Harry & Meghan 18: Faux Royals

[treehugger]

I read the statement. It was the most asskiss-y thing I’ve read in a while. It was, in fact, so over the top I left with more reservations about it than I went in with. 
Charity Watch is less gushy about the foundation. 
https://www.charitywatch.org/charity-donating-articles/archewell-foundation-charitywatch-rating

 

Edited May 16 by treehugger

[Mama Mia]

On 5/16/2024 at 3:28 AM, treehugger said:

I read the statement. It was the most asskiss-y thing I’ve read in a while. It was, in fact, so over the top I left with more reservations about it than I went in with. 
Charity Watch is less gushy about the foundation. 
https://www.charitywatch.org/charity-donating-articles/archewell-foundation-charitywatch-rating

 

It wasn’t over the top. The Governor has a very big initiative battling the extremely visible mental health and homelessness problem in California. A LOT of money and PR time is being put into it. Foundations that donate money to the various aspects of those issues are very important. If media focus is on the extremely minor technical issue -that the State acknowledged was their error— instead of the issue the money is being raised for - it impacts giving. Which is bad.  It also tends to have a bad effect on other charities raising funds for similar causes.  There obviously have been big charities with big scandals that should be exposed. But these kind of non-issues turned into click bait are damaging. 
 

Charity Watch, in that article, simply states that they haven’t rated them because they don’t have enough info yet as they are a new organization. Charity Watch is also kind of notorious for only focusing on fund raising and admin percentages and how orgs categorize them. Which can be important, but can be very stuck in unimportant details. Especially for foundations headed by very wealthy people. Who primarily raise money from other very wealthy people.  The Clinton foundation, for example, got LOTS of very misleading bad rep for this. 
 

This is mostly coming from having been the ED of a non-profit and experiencing how the public misunderstanding of a minor or technical issue can be hugely damaging. 

[tabitha2]

ED. Snort.

 

Their Non Profit certainly has embarrassing performance issues  

[noseybutt]

1 hour ago, tabitha2 said:

ED. Snort.

 

Their Non Profit certainly has embarrassing performance issues  

Envy much?

I love me some snark but turning a posters hard earned title into a dick joke doesn’t do it for me.

Edited May 19 by noseybutt

[tabitha2]

Meg and Harry don’t do anything Hard either! 

[treehugger]

Never mind.

Edited May 19 by treehugger

[AmazonGrace]

is this  why the Firm wanted to make sure they were there as private individuals and not as royals?

During the Nigeria outing, they got perks from a wanted criminal

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13433479/Meghan-Prince-Harry-Nigeria-airline-chairman-fugitive-wanted.html?ico=topics_pagination_desktop

 

[nokidsmom]

On 5/14/2024 at 1:26 PM, just_ordinary said:

Thanks to everyone that pointed out the problem with commercial DNA testing results. I find that this is such an oversight and should be talked about more. Because those results, taken at face value, can really point you in the wrong direction. People often get a bit prissy when you tell them. Don’t know why. Most of us are aware we are a mix and that 95% will never really know what is all in there. If you are not aristocracy and even they don’t know everything but only what was actually written down (and oh boy did they tweak their stuff to fit the narrative).

This is why I have never done those tests.   Genetics are a lot more complicated than some algorithm and there's just no way to for the end user especially to know the accuracy.   My sister has participated in these tests and while the results are mostly in line with what we know about our ancestry it's all based on recent generations and who knows what's in there from way back.   Also Concerns over privacy / security around the information.  These companies are not held to the privacy standards as those who do genetic testing for medical reasons. 

I have seen people go in the wrong direction with this type of information.  Sometimes because they won't or can't investigate further.   My mom did genealogy work and I can't tell you how many times she got contacted by someone who stated he/she was her relative because of genealogy sites and just accepted the first bit of information they found. 

