My point is that while you may claim that it is fine for them to become financially independent you have constantly criticised the means by which they are most likely to achieve that independence, i.e. using their 'brand' status (here are just a few examples:
'So if Harry and Meghan are trying to hang onto the RF credentials to earn money to keep them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, while dictating the terms with which they will be part of the RF corporation - to me they seem to be just like any another employee who adopts a mercenary outlook e.g. asking for a 3 day-week, the ability to work from home, less supervision by his managers, and the chance to produce less output without taking a significant cut in salary. '
'But the legacy they will be living off comes from their RF connection - so I neither despise them, nor feel sorry for them, nor do I applaud them - they would be just another privileged, wealthy young couple (with a child) and a mercenary mindset.'
'I was referring to her potential for earning a substantial amount of money by exploiting her connection to the RF through self-publicity on social-media and engagements as a RF celebrity. That would be a separate source of income and one that is not based on any discernible skill unlike the income she derived from being an actress.'
'By "start" I mean when they discussed their potential brand as a couple within the RF while considering whether they should continue to get more romantically involved and get married.'
There are plenty of others, but your negativity towards them on this thread is rather depressing as I continue to read their posts.
I am just stating my opinion based on my observations. As far as I know M&H are fairly normal people therefore, given that normal people are fairly mercenary, it is to be expected that their behaviour would be commented on - not because Meghan is beig bullied because she is black as Harry likes to claim about legitimate observations and comments - but because they are normal people with normal weaknesses who live their lives in the public eye, for which they accept the privileges and revenue that goes with living your life in the public eye.
For example, in my experience, most employees are mercenary - I remember when I went for job interviews at a Japanese bank and an American bank in my mid-twenties and both offered me a job, I took the Japanese bank as it paid more, even though the other bank offered me a manager title. And when the Japanese bank was closing I was offered a large pay rise to stay on until the end, while others were made redundant. And after a while there wasn't really anything left to do at work so I spent a lot of time reading magazines and getting paid for it. I could have offered to go do something else to try and justify the money they were paying me or offered to take a pay cut as I was doing maybe 2 hours of actual work per day, but I didn't offer any of this - I just took the money and said thanks and read a lot of magazines. As I was not in the public eye and nor was I getting paid and generating income by being in the public eye, the newspapers did not write a story about my mercenary behaviour, whereas they do for H&M. As an employer I see all kinds of mercenary behaviour from employees. I don't see H&M as any different.
I think the Posh&Becks analogy is apt here. They developed a brand based on their being a celebrity couple, but also on the celebrity routes that brought them to that position. So your criticism of H&M exploiting their royal connections in a H&M brand is a bit like saying Psoh&Becks cannot create a fantastically successfully brand for themselves (financially and otherwise) as it is exploiting the Spice Girls (and Simon Fuller) and Manchester United (and Alex Ferguson) as without them there would be no celebs and no Posh&Becks brand.
Not at all. I wish Posh & Becks and H&M the best of luck in being mercenary and exploiting whatever they can get away with exploiting. Though I would think it was stupid if Posh and Becks earned lots of money, status and privileges from the public by being in the public eye, and then expected me to feel sorry for them because the press criticised their behaviour or because Simon Fuller expected Posh to show up to promo events or concerts and perform while she was still under contract. I understand why M&H are moving - most of these celebrities want more control and a bigger slice of the pie, and so I don't blame H&M for going after more money and more control.
Their RF connections have helped them become global superstars (just as Man U and Spice Girls helped Posh & Becks become global superstars) but that doesn't mean they cannot use that superstardom (now obtained) to generate interest and cash completely separately from the RF.
Agreed. My point was that, if any of the money they get comes from the taxpayer, the public has a legitimate right to comment and ask how the money spent on H&M benefits the taxpayer.
Good example - Meghan was a fashion influencer before she met Harry - she has enhanced that with the profile the RF has brought. But were she to no longer be performing royal duties why would people cease to be interested in what she wears and therefore why would fashion companies not use her profile to promote their clothing (as they do right now).
True. She would have realised just how much more money she would get paid as a member of the RF, than as an actress. The RF got something out of it too. And now she has decided she wants to call the shots, rather than the RF limiting her earning potential. She wants more control of how much money she has the potential to earn - I can understand that.
Virtually every superstar couple brand (whether Posh&Beck, the Obamas, George/Amal Clooney, Brangelina before they split etc etc) are only superstars due to their earlier activities or connections. That doesn't mean it is illegitimate to create their own new brand and exploit it for financial gain.
I agree - and as I said I wish H&M all the luck in the world exploiting whoever and whatever they can for financial gain - there is nothing abnormal about exploiting for financial gain. I just don't feel sorry for them about the press intrusion - they need it to keep people interested enough in them to generate the money they need to keep them in the luxury they have become accustomed to. I just hope they make enough to cover the security expenses.
