look forward to the many books and articles which will no doubt be written about her in the future. Meg is going to be a case study on narcissistic personality disorder for generations of psychotherapists to come.
Kate doesn’t have to compete with Meghan or anybody else. Kate will be Queen Consort one day, and Meghan won’t. I also think Kate has a good sense of herself and os smart enough to not allow herself or her family to be sucked into Meghan’s drama games.
What they don't understand is that royalty is not politics, and that Kate is not and never will be Meghan's rival. Kate outranks Meghan and the gap between them will grow, not diminish, over time. It doesn't matter how many Instagram followers or Twitter support from C list celebs Meghan gets. That's just how royalty is.
There is something about Nelo's contributions that arouse my suspicions. I apologise if I am doing her an injustice, but that is my perception and as the old management adage says "perception is the reality".
Natural beauty vs. the desperate manufactured attempt at beauty. Really, if those are the very worst photos of Kate that SS could dig up, Smegs really is desperate. I'd call that a PR fail for her. Kate looks fresh, young, enthusiastic about her life. Hardly louche. Salad tossing . . now that's louche.
But Meghan is incapable of seeing anything outside of her own shallow wannabe celebrity vision of the world, and seems to think it's all about constantly keeping yourself in the news and a silly game of oneupmanship with the sister in law who outranks her and always will.
Yes, one of the great mysteries of our time, for an invisible child without an official birth certificate.
If Meghan presented her son Archie to the public, I'd be happy for her to keep the title. At the moment, I feel that Archie is another of Megs' snow jobs.
This is unprecedented, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
She is always prainsed for her youthful energy, when she is basically giggly, jumpy, blinking excessively, playing with her hair, darting her eyes and biting her lip when she is in a group where others are talking .... there is never a dignified stoicness about her, which should be expected from someone royal. And she is always getting into peoples personal space by hugging them and holding on for too long.
Off to look up some things on my own. I'll get back to you when I find out.
On second thought, the 1:1 model really doesn't make sense for Smart Works. If I buy the shirt and they donate the shirt to Smart Works, who is to say it will be the right size? And then aren't they right where they started, but now with an additional garment that may or may not be worn? Why not just donate money for the women so they can select items that will be the right size and fit at budget stores? This way they are buying clothing that has already been made.
Lady Boo, Louise, Alice, agree too.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7460985/Harry-Meghan-asked-tour-Africa-connect-young-people-better-royals.html
A comparison over Meghantoinette & Catherine: MM's engagement dress cost £56,000 ($75,000), Catherine's white engagement dress cost £159 ($310) - and she already owned it. Her blue Issa dress for the engagement photo call cost approximately £475 ($600). That is what we're dealing with here.
Now, back to topic.
I think Megz is really no different than all of the other flashy, tacky narcissists who preceded her. Name a single one who didn't go down in flames. Imelda Marcos, Evita Perez, Paul McCartney's ex wife, it's a long list of flash then crash.
Kate is the polar opposite of flashy trashy markle in that she is genuine, conservative, happy, loving wife and mom and all of the wholesomeness that a normal, well balanced woman in her position needs to survive.
Neutral Observer, I share your pain but I have to wonder if some of these egregious errors are not the result of autocorrect replacing a more rare word with a more commonly used substitute.
If Harry and Murky were to divorce I’m very sure his new wife would use the title of Duchess of ? (another Dukedom bestowed or another title used entirely). I doubt very much if Murky would be addressed as Dowager, Duchess of Sussex, because that’s only used when the husband (Duke) has died and there’s a new Duchess with her new Duke. So, upon a divorce, possibly Murky’s title could be revoked if she’s still an American.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole idea of a 'capsule' collection that the pieces go together and can be mixed and matched? That's not the case here. The pieces don't go together at all. So all things considered it seems like a poorly thought-out initiative. Yet to read some of the Meghan Maniacs, it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I genuinely question these people's grasp on reality.