 

[noseybutt]

1 hour ago, nokidsmom said:

This is why I have never done those tests.   Genetics are a lot more complicated than some algorithm and there's just no way to for the end user especially to know the accuracy.   My sister has participated in these tests and while the results are mostly in line with what we know about our ancestry it's all based on recent generations and who knows what's in there from way back.   Also Concerns over privacy / security around the information.  These companies are not held to the privacy standards as those who do genetic testing for medical reasons. 

I have seen people go in the wrong direction with this type of information.  Sometimes because they won't or can't investigate further.   My mom did genealogy work and I can't tell you how many times she got contacted by someone who stated he/she was her relative because of genealogy sites and just accepted the first bit of information they found. 

 

The security issues concern me too. Anyone who sends off their DNA is, in a sense, sending off DNA shared by family members without their consent. It’s complex.

[Mama Mia]

1 hour ago, noseybutt said:

The security issues concern me too. Anyone who sends off their DNA is, in a sense, sending off DNA shared by family members without their consent. It’s complex.

It does bring up really complex questions. When a couple of my family members did it there was a relative they were hoping to find - but didn’t. And another close relation popped up that was completely unexpected, and it led to some definite awkwardness, and resentment from the family member who didn’t want that information known.  They had just been doing it for fun, and to see what % of what popped up in their genetic mix. But yea, there can be surprises. 

[VGL]

I know someone who found out her parents used a sperm donor through one of the DNA tests.    Her case has a happy ending and she does have a relationship with some of her half siblings.

[hoipolloi]

On 5/21/2024 at 11:00 AM, nokidsmom said:

This is why I have never done those tests.

This. Between the unknown degrees of inaccuracy and the opaque privacy/security "policies," commercial DNA tests are a big NOPE for me.

[viii]

I’m dying to do one because I’m so curious but I have a lot of reservations. This is why I need one of my siblings to do it. 😂

[Gobsmacked]

On 5/12/2024 at 7:00 PM, louisa05 said:

They are wanting to host the Invictus Games. I doubt that will happen as there would be security concerns. Harry likely knows that it won’t happen but neither he or his wife was going to pass up a faux royal tour. They thrive on this kind of attention 

It was an expenses paid holiday. Megan wore holiday dresses most of the time. Totally unsuitable for a conservative country. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

The Atlantic recently had an article about someone who works for a DNA company whose job is to call people and tell them that their biological parents are parent/child or siblings.

[prayawaythefundie]

1 hour ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

The Atlantic recently had an article about someone who works for a DNA company whose job is to call people and tell them that their biological parents are parent/child or siblings.

Imagine getting that call. 😳

[LifeIsStrange]

I did the Ancestry test and my mom and sister have both given me judgy reactions for it. I didn’t mean harm or put thought into consequences. It’s too late now. I wish I hadn’t done it or that I kept it to myself.

It didn’t reveal any family secrets. My mom’s sister and dad’s brother have done it as well.

 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

On 5/20/2024 at 8:19 AM, AmazonGrace said:

is this  why the Firm wanted to make sure they were there as private individuals and not as royals?

During the Nigeria outing, they got perks from a wanted criminal

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13433479/Meghan-Prince-Harry-Nigeria-airline-chairman-fugitive-wanted.html?ico=topics_pagination_desktop

 

These two are the new Edward and Wallis.

[viii]

1 hour ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

These two are the new Edward and Wallis.

Yeah, except they’re not nazis, so I’d say they’re a bit better. 

[justpassingthru]

Y'all really snark on everything 🧡

[Gobsmacked]

On 5/29/2024 at 5:33 AM, Father Son Holy Goat said:

These two are the new Edward and Wallis.

Wallis knew how to dress!!!!!!

[Four is Enough]

5 hours ago, Gobsmacked said:

Wallis knew how to dress!!!!!!

But her jewelry was gaudy AF.

[tabitha2]

Huge Difference: Wallis never desired to be Royal much less Queen Consort. She tried to end it but He more or less emotionally blackmailed her and pressured her for a very long time. 

[Gobsmacked]

1 hour ago, Four is Enough said:

But her jewelry was gaudy AF.

Expensive though! 

[SoSoNosy]

I am very, very glad Wallis finally caved in and married him.