Harry and Meghan. - This is NOT the Andrew Tate Thread.

[gruff one]

5 hours ago, BBB Jacelyn said:

Never been a Specialist, myself. Though everyone always takes note of how special I am.

Appropos of nothing, is there an E-3 this year? Fuckup like me, I never do seem to stay on pace

but eh, that's what youths are for right? Getting lapped?

 

No meritorious promotion, but here, take an attaboy.

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, Raja said:

'solid upper middle class money on suits'

This thread keeps on delivering

She only made $50K per episode.  That's not rich people money, sorry.

[Derfel Cadarn]

She played an FBI agent in Fringe in 2 eps who looked like she might become a recurring or regular, only to vanish

[James Arryn]

20 hours ago, DMC said:

I agree with @James Arryn that Harry & Meghan have basically become the Kardashians.  I have absolutely no interest in their incredibly self-involved profiteering. 

However, why anyone cares about their popularity/polling in the UK is hilarious to me.  They ditched the UK, and are now making millions off of doing so.  You sound like a spurned lover who can't get over it -- they're just not that into you!

To be clear, the first part of my post was really just a set-up for the second. I was more or less parroting the attacks I see, mostly here. I pay zero attention to this stuff and have no idea how accurate or inaccurate that run-down of their behaviour is.

What I was pointing out is that modern royal families in representative governments are all about superficial gestures and occasional attention-seeking platitudinal ceremony for the express purpose of highlighting their brand. To the extent that they changed their freaking family name to sound less German during a conflict, which is about as superficial ‘virtue signalling’…(not a phrase I enjoy, generally) as it gets. So at worst H & M are just following along in the family tradition.   
 

Which also includes countless public airing of grievances against other members of the clan. My God, it’s like people have forgotten all about Kent and Bill4, or Di or Wallis or Maggie & Pete Townsend or…well, almost all of the royal family’s behaviour for generations, outside of Liz herself. The Georgians probably did more public in-fighting than they did anything else, about mistresses and money and personal animosity and open jealousy, etc. it’s where the idea that if nothing else the RF keep the press busy comes from. Again, Liz was copying a much rarer model for RF types, keeping everything buttoned down et al but like none of her progeny went that route either. Somehow I know Charles likes sucking Camila’s toes, which is remarkable given how little attention I pay to their antics and how much I want to un-know that particular detail (amongst others).

 I think that’s part of it, thinking Liz was the standard when she was very much the exception. Maybe because Jon Arryn raised her? Anyways, both from specific behaviour and societal role, the royal family are all about empty gestures and rituals designed and enacted exclusively for public attention or to shape public opinion, so I’ve never understood any of the flak this particular couple takes for, at worst,  more of the same.

Instead I see this issue as a bit of a Rorschach, with people revealing a lot about themselves with what they see and how vehemently they discuss what they see. Heartofice seems to see A LOT that’s not on the page (unless, again, he’s their confidante or councillor) and he’s extremely angry about what he thinks he sees. To me, that’s not informative about them, much more about him, just as an example.

 

[Zorral]

9 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

its like im wondering if its leading to some substance?

Friend, you KNOW what the media is.  You may as well admit the relentless continuing media coverage of Hillary Clinton's means you believe the ped sex and blood drinking pizza club is real.

Even in very tiny corners of the internet media universe such as this board, see how quickly discussion turned from the proven Evile ped trafficking and rape arrestee Tate, to the utter Evile That Is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, followed by the cuck labeling of Prince Henry.  Judge this by the history of those who turned the discussion of Tate to this.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

She only made $50K per episode.  That's not rich people money, sorry.

Buddy, she's in a lot of episodes over seven seasons and was doing other projects at the same time, plus she probably had some side income for promoting and advertising. She was rather well off before she met Harry. 

[Zorral]

20 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Heartofice seems to see A LOT that’s not on the page (unless, again, he’s their confidante or councillor) and he’s extremely angry about what he thinks he sees. To me, that’s not informative about them, much more about him, just as an example.

 

Nor does it escape notice that the only figures for which that poster has ever displayed a hint of sympathy or admiration are incels, the richer the better, and has never expressed any kindness, pleasure, joy, delight, happiness, approval of anyone or anything else, here or anywhere. 

[Cas Stark]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Buddy, she's in a lot of episodes over seven seasons and was doing other projects at the same time, plus she probably had some side income for promoting and advertising. She was rather well off before she met Harry. 

Sure she was, she made around $5M over 9 years, plus whatever she got from side gigs.  That is very good money, upper middle class money, not rich.  Even Harry, with a net worth of $20M from Diana barely qualified as rich.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Sure she was, she made around $5M over 9 years, plus whatever she got from side gigs.  That is very good money, upper middle class money, not rich.  Even Harry, with a net worth of $20M from Diana barely qualified as rich.

