Prince Harry and Meghan Markle thread

PopMatters offer an explanation - did they forget that the Sussexes are in the USA?

WHY THE SUSSEXES?
When probably the most famous couple in the world say they choose to stop at two, they help to popularise and normalise that choice. We know in the UK, for instance, that about a quarter of all people want to have more than two children. Everyone is entitled and has a right to the family size they choose, and that should never be limited.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise that when people in high-consuming countries like the UK have bigger families, that has a hugely disproportionate effect on the planet, because of the amount we consume and the emissions we produce.

At Population Matters, we're proud to celebrate the choice to have a smaller family, and it's a vital part of our job to communicate those advantages to people. Our statement supporting the award to the Sussexes did just that, reaching literally millions of people through the media coverage it received. We hope it has contributed to a long term discussion about family size.

At the same time, the Sussexes' choice, helps to normalise the decision to choose two - or less. That's a very healthy thing. We celebrate that choice, and the choice to have one or no children, and you can learn more about that here.

Choosing a small family is far from the end of the matter though. Those of us who are rich in global terms need to cut our consumption, radically, if we're to save our planet. At Population Matters, we don't just talk about families. We also speak out for personal changes in the way we consume, and for the kind of global justice that addresses why some are so rich and others so poor.

The richest have the greatest responsibility, both to change and campaign for change. That's one reason we also gave a Change Champion award to the Footprint Calculator, which gives all of us the opportunity to see the impact our personal choices on consumption are. We hope the Duke and Duchess of Sussex use it, and act as role models by dramatically reducing their own footprint.


If i had had a miscarriage ( as Megs claims to have) I dont think i would want an award like this....
 
I think they have a strident fan base with extremists on either end. There are the ones who do charity in H&M's name and I applaud them, especially when they send the $$$ direct to the charities and not to Archewell. But there appear to also be a fair number of mentally unbalanced stans, considering the militant notes and death threats that some fans use as their weapon of choice and who respond to mouthpiece Omid's fanning of the flames. The couple's silence when anyone who doesn't sing their praises gets threatened is telling. Their compassion is only for those supporting them.

I'd like to see a factual analysis of how far their reach really is. There probably should be some brand analyses since they market themselves heavily.
There are web sites for groups that monitor charities in the US. I haven't verified the credentials of any of monitor groups, pulled up a list on line and randomly selected one, so please keep that in mind. Web site: https://www.charitynavigator.org

Charity Navigator stated it was not able to score Archewell due to lack of information. For example in "Finance and Accountability" the website posted it could not score Archwell because "This organization cannot be evaluated by our Encompass Rating methodology because it files Form 990-EZ, as allowed by the IRS for charities with less than $200,000. annual revenue."

Three "Finance and Accountability", "Impact and Results", and "Culture and Community" of four categories were marked "Not Scored" because of insufficient information. The fourth, "Leadership and Adaptability" was marked "Coming Soon."

Overall, it seems Archewell has not been operating long enough or doing enough to generate measurable data. I think it is interesting though to see "less than $200,000 annual revenue" at this point. Reads like an organization fueled by "word salads."
 
...

Naomi Osaka says Meghan Markle supported her after French Open Exit

Tennis ace Naomi Osaka has revealed that royal exile Meghan Markle and former first lady Michelle ***** were among the key supporters in her court after her controversial decision to quit the French Open.
In an essay for Time magazine defending her decision in May, the 23-year-old player thanked “everyone who supported me,” especially “those in the public eye.”
“Michelle *****, Michael Phelps, Steph Curry, Novak Djokovic, Meghan Markle, to name a few,” she wrote of the powerful group.
She singled out Phelps for telling her that “by speaking up I may have saved a life.”
“If that’s true, then it was all worth it,” she wrote.
The four-time Grand Slam winner did not specify exactly what the others did to back her. Markle, 39, has opened up about her own near-suicidal mental health problems, also blaming it on the intense public scrutiny of her royal relationship with Prince Harry.

Fat by me...one of these things isn't like the others. And yet she managed to insert herself once again.
 
PopMatters offer an explanation - did they forget that the Sussexes are in the USA?