2. Could the harmless banal things written about in the article actually be a positive PR?? (I think not. It's just meant to look like that)
These covert tactics could backfire on MM. Some Cambridge sympathetic journalist, a nonUK resident, could just as well use Meg's shady, erotic, halfclad pictures for an article lsuch as this one and there would SO much uproar.
This definitely stinks of paid PR. What's also surprising that every day we see more and more of the Meg is so cute, Mm is back and ready to go, MM is so empowered articles once again as if the circus fest that was the past 5 months never did happen.
Also interesting, Sussex Royal insta never even mentioned Harry's 9/11 engagement ( where he bagged 1 billion pound deal for UK !!!) Or his All Schools Rugby programme. They clearly didn't want to steal Meghan's thunder on her big comeback (Petty! So very Petty!)
What's sick about her in these charity schemes is how her sugars who write the articles about her constantly overblow her contributions by giving her far more credit than she has earned. They write that she wrote a cookbook. No. She wrote the preface. They say she is a Hollywood star, but no, she wasn't, and so on. She really enjoys poaching off of other people's hard work. I don't like poachers. It's my understanding that she isn't above poaching the most simple things from others as well. It's been noted that her ex, Chef Corey had created a pasta dish and Megz told everyone that she created it. He was furious with her over that.
NPD people are incapable of originating anything on their own. And when they're called out on it, zip, the accuser is trashed, doxed and ghosted.
I wonder why there are no mentions of her feeding the baby comment. If I was there, I would have wanted to know how she could go to New York without the baby but not bear to be at Oxford Street.
Someone on this thread mentioned Meghan fatigue syndrome and I'm definitely beginning to suffer from it. By now her antics so predictable, and frankly so overdone, that she becoming boring herself.
I'd say Meg's, colour your hair purple, wear a glitter lippy, and turn up in leather pants, because you definitely are too boring for a Disney villian now.
"They write that she wrote a cookbook. No. She wrote the preface."
Which was mostly about herself. As always.
Oh, and did anyone read that she gave out 'goody bags' at the launch yesterday?
Goody bags? At a royal event? That must be a first.
Not sure what exactly they contained but I did read mention of Bobbi Brown items. So more kickbacks and commercial tie ins? There's something 'off' about every single thing this woman does.
Hmmmm, is the last line major shade?
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2019-09-12/meghan-markle-smart-works-fashion-line-charity
''Exclusive: Gayle King is pushing for Prince Harry and Meghan to sit down with her for a tell-all interview with US broadcaster CBS https://t.co/cVqlwQMOF7 https://t.co/F071n8cKaD.
MM acts like a confused and needy 14 year old. The public will never confuse these two women.
Too late!
She seems to really think that people will believe whatever she or her team puts out there, so long as she can dominate the news cycle and control social media with sugars and bots. Fortunately, people are not as stupid as she hopes, and many see right through her antics, which are permanently preserved online for all to view again and again. No amount of PR will fix yesterday's Creamsicle Murky trashing her charity partners, clapping/hugging Murky at SmartWorks, drunk/high Murky at Wimbledon, wrinkled-denim Murky flashing Serena's hubby, or stuffed-sausage Murky pawing Bey at the Lion King -- and that's all happened in the space of about two months. She's a train wreck wherever she goes, and any PR firm not living in a cave knows it.
Budget-conscious, fashion-conscious, or quality-conscious women will not buy the overpriced, prior-season leftovers in her "collection." At most, one could make three outfits from the four clothing pieces (six if one adds the tote, which is an accessory); this is not a capsule wardrobe in any sense. The white shirt is a high-maintenance item and not at all forgiving of long commutes on public transit, nervous sweating, or repeated washings needed because of a very small work wardrobe, plus it would need ironing for each wear.
My prediction is that she'll get to keep her "foundation" in the divorce. Also, she's renewed the copyright on The Tig, which is a pretty strong hint that she'll reopen it sometime soon, maybe during divorce proceedings. She's clearly setting up her post-royal life and seems to not care if that's obvious.
That is the worst they can do?
No tacky suitcase girl jobs? No porn videos? No yachting with pedophiles?