Guess you just have a narrower definition of rich than I do. If you want to argue that's not rich in LA, fine, but she was still in or around a top 5% income earner which I think most would qualify as rich. 

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/heres-what-it-takes-to-be-considered-rich-in-la/

There's a difference between being rich and I think what you have in mind, which is fuck you money. 

[Cas Stark]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Guess you just have a narrower definition of rich than I do. If you want to argue that's not rich in LA, fine, but she was still in or around a top 5% income earner which I think most would qualify as rich. 

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/heres-what-it-takes-to-be-considered-rich-in-la/

There's a difference between being rich and I think what you have in mind, which is fuck you money. 

Yeah, maybe.  I have several friends who make around $500K+ a year, they're very well off, they waste tons of money and never sweat the small stuff, but are not 'rich' by any means, at least not by my definition.

[Heartofice]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Are you seriously continuing with your horseshit?  How many links do you want on their net worth?  There's this one,  this one, this one, then there's this one that just talks about the $20 million dollars Harry made only off of the book he's about to release.

Like, seriously, how many links do I have to offer to demonstrate you are horribly, observably wrong?

Maybe just stop now yeah?  It'd be best for your pathetic flailing.  

The point is many of these numbers being floated around are either numbers they might earn based on what they produce, or numbers their company earns to produce content, it’s not going directly into their pockets. I’m sure even you understand that. 
 

And it all depends on them being able to sustain the production of shows people want to see. Signs for that are mixed, Netflix cancelled one of their shows already, their podcast has been falling down the charts and their producer quit ( another red flag as to Meghan’s difficult nature) 

In the short term yeah they will be fine, they earned some money off the back of Harry’s royal status, but it’s whether it lasts and they can maintain a decent income in the future when the novelty of a royal telling all wears off. 
 

We also have to be aware of their costs, all this money might sound like something any one of us could live on easily forever, but they don’t live like us. Their security costs alone are said to be $2-3 million a year! That money is gonna burn down really fast, especially if they are jetting around the world , wearing expensive clothes , they have kids!

[Cas Stark]

Aren't the Netflix and Spotify type of contracts inclusive of all costs?  Your deal is for $XXM but out of that comes all the production costs, talent, etc.  Presumably, there is also something similar to NFL contracts where you have to hit some milestones/production targets to get all of the money.  

[Jaxom 1974]

26 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Yeah, maybe.  I have several friends who make around $500K+ a year, they're very well off, they waste tons of money and never sweat the small stuff, but are not 'rich' by any means, at least not by my definition.

Pretty sure that'd be a layman's term for rich if asked.  Not sweating the small stuff. Lottery winnings...that's the fuck you money Ty references.    

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Pretty sure that'd be a layman's term for rich if asked.  Not sweating the small stuff. Lottery winnings...that's the fuck you money Ty references.    

Rich is when you can buy a >$100k sports car and pay it off up front or within a few years and it would have zero impact on your finances and lifestyle. I think @Cas Stark is thinking that having a $25M mansion is rich.

[Cas Stark]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Rich is when you can buy a >$100k sports car and pay it off up front or within a few years and it would have zero impact on your finances and lifestyle. I think @Cas Stark is thinking that having a $25M mansion is rich.

Even cheap cars now cost more than $30K, so yeah, to me a $100K car is upper middle class, not rich,especially if you're paying it off over time.  I would say you would need at least a $3M or more house to be considered 'rich'. 

But,whatever, my personal idea of rich v. the top tier of upper middle class is not really important. 

**There are all those studies that show that almost everyone in the US thinks they are middle class, whether they fall statistically as poor or 'rich'.  I guess I have fallen prey to this thinking.

[Ran]

Most Americans consider a net worth of ~$2 million is enough to make you wealthy. The idea that someone who has a net worth of $20 million is only "barely" rich is ... well, it's a very idiosyncratic, minority view.

I'm shocked that we've a thread to rival Page Six in gossip and tattle about two celebrities, but such is life in the 21st century.

[Heartofice]

It’s a matter of perspective surely. To all of us $20 million is a lot of money, the sort of thing we could enjoy for the rest of our lives. But to the sort of circles Meghan and Harry move around in; that kind of money is nothing special, it might even be considered poor to some.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

It’s a matter of perspective surely. To all of us $20 million is a lot of money, the sort of thing we could enjoy for the rest of our lives. But to the sort of circles Meghan and Harry move around in; that kind of money is nothing special, it might even be considered poor to some.

They’re rich in comparison to like over 95 percent of the world

[BigFatCoward]

A plumber making 500k a year is rich, a celebrity making 500k a year is poor. 

[Heartofice]

Just now, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They’re rich in comparison to like over 95 percent of the world

So am I.  Not sure that means anything