WHY THE SUSSEXES?
When probably the most famous couple in the world say they choose to stop at two, they help to popularise and normalise that choice. We know in the UK, for instance, that about a quarter of all people want to have more than two children. Everyone is entitled and has a right to the family size they choose, and that should never be limited.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise that when people in high-consuming countries like the UK have bigger families, that has a hugely disproportionate effect on the planet, because of the amount we consume and the emissions we produce.

At Population Matters, we're proud to celebrate the choice to have a smaller family, and it's a vital part of our job to communicate those advantages to people. Our statement supporting the award to the Sussexes did just that, reaching literally millions of people through the media coverage it received. We hope it has contributed to a long term discussion about family size.

At the same time, the Sussexes' choice, helps to normalise the decision to choose two - or less. That's a very healthy thing. We celebrate that choice, and the choice to have one or no children, and you can learn more about that here.

Choosing a small family is far from the end of the matter though. Those of us who are rich in global terms need to cut our consumption, radically, if we're to save our planet. At Population Matters, we don't just talk about families. We also speak out for personal changes in the way we consume, and for the kind of global justice that addresses why some are so rich and others so poor.

The richest have the greatest responsibility, both to change and campaign for change. That's one reason we also gave a Change Champion award to the Footprint Calculator, which gives all of us the opportunity to see the impact our personal choices on consumption are. We hope the Duke and Duchess of Sussex use it, and act as role models by dramatically reducing their own footprint.

I'm sorry, it's just really odd to give this award to a couple who (allegedly) have just had a baby :cray:
 
I wasn't googling, I was screening info material sent to me by a client :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

I'm sure, and for you it was prob just a coincidence, but one that you noticed because you had typed the word many times.

But what I'm saying is what we type (every word) and even what we say via our phones (mics active) will 'spookily' turn-up as ads before/during/after vids on YT, on our Insta/FB feed and so on.

In our real lives, we keep some of our 'worlds' apart. Google, FB, Netflix, YT and perhaps even tPF etc. will no longer let that happen despite 'no cookie' options.

If I click on any article about the Harkles (pos or neg) my AI algorithmic 'choices' are then infected by more H&M. The algorithmic pattern assumes I am an H&M fan (because that's the way AI works - it's programmed to sell, sell, sell and not inform).
 
If i had had a miscarriage ( as Megs claims to have) I dont think i would want an award like this....
Why did they give it to the Harkles? Here is a thought. Jane Goodall is one of their patrons. The Harkles could have asked her to put their name in the hat because they are so desperate for positive publicity of any kind. She did claim not to know them that well, but she knew them well enough to be part of a photo op at Frog Cottage. I side eye all of them.
 
It would be so helpful, in my view, if it were seen internationally that even with the best PR, a from my personal perception malignant narcissist cannot get away with everything.

I can imagine that she is doing everything she can to appear in future on the internet only in photos as a member of the Royal Family, mother of the Queen's great-grandchildren and ambassador for all hot topics with invitations to all "super-celebrity events" to which she wants to be seen and remembered as "belonging".

Maybe that's why no photos and no invitation from her real family, certainly not from an uncle from the trailer park (if I read correctly), to whose funeral she might never want to appear from my point of view either. (Unless - to my imagination -" because of privacy" - without photos - only report about her loving devoted participation full of compassion, but maybe that would be too much compassion even for her then, as a young mother ...). The complete lack of recent photos with her family - especially those from Doria's side too - etc. speaks for me.
trailer park....the uncle who died recently was - I thought - the one who got her the embassy job. so he would not be from a trailer park.....as far as doria's side of the family, I have no idea why she would be proud of her black mother and have a black choir sing at the wedding but not want her black relatives there.....I guess it's possible they were invited and couldn't afford the expensive trip but then she could have helped them out with air fare I think

she is an odd one
 
I would not be surprised if she ends up Markling her kids if they cannot continue to be her cash cows IF they get cut off from the BRF, much like Harry's probable fate at some point AND if she ends up leeching herself onto some dumb billionaire. She's probably thinking she's up there with Liz Taylor :bagslap:
Oh she better not bring the other Queen Elizabeth into this! She is the goddess who invented wearing green! :annoyed:
If you think about it, Tom Cruise markled Suri : (
He really is repellent - don’t get me started on him and his freaky ways. Also he’s homely as a worn rag tbh.
PopMatters offer an explanation - did they forget that the Sussexes are in the USA?