And here's one other little precious nugget for you all...Meghan had a collection for Toronto's Reitmans store. They have a subsidiary store of work appropriate clothing called...Smart Set. The exact name that Meghan called her capsule collection. The M&S dress that is "sold out?" It apparently comes from a previous collection made by M&S. Meghan did not create any of it, it was a left over dress pattern from a previous season. That leather tote bag? It was sold out before the launch. Why? Because it was actually also an item that was offered for sale at a previous time. All allegedly, of course because with SS now lurking, nothing is safe anymore.
And on a side note, that picture of Meghan exposing her thigh and smiling coyly...Has anyone seen the full picture and not the cropped version of that image? Guess who she is smiling at and showing her thigh to? Any takers? LOL.
Alexis Ohanian. Serena's husband.
Of course not. She is interested in the PR impact not the environmental impact.
Hope some ladies at SmartWorks are happy with their duchess duds. They can jazz them up with some of the colorful mismatched clothes you know who sneered at.
Hope the charity benefits from the publicity. Maybe something good will result from this mess.
What's odd though is that Meghan didn't seem to be using the winsome act at the time of her engagement to Harry, to me anyway. On the contrary, she was obviously the dominant one, her pre-Harry stuff was hard as nails, and she wanted to come across as efficient and 'insanely smart'. So why the Mary Pickford act now? (Tells you something when you have to go that far back to find a similar image). It's so badly judged and so odd. Maybe she's channelling the late Queen Mother who used flowery OTT charm to divert people away from her massive spending!
@Neutral, also read up on Borderline Personality Disorder. Maybe even Histrionic Personality Disorder. Our dear Meghan is a Cluster B pin up girl.
I've just read an obscure little story called Pink and White Tyranny by Harriet Beecher Stowe (free online on Gutenberg). About a fake, doe-eyed, frivolous, spendthrift 'young woman' who gets a hard-working, rich but benevolent man to marry her. All her behaviour is put down to her youth - and her husband has to excuse a lot as she causes chaos and discomfort in his house and financially ruins him. His sister tries to hint that she must be older than she says as she's been on the social scene so many years, but she gets nowhere. Then he finds her true age from the record in her family bible and suddenly he can see her for what she is. The story's from the 19th century but still rings true. Shows that illusory youth is a powerful card to play for an unscrupulous woman.
The royals will gladly let us the British tax payers pay, that amount of self-entitlement comes with most of the royals.
https://www.amazon.com/Our-Royal-Baby-Sue-McMillan-ebook/dp/B00DY5XISO
Sue McMillan is about Kate/William and "oliver" is about Harry & Meghan
?????
As regards her 'work' with this particular charity, I believe Smart Works will come to regret letting her go down this particular track. It was obvious that this entire exercise by Markle was to give her yet another public platform in order to keep her profile in the forefront. It hasn't worked because the public backlash is evident. I found her behaviour on the day and her speech both patronising and condescending.
The charity itself is a bit of a mystery to me although on one occasion I did donate. You can't donate directly you have to be 'asked' by the charity's 'partners'. It says it works with underprivileged women, but I was told that it was to help professional women (what about men?) back into the workplace after a period away. You cannot apply for help directly only via its agents and you have to have a job interview lined up. You will only be helped on a single occasion ie if you fail the interview you can't go back. There are better ways to help people back into employment than this and its website raises more questions than it answers. I decided that it would not be one of my charities.
On a general note I think it would be a good idea to give taxpayers a box to tick on their income tax forms if they are happy to contribute to the costs of a Monarchy. That would concentrate minds, but that's a debate for another day.
Perhaps all the conditions of her campaign (short, limited, etc) fit both agendas?
The image is truly unsettling because he looks like a very upset child in a man's body. He looks a little younger than he does now, but William and Catherine seem to be married so, not so long ago.
