Kate or Megan?? | Imamother

icebreaker

Tue, Dec 11 2018, 3:08 pm

nomismommy wrote:

I prefer Kate. She worked hard to get where she is, she is classy and looks like a royal. Meanwhile Meghan is that type of person who would walk over dead bodies to get what she wants. She married for money and fame, she's fake and narcissistic. Kate waited for years to get a proposal, Meghan got married a bit more than a year after they met. She doesn't care about the royal traditions.. she wears aweful looking clothes and shoes off her baby bump as if she won the lottery.
I feel bad for Kate.. she deserved a better SIL!

Do you know Meghan personally? Lol.

gingertop

Tue, Dec 11 2018, 3:13 pm

They're both stunners. I like Kate's apparel more.
But I think I would be friends with Megan over Kate if I knew both of them. Megan seems more lovable and fun.

That said, I don't really think about them too much. When they pop up in the news, I see their pics so that's about as much of an opinion I have of them. British play princesses do not interest me specifically.

Fox

Wed, Dec 12 2018, 12:12 am

Sebastian wrote:

Fox, can you share the Meghan gossip? I've read in other forums online that ppl. who knew her personally didn't like her which matches my assessment of her.

Let's just say that she was known for supplementing her income from acting, and the person who introduced her to Harry thought he was promoting such an arrangement. Supposedly Harry misunderstood and the rest is history. Meanwhile, the friend who attempted to broker the deal has been pretty much exiled by the new Duchess.

The kicker is that Harry actually doesn't get that much money, so while she gets plenty of attention, she's expected to work hard for The Firm and maintain a regal lifestyle on a budget. Apparently, though, Charles likes her and feels she has a sense of humor, and Camilla is showing her how to manage financially as a royal by clever routing of honorariums and gifts. Meghan has no interest in joining Kate on trips to Tesco.

DrMom

Wed, Dec 12 2018, 2:46 am

nomismommy wrote:

I found this comment puzzling You dislike her because she had a more decisive boyfriend? Don't lots of frum couples get married after a few months after meeting? What does this have to do with anything?

Anyhow, I don't know either of these women personally, so I don't have a strong opinion. The only reason they are in the public eye is because they married into the Royal Family.

And there are so many misfits in the Royal Family. Prince Charles is a moron who made phone calls to his mistress expressing his desire to be her tampon. Ew. This guy is going to be the King of England? Luckily the role is mostly ceremonial. And this Prince Harry fellow was photographed partying naked with naked women in Vegas a few years ago. Ick.

I don't see why marrying into this family requires clearing a particularly high bar.

Why do so many frum women idolize these people? Is it just because they are among the very few celebrities who wear modest clothing?

imasoftov

Wed, Dec 12 2018, 3:20 am

Fox wrote:

I'm always curious why people bother to reply that they don't care about XY or Z. If you don't care or don't have an opinion, why take the time to reply?

Personally, I think Britain reaps a net profit from the royal family. They keep the UK in the news, usually in a pareve-but-positive way (at least compared to Brexit, Theresa May, and the Labour Party).

It takes very little time. I'd understand your question if I had to catch a goose, pluck it, make a pen, and let's not forget the ink ...

But I propose an experiment about that. Let's take a small country with a monarchy. Divide it into two provinces with equal tourist attractions in each, paying particular attention to attractions connected to the monarch, but not only that, like don't put the beach or the ski slopes all in one or the other. Currrent tourism revenues should also be similar. The monarchy reliquishes power over one of the provinces, chosen at random, and actors in period costumes are hired to wander around the former castles that are now museums interacting with visitors in character, and we compare profits in tourism from each (all royal expenses count as expenses in the one, salaries of the actors count in the other but not any costs in converting the castles into museums because that's a one-time expense).

Amarante

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 10:05 am

Fox wrote:

What salacious gossip sites do you frequent.

As I understand your post, you are claiming that a well paid career woman whose public writings and statements before her marriage show her as an intelligent person who was involved in empowering women decided that she would use a pimp to procure a paid tryst with the Prince - and that the Prince himself used pimps in order to get s*exual partners? Banging head

.

This is in line with some of your convoluted political conspiracy theories gleaned from "reliable" sources like Breitbart.. Do you also rely on InfoWars?

Sebastian

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 10:32 am

Fox and Meghan went to the same college.

When the Harvey Weinstein scandal came out, it was said that it's common for actresses to sleep with producers to land big roles. It's not such a far stretch.

Harry was hardly an upright person without skeletons in his closet. He dressed up as a nazi only a few years ago and showed up naked at a party. It's not such a stretch either. His father slept around plenty, so why wouldn't he?

Fox, Charles supposedly has a decent size fortune so his kids can live comfortably.

SixOfWands

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 10:46 am

Sebastian wrote:

Young actresses were coerced into having z3x with powerful producers/others to secure roles. Known as the "casting couch." Its an old story. Look at what Hitchcock (is alleged to have done) did to Tippi Hedren in the 60s.

Markle, however, was hardly an ingenue. She starred in a successful TV show, for which she was making about $50,000 an episode; her net worth was about $5 million when she married Harry. I doubt that she was supplementing her income as a hooker. I find it distasteful, particular on a frum site, to suggest that someone was turning tricks without strong evidence, and without strong reason to discuss (eg -- not a good shidduch for your son).

And Harry was an extremely eligible bachelor. I doubt he had to pay for zex.

Fox

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 10:55 am

Amarante wrote:

.

This is in line with some of your convoluted political conspiracy theories gleaned from "reliable" sources like Breitbart.. Do you also rely on InfoWars?

I think you must have missed my original post, which explained the source of my information. I made it clear that I was simply passing along a bit of gossip from sources that others might not have. I was then asked to elaborate and it seemed harmless to do so.

Your understanding of the finances of working actors is naive, and your knowledge of how attractive women are compensated for making themselves available to wealthy or high-status men is similarly simplistic.

That is a good thing. Boruch Hashem, few frum Jewish women come into contact with that world, and my accidental knowledge of in no way enhances my life, though it certainly gives me a better perspective on the costs of fame.

If you want to argue that gossiping about a woman in the public eye whom none of us know is classless and lacking in good middos, then you're correct. Most of us know this even though we give into temptation now and then.

But that doesn't seem to be your point. Rather, your point seems to be, "I dislike a poster because of her political views, so I'm going to take potshots at her when the opportunity arises, regardless of the topic."

For the record, I read Breitbart and have never watched or listened to Alex Jones. And I assume you read Jacobin. Or should.

Amarante

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 11:05 am

I am not naive in terms of how Hollywood worked as I was an entertainment attorney for many years. I worked for record companies as well as television and motion picture companies. I was involved with production and casting decisions insofar as I did agreements for single appearances (I.e. movies) as well as for series. Some of my good friends are casting directors as well as development executives.

I am many things but I venture to say I have a much better idea of the inner workings of the "business" than you do. Do you know how many stupid unfounded vicious lies I have heard told about people in the business.

You spreading salacious unfounded rumors - however you sourced those rumors - is really not nice. And did it ever occur to you that less successful classmates (if those are your source) are spreading gossip because it feels good to bring down someone successful.