WHY THE SUSSEXES?
When probably the most famous couple in the world say they choose to stop at two, they help to popularise and normalise that choice. We know in the UK, for instance, that about a quarter of all people want to have more than two children. Everyone is entitled and has a right to the family size they choose, and that should never be limited.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise that when people in high-consuming countries like the UK have bigger families, that has a hugely disproportionate effect on the planet, because of the amount we consume and the emissions we produce.

At Population Matters, we're proud to celebrate the choice to have a smaller family, and it's a vital part of our job to communicate those advantages to people. Our statement supporting the award to the Sussexes did just that, reaching literally millions of people through the media coverage it received. We hope it has contributed to a long term discussion about family size.

At the same time, the Sussexes' choice, helps to normalise the decision to choose two - or less. That's a very healthy thing. We celebrate that choice, and the choice to have one or no children, and you can learn more about that here.

Choosing a small family is far from the end of the matter though. Those of us who are rich in global terms need to cut our consumption, radically, if we're to save our planet. At Population Matters, we don't just talk about families. We also speak out for personal changes in the way we consume, and for the kind of global justice that addresses why some are so rich and others so poor.

The richest have the greatest responsibility, both to change and campaign for change. That's one reason we also gave a Change Champion award to the Footprint Calculator, which gives all of us the opportunity to see the impact our personal choices on consumption are. We hope the Duke and Duchess of Sussex use it, and act as role models by dramatically reducing their own footprint.
Oh gosh that is embarrassing
Wrong continent, guys.
Funnily enough, I believe that their actual residence usually does worse than old Blighty on most assessments of contribution to climate change so weird they didn’t take the opportunity to have a little dig at the States too but then I guess we’d be reminded how many intercontinental private flights this eco-conscious couple takes…

On a serious note, I’ve already mentioned my disapproval of this charity but I think they might be just dying for some publicity. As growing trends for smaller families are seen worldwide and also demographers are questioning whether decreasing birth rate is even the logical answer to overpopulation anyway…well they must be desperate for a reason to stay in the public eye and desperate and H&M go together like bread and butter:graucho:


If i had had a miscarriage ( as Megs claims to have) I dont think i would want an award like this....
I agree, I would feel disturbed about it - but then I wouldn’t also decide to up the dramatic stakes of my trauma with some Julia Roberts roleplay- so I guess we’re just…. different….
There are web sites for groups that monitor charities in the US. I haven't verified the credentials of any of monitor groups, pulled up a list on line and randomly selected one, so please keep that in mind. Web site: https://www.charitynavigator.org

Charity Navigator stated it was not able to score Archewell due to lack of information. For example in "Finance and Accountability" the website posted it could not score Archwell because "This organization cannot be evaluated by our Encompass Rating methodology because it files Form 990-EZ, as allowed by the IRS for charities with less than $200,000. annual revenue."

Three "Finance and Accountability", "Impact and Results", and "Culture and Community" of four categories were marked "Not Scored" because of insufficient information. The fourth, "Leadership and Adaptability" was marked "Coming Soon."

Overall, it seems Archewell has not been operating long enough or doing enough to generate measurable data. I think it is interesting though to see "less than $200,000 annual revenue" at this point. Reads like an organization fueled by "word salads."
Well that all sounds extremely legitimate :graucho:
I hope they get raked over the coals with a nice hard audit.
...

Naomi Osaka says Meghan Markle supported her after French Open Exit



Fat by me...one of these things isn't like the others. And yet she managed to insert herself once again.
Oh this is so going to get moved to the other thread - :graucho: shine on you crazy diamonds.
Seems a bit weird to me to be commenting on this weeks after she went for her break.

The cynic in me wonders whether she can’t quite stand being out of the public eye for the entirety of Wimbledon after all.
Especially now there’s a Barty party going on.

As for M well we knew she’d be dying to whip out her calligraphy again and perhaps a thoughtful gift. Are athletes allowed to eat cross-country lemon cake? Or will the poor girl get a copy of the dreaded and dreadful book from the pile?