Megs, by contrast, is Hollywood through & through. She has a colorful family ( no pun intended at all!), but even someone from the most stable & supportive background would have problems coming through that cesspool unscathed. The American entertainment industry doesn't really provide much in terms of emotional & moral mooring. I know not everyone in Hollywood is a monster by any means, but caveat emptor to anything or anyone from that environment. It's not just Hollywood, its decades of me-me-meism, Oprah Winfrey self-help stuff about 'being your own best friend' has permeated the culture. I recently saw a rerun of an interview of Bill Clinton, whom I have come to view as morally reprehensible & despicable, that didn't prevent me from once again falling for his aw-shucks charm & verbal facility. He's truly a ghastly human being who wasted his talents, but there are lot of people like him out there, and one of them has invaded the stoic & dutiful royal family of Britain. Megs isn't the first horrible royal, but its fascinating to see her lay waste to the careful image the British royals have tried to build up since the days of Queen Victoria.
How long before she moves on to 'better' things and Smartwords gets ghosted?
You have to wonder if anything will be done while they are in Africa, like the foundation split, which was announced while they were in Morocco.
1. The white shirt. First thing I noticed was no bust darts. Women have curves, that's why our clothes are patterned different than mens. A button blouse without some kind of darts in the bust area looks just like a men's shirt (which are not hard to make). It gives you no shape, and an oversized one tucked into cigarette pants looks like.....well she showed us what it looks like....you have a diaper on. I thought it was sloppy, and I think that's what an interviewer would think too.
2. The black pants. Black pants are an essential in a woman's closet, but cropped ones? If it's cold, do you want your ankles out? There was nothing wrong with them in terms of design, they just don't seem pratical for year-round use.
3. The sacks...I mean dresses. Again, where are the lines, seams or darts to give shape? The tucks at the neck would make large breasted women the look of pregnancy. I saw a pic of it belted, and that is the only way it should be worn. You have to highlight your waste to give shape, or it's a sack.
4. The jacket. Nothing wrong with a leather jacket, just not sure how this goes into a capsule collection for workwear.
5. The bag. It's made of leather (thought she was against that....just kidding, I know that was a lie) and was a nice size. But you can find cheaper, and even more stylish bags at TJMaxx or Marshalls (US) for half the price.
So here is my take, these clothes have NO design to them. I could make them in less than a day with no pattern needed, that is how simple they are. You could go to Walmart, (I'm guessing that's like Primark in the UK) and spend a lot less money and walk-out looking better. True fashionistas don't have to shop high end to look good. A quality fabric goes a lot farther than a brand name.
Now my thoughts on the initiative. To improve these ladies lives, how about teaching them a skill they can use......like sewing. There are so many opportunities out there for seamstresses. Not just in fashion, but also upholstery (even auto upholstery) because these skills are not being passed to younger generations. But that would only make the women money and not MM or her friends.....
The tick box idea for the tax forms is GENIUS. I mean if you vote, you vote. But for an institution nobody elected, that is BRILLIANT. LMAO.
I know some people would tick "I'm okay with paying for the monarchy's living costs and their meals" because I know people do buy royal wedding merchandise (you know those dishes or whatever with the couple's faces printed on it).
I wonder if this whole exercise in Smartworks is to raise MN ‘s profile and pay her back for her part in getting MM involved with Harry? Honestly if the best MN can do as a designer is come up with a white blouse, she better go back to design school. The Soho designer was given the decoration of Frogmore, Enniful was given the Vogue cover, Mulroney got enough PR to get GMA. Makes you wonder....did she have backers to get her where she is and now she’s paying the piper?
As to the speculation above about how Kate stays so thin and glossy haired - she’s active and healthy. I’ve seen photos of her and Wills heading to the gym and out for long walks, she’s very sporty, and it has been divulged that Kate, her mom, and her sister Pippa follow a low carb regime.
I think it's possible we are all going overboard in the pro-Kate topic just by comparison.
Not to take anything away from her enviable figure or haircare/extensions routine : )
She has had terrible morning sickness every time she was pregnant but decided to have more children, even though it meant months of horrible feelings.
She looks like she is in great shape.
She and William look happy and have never had a situation where they looked like they weren't getting along. With the eyes of the world upon her!
I could go on, but you get the picture. Every time I see her, I remark on her poise, her dedication to her role in the BRF and also to her husband, children